While gatekeeping can serve protective or quality assurance functions, excessive or poorly-managed gatekeeping can impose substantial costs on a business. These include non or slowed decision-making, increased operational expenses, missed opportunities, decreased employee morale and reduced organisational agility, all of which can ultimately impact profitability and competitive advantage.
This is Part 2, a continuation of Part 1 of the same instalment published last week. In this instalment we are discussing the impact of gatekeeping and strategies to eradicate gatekeeping. Last week in Part 1, we covered, what gatekeeping is, the manifestations of gatekeeping in an organisational, social and cultural setting, gatekeeping in Zimbabwe and why gatekeepers resist change.
The impact of gatekeeping
Gatekeeping, while often intended to maintain stability or control, has far-reaching implications on innovation, talent retention, societal progress and institutional credibility.
Recognising these consequences underscores the importance of fostering openness, inclusivity and adaptability to promote sustainable growth and societal well-being. The impact of gatekeeping includes the following:
Stifled innovation
Gatekeeping often involves controlling access to information, resources and decision-making channels. When gatekeepers restrict new ideas or alternative approaches, it prevents the emergence and adoption of innovative solutions.
Innovation and creativity are stifled in various ways including:
Suppression of creativity: Innovative thinkers are discouraged from sharing ideas when they anticipate rejection and resistance.
Delayed progress: Without the infusion of fresh perspectives, organisations and societies experience stagnation, missing opportunities for development.
Limited adaptation: Gatekeeping hampers the ability to respond to changing environments, market demands and technological advancements.
Reduced competitive advantage: Companies and institutions that fail to innovate risk falling behind more open, adaptable competitors.
Impact on problem-solving: Persistent adherence to traditional methods impede addressing complex and evolving challenges effectively.
Talent drain
When organisations and societies prioritise gatekeeping, favouring insiders and resisting external or dissenting voices, bright and ambitious individuals feel undervalued or stifled. This leads to a migration of talent toward environments where innovation, recognition and opportunity are more accessible.
Talent drain manifests in the following ways:
Loss of creative energy: Talented individuals often leave, seeking environments that nurture their ideas and contributions.
Brain drain: Countries or organisations will experience a significant outflow of skilled professionals seeking better opportunities elsewhere.
Reduced organisational vitality: The departure of top talent diminishes the capacity for growth, innovation and competitive edge.
Economic and societal impacts: Talent drain often weakens economic development, reduces cultural dynamism and hinders technological progress.
Morale and engagement issues: Remaining members often become disengaged and demotivated when they experience a lack of meritocracy or opportunity for advancement.
Political and social stagnation
When dissenting voices, alternative viewpoints, or marginalised groups are systematically silenced due to gatekeeping, societal progression is impeded. This leads to a lack of critical debate, diversity of thought and adaptive change.
Political and social stagnation is compounded in the following ways:
Suppression of dissent: Societies that silence opposition or criticism struggle to identify and correct systemic flaws.
Hindered social evolution: Resistance to new ideas delays and prevents reforms necessary for social justice, equality and inclusivity.
Perpetuation of inequality: Gatekeeping entrenches power hierarchies and social divisions, making societal change difficult.
Erosion of democratic principles: When gatekeeping undermines transparency and participation, trust in institutions diminishes.
Risk of unrest: Stagnation and perceived injustice eventually leads to social upheaval or unrest, destabilising societies.
Loss of credibility
Over time, institutions that rigidly gatekeep become disconnected from the needs, expectations and realities of their stakeholders, be they customers, citizens or members. This disconnect damages their reputation and legitimacy.
Loss of credibility worsens in the following ways:
Erosion of trust: Stakeholders lose confidence in organisations that resist change and ignore feedback.
Obsolescence: As needs evolve, gatekept institutions fail to adapt, rendering their services or policies outdated.
Public criticism and scrutiny: Media, watchdogs and stakeholders increasingly question the institution’s relevance or integrity.
Long-term decline: Persistent gatekeeping leads to organisational decline and irrelevance, especially in fast-changing dynamic environments.
Strategies to eradicate gatekeeping
Addressing gatekeeping requires deliberate, systemic interventions. Gatekeeping is often woven in the culture of the organisation. Bad cultures institutionalised within an organisation due to gatekeeping are difficult but not impossible to dismantle. The CEO might need to go as they are the master gatekeeper that would have created the untenable organisational culture.
Here are comprehensive strategies to ponder on, to eradicate gatekeeping:
Cultivating a culture of critical thinking and openness
Educational reforms: Incorporate critical thinking, debate and innovation-focused curricula at all levels. The shareholder would have to identify this need and take corrective action.
Leadership development: Train leaders to value diverse perspectives and foster inclusive dialogue. Again, this has to be a shareholder intervention when they determine that shareholder value is being lost.
Promoting inclusive leadership
Diversity and inclusion training: Sensitise leaders to unconscious biases and the importance of diverse viewpoints.
Accountability measures: Implement transparent processes that hold gatekeepers accountable for suppressing ideas or voices.
Empowerment programmes: Support marginalised groups, including women and youth, to participate actively in decision-making processes.
Creating safe spaces for dialogue
Facilitated forums: Use moderated discussions to allow free expression without fear of retribution.
Online platforms: Develop digital spaces where critical debate and innovative ideas can flourish. A whistle blower platform might need to be set up.
Community engagement: Encourage grassroots movements that challenge gatekeeping norms.
Media, information campaigns
Awareness campaigns: Educate the public about the harms of gatekeeping and the value of diverse ideas. This is vital to eradicate political gatekeeping.
Countering misinformation: Equip citizens with skills to critically evaluate information, reducing the power of gatekeepers who spread misinformation.
Institutional reforms
Policy revisions: Amend policies that reinforce gatekeeping, such as credentialism and favouritism.
Legal frameworks: Ensure laws protect freedom of expression and prevent censorship. For state-owned entities in Zimbabwe, the Corporate Governance Unit located within the Office of the President offers an abundance of legal frameworks and regulations to reduce gatekeeping.
Monitoring and evaluation: Regularly assess organisational cultures and practices to identify and address gatekeeping tendencies. The internal audit division is a useful department to carry out this function.
Streamline approval processes
Simplify decision hierarchies: Limit the number of approval layers needed for routine decisions.
Implement clear guidelines: Define criteria for when approval is necessary versus when autonomy is acceptable.
Use technology: Automate approvals where possible, with workflow tools to reduce delays.
Empower employees and teams
Decentralise decision-making: Enable teams or individuals with the appropriate skills and knowledge to make decisions without waiting for approval.
Provide training: Equip employees with the authority and confidence to handle decisions within their scope.
Establish clear policies, boundaries
Define roles and responsibilities: Clarify who can approve what and under what circumstances.
Set risk thresholds: Allow employees to handle low-risk decisions independently, reserving gatekeeping for high-risk or strategic decisions.
Encourage a culture of trust
Promote transparency: Foster open communication and trust so that employees feel confident in making decisions.
Implement accountability measures: Ensure employees understand their responsibilities and are held accountable for their decisions.
Use data and analytics
Monitor decision bottlenecks: Identify where delays occur most often and target those areas for improvement.
Measure impact: Track how changes in decision-making processes affect performance and agility.
Create cross-functional teams
Foster collaboration: Break down silos by forming teams with diverse expertise, reducing the need for gatekeeping by multiple departments.
Shared goals: Align teams around common objectives to streamline cooperation.
Implement agile and lean principles
Iterative decision-making: Use agile methodologies that promote rapid cycles of decision, action and review.
Continuous improvement: Regularly review and refine processes to eliminate unnecessary controls.
Leverage technology, digital tools
Collaborative platforms: Use tools such as Slack, Microsoft Teams, or project management software to facilitate information sharing.
Automated workflows: Implement systems that automatically route approvals based on predefined criteria.
Long-term vision: Building a gatekeeping-free society.
Eradicating gatekeeping is not a one-time effort but a sustained process. It involves:
Modelling Open Leadership: Leaders must exemplify transparency, humility and openness.
Celebrating Thought Leaders: Recognise and reward individuals who challenge norms constructively.
Encouraging Reflective Practices: Foster self-awareness among gatekeepers about their biases and behaviours.
Building Resilient Institutions: Develop organisational cultures that prioritise innovation, inclusivity and critical engagement.
Conclusion
Gatekeepers resist change because such shifts threaten their control, comfort, cultural identity, and personal security. Understanding these motivations can help in devising strategies to address their concerns and facilitate more effective change management.
Reducing unnecessary gatekeeping involves creating a balance between control and autonomy. The goal is to ensure that essential oversight remains in place for risk management, while routine or low-risk decisions are delegated to capable teams or individuals. This fosters a more agile, innovative and responsive organisation, that ultimately drives better business outcomes.
The journey toward eradicating gatekeeping demands collective effort — educators, leaders, policymakers and at a social and political level, citizens must all play their part. Only through sustained commitment to openness, inclusion and critical inquiry can we hope to dismantle this scourge and foster societies that celebrate thinkers, innovators, and change-makers, rather than suppress them.
By tailoring strategies to the specific context of your industry and organisation size, you can effectively reduce unnecessary gatekeeping while maintaining essential controls. The key is to balance oversight with autonomy, leveraging technology, clear policies and a culture of trust to foster agility and innovation.
- Ndoro-Mkombachoto is a former academic and banker. She has consulted widely in strategy, entrepreneurship and private sector development for organisations that include Seed Co Africa, Hwange Colliery, RBZ/CGC, Standard Bank of South Africa, Home Loans, IFC/World Bank, UNDP, USAid, Danida, Cida, Kellogg Foundation, among others, as a writer, property investor, developer and manager. — @HeartfeltwithGloria/ +263 772 236 341.
