IN many societies, including Zimbabwe, the phenomenon of gatekeeping manifests as a formidable barrier to authentic dialogue, progress and innovation.
It operates subtly yet powerfully, shaping what ideas are permissible, who is authorised to speak and which narratives are elevated or suppressed.
Gatekeeping has often been perceived as a mechanism that stifles thought leadership, discourages critical thinking and favours conformity over originality.
To address this pervasive issue, it is vital to understand what gatekeeping entails, how it manifests in various spheres, particularly in professional and organisational contexts and what strategic interventions can be employed to dismantle its influence.
This is a two-part instalment. In this instalment we are discussing what gatekeeping is, the manifestations of gatekeeping in an organisational, social and cultural setting, gatekeeping in Zimbabwe and why gatekeepers resist change. The second part of this instalment will discuss the impact of gatekeeping and strategies to eradicate gatekeeping.
What is gatekeeping?
At its core, gatekeeping refers to the process by which certain individuals, groups, or institutions control access to resources, information, opportunities, or social spaces.
In a business context, gatekeeping refers to the act of controlling or restricting access to resources, information, decision-making and opportunities within an organisation or in interactions with external stakeholders.
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
Keep Reading
While sometimes necessary for security or quality control, if not managed, gatekeeping will impose significant costs on a business.
Originally a term borrowed from journalism and media studies; gatekeeping describes how editors and producers decide which news stories are published or broadcast. Over time, the concept has broadened to encompass social, political and organisational domains.
In a broader societal context, gatekeeping involves the exertion of power to determine, who is considered credible, who can participate in discourse and which ideas are deemed acceptable. It tends to be rooted in hierarchies of authority, cultural norms and social capital. When gatekeepers wield their influence to silence dissent, marginalise alternative viewpoints or uphold traditional power structures, they contribute to a culture of conformity and intellectual stagnation. When thought leadership is stifled, the costs to organisations are significant.
Manifestations of gatekeeping
In the professional arena: in workplaces and organisations, gatekeeping often appears as:
Reduced agility and innovation
Delayed decision-making: Gatekeepers often act as bottlenecks, requiring approvals or reviews before progress can occur. This slows down decision-making processes, making the organisation less responsive to market changes or opportunities.
Hindrance to innovation: Excessive gatekeeping stifles creativity and innovation by limiting access to new ideas, feedback and collaboration opportunities. Employees or partners tend to feel discouraged from sharing innovative concepts when they are stonewalled by the gatekeeper.
Increased operational costs
Time and resource drain: Gatekeeping requires time and effort from gatekeepers, who must review, approve or restrict access. This adds administrative overhead and diverts resources from core activities.
Repeat processes: Because gatekeeping is overly rigid, it often leads to repeated reviews or redundant approval layers, further increasing costs.
Loss of business opportunities
Missed opportunities: Excessive gatekeeping can delay or block potential deals, partnerships, or customer engagements. This can result in lost revenue or market share.
Customer dissatisfaction: When customer requests or feedback are filtered through multiple gatekeepers, response times increase, leading to poor customer experience and potential churn.
Employee morale and productivity
Frustration and low morale: Employees may feel demotivated if they perceive gatekeeping as obstructive or unnecessary, reducing engagement and productivity.
Barrier to collaboration: Gatekeeping can create silos within the organisation, hindering cross-functional collaboration that is often vital for success.
Risk of knowledge hoarding
Information silos: Gatekeepers may hoard information or limit knowledge sharing, which can impair decision-making and organisational learning.
Reduced flexibility: Limited access to critical information can make the organisation less adaptable in dynamic environments.
Strategic limitations
Short-term focus: Gatekeepers tend to prioritise risk avoidance over strategic growth, leading to overly cautious approaches that limit expansion or innovation.
Inhibited scalability: As organisations grow, gatekeeping structures can become more complex, further impeding scalability and agility.
Brand and reputation impact
Negative perception: Customers or partners who experience delays or obstacles due to gatekeeping end up developing a negative perception of the organisation, impacting reputational risk and future business.
Exclusion of diverse voices
Gatekeeping often manifest as favouritism, where only a select group’s opinions are valued, marginalising those not favoured by the gatekeeper, in some cases including women and junior staff.
Credentialism and legitimacy
Of times, gatekeeping is based on credentials, with only those holding certain titles or qualifications deemed “worthy” to speak or lead.
Examples: A Zimbabwean government agency might dismiss innovative proposals from younger staff, favouring traditional methods rooted in the past, thus stifling modernisation. In a worst case scenario a senior manager could be suspended on trumped-up charges, in order to stifle a change process to be embarked on as part of the growth agenda of the organisation.
In societal and cultural spaces: In the cultural domain, gatekeeping often involves controlling narratives about gender, identity and morality.
Media control: Certain voices, particularly those challenging societal norms, are silenced or marginalised.
Public discourse
Women or marginalised groups may be discredited when they voice opinions that diverge from accepted norms, such as women leaders promoting education or social justice.
Example: Women are rewarded for public twerking. Women thought leaders who voice their opinions publicly are perceived too loud and judged, serving as a distraction from discussion of critical societal issues, with gatekeepers discouraging meaningful conversations about gender equality, education and political reform.
Gatekeeping in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s socio-political landscape has been shaped by complex histories, including colonial legacies, economic challenges during both the first and second republics and evolving cultural norms. In this environment, gatekeeping manifests in various ways:
Political gatekeeping: Dominant political parties or figures control access to power and information, often marginalising dissenting voices.
Gender gatekeeping: Traditional gender roles are reinforced through social norms, discouraging women from participating fully in leadership or intellectual debates.
Media and cultural gatekeeping: State-controlled media dominating and as a result crowding out alternative narratives, shaping public perceptions and maintaining existing power structures.
Social media and public discourse: While social media provides a platform for expression, gatekeeping still occurs through online censorship, trolling and dismissive attitudes toward critical thinkers.
Implication: The societal reward system that celebrates performative acts such as twerking over intellectual discourse reflects and reinforces this gatekeeping culture, discouraging genuine thought leadership and critical engagement.
Why do gatekeepers resist change?
Gatekeepers often perceive alternative viewpoints or innovations as threats to their authority, status quo and cultural norms. Their motivations include but are not necessarily restricted to the following:
Preservation of power
Gatekeepers hold positions of influence where they control access to information, resources and decision-making processes. By resisting change, they aim to preserve their authority and dominance within their domain. This control allows them to shape narratives, prioritise certain ideas and maintain their status quo, which is essential for their personal or organisational positioning.
Gatekeeping mechanisms they use include:
Control over narratives: Gatekeepers decide what information is shared, how it is presented, influence perceptions and opinions
Protection of existing power structures: Gatekeepers are power scavengers. The view change as a threat to hierarchical relationships, diminishing their influence or leading to redistribution of power.
Resistance as self-preservation: They perceive change as a challenge to their authority, prompting defensive behaviours.
Fear of uncertainty
Change inherently involves unpredictability, which is discomforting for gatekeepers accustomed to familiar routines and systems. The uncertainty associated with new ideas or innovations evokes anxiety about potential failures, disruptions and the erosion of established procedures.
Gatekeeping mechanisms they use include:
Discomfort with the unknown: Gatekeepers lack confidence in their ability to adapt to or manage change.
Risk aversion: They prefer to avoid potential negative outcomes associated with change, such as loss of efficiency or reputation.
Perceived threat to stability: Gatekeepers often see change seen as destabilising, disrupting workflows, relationships and organisational culture.
Resistance to learning curves: New systems or ideas often require effort to understand and implement, which gatekeepers resist due to perceived inconvenience or resource constraints.
Cultural conservatism
Many gatekeepers are deeply rooted in traditional beliefs, practices and norms. They view innovations or alternative viewpoints as incompatible with and threatening to the established culture, values and identity of their community or organisation.
Gatekeeping mechanisms they use include:
Valuing tradition: They see existing practices as proven, valuable and integral to the group's identity.
Fear of cultural erosion: They view change as diluting or undermining core values and norms.
Resistance to external influences: Gatekeepers view external innovations with suspicion, fearing they could erode cultural cohesion. Often, the organisational culture they fear to be eroded is non-existent because gate keepers tend to be autocratic in their leadership and management style.
Maintaining social cohesion: Gatekeepers perceive that upholding tradition is a way to preserve social bonds and collective identity, leading to resistance to change which they view as disruptive. Yet, in most successful change interventions, new opportunities emerge.
Insecurity
Gatekeepers experience personal or institutional insecurity, feeling threatened by their inability to adapt and by the potential loss of relevance. To protect themselves, they dismiss or silence dissenting voices and resist change that could challenge their position.
Gatekeeping mechanisms they use include:
Fear of obsolescence: Concerns that new ideas could make their expertise or authority outdated.
Personal reputation: Worry that embracing change might expose their limitations or lead to failure.
Institutional insecurity: Fear that organisational change could undermine established power structures or their own job security.
Defensive behaviour: Dismissing innovations or criticism as a way to defend their self-image and position within the hierarchy.
Conclusion:
Gatekeeping, while often rooted in the desire to preserve order or authority, ultimately hampers business growth, societal progress and individual potential. In Zimbabwe, as in many contexts, the challenge lies in shifting cultural norms that valorise superficiality over substance, conformity over critical thinking, and tradition over innovation.
By understanding the mechanisms of gatekeeping, recognising its manifestations in various spaces and implementing strategic, systemic interventions, it is possible to create an environment where ideas can flourish freely, diverse voices are heard and leadership is rooted in merit and authenticity.
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.
