A Commentary on Percival Carter and Obenauer (2025): Why Some Organizations Are Motivated to Maintain Discriminatory Practices

Discrimination – defined as unfair or negative treatment based on an individual’s membership to a particular social identity group – is extremely harmful for those who experience or witness it (see Dhanani et al., 2018). Broadly speaking, discriminatory behaviors may stem from “bad apples” in an organization. These “apples” include individual employees who treat others unfairly due to unconscious bias, intentional prejudice, or even overt hostility toward members of certain social groups. Other times, discrimination is a systemic issue. That is, discriminatory practices are embedded in, perpetuated, or even encouraged by organizational structures, policies, and cultural norms. These systemic cases of discrimination are usually the ones that “break the news”, including high-profile cases such as systemic discrimination against disabled workers at Amazon (Kirchgaessner & Sainato, 2025), the systemic racism class action against the Canadian Armed Forces (Defence, 2025), or systemic discrimination against pregnant workers in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Friedman, 2024), to name a few. The details of those cases are often so egregious that they leave readers wondering how such practices are even possible. And, of course, such unwanted publicity is reputationally and legally costly for organizations, raising questions about how organizations can prevent discriminatory practices.

Percival Carter and Obenauer (2025) illustrated how problem identification tools may help organizations identify and root out discriminatory practices. By addressing root causes, organizations can reap the many benefits of discrimination-free and inclusive workplaces. While such tools can indeed be extremely valuable for improving employee experiences and mitigating the reputational and legal risks associated with discriminatory work practices, an underlying assumption is that organizations and their powerful members are motivated to address the issue. That is, if only organizational members become aware of the harms and costs of discriminatory practices and are equipped with the right tools, they will take action to eliminate discrimination. But is this a fair assumption to make? Perhaps not.

The challenge in rooting out systemic discrimination is not a lack of awareness or tools to address it effectively. Rather, as I outline below, organizations or their individual members may actually benefit from maintaining and perpetuating discriminatory practices. In other words, the persistence of deeply embedded discriminatory practices and lack of action to confront discriminatory practices may stem from motivation to maintain discrimination. But why? How exactly can organizations or their members “benefit” from discrimination?

Below, I unpack the psychological, economic, or cultural “benefits” organizational actors may derive from maintaining discriminatory systems. It is important to emphasize that these so-called benefits do not imply that discrimination yields an actual net positive for organizations. To the contrary, a large body of rigorous empirical research demonstrates the substantial and far-reaching costs of discrimination for employees, the organization as a whole, witnesses and bystanders, and so forth (see Hebl & King, 2024). Despite these well-documented harms, certain organizations or their members may nonetheless perceive advantages associated with discrimination.

Psychological Benefits of Maintaining the Status Quo

When an organization allows discriminatory practices to continue unchecked over time, those practices become the status quo. Simply put, discrimination turns into “the way things are”. The status quo, even when it produces inequality, offers a sense of psychological comfort (Jost et al., 2004). Organizational members are motivated to maintain the established state of affairs, often perceiving existing arrangements as legitimate and fair, even if those arrangements are harmful to themselves or others (Lyubykh et al., 2025). Moreover, challenging the status quo is psychologically uncomfortable and socially undesirable. Organizational members in positions of power, such as leaders or HR managers, are not immune from these psychological forces. They want to see their organization as fair and legitimate and will often go to great lengths to preserve the existing state of affairs. A large body of research suggests that maintaining the status quo, even a negative one, can have psychological benefits and fulfill a range of needs, such as the need for order or a shared sense of reality (Jost et al., 2004).

Further, individuals in powerful positions are more likely to identify strongly with the organization, defining their self-concept through their organizational membership (K. E. Horton et al., 2014). This identification may heighten their sensitivity to challenges against the status quo, which they may even interpret as personal threats. As a result, these powerful organizational members may be more likely to defend and enforce existing discriminatory practices. In other words, those in positions of power – who have the greatest influence and the potential to drive positive change – might be the ones most motivated to maintain discriminatory systems. By engaging in behaviors that reinforce and perpetuate these discriminatory systems, they signal what is expected, encouraging others to do the same.

In sum, these psychological forces help explain why discriminatory practices persist. That is, the existing discriminatory system may feel legitimate, stable, and aligned with how organizational members, including those in power, see themselves and their organization. Any change to this discriminatory status quo may be perceived as a threat or challenge to the system, motivating organizational members to actively defend and perpetuate existing practices.

Short-Term Economic Benefits

Psychological comfort, however, is not the only reason discriminatory arrangements continue to be maintained. Some organizations may benefit, at least in the short term, economically from discriminatory practices. Discrimination allows organizations to offer fewer benefits and pay lower wages to members of marginalized groups (e.g., Taylor, 2024). Individuals from these groups may also face restricted promotion opportunities, sometimes doing more work for less pay, and other times having to work substantially harder to achieve the same career advancement or compensation. Further, employees who experience discrimination are likely to feel vulnerable, perceiving their position and place in the organization as precarious. As a result, they may be less likely to use organizational resources to which they are formally entitled, such as sick leave or workplace accommodations. This underutilization of benefits allows organizations to save on labor costs.

Some organizations may cater to certain stakeholders or customer segments that “value” discriminatory practices. For example, Abercrombie & Fitch explicitly embraced discriminatory practices by targeting a specific demographic segment, “white hot” (i.e., young, slim, attractive, and White consumers) (A. Horton, 2022). As the company’s CEO admitted, “A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.” These practices were deeply embedded in the firm’s cultural fabric, both externally and internally. This suggests that organizations may maintain and even encourage such practices in an attempt to gain a perceived competitive advantage.

In sum, organizations can be motivated to maintain discriminatory practices in an attempt to reap short-term economic benefits, whether perceived or real. Discriminatory practices can function as a cost-saving mechanism, allowing organizations to reduce compensation, limit advancement, and benefit from the under-utilization of employee rights and resources. At other times, organizations may strategically deploy discriminatory practices to signal exclusivity or appeal to particular markets.

Achieving Cohesiveness Through Discrimination

Just as discriminatory practices may be sustained for perceived psychological or short-term economic gain, they may also persist because they are believed to strengthen group cohesion. Research on individual employee experiences suggests that discrimination and unfair treatment lead to reduced commitment and increased turnover intentions (Dhanani et al., 2018). However, anecdotally, industries with the highest prevalence of such behaviors (e.g., paramilitary organizations) often have highly cohesive teams, deeply committed members, and an overarching mentality of “having each other’s backs”. The cause of these contrasting patterns may lie in the conceptual level of analysis. When individuals suffer, the group may paradoxically thrive. It is possible that unfair treatment and discriminatory practices toward a particular subgroup can create a shared sense of threat, serving as a collective stressor. In response, discrimination may foster bonding among those who are targeted.

For advantaged groups, discrimination can function as a form of initiation or a “rite of passage”, where participation in such practices signals group loyalty and alignment with dominant values. Such practices can help establish who is “with us vs. against us”. In extreme circumstances, engaging in discriminatory behavior may even be required for social acceptance within the organization. For example, discriminatory practices may take the form of organizational hazing rituals (Thomas et al., 2021) or mobbing (Ertureten et al., 2013). This dynamic can force individuals to make a difficult choice: to participate in perpetuating discrimination or to leave the organization. Those who choose the former in turn reinforce and sustain the organization’s discriminatory practices.

In sum, discriminatory practices can serve as a tool for achieving group cohesiveness. While such practices harm individuals, they may simultaneously strengthen group cohesion, reinforcing shared practices that maintain discrimination.

Concluding Thoughts

Understanding that organizations may be motivated to maintain discriminatory practices points to a different set of potential solutions than those typically prescribed. Assuming that organizations and their members always act in good faith and are willing to eliminate discrimination may not be a fair assumption. This is evident in both the prevalence and persistence of discriminatory practices. Instead, solutions should focus on making such practices impractical and costly, thereby substantially reducing the (perceived) benefits of discrimination. Building on the arguments above, these solutions should focus on lessening psychological tendencies to preserve the discriminatory status quo, making discriminatory practices economically disadvantageous, and reframing discriminatory behaviors as socially costly.