Targeted Organisational Disempowerment

“Medical records access form” by jaseanton is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Targeted Organisational Disempowerment

Dysfunctional, incongruent organisations can often use Targeted Organisational Disempowerment methodologies, in order to maintain an external and internal narrative of fairness and equality, while disempowering targeted groups.

This discriminatory behaviour can be said to be common, and is often claimed to be the result on unforeseen consequences. Consequences which the organisation is usually unable to correct, due to a lack of priority, and of funding. Often coming with a narrative that claims it has already been, or about to be resolved.

Unfortunate coincidences, and even secret organisational priorities can be used as ways of maintaining the idea that a bad outcome was never that bad, and it’s probably ok to let it run for a few more years, until the next change. That next change, tends to build on that last “bad bit”, and entrenches that behaviour even further.

This practice of targeting groups for discrimination, hidden behind layers of organisational complexity helps hide the problem, due to organisation inertia, which tends to assess everything based on the cost of change. Undoing a negative outcome that only affects “some”, always plays second fiddle to more universally applicable solutions. The organisation may clearly recognise the issue, take solid and firm decisions to correct it, then wait more that 70 years to make that correction.

Is this deliberate?

In some case, yes, this has been proven. In addition, we must suggest, that any organisation that recognises the problem, and then sits on it, or otherwise avoids making any changes, within a reasonable timescale, must be doing so as part of its own agenda. Clearly, no organisation is going to advertise itself as discriminatory, or provide evidence, or even accept that they are anything like that. Most people who work for such organisations will not whistle blow. They know it will cost them their job, and maybe their home too.

Types of Targeted Organisational Disempowerment

There are two main target groups for this disempowerment:

The community of service users: These are often seen by organisations are either; high cost “problems”, or low cost, “desirable”, often due to their lack of need of service.

The organisations own employees and contractors: Employees often have a work cycle, of joining, working for, and then leaving an organisation. Often this cycle is tracked by an employer cycle of wanting, using, and then no longer wanting that resource. This means that older employees, employees with out of date skills, or employees of no longer desirable, “virtue signalling” qualities, may well find their organisation can turn against them, and find some way of forcing them to leave.

Many organisations also have built-in discriminatory biases that can be applied on a local and organisationally global basis. Some organisations are so connected to the global economy that their targeting of individuals can be a form of political and social control.

Defining Organised Disempowerment

Within this context, then, we can say that Targeted Organisational Disempowerment can be expressed as internal, or external to the organisation, and also to be locally, or globally applicable. And that global applicability may mean creating a complex system of localised variations that serve to hide that overall discriminatory structure. This practice of “divide and conquer”, is also known as inverse compartmentalisation.

Internally Targeted Organisational Disempowerment

This is a system where an organisation quietly encourages workers to mistreat or exclude certain groups, not to improve work, but to keep those people weak, silent, and unhappy. Systems like this are linked to structural discrimination, targeted bullying, and scapegoating, and they can cause serious and long‑lasting harm to the people involved.

Subtle or indirect methods

Organisations sometimes use subtle or indirect methods to keep certain groups “in their place.” Examples include always assigning the worst tasks to the same people, undermining their authority, or tolerating bullying and “mobbing” against them while pretending nothing is wrong. This can be aimed at people with particular characteristics (such as ethnicity, disability, gender, or immigration status), and it often operates through unspoken rules and everyday behaviours rather than open policies.

Research shows that in these environments, “low‑status” or minority workers are more likely to be singled out, harassed, and blamed, which reinforces their lower position in the wider society as well. People in these groups frequently report feeling powerless, afraid to speak up, and trapped in a “culture of silence” because challenging the system risks punishment or job loss.

What it does to people

Living in a targeted, disempowering system takes a heavy emotional toll. Workers who are singled out or scapegoated often experience stress, anxiety, low self‑esteem, burnout, and a sense of hopelessness. Over time, they can start to believe they deserve this treatment, or that nothing they do will make a difference, which is a form of learned helplessness and internalised oppression. This helps the system persist: people are too tired, frightened, or demoralised to resist.

If this describes your situation

If this is something that you’re seeing or living through, your reactions; anger, sadness, confusion, are understandable and valid. Evidence from many workplaces shows that these patterns are real and not “in people’s heads”. Helpful steps can include:

Keeping a record of what happens (dates, times, witnesses) in case you choose to raise it later.
Seeking support from trusted people inside or outside the organisation (friends, unions, advocacy groups, mental‑health professionals).
Learning about your rights and any anti‑discrimination or anti‑bullying protections where you live.

Externally Targeted Organisational Disempowerment

A common example of this are public services that are officially for everyone, but are quietly delivered in ways that favour some people and disadvantage others. This can happen through budget choices, hidden practices, and blaming language, so that staff end up denying or rationing services while the system claims to be fair and neutral.

How discrimination can be built into public services

Research on structural discrimination and inequality in health and social services shows several common patterns:

Budget and resource decisions: Services used more by certain groups (for example, poorer areas, minorities, disabled people) may be underfunded, so waiting lists, thresholds, and obstacles grow there first. On paper the service exists; in practice it is almost unreachable.

Rules plus unwritten practices: There may be written guidelines that look neutral, but staff are informally encouraged to “discourage” some users, apply rules more strictly, or “signpost elsewhere” when demand is high. Over time, these unwritten habits effectively exclude certain people without any official policy saying so.

Blaming the user: When someone cannot get a service, staff are pushed, either explicitly or implicitly, to explain it as the user’s fault: “you didn’t meet the criteria,” “you didn’t fill the form correctly,” “you came too late,” instead of acknowledging that the service is under‑resourced or selectively applied.

How this feels from the front line

Front‑line staff in under‑resourced public services are often placed in impossible positions:

They are told to be inclusive, fair, and person‑centred, but given neither time nor resources to do that consistently.
They may be evaluated on targets or budgets that reward turning people away or limiting access.
To cope, they may start believing or repeating narratives that frame certain users as “demanding,” “unsuitable,” or “not our responsibility,” which protects the system but harms the people seeking help.

The result: the “service feature” technically exists, but staff learn to act as though it doesn’t, or only acknowledge it for certain people, while telling others it is not available or does not apply to them.

Why “fine-slicing” matters

Research on workplace and institutional inequality shows that discrimination is often “fine‑sliced”: it does not need an open rule like “we don’t serve group X”. Instead it can show up as:

Slightly higher thresholds or stricter interpretations of criteria for some people.
Less information or encouragement given to some groups about what they can ask for.
More obstacles and delays in processing, so people give up.

Each incident is small and individually deniable, but together they create a systematic pattern of unequal access and outcomes.

What this means in practice

In commercial organisations, inequality often shows up as extra perks for a favoured segment (priority lines, better deals, loyalty rewards). In public bodies, the pattern is often the opposite: the benefit exists in theory for everyone, but in practice some people are filtered out through underfunding, gatekeeping, and blaming narratives. The system protects its image by presenting these outcomes as the natural result of “demand,” “criteria,” or “user behaviour,” rather than of political and organisational choices.

Known Examples

There are well‑documented UK and US examples where services are officially universal, but access is quietly shaped by funding, rules, and discretionary practice so that some groups lose out.

UK examples

Windrush scandal (Home Office) :Long‑term Black Caribbean residents were wrongly classified as “illegal” due to hostile environment policies, lack of documentation, and internal practices that pushed staff to treat them as cases to remove rather than citizens to assist.

Many were denied healthcare, jobs, and housing despite being legally entitled; staff followed guidance and targets that effectively rationed rights while officially maintaining neutrality.

Unequal access in the NHS and social care: Studies show “postcode lotteries” and structural underfunding in poorer, more diverse areas, leading to longer waits and fewer services despite formal universality.

Ethnic minority and migrant patients report more gatekeeping, less information on entitlements, and stricter interpretations of criteria, even when policies claim equal access.

The NHS and other health services around the world have also been accused of misdiagnosing, overdiagnosing and overmedicating without proper monitoring or testing.

Benefit and disability assessments (DWP / contractors): Research and parliamentary scrutiny have described disability and work‑capability assessments where targets, guidance, and contractor incentives encouraged high rates of refusal and reassessment.

Officially the criteria are neutral; in practice, claimants are frequently portrayed as “not meeting thresholds,” with under‑resourcing and performance pressure driving decisions rather than need alone.

US examples

Redlining and its legacy in public services: Historical redlining and zoning created racially segregated neighbourhoods that later received less investment in schools, clinics, transport, and other public services.

On paper, services are race‑neutral; in practice, decades of funding choices mean that Black and Latino communities often get weaker provision and more bureaucratic hurdles.

Medicaid and healthcare access: Medicaid eligibility rules, state‑by‑state expansions, and administrative burdens have created “coverage deserts,” especially in Southern states.

Formally, criteria are uniform; in practice, complex forms, frequent re‑certification, and understaffed offices disproportionately push low‑income, disabled, and minority patients out of coverage or deter them from using benefits they qualify for.

Criminal justice and public defence: Public defender systems in many states are so underfunded that lawyers carry excessive caseloads and lack time to provide effective representation.

The right to counsel exists in law, but resource constraints, local rules, and plea‑bargain cultures pressure poor defendants into quick guilty pleas, while the system maintains an appearance of formal fairness.

Shared patterns in UK and USA

Across these cases, researchers highlight the same mechanisms:

Underfunding and staffing cuts concentrated in services used by marginalised groups.
“Neutral” rules plus discretionary interpretation that consistently disadvantages the same kinds of people.
Blame shifted onto individuals’ supposed non‑compliance, “unsuitability,” or personal failings instead of acknowledging structural constraints.