The Gatekeeper Dilemma

Roles that are meant to serve marginalized communities often carry an invisible tension. On the surface, these positions are designed to open doors. Yet in practice, the people in these roles can end up acting as gatekeepers, holding the very power they are tasked with redistributing. Using Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats, we can look more closely at what this means.

White Hat: Facts and Realities

A person responsible for managing resources for marginalized communities is usually paid to oversee initiatives and control access. Their professional standing is tied to this authority. If they step aside completely, handing power directly to the communities most affected, their role may disappear. It’s a reminder that self-preservation and livelihood shape human decisions as much as values do.

Red Hat: Emotions in Play

There is frustration in seeing someone appear supportive while still holding the reins. There is also anxiety about what it would take to truly step back. And at the same time, empathy matters: fear of losing one’s livelihood is real, and it is perhaps unrealistic to expect anyone to ignore that fear entirely.

Black Hat: The Risks

If someone in this role relinquishes control, they may be sidelined or lose their job. Without structural accountability, initiatives could stall or simply be taken over by another gatekeeper. In many cases, self-interest will outweigh altruism, leaving the same patterns in place.

Yellow Hat: The Hope

But if power were genuinely shared, the gains could be significant. Communities most affected would finally hold real agency. Organizations could move beyond appearances and self-preservation and begin committing to meaningful change. Over time, this could lead to deeper, more lasting progress that benefits everyone.

Green Hat: The Possibilities

There may be more creative paths than a simple choice between holding power or stepping away. A leader could transition gradually, shifting into roles that focus less on control and more on facilitating environments where real change can take root. Instead of being the final decision makers, gatekeepers could become facilitators who help their communities shape their own direction.

Blue Hat: The Bigger Picture

A lot of the times, the system itself incentivizes self-preservation more than transformation. Expecting an individual to step aside entirely, without protections, is asking for a kind of selflessness that few people can sustain. The barrier, then, is not simply personal intention but the design of a new vessel.

Closing Reflection

It may be comforting to imagine that progress depends on the courage of individuals, that gatekeepers will one day voluntarily step aside. But lasting change cannot be built on hope for individual heroism. It must come from changing the structures that define risk, reward, and accountability. Until then, roles meant to serve marginalized communities will remain caught between intent and survival, and the power to truly shift the system will remain just out of reach.