As a clinical psychologist and academic, I have observed many covert attempts to block social justice efforts within the various systems in which I work. I have been asked to write multiple memos or documents in support of a proposal for a diversity-related policy. I have witnessed leadership attempts to table discussion or add additional votes; one example was an organization’s name change to make it more inclusive of diverse gender groups. Committees inserted procedures and processes not normally required. These additions can stretch out the process of implementation of diversity strategic plans or multicultural programs for years.
Unsurprisingly, change agents can become battle-fatigued (Smith, 2004) and give up their efforts. They can also become so disheartened that they leave a group or organization altogether. My colleague named this phenomenon filibustering. Hence, we now use the term “organizational filibustering” to refer to strategies that delay and obstruct efforts to pursue social justice in systems (Mizock and White-Eyes, 2026).
We borrow the term filibuster from U.S. politics, which holds several applications to this obstructive process in organizations. The filibuster has a history in the U.S. government; it was used to impede legislation often related to civil rights (Lau, 2021). Former President Barack Obama has referred to filibusters as a relic of the Jim Crow era in politics when it was used to maintain racial segregation and block voting access among historically marginalized groups. With growing party division, filibusters in Congress have increased (Chafetz, 2011). The excessive use of the filibuster has come to represent the legislature’s difficulty in performing its function to reach consensus. Instead, filibusters serve as a loophole that subverts democracy rather than upholds it.
There are aspects of the current political climate and institutional culture that have created a context that is vulnerable to organizational filibustering. In most academic and professional settings, it may not be acceptable to be overtly biased against social justice policies; covert tactics are taken to prevent their implementation. Furthermore, enactors of filibustering may not be aware that their strong internal reaction to social justice policies may reflect aversive racism (Gaertner and colleagues, 2005) and other forms of unconscious bias.
Change agents can be savvy about delay tactics and organizational filibustering to impede progress. Some strategies could include working with leaders who are strong in social justice and can root out hidden acts of obstruction and prevent them. Educating an organization on filibustering and establishing ground rules beforehand can prevent it. Navigating these problems takes strong interpersonal skills, group facilitation, alliance-building, and relationship repair in the face of conflict. Ultimately, we need to raise awareness within ourselves and our organizations to prevent obstruction of social justice from taking hold.