In their paper, Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden reconceptualize egalitarianism not as equality of outcomes but as a set of social processes through which individuals secure access to resources, status, and autonomy. Particularly, they show that egalitarian arrangements can arise from strategic interactions among self-interested individuals operating under specific socio-ecological constraints, which prevent the excessive concentration of power

Taking this process-based perspective seriously raises an important question when the authors’ framework is extended far beyond the small-scale societies that form the empirical basis of their analysis. Specifically, what happens when process-based egalitarianism operates within complex social systems such as modern organizations? In these contexts, egalitarian ideals are often formalized through rules, policies, and explicit commitments to fairness and equal opportunity. Yet, access to status, influence, and opportunities remains shaped by informal social processes – such as reputation formation, consensus building, and implicit evaluation – that closely mirror the mechanisms described by Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden and that constitute primary channels through which status and legitimacy are constructed. The coexistence of formal egalitarian commitments and informal status allocation processes is a defining feature of contemporary organizations. Under these conditions, process-based egalitarianism may not only coexist with inequality but may also actively contribute to its legitimation. When unequal outcomes arise from processes perceived as collectively enacted and procedurally fair, they are more likely to be interpreted as appropriate or deserved rather than as manifestations of structural bias (Castilla & Benard, Reference Castilla and Benard2010; Rivera, Reference Rivera2012). As a result, the very processes that constrain overt domination may simultaneously render existing inequalities more stable, legitimate, and less contestable.

Gender inequality provides a particularly revealing context in which to observe this dynamic. In modern organizations, formal commitments to gender equality are widespread, with many institutions explicitly endorsing egalitarian norms through diversity policies and inclusion initiatives. Yet, gender disparities in status, influence, and career outcomes persist even in contexts that are formally committed to equality (Calluso & Devetag, Reference Calluso and Devetag2024; Ridgeway, Reference Ridgeway2011). One reason is that the processes through which status and legitimacy are produced are not socially neutral. Informal evaluations of competence, authority, and leadership potential are shaped by shared expectations about appropriate behavior, many of which remain intrinsically gendered (Calluso, Iacopino, & Piazza, Reference Calluso, Iacopino and Piazzaforthcoming; Eagly & Karau, Reference Eagly and Karau2002; Heilman, Reference Heilman2012). Operating through everyday evaluative practices rather than formal rules, these expectations are often embedded in processes that appear procedurally fair and legitimate. Reputation formation, peer evaluation, consensus building, and informal recognition all function as mechanisms through which individuals gain status and influence. Because these processes rely on implicit criteria – such as perceived leadership fit, assertiveness, or relational style – they may systematically advantage those who more closely conform to dominant gender norms (Heilman, Reference Heilman2012). When unequal outcomes emerge from such collectively enacted processes, they are frequently interpreted as natural consequences of merit, fit, or individual performance rather than as manifestations of gender stereotypes. In this way, gender inequality illustrates how process-based egalitarianism can coexist with – and potentially legitimize – persistent disparities in access to status and opportunity between men and women.

This lens also emphasizes the need for a critical assessment of the organizational development tools commonly used to address gender inequality. In many contemporary organizations, initiatives such as gender quotas, diversity and inclusion policies, and equal opportunity programs are framed to respond to institutional pressures to conform to egalitarian norms (DiMaggio & Powell, Reference DiMaggio and Powell1983; Meyer & Rowan, Reference Meyer and Rowan1977). These interventions also rely on the assumption that making equality more visible, valued, and normatively salient will gradually transform organizational outcomes. However, this view becomes problematic if we assume – as Stibbard-Hawkes & von Rueden do – that egalitarian processes are fundamentally driven by self-interested motivations. Moralization alone may have, in fact, a limited capacity to reshape how status and legitimacy are actually allocated. A growing body of organizational research shows that equality-oriented policies can coexist with persistent disparities when the evaluative processes through which competence, legitimacy, and opportunity are allocated remain unchanged (Castilla & Benard, Reference Castilla and Benard2010; Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, Reference Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly2006; Rivera, Reference Rivera2012). Under such conditions, gender equality initiatives may function less as mechanisms that transform outcomes and more as moralizing signals that publicly affirm egalitarian commitments without necessarily altering the processes that have generated these inequalities (Calluso & Devetag, Reference Calluso and Devetag2026). By reinforcing the perception that organizations are acting in accordance with egalitarian norms, such initiatives may even increase the legitimacy of existing arrangements, making unequal outcomes appear compatible with procedural fairness. In this sense, equality-oriented policies to reduce gender disparities can inadvertently stabilize the very dynamics they are intended to challenge when they operate primarily at the level of normative signaling rather than at the level of the evaluative processes through which status and opportunity are distributed.

The implications of this perspective are particularly important for the design of equality-oriented interventions in complex organizations. When adopted mainly for symbolic reasons or mimetic pressures, equality initiatives risk producing forms of organizational decoupling (Bromley & Powell, Reference Bromley and Powell2012; Meyer & Rowan, Reference Meyer and Rowan1977) or social washing, whereby institutions publicly affirm egalitarian commitments while leaving intact the processes through which status, legitimacy, and opportunity are allocated. From this perspective, the key implication of Stibbard-Hawkes & von Rueden’s framework is not that equality policies are misguided, but that they are insufficient unless they actively counterbalance the self-interested dynamics through which status hierarchies are reproduced, rather than assuming that egalitarian norms alone will reshape outcomes. In practice, this may require policies that intervene directly in the processes through which status is allocated – for example, by introducing structured evaluation criteria, increasing transparency in promotion and opportunity allocation, and establishing accountability mechanisms that link organizational commitments to measurable outcomes. Recent regulatory initiatives, such as pay transparency legislation (European Union, 2023), move in this direction by making evaluation criteria and compensation structures more visible. Such interventions do not replace egalitarian norms, but they help counterbalance the biases and incentives embedded in the informal processes through which status and legitimacy are produced.