EQUAL ON PAPER, BUT WHAT ABOUT PRACTICE?: RELATIONAL INEQUALITIES AND LOCAL CATEGORIES OF WORTH AT AN EQUALITY-FOCUSED ORGANIZATION

Abstract

Do equitable workplace conditions translate into equitable outcomes for workers? This study examines whether a workplace that implements inclusive practices, collective decision- making, and alternative governance structures achieves an equitable distribution of resources, rewards, and respect. Drawing on one year of ethnographic fieldwork and in-depth interviews at Midwest Harm Reduction, a homelessness services organization committed to equity, I find that formal structures intended to support equality do not fully account for relational inequalities that emerge informally. These inequalities do not follow the patterns predicted by traditional relational inequality theory, as they do not align with structural categories such as race, gender, or education, nor with formal organizational roles like manager or employee. Instead, a locally constructed “flipped hierarchy” privileges workers with lived experience of homelessness, granting them greater respect, authority, and access to resources. This hierarchy contrasts with broader societal notions of worth, given the stigmatization that individuals with experiences of homelessness often face. Yet, by examining organizational valuation processes, co-workers’ claims-making, and individual workers’ perceptions of worth, it becomes clear that this locally defined category of value produces meaningful differences in how resources, rewards, and respect are distributed, undermining the organization’s formal attempts at equality. This thesis contributes to the literature on workplace (in)equality by examining how structures, policies, and practices intended to create equitable outcomes are experienced in the context of workers’ everyday lives and interactions. This article further advances relational inequality theory by highlighting the importance of incorporating local cultures and constructions of worth in identifying which categories of value are salient in specific contexts, rather than assuming a priori which categories will matter within relationships. This approach underscores how relational inequalities can emerge from local cultures, rather than from formal divisions of labor or external, structural categories.