Affirmative action policies in job advertisements for leadership positions: How they affect women's and men's inclination to apply

Abstract

This research investigates how affirmative action policies in job advertisements for leadership positions affect women's and men's inclination to apply. Management students (N = 389) received advertisements that differed in the strictness of announced gender policies: no statement, women explicitly invited to apply, preferential treatment of equally qualified women, or quota of 40% women. When women were treated preferentially, female participants reported higher self‐ascribed fit, which resulted in higher inclinations to apply compared with the control condition and with men. However, when quota regulations were active, female participants showed neither an increased self‐ascribed fit nor higher inclinations to apply. Interestingly, the underlying mechanism was not different when a quota regulation or no statement was announced: participants with higher agency levels reported higher inclinations to apply owing to an increase in self‐ascribed fit. This study provides evidence that only some preferential treatment policies may be successful in increasing women's interest in leadership positions.

The opportunities and challenges of diversity: Explaining its impact on individuals and groups

“…In addition, work presented here provides guidance concerning how multiculturalism should be conveyed so that this ideology is less threatening and more appealing to majority groups (Rios & Wynn, ). Regarding the effectiveness of affirmative action policies, it was found that procedural justice and self‐ascribed fit following from quota‐based selection are significant variables in explaining the effects of these policies on applicants' motivations to apply (Nater & Sczesny, ; Shaughnessy et al, ). One important conclusion from this work is that quota‐based selection might not be the most effective form of affirmative action.…”

Women Quotas vs. Men Quotas in Academia: Students Perceive Favoring Women as Less Fair Than Favoring Men

“…In experimental studies, women quotas increased the likelihood of women entering competition (Balafoutas and Sutter, 2012;Niederle et al, 2013). The use of tie break quotas (i.e., the preferential treatment of women under the condition of equal qualification) increased women's perceived organizational fit and their willingness to apply for a job, whereas the use of rigid quota regulations did not (Nater and Sczesny, 2016). Moreover, in competitive situations, quotas increased the performance of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (Calsamiglia et al, 2013).…”

Affirmative Action Policies in Academic Job Advertisements: Do They Facilitate or Hinder Gender Discrimination in Hiring Processes for Professorships?

“…Although affirmative action programs were originally introduced as an equality-measure to respond to and repair historical discrimination towards minority groups (e.g., Crosby et al, 2003;Heilman & Haynes, 2006;Kelly & Dobbin, 1998), they have stirred substantial debate across scholarly, policy, and public domains. On the one hand, research showed that affirmative hiring policies successfully attract women job candidates (e.g., Ibanez & Riener, 2018;Nater & Sczesny, 2016), on the other hand, female applicants who believed that they had benefited from gender-based preferential selection (compared to merit-based selection) inferred that others held negative expectations of their competence (Heilman & Alcott, 2001), and also devalued their own leadership capability and task performance (Heilman et al, 1987). Furthermore, affirmative action policies can have negative consequences for non-beneficiaries (i.e., men) who might become demotivated or feel that they have been treated unfairly (e.g., Heilman et al, 1996).…”

“…This lack of research is of high relevance for the following reasons: First, most universities highlight affirmative action policies (e.g., gender-based preferential selection when job candidates are equally competent) in job advertisements for professorships to encourage women to apply. Although previous studies revealed that these policies may successfully attract female job seekers (e.g., Ibanez & Riener, 2018;Nater & Sczesny, 2016), other research revealed negative consequences for female applicants' job chances (e.g., lower competence ascriptions) when they were associated with affirmative action policies rather than with gender-neutral policies (e.g., Garcia et al, 1981;Heilman & Blader, 2001;Heilman & Welle, 2006). Second, given that women's representation decreases more strongly as they advance in the academic hierarchy (European Commission, 2019), more research is needed on hiring practices for high-level professorships in permanent positions: Even if women have greater access to lower-level positions today (i.e., assistant professorships), they might still face obstacles when advancing to high-level positions (i.e., associate and full professorships which in DACH countries are both lifetime appointments, Academic Positions, 2021).…”