Affirmative action decisions: when ignorance is bliss

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to show how various organizational justifications for hiring decisions influence the beneficiary's perceptions of fairness. Specifically, the paper investigates the relative impacts of no justification, affirmative action justification and justifications based on attempts to improve organizational creativity.

Design/methodology/approach

Participants were asked to read several vignettes in which the justification for the hiring decisions was manipulated. Fairness perceptions were then assessed for each scenario. Paired‐sample t tests were used to test hypotheses.

Findings

The paper finds that perceptions of both procedural and distributive justice appeared to follow a common theme across Hispanic and African American subgroups where the hiring decision was perceived to be fairer when no justification was provided. Hiring decisions based on affirmative action and diversity programs designed to promote creativity were perceived as less fair by both African Americans and Hispanics.

Research limitations/implications

The study used a sample of minority students, thereby limiting the generalizability of these findings.

Practical implications

The current study has practical implications in that it may help both academicians and practitioners better understand what applicants perceive regarding the fairness of affirmative action and diversity programs.

Originality/value

Past research has investigated the preferential selection of women and minorities, however, there has been little systematic inquiry into the possible justifications that might reduce the negative reactions of beneficiaries.

Citation

McMillan‐Capehart, A., Lee Grubb, W. and Herdman, A. (2009), "Affirmative action decisions: when ignorance is bliss", Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 415-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150910964268