Page 399 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

HEILMAN AND HAYNES
366
process. Participants were MBA students, half men and half women, who
were asked to review information about an employee being considered
for a promotion. Participants received a packet of materials including a
job description in the form of a job posting describing a position for a
production supervisor for the Corporate Paper Company; a page from
the hiring company's policies and procedures manual; a photocopy of an
employment application; and a brief questionnaire. In all conditions, the
applicant was a White woman.
The manipulation of selection policies was delivered on the page from
the company's policies and procedures manual. There were a total of five
levels of selection policy. The first was wholly merit-based (merit), and par­
ticipants were told that the company in question "is a quality employer and
has a merit-based employment policy" and that it "gives primary consid­
eration to hiring individuals with the strongest qualifications." The other
four conditions were affirmative action conditions; for all, the participants
were told that the company "is an equal opportunity employer and has
an affirmative action employment policy" and that it is "actively seeking
female and minority employees." The affirmative action conditions were:
(a) group membership based, in which primary consideration was said
to be given to hiring women and members of minority groups (preferen­
tial absolute); (b) minimum qualifications were used as a screen before
further consideration of group membership (preferential minimum); (c)
equal qualifications were required for group membership to be considered
in selection (preferential equivalent); and (d) a policy in which no infor­
mation other than the general statement was given about the nature of the
affirmative action policy (preferential ambiguous).
Results indicated that the hiree was viewed as more competent in the
merit policy condition than in the any of the conditions involving affirma­
tive action. However, participants did make distinctions among the various
affirmative action policies in making competence judgments. The hiree was
viewed as more competent in the preferential equivalent condition than in
each of the other preferential policy conditions (which did not differ from
one another). This data pattern was repeated for projections of the hiree's
career progress. The female hirees selected based on a merit policy were
expected to advance in their careers far more quickly and successfully than
female hirees selected based on an affirmative action policy, regardless of
the nature of that policy. However, female hirees selected based on a prefer­
ential equivalent policy were rated more likely to succeed than those in the
preferential absolute, preferential minimum, or the preferential ambiguous
conditions.
These results demonstrate once again that a stigma of incompetence is
often attached to those believed to be the beneficiary of affirmative action.