IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0145208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: The Impact of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Accountability on Applicant Screening

Author

Listed:
  • William T Self
  • Gregory Mitchell
  • Barbara A Mellers
  • Philip E Tetlock
  • J Angus D Hildreth

Abstract

This study compared two forms of accountability that can be used to promote diversity and fairness in personnel selections: identity-conscious accountability (holding decision makers accountable for which groups are selected) versus identity-blind accountability (holding decision makers accountable for making fair selections). In a simulated application screening process, undergraduate participants (majority female) sorted applicants under conditions of identity-conscious accountability, identity-blind accountability, or no accountability for an applicant pool in which white males either did or did not have a human capital advantage. Under identity-conscious accountability, participants exhibited pro-female and pro-minority bias, particularly in the white-male-advantage applicant pool. Under identity-blind accountability, participants exhibited no biases and candidate qualifications dominated interview recommendations. Participants exhibited greater resentment toward management under identity-conscious accountability.

Suggested Citation

  • William T Self & Gregory Mitchell & Barbara A Mellers & Philip E Tetlock & J Angus D Hildreth, 2015. "Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: The Impact of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Accountability on Applicant Screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0145208
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145208
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145208&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0145208?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau, 2013. "Masters of the universe: How power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard," Post-Print hal-00814565, HAL.
    2. Klimoski, Richard & Inks, Lawrence, 1990. "Accountability forces in performance appraisal," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 194-208, April.
    3. Siegel-Jacobs, Karen & Yates, J. Frank, 1996. "Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability on Judgment Quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone & Akbar Zaheer, 2003. "Trust as an Organizing Principle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 91-103, February.
    5. Langhe, Bart de & van Osselaer, Stijn M.J. & Wierenga, Berend, 2011. "The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 238-252, July.
    6. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau, 2013. "Masters of the universe: How power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00814565, HAL.
    7. Eric Luis Uhlmann & Geoffrey Cohen, 2005. "Constructed Criteria. Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination," Post-Print hal-00516601, HAL.
    8. Gordon, Randall A. & Rozelle, Richard M. & Baxter, James C., 1988. "The effect of applicant age, job level, and accountability on the evaluation of job applicants," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 20-33, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pankaj Koirala & Raja Rajendra Timilsina & Koji Kotani, 2021. "Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    2. Welton Chang & Pavel Atanasov & Shefali Patil & Barbara A. Mellers & Philip E. Tetlock, 2017. "Accountability and adaptive performance under uncertainty: A long-term view," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 610-626, November.
    3. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:610-626 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Melanie de Waal & Floor Rink & Janka Stoker, 2015. "How internal and external supervisors influence employees' self-serving decisions," DNB Working Papers 464, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
    6. Desai, Sreedhari D. & Kouchaki, Maryam, 2015. "Work-report formats and overbilling: How unit-reporting vs. cost-reporting increases accountability and decreases overbilling," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 79-88.
    7. Casenave, Eric & Klarmann, Martin, 2020. "The accountability paradox: How holding marketers accountable hinders alignment with short-term marketing goals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 95-108.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:627-641 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Hershcovis, M. Sandy & Neville, Lukas & Reich, Tara C. & Christie, Amy M. & Cortina, Lilia M. & Shan, J. Valerie, 2017. "Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 45-57.
    10. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    11. Greg Fisher & Emily Neubert, 2023. "Evaluating Ventures Fast and Slow: Sensemaking, Intuition, and Deliberation in Entrepreneurial Resource Provision Decisions," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(4), pages 1298-1326, July.
    12. Bixter, Michael T. & Luhmann, Christian C., 2014. "Shared losses reduce sensitivity to risk: A laboratory study of moral hazard," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 63-73.
    13. Brian P. Gill & Jennifer S. Lerner & Paul Meosky, "undated". "Re-Imagining Accountability in K-12 Education: A Behavioral Science Perspective," Mathematica Policy Research Reports d0c19d0709b641259fe391b2e, Mathematica Policy Research.
    14. Muel Kaptein, 2017. "The Battle for Business Ethics: A Struggle Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 343-361, August.
    15. Matthew J. Quade & Rebecca L. Greenbaum & Mary B. Mawritz, 2019. "“If Only My Coworker Was More Ethical”: When Ethical and Performance Comparisons Lead to Negative Emotions, Social Undermining, and Ostracism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(2), pages 567-586, October.
    16. Schaerer, Michael & Kern, Mary & Berger, Gail & Medvec, Victoria & Swaab, Roderick I., 2018. "The illusion of transparency in performance appraisals: When and why accuracy motivation explains unintentional feedback inflation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 171-186.
    17. Mina Ličen & Sergeja Slapničar, 2022. "Can process accountability mitigate myopic biases? An experimental analysis," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-26, March.
    18. Yu Zhou & Hongzhang Zhu & Jun Yang & Yunqing Zou, 2021. "Does CEO Power Backfire? The Impact of CEO Power on Corporate Strategic Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Schaerer, Michael & du Plessis, Christilene & Yap, Andy J. & Thau, Stefan, 2018. "Low power individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical framework, and empirical test," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 73-96.
    20. Ajit Nayak, 2016. "Wisdom and the Tragic Question: Moral Learning and Emotional Perception in Leadership and Organisations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 1-13, August.
    21. Janina A. Hoffmann & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Bettina von Helversen, 2017. "Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 627-641, November.
    22. Williams, Melissa J. & Lopiano, Gabrielle & Heller, Daniel, 2022. "When the boss steps up: Workplace power, task responsibility, and engagement with unpleasant tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0145208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.