Compensating or Deepening Gender and Race Disadvantages? Public Preferences on Hiring, Negotiation, and Promotions

This study examines how the general public responds to inequality-generating mechanisms within organizations in the US, with a focus on organizational processes relevant to valued resources, such as hiring, salary negotiations, and promotions. Drawing on Relational Inequality Theory (RIT), it highlights how social status—particularly gender and race—shapes opportunities through mechanisms of social closure and exploitation. While high-status groups (white men) benefit disproportionately, organizations face growing pressure to address these disparities through Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Yet, little is known about whether public preferences reinforce, counteract, or ignore such disadvantages. We test which of these three possible public responses is supported by the public: alignment (endorsing existing inequalities), compensation (supporting disadvantaged groups), or disregard (minimizing or overlooking disadvantages). We also examine how ideological orientations influence these responses. By extending RIT to consider legitimacy beyond organizational boundaries, the study contributes to understanding how societal valuations of status categories shape claims-making processes and, ultimately, the persistence or contestation of workplace inequalities. In Study 1, two survey experiments (N = 1,000) manipulated gender and race. First, participants acted as organizational decision-makers choosing between two equally qualified candidates for a high-status, masculinized job, and responded to salary negotiation requests. Results revealed a compensatory preference in hiring, favoring women and minority candidates over white men, but no significant differences in salary negotiations. Then, participants evaluated a low-status worker requesting a raise, assessing the fairness of the raise obtained, and whether the worker should negotiate further. Findings indicated support for minority workers to seek further negotiation opportunities, but no differences in wage entitlements were observed. Ideological factors, including progressive views on gender and race, significantly influenced preferences in both experiments. Study 2 extended this investigation to promotion contexts in a preregistered survey experiment (N = 1,000), testing whether compensatory preferences stem from disadvantages causally attributed to organizations. Participants selected between two internal candidates for a managerial promotion and were exposed to different executive team compositions, all-white men or diverse. Results again showed compensatory preferences, while evidencing strong expectations that the executive team would prefer and pay more to white men. Our findings suggest that while there is public support for compensating opportunity disadvantages, this does not extend to wage negotiations, potentially legitimizing practices that offer limited inclusion to disadvantaged groups.