Elsevier

Journal of Economic Psychology

Volume 57, December 2016, Pages 136-152
Journal of Economic Psychology

Revealing side effects of quota rules on group cooperation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.09.007Get rights and content

Highlights

  • In two independent studies we test the impact of a quota rule on group cooperation.

  • Quota rules lead to decline in cooperation compared to performance-based promotion.

  • This effect is independent from categorization criterion (gender vs. artificial).

  • The observed negative effect is not driven by the procedural fairness perception.

  • The decline in cooperation is not explained by the expectations about performance.

Abstract

The quota rule in employment is a legal tool to promote gender equality in professions and positions where women are underrepresented. An accompanying assumption is that gender diversity positively affects one of the aspects of team performance in form of group cooperation. However, it is unclear whether this positive effect can be achieved if diversity increases due to a quota rule. In two fully incentivized experiments involving a real-effort task (N1 = 188 and N2 = 268), we examined the impact of quotas as compared to performance-based promotion on group cooperation. We thereby categorized participants either with regard to gender or to an artificial category that was randomly assigned. Cooperation within groups declined when promotion was based on quota compared to performance-based promotion, irrespective of the categorization criterion. Further analyses revealed that this negative effect of quota rules on cooperation is not driven by procedural fairness perceptions or expectations about performance of the promoted group member. Implications of the results for the implementation of equality and diversity initiatives are discussed.

Introduction

Despite significant advances during the past decades, a large gap exists between the representation of men and women in the labor force. The underrepresentation of women is particularly striking in high-profile business positions, such as company executives or board members (International Labour Organization, 2012). The facts are clear and the social and economic importance of achieving gender equality in the workplace is undisputable. Yet, there is a lack of consensus regarding the types of measures that should be applied in order to introduce gender equality in the workforce. A variety of measures have been proposed, from those that aim to address specific obstacles commonly faced by women (such as improved childcare provisions) to those that focus more directly on the promotion of women, be it through the provision of additional training, or through the implementation of mandatory quotas.2 From among the various gender equality and diversity policies, the introduction of mandatory gender quotas has attracted the greatest controversy. Until recently, quotas for women were mainly restricted to political participation (i.e., in national parliaments, Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2014). However, quotas have now become a popular strategy for increasing women’s representation in other sectors as well, such as on corporate boards (Catalyst, 2014).

On the one hand, policymakers who propose the introduction of a gender quota in public agencies and private organizations do so because this strategy guarantees the increase in women’s representation in a specific position or domain within a relatively short period. Besides this immediate benefit, legislators claim that introducing quotas for boards of directors in listed companies will bring additional benefits in the form of increased corporate performance. For example, a report from the European Commission points out that the “presence of women [on boards] contributes to improving corporate governance, team performance and the quality of decision-making” (European Commission, 2012, p. 13). A crucial—but as yet under-researched—aspect of this debate is whether or not these benefits of gender diversity can indeed be achieved through the implementation of quotas. In particular, it is as yet unclear whether or not a quota procedure positively affects an important feature of group performance, namely cooperation. In this paper, we report two experiments carried out to test whether or not this is the case by examining the effect of quotas on cooperation, understood as people’s actions that “promote the goals of the group” (Tyler & Blader, 2000, p. 3) when individual outcomes depend upon the performance of the other group members (Wageman & Baker, 1997). In particular, we test how purely performance-based vs. category-based (quotas) promotion procedures influence group cooperation between incumbent members of a group and newcomers.

Numerous experimental studies have researched the impact of gender diversity on group decision making, i.e., in entrepreneurship tasks (Hoogendoorn, Oosterbeek, & van Praag, 2013) and different aspects of performance, such as generosity (Dufwenberg & Muren, 2006). Furthermore, it has been experimentally investigated how gender diversity influences group cooperation using both - effort choices (Ortmann & Tichy, 1999) and real effort tasks (Ivanova-Stenzel & Kübler, 2011). Similar to these studies we focus on group cooperation. However, differently from previous research, we do not examine the impact of gender diversity on cooperation. Instead, we investigate how group cooperation is influenced by quota-based promotion procedures compared to performance-based procedures. Previous research on the effects of affirmative action has focused on individual task performance, job satisfaction, and task selection (for overviews, see Crosby et al., 2006, Heilman and Alcott, 2001), but did not investigate group performance, or cooperation within teams. More recent research has provided relevant insights into this problem (Balafoutas and Sutter, 2012, Mollerstrom, in preparation), but has left important questions unanswered, some of which are addressed in this project. Specifically, we address the following questions:

  • 1.

    Does group cooperation decrease when promotion is based on a quota rule as compared to performance?

  • 2.

    Does a quota-based promotion affect group cooperation differently when it is applied to gender than when it is applied to an artificial and randomly assigned category?

  • 3.

    Is a quota-based promotion into a high-status group3 perceived as less fair than a performance-based procedure?

  • 4.

    If so, is this effect of promotion rule mediated by differences in fairness perceptions?

Prior research has mainly focused on how different affirmative action policies in general, and quota rules in particular, are perceived and what impact they have on an individual’s behavior. A core finding in this literature is that affirmative action can undermine the self-esteem of its beneficiaries (women), as well as diminish their image in the eyes of non-beneficiaries (men). In particular, compared to women who were selected purely on the basis of performance, women selected as a result of affirmative action evaluated their own leadership abilities more poorly (Heilman, Lucas, & Kaplow, 1990), chose to perform less demanding tasks (Heilman, Rivero, & Brett, 1991), assumed that others would disregard their competence (Heilman & Alcott, 2001), and were indeed seen as less competent by others (Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992). It is important to note, however, that no such detrimental effects were shown when it was clear that performance is one of the criteria used in affirmative action decisions, suggesting that negative effects of affirmative action are heavily dependent on the assumption that merit plays no role in these decisions (Heilman et al., 1989, Unzueta et al., 2010). Furthermore, recent research revealed that affirmative action receives lower acceptance if one can directly identify individuals disadvantaged by the measure (Ritov & Zamir, 2014). Research carried out outside laboratory settings reports contradictory results. Specifically, while some studies do not reveal any detrimental consequences of affirmative action on interpersonal and self-perceptions (e.g., Plous, 1996, Taylor, 1994), it has also been found that female managers who believed they were selected because of their sex, reported lower job commitment and satisfaction (Chacko, 1982).

Findings concerning behavioral reactions are partially inconsistent as well. Nacoste, 1990, Nacoste, 1996; Nacoste & Hummels, 1994) proposed that policies that are implemented in ways considered to be unfair are likely to have negative effects on social interactions, such as the willingness of individuals to interact with other members of their group. Two recent studies provide relevant, but contradictory evidence for this proposition. Balafoutas and Sutter (2012) focused on how affirmative action affected coordination and productivity in groups of women who were promoted and men who became worse off as a result of the preferential treatment given to women. These authors found an increase in team productivity under a quota rule as compared to a treatment in which promotion was based on performance. However, the question remains as to how a quota rule affects the cooperation of the group that is newly created as a result of a quota-based promotion procedure.

Mollerstrom (in preparation) addressed this question by examining behavior in a high-status group composed of members who were selected according to their prior performance and members chosen on the basis of a quota rule. Contrary to the results of Balafoutas and Sutter (2010), cooperation in this newly formed group was lower if some of the members were selected on the basis of a quota rule, compared to a condition in which all members were selected according to their performance on a prior task. However, this study used artificially created categories based on a minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, 1970, Tajfel and Turner, 1979; see also Brewer, 1993) instead of a natural social category with a history of disadvantage, such as gender or race. Specifically, in Mollerstrom’s (in preparation) study, groups were randomly created and designated by color names, such as ‘orange’ and ‘purple’. Although these studies differ in other ways as well, it is possible that this difference—applying quotas to minimal groups or to groups with greater personal and historical significance—might explain the divergence in findings between Balafoutas and Sutter (2010), on the one hand, and Mollerstrom (in preparation), on the other. Indeed, it is possible that quotas are better received when the category based on which some individuals receive preferential treatment is historically disadvantaged in the context where quotas are applied, such as women in boardrooms. To examine this possibility directly, we compare responses to the implementation of gender quotas with responses to quotas implemented in minimal groups.

Objections to affirmative action can derive from both distributive and procedural fairness considerations4 (Nacoste, 1996). However, affirmative action policies have been found to be perceived mainly in relation to procedural fairness (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). According to Nacoste (1996) what drives people’s procedural fairness perception of affirmative action is the weight the procedure gives to the “contribution-related” (i.e. education) versus “noncontribution-related” features (i.e. gender). Consequently, procedural fairness considerations are also likely to drive responses to quota rules.

According to the group engagement model (Tyler and Blader, 2000, Tyler and Blader, 2003), group members pay close attention to procedural fairness within their group. Group members derive motivation to favor their group or not, depending on these procedural fairness judgments (Blader and Tyler, 2009, De Cremer et al., 2005). Since procedural fairness affects the group members’ willingness to cooperate with fellow group members, or work on behalf of the group, we expect that cooperation might be reduced after the implementation of a quota rule due to its negative effect on perceived procedural fairness.

Quota-based selection procedures that do not explicitly take into account individual performance are likely to be perceived as unfair due to widespread beliefs in meritocracy. Meritocracy beliefs constitute the conviction that unequal economic status is and should be earned by individual merit alone (e.g., Kluegel & Smith, 1986). These beliefs, even when erroneous, are dominant in Western societies, partly because they fulfil a fundamental need to believe that the world is a just and fair place (Lerner, 1980). Hence, they are the default for perceiving the world (e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2015). Therefore, although quota systems aim to correct for the absence of meritocratic treatment (just like other forms of affirmative action), given the default belief in meritocracy, they are likely to be regarded as unfair, particularly when they are applied explicitly, irrespective of individual performance. Furthermore, it has been found that individuals have the tendency to defend the current system (i.e. system justification, Jost & Banaji, 1994). This tendency might be manifested in meritocratic ideology (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003).

If beliefs in meritocracy constitute the main process governing perceptions of quota rules, then we should expect individuals to oppose quota systems, irrespective of whether these refer to gender or to any other group, such as a randomly created artificial group. Nevertheless, it is possible that additional processes play a role in responses to quota systems. Such processes may indeed lead to different reactions, depending on whether quotas are based on gender or on artificially created (or socially meaningless) categories. For example, research on categorization threat (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999) has shown that individuals resent imposed categorical treatment, even when it affords them with an advantage (Barreto, Ellemers, Scholten, & Smith, 2010). Indeed, categorical treatment that is seen as contextually inappropriate leads to lower identification and less cooperation with the group in which one is being externally categorized (Barreto & Ellemers, 2003). Although this can happen with any group membership, responses are likely to be stronger when the imposed categorical treatment refers to a social category that has meaning outside of the experimental context, especially when it tends to be more chronically disadvantaged. A similar argument is made in the literature on responses to discrimination. In this case, group-based treatment (discrimination) is found to have more negative effects when it pertains to social groups that are frequently discriminated against (e.g., women) than to social groups that are rarely discriminated against (e.g., men; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002).

In sum, the available evidence does not allow us to draw firm predictions regarding potential effects of categorization type (gender versus an artificially created category) on responses to quota systems. However, comparing responses to quota systems based on gender with responses to quota systems based on an artificially created category allows us to examine more closely whether reactions towards quota systems are driven merely by beliefs in the importance of merit, or also by the broader social significance of such preferential treatment and, if so, exactly how they shape behavior.

The present research focuses on the effects of quota systems on group cooperation, specifically on cooperation within the high-status group into which the quota or performance allows entry. As such, we restrict our hypotheses to the incumbent and new members of the high-status group.

H1

The members of the high-status group are expected to show reduced group cooperation after a promotion based purely on quota, as compared to a promotion based purely on performance.

H2a

Members of a high-status group are expected to perceive promotion based purely on quota as less fair than promotion based purely on previous performance.

H2b

The reduction of group cooperation is expected to be mediated by fairness perceptions.

We also examine whether the effects of quotas on fairness perceptions and group cooperation differ depending on whether quotas are based on gender or on experimentally created categories. In light of previous research, both outcomes are possible. We therefore decided to specify the null hypothesis for the interaction between categorization criterion (gender or experimentally created category) and promotion procedure (quota- or performance-based) and neutrally test whether it must be rejected or not.

H3

Quota rules are expected to lead to less cooperation and be perceived as less fair than performance-based promotion, irrespective of whether quotas are based on gender or on artificially created categories.

Section snippets

Experiment 1

With Experiment 1 we investigated the effects of two different promotion rules: Promotion based on categorization criterion (quota rule) or previous performance in a real-effort task (performance rule). We additionally manipulated the categorization criterion by introducing categorization based on gender or on experimentally created category (i.e. color assignment). We assessed group cooperation before and after the promotion rule was applied. Additionally, we examined fairness perception of

Experiment 2

With Experiment 2, we aimed to replicate the effect of promotion rule on group cooperation as found in Experiment 1. Experiment 2 was conducted to address the above-mentioned issues by ensuring equal gender composition in the gender and color conditions, increasing the sample size, and adding further questions to shed light on participants’ perceptions of the situation.

General discussion

The participation of men and women in the workforce is still unequal. One measure that is increasingly used to introduce a higher representation of women in high-status positions, such as company executives or board members, is a mandatory gender quota. Proposers of quotas argue that besides increasing the share of women, this legislative tool comes with an additional benefit: It improves team performance. With two experiments, we investigated the effects of gender quotas on a specific aspect

Limitations and future directions

Although we took great care when designing our experiment, it still contains some weaknesses that could be addressed by future research. First, although we find a marginally significant decline in cooperation behavior as a response to a quota compared to a performance-based promotion in Experiment 1, and replicate this effect in Experiment 2, at this point we are not able to pin down the precise mechanism that explains this effect. We did not find the hypothesized mediation through perceptions

References (65)

  • M.M. Unzueta et al.

    How believing in affirmative action quotas affects White women’s self-image

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2010)
  • I. Vlaev

    How different are real and hypothetical decisions? Overestimation, contrast and assimilation in social interaction

    Journal of Economic Psychology

    (2012)
  • K.R. Ahern et al.

    The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation

    The Quarterly Journal of Economics

    (2012)
  • R.D. Arvey et al.

    Fairness in the selection of employees

    Journal of Business Ethics

    (1992)
  • Balafoutas, L., & Sutter, M. (2010). Gender, competition and the efficiency of policy interventions. IZA Discussion...
  • L. Balafoutas et al.

    Affirmative action policies promote women and do not harm efficiency in the laboratory

    Science

    (2012)
  • R.M. Baron et al.

    The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • M. Barreto et al.

    The effects of being categorised: The interplay between internal and external social identities

    European Review of Social Psychology

    (2003)
  • M. Barreto et al.

    To be or not to be: The impact of implicit versus explicit inappropriate social categorizations on the self

    British Journal of Social Psychology

    (2010)
  • M. Barreto

    Experiencing and coping with social stigma

  • S.T. Bell et al.

    Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis

    Journal of Management

    (2011)
  • S.L. Blader et al.

    Testing & extending the Group Engagement Model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes and extra role behavior

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2009)
  • N.R. Branscombe et al.

    The context and content of social identity threat

  • M.B. Brewer

    Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity

    Social Cognition

    (1993)
  • Catalyst

    Increasing gender diversity on boards: Current index of formal approaches

    (2014)
  • T.I. Chacko

    Women and equal employment opportunity: Some unintended effects

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1982)
  • F.J. Crosby et al.

    Understanding affirmative action

    Annual Review of Psychology

    (2006)
  • European Commission

    International perspectives on positive action measures

    (2009)
  • European Commission

    Impact assessment on costs and benefits of improving the gender balance in the boards of companies listed on stock exchanges

    (2012)
  • F. Faul et al.

    Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses

    Behavior Research Methods

    (2009)
  • U. Fischbacher

    Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments

    Experimental economics

    (2007)
  • Gerhards, L. & Siemer, N. (2014). Private versus public feedback – The incentive effects of symbolic awards. Aarhus...
  • Cited by (6)

    1

    Angela R. Dorrough and Monika Leszczyńska share first authorship of this article.

    View full text