When conscientiousness differentially pays off: The role of incongruence between conscientiousness and black stereotypes in pay inequality

Abstract

In this research, we argue that conscientiousness can be a key factor in accounting for the racial pay gap among Black and White workers. Drawing from shifting standard and status characteristics theories and the literature on occupations, we propose that conscientiousness yields differential rewards for Blacks and Whites because of the incongruence between stereotypes about Black workers and conscientiousness. We further suggest the occupational value of status as an occupational‐level boundary condition that affects the relationships between conscientiousness, race, and pay. We first tested our model with a large national panel dataset, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 97 (NLSY97), and occupational characteristics scores in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET), finding that the positive effects of conscientiousness on pay were greater for Whites compared to Blacks and that such pay inequality is more pronounced in occupations with high‐status values than in those with low‐status values. A follow‐up experimental study that recruited 202 managers working in the U.S. produced similar results, suggesting that our findings were not attributable to the levels of job performance. Thus, our research demonstrates the role of conscientiousness in generating pay differentials based on race and sheds light on the importance of considering a discrete occupational context that contributes to organizational inequality.

Delayed pay and employee turnover: The buffering role of pay‐for‐performance

“…In Study 2, we employed the experimental vignette methodology following Aguinis and Bradley's (2014) best practice recommendations to not only measure employees' psychological experiences (i.e., perceived negative instrumentality of stay and turnover intention) but also manipulate delayed pay and PFP to establish causality. Using experimental vignette methodology has been widely adopted in research on pay and compensation (e.g., Park et al, 2023;Speach et al, 2023), as well as in other organizational behavior studies (e.g., Bolino et al, 2023;Nielsen & Colbert, 2022; and it is appropriate when it is used to assess explicit processes and outcomes (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). We ).…”