Diversity targets increase application rates from women and racial minorities, but managers resist using them

Many organizations struggle to attract a demographically diverse workforce. Can adding a concrete goal to a public diversity commitment—e.g., “We care about diversity” vs. “We care about diversity and plan to hire at least one woman or racial minority for every White man we hire”—help organizations attract applications from historically marginalized groups? On one hand, concrete diversity goals may raise belongingness concerns among marginalized group members who are uncomfortable with being recruited and hired based on their demographics. On the other, concrete goals might also increase organizational attraction by signaling that historically marginalized group members are more likely to be hired. In a preregistered field experiment (n=5,557), we investigate this tension. We find that including concrete diversity goals in job ads increases application rates among marginalized group members—women and racial minorities—by a regression-estimated 6.5%, without sacrifices to candidate quality. These effects appeared more strongly for women (of any race), who were a regression-estimated 8.0% more likely to apply after seeing a concrete diversity goal, while racial minorities (of any gender) were 3.0% more likely to apply. Follow-up data (n=495, preregistered) suggest that concrete diversity goals increase perceived hiring likelihood and may increase organizational attraction among women specifically as a result. Hiring managers (n=298, preregistered) correctly predict that concrete goals attract a more diverse applicant pool, but nevertheless hesitate to use them out of moral discomfort. We discuss implications for goal-setting theory and consider how moral discomfort may impede the success of diversity initiatives.