Publications & Working Papers

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Explicitly signaling one’s identity with a historically disadvantaged group has become increasingly common practice by leaders who champion diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Yet little is known about whether or how identity signaling shapes leadership selection decisions. Across a pilot study and six experiments, we examine how identity signaling in racialized and gendered contexts affects aspiring leaders’ chances of success. We find that candidates who explicitly signal an otherwise visible identity are less likely to be selected for leadership positions than demographically similar candidates who do not signal their identity. This effect emerges across leadership selection settings and operationalizations of identity signaling, while remaining robust across evaluators with differing political ideologies. Revealing the mechanism at play, we show that this penalty arises because identity signaling alters expectations about how candidates are likely to perform in leadership roles. Specifically, candidates who signal their identity are expected to be less fair and impartial in how they would exercise discretion and enact procedural justice.