We explore whether the developmental practice of collecting and aggregating multi-source feedback generates more conflicting information for underrepresented minorities (URMs) than their White counterparts. Using an abductive approach, we examine qualitative feedback given to 242 medical school students during their clinical rotations and find that Black and Latino students are more likely than White students to receive conflicting performance feedback. Further, an examination of quantitative feedback given to 2,288 Master in Business Administration (MBA) students by their peers during their first semester reveal a similar pattern with Black students receiving more conflicting feedback relative to White students. Moreover, we find that the more conflicting the feedback, the lower the propensity for Black students to seek guidance in the form of executive coaching to debrief the feedback. Taken together, these findings have implications for theory and practice related to the development of URMS in organizations by showing that traditional processes designed to benefit all individuals, regardless of their race, may ultimately fall short of their intended purpose.
