In Meetings
(Co-)Working in Close Proximity: Knowledge Spillovers and Social Interactions
Maria Roche, Alexander Oettl & Christian Catalini
NBER Working Paper, June 2022
Abstract:
We examine the influence of physical proximity on between-startup knowledge spillovers at one of the largest technology co-working hubs in the United States. Relying on the random assignment of office space to the hub's 251 startups, we find that proximity positively influences knowledge spillovers as proxied by the likelihood of adopting an upstream web technology already used by a peer startup. This effect is largest for startups within close proximity of each other and quickly decays: startups more than 20 meters apart on the same floor are indistinguishable from startups on different floors. The main driver of the effect appears to be social interactions. While startups in close proximity are most likely to participate in social co-working space events together, knowledge spillovers are greatest between startups that socialize but are dissimilar. Ultimately, startups that are embedded in environments that have neither too much nor too little diversity perform better, but only if they socialize.
The Passionate Pygmalion Effect: Passionate employees attain better outcomes in part because of more preferential treatment by others
Ke Wang, Erica Bailey & Jon Jachimowicz
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Employees are increasingly exhorted to “pursue their passion” at work. Inherent in this call is the belief that passion will produce higher performance because it promotes intrapersonal processes that propel employees forward. Here, we suggest that the pervasiveness of this “passion narrative,” coupled with the relative observability of passion, may lead others to treat passionate employees in more favorable ways that subsequently produce better workplace outcomes, a self-fulfilling prophecy we term the Passionate Pygmalion Effect. We find evidence for this effect across two experiments (Study 1 and pre-registered Study 3) and one field survey with pairs of subordinates and supervisors from a diverse set of organizations (Study 2). In line with the Passionate Pygmalion Effect, our studies show that more passionate employees (1) received more positive feedback for their success, (2) were offered more training and promotion opportunities, (3) elicited more favorable emotional reactions, and (4) prompted more favorable attributions for varied performance outcomes. Such favorable treatment persisted despite describing passionate employees' job performance identically or controlling for job performance statistically. Notably, more passionate employees even elicited more favorable emotional reactions and attributions when their job performance decreased. We subsequently discuss how our interpersonal perspective on the passion narrative implicates challenges for the advancement of employees with fewer opportunities to pursue their passion (e.g., given socioeconomic constraints or exploitative work demands), or who are less likely to be perceived as passionate by others (e.g., given cross-cultural differences).
The Evaluation of Founder Failure and Success by Hiring Firms: A Field Experiment
Tristan Botelho & Melody Chang
Organization Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Organizations tout the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship. Yet, when hiring it remains unclear how they evaluate entrepreneurial human capital — namely, job candidates with founder experience. How hiring firms evaluate this experience — and especially how this evaluation varies by entrepreneurial success and failure — reveals insights into the structures and processes within organizations. Organizations research points to two perspectives related to the evaluation of founder experience: Former founders may be advantaged, due to founder experience signaling high-quality capabilities and human capital, or disadvantaged, due to concerns related to fit and commitment. To identify the dominant class of mechanisms driving the evaluation of founder experience, it is important to consider how these evaluations differ, depending on whether the founder’s venture failed or succeeded. To isolate demand-side mechanisms and hold supply-side factors constant, we conducted a field experiment. We sent applications varying the candidate’s founder experience to 2,400 software engineering positions in the United States at random. We find that former founders received 43% fewer callbacks than nonfounders and that this difference is driven by older hiring firms. Further, this founder penalty is greatest for former successful founders, who received 33% fewer callbacks than former failed founders. Our results highlight that mechanisms related to concerns about fit and commitment, rather than information asymmetry about quality, are most influential when hiring firms evaluate former founders in our context.
Are Experts Blinded by Feasibility? Experimental Evidence from a NASA Robotics Challenge
Jacqueline Lane et al.
Harvard Working Paper, May 2022
Abstract:
Resource allocation decisions play a dominant role in shaping a firm’s technological trajectory and competitive advantage. Recent work indicates that innovative firms and scientific institutions tend to exhibit an anti-novelty bias when evaluating new projects and ideas. In this paper, we focus on shedding light into this observed pattern by examining how evaluator expertise in the problem’s focal domain shapes the relationship between novelty and feasibility in evaluations of quality for technical solutions. To estimate relationships, we partnered with NASA and Freelancer.com, an online labor marketplace, to design an evaluation challenge, where we recruited 374 evaluators from inside and outside the technical domain to rate 101 solutions drawn from nine robotics challenges. This resulted in 3,869 evaluator-solution pairs, in which evaluators were randomly assigned to solutions to facilitate experimental comparisons. Our experimental findings, complemented with text analysis of the evaluators’ comments, indicate that domain experts exhibit a feasibility preference, focusing first on the feasibility of a solution as the primary indicator of its quality, while discounting riskier but more novel solutions. This results in a tradeoff in which highly feasible but less novel solutions are judged as being higher in quality, shedding light into why experts prefer more incremental ideas over more radical but untested ideas.
The Returns to Face-to-Face Interactions: Knowledge Spillovers in Silicon Valley
David Atkin, Keith Chen & Anton Popov
NBER Working Paper, June 2022
Abstract:
The returns to face-to-face interactions are of central importance to understanding the determinants of agglomeration. However, the existing literature studying patterns of geographic proximity in patent citations or industrial co-location has struggled to disentangle the benefits of face-to-face interactions from other spatial spillovers. In this paper, we use highly granular smartphone geolocation data to measure face-to-face interactions (or meetings) between workers at different establishments in Silicon Valley. To study the degree to which knowledge flows result from such interactions, we explore the relationship between these meetings and the citations among the firms these workers belong to. As firms may organize meetings with those they wish to learn from, we isolate causal impacts of face-to-face meetings by instrumenting with the meetings between workers in adjacent firms that belong to unconnected industries. Our IV approach estimates substantial returns to face-to-face meetings with overidentification tests suggesting we are capturing the returns to serendipity that play a central role in the urban theories of Jane Jacobs.
Getting unstuck: The effects of growth mindsets about the self and job on happiness at work
Justin Berg et al.
Journal of Applied Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Past research on growth mindsets has focused on the benefits of viewing the self as flexible rather than fixed. We propose that employees can make more substantial agentic changes to their work experiences if they also hold growth mindsets about their job designs. We introduce the concept of dual-growth mindset — viewing both the self and job as malleable — and examine its impact on employee happiness over time. We hypothesize that fostering a dual-growth mindset yields relatively durable gains in happiness, while fostering a growth mindset about either the self or job is insufficient for sustainable increases in happiness. We tested these predictions using two experimental studies: a field quasi-experiment in a Fortune 500 technology company and a controlled experiment with employees in a variety of organizations and occupations. Across the two experiments, fostering dual-growth mindset yielded gains in self-reported and observer-rated happiness that lasted at least 6 months. Fostering growth mindsets about either the self or job alone did not generate lasting increases in happiness. Supplementary mediation analyses suggest dual-growth mindsets boosted happiness by enabling employees to plan more substantial job crafting. Our research suggests that durable gains in happiness at work depend on holding flexible mindsets about the job, not only the self.
Sorting Expertise
Ayça Kaya & Galina Vereshchagina
Journal of Economic Theory, forthcoming
Abstract:
We analyze the optimal sorting of experts who differ in their ability to acquire information, into production teams. Once a team is formed, experts individually acquire information about the joint project, communicate the information they acquired, and then engage in team production. Misalignment of preferences at the production stage creates incentives for belief manipulation at the communication stage. We show that the cost associated with misaligned incentives is minimized if experts of similar abilities are placed in the same team. Consequently, surplus maximization may lead to non-diversified teams, even if in the absence of misaligned incentives optimal sorting is negative assortative. Thus, our analysis provides a novel rationale for creation of non-diversified teams of experts.
When the boss steps up: Workplace power, task responsibility, and engagement with unpleasant tasks
Melissa Williams, Gabrielle Lopiano & Daniel Heller
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, May 2022
Abstract:
All jobs, managerial or entry-level, inevitably require unpleasant tasks. Traditional research on power’s corrupting tendencies might suggest that powerholders, given their reduced constraints and greater self-focus, would put minimal effort into undesirable work. Yet drawing on theorizing and evidence regarding power as wielded in organizations, we posit that structural power will instead yield feelings of task responsibility, fostering increased engagement with unpleasant tasks. In two correlational field studies, employees’ structural power predicted responsibility for and, in turn, engagement with, a real-life work task. This indirect effect was stronger for unpleasant than pleasant tasks. In two experiments using a vivid virtual team context, a team-leader role increased participants’ felt responsibility for and, in turn, their engagement with, an unpleasant task. These findings illuminate the tendency of workplace power to promote the pursuit of shared goals and therefore engagement in tasks that are important for organizations, yet undesirable to complete.
A Pay Change and Its Long-Term Consequences
Miriam Krueger & Guido Friebel
Journal of Labor Economics, July 2022, Pages 543–572
Abstract:
In a professional services firm, top management unexpectedly adjusted the pay of consultants in some divisions to the pay in other divisions. In this quasi experiment, fixed wages increased and bonuses decreased, reducing pay for the high performers and increasing it for the low performers. Individual outputs and efforts decreased by 30%, and attrition and absenteeism increased. The effects were driven by those who were rationally expecting to lose from the pay change. Observing a period of more than 3 years, we show long-term negative reciprocity of those affected but no negative selection effects of new hires.
Social Jobs and the Returns to Drinking
Scott Adams et al.
Economics & Human Biology, forthcoming
Abstract:
We uniquely show that the returns to drinking in social jobs exceed those in non-social jobs. The higher returns remain when controlling for worker personality, when including individual fixed effects and in a series of robustness exercises. This showing fits the hypothesis that drinking assists the formation of social capital, capital that has greater value in social jobs. We are also the first to show that drinking may proxy both general and specific social capital formation. Drinking during a previous employer and during a current employer have returns and each have higher returns in a current social job.
Working during non-standard work time undermines intrinsic motivation
Laura Giurge & Kaitlin Woolley
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, May 2022
Abstract:
How do people’s perceptions about when they work affect their intrinsic motivation? We find that working during non-standard work time (weekends/holidays) versus standard work time (Monday-Friday, 9-to-5) undermines people’s intrinsic motivation for their professional and academic pursuits. Working during non-standard work time decreases intrinsic motivation by causing people to consider better uses of their time. That is, people generate more upward counterfactual thoughts, which mediates the effect of work time on reduced intrinsic motivation. As a causal test of this process, increasing consideration of upward counterfactuals during standard work time reduces intrinsic motivation, whereas decreasing consideration of upward counterfactuals during non-standard work time helps employees and students maintain intrinsic motivation for their professional and academic pursuits. Overall, we identify a novel determinant of intrinsic motivation and address a real challenge many people face: How changing work schedules affect interest and enjoyment of work, with important consequences for work outcomes.