Research

Publications

Through the Front Door: Why Do Organizations (Still) Prefer Legacy Applicants?

with Emilio Castilla

Abstract:

When screening candidates, organizations often give preference to certain applicants on the basis of their familial ties. This “legacy preference,” particularly widespread in college admissions, has been criticized for contributing to inequality and class reproduction. Despite this, studies continue to report that legacies are persistently admitted at higher rates than non-legacies. In this article, we develop a theoretical framework of three distinct sense-making strategies at play when decision-makers screen applicants into their organizations—the material, meritocratic, and diversity logics. We then apply this framework to investigate how legacy preferences either support or undermine each organizational logic using comprehensive data on the population of applicants seeking admission into one elite U.S. college. We find strong support for the material logic at the cost of the other two organizational logics: legacies make better alumni after graduation and have wealthier parents who are materially-positioned to be more generous donors than non-legacy parents. Contrary to the meritocratic logic, we find that legacies are neither more qualified applicants nor better students academically. From a diversity standpoint, legacies are less racially diverse than non-legacies. We conclude with a discussion of our study’s implications for understanding the role of family relationships and nepotism in today’s organizational selection processes.

American Sociological Review, Forthcoming

Working Papers

Preference of Persistence? The Origins and Implications of Homophily in Entrepreneurial Networks

with Fiona Murray

Abstract:

Homophilous social networks are one of the most prevalent findings in the social sciences, and the context of entrepreneurship is no exception. Entrepreneurs are more likely to form teams, social relationships and investor relationships with similar others. But why do entrepreneurs so commonly form homophilous networks? This paper theoretically distinguishes between two processes that could lead to homophily in entrepreneurs’ social networks and tests them using data from an entrepreneurial mentoring program. In one possible model, entrepreneurs directly prefer relationships with similar others. Alternatively, homophilous relationships could provide more value to entrepreneurs and persist longer. Entrepreneurs in this program were not more likely to request to work with mentors of the same gender, indicating that entrepreneurs did not directly prefer homophilous relationships. However, relationships between entrepreneurs and mentors of the same gender were more likely to become persistent working relationships and lead to more referrals on the entrepreneurs’ behalf, indicating that homophilous relationships were more valuable. Men mentors disproportionately made fewer referrals on behalf of female entrepreneurs. These results indicate that homophilous networks could emerge endogenously as entrepreneurs seek relationships that can offer valuable resources. Entrepreneurs from groups that are underrepresented in entrepreneurship communities could face difficulty finding similar others and garnering the benefit of homophilous relationships, leading to a disadvantage when mobilizing resources from social networks.

Striking Out Swinging: Specialist Success Following Forced Task Inferiority

with Brittany Bond

Abstract:

Organizing work around specialized professionals leverages their deep expertise and mastery of particular skills. However, as work becomes more flexible, organizations often require specialists to perform some work outside their specialization. These tasks, which distance specialists from the area of their greatest contribution, could diminish their performance by being distracting, tiring or creating negative comparisons with others who are more proficient in that work. Contrary to these perspectives, we find robust evidence that specialists’ performance can be enhanced, rather than diminished, after work outside their specialization. Using archival data from 22 years of Major League Baseball (MLB) games and interviews with former MLB players and coaches, we find that specialized players perform better in their specialty after tasks outside of their specialization. We argue that this occurs through a process we call forced task inferiority, in which underperformance in tasks outside their specialty frustrates specialists, generating heightened arousal and drive that specialists can channel into better performance in their specialty work. This research advances knowledge about managing specialists and flexible work arrangements by showing that when tasks are particularly sequenced, specialists’ performance can be enhanced, rather than diminished, by doing work outside their specialty.

The Career Consequences of Employee Activism: Evidence from the NFL "Take a Knee" Protest Movement

with Alexandra Rheinhardt and Forrest Briscoe

Abstract:

Despite recognizing potential ramifications for employees who protest in the workplace, researchers have rarely explored the career consequences that stem from such instances of employee activism. We integrate research on employee activism, worker norms and norm violations, and careers to theorize that workplace protest represents a perceived deviation from workplace norms that can influence an individual’s organizational and labor market outcomes. We investigate this premise with the 2016 National Football League (NFL) “Take a Knee” protests as a strategic research setting. The results indicate that protesting is associated with increases in organizational exit and mobility, particularly to organizations that are more sensitive to the underlying social movement. We additionally find a contingent effect of protesting on labor market exit, such that protesters are less likely to exit when they are from organizations with more movement-sensitive: a) managers; b) organizational practices, and; c) stakeholders. Overall, our findings offer contributions for research on employee activism, careers, and deviation from workplace norms.

Learner Before Teacher: Matching Advisees to Advisors in a Network Intervention

Abstract:

An entrepreneur’s social network affects their performance. Accordingly, many initiatives to support entrepreneurship do so by supplementing entrepreneurs’ social networks with connections to advisors. These interventions resemble other organizational initiatives that connect advisees to advisors to stimulate innovation. This paper uses a field experiment in a US accelerator to test whether the process through which advisor-advisee relationships are selected affects the value of the relationships that are formed. In the experiment, entrepreneurs requested mentors to work with and mentors requested entrepreneurs to work with. Entrepreneurs were then randomly assigned to be sorted into relationships that were selected by the entrepreneur or selected by the mentor. Entrepreneurs selected relationships that were 25.7 percentage points more likely to continue meeting across the program and lead to better performance in a pitch competition. The selection process also affected the resources entrepreneurs obtained. Entrepreneurs-selected relationships to lead to more advice, while advisor-selected relationships produced more referrals. The findings indicate that match between an entrepreneur and advisor is important, and that entrepreneurs benefit from specialized, idiosyncratic resources from their network that are local to their particular needs. The results also provide evidence that entrepreneurs are able to identify advisors who can offer help that fits their needs.