Sharique Hasan

Uttara Ananthakrishnan, Sharique Hasan, Anuj Kumar (2025), Gentrification and Racial Distrust in Communities: Evidence from 911 Calls”, Management Science, 71 (1), pp. 708-730.

Abstract: The prevalence of racial bias in policing has long concerned social scientists and policymakers. This article studies a predecessor mechanism that constitutes an important source of policing bias in American society: calls by individuals to the police to investigate “suspicious” behaviors, often involving neighbors. We construct a novel data set of more than 39 million 911 calls across 14 U.S. cities from 2011 to 2020. These data, obtained through the digitization initiatives of local governments, provide us with a unique opportunity to study neighborhood-level trust and social cohesion and demonstrate how changes to a neighborhood’s composition lead to systematic increases in the prevalence of “unfounded” suspicion calls to the police. Across a range of specifications, the proportion of unfounded suspicion calls increases as more non-Black residents move into neighborhoods with historically high levels of Black residents. This relationship is exacerbated in gentrifying neighborhoods and those with public spaces that enable more contact between community members. However, we also find some evidence that Black leadership and public support of Black citizens in communities mitigate the association between non-Black residents and the proportion of unfounded 911 calls. We discuss our results and implications for future research and policy.

Sharique Hasan and Anuj Kumar (2024), Who captures the value of organizational ratings?: Evidence from public schools, Strategy Science, 9 (3).

Abstract: Ratings of organizations and firms have become ubiquitous. These ratings, often produced by intermediaries (including private and public organizations), are designed to aid consumers and other stakeholders in their decision making while guiding rated organizations toward performance improvement or compliance. In doing so, these intermediaries introduce new information to markets. However, disparities may exist in the ability to strategically capture the value from such ratings, often due to differential access to complementary assets among stakeholders. Consequently, this differential ability can lead to outcomes contrary to the rating institutions’ intentions. Reflecting on this dynamic, we analyze how widespread access to a prevalent type of rating—school performance information, often produced to enhance transparency and equity in educational access—has affected existing economic and social disparities in America. We leverage the staged rollout of GreatSchools.org school ratings from 2006 to 2015 to answer this question. Across various outcomes and specifications, we find that the availability of school ratings has accelerated the divergence in housing values, income distributions, education levels, and racial and ethnic composition across communities. Affluent and more educated families were better positioned to strategically leverage this new information to capture educational opportunities in communities with top schools. The uneven benefits we observe highlight how ratings can unintentionally deepen existing inequalities, thereby complicating their intended impacts.

Ines Black, Sharique Hasan, Rembrand Koning (2023), Hunting for talent: Firm-driven labor market search in the United States, Strategic Management Journal.

Abstract: Research Summary We analyze firm-driven labor market search, where firms “hunt” for talent rather than rely on workers to apply for vacancies. We leverage three approaches. We develop a model of firm-driven search and derive equilibrium conditions under which firms use this channel. We test our model's predictions using two data sources. Data from a nationally representative survey of 10,000 workers shows that the percentage hired through recruiting has increased from 4.9% in 1991 to 14.3% in 2022. This share is larger for higher-skilled workers and those with online profiles on LinkedIn. We complement this analysis with data on the near universe of online job postings from 2010 through 2020. Consistent with our model and worker survey evidence, we find firms that demand higher-skilled workers or operate in labor markets with heavy LinkedIn use are more likely to “hunt for talent.” Managerial Summary We study the phenomenon of “hunting” for talent, where firms fill open positions by searching for workers and inviting them to a recruiting process, rather than relying on workers to apply directly. We find that the percentage of workers hired through hunting has increased from 4.9% in 1991 to 14.3% in 2022. We propose that firms that rely more on high-skilled workers and/or operate within industries with a higher share of available candidates with online profiles are more likely to hunt for their talent. We find support for this conjecture using two data sets, documenting the worker and firm side of the labor market. Data from a nationally representative survey of 10,000 workers shows they are more likely to have been “hunted” by their employer if they work in an occupation that requires more skills, or if their industry has more candidates with online profiles. Moreover, data on US-wide job postings over the past decade shows that firms in need of highly skilled workers are more likely to invest in outbound recruiting capabilities.

Sampsa Samila, Alexander Oettl, Sharique Hasan (2022), Helpful behavior and the durability of collaborative ties, Organization Science, 33 (5), pp. 1816-1836.

Abstract: Long-term collaborations are crucial in many creative domains. Although there is ample research on why people collaborate, our knowledge about what drives some collaborations to persist and others to decay is still emerging. In this paper, we extend theory on third-party effects and collaborative persistence to study this question. We specifically consider the role that a third party’s helpful behavior plays in shaping tie durability. We propose that when third parties facilitate helpfulness among their group, the collaboration is stronger, and it persists even in the third’s absence. In contrast, collaborations with third parties that are nonhelpful are unstable and dissolve in their absence. We use a unique data set comprising scientific collaborations among pairs of research immunologists who lost a third coauthor to unexpected death. Using this quasi-random loss as a source of exogenous variation, we separately identify the effect of third parties’ traditional role as an active agent of collaborative stability and the enduring effect of their helpful behavior—as measured by acknowledgments—on the persistence of the remaining authors’ collaboration. We find support for our hypotheses and find evidence that one mechanism driving our effect is that helpful thirds make their coauthors more helpful.

Rembrand Koning, Sharique Hasan, Aaron Chatterji (2022), Experimentation and startup performance: Evidence from A/B testing, Management Science, 68 (9), pp. 6434-6453.

Abstract: Recent scholarship argues that experimentation should be the organizing principle for entrepreneurial strategy. Experimentation leads to organizational learning, which drives improvements in firm performance. We investigate this proposition by exploiting the time-varying adoption of A/B testing technology, which has drastically reduced the cost of testing business ideas. Our results provide the first evidence on how digital experimentation affects a large sample of high-technology start-ups using data that tracks their growth, technology use, and products. We find that, although relatively few firms adopt A/B testing, among those that do, performance improves by 30%–100% after a year of use. We then argue that this substantial effect and relatively low adoption rate arises because start-ups do not only test one-off incremental changes, but also use A/B testing as part of a broader strategy of experimentation. Qualitative insights and additional quantitative analyses show that experimentation improves organizational learning, which helps start-ups develop more new products, identify and scale promising ideas, and fail faster when they receive negative signals. These findings inform the literatures on entrepreneurial strategy, organizational learning, and data-driven decision making.

Sharique Hasan and Rembrand Koning (2019), Conversations and idea generation: Evidence from a field experiment, Research Policy, 48 (9), p. 103811.

Abstract: When do conversations lead people to generate better ideas? We conducted a field experiment at a startup bootcamp to evaluate the impact of informal conversations on the quality of product ideas generated by participants. Specifically, we examine how the personality of an innovator (openness to experience, capturing creativity) and the personalities of her randomly assigned conversational peers (extroversion, measuring willingness to share information) affects the innovator's ideas. We find that open innovators who spoke with extroverted peers generated significantly better ideas than others at the bootcamp. However, closed individuals produced mediocre ideas regardless with who they spoke, suggesting limited benefits of conversations for these people. More surprisingly, open individuals, who are believed to be inherently creative, produced worse ideas after they spoke with introverted peers, suggesting individual creativity's dependence on external information. Our study demonstrates the importance of considering the traits of both innovators and their conversational peers in predicting when conversations will lead to better ideas.

Aaron Chatterji, Solene Delecourt, Sharique Hasan, Rembrand Koning (2019), When does advice impact startup performance?, Strategic Management Journal, 40 (3), pp. 331-356.

Abstract: Why do some entrepreneurs thrive while others fail? We explore whether the advice entrepreneurs receive about managing their employees influences their startup's performance. We conducted a randomized field experiment in India with 100 high-growth technology firms whose founders received in-person advice from other entrepreneurs who varied in their managerial style. We find that entrepreneurs who received advice from peers with a formal approach to managing people—instituting regular meetings, setting goals consistently, and providing frequent feedback to employees—grew 28% larger and were 10 percentage points less likely to fail than those who got advice from peers with an informal approach to managing people, 2 years after our intervention. Entrepreneurs with MBAs or accelerator experience did not respond to this intervention, suggesting that formal training can limit the spread of peer advice.

Sharique Hasan and Rembrand Koning (2019), Prior social ties and the limits of peer effects on startup team performance, Strategic Management Journal, 40 (9), pp. 1394-1416.

Abstract: Research Summary: We conduct a field experiment at an entrepreneurship bootcamp to investigate whether interaction with proximate peers shapes a nascent startup team's performance. We find that teams whose members lack prior ties to others at the bootcamp experience peer effects that influence the quality of their product prototypes. A 1-SD increase in the performance of proximate teams is related to a two-thirds SD improvement for a focal team. In contrast, we find that teams whose members have many prior ties interact less frequently with proximate peers, and thus their performance is unaffected by nearby teams. Our findings highlight how prior social connections, which are often a source of knowledge and influence, can limit new interactions and thus the ability of organizations to leverage peer effects to improve the performance of their members. Managerial Summary: Researchers and policymakers believe that accelerators, incubators, and bootcamps help entrepreneurial ecosystems spur innovation and drive startup growth. The effectiveness of these organizations, in large part, depends on the new social interactions fostered among colocated entrepreneurs. Yet, little evidence exists about the extent to which such interactions actually lead to spillovers. We ran a controlled experiment at a startup bootcamp to investigate when entrepreneurs were most affected by their colocated peers. Not everyone benefited. We found that entrepreneurs with many prior ties to others at the bootcamp made fewer new connections, especially to neighboring peers, and thus did not experience significant spillovers. In contrast, those without prior connections experienced the greatest spillovers because they interacted frequently with people on nearby colocated teams. Our findings highlight how organizations like incubators and bootcamps, designed to foster new connections, might sometimes just reinforce old networks.