Saerom Lee

Research Summary Scaling at the right time is a crucial challenge for startups. Conceptualizing “scaling” as the entrepreneurial process of acquiring and committing resources to implement the core business idea and expand the customer base, this study examines how scaling early may decrease imitation risk at the expense of increasing commitment risk. As startups typically hire managers and sales personnel when they begin to scale, we propose that this timing can be empirically measured by when startups first post these jobs. Leveraging a dataset of job postings, we find that early scalers are more likely to fail, but no evidence of a countervailing benefit in terms of successful exit. Additional analyses suggest that the commitment risk in scaling early outweighs the benefit of reducing imitation risk. Managerial Summary In recent years, a few high‐growth startups (e.g., Facebook and Uber) that made their fortune by scaling early—an approach often referred to as “blitzscaling”—have received much interest among academics and practitioners. However, this study presents large‐sample evidence that scaling early is positively associated with a higher rate of firm failure, especially for platform companies. These findings imply that, despite its potential benefits of preventing imitation by competitors, scaling early can suppress startup performance by prematurely curtailing learning through experimentation and committing to a business idea that lacks product‐market fit. In sum, our work cautions startups against prioritizing scaling early before finding product‐market fit, and instead highlights the importance of spending sufficient time on experimentation before scaling.

Research Summary This article investigates how job seekers' perceptions of an employer's formal hierarchy affect the size and gender composition of its applicant pool. Building on the literature on gendered organizations and organizational design, we develop opposing perspectives on these relationships. To arbitrate between these perspectives, we first conduct a field experiment in partnership with a hiring firm. We find that featuring a flatter hierarchy in recruiting materials does not significantly affect the size of the applicant pool, but significantly decreases women's representation within it. Our follow‐up survey experiment identifies several potential mechanisms (e.g., perceptions of career progression, informality, workload, and fit). Our findings imply that firms' growing tendency to adopt flatter hierarchies could inadvertently undermine efforts to attract a greater proportion of women applicants. Managerial Summary Using a pair of labor market experiments, this study finds that characterizing a hiring firm's hierarchy as “flatter” with fewer management levels reduces women's representation in the applicant pool. We show that this decrease in the share of women applicants is likely driven by the fact that women, compared to men, perceive flatter hierarchies as more likely to present difficulties in fitting in, burden them with more work, and provide fewer opportunities for career progression. These findings suggest that, to mitigate workplace gender segregation, organizations with flatter structures may benefit from de‐emphasizing their organizational hierarchies in recruitment efforts. Moreover, companies should consider how their organizational attributes contribute to fostering a more inclusive work environment.