Publication
[1] Singh, Jasjit, Teng, Nina and Netessine, Serguei. (2019). Philanthropic Campaigns and Customer Behavior: Field Experiments on an Online Taxi Booking Platform. Management Science, 65(2): 913–932. (Link)
Nominated for Best Paper Award, Strategic Management Society 2016 Annual Meeting
Nominated for Carolyn Dexter Award, Academy of Management 2016 Annual Meeting
Firms commonly undertake philanthropic campaigns as a means of attracting and retaining customers. Such campaigns often take the form of charity-linked promotions, whereby a firm donates a specific amount to a charitable cause when a customer takes up the promotion through a related purchase. We carried out three field experiments to study such promotions in the context of an online taxi-booking platform. Customers were randomly assigned to different treatment groups, which received either a charity-linked or a discount-based promotion from a range of monetary amounts. Take-up rates for charity-linked promotions were not only much smaller than for discount-based promotions but also less sensitive to the exact amount involved, consistent with a view that the decision to take up a charity-linked promotion was driven in part by a “warm glow” from mere association with giving. We also find a selection effect in promotion take-up: charity-linked promotions were disproportionately taken up by people who had already been more active customers. Although a promotion take-up does seem to represent new demand rather than mere substitution of a booking that would have occurred anyway, longitudinal data analysis reveals little evidence of a lasting treatment effect on long-term demand beyond the promotion period for either kind of promotion. Given the high cost relative to benefit for the promotional bookings themselves, this finding raises concerns regarding the prevalent practice of firms devoting significant funds for short-term promotions without rigorously examining their exact impact.
Dissertation: Essays on Symbolic Framing in Labor Markets Under Uncertainty
[2] Teng, Nina, Nataliya Langburd Wright, and Aleksandra (Olenka) Kacperczyk. (2025). Do Disruptive Startups Attract Better Talent? Evidence from a Hiring Field Experiment in India (Link); Revise & Resubmit (R&R) at Management Science
We examine how a startup's strategic positioning—specifically, whether it communicates a disruptive or collaborative stance toward incumbents—affects its ability to attract talent. Although prior research has examined how this positioning influences investors, its impact on potential employees remains less clear. We conduct a field experiment with an early-stage climate technology startup in India, randomly assigning job seekers to a disruptive or collaborative positioning condition. By examining job applications and salary expectations from software engineers, we assess the direct effects of strategic positioning and the underlying mechanisms driving candidates' behaviors. Our results show that disruptive positioning reduces application rates by 6 percentage points. Applicants who do apply demand 5% higher cash compensation. This compensation premium occurs largely because applicants who are fully employed explore fewer job opportunities and are likely to seek compensation for having to leave their stable, full-time employment. These findings contribute to the emerging literature on startup talent acquisition by demonstrating how strategic communication choices significantly influence human capital attraction, a critical yet understudied dimension of new venture success.
Job Market Paper
[3] Teng, Nina. (2025). Symbolic Sorting in Hiring: A Field Experiment on Framing Equity Compensation
Early-stage organizations rely heavily on equity compensation to attract talent, even though its financial value is fragile, uncertain, and often unrealized. Why, then, does its framing matter? Classic incentive theory predicts that symbolic language should not alter how candidates value identical offers. I test this claim in a two-stage, randomized field experiment embedded in the live hiring of a climate-tech startup in India. A total of 1,628 applicants were randomly assigned to identical equity compensation offers described as “ownership,” “investment,” or in neutral terms. On average, framings had little effect on compensation demands, consistent with incentive theory. Yet beneath this aggregate null, responses diverged sharply. Applicants across all conditions already endorsed ownership- and investment-related meanings of equity, but subtle wording amplified these interpretations in opposite directions. Experienced, higher-salaried, and startup-exposed applicants lowered their cash demands under investment framing, while early-career and lower-salaried applicants raised theirs under ownership framing. I conceptualize this divergence as symbolic sorting: identical offers, when framed differently, channel candidates into distinct responses by reinforcing orientations they already held. The findings show that equity framings operate as sorting mechanisms in labor markets, casting candidates as interpretive agents and linking symbolic cues to inequality in early team composition and scaling trajectories.
[4] Teng, Nina and Binglu Wang. Turning Rejections into Gold: A Field Experiment on the Symbolic Framing of Near versus Far Misses in Labor Market Persistence
How investors frame rejection may shape whether early-stage ventures persist in seeking funding or disengage from capital markets. We examine this question in a large-scale field experiment with startups applying to an investment platform, testing whether rejections framed as “near misses” versus “far misses” influence subsequent fundraising persistence. Drawing on research on symbolic framing and motivation, we argue that near-miss messages (e.g., “you came close”) highlight potential investability and encourage continued applications, while far-miss messages emphasize distance from investor interest and dampen re-engagement. Ventures were randomly assigned to receive near- or far-miss rejection messages, and their subsequent funding applications were tracked over time. This study aims to demonstrate how symbolic rejection framing structures persistence in entrepreneurial finance and contribute to broader debates on motivation, organizational resilience, and inequality in access to capital resources.
Additional Working Papers
[5] Brahm, Franciso, Xia Li, Claudio Rizzi, and Nina Teng. (2025). Symbolic Signals of Impact: A Field Experiment on Emissions Reduction Potential in Climate-Tech Investing
This paper examines how symbolic signals of environmental impact influence investment decisions in climate-tech. We study emission reduction potential (ERP)—a forecasted and inherently uncertain measure of a startup’s imagined future impact. Using novel data on climate-tech startups in North America and Europe, we show that ventures with higher unit ERPs attract larger historical investments. To establish causality, we partnered with the UN Women Climate Tech Accelerator, angel networks, and venture capital firms to conduct a field experiment that randomly varied ERP signals in investor evaluations. Investors consistently expressed stronger intent to fund ventures with higher ERP signals, indicating that symbolic impact projections play a causal role in resource allocation to early-stage climate-tech firms. Analysis of mechanisms suggests that this effect reflects not only financial expectations but also non-pecuniary considerations of legitimacy and impact, highlighting how symbolic signals shape entrepreneurial finance under uncertainty.
[6] Teng, Nina and Michael G. Jacobides. (2025). Legitimacy Without Incumbents: How Venture Capital Narratives and Symbolic Framing Shaped Grab
Finalist, Best PhD Paper Prize, SMS 2022 Annual Meeting
Designated as Best Paper for TIM, AOM 2022 Annual Meeting
Startups are often thought to gain legitimacy by allying with incumbents, yet some entrants rise by mobilizing capital markets instead. This paper traces the evolution of Grab, Southeast Asia’s leading ride-hailing platform, to examine how venture capital narratives and symbolic framing substituted for incumbent endorsement in the firm’s early growth. Drawing on interviews with investors and Grab’s fundraising executives, as well as archival pitch materials from 2012–2024, we show how successive fundraising narratives—recasting Grab from taxi app to payments platform to regional super-app—secured resources while simultaneously reshaping the firm’s strategic trajectory and market boundaries. The study demonstrates how legitimacy under uncertainty is not only conferred by incumbents but also co-constructed through symbolic narratives between startups and capital providers, extending theories of symbolic management, legitimacy, and entrepreneurial strategy.