Many industries, including the NFL with the Rooney Rule and law firms with the Mansfield Rule, have adopted interview-stage diversity interventions requiring a minimum representation of disadvantaged groups in the interview set. However, the effectiveness of such policies remains inconclusive. In light of this, we develop a framework of a two-stage hiring process, where rational firms, with limited interview and hiring capacities, aim to maximize the match value of their hires. The labor market consists of two equally sized social groups, m and w, with identical ex-post match value distributions. Match values are revealed only post-interview, while interview decisions rely on partially informative pre-interview scores. Pre-interview scores are more informative for group m, while interviews reveal more for group w; as a result, if firms could interview all candidates, both groups would be equally hired. However, due to limited interview capacity and information asymmetry, we show that requiring equal representation in the interview stage does not translate into equal representation in the hiring outcome, even though interviews are more informative for group w. In certain regimes, with or without intervention, a firm may interview more group w candidates but still hire fewer. At an individual level, we show that strong candidates from both groups benefit from the intervention as the candidate-level competition weakens. For borderline candidates, only group w candidates gain at the expense of group w. To understand the impact of non-universal interview-stage interventions on the market, we study a model with two vertically differentiated firms, where only the top firm adopts the intervention. We characterize the unique equilibrium and demonstrate potentially negative effects: we show that in certain regimes the lower firm hires fewer group w candidates due to increased firm-level competition for them, and further find examples where overall fewer group w candidates are hired across the market. At an individual level, while superstar candidates in both groups benefit, surprisingly the impact on borderline candidates may reverse: the lower firm may replace borderline group w candidates with borderline group m candidates in its interview set, effectively reducing the chance of those borderline group w candidates being hired. Overall, our findings highlight challenges in diversifying the labor market at early hiring stages due to information asymmetry, filtering, and competition. Beyond our context, our natural framework of a market with two-stage hiring may be of independent interest.

In the optimal cohort partition problem, a planner seeks to distribute a heterogeneous population of individuals into a fixed number of distinct groups to optimize their objective. This problem is prevalent across a wide range of applications, including assigning students to classes, forming teams of experts in organizations, maximizing biodiversity, and designing contests among teams.

In the wake of increasing political extremism, online platforms have been criticized for contributing to polarization. One line of criticism has focused on echo chambers and the recommended content served to users by these platforms. In this work, we introduce the fair exposure problem: given limited intervention power of the platform, the goal is to enforce balance in the spread of content (e.g., news articles) among two groups of users through constraints similar to those imposed by the Fairness Doctrine in the United States in the past. Groups are characterized by different affiliations (e.g., political views) and have different preferences for content. We develop a stylized framework that models intra- and inter-group content propagation under homophily, and we formulate the platform's decision as an optimization problem that aims at maximizing user engagement, potentially under fairness constraints. Our main notion of fairness requires that each group see a mixture of their preferred and non-preferred content, encouraging information diversity. Promoting such information diversity is often viewed as desirable and a potential means for breaking out of harmful echo chambers. We study the solutions to both the fairness-agnostic and fairness-aware problems. We prove that a fairness-agnostic approach inevitably leads to group-homogeneous targeting by the platform. This is only partially mitigated by imposing fairness constraints: we show that there exist optimal fairness-aware solutions which target one group with different types of content and the other group with only one type that is not necessarily the group's most preferred. Finally, using simulations with real-world data, we study the system dynamics and quantify the price of fairness.

Motivated by the high discard rate of donated organs in the United States, we study an allocation problem in the presence of learning and strategic incentives. We consider a setting where a benevolent social planner decides whether and how to allocate a single indivisible object to a queue of strategic agents. The object has a common true quality, good or bad, which is ex-ante unknown to everyone. Each agent holds an informative, yet noisy, private signal about the quality. To make a correct allocation decision the planner attempts to learn the object quality by truthfully eliciting agents' signals. Under the commonly applied sequential offering mechanism, we show that learning is hampered by the presence of strategic incentives as herding may emerge. This can result in incorrect allocation and welfare loss. To overcome these issues, we propose a novel class of incentive-compatible mechanisms. Our mechanism involves a batch-by-batch, dynamic voting process using a majority rule. We prove that the proposed voting mechanisms improve the probability of correct allocation whenever agents are sufficiently well informed. Particularly, we show that such an improvement can be achieved via a simple greedy algorithm. We quantify the improvement using simulations.

We study dynamic nonmonetary markets where objects are allocated to unit-demand agents with private types. An agent's value for an object is supermodular in her type and the quality of the object, and her payoff is quasilinear in her waiting cost. We analyze direct-revelation mechanisms that elicit agents' types and assign them to objects over time. We identify the welfare-maximizing mechanism and show that it can be implemented by a first-come first-served wait-list with deferrals when the marketmaker can design the information disclosed to agents about the objects. The optimal disclosure policy pools adjacent object types.

The increasing popularity of online two-sided markets such as ride-sharing, accommodation and freelance labor platforms, goes hand in hand with new socioeconomic challenges. One major issue remains the existence of bias and discrimination against certain social groups. We study this problem using a two-sided large market model with employers and workers mediated by a platform. Employers who seek to hire workers face uncertainty about a candidate worker's skill level. Therefore, they base their hiring decision on learning from past reviews about an individual worker as well as on their (possibly misspecified) prior beliefs about the ability level of the social group the worker belongs to. Drawing upon the social learning literature with bounded rationality and limited information, uncertainty combined with social bias leads to unequal hiring opportunities between workers of different social groups. Although the effect of social bias decreases as the number of reviews increases (consistent with empirical findings), minority workers still receive lower expected payoffs. Finally, we consider a simple directed matching policy (DM), which combines learning and matching to make better matching decisions for minority workers. Under this policy, there exists a steady-state equilibrium, in which DM reduces the discrimination gap.