Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:15:23.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does where you stand depend on how you behave? Networking behavior as an alternative explanation for gender differences in network structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2013

Ine Gremmen ,
Agnes Akkerman  and
Yvonne Benschop
Ine Gremmen
Affiliation:
Institute for Management Research, Department of Business Administration, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Agnes Akkerman*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Yvonne Benschop
Affiliation:
Institute for Management Research, Department of Business Administration, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: a.akkerman@fm.ru.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to gain insight into the relations between gender, networking behavior and network structure, in order to investigate the relevance of gender for organizational networks. Semi-structured interviews with 39 white, Dutch, women and men account managers were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Our study's results show that the men account managers employ exchange and affect-based trust networking and, to a lesser extent, authoritative networking, whereas the women account managers employ affect-based trust and also use exchange. Authoritative networking appears to foster higher status ties, exchange networking behavior fosters lower status ties and affect-based trust networking fosters equal status ties. Gender differences in network structure may be explained by networking behavior rather than by gender. Our study is limited by the size of our group of respondents (n = 39). A larger sample is needed to test hypotheses concerning the relations between networking behavior, network structure and gender in a more rigorous manner than our study allowed. However, our research material enabled us to test these relations in a sound, be it preliminary way. Our study suggests to focus less on gender as a demographic bivariate category to explain gender differences in network structures and outcomes. In so doing, organizational network research will gain more insight into how gender expectations are negotiated in networking. In organizational practice, this will support organization members to employ the diversity of networking behaviors necessary to generate optimal network structures and outcomes. While most organizational network research focuses on network structures, we introduce the relational process of fostering network relations as central to women's and men's networking behavior. Networking behavior may have greater explanatory power for differences in network structure, than gender as a demographic, bivariate variable.

Keywords

networking behaviorgendernetwork structureaccount management
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , May 2013 , pp. 297 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abrams, L., Cross, R., Lesser, E., Levinn, D. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64–77.Google Scholar
Akkerman, A., Torenvlied, R. (2011). Managing the environment. Public Management Review, 13(1), 159–174.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. (2008). Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realize network opportunities: A study of managers’ information gathering behaviours. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 51–78.Google Scholar
Barrera, D. (2007). The impact of negotiated exchange on trust and trustworthiness. Social Networks, 29, 508–526.Google Scholar
Benschop, Y. (2009). The micro-politics of gendering in networking. Gender, Work & Organization, 16(2), 217–237.Google Scholar
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S., Everett, M., Freeman, L. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S., Forster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013.Google Scholar
Bozionelos, N. (2008). Intra-organizational network resources. How they relate to career success and organizational commitment. Personnel Review, 37(3), 249–263.Google Scholar
Brass, D. J. (1985). Men's and women's networks – A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327–343.Google Scholar
Brass, D., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H., Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795–817.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (1998). The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society, 10, 5–46.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. E. (1988). Gender differences in job-related networks. Work and Occupations, 15, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., Morris, M. W. (2008). From the head and the heart: locating cognition- and affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 436–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K., Whitmeyer, J. (1992). Two approaches to social structure: Exchange theory and network analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 109–127.Google Scholar
Davis, A. E., Renzulli, L. A., Aldrich, H. E. (2006). Mixing or matching? The influence of voluntary associations on the occupational diversity and density of small business owners’ networks. Work and Occupations, 33, 42–72.Google Scholar
Deaux, K. (1998). Psychological constructions of masculinity and femininity. In D. L. Anselmi & A. L. Law (Eds.), Questions of gender: Perspectives and paradoxes (pp. 206–215). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dekker, D. (2001). Network perspectives on tasks in account management. Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
Ducharme, L. J., Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, co-worker support, and job satisfaction – A test of the buffering hypothesis. Work and Occupations, 27, 223–243.Google Scholar
Durbin, S. (2011). Creating knowledge through networks: A gender perspective. Gender, Work & Organization, 18, 90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, R., Padavic, I. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy of management Review, 32, 1121–1143.Google Scholar
Field, J. (2008). Social capital (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flap, H., Völker, B. (2004). Creation and returns of social capital. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forret, M., Dougherty, T. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees. Group & Organization Management, 26, 283–311.Google Scholar
Forret, M., Dougherty, T. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 419–437.Google Scholar
Gremmen, I., Benschop, Y. (2009). Walking the tightrope: Constructing gender and professional identities in account management. Journal of Management & Organization, 15 (5), 596–610.Google Scholar
Hurlbert, J. S. (1991). Social networks, social circles, and job-satisfaction. Work and Occupations, 18, 415–430.Google Scholar
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422–447.Google Scholar
Ibarra, H. (1997). Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 91–102.Google Scholar
Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., Tsai, W. (2005). Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science, 16, 359–371.Google Scholar
Ingram, T. N. (2004). Professional selling: A trust-based approach (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.Google Scholar
Jack, S. L. (2010). Approaches to studying networks: Implications and outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 120–137.Google Scholar
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kilduff, M., Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Kilduff, M., Tsai, W., Hanke, R. (2006). A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Academy of Management Review, 31, 1031–1048.Google Scholar
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342–369.Google Scholar
Kumra, S., Vinnicombe, S. (2010). Impressing for success: A gendered analysis of a key social capital accumulation strategy. Gender, Work & Organization, 17, 521–546.Google Scholar
Levin, D., Cross, D. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50, 1477–1490.Google Scholar
Lewicki, R., McAllister, D., Bies, R. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 438–458.Google Scholar
Little, E., Marandi, E. (2003). Relationship Marketing Management. London: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Marin, A., Hampton, K. N. (2007). Simplifying the personal network name generator: Alternatives to traditional multiple and single name generators. Field Methods, 2, 163–193.Google Scholar
Martin, P. Y. (2006). Practising gender at work: Further thoughts on reflexivity. Gender, Work & Organization, 13, 254–276.Google Scholar
Mavin, S., Bryans, P. (2002). Academic women in the UK: Mainstreaming our experiences and networking for action. Gender and Education, 14, 235–250.Google Scholar
McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.Google Scholar
McGuire, G. M. (2000). Gender, race, ethnicity, and networks – The factors affecting the status of employees’ network members. Work and Occupations, 27, 500–523.Google Scholar
McGuire, G. M. (2002). Gender, race and the shadow structure: A study of informal networks and inequality in a work organization. Gender & Society, 16, 303–322.Google Scholar
McGuire, G. M. (2007). Intimate work: A typology of the social support that workers provide to their network members. Work and Occupations, 34, 125–147.Google Scholar
Parkhe, A., Wasserman, S., Ralston, D. (2006). New frontiers in network theory development. Academy of Management Review, 31, 560–568.Google Scholar
Podolny, J., Baron, J. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673–693.Google Scholar
Poggio, B. (2006). Editorial: Outline of a theory of gender practices. Gender, Work & Organization, 13, 225–233.Google Scholar
Porter, K. A., Powell, W. W. (2006). Networks and organizations. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (pp. 776–799). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
QSR International (2006). NVivo qualitative data analysis software version 7. Cheshire, United Kingdom: QSR International Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
Scott, D. B. (1996). Shattering the instrumental-expressive myth: The power of women's networks in corporate–government affairs. Gender & Society, 10, 232–247.Google Scholar
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A. L., Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2006). Gender differences in the creation of different types of social capital: A multilevel study. Social Networks, 28, 24–37.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S., Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambrigde, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar