Gender and Negative Network Ties: Exploring Difficult Work Relationships Within and Across Gender

References

• Akaike H (1974) A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 19(6):716–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ancona DG, Caldwell DF (1992) Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(December):634–665.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson LM, Pearson CM (1999) Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad. Management Rev. 24(3):452–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett WP, Baron JN, Stuart TE (2000) Avenues of attainment: Occupational demography and organizational careers in the California Civil Service. Amer. J. Sociol. 106(1):88–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belliveau M (2005) Blind ambition? The effects of social networks and institutional sex composition on the job search outcomes of elite coeducational and women’s college graduates. Organ. Sci. 16(2):134–150.Link, Google Scholar
• Berdahl JL, Min JA, Stuart HC (2010) Workplace mistreatment: Gendered techniques and targets. Annual Meeting Acad. Management, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
• Bergmann TJ, Volkema RJ (1994) Issues, behavioral responses and consequences in interpersonal conflict. J. Organ. Behav. 15(5):467–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Hallock KF (2001) The gender gap in top corporate jobs. ILR Rev. 55(1):3–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bielby WT, Baron JN (1986) Men and women at work: Sex segregation and statistical discrimination. Amer. J. Sociol. 91(4):759–799.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity. A Primitive Theory of Social Structure (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: A family of measures. Amer. J. Sociol. 92(5):1170–1182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borgatti S, Everett M, Freeman LC (2002) UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis (Analytic Technologies, Columbia, SC).Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Foster P (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. J. Management 29(6):991–1013.Google Scholar
• Bothner M, Kang J, Stuart TE (2007) Competitive crowding and risk taking in a tournament: Evidence from NASCAR racing. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(2):208–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowling NA, Beehr TA (2006) Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 91(5):998–1012.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brashears ME (2008) Gender and homophily: Differences in male and female association in Blau space. Soc. Sci. Res. 37(2):400–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brass DJ (1985) Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Acad. Management J. 28(2):27–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR, Tsai W (2004) Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Acad. Management J. 47(6):795–817.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Briscoe F, Kellogg KC (2011) The initial assignment effect: Local employer practices and positive career outcomes for work-family program users. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 76(2):291–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brush CG, Carter NM, Gatewood EJ, Greene PG, Hart MM (2006) Growth-Oriented Women Entrepreneurs and Their Businesses: A Global Research Perspective (Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Meth. Res. 33(2):261–304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1997) The contingent value of social capital. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(June):339–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1998) The gender of social capital. Rationality Soc. 10(1):5–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2005) Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Jannotta JE, Mahoney JT (1998) Personality correlates of structural holes. Soc. Networks 20(1):63–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catalyst (2010) Women MBAs. Accessed November 30, 2011, http://www.catalyst.org/publication/250/women-mbas.Google Scholar
• Chatman JA, O’Reilly CA (2004) Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women. Acad. Management J. 47(2):193–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chatman JA, Polzer J, Barsade S, Neale M (1998) Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43(December):749–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chattopadhy P, George E, Shulman AD (2008) The asymmetrical influence of sex dissimilarity in distributive vs. collocated work groups. Organ. Sci. 19(4):581–593.Link, Google Scholar
• Correll SJ (2001) Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. Amer. J. Sociol. 106(6):1691–1703.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cowan G, Neighbors D, DeLaMoreau XJ, Behnky C (1998) Women’s hostility toward women. Psych. Women Quart. 22(2):267–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Derks B, Van Laar C, Ellemers N, de Groot K (2011) Gender-bias primes queen-bee responses among senior policewomen. Psych. Sci. 22(August):1243–1249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drexler P (2013) The tyranny of the queen bee. Wall Street Journal, 2–3.Google Scholar
• Duguid MM (2011) Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors to group diversification? Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc. 116(1):104–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duguid MM, Loyd DL, Tolbert PS (2012) The impact of categorical status, numeric representation, and work group prestige on preference for demographically similar others. Organ. Sci. 23(2):386–401.Link, Google Scholar
• Dumas TL, Stanko TL (2017) Married with children: How family role identification shapes leadership behaviors at work. Personnel Psych. 70(3):597–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Karau SJ (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psych. Rev. 109(3):573–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellemers N, Heuvel H, Gilder D, Maass A, Bonvini A (2004) The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British J. Soc. Psych. 43(3):315–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsesser KM, Lever J (2011) Does gender bias against female leaders persist? Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations 64(12):1555–1578.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ely RJ (1994) The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(June):203–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fernandez RM, Sosa ML (2005) Gendering the job: Networks and recruitment at a call center. Amer. J. Sociol. 111(3):859–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fernandez RM, Castilla EJ, Moore P (2000) Social capital at work: Networks and employment at a phone center. Amer. J. Sociol. 105(5):1288–1356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison. Human Relations 7(2):117–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Networks 1(3):215–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frone MR (2000) Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. J. Occupational Health Psych. 5(2):246–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garcia SM, Tor A (2009) The N-effect: More competitors, less competition. Psych. Sci. 20(7):871–877.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A (2003) Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quart. J. Econom. 118(3):1049–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goncalo J, Chatman JA, Duguid MM, Kennedy JA (2015) Creativity from constraint? How the political correctness norm influences creativity in mixed-sex work groups. Admin. Sci. Quart. 60(March):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gorman E (2005) Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation in the hiring of women: Evidence from law firms. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 70(4):702–728.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gorman E, Kmec J (2009) Hierarchical rank and women’s organizational mobility: Glass ceilings in corporate law firms. Amer. J. Sociol. 114(5):1428–1474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grosser TJ, Lopez-Kidwell V, Labianca J (2010) A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group Organ. Management 35(2):177–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME (2001) Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57(4):657–674.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME, Okimoto TG (2007) Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. J. Appl. Psych. 92(1):81–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM (2004) Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-type tasks. J. Appl. Psych. 89(3):416–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helgesen S (2011) The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership (Doubleday, New York).Google Scholar
• Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Huitsing G, van Duijn MAJ, Snijders TAB, Wang P, Sainiod M, Salmivalli C, Veenstra R (2012) Univariate and multivariate models of positive and negative networks: Liking, disliking, bully-victim relationships. Soc. Networks 34(4):645–657.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(September):442–447.Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1997) Paving an alternate route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Soc. Psych. Quart. 60(March):91–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janicik GA, Larrick RP (2005) Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 88(2):348–364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Liao H, Jackson SE (2006) Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales performance and pay. Acad. Management J. 49(2):459–481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalev A, Dobbin F, Kelly EL (2006) Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 71(4):589–617.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE, Tushman ML (2013) Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1316–1336.Link, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D, Porter LW (1985) When friends leave: A structural analysis of the relationship between turnover and stayer’s attitudes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 30(June):242–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Labianca G, Brass DJ (2006) Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):596–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Labianca G, Brass DJ, Gray B (1998) Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Acad. Management J. 41(1):55–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKinsey Report (2012) Unlocking the full potential of women at work. Accessed May 25, 2016, https://womenintheworkplace.com.Google Scholar
• Lee RT, Brotheridge CM (2011) Sex and position status differences in workplace aggression. J. Management Psych. 26(5):403–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsden PV (2005) Recent developments in network measurement. Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S, eds. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis (Cambridge University Press, New York), 8–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mavin S (2008) Queen bees, wannabees, and afraid to bees: No more “best enemies” for women in management? British J. Management 19(S1):S75–S84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson MJ (1983) An ecology of affiliation. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 48(August):519–532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson MJ, Smith-Lovin L (1987) Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52(June):370–379.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass D (2001) The social networks of high and low-self monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(1):121–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merluzzi J (2013) Social capital in Asia: Investigating the influence of organizational and national culture on returns to brokerage. Soc. Sci. Res. 42(3):882–892.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merluzzi J, Burt RS (2013) How many names are enough? Identifying network effects with the least set of listed contacts. Soc. Networks 35(3):331–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mooney N, D’Argy Smith M (2005) Are career women at war? Daily Mail 49.Google Scholar
• Moore G (1990) Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 55(October):726–735.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obukhova E, Kleinbaum AM (2016) Do women network differently from men? Gender and contact mobilization in the search for managerial work. Eur. Group Organ. Stud. (EGOS) 32nd Annual Colloquium, Naples, Italy.Google Scholar
• Pagel MD, Erdly WW, Becker J (1987) Social networks: We get by with (and in spite of) a little help from our friends. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 53(4):794–804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM, Xin KR (1999) Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(March):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pennebaker JW, Booth RJ, Francis ME (2007) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) v. 1.09 (Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc., Austin).Google Scholar
• Petersen T, Saporta I (2004) The opportunity structure for discrimination. Amer. J. Sociol. 109(4):852–901.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM, Baron JN (1997) Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 62(October):673–693.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell W (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy. Cummings LL, Staw BM, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 (JAI, Greenwich, CT), 295–336.Google Scholar
• Reagans R, Zuckerman E, McEvily B (2004) How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(March):101–133.Google Scholar
• Reskin BF, Bielby DD (2005) A sociological perspective on gender and career outcomes. J. Econom. Perspect. 19(1):71–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (2001) Gender, status, and leadership. J. Soc. Issues 57(4):637–655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (2014) Why status matters for inequality. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 79(February):1–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rivera LA (2015) Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rovner J (2015) Even in nursing, men earn more than women. Accessed April 23, 2015, http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/03/24/394915756/even-in-nursing-men-earn-more-than-women?Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Goodwin SA (2004) Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 87(4):494–509.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Glick P, Phelan JE (2012) Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. Devine P, Plant A, eds. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 45 (Academic Press, Cambridge, MA), 167–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandberg S, Grant A (2016) Sheryl Sandberg on the myth of the catty woman. Accessed June 30, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/opinion/sunday/sheryl-sandberg-on-the-myth-of-the-catty-woman.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0.Google Scholar
• Schieman S, Reid S (2008) Job authority and interpersonal conflict in the workplace. Work Occupations 35(3):296–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sheppard LD, Aquino K (2013) Much ado about nothing? Observers’ problematization of women’s same-sex conflict at work. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(1):52–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sheppard LD, Aquino K (2017) Sisters at arms: A theory of female same-sex conflict and its problematization in organizations. J. Management 43(3):691–715.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shih J (2006) Circumventing discrimination: Gender and ethnic strategies in Silicon Valley. Gender Soc. 20(2):177–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sparrowe RT, Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Kraimer ML (2001) Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Acad. Management J. 44(2):316–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srivastava SB, Goldberg A, Manian VG, Monroe W, Potts C (2017) Enculturation trajectories: Language, cultural adaptation, and individual outcomes in organizations. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print March 2, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2671.Link, Google Scholar
• Staines G, Tavris C, Jayaratne TE (1974) The queen bee syndrome. Psych. Today 7(8):55–60.Google Scholar
• Sterling A (2015) Pre-entry contacts and the generation of nascent networks in organizations. Organ. Sci. 26(3):650–667.Link, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Worchel S, Austin WG, eds. Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Nelson-Hall, Chicago), 33–47.Google Scholar
• Thomas JL, Bliese PD, Jex SM (2005) Interpersonal conflict and organizational commitment: Examining two levels of supervisory support as multilevel moderators. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 35(11):2375–2398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsui AS, Egan TD, O’Reilly C (1992) Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(December):549–579.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turco CJ (2010) Cultural foundations of tokenism: Evidence from the leveraged buyout industry. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 75(December):894–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkataramani V, Labianca G, Grosser T (2013) Positive and negative workplace relationships, social satisfaction, and organizational attachment. J. Appl. Psych. 98(6):1028–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine 37(5):360–363.Google Scholar
• Wharton AS, Baron JN (1987) So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52(October):574–587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams M, Polman E (2015) Is it me or her? How gender composition influences interpersonally sensitive behavior on collaborative cross-boundary projects. Organ. Sci. 26(2):334–355.Link, Google Scholar