Homophily and Individual Performance

References

• Allison P (2013) What’s the best R-squared for logistic regression? Statistical Horizons. Accessed February 13, 2018, https://statisticalhorizons.com/r2logistic.Google Scholar
• Armstrong DJ, Cole P (2002) Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. Hinds PJ, Kiesler S, eds. Distributed Work (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 167–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blau P (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Blau PM, Schwartz JE (1984) Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations (Academic 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
• Brass DJ (1985) Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Acad. Management J. 28(2):327–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brehm JW (1956) Post-decision changes in desirability of choice alternatives. J. Abnorm. Social Psychol. 52(3):384–389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1997) The contingent value of social capital. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(2):339–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2005) Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2007) Secondhand brokerage: Evidence on the importance of local structure for managers, bankers, and analysts. Acad. Management J. 50(1):119–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Lobo MS (2005) Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks. Harvard Bus. Rev. 83(6):92–99.Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Lobo MS (2008) When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(4):655–684.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Lobo MS (2014) Affective primacy in intraorganizational task networks. Organ. Sci. 26(2):373–389.Link, Google Scholar
• Clarke P (2017) 11 survival tips for analysts and associates in investment banking. Accessed February 13, 2018, https://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/178583/.Google Scholar
• Coppin G, Delplanqu S, Cayeux I, Porcherot C, Sander D (2010) I’m no longer torn after choice: How explicit choices can implicitly shape preferences for odors. Psych. Sci. 21(4):489–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cross R, Cummings JN (2004) Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Acad. Management J. 47(6):928–937.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diefenbach T, Sillince JA (2011) Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization. Organ. Stud. 32(11):1515–1537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erez M, Early PC (1993) Culture, Self-Identity, and Work (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fertala N (2007) Immigrant entrepreneurship in Hamburg. Dana L-P, ed. Handbook of Research of Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship: A Co-evolutionary View on Resource Management (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK), 511–533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galunic C, Ertug G, Gargiulo M (2012) The positive externalities of social capital: Benefitting from senior brokers. Acad. Management J. 55(5):1213–1231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gargiulo M, Benassi M (2000) Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organ. Sci. 11(2):183–196.Link, Google Scholar
• Gargiulo M, Ertug G (2014) The power of the weak. Res. Sociol. Organ. 40:179–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gargiulo M, Ertug G, Galunic C (2009) The two faces of control: Network closure and individual performance among knowledge workers. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(2):299–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbons D, Olk PM (2003) Individual and structural origins of friendship and social position among professionals. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 84(2):340–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Zellmer-Bruhn ME (2001) Metaphors and meaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(2):274–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gompers PA, Mukharlyamov V, Xuan Y (2016) The cost of friendship. J. Financial Econom. 119(3):626–644.Google Scholar
• Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 78(6):1360–1380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groysberg B, Lee LE (2008) The effect of colleague quality on top performance: The case of security analysts. J. Organ. Behav. 29(8):1123–1144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gutmann A (2013) How To Be an Investment Banker: Recruiting, Interviewing, and Landing the Job (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Hansen M (1999) The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1):82–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hegde D, Tumlinson J (2014) Does social proximity enhance business partnerships? Theory and evidence from ethnicity’s role in US venture capital. Management Sci. 60(9):2355–2380.Link, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(3):422–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1997) Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social. Pysch. Quart. 60(1):91–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ingram P, Morris MW (2007) Do people mix at mixers? Structure, homophily, and the “life of the party”. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(4):558–585.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Labianca G, Caligiuri PM (2002) Getting along long distance: Understanding conflict in a multinational team through network analysis. J. World Bus. 37(4):277–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalmijn M (1998) Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns and trends. Annual Rev. of Sociol. 24:395–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kane J, Lawler EE (1978) Methods of peer assessment. Psych. Bull. 85(3):555–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim G, Rodbard S (2007) Vault Career Guide to Sales & Trading (Vault Reports, New York).Google Scholar
• Kossinets G, Watts DJ (2009) Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. Amer. J. Sociol. 115(2):405–450.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawrence BS, Shah NP (2017) Homophily: Measures and meaning. Working paper, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
• Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK (1954) Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. Berger M, ed. Freedom and Control in Modern Society (Columbia University Press, New York), 18–66.Google Scholar
• Lazega E, Van Dujin M (1997) Position in formal structure, personal characteristics and choices of advisors in a law firm: A logistic regression model for dyadic network data. Soc. Networks. 19(4):375–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis M (1989) Liar’s Poker (Penguin, New York).Google Scholar
• Lin N, Ensel WM, Vaughn JC (1981) Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. Amer. Social. Rev. 46(4):393–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lincoln JR, Miller J (1979) Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relation networks. Admin. Sci. Quart. 24(2):181–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lusher D, Robins G (2013) Formation of social network structure. Lusher D, Robins G, eds. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks (Cambridge University Press, New York), 16–28.Google Scholar
• Makela K, Kalla HK, Piekkari R (2007) Interpersonal similarity as a driver of knowledge sharing within multinational corporations. Internat. Bus. Rev. 16(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marschan-Piekkari R, Welch D, Welch L (1999) In the shadow: The impact of language on structure, power, and communication in the multinational. Internat. Bus. Rev. 8(4):421–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsden PV, Campbell KE (1984) Measuring tie strength. Soc. Forces 63(2):482–501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L (1987) Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. Amer. Social. Rev. 52(3):370–379.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Rev. Sociol. 271(1):415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mollica KA, Gray B, Trevino LK (2003) Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organ. Sci. 14(2):123–136.Link, Google Scholar
• Pearce JL, Xu QJ (2012) Rating performance or contesting status: Evidence against the homophily explanation for supervisor demographic skew in performance ratings. Organ. Sci. 23(2):373–385.Link, Google Scholar
• Piekkari R, Vaara E, Tienari J, Santti R (2005) Integration or disintegration? Human resource implications of a common corporate language decision in a cross-border merger. Internat. J. Human Resource Management 16(3):333–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. Amer. J. Sociol. 98(4):829–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2005) Status SIGNALS: A SOCIOLOGICAL Study of Market Competition (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Reagans R (2005) Preferences, identity, and competition: Predicting tie strength from demographic data. Management Sci. 51(9):1374–1383.Link, Google Scholar
• Reagans R (2011) Close encounters: Analyzing how social similarity and propinquity contribute to strong network connections. Organ. Sci. 22(4):835–849.Link, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rivera MT, Soderstrom SB, Uzzi B (2010) Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Rev. Sociol. 36:91–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rodan S, Galunic C (2004) More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management J. 25(6):541–562.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ruef M, Aldrich HE, Carte NM (2003) The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. Amer. Social. Rev. 68(2):195–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauder M, Lynn F, Podolny JM (2012) Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Rev. Sociol. 38:267–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharot T, De Martino B, Dolan RJ (2009) How choice reveals and shapes expected hedonic outcome. J. Neurosci. 29(12):3760–3765.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shrum W, Cheek NH Jr, Hunter SM (1988) Friendship in school: Gender and racial homophily. Sociol. Ed. 61(4):227–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmel G (1971) On Individuality and Social Forms (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Smith KG, Carroll SJ, Ashford SJ (1995) Intra- and interorganizational cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Acad. Management J. 38(1):7–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sparrowe RT, Liden RC (2005) Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and social network perspectives. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(4):505–535.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
• Szulanski G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management J. 17(2):27–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tjur T (2009) Coefficients of determination in logistic regression models—A new proposal: The coefficient of discrimination. Amer. Statist. 63(4):366–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 61(4):674–698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Knippenberg D, Schippers MC (2007) Work group diversity. Annual Rev. Psychol. 58:515–541.Crossref, Google Scholar