The Company She Seeks: How the Prismatic Effects of Ties to High-Status Network Contacts Can Reduce Status for Women in Groups

References

• Abele AE, Wojciszke B (2014) Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 50:195–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abele AE, Cuddy AJ, Judd CM, Yzerbyt VY (2008) Fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 38(7):1063–1065.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agneessens F, Wittek R (2012) Where do intra-organizational advice relations come from? The role of informal status and social capital in social exchange. Soc. Networks 34(3):333–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G, Soda G, Zaheer A (2012) The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organ. Sci. 23(2):434–448.Link, Google Scholar
• Ahuja MK, Galletta DF, Carley KM (2003) Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: An empirical study. Management Sci. 49(1):21–38.Link, Google Scholar
• Allison PD (2009) Fixed Effects Regression Models (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alonso NM, O’Neill OM (2022) Going along to get ahead: The asymmetric effects of sexist joviality on status conferral. Organ. Sci. 33(5):1794–1815.Link, Google Scholar
• Amanatullah ET, Morris MW (2010) Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 98(2):256–267.Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Kilduff GJ (2009) Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 96(2):491–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Hildreth JAD, Howland L (2015) Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psych. Bull. 141(3):574–601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D, Kring AM (2001) Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 81(1):116–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Willer R, Kilduff GJ, Brown CE (2012) The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 102(5):1077–1088.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Srivastava S, Beer JS, Spataro SE, Chatman JA (2006) Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 91(6):1094–1110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anicich EM, Fast NJ, Halevy N, Galinsky AD (2015) When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organ. Sci. 27(1):123–140.Link, Google Scholar
• Back MD, Kenny DA (2010) The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Soc. Personal. Psych. Compass 4(10):855–870.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bai F, Ho GCC, Yan J (2020) Does virtue lead to status? Testing the moral virtue theory of status attainment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 118(3):501–531.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bakan D (1966) The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and Religion (Rand McNally, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Bales RF (1958) Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. Maccoby EE, Newcomb TM, Hartley FL, eds. Readings in Social Psychology (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York).Google Scholar
• Balkundi P, Kilduff M, Harrison DA (2011) Centrality and charisma: Comparing how leader networks and attributions affect team performance. J. Appl. Psych. 96(6):1209–1222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ball SB, Eckel CC (1996) Buying status: Experimental evidence on status in negotiation. Psych. Marketing 13(4):381–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum JAC, Oliver C (1992) Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 57(4):540–559.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Catanese KR, Vohs KD (2001) Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 5(3):242–273.Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Shah NP (2012) The cost of status enhancement: Performance effects of individuals’ status mobility in task groups. Organ. Sci. 23(2):308–322.Link, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Shah NP (2013) The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Acad. Management J. 56(2):387–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benjamin BA, Podolny JM (1999) Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(3):563–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg JM, Yu A (2021) Getting the picture too late: Handoffs and the effectiveness of idea implementation in creative work. Acad. Management J. 64(4):1191–1212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Cohen B, Zelditch M (1972) Status characteristics and social interaction. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 37(3):241–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Fisek MH, Norman RZ, Zelditch M Jr (1977) Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation States Approach (Elsevier, New York).Google Scholar
• Bianchi AJ, Kang SM, Stewart D (2012) The organizational selection of status characteristics: Status evaluations in an open source community. Organ. Sci. 23(2):341–354.Link, Google Scholar
• Blader SL, Chen YR (2012) Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 102(5):994–1014.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blader SL, Yu S (2017) Are status and respect different or two sides of the same coin? Acad. Management Ann. 11(2):800–824.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1989) Structures of social positions and structures of social relations. Turner J, ed. Theory Building in Sociology (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), 43–59.Google Scholar
• Bonacich P (2007) Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Soc. Networks 29(4):555–564.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Cross R (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Sci. 49(4):432–445.Link, Google Scholar
• Bowles HR, Babcock L, Lai L (2007) Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 103(1):84–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brands R, Mehra A (2019) Gender, brokerage and performance: A construal approach. Acad. Management J. 62(1):196–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brands R, Ertug PG, Fonti F, Tasselli S (2022) Theorizing gender in social network research: What we do and what we can do differently. Acad. Management Ann. 16(2):588–620.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brands RA, Kilduff M (2014) Just like a woman? Effects of gender-biased perceptions of friendship network brokerage on attributions and performance. Organ. Sci. 25(5):1530–1548.Link, Google Scholar
• Brands RA, Menges JI, Kilduff M (2015) The leader-in-social-network schema: Perceptions of network structure affect gendered attributions of charisma. Organ. Sci. 26(4):1210–1225.Link, Google Scholar
• Brands RA, Menon T, Shea C (2019) Network cognition: Bridging micro and macro organizational behavior. Brass DJ, Borgatti SP, eds. Social Networks at Work (Routledge, Abingdon, UK), 104–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Triandis HC, Berry JW, eds. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Allyn & Bacon, Boston), 389–444.Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Reagans RE (2011) Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1182–1194.Link, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1998) The gender of social capital. Rationality Soc. 10(1):5–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2000) The network structure of social capital. Res. Organ. Behav. 22:345–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2019) The networks and success of female entrepreneurs in China. Soc. Networks 58:37–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buss DM, Craik KH (1980) The frequency concept of disposition: Dominance and prototypically dominant acts. J. Personality 48(3):379–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byron K, Landis B (2020) Relational misperceptions in the workplace: New frontiers and challenges. Organ. Sci. 31(1):223–242.Link, Google Scholar
• Cannings K, Montmarquette C (1991) Managerial momentum: A simultaneous model of the career progress of male and female managers. ILR Rev. 44(2):212–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T (1998) Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception. Soc. Networks 20(4):331–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Carley KM, Krackhardt D (1999) Positive affectivity and accuracy in social network perception. Motivation Emotion 23(4):285–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catalyst (2023) Pyramid: Women in the United States Workforce (Infographic). Accessed February 7, 2023, https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-the-united-states-workforce/.Google Scholar
• Chandler J, Paolacci G, Peer E, Mueller P, Ratliff KA (2015) Using nonnaive participants can reduce effect sizes. Psych. Sci. 26(7):1131–1139.Google Scholar
• Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Foulsham T, Kingstone A, Henrich J (2013) Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 104(1):103–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chua RY, Huang KG, Jin M (2019) Mapping cultural tightness and its links to innovation, urbanization, and happiness across 31 provinces in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116(14):6720–6725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis DE, Worthington EL Jr, Hook JN, Emmons RA, Hill PC, Bollinger RA, Van Tongeren DR (2013) Humility and the development and repair of social bonds: Two longitudinal studies. Self and Identity 12(1):58–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Djurdjevic E, Stoverink AC, Klotz AC, Koopman J, da Motta Veiga SP, Yam KC, Chiang JTJ (2017) Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale. J. Appl. Psych. 102(7):1124–1147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Douglas BD, Ewell PJ, Brauer M (2023) Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. PLoS ONE 18(3):e0279720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Karau SJ (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psych. Rev. 109(3):573.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Steffen VJ (1984) Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 46(4):735–754.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ely RJ, Ibarra H, Kolb DM (2012) Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Acad. Management Learn. Ed. 10(3):474–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fang R, Landis B, Zhang Z, Anderson MH, Shaw JD, Kilduff M (2015) Integrating personality and social networks: A meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organ. Sci. 26(4):1243–1260.Link, Google Scholar
• Felmlee D, Faris R (2013) Interaction in social networks. DeLamater J, Ward A, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology, Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands), 439–464.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fernandes CR, Yu S, Howell TM, Brooks AW, Kilduff GJ, Pettit NC (2021) What is your status portfolio? Higher status variance across groups increases interpersonal helping but decreases intrapersonal well-being. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 165:56–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske S (2010) Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology (John Wiley, New York), 941–982.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J (2002) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 82(6):878–902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Xu J, Cuddy AC, Glick P (1999) (Dis)respecting vs. (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. J. Soc. Issues 55(3):473–489.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ (2003) How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Acad. Management J. 46(5):539–553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ, Amanatullah ET (2012) Psyched up or psyched out? The influence of coactor status on individual performance. Organ. Sci. 23(2):402–415.Link, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ, Ames DR (2006) What’s good for the goose may not be as good for the gander: The benefits of self-monitoring for men and women in task groups and dyadic conflicts. J. Appl. Psych. 91(2):272–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ, Reagans RE, Guillory L (2010) Do you two know each other? Transitivity, homophily, and the need for (network) closure. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 99(5):855–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ, Reagans RE, Amanatullah ET, Ames DR (2006) Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 91(6):1123–1137.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
• Gentry WA, Clark MA, Young SF, Cullen KL, Zimmerman L (2015) How displaying empathic concern may differentially predict career derailment potential for women and men leaders in Australia. The Leadership Quart. 26(4):641–653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghiasi G, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR (2015) On the compliance of women engineers with a gendered scientific system. PLoS One 10(12):e0145931.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Gardner L (1998) The Handbook of Social Psychology (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Goette L, Huffman D, Meier S (2012) The impact of social ties on group interactions: Evidence from minimal groups and randomly assigned real groups. Amer. Econom. J.: Microeconomics 4(1):101–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J. Res. Personality 37(6):504–528.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grosser TJ, Venkataramani V, Labianca GJ (2017) An alter-centric perspective on employee innovation: The importance of alters’ creative self-efficacy and network structure. J. Appl. Psych. 102(9):1360–1374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halgin DS, Borgatti SP, Huang Z (2020a) Prismatic effects of negative ties. Soc. Networks. 60:26–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halgin DS, Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Soltis S (2020b) Audience perceptions of high-status ties and network advantage: The market for coaching jobs in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (2000–2011). J. Organ. Behav. 41(4):332–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall JA, Coats E, LeBeau LS (2005) Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 131(6):898–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen MT (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
• Harari D, Parke MR, Marr JC (2022) When helping hurts helpers: Anticipatory versus reactive helping, helper’s relative status, and recipient self-threat. Acad. Management J. 65(6):1954–1983.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach (The Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Hays NA, Bendersky C (2015) Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status vs. power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 108(6):867–881.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hays NA, Blader SL (2016) To give or not to give? Interactive effects of status and legitimacy on generosity. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 112(1):17–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hays RB (1985) A longitudinal study of friendship development. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 48(4):909–924.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, Chen JJ (2005) Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(3):431.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
• Helgeson VS (1994) Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin 116(3):412–428.Google Scholar
• Henrich J, Gil-White FJ (2001) The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evol. Human Behav. 22(3):165–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hentschel T, Braun S, Peus C, Frey D (2018) The communality-bonus effect for male transformational leaders – Leadership style, gender, and promotability. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 27(1):112–125.Google Scholar
• Highhouse S, Brooks ME (2021) A simple solution to a complex problem: Manipulate the mediator! Indust. Organ. Psych. 14(4):493–496.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofstede G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2(1):8.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(3):422–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1993) Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Acad. Management J. 36(3):471–501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H, Andrews SB (1993) Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(2):277–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imhoff R, Koch A (2017) How orthogonal are the big two of social perception? On the curvilinear relation between agency and communion. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 12(1):122–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iorio A (2022) Brokers in disguise: The joint effect of actual brokerage and socially perceived brokerage on network advantage. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(3):769–820.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jadidi M, Karimi F, Lietz H, Wagner C (2018) Gender disparities in science? Dropout, productivity, collaborations and success of male and female computer scientists. Adv. Complex Syst. 21(3–4):1750011.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi A (2014) By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(2):202–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi PD, Fast NJ (2013) I am my (high-power) role: Power and role identification. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 39(7):898–910.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Judge TA, Kammeyer-Mueller JD (2012) On the value of aiming high: The causes and consequences of ambition. J. Appl. Psych. 97(4):758–775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kang SK, Bodenhausen GV (2015) Multiple identities in social perception and interaction: Challenges and opportunities. Annual Rev. Psych. 66:547–574.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kenny DA (1995) The effect of nonindependence on significance testing in dyadic research. Personal Relationships 2(1):67–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kenny DA, West TV (2010) Similarity and agreement in self-and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 14(2):196–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilduff GJ, Galinsky AD (2013) From the ephemeral to the enduring: How approach-oriented mindsets lead to greater status. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 105(5):816–831.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilduff GJ, Willer R, Anderson C (2016a) Hierarchy and its discontents: Status disagreement leads to withdrawal of contribution and lower group performance. Organ. Sci. 27(2):373–390.Link, Google Scholar
• Kilduff M, Krackhardt D (1994) Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Acad. Management J. 37(1):87–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilduff M, Tsai W, Hanke R (2006) A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Acad. Management Rev. 31(4):1031–1048.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilduff M, Crossland C, Tsai W, Bowers MT (2016b) Magnification and correction of the acolyte effect: Initial benefits and ex post settling up in NFL coaching careers. Acad. Management J. 59(1):352–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim H, Kim BK (2022) To be in Vogue: How mere proximity to high-status neighbors affects aspirational pricing in the US fashion industry. Strategic Management J. 43(6):1208–1230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim JY, Fitzsimons GM, Kay AC (2018) Lean in messages increase attributions of women’s responsibility for gender inequality. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 115(6):974–1001.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim S, McClean EJ, Doyle SP, Podsakoff NP, Lin E, Woodruff T (2021) The positive and negative effects of social status on ratings of voice behavior: A test of opposing structural and psychological pathways. J. Appl. Psych. 107(6):951–967.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein KJ, Lim BC, Saltz JL, Mayer DM (2004) How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Acad. Management J. 47(6):952–963.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1990) Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(2):342–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuwabara K, Hildebrand CA, Zou X (2018) Lay theories of networking: How laypeople’s beliefs about networks affect their attitudes toward and engagement in instrumental networking. Acad. Management Rev. 43(1):50–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanaj K, Hollenbeck JR (2015) Leadership over-emergence in self-managing teams: The role of gender and countervailing biases. Acad. Management J. 58(5):1476–1494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li G (1985) Robust regression. Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Tukey JW, eds. Exploring Data Tables, Trends, and Shapes (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ), 281–343.Google Scholar
• Lin N, Cook KS, Burt RS (2001) Social Capital: Theory and Research (Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin N, Ensel WM, Vaughn JC (1981) Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 46(4):393–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lutter M (2015) Do women suffer from network closure? The moderating effect of social capital on gender inequality in a project-based labor market, 1929 to 2010. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 80(2):329–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyness KS, Thompson DE (2000) Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? J. Appl. Psych. 85(1):86–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ma A, Rosette AS, Koval CZ (2022) Reconciling female agentic advantage and disadvantage with the CADDIS measure of agency. J. Appl. Psych. 107(12):2115–2148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madgavkar A, White O, Krishnan M, Mahajan D, Azcue X (2020) COVID-19 and gender equality: Countering the regressive effects. Accessed June 15, 2022, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/covid-19-and-gender-equality-countering-the-regressive-effects.Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):351–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marmot M (2004) Status syndrome. Significance 1(4):150–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mast MS, Hall JA (2004) Who is the boss and who is not? Accuracy of judging status. J. Nonverbal Behav. 28(3):145–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McAdams DP, Healy S, Krause S (1984) Social motives and patterns of friendship. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 47(4):828–838.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McClean EJ, Martin SR, Emich KJ, Woodruff COLT (2018) The social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. Acad. Management J. 61(5):1869–1891.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadyen MA, Semadeni M, Cannella AA (2009) Value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organ. Sci. 20(3):552–564.Link, Google Scholar
• Meade AW, Craig SB (2012) Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psych. Methods 17(3):437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ (2001) The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(1):121–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehra A, Borgatti SP, Soltis S, Floyd T, Halgin DS, Ofem B, Lopez-Kidwell V (2014) Imaginary worlds: Using visual network scales to capture perceptions of social networks. Brass DJ, Labianca G, Mehra A, Halgin DS, Borgatti SP, eds. Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Social Networks, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 40 (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK), 313–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mell JN, Dechurch LA, Leenders RTHAJ, Contractor N (2020) Identity asymmetries: An experimental investigation of social identity and information exchange in multiteam systems. Acad. Management J. 63(5):1561–1590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Michael J, Yukl G (1993) Managerial level and subunit function as determinants of networking behavior in organizations. Group and Organization Management 18(3):328–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizrachi MS (1983) Who controls whom? An examination of the relation between management and boards of directors in large American corporations. Acad. Management Rev. 8(3):426–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mohr G, Wolfram HJ (2008) Leadership and effectiveness in the context of gender: The role of leaders’ verbal behaviour. British Journal of Management, 19(1):4–16.Google Scholar
• Moss-Racusin CA, Phelan JE, Rudman LA (2010) When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psych. Men Masculinity 11(2):140–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Okimoto TG, Brescoll VL (2010) The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 36(7):923–936.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ouyang K, Xu E, Huang X, Liu W, Tang Y (2018) Reaching the limits of reciprocity in favor exchange: The effects of generous, stingy, and matched favor giving on social status. J. Appl. Psych. 103(6):614–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peer E, Rothschild D, Gordon A, Evernden Z, Damer E (2022) Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behav. Res. Methods 54(4):1643–1662.Google Scholar
• Pettit NC, Sivanathan N (2012) The eyes and ears of status: How status colors perceptual judgment. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 38(5):570–582.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips DJ (2005) Organizational genealogies and the persistence of gender inequality: The case of Silicon Valley law firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(3):440–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piazza A, Castellucci F (2014) Status in organization and management theory. J. Management 40(1):287–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pirlott AG, MacKinnon DP (2016) Design approaches to experimental mediation. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 66:29–38.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 (1994) Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(3):458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2001) Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. Amer. J. Sociol. 10(1):33–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2005) Status Signals: A Sociological Study of Market Competition (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Podolny JM, Phillips DJ (1996) The dynamics of organizational status. Indust. Corp. Change 5(2):453–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, Podsakoff NP (2019) Experimental designs in management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability. Leadership Quart 30(1):11–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ragins BR, Cotton JL (1991) Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Acad. Management J. 34(4):939–951.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (1987) Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52(5):683–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (2001) Gender, status, and leadership. J. Soc. Issues 57(4):637–655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Berger J (1986) Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 51(5):603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Li YE, Erickson KG, Backor K, Tinkler JE (2009) How easily does a social difference become a status distinction? Gender matters. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(1):44–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosette AS, Koval CZ, Ma A, Livingston R (2016) Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. Leadership Quart. 27(3):429–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothbard NP, Ramarajan L, Ollier-Malaterre A, Lee SSL (2020) OMG! My boss just friended me: How evaluations of colleagues’ disclosure, gender, and rank shape personal/professional boundary blurring online. Acad. Management J. 65(1):35–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA (1998) Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 74(3):629–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Glick P (2001) Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57(4):743–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Phelan JE, Nauts S (2012) Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 48(1):165–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandberg S (2013) Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead (Knopf, New York).Google Scholar
• Schaumberg RL, Flynn FJ (2017) Self-reliance: A gender perspective on its relationship to communality and leadership evaluations. Acad. Management J. 60(5):1859–1881.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scherbaum CA, Ferreter JM (2009) Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organ. Res. Methods 12(2):347–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott DB (1996) Shattering the instrumental-expressive myth: The power of women’s networks in corporate-government affairs. Gender Soc. 10(3):232–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seibert SE, Kraimer ML, Liden RC (2001) A social capital theory of career success. Acad. Management J. 44(2):219–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston).Google Scholar
• Shah NP, Levin DZ, Cross R (2018) Secondhand social capital: Boundary spanning, secondhand closure, and individual performance. Soc. Networks 52:18–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaughnessy BA, Mislin AA, Hentschel T (2015) Should he chitchat? The benefits of small talk for male versus female negotiators. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 37(2):105–117.Google Scholar
• Shea CT, Fitzsimons GM (2016) Personal goal pursuit as an antecedent to social network structure. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 137:45–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith EB, Menon T, Thompson L (2012) Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organ. Sci. 23(1):67–82.Link, Google Scholar
• Snyder M (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 30(4):526–537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spence AM (1973) Job market signalling. Quart. J. Econom. 90:225–243.Google Scholar
• Spencer SJ, Zanna MP, Fong GT (2006) Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 89(6):845–851.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stovel K, Shaw L (2012) Brokerage. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38:139–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels RC (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(2):315–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swain J, Korenman L (2018) In their humble opinion: How expressions of humility affect superiors’ assessments of leadership potential in the US Army. Military Psych. 30(6):507–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tang TN, Tang CS (2001) Gender role internalization, multiple roles, and Chinese women’s mental health. Psych. Women Quart. 25(3):181–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thomas-Hunt MC, Phillips KW (2004) When what you know is not enough: Expertise and gender dynamics in task groups. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 30(12):1585–1598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thye SR (2000) A status value theory of power in exchange relations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 65(3):407–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tichy NM, Tushman ML, Fombrun C (1979) Social network analysis for organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 4(4):507–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Torlò VJ, Lomi A (2017) The network dynamics of status: Assimilation and selection. Soc. Forces 96(1):389–422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Totterdell P, Holman D, Hukin A (2008) Social networkers: Measuring and examining individual differences in propensity to connect with others. Soc. Networks 30(4):283–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Treviño LJ, Gomez-Mejia LR, Balkin DB, Mixon FG (2015) Meritocracies or masculinities? The differential allocation of named professorships by gender in the academy. J. Management 44(3):972–1000.Google Scholar
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2023) Table 11: Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity [Data set].Google Scholar
• Wang C, Rodan S, Fruin M, Xu X (2014) Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Acad. Management J. 57(2):484–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Washington M, Zajac EJ (2005) Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Acad. Management J. 48(2):282–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whittington KB (2018) A tie is a tie? Gender and network positioning in life science inventor collaboration. Res. Policy 47(2):511–526.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiggins JS (1979) A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 37(3):395–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Willer R (2009) Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(1):23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams MJ, Tiedens LZ (2016) The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psych. Bull. 142(2):165–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woehler M, Porter CM, Cullen-Lester KL (2023) Should I reach up? Gender differences in benefiting from higher-ranking contacts. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Woehler ML, Cullen-Lester KL, Porter CM, Frear KA (2021) Whether, how, and why networks influence men’s and women’s career success: Review and research agenda. J. Management 47(1):207–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright PH (1978) Toward a theory of friendship based on a conception of self. Human Commun. Res. 4(3):196–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Chawla NV, Uzzi B (2019) A network’s gender composition and communication pattern predict women’s leadership success. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116(6):2033–2038.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu A, Hays NA, Zhao EY (2019) Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 152:84–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu L, Xie D (2008) The relationship between desirable and undesirable gender role traits, and their implications for psychological well-being in Chinese culture. Personality Individual Differences 44(7):1517–1527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu S, Xie Y (2017) Preference effects on friendship choice: Evidence from an online field experiment. Soc. Sci. Res. 66:201–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu S, Blader SL (2020) Why does social class affect subjective well-being? The role of status and power. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 46(3):331–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu S, Kilduff GJ (2020) Knowing where others stand: Accuracy and performance effects of individuals’ perceived status hierarchies. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 119(1):159–184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang EY, Aven BL, Kleinbaum AM (2023) Left but not forgotten: How mobility grants women license to broker. Preprint, submitted January 16, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3692599.Google Scholar
• Zhu Y, Konrad AM, Jiao H (2015) Violation and activation of gender expectations: Do Chinese managerial women face a narrow band of acceptable career guanxi strategies? Asia Pacific J. Management 33(1):53–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (1999) The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1398–1438.Crossref, Google Scholar