Empowerment Mitigates Gender Differences in Tertius Iungens Brokering

References

• Acker J (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender Soc. 4(2):139–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akaike H (1987) Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52(3):317–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Al-Dajani H, Marlow S (2013) Empowerment and entrepreneurship: A theoretical framework. Internat. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 19(5):503–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aldrich HE (1989) Networking among women entrepreneurs. Hagen O, Rivchum C, Sexton D, eds. Women Owned Businesses (Praeger, New York), 103–132.Google Scholar
• Arvey RD, Li W-D, Wang N (2016) Genetics and organizational behavior. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 3(1):167–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RP (1980) Causal Models in Marketing (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Bales RF, Slater PE (1955) Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. Parsons T, Bales RF, eds. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process (Free Press, Glencoe, IL), 259–306.Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Sommer KL (1997) What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson. Psych. Bull. 122(1):38–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benenson JF, Christakos A (2003) The greater fragility of females’ vs. males’ closest same-sex friendships. Child Dev. 74(4):1123–1129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bouchard T, Lykken D, McGue N, Segal N, Tellegen A (1990) Sources of human psychological difference: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science 12(4978):223–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bouchard TJ Jr, Propping P (1993) Twins as a Tool of Behaviour Genetics (Wiley, Chichester, UK).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 RA, Fernandez-Mateo I (2017) Leaning out: How negative recruitment experiences shape women’s decisions to compete for executive roles. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(3):405–442.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, Mehra A (2019) Gender, brokerage and performance: A construal approach. Acad. Management J. 62(1):196–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burkhardt ME, Brass DJ (1990) Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):104–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1998) The gender of social capital. Rationality Soc. 10(1):5–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2002) Bridge decay. Soc. Networks 24(4):333–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Ronchi D (2007) Teaching executives to see social capital: Results from a field experiment. Soc. Sci. Res. 36(3):1156–1183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buss DM (1995) Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psych. Inquiry 6(1):1–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cadinu M, Galdi S (2012) Gender differences in implicit gender self-categorization lead to stronger gender self-stereotyping by women than by men. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 42(5):546–552.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carey G (2003) Human Genetics for the Social Sciences (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Gino F, Kouchaki M (2014) The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties: How networking can make us feel dirty. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(4):705–735.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi SW, Mak TS, O’Reilly PF (2020) Tutorial: A guide to performing polygenic risk score analyses. Nat. Protocols 15(9):2759–2772.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corrigan PW, Watson AC (2002) The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clin. Psych. Sci. Practice 9(1):35–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cosmides L, Tooby J (1989) Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture: Part II. Case study: A computational theory of social exchange. Ethology Sociobiology 10(1-3):51–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crocker J, Major B (1989) Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psych. Rev. 96(4):608–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM (2011) Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Admin. Sci. Quart. 56(2):159–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Neve JE, Mikhaylov S, Dawes CT, Christakis NA, Fowler JH (2013) Born to lead? A twin design and genetic association study of leadership role occupancy. Leadership Quart. 24(1):45–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delmar F, Davidsson P (2000) Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Regional Development 12(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dess GW, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 29(1):52–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Díaz-Faes AA, Otero-Hermida P, Ozman M, D’este P (2020) Do women in science form more diverse research networks than men? An analysis of Spanish biomedical scientists. PLoS One 15(8):e0238229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
• Eagly AH (2007) Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psych. Women Quart. 31(1):1–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Wood W (2011) Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex Roles 64(9-10):758–767.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Makhijani MG, Klonsky BG (1992) Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 111(1):3–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (1998) Are women less selfish than men: Evidence from dictator experiments. Econom. J. 108(448):726–735.Google Scholar
• Ellis L (2011) Evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory and universal gender differences in cognition and behavior. Sex Roles 64(9-10):707–722.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Einarsdottir UD, Christiansen TH, Kristjansdottir ES (2018) “It’s a man who runs the show”: How women middle-managers experience their professional position, opportunities, and barriers. SAGE Open 8(1):2158244017753989.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fang R, Zhang Z, Shaw JD (2020) Gender and social network brokerage: A meta-analysis and field investigation. J. Appl. Psych. 106(11):1630–1654.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
• Fine C, Jordan-Young R, Kaiser A, Rippon G (2013) Plasticity, plasticity, plasticity… and the rigid problem of sex. Trends Cognitive Sci. 17(11):550–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social Cognition, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fitzsimmons TW, Callan VJ (2016) Applying a capital perspective to explain continued gender inequality in the C-suite. Leadership Quart. 27(3):354–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. 18(1):39–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fowler JH, Dawes CT, Christakis NA (2009) Model of genetic variation in human social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(6):1720–1724.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freese J, Shostak S (2009) Genetics and social inquiry. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:107–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Furstenberg FF (2005) Banking on families: How families generate and distribute social capital. J. Marriage Family 67(4):809–821.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gartner WB (1989) Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice 14(l):27–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geary DC (2009) Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 2nd ed. (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
• Glick P, Wilk K, Perreault M (1995) Images of occupations: Components of gender and status in occupational stereotypes. Sex Roles 32(9-10):565–582.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gowaty P, ed. (1997) Feminism and Evolutionary Biology: Boundaries, Intersections and Frontiers (Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FL).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene KT (2012) Women, entrepreneurship, and empowerment. Lyon SM, Wells EC eds. Global Tourism: Cultural Heritage and Economic Encounters (AltaMira Press, Plymouth, UK), 165–185.Google Scholar
• Greguletz E, Diehl MR, Kreutzer K (2019) Why women build less effective networks than men: The role of structural exclusion and personal hesitation. Human Relations 72(7):1234–1261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grosser TJ, Obstfeld D, Labianca G, Borgatti SP (2019) Measuring mediation and separation brokerage orientations: A further step toward studying the social network brokerage process. Acad. Management Discoveries 5(2):114–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groysberg B (2010) Chasing Stars: The Myth of Talent and the Portability of Performance (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gunderson EP, Tsai A-L, Selby JV, Caan B, Mayer-Davis EJ, Risch N (2006) Twins of mistaken zygosity, evidence for genetic contributions to dietary patterns and physiologic traits. Twin Res. Human Genetics 9(4):540–549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Hakim AJ, Cherkas LF, Grahame R, Spector TD, MacGregor AJ (2004) The genetic epidemiology of joint hypermobility. Arthritis Rheumatism 50(8):2640–2644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy N, Kalish Y (2022) Broadening vs. deepening: Gender and brokering in social networks. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 13(2):618–625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannagan R, Litvay L, Popa SA (2014) Theorizing sex differences in political knowledge: Insights from a twin study. Politics Gender 10(1):89–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hasan S (2010) Social networks, stratification and careers in organizations. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
• Heilman ME (1983) Sex bias in work settings: The Lack of Fit model. Res. Organ. Behav. 5:269–298.Google Scholar
• Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM (2004) Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J. Appl. Psych. 89(3):416–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hentschel T, Heilman ME, Peus CV (2019) The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Front. Psychol. 10:11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hettema JM, Neale MC, Kendler KS (1995) Physical similarity and the equal environment assumption in twin studies of psychiatric disorders. Behav. Genetics 25(4):327–335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria vs. new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6(1):1–55.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 (1997) Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Soc. Psych. Quart. 60(1):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
• Kanter RM (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Kauppila OP, Bizzi L, Obstfeld D (2018) Connecting and creating: Tertius iungens, individual creativity, and strategic decision processes. Strategic Management J. 39(3):697–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kelloway EK (1998) Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Kendler KS, Neale MC, Kessler RC, Heath AC, Eaves LJ (1993) A test of the equal environment assumption in twin studies of psychiatric illness. Behav. Genetics 23(1):21–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khera AV, Chaffin M, Aragam KG, Haas ME, Roselli C, Choi SH, Natarajan P, et al. (2018) Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat. Genetics 50(9):1219–1224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Korkki P (2011) For women, parity is still a subtly steep climb. New York Times (October 8), https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/jobs/09work.html.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
• Kwang T, Crockett EE, Sanchez DT, Swann WB Jr (2013) Men seek social standing, women seek companionship: Sex differences in deriving self-worth from relationships. Psych. Sci. 24(7):1142–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landis B, Kilduff M, Menges J, Kilduff G (2018) The paradox of agency: Feeling powerful reduces brokerage opportunity recognition yet increases willingness to broker. J. Appl. Psych. 103(8):929–938.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee M, Huang L (2018) Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organ. Sci. 29(1):1–16.Link, Google Scholar
• Lewis DM, Al-Shawaf L, Conroy-Beam D, Asao K, Buss DM (2017) Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide. Amer. Psych. 72(4):353–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liesen LT (2007) Women, behavior, and evolution: Understanding the debate between feminist evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists. Politics Life Sci. 26(1):51–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Llopis O, D’Este P, Díaz-Faes AA (2021) Connecting others: Does a tertius iungens orientation shape the relationship between research networks and innovation? Res. Policy 50(4):104175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Long Lingo E, O’Mahony S (2010) Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(1):47–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luciano M, Hagenaars SP, Davies G, Hill WD, Clarke TK, Shirali M, Harris SE, et al. (2018) Association analysis in over 329,000 individuals identifies 116 independent variants influencing neuroticism. Nat. Genetics 50(1):6–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lykken D, Bouchard T, McGue M, Tellegen A (1993) Heritability of interests: A twin study. J. Appl. Psych. 78(4):649–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lykken DT, McGue M, Tellegen A (1987) Recruitment bias in twin research: The rule of two-thirds reconsidered. Behav. Genetics 17(4):343–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCarthy MM, Arnold AP, Ball GF, Blaustein JD, De Vries GJ (2012) Sex differences in the brain: The not so inconvenient truth. J. Neurosci. 32(7):2241–2247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psych. Methods 1(2):130–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mangino M, Roederer M, Beddall MH, Nestle FO, Spector TD (2017) Innate and adaptive immune traits are differentially affected by genetic and environmental factors. Nat. Commun. 8(1):1–7.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maranto CL, Griffin AE (2011) The antecedents of a ‘chilly climate’ for women faculty in higher education. Human Relations 64(2):139–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsh HW, Hocevar D (1988) A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 73(1):107–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marx K (1897) The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (International Publishing Company, New York).Google Scholar
• May A (2011) Experience-dependent structural plasticity in the adult human brain. Trends Cognitive Sci. 15(10):475–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L (1982) Women and weak ties: Differences by sex in the size of voluntary organizations. Amer. J. Sociol. 87(4):883–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mechanic D (1991) Adolescents at risk: New directions. J. Adolescent Health 12(8):638–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meeker B, Weitzel-O’Neill P (1977) Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task oriented groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 42(1):91–105.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
• Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ (1998) At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Acad. Management J. 4(4):441–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meriläinen S, Tienari J, Valtonen A (2015) Headhunters and the ‘ideal’ executive body. Organization 22(1):3–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merluzzi J (2013) Social capital in Asia: Investigating returns to brokerage in collectivistic national cultures. Soc. Sci. Res. 42(3):882–892.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mesch G, Czamanski D (1997) Occupational closure and immigrant entrepreneurship: Russian Jews in Israel. J. Socio-Economics 26(6):597–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller VM (2012) In pursuit of scientific excellence: sex matters. J. Appl. Physiology 112(9):1427–1428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moayyeri A, Hammond CJ, Hart DJ, Spector TD (2013) The UK Adult Twin Registry (TwinsUK Resource). Twin Res. Hum. Genetics 16(1):144–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mohammed I, Cherkas LF, Riley SA, Spector TD, Trudgill NJ (2003) Genetic influences in gastro-oesophageas reflux disease: A twin study. Gut 52(8):1085–1089.Google Scholar
• Moore G (1990) Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 55(5):726–735.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreira J, Marques CS, Braga A, Ratten V (2019) A systematic review of women’s entrepreneurship and internationalization literature. Thunderbird Internat. Bus. Rev. 61(4):635–648.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neale MC, Boker SM, Xie G, Maes HH (2003) Mx: Statistical Modeling (Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA).Google Scholar
• Nebenzahl ID, Jaffe ED, Gotesdyner H (1993) Perceptions of Israeli male and female managerial behavior in small group interactions. Internat. Stud. Management Organ. 23(3):97–111.Google Scholar
• Nicolaou N, Phan PH, Stephan U (2021) The biological perspective in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice 45(1):3–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nicolaou N, Shane S, Cherkas L, Hunkin J, Spector TD (2008) Is the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Management Sci. 54(1):167–179.Link, Google Scholar
• Nofal A, Nicolaou N, Symeonidou N, Shane S (2018) Biology and management: A review, critique, and research agenda. J. Management 44(1):7–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obstfeld D (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(1):100–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obstfeld D (2017) Getting New Things Done: Social Networks, Brokerage, and the Assembly of Innovative Action (Stanford University Press, Redwood City, CA).Google Scholar
• Obstfeld D, Borgatti SP, Davis J (2014) Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third party action from social network structure. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Labianca GJ, Brass DJ, eds. Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Social Networks, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 40 (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Cambridge, MA), 135–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obstfeld D, Ventresca MJ, Fisher G (2020) An assembly perspective of entrepreneurial projects: Social networks in action. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 14:149–177.Google Scholar
• Ozcan P, Eisenhardt KM (2009) Origin of alliance portfolios: Entrepreneurs, network strategies, and firm performance. Acad. Management J. 52(2):246–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Leary-Kelly AM, Bowes-Sperry L, Bates CA, Lean ER (2009) Sexual harassment at work: A decade (plus) of progress. J. Management 35(3):503–536.Google Scholar
• Patterson N (2020) Developing inclusive and collaborative entrepreneuring spaces. Gender Management 35(3):291–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pearlman EM, Ganon JA (2000) Raising Twins: What Parents Want to Know, and What Twins Want to Tell Them (Harper Resource, New York).Google Scholar
• Percheski C (2008) Opting out? Cohort differences in professional women’s employment rates from 1960 to 2005. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 73(3):497–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plomin R, Bergeman CS (1991) The nature of nurture: Genetic influences on environmental measures. Behav. Brain Sci. 14(3):373–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM (2013) Behavioral Genetics, 6th ed. (Worth Publishers, New York).Google Scholar
• Porck JP, Matta FK, Hollenbeck JR, Oh JK, Lanaj K, Lee SM (2019) Social identification in multiteam systems: The role of depletion and task complexity. Acad. Management J. 62(4):1137–1162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quintane E, Carnabuci G (2016) How do brokers broker? Tertius gaudens, tertius iungens, and the temporality of structural holes. Organ. Sci. 27(6):1343–1360.Link, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Smith-Lovin L (1999) The gender system and interaction. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:191–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rowe D (2003) Assessing genotype×environment interactions and correlations in a postgenomic world. Plomin R, DeFries JC, Craig IW, McGuffin P, eds. Behavioral Genetics in the Postgenomic Era (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC), 71–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scarr S, Carter-Saltzman L (1979) Twin method: Defense of a critical assumption. Behav. Genet. 9(6):527–542.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schnittker J (2008) Happiness and success: Genes, families, and the psychological effects of socioeconomic position and social support. Amer. J. Sociol. 114(S1):S233–S259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schunck D (2013) Within and between estimates in random-effects models: Advantages and drawbacks of correlated random effects and hybrid models. Stata J. 13(1):65–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi W, Markoczy L, Dess GG (2009) The role of middle management in the strategy process: Group affiliation, structural holes, and tertius iungens. J. Management 35(6):1453–1480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shih M (2004) Positive stigma: Examining resilience and empowerment in overcoming stigma. Ann. Amer. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 591(1):175–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silvey R, Elmhirst R (2003) Engendering social capital: Women workers and rural–urban networks in Indonesia’s crisis. World Dev. 31(5):865–879.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmel G (1949) The sociology of sociability. Amer. J. Sociol. 55(3):254–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singer J, MacGregor AJ, Cherkas LF, Spector TD (2005) Where did I leave my keys? A twin study of self-reported memory ratings using the multifactorial memory questionnaire. Twin Res. Human Genetics 8(2):108–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spence JT, Buckner CE (2000) Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psych. Women Quart. 24(1):44–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spencer SJ, Logel C, Davies PG (2016) Stereotype threat. Annu. Rev. Psych. 67:415–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stovel K, Golub B, Milgrom EMM (2011) Stabilizing brokerage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(Supplement 4):21326–21332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stovel K, Shaw L (2012) Brokerage. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38:139–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stromquist NP (2015) Women’s empowerment and education: Linking knowledge to transformative action. Eur. J. Educ. 50(3):307–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tasselli S, Kilduff M, Landis B (2018) Personality change: Implications for organizational behavior. Acad. Management Ann. 12(2):467–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tharenou P, Latimer S, Conroy D (1994) How do you make it to the top? An examination of influences on women’s and men’s managerial advancement. Acad. Management J. 37(4):899–931.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
• van Breen JA, Spears R, Kuppens T, de Lemus S (2018) Subliminal gender stereotypes: Who can resist? Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 44(12):1648–1663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van den Brink M, Benschop Y (2014) Gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial recruitment. J. Management Stud. 51(3):460–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Wilson F, Kickul J, Marlino D (2007) Gender, entrepreneurial self–efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice 31(3):387–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xiao Z, Tsui AS (2007) When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yukl GA, Becker WS (2006) Effective empowerment in organizations. Organ. Management J. 3(3):210–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zimmerman MA (1995) Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. Amer. J. Community Psych. 23(5):581–599.Crossref, Google Scholar