Brokerage in intra-organizational networks is critical to performance, but women exhibit less brokerage in their social networks and receive lower performance returns to the brokerage they exhibit than men do. We uncover a condition under which the gender gaps in network advantage are entirely negated: mobility. When women move between units of the organization, they increase their brokerage more than mobile men do. Further, such mobility eliminates the gender gap in returns to brokerage. Using a rich dataset including the personnel records, monthly performance, and email communications of thousands of employees in a large financial institution, we find support for our arguments by comparing the networks and objective performance of those who changed jobs with matched non-movers prior to and following each job change. In probing why this might be the case, we find that women movers are more likely to maintain communication ties to colleagues from their previous roles and that these persistent ties give them a discernible and gender-role-congruent explanation for connecting otherwise disconnected units and benefiting from network brokerage. Our results illuminate important mechanisms by which social network dynamics and mobility affect gender inequality and performance in organizations.
AkinolaM.MartinA. E.PhillipsK. W.2018“To delegate or not to delegate: Gender differences in affective associations and behavioral responses to delegation.”Academy of Management Journal, 61: 1467–1491.
AmanatullahE.MorrisM.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.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98: 256–267.
6.
AntillaS.2002Tales from the Boom-Boom Room: Women vs. Wall Street. Princeton: Bloomburg Press.
7.
ArgoteL.AvenB. L.KushJ.2018“The effects of communication networks and turnover on transactive memory and group performance.”Organization Science, 29: 191–206.
8.
AvenB.HillmannH.2017“Structural role complementarity in entrepreneurial teams.”Management Science, 64: 5688–5704.
9.
AvenB. L.2015“The paradox of corrupt networks: An analysis of organizational crime at Enron.”Organization Science, 26: 980–996.
10.
BarbulescuR.BidwellM.2013“Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers.”Organization Science, 24: 737–756.
11.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS.2015“Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.”Journal of Statistical Software, 67: 1–48.
BellA.JonesK.2015“Explaining fixed effects: Random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data.”Political Science Research and Methods, 3: 133–153.
14.
BensaouB. M.GalunicC.Jonczyk-SédèsC.2014“Players and purists: Networking strategies and agency of service professionals.”Organization Science, 25: 29–56.
15.
BergerJ.NormanR. Z.BalkwellJ. W.SmithR. F.1992“Status inconsistency in task situations: A test of four status processing principles.”American Sociological Review, 57: 843–855.
16.
BernardH. R.KillworthP. D.SailerL.1982“Informant accuracy in social-network data V. An experimental attempt to predict actual communication from recall data.”Social Science Research, 11: 30–66.
BowlesH. R.BabcockL.2013“How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer.”Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37: 80–96.
20.
BowlesH. R.BabcockL.LaiL.2007“Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103: 84–103.
21.
BrandsR. A.ErtugG.FontiF.TasselliS.2022“Theorizing gender in social network research: What we do and what we can do differently.”Academy of Management Annals, 16: 588–620.
22.
BrandsR. A.KilduffM.2014“Just like a woman? Effects of gender-biased perceptions of friendship network brokerage on attributions and performance.”Organization Science, 25: 1530–1548.
23.
BrandsR. A.MehraA.2019“Gender, brokerage, and performance: A construal approach.”Academy of Management Journal, 62: 196–219.
24.
BrandsR. A.MengesJ. I.KilduffM.2015“The leader-in-social-network schema: Perceptions of network structure affect gendered attributions of charisma.”Organization Science, 26: 1210–1225.
25.
BrassD. J.1985“Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization.”Academy of Management Journal, 28: 327–343.
26.
BroschakJ. P.2004“Managers’ mobility and market interface: The effect of managers’ career mobility on the dissolution of market ties.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 608–640.
27.
BurgessD.BorgidaE.1999“Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination.”Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5: 665–692.
28.
BurtR. S.1992Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
BurtR. S.1998“The gender of social capital.”Rationality and Society, 10: 5–46.
30.
BurtR. S.2000a “The network structure of social capital.”Research in Organization Behavior, 22: 345–423.
BurtR. S.2001“Attachment, decay, and social network.”Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 619–643.
33.
BurtR. S.2005Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
BurtR. S.MerluzziJ.2016“Network oscillation.”Academy of Management Discoveries, 2: 368–391.
35.
BurtR. S.ReagansR.VolvovskyH.2021“Network brokerage and the perception of leadership.”Social Networks, 65: 33–50.
36.
CarnahanS.SomayaD.2013“Alumni effects and relational advantage: The impact on outsourcing when a buyer hires employees from a supplier’s competitors.”Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1578–1600.
37.
CasciaroT.1998“Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception.”Social Networks, 20: 331–351.
38.
CastillaE. J.2005“Social networks and employee performance in a call center.”American Journal of Sociology, 110: 1243–1283.
39.
CastillaE. J.2011“Bringing managers back in: Managerial influences on workplace inequality.”American Sociological Review, 76: 667–694.
40.
CastillaE. J.BenardS.2010“The paradox of meritocracy in organizations.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 543–676.
41.
CorrellS. J.2004“Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations.”American Sociological Review, 69: 93–113.
42.
DahlanderL.McFarlandD. A.2013“Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 69–110.
43.
DawsonJ. F.RichterA. W.2006“Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test.”Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 917–926.
44.
DokkoG.JiangW.2017“Managing talent across organizations: The portability of individual performance.” In CascioW. F.CollingsD.MellahiK. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Talent Management: 115–133. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
DokkoG.KaneA. A.TortorielloM.2014“One of us or one of my friends: How social identity and tie strength shape the creative generativity of boundary-spanning ties.”Organization Studies, 35: 703–726.
46.
DunbarR. I. M.2008“Cognitive constraints on the structure and dynamics of social networks.”Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12: 7–16.
47.
DunbarR. I. M.SpoorsM.1995“Social networks, support cliques, and kinship.”Human Nature, 6: 273–290.
48.
EaglyA. H.2005“Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?”Leadership Quarterly, 16: 459–474.
49.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J.2002“Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.”Psychological Review, 109: 573–598.
50.
ElliottC.SteadV.2017“Constructing women’s leadership representation in the UK press during a time of financial crisis: Gender capitals and dialectical tensions.”Organization Studies, 39: 19–45.
51.
ErtugG.BrenneckeJ.KovacsB.ZouT.2022“What does homophily do? A review of the consequences of homophily.”Academy of Management Annals, 16: 38–69.
52.
FangR.ZhangZ.ShawJ. D.2021“Gender and social network brokerage: A meta-analysis and field investigation.”Journal of Applied Psychology, 106: 1630–1654.
53.
FeldS. L.1981“The focused organization of social ties.”American Journal of Sociology, 86: 1015–1035.
54.
FernandezR. M.CastillaE. J.MooreP.2000“Social capital at work: Networks and employment at a phone center.”American Journal of Sociology, 105: 1288–1356.
55.
FriedmanR. A.PodolnyJ.1992“Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotiations and implications for role conflict.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 28–47.
56.
GargiuloM.BenassiM.2000“Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital.”Organization Science, 11: 183–196.
57.
GodartF. C.ShipilovA. V.ClaesK.2014“Making the most of the revolving door: The impact of outward personnel mobility networks on organizational creativity.”Organization Science, 25: 377–400.
58.
GranovetterM.1973“The strength of weak ties.”American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360–1380.
59.
GroysbergB.2010Chasing Stars: The Myth of Talent and the Portability of Performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
60.
GroysbergB.LeeL. E.2009“Hiring stars and their colleagues: Exploration and exploitation in professional service firms.”Organization Science, 20: 740–758.
61.
GroysbergB.LeeL. E.NandaA.2008“Can they take it with them? The portability of star knowledge workers’ performance.”Management Science, 54: 1213–1230.
62.
GulatiR.1995“Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances.”Academy of Management Journal, 38: 85–112.
IbarraH.1992“Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 422–447.
65.
IorioA.2022“Brokers in disguise: The joint effect of actual brokerage and socially perceived brokerage on network advantage.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 67: 769–820.
66.
JonczykC. D.LeeY. G.GalunicC. D.BensaouB. M.2016“Relational changes during role transitions: The interplay of efficiency and cohesion.”Academy of Management Journal, 59: 956–982.
67.
KanterR. M.1977“Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women.”American Journal of Sociology, 82: 965–990.
68.
KellerJ. R.2018“Posting and slotting: How hiring processes shape the quality of hire and compensation in internal labor markets.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 848–878.
69.
KilduffM.BrassD.2010“Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates.”Academy of Management Annals, 4: 317–357.
70.
KleinbaumA. M.2012“Organizational misfits and the origins of brokerage in intrafirm networks.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 57: 407–452.
71.
KleinbaumA. M.2018“Reorganization and tie decay choices.”Management Science, 64: 2219–2237.
72.
KleinbaumA. M.StuartT.2014“Network responsiveness: The social structural micro foundations of dynamic capabilities.”Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4): 353–367.
73.
KleinbaumA. M.StuartT.TushmanM.2013“Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization.”Organization Science, 24: 1316–1336.
74.
KossinetsG.WattsD. J.2009“Origins of homophily in an evolving social network.”American Journal of Sociology, 115: 405–450.
75.
KovacsB.KleinbaumA. M.2019“Language-style similarity and social networks.”Psychological Science, 31: 202–213.
76.
KrackhardtD.1998“Simmelian ties: Super strong and sticky.” In KramerR. M.NealeM. A. (eds.), Power and Influence in Organizations: 21–38. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
77.
KrackhardtD.1999“The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations.” In BacharachS. B.AndrewsS. B.KnokeD. (eds.), Networks In and Around Organizations: Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 16: 183–210. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
78.
KramK. E.1985Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Glenview: Scott Foresman.
79.
LeeM.HuangL.2018“Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures.”Organization Science, 29: 1–16.
80.
LeeS.2019“Learning-by-moving: Can reconfiguring spatial proximity between organizational members promote individual-level exploration?”Organization Science, 30: 467–488.
81.
LeeY. G.KovalC. Z.LeeS. S.2023“The glass wall and the gendered evaluation of role expansion in freelancing careers.”Academy of Management Journal, 66: 1042–1070.
82.
LevinD. Z.WalterJ.MurnighanJ. K.2011“Dormant ties: The value of reconnecting.”Organization Science, 22: 923–939.
83.
LluentT.2022“Befriend thy neighbor: Office seating, social networks and gender.”Academy of Management Proceedings: 11729.
MartinA. E.SlepianM. L.2020“The primacy of gender: Gendered cognition underlies the big two dimensions of social cognition.”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16: 1143–1158.
86.
MehraA.KilduffM.BrassD. J.1998“At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups.”Academy of Management Journal, 41: 441–452.
87.
MelinJ. L.MerluzziJ. M.2022“When women do ‘men’s work’: Hybrid femininity and within-gender inequality in job search.”Academy of Management Proceedings: 10631.
88.
ObukhovaE.KleinbaumA.2022“Scouting and schmoozing: A gender difference in networking during job search.”Academy of Management Discoveries, 8: 203–223.
89.
Ody-BrasierA.Fernandez-MateoI.2017“When being in the minority pays off: Relationships among sellers and price setting in the Champagne industry.”American Sociological Review, 82: 147–178.
90.
PadgettJ. F.AnsellC. K.1993“Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434.”American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1259–1319.
91.
PodolnyJ. M.BaronJ. N.1997“Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace.”American Sociological Review, 62: 673–693.
92.
QuintaneE.KleinbaumA. M.2011“Matter over mind? E-mail data and the measurement of social networks.”Connections, 31: 22–46.
93.
ReskinB.McBrierD. B.2000“Why not ascription? Organizations’ employment of male and female managers.”American Sociological Review, 65: 210–233.
94.
RidgewayC. L.2001“Gender, status, and leadership.”Journal of Social Issues, 57: 637–655.
95.
RidgewayC. L.CorrellS. J.2004“Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations.”Gender & Society, 18: 510–531.
96.
RobertsS. B. G.DunbarR. I. M.2015“Managing relationship decay: Network, gender, and contextual effects.”Human Nature, 26: 426–450.
97.
RobertsS. B. G.DunbarR. I. M.PolletT. V.KuppensT.2009“Exploring variation in active network size: Constraints and ego characteristics.”Social Networks, 31: 138–146.
98.
RoganM.SorensonO.2014“Picking a (poor) partner: A relationship perspective on acquisitions.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 301–329.
99.
RothL. M.2006Selling Women Short: Gender Inequality on Wall Street. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
100.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS.2012“Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48: 165–179.
101.
SasovovaZ.MehraA.BorgattiS. P.SchippersM. C.2010“Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 639–670.
SimonH. A.1955“A behavioral model of rational choice.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69: 99–118.
104.
SinghJ.HansenM. T.PodolnyJ. M.2010“The world is not small for everyone: Inequity in searching for knowledge in organizations.”Management Science, 56: 1415–1438.
105.
ŠkudienėV.ŠlepikaitėK.2013“Front-line employees’ recognition and empowerment effect on retail bank customers’ perceived value.”Journal of Service Science, 6: 105–116.
106.
SmithE. B.BrandsR. A.BrashearsM. E.KleinbaumA. M.2020“Social networks and cognition.”Annual Review of Sociology, 46: 159–174.
107.
SomayaD.WilliamsonI. O.LorinkovaN.2008“Gone but not lost: The different performance impacts of employee mobility between cooperators versus competitors.”Academy of Management Journal, 51: 936–953.
108.
StovelK.GolubB.Meyersson MilgromE. M.2011“Stabilizing brokerage.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108: 21326–21332.
109.
StovelK.ShawL.2012“Brokerage.”Annual Review of Sociology, 38: 139–158.
110.
TortorielloM.ReagansR.McEvilyB.2012“Bridging the knowledge gap: The influence of strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge between organizational units.”Organization Science, 23: 1024–1039.
111.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S.1987Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
112.
WalshI. J.HalginD. S.HuangZ.2018“Making old friends: Understanding the causes and consequences of maintaining former coworker relationships.”Academy of Management Discoveries, 4: 410–428.
113.
WoehlerM. L.Cullen-LesterK. L.PorterC. M.FrearK. A.2021“Whether, how, and why networks influence men’s and women’s career success: Review and research agenda.”Journal of Management, 47: 201–236.
114.
XiaoZ.TsuiA. S.2007“When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 1–31.
115.
YangL.HoltzD.JaffeS.SuriS.SinhaS.WestonJ.JoyceC., et al. 2021“The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers.”Nature Human Behaviour, 6: 43–54.
116.
YangY.ChawlaN. V.UzziB.2019“A network’s gender composition and communication pattern predict women’s leadership success.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116: 2033–2038.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
