Although scholars have long acknowledged the importance of having effective networks in business, little is known about the role of women’s professional status in the effectiveness of their networks. Drawing on gender-status beliefs theory, we examine how a woman’s status affects levels of trust in the information that she shares with members of her professional network. We hypothesize that network members are likely to mistrust information from women because of a gender-status mismatch—a perceived mismatch between a woman’s work-related high status and her low social status, due to widely held beliefs about women’s lack of competence. By measuring three types of status and analyzing trust levels in 3,842 dyads from communication networks in a UK railway construction project from 2014 through 2015, we find that network members trust information from women who are in supervisory positions and are connected with central contacts less than information from low-status women. Our study extends the literature on gender-status beliefs and effective networks, and discusses practical implications.
AndersonCameronHildrethJohn Angus DHowlandLaura. 2015. Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin141 (3): 574–601.
2.
BergerJosephFisekM. HametNormanRobert Z.ZelditchMorrisJr.1977. Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation states approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
3.
BevelanderDianneJohn PageMichael. 2011. Ms. Trust: Gender, networks and trust—Implications for management and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education10 (4): 623–42.
4.
BitektineAlex. 2011. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review36 (1): 151–79.
5.
BonacichPhillip. 1972. Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology2 (1): 113–20.
6.
BrandsRaina A.2013. Cognitive social structures in social network research: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior34 (S1): S82–S103.
7.
BrandsRaina A.KilduffMartin. 2014. Just like a woman? Effects of gender-biased perceptions of friendship network brokerage on attributions and performance. Organization Science25 (5): 1530–48.
8.
BrandsRaina A.MengesJochen I.KilduffMartin. 2015. The leader-in-social-network schema: Perceptions of network structure affect gendered attributions of charisma.Organization Science26 (4): 1210–25.
9.
BrassDaniel J.1985. Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal28 (2): 327–43.
10.
BrinesJulie. 1994. Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology100 (3): 652–88.
11.
BurtRonald S.1998. The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society10 (1): 5–46.
12.
CohenPhilip N.HuffmanMatt L.2007. Working for the woman? Female managers and the gender wage gap. American Sociological Review72 (5): 681–704.
13.
CohenPhilip N.HuffmanMatt L.KnauerStefanie. 2009. Stalled progress? Gender segregation and wage inequality among managers, 1980–2000. Work and Occupations36 (4): 318–42.
14.
CrosonRachelBuchanNancy. 1999. Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. American Economic Review89 (2): 386–91.
15.
DovidioJohn F.GaertnerSamuel L.2010. Inter-group bias. In Handbook of social psychology, edited by FiskeSusan T.GilbertDaniel ToddLindzeyGardner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
16.
DuguidMichelle M.2011. Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes116 (1): 104–15.
17.
DuguidMichelle M.Thomas-HuntMelissa C.2015. Condoning stereotypes? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology100 (2): 343–59.
18.
EckelCatherineGrossmanPhilip. 2008. The difference in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. In Handbook of experimental economics results, Vol. 1, edited by CharlesR. PlottVernonL. Smith. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
19.
ElyRobin J.IbarraHerminiaKolbDeborah. 2011. Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education10 (3): 474–93.
20.
ElyRobin J.MeyersonDebra E.2000. Theories of gender: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behavior22 (Jan): 103–51.
21.
FarisRobertFelmleeDiane. 2011. Status struggles: Network centrality and gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review76 (1): 48–73.
22.
FernandezRoberto M.CastillaEmilio J.MoorePaul. 2000. Social capital at work: Networks and employment at a phone center. American Journal of Sociology105 (5): 1288–1356.
23.
FiskSusan R.RidgewayCecilia L.2018. Framing gender. In Handbook of the sociology of gender, edited by RismanBarbara J.FroyumCarissa M.ScarboroughWilliam J.New York: Springer eBooks.
24.
FoschiMartha. 1996. Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly59 (3): 237–54.
25.
FoschiMartha. 2000. Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology26:21–42.
26.
FukuyamaFrancis. 1995. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: The Free Press.
27.
GabrielShiraGardnerWendi L.1999. Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77 (3): 642–55.
28.
GonçalvesBrunoPerraNicolaVespignaniAlessandro. 2011. Modeling users’ activity on twitter networks: Validation of Dunbar’s number. PLoS ONE6 (8): e22656.
29.
GouldRoger V.2002. The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. American Journal of Sociology107 (5): 1143–78.
30.
GreguletzElenaDiehlMarjo-RiittaKreutzerKarin. 2019. Why women build less effective networks than men: The role of structural exclusion and personal hesitation.Human Relations72 (7): 1234–61.
31.
HairJoseph F.BlackWilliam C.BabinBarry J.AndersonRolph E.2010. Multivariate data analysis: Global edition. 7th ed.London: Pearson Education.
32.
HughesEverett Cherrington. 1945. Dilemmas and contradictions of status. American Journal of Sociology50 (5): 353–59.
33.
HuisingRuthanne. 2015. To hive or to hold? Producing professional authority through scut work. Administrative Science Quarterly60 (2): 263–99.
34.
IbarraHerminia. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly37 (3): 422–47.
35.
IbarraHerminia. 1997. Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly60 (1): 91–102.
36.
IbarraHerminiaCarterNancy M.SilvaChristine. 2010. Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review88 (9): 80–85.
37.
IbarraHerminiaElyRobin J.DeborahM. Kolb. 2013. Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business Review91 (9): 60–66.
38.
IbarraHerminiaKilduffMartinTsaiWenpin. 2005. Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science16 (4): 359–71.
39.
JensenMichaelKimBo KyungKimHeeyon. 2010. The importance of status in markets: A market identity perspective. In Status in management and organizations, edited by JoneL. Pearce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
KalevAlexandraDeutschGal. 2018. Gender inequality and workplace organizations: Understanding reproduction and change. In Handbook of the sociology of gender, edited by RismanBarbara J.FroyumCarissa M.ScarboroughWilliam J.New York: Springer eBooks.
41.
KarunakaranArvind. 2022. Status–authority asymmetry between professions: The case of 911 dispatchers and police officers. Administrative Science Quarterly67 (2): 423–68.
42.
KimJae YunFitzsimonsGráinne M.KayAaron C.2018. Lean in messages increase attributions of women’s responsibility for gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology115 (6): 974–1001.
43.
KovácsBalázsSharkeyAmanda J.2014. The paradox of publicity: How awards can negatively affect the evaluation of quality. Administrative Science Quarterly59 (1): 1–33.
44.
LenskiGerhard E.1954. Status crystallization: a non-vertical dimension of social status. American Sociological Review19 (4): 405–13.
45.
LinNan. 2001. Inequality in social capital: A research agenda. In Social capital: A theory of social structure and action, edited by LinNanCookKaren S.BurtRonald S.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
LucasJeffrey W.2003. Status processes and the institutionalization of women as leaders. American Sociological Review68 (3): 464–80.
47.
LynnFredaPodolnyJoel M.2009. Status. In The Oxford handbook of analytical sociology, edited by HedströmPeterBearmanPeter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
MacyMichael W.SkvoretzJohn. 1998. The evolution of trust and cooperation between strangers: A computational model. American Sociological Review63 (5): 638–60.
49.
MadduxWilliam W.BrewerMarilynn B.2005. Gender differences in the relational and collective bases for trust. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations8 (2): 159–71.
50.
MageeJoe C.GalinskyAdam D.2008. Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals2 (1): 351–98.
51.
McGuireGail M.2002. Gender, race, and the shadow structure: A study of informal networks and inequality in a work organization. Gender & Society16 (3): 303–22.
52.
MerluzziJennifer. 2017. Gender and negative network ties: Exploring difficult work relationships within and across gender. Organization Science28 (4): 636–52.
53.
MertonRobert K.1940. Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces18 (4): 560–68.
54.
MertonRobert K.1968. The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science159 (3810): 56–63.
55.
MolhoCatherineTyburJoshua MVan LangePaul A. M.BallietDaniel. 2020. Direct and indirect punishment of norm violations in daily life. Nature Communications11:3432. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17286-2.
56.
MooreGwen. 1990. Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review55 (5): 726–35.
57.
MorgenrothTheklaRyanMichelle K.2018. Addressing gender inequality: Stumbling blocks and roads ahead. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations21 (5): 671–77.
58.
NapierBarbara J.FerrisGerald R.1993. Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review3 (4): 321–57.
59.
NowlisStephen M.KahnBarbara E.RaviDhar. 2002. Coping with ambivalence: The effect of removing a neutral option on consumer attitude and preference judgments. Journal of Consumer Research29 (3): 319–34.
60.
PrykeStephenAddymanSimonSoundararajBalamuruganBadiSulafa. 2017. Evaluation of collaborative teams for complex infrastructure projects through social network analysis: Technical report: Knowledge transfer partnership, 2014–2016. London: Bartlett School of Construction & Project Management. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/construction/sites/bartlett/files/ktp-report-2016.pdf.
61.
ReskinBarbara F.RoosPatricia A.1990. Job queues, gender queues: Explaining women’s inroads into male occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
62.
RidgewayCecilia L.1997. Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review62 (2): 218–35.
63.
RidgewayCecilia L.2001. Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues57 (4): 637–55.
64.
RidgewayCecilia L.2011. Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
RidgewayCecilia L.2014. Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review79 (1): 1–16.
66.
RidgewayCecilia L.BackorKristenLiYan E.TinklerJustine E.EricksonKristan G.2009. How easily does a social difference become a status distinction? Gender matters. American Sociological Review74 (1): 44–62.
67.
RidgewayCecilia L.JosephBerger. 1986. Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review51 (5): 603–17.
68.
RidgewayCecilia L.BoyleElizabeth HegerKuipersKathy J.RobinsonDawn T.1998. How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review63 (3): 331–50.
69.
RidgewayCecilia L.CorrellShelley J.2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society18 (4): 510–31.
70.
RismanBarbara J.2018. Gender as a social structure. In Handbook of the sociology of gender, edited by RismanBarbara J.FroyumCarissa M.ScarboroughWilliam J.New York: Springer eBooks.
71.
SauderMichaelLynnFredaPodolnyJoel M.2012. Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology38:267–83.
72.
SchilkeOliverReimannMartinCookKaren S.2021. Trust in social relations. Annual Review of Sociology47:239–59.
73.
SchneiderJoachimCookKaren. 1995. Status inconsistency and gender: Combining revisited. Small Group Research26 (3): 372–99.
74.
ScottDenise Benoit. 1996. Shattering the instrumental-expressive myth: The power of women’s networks in corporate-government affairs. Gender & Society10 (3): 232–47.
75.
SimpsonBrentMarkovskyBarrySteketeeMike. 2011. Power and the perception of social networks. Social Networks33 (2): 166–71.
76.
SliskovicTanjaPhillipsDamon J.TipuricDarko. 2017. It’s lonely at the top for men: A gendered perspective on trust in managerial social networks. Paper presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta.
77.
Smith-LovinLynnMcPhersonJ. Miller. 1993. You are who you know: A network approach to gender. In Theory on gender/feminism on theory, edited by PaulaEngland. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
78.
SongEun Young. 2018. Gendered innovation adoption: The non-adoption of bird photography, 1899–1920. Social Forces97 (2): 867–92.
79.
SrivastavaSameer B.ShermanEliot L.2015. Agents of change or cogs in the machine? Reexamining the influence of female managers on the gender wage gap. American Journal of Sociology120 (6): 1778–1808.
80.
StamkouEftychiaHomanAstrid C.Van KleefGerben A.2020. Climbing the ladder or falling from grace? A threat-opportunity framework of the effects of norm violations on social rank. Current Opinion in Psychology33:74–79.
81.
TakEliseCorrellShelley J.SouleSarah A.2019. Gender inequality in product markets: When and how status beliefs transfer to products. Social Forces98 (2): 548–77.
82.
ThébaudSarah. 2015a. Business as plan B: Institutional foundations of gender inequality in entrepreneurship across 24 industrialized countries. Administrative Science Quarterly60 (4): 671–711.
83.
ThébaudSarah. 2015b. Status beliefs and the spirit of capitalism: Accounting for gender biases in entrepreneurship and innovation. Social Forces94 (1): 61–86.
84.
van GilsSuzanneNiels VanQuaquebekeBorkowskiJanKnippenbergDaan van. 2018. Respectful leadership: Reducing performance challenges posed by leader role incongruence and gender dissimilarity. Human Relations71 (12): 1590–610.
85.
WagnerDavid G.1988. Gender inequalities in groups: A situational approach. In Status generalization: New theory and research, edited by WebsterMurrayJr.FoschiMartha. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
86.
WagnerDavid G.JosephBerger. 1997. Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts. Sociological Perspectives40 (1): 1–32.
87.
WellsCarole V.KipnisDavid. 2001. Trust, dependency, and control in the contemporary organization. Journal of Business and Psychology15 (4): 593–603.
88.
WilliamsChristine L.1992. The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems39 (3): 253–67.
89.
WoodJohn AndyBolesJames S.BabinBarry J.2008. The formation of buyer’s trust of the seller in an initial sales encounter. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice16 (1): 27–39.
90.
WynnAlison T.CorrellShelley J.2018. Combating gender bias in modern workplaces. In Handbook of the sociology of gender, edited by RismanBarbara J.FroyumCarissa M.ScarboroughWilliam J.New York: Springer eBooks.
91.
YamagishiToshioKiyonariToko. 2000. The group as the container of generalized reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly63 (2): 116–32.
92.
YuSiyu. 2020. The status costs of high-status network ties: The pivotal role of gender. Paper presented at the 80th Annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Virtual.
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.
