Large, sparsely connected social networks (i.e., networks rich in “structural holes”) are advantageous because they provide an informational edge. However, some studies have found that hole-rich networks can be a disadvantage for women. We examine the question: Are the returns women derive from structural holes contingent on women’s changing proportional representation in a field? Focusing on the context of knowledge production, with citations as a key metric of success, we analyzed co-authorship and citation data from elite management journals (1970–2006) using panel-data regression. Our findings reveal that the number of structural holes in women’s collaboration networks positively correlates with citations until women’s proportion in the field reaches approximately 30%. Beyond this tipping point, the relationship becomes negative and significant. This result remains robust after controlling for variables such as previous citations (both the individual’s and co-authors’), career stage, authorship order, gender homophily, and institutional status. Our study suggests that understanding the interplay between gender, structural holes, and citations requires a contextual perspective that considers the evolving circumstances women face as their representation in a field grows.
AhujaG. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667105
2.
ArellanoM. (2003). Panel data econometrics. Oxford University Press.
3.
BagilholeB.GoodeJ. (2001). The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers: A feminist investigation. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(2), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050680100800203
4.
BambergerP.AngS. (2016). The quantitative discovery: What is it and how to get it published. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0060
5.
BemS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
6.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. Wiley.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies.
9.
BrandsR.ErtugG.FontiF.TasselliS. (2022). Theorizing gender in social network research: What we do and what we can do differently. The Academy of Management Annals, 16(2), 588–620. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0370
10.
BrandsR.KilduffM. (2013). Just like a woman? Effects of gender-biased perceptions of friendship network brokerage on attributions and performance. Organization Science, 25(5), 1530–1548. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0880
11.
BrandsR.MehraA. (2019). Gender, brokerage and performance: A construal approach. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1), 196–219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0860
12.
BrassD. J. (1985). Men's and women's networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/256204
13.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
BurtR. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
16.
BurtR. S. (2021). Structural holes capstone, cautions, and enthusiasms. In SmallM. L.PerryB. L.PescosolidoB.SmithN. (Eds.), Personal networks: Classic readings and new directions in ego-centric analysis. Cambridge University Press.
17.
BurtR. S.OpperS. (2018). Early network events in the later success of Chinese entrepreneurs. Management and Organization Review, 13(3), 497–537. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.30
18.
ChenH.MehraA.TasselliS.BorgattiS. P. (2022). Network dynamics and organizations: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 48(6), 1602–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211063218
19.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
20.
CollinsR. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A theory of global intellectual change. Cambridge.
21.
CraneD. (1977). Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the “invisible college” hypothesis. In Social networks (pp. 161–178). Elsevier.
22.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist policies. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(1), 139–167.
23.
CummingsJ. N.CrossR. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8733(02)00049-7
24.
DakosV.BoultonC. A.BuxtonJ. E.AbramsJ. F.Arellano-NavaB.Armstrong McKayD. I.BathianyS.BlaschkeL.BoersN.DylewskyD.López-MartínezC.ParryI.RitchieP.van der BoltB.van der LaanL.WeinansE.KéfiS. (2024). Tipping point detection and early warnings in climate, ecological, and human systems. Earth System Dynamics, 15(4), 1117–1135. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1117-2024
25.
de Solla PriceD. J. (1986). Little science, big science... and beyond. Columbia University Press.
FoxM. F. (2006). Women, men, and engineering. In FoxM. F. (Ed.), Women, gender, and technology. University of Illinois Press.
30.
FrisbieW. P.NeidertL. (1977). Inequality and the relative size of minority populations: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 1007–1030. https://doi.org/10.1086/226427
31.
GersickC. J. G.DuttonJ. E.BartunekJ. M. (2000). Learning from academia: The importance of relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1026–1044. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556333
32.
GrayP. H.PariseS.IyerB. (2011). Innovation impacts of using social bookmarking systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.2307/23042800
33.
GreguletzE.DiehlM. R.KreutzerK. (2019). Why women build less effective networks than men: The role of structural exclusion and personal hesitation. Human Relations, 72(7), 1234–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718804303
34.
GreveH. R. (2003). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040661
35.
HalginD. S.BorgattiS. P.MehraA.SoltisS. (2020). Audience perceptions of high-status ties and network advantage: The market for coaching jobs in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (2000–2011). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(4), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2426
IlgenD. R. (2007). Citations to management articles: Cautions for the science about advice for the scientist. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 507–509. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25525585
38.
JadidiM.KarimiF.LietzH.WagnerC. (2018). Gender disparities in science? Dropout, productivity, collaborations and success of male and female computer scientists. Advances in Complex Systems, 21(03n04), 1750011–1750023. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219525917500114
39.
JohnsonP. O.NeymanJ. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1(1936), 57–93.
40.
JoshiA.SonJ.RohH. (2015). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1516–1545. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0721
41.
JudgeT. A.CableD. M.ColbertA. E.RynesS. L. (2007). What causes a management article to be cited—article, author, or journal?Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25525577
42.
KanterR. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990. https://doi.org/10.1086/226425
43.
KhattabJ.van KnippenbergD.PieterseA. N.HernandezM. (2020). A network utilization perspective on the leadership advancement of minorities. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0399
44.
KilduffM.KrackhardtD. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations.Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/256771
45.
KrishnaA. (2016). A clearer spotlight on spotlight: Understanding, conducting, and reporting. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.04.001
46.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
LamprontiS. Y.OpertiE.SgourevS. V. (2024). Rivalry as a contextual factor of gender inequality in network returns. Journal of Management Studies. Advance Online Publication.
LeaheyE. (2007). Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review, 72(4), 533–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200403
51.
LeaheyE.BeckmanC. M.StankoT. L. (2017). Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 105–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665364
52.
LeeJ. J. (2010). Heterogeneity, brokerage, and innovative performance: Endogenous formation of collaborative inventor networks. Organization Science, 21(4), 804–822. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0488
53.
LinN. (2008). A network theory of social capital. In D. Castiglione, J. van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.),. The Handbook of Social Capital, 50(1), 50–69.
LutterM. (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. American Sociological Review, 80(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414568788
56.
MackeyJ. D.RothP. L.Van IddekingeC. H.McFarlandL. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of gender proportionality effects on job performance. Group and Organization Management, 44(3), 578–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601117730519
57.
McFadyenM. A.CannellaA. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159615
58.
MertonR. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
59.
MoodyJ. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900204
60.
MullinsC. N. (1973). Theories and theory groups in contemporary sociology. Harper and Row Publishers.
61.
Ody-BrasierA.Fernandez-MateoI. (2017). When being in the minority pays off: Relationship among sellers and price setting in the Champagne industry. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416683394
62.
PodolnyJ. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1086/323038
63.
PodolnyJ. M.BaronJ. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673–693. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657354
64.
RiderC. I. (2009). Constraints on the Control Benefits of Brokerage: A Study of Placement Agents in U.S. Venture Capital Fundraising.Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(4), 575–601. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.4.575
SauerR. D. (1988). Estimates of the returns to quality and coauthorship in economic academia. Journal of Political Economy, 96(4), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1086/261566
67.
ShipilovA. V. (2009). Firm scope experience, historic multimarket contact with partners, centrality, and the relationship between structural holes and performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0365
68.
SimmelG. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. Translated by Kurt H. Wolff. Glencoe, Ill. Free Press.
69.
SnellmanK.SolalI. (2023). Does investor gender matter for the success of female entrepreneurs? Gender homophily and the stigma of incompetence in entrepreneurial finance. Organization Science, 34(2), 680–699. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1594
70.
SouthS. J.BonjeanC. M.MarkhamW. T.CorderJ. (1982). Social structure and intergroup interaction: Men and women of the federal bureaucracy. American Sociological Review, 47(5), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095160
71.
SpenceJ. T.BucknerC. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes what do they signify?Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x
72.
SpillerS.FitzsimonsG.LynchJr.J.McClellandG. (2013). Spotlights, foodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, L(April 2013), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0420
73.
StroessnerS. J. (1996). Social categorization by race or sex: Effects of perceived non-normalcy on response times.Social Cognition, 14(3), 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1996.14.3.247
van den BrinkM.BenschopY. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411414293
76.
van den BrinkM.BenschopY. (2014). Gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial recruitment. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 460–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12060
77.
Van NesE. H.AraniB. M.StaalA.van der BoltB.FloresB. M.BathianyS.SchefferM. (2016). What do you mean, ‘tipping point. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(12), 902–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.011
78.
VickR.HuynhL. (2011). The effects of standardizing names for record linkage: Evidence from the United States and Norway. Historical Methods, 44(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.2010.514849
79.
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(1), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320960529
80.
WuS.LevitasE.PriemR. L. (2005). CEO tenure and company invention under differing levels of technological dynamism. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 859–873. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803927
