Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Do women and men differ in their brokering behavior? Integrating the literatures on gender, self-construal, and social networks, we theorize that gender differences in relational interdependence produce different patterns of helpful brokering among women versus men. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that tie strength moderates the effect of gender on two types of helpful brokering: helping others form new network ties (intermediary brokering) and helping others repair strained network ties (conciliatory brokering). In both experiments, the observed gender by tie strength interactions were driven by gender differences in network-broadening behavior (i.e., willingness to help weak ties) rather than network-deepening behavior (i.e., willingness to help strong ties). Experiment 2 provides evidence that differences in relational self-construal mediate the effect of gender on brokering behavior. We discuss the implications of these findings for gender inequality in organizations and in society.

Keywords

gender social networks brokerage and brokering weak and strong ties self-construal

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

Sommer

K. L.

(1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122, 38–44.

Bian

(1997). Bringing strong ties back in: Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review, 62, 366–385.

Brands

R. A.

Mehra

(2019). Gender, brokerage, and performance: A construal approach. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 196–219.

Burt

R. S.

(2002). Bridge decay. Social Networks, 24, 333–363.

Burt

R. S.

Kilduff

Tasselli

(2013). Social network analysis: Foundations and frontiers of advantage. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 527–547.

Casciaro

Gino

Kouchaki

(2014). The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties: How networking can make us feel dirty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 705–735.

Cowan

S. K.

(2020). Secrets and social networks. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 99–104.

Cross

S. E.

Bacon

P. L.

Morris

M. L.

(2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808.

Dahlander

McFarland

D. A.

(2013). Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 69–110.

10.

Dannals

J. E.

Zlatev

J. J.

Halevy

Neale

M. A.

(2021). The dynamics of gender and alternatives in negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000867

11.

Eagly

A. H.

(2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658.

12.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685–710.

13.

Fang

Zhang

Shaw

J. D.

(2020). Gender and social network brokerage: A meta-analysis and field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000841

14.

Flynn

F. J.

Reagans

R. E.

Amanatullah

E. T.

Ames

D. R.

(2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1123–1137.

15.

Forret

M. L.

Dougherty

T. W.

(2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 419–437.

16.

Gabriel

Gardner

W. 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 Psychology, 77(3), 642–655.

17.

Georgeac

Rattan

(2019). Progress in women’s representation in top leadership weakens people’s disturbance with gender inequality in other domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 1435–1453.

18.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

19.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1974). Getting a job. Harvard University Press.

20.

Halevy

Halali

Cohen

T. R.

(2020). Brokering orientations and social capital: Influencing others’ relationships shapes status and trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119, 293–316.

21.

Halevy

Halali

Zlatev

J. J.

(2019). Brokerage and brokering: An integrative review and organizing framework for third party influence. Academy of Management Annals, 13, 215–239.

22.

Halevy

Kreps

T. A.

De Dreu

C. K.

(2019). Psychological situations illuminate the meaning of human behavior: Recent advances and application to social influence processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(3), e12437.

23.

Ibarra

(1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 422–447.

24.

Kammrath

L. K.

Armstrong

B. F.

III Lane

S. P.

Francis

M. K.

Clifton

McNab

K. M.

Baumgarten

O. M.

(2020). What predicts who we approach for social support? Tests of the attachment figure and strong ties hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 481–500.

25.

Kang

S. K.

Kaplan

(2019). Working toward gender diversity and inclusion in medicine: Myths and solutions. Lancet, 393, 579–586.

26.

Lakens

(2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362.

27.

Levin

D. Z.

Walter

Murnighan

J. K.

(2011). Dormant ties: The value of reconnecting. Organization Science, 22(4), 923–939.

28.

Liu

Ainsworth

S. E.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2016). A meta-analysis of social networking online and social capital. Review of General Psychology, 20(4), 369–391.

29.

Marsden

P. V.

Campbell

K. E.

(1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63, 482–501.

30.

Marsden

P. V.

Campbell

K. E.

(2012). Reflections on conceptualizing and measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 91, 17–23.

31.

Obstfeld

Borgatti

S. P.

Davis

(2014). Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third party action from social network structure. In Brass

D. J.

Labianca

Mehra

Halgin

D. S.

Borgatti

S. P.

(Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, 40 (pp. 135–159). Emerald Books.

32.

Obukhova

Kleinbaum

(2020). Scouting and schmoozing: A gender difference in networking during job search. Academy of Management Discoveries. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2020.0075

33.

Rivera

M. T.

Soderstrom

S. B.

Uzzi

(2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 91–115.

34.

Rudman

L. A.

Glick

(2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.

35.

Uzzi

(1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.

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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

Broadening Versus Deepening: Gender and Brokering in Social Networks

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material