The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm
Abstract
Herminia Ibarra Harvard University This paper argues that two network mechanisms operate to create and reinforce gender inequalities in the organizational distribution of power: sex differences in homophily (i.e., tendency to form same-sex network relationships) and in the ability to convert individual attributes and positional resources into network advantages. These arguments were tested in a network analytic study of men's and women's interaction patterns in an advertising firm. Men were more likely to form homophilous ties across multiple networks and to have stronger homophilous ties, while women evidenced a differentiated network pattern in which they obtained social support and friendship from women and instrumental access through network ties to men. Although centrality in organization-wide networks did not vary by sex once controls were instituted, relative to women, men appeared to reap greater network returns from similar individual and positional resources, as well as from homophilous relationships.'
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification
Freeman, L. C. (1978) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 · Cited by 17,062
Burkhardt, M. E., & Brass, D. J. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393552 · Cited by 947
Cited by
Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · Cited by 18,567
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776
Network-based research in entrepreneurship
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(02)00081-2 · Cited by 2,302
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100404 · Cited by 2,052
What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x · Cited by 1,276
Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393414 · Cited by 1,014
Self-citationTaking gender into account: theory and design for women's leadership development programs
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011) · Academy of Management Learning & Education · doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0046 · Cited by 1,003
Self-citationThe Gender System and Interaction
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191 · Cited by 796
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256771 · Cited by 689
Ely, R. J. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393234 · Cited by 631
Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter
Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010) · Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society · doi:10.1177/0270467610380011 · Cited by 625
To your heart's content: a model of affective diversity in top management teams
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667020 · Cited by 599
Gorman, E. H. (2005) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240507000408 · Cited by 534
Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0129 · Cited by 518
Self-citationThe Social Network Ties of Group Leaders: Implications for Group Performance and Leader Reputation
Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0158 · Cited by 498
Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000022 · Cited by 488
Gender bias in scholarly peer review
Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.21718 · Cited by 380
Van den Bulte, C., & Moenaert, R. K. (1998) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.44.11.s1 · Cited by 252
Social networks and spatial configuration—How office layouts drive social interaction
Sailer, K., & McCulloh, I. (2012) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.05.005 · Cited by 227
Mäs, M., & Flache, A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074516 · Cited by 226
Engendering Change: Organizational Dynamics and Workplace Gender Desegregation, 1975–2005
Huffman, M. L., Cohen, P. N., & Pearlman, J. (2010) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.255 · Cited by 210
The opportunity not taken: The occupational identity of entrepreneurs in contexts of poverty
Slade Shantz, A., Kistruck, G., & Zietsma, C. (2018) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.02.003 · Cited by 202
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2008) · Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/1460563.1460633 · Cited by 183
Hiring Preferences in Online Labor Markets: Evidence of a Female Hiring Bias
Chan, J., & Wang, J. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2756 · Cited by 178
2. Is it lonely at the top?: The independence and interdependence of power holders
Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23003-2 · Cited by 174
Bringing Managers Back In: Managerial Influences on Workplace Inequality
Castilla, E. J. (2011) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122411420814 · Cited by 160
Birkett, M., & Espelage, D. L. (2015) · Social Development · doi:10.1111/sode.12085 · Cited by 160
Network diversity, contact diversity, and status attainment
Son, J., & Lin, N. (2012) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.06.006 · Cited by 143
Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification?
Duguid, M. (2011) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.009 · Cited by 140
Joshi, A., & Knight, A. P. (2015) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0718 · Cited by 141
Different relationships for coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in organizations
Saint-Charles, J., & Mongeau, P. (2009) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2008.09.001 · Cited by 91
Homophily and the Glass Ceiling Effect in Social Networks
Avin, C., Keller, B., Lotker, Z., Mathieu, C., Peleg, D., & Pignolet, Y.-A. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science · doi:10.1145/2688073.2688097 · Cited by 90
The Effects of Diversity and Network Ties on Innovations: The Emergence of a New Scientific Field
Lungeanu, A., & Contractor, N. S. (2015) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764214556804 · Cited by 90
Playing with Strangers: Which Shared Traits Attract Us Most to New People?
Launay, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129688 · Cited by 65
Entrepreneurial failure in agribusiness: Evidence from an emerging economy
Adobor, H. (2020) · Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development · doi:10.1108/jsbed-04-2019-0131 · Cited by 58
Zhang, X., Xu, T., Wei, X., Tang, J., & Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2024) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-10-2022-0791 · Cited by 40
Rahman, H. U., & Zahid, M. (2021) · Gender in Management: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/gm-12-2019-0252 · Cited by 36
Zuzul, T., Pahnke, E. C., Larson, J., Bourke, P., Caurvina, N., Shah, N. P., Amini, F., Weston, J., Park, Y., Vogelstein, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.00641 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Ibarra, H.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1992-09
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 422
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1997052091
- Cited by
- 2,121
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 25.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
