Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 657

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to Make the Team: Social Networks vs. Demography as Criteria for Designing Effective Teams

Reagans, Ray, Zuckerman, Ezra, McEvily, Bill·2004·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

We compare two alternative approaches for evaluating the potential of a work group or team: one that focuses on team members' demographic characteristics and one that focuses on the members' social networks. Given that people's network contacts often share their demographic attributes (i.e., the network is homophilous), the two approaches seem equivalent and the first seems preferable because it is easier to implement. In this paper, we demonstrate several important limits to this rationale. First, we argue and show, in an analysis of 1,518 project teams in a contract research and development firm, that even when internal organizational networks are significantly homophilous with respect to demographic variables, the very logic of the causal structure that underlies theories of demographic diversity carries ambiguous performance implications. This ambiguity is due to the fact that demographic diversity has opposing effects on two social network variables—internal density and external range—each of which has a positive effect on a team's performance. We also demonstrate that a focus on demographic criteria is problematic because the demographic makeup of an organization can place inherent limits on a manager's ability to shape the demographic composition of a team. The ambiguous performance implications and the inherent limits placed on a manager's ability to manage a team's demography reduce the likelihood that a manager's interventions will be successful. The performance implications of managing a team's social capital, however, are clear.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/4131457

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 657

Metadata

Authors
Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
2004-03
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
101-133
ISSN
  • 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3815
OpenAlex
W1925625403
Cited by
657
References
8
FWCI
23.90
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How to Make the Team: Social Networks vs. Demography as Criteria for Designing Effective Teams. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/4131457
The paper
Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to Make the Team: Social Networks vs. Demography as Criteria for Designing Effective Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131457

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.