Energy’s Role in the Extraversion (Dis)advantage: How Energy Ties and Task Conflict Help Clarify the Relationship Between Extraversion and Proactive Performance

While academic and practitioner literatures have proposed that extraverts are at an advantage in team-based work, it remains unclear exactly what that advantage might be, how extraverts attain such an advantage, and under which conditions. Theory highlighting the importance of energy in the coordination of team efforts helps to answer these questions. We propose that extraverted individuals are able to develop more energizing relationships with their teammates and as a result are seen as proactively contributing to their team. However, problems in coordination (i.e., team task conflict) can reverse this extraversion advantage. We studied 27 project-based teams at their formation, peak performance, and after disbandment. Results suggest that when team task conflict is low, extraverts energize their teammates and are viewed by others as proactively contributing to the team. However, when team task conflict is high, extraverts develop energizing relationships with fewer of their teammates and are not viewed as proactively contributing to the team. Our findings regarding energizing relationships and team task conflict clarify why extraversion is related to proactive performance and in what way, how, and when extraverts may be at a (dis)advantage in team-based work

Emphasizing “me” or “we”: Training framing and self-concept in network-based leadership development

This study explores how the motivational framing of a network training program may positively or (inadvertently) adversely impact participants\u27 discomfort with strategic networking and motivation to network. We examine the impact of a “me-focused” framing (i.e., on the personal career benefits that individuals can accrue through strategic networking) and a “we-focused” framing (i.e., on the benefits to the team/organization of individuals\u27 strategic networking) compared to a control group in two field-based quasi-experiments. In both studies, we found no difference between the two training frames in their effect on the two training outcomes when looking at participants\u27 reactions, on average. However, in the second study, we find that individual differences in the way participants relate to others (i.e., the extent to which they endorse an individual or a collective self-concept) change the impact of the framing on their discomfort with and motivation to network. The findings highlight the importance of considering the match or mismatch between training framing and self-concept. In the we-focused condition, a match was related to decreased networking discomfort, while a mismatch was related to increased discomfort and decreased motivation. In the me-focused condition, a mismatch was counter-intuitively related to decreased discomfort. These findings suggest that considering participants\u27 reactions to training (i.e., change in discomfort and motivation), on average, may mask important differences in their response to network-based training and that tailoring network training to participants\u27 self-concepts may be an important consideration for human resource management professionals

Energy’s Role in the Extraversion (Dis)advantage: How Energy Ties and Task Conflict Help Clarify the Relationship Between Extraversion and Proactive Performance

While academic and practitioner literatures have proposed that extraverts are at an advantage in team-based work, it remains unclear exactly what that advantage might be, how extraverts attain such an advantage, and under which conditions. Theory highlighting the importance of energy in the coordination of team efforts helps to answer these questions. We propose that extraverted individuals are able to develop more energizing relationships with their teammates and as a result are seen as proactively contributing to their team. However, problems in coordination (i.e., team task conflict) can reverse this extraversion advantage. We studied 27 project-based teams at their formation, peak performance, and after disbandment. Results suggest that when team task conflict is low, extraverts energize their teammates and are viewed by others as proactively contributing to the team. However, when team task conflict is high, extraverts develop energizing relationships with fewer of their teammates and are not viewed as proactively contributing to the team. Our findings regarding energizing relationships and team task conflict clarify why extraversion is related to proactive performance and in what way, how, and when extraverts may be at a (dis)advantage in team-based work.Nishii3_Energys_role.pdf: 131 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Whether, How, and Why Networks Influence Men’s and Women’s Career Success: Review and Research Agenda

Substantial research has documented challenges women experience building and benefiting from networks to achieve career success. Yet fundamental questions remain regarding which aspects of men’s and women’s networks differ and how differences impact their careers. To spur future research to address these questions, we present an integrative framework to clarify how and why gender and networks—in concert—may explain career inequality. We delineate two distinct, complementary explanations: (1) unequal network characteristics (UNC) asserts that men and women have different network characteristics, which account for differences in career success; (2) unequal network returns (UNR) asserts that even when men and women have the same network characteristics, they yield different degrees of career success. Further, we explain why UNC and UNR emerge by identifying mechanisms related to professional contexts, actors, and contacts. Using this framework, we review evidence of UNC and UNR for specific network characteristics. We found that men’s and women’s networks are similar in structure (i.e., size, openness, closeness, contacts’ average and structural status) but differ in composition (i.e., proportion of men, same-gender, and kin contacts). Many differences mattered for career success. We identified evidence of UNC only (same-gender contacts), UNR only (actors’ and contacts’ network openness, contacts’ relative status), neither UNC nor UNR (size), and both UNC and UNR (proportion of men contacts). Based on these initial findings, we offer guidance to organizations aiming to address inequality resulting from gender differences in network creation and utilization, and we present a research agenda for scholars to advance these efforts

Whether, How, and Why Networks Influence Men\u27s and Women\u27s Career Success: Review and Research Agenda

Substantial research has documented challenges women experience building and benefiting from networks to achieve career success. Yet fundamental questions remain regarding which aspects of men’s and women’s networks differ and how differences impact their careers. To spur future research to address these questions, we present an integrative framework to clarify how and why gender and networks—in concert—may explain career inequality. We delineate two distinct, complementary explanations: (1) unequal network characteristics (UNC) asserts that men and women have different network characteristics, which account for differences in career success; (2) unequal network returns (UNR) asserts that even when men and women have the same network characteristics, they yield different degrees of career success. Further, we explain why UNC and UNR emerge by identifying mechanisms related to professional contexts, actors, and contacts. Using this framework, we review evidence of UNC and UNR for specific network characteristics. We found that men’s and women’s networks are similar in structure (i.e., size, openness, closeness, contacts’ average and structural status) but differ in composition (i.e., proportion of men, same-gender, and kin contacts). Many differences mattered for career success. We identified evidence of UNC only (same-gender contacts), UNR only (actors’ and contacts’ network openness, contacts’ relative status), neither UNC nor UNR (size), and both UNC and UNR (proportion of men contacts). Based on these initial findings, we offer guidance to organizations aiming to address inequality resulting from gender differences in network creation and utilization, and we present a research agenda for scholars to advance these efforts

Network structures of influence within organizations and implications for hrm

The field of Human Resource Management (HRM) has long recognized the importance of interpersonal influence for employee and organizational effectiveness. HRM research and practice have focused primarily on individuals’ characteristics and behaviors as a means to understand “who” is influential in organizations, with substantially less attention paid to social networks. To reinvigorate a focus on network structures to explain interpersonal influence, the authors present a comprehensive account of how network structures enable and constrain influence within organizations. The authors begin by describing how power and status, two key determinants of individual influence in organizations, operate through different mechanisms, and delineate a range of network positions that yield power, reflect status, and/or capture realized influence. Then, the authors extend initial structural views of influence beyond the positions of individuals to consider how network structures within and between groups – capturing group social capital and/or shared leadership – enable and constrain groups’ ability to influence group members, other groups, and the broader organizational system. The authors also discuss how HRM may leverage these insights to facilitate interpersonal influence in ways that support individual, group, and organizational effectiveness

A social network perspective on workplace inclusion: The role of network closure, network centrality, and need for affiliation

Organizations are increasingly recognizing the important role employee inclusion perceptions play in promoting positive employee attitudes and behaviors. Although social networks are frequently cited as being a driver of perceived inclusion, little empirical work has examined the social network conditions that give rise to it. We address this gap by examining how both network position (indegree centrality) and network structure (network closure) relate to perceived workplace inclusion. We test our hypotheses with a sample of 364 professionals in a multinational pharmaceutical firm. We find that both indegree centrality and network closure are positively related to perceived workplace inclusion. The relationship between network centrality and perceived workplace inclusion is strengthened by a high level of network closure. In addition, the relationship between network closure and perceived workplace inclusion is strengthened by a high level of need for affiliation. Our results, therefore, suggest that both network centrality and closure play an important role in employee perceptions of inclusion and demonstrate the importance of considering need for affiliation as a boundary condition. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for theory and practice

Crossing the Bridge from Network Training to Development: A Guide to Move Trainees from Classroom Insights to Effective Networks

Professional networks help employees accomplish work tasks, progress in their careers, and thrive personally. Decades of research suggest that achieving these outcomes requires more than simply amassing \u27more\u27 network contacts. Instead, networks with certain characteristics (e.g., networks that are open, diverse, and deep) enhance effectiveness. Network training teaches trainees about effective networks and helps trainees identify their network development needs by providing feedback on their current network. Once back on the job, trainees are assumed to take appropriate actions to develop their networks. However, our research and experience training MBA students, executives, and employees at all levels suggest that trainees often struggle to develop their networks after training. We studied 119 trainees engaged in network training and development to understand why. Our investigation revealed that many trainees fail to set network development goals that match their personalized feedback, identify strategies that match their goals, and take actions to develop networks that match their strategies. These mismatches create gaps in the bridge that trainees build to take themselves from network training to development. Further, even after building strong bridges by aligning their feedback, goals, strategies, and actions, many trainees encounter on-the-job barriers that prevent them from improving the effectiveness of their network. We offer a guide to help address translational gaps and mitigate on-the-job barriers, thereby enhancing the translation of network training insights into network development