Explore the vast range of titles available.

Using data from 138 independent samples, we meta-analytically examined three research questions concerning the roles of personality and network position in organizations. First, how do different personality characteristics—self-monitoring and the Big Five personality traits—relate to indegree centrality and brokerage, the two most studied structurally advantageous positions in organizational networks? Second, how do indegree centrality and brokerage compare in explaining job performance and career success? Third, how do these personality variables and network positions relate to work outcomes? Our results show that self-monitoring predicted indegree centrality (across expressive and instrumental networks) and brokerage (in expressive networks) after controlling for the Big Five traits. Self-monitoring, therefore, was especially relevant for understanding why people differ in their acquisition of advantageous positions in social networks. But the total variance explained by personality ranged between 3% and 5%. Surprisingly, we found that indegree centrality was more strongly related to job performance and career success than brokerage. We also found that personality predicted job performance and career success above and beyond network position and that network position partially mediated the effects of certain personality variables on work outcomes. This paper provides an integrated view of how an individual’s personality and network position combine to influence job performance and career success.

Insights from social network research have generated significant advancements in disciplines such as sociology, economics, and psychology. In comparison, the incorporation of social network ideas into international business (IB) research remains more limited. The purpose of this special issue is to foster further research on social networks in IB. In our introductory essay, we provide a brief overview of network research in the IB domain to give a sense of some of the major ongoing themes and to illustrate how the social network approach can provide fresh insights and add substantive value to the field. To emphasize the considerable potential of using social network theories and ideas to advance research and understanding in IB, we also indicate some future directions. We follow these with a summary of the five articles in the special issue.

The role of individual action in the enactment of structures of constraint and opportunity has proved to be particularly elusive for network researchers. We propose three frontiers for future network research that zoom back and forth between individual and collective levels of analysis. First, we consider how dilemmas concerning social capital can be reconciled. Actors striving to reap maximal network advantages may benefit or detract from the collective good; investigating these trade-offs, we argue, will advance our understanding of learning and knowledge processes in organizations. Second, we explore identity emergence and change from a social network perspective. Insights about how networks mold and signal identity are a critical foundation for future work on career dynamics and the workplace experiences of members of diverse groups. Third, we consider how individual cognitions about shifting network connections affect, and are affected by, larger social structures. As scholarly interest in status and reputational signaling grows, articulating more clearly the cognitive foundations of organizational networks becomes imperative.

This article examines how different personality types create and benefit from social networks in organizations. Using data from a 116-member high-technology firm, we tested how self-monitoring orientation and network position related to work performance. First, chameleon-like high self-monitors were more likely than true-to-themselves low self-monitors to occupy central positions in social networks. Second, for high (but not for low)self-monitors, longer service in the organization related to the occupancy of strategically advantageous network positions. Third, self-monitoring and centrality in social networks independently predicted individuals' workplace performance. The results paint a picture of people shaping the networks that constrain and enable performance.

Demography research rarely examines the black box within which the cognitive diversity of the top management team is assumed to affect firm performance. Using data from 35 simulated firms run by a total of 159 managers attending executive education programs, the current research tested several hypotheses concerned with (a) the relationship between demographic and cognitive team diversity and (b) the reciprocal effects of diversity and firm performance. Results showed that members of high-performing teams tended to preserve multiple interpretations early in the team's life cycle, but that they moved toward greater clarity near the end of the life cycle. These high-performing teams, therefore, exhibited both early interpretative ambiguity and late heedful interrelating. Cognitive diversity in teams affected and was affected by changes in firm performance. Surprisingly, there was no evidence of any effect of demographic diversity on measures of cognitive diversity.

Do women face bias in the social realm in which they are purported to excel? Across two different studies (one organizational and one comprising MBA teams), we examined whether the friendship networks around women tend to be systematically misperceived and whether there were effects of these misperceptions on the women themselves and their teammates. Thus, we investigated the possibility (hitherto neglected in the network literature) that biases in friendship networks are triggered not just by the complexity of social relationships but also by the gender of those being perceived. Study 1 showed that, after controlling for actual network positions, men, relative to women, were perceived to occupy agentic brokerage roles in the friendship network—those roles involving less constraint and higher betweenness and outdegree centrality. Study 2 showed that if a team member misperceived a woman to occupy such roles, the woman was seen as competent but not warm. Furthermore, to the extent that gender stereotypes were endorsed by many individuals in the team, women performed worse on their individual tasks. But teams in which members fell back on well-rehearsed perceptions of gender roles (men rather than women misperceived as brokers) performed better than teams in which members tended toward misperceiving women occupying agentic brokerage roles. Taken together, these results contribute to unlocking the mechanisms by which social networks affect women’s progress in organizations.

Charisma is crucially important for a range of leadership outcomes. Charisma is also in the eye of the beholder—an attribute perceived by followers. Traditional leadership theory has tended to assume charismatic attributions flow to men rather than women. We challenge this assumption of an inevitable charismatic bias toward men leaders. We propose that gender-biased attributions about the charismatic leadership of men and women are facilitated by the operation of a leader-in-social-network schema. Attributions of charismatic leadership depend on the match between the gender of the leader and the perceived structure of the network. In three studies encompassing both experimental and survey data, we show that when team advice networks are perceived to be centralized around one or a few individuals, women leaders are seen as less charismatic than men leaders. However, when networks are perceived to be cohesive (many connections among individuals), it is men who suffer a charismatic leadership disadvantage relative to women. Perceptions of leadership depend not only on whether the leader is a man or a woman but also on the social network context in which the leader is embedded.

Purpose – The need to make a “theoretical contribution” is a presumed mandate that permeates any researcher’s career in the Social Sciences, yet all too often this remains a source of confusion and frustration. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on, and further develops, the principal themes discussed in the “OM Theory” workshop in Dublin in 2011 and the special sessions at the 2011 and the 2013 EurOMA Conferences in Cambridge and Dublin. Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents six short essays that explore the role and use of theory in management research, and specifically ask what is a good or meaningful contribution to theory. The authors comment on the current state of theory in Operations Management (OM) (Harry Boer), the type of theories the authors have in OM (Chris Voss), the role of theory in increasing the general understanding of OM problems (Roger Schmenner), whether the authors can borrow theories from other fields or actually have theory “of our own” (Matthias Holweg), the different ways in which a contribution to theory can be made (Martin Kilduff), and how to construct a theoretical argument (Mark Pagell). Findings – The authors argue that theory is fundamental to OM research, but that it is not the inevitable starting point; discovery and observation are equally important and often neglected avenues to contributing to theory. Also, there is no one right way to making a contribution, yet consistency between ontology, epistemology, and claimed contribution is what matters. The authors further argue that the choice of theory is critical, as a common mistake is trying to contribute to high-level theories borrowed from other fields. Finally, the authors recommend using theory parsimoniously, yet with confidence. Originality/value – The paper presents a collection of viewpoints of senior scholars on the need for, and use of, theory in OM research.

Four published reanalyses of part of the celebrated medical innovation data focus on network effects on the diffusion of tetracycline. Each reanalysis rejects the findings of the previous analysis. This article shows that in the early 1950s, when the original data were collected, private practice physicians, swamped by demand, but facing threats to their autonomy from the federal government and from university medical centers, struggled to keep up with new therapies and relied on colleagues and friends within the profession for help and advice. This article examines the reanalyses' judgment calls concerning the use of a psychophysics power function, the employment of a time-sensitive model, the imputation and exclusion of data, and the addition of new variables. Given the radical undecidability of numerical evidence in the absence of context, the reanalysis of stand-alone data is likely to produce a continuing series of conflicting results.