Network as a Predictor of Employment

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Network as a Predictor of Employment

The importance to focus on network has increased in society as the job-market move towards boundaryless employment. A person’s network is seen as a source of information, where job opportunities and promotion rate increase with the range of the networks. Additionally, individuals with expansive networks add value in the eyes of prospective employers (Arthur, 1994; Arthur, Claman, DeFillippi, & Adams, 1995). Network characteristics has long been a predictor of employment (Granovetter, 1973), and associated with career development such as promotion rates, bonuses and job mobility (Burt, 1997). This is also observed in Sweden; data from Trygghetsrådet show that 58% of reemployed people in Sweden got their new job through contacts (Trygghetsrådet, 2012). Research has also highlighted the self-perceived importance of an extensive internal and external network for career success in today’s marketplace. This stress the importance of networking both inside and outside the organization (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, 2003).

Men vs. Women

Women and men have shown differences in the way they network (Timberlake, 2005). Forret and Dougherty (2001) propose that cooperation, relationship building and to facilitate the development of other people are connected to feminine traits rather than masculine. However, Forret and Dougherty (2001) found that when it comes to socializing men are more likely to participate than women. This may be a consequence of the fact that women are more bound to home, due to child-raising responsibilities and other household related issues. They conclude that men enjoy more advantages than women given that social interactions provide work related information (Forret & Dougherty, 2001). Additionally, the differences in how women and men network have shown to affect the prospects for increased corporate authority and career advancement towards senior executive positions (Timberlake, 2005). Lyness & Thompson (2000) found that female executives, although having the same career history as men face greater obstacles in the corporate environment.

Homophily

The notion of the “old boy’s network” can be referred to as homophily, that is the tendency to socialize with others that are similar to yourself, such as; business students socializing with other business students or soccer players socializing with other soccer players. Ibarra (1992), attempts to distinguish how women and men chose their network at the workplace in relation to homophily. Ibarra (1992) observed differences between how women and men choose their network and the ability for them to access informal networks. She argues the importance of more research to determine if men exclude women or not. Despite the limitations of her research we believe her findings to be of interest for our study. Ibarra (1992), found that rather than making the choice based on gender, both women and men make rational choices based on higher-status instrumental contacts. Women in general are a less desirable choice to include in the network for both women and men, since men in the study hold the majority of the 8 formal positions. Furthermore, both women and men prefer men, when both sexes hold the same expertise and rank.

Female Presence on Corporate Boards

Men have a higher likelihood to be appointed as a board member than women, even when controlled for experience-based characteristics (Bilimoria & Piderit, 1994). Hillman et al. (2002) controlled for race and gender and found that white men on corporate boards on Fortune 1000 companies are more likely to have a business background as an executive, while women in general come from non-business careers. In Sweden only 3% of the CEO’s in companies listed on Nasdaq OMX Stockholm were women (SCB, 2010). In 2008 U.S. women held 15,2% of the board positions on Fortune 500 companies and 90% of the companies had at least one female director (see fig. 2.2). However, less than 20% of the companies had three women or more on the same board (Catalyst, 2009). For the Swedish listed companies the number was slightly higher, approximately 20% of the directors on the boards were women (SCB, 2010).

Female Effects on Board Governance

There is ambiguous evidence whether female presence in the boardroom significantly improve financial performance in comparison to a board of directors that entirely consist of men (Erhardt, Werbel, & Shrader, 2003; Shrader, Blackburn, & Iles, 1997). Some argue that diversity, in the form of women representation, on boards have a positive impact not only to workforce diversity but for overall organizational and financial performance, including return on investment and return on assets (Erhardt et al., 2003). Farrell & Hersch (2005) found that women generally serve on better performing firms, but they fail to establish evidence that a gender diverse board is a value enhancing strategy. Other argue that diversity on corporate boards have negative, or no, impact (Campbell & Minguez-Vera, 2008; Shrader et al., 1997). Campbell & Minguez-Vera (2008) cannot find that women’s presence on corporate boards has an effect on firm value, measured by Tobin’s q. Whereas Shrader et al (1997) found that women on boards impact financial performance negatively.

Table of Contents :

• 1 Introduction
  • 1.1 Background
  • 1.2 Problem
  • 1.3 Purpose
  • 1.4 Delimitations
• 2 Theoretical Framework
  • 2.1 Network as a Predictor of Employment
  • 2.2 Weak and Strong Ties
  • 2.3 Men vs. Women
  • 2.4 Homophily
  • 2.5 Board Members
  • 2.6 Female Presence on Corporate Boards
  • 2.7 Female Effects on Board Governance
  • 2.8 Women Quota on Boards
  • 2.9 Career Theory
  • 2.10 Mentorship
• 3 Method
  • 3.1 Research Method
  • 3.2 Research design
    • 3.2.1 Cross-sectional design
    • 3.2.2 Survey
    • 3.2.3 Survey length
    • 3.2.4 Questions
    • 3.2.4.1 Questions on Skills and Expertise
    • 3.2.4.2 Homophily and General Network Questions
    • 3.2.4.3 Network Questions
    • 3.2.4.4 Amount of time
    • 3.2.4.5 Emotional Intimacy
    • 3.2.4.6 Intimacy
    • 3.2.4.7 Reciprocal Services
    • 3.2.5 Pilot study
    • 3.2.6 Contacting Respondents
    • 3.2.7 Sampling
    • 3.2.8 Response Rate and Issue of Non-Responses
    • 3.2.9 Missing data

• 4 Results & Analysis
  • 4.1 Demographics
  • 4.2 Network
  • 4.3 Experience
    • 4.3.1 Education
    • 4.3.2 Professional Background
  • 4.4 Homophily
  • 4.5 Strength of the Ties
    • 4.5.1 Frequency of Interaction
    • 4.5.2 Level of intimacy
    • 4.5.3 Emotional Intensity
    • 4.5.4 Reciprocal Services
    • 4.5.5 Conclusion Strength of Ties
• 5 Limitation and Future Research
• 6 Discussion
• 7 Conclusion
• References
  • Appendix
  • Appendix

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
The Importance of Network for Board Representation in Sweden