Events

Introduction

It’s old news that gender diversity matters.¹ Yet, while the discussion around and evidence for gender diversity in organizations has grown, the number of senior women – especially women of color² – in organizations has not.

For years, organizations have tried approaches such as mentoring and sponsorship programs for women and providing women-focused employee resource groups. Given that representation numbers remain stubbornly low, we clearly need a different approach.

We think at least part of the solution lies in better understanding employees’ professional connections. Networks, and the informal information they facilitate, are one of the primary ways people learn about career advancement and development opportunities. Research³ suggests that women and men's networks – and the information within them – are different, thus networks could vastly influence opportunities for career development and advancement. Understanding these connections between people – who knows whom and why – could help organizations understand why some employees rise and why others do not.

We looked at approximately 50 academic and business articles, reports, and books to better understand network dynamics, how they differ by gender, and the potential opportunity for technology to democratize or accelerate women's effective use of their networks. This short article will summarize the literature we reviewed in terms of the following:

• What we saw
• What we didn't see
• What we learned

What we saw:

This literature review focused on research covering the fundamental differences between the networks of men and women and the resulting different outcomes. We also reviewed literature on the approaches organizations can use to help women create networks that support their advancement. The findings from this review fell into three major themes:

1. Professional networks are different between men and women
2. Differences in networks result in different outcomes
3. Specific network characteristics matter for advancement

Professional networks are different for men and women

Men and women have different networks, at least partly due to traditional social dynamics⁴. Traditionally, women have been primarily responsible for life at home and, therefore, created more ties with the community, family, and friends. Likewise, men have traditionally been responsible for the financial stability of the family and created more professionally-focused networks.

While these traditional social dynamics have helped shape professional networks, other variables at play in organizations likely have a more immediate impact on the structure and composition of professional networks.

For example, men tend to hold a larger percentage of leadership positions and to be promoted more often than women. As a result, when men move up the ranks in organizations, they are more likely to be surrounded by other men (rather than women) in similar leadership or influential roles. As information and job opportunities tend to be shared within networks, men continue to have better opportunities due to their participation in these networks, perpetuating the gender imbalance at higher organizational levels.

Women, on the other hand, are, generally speaking, less likely to be promoted into senior roles. Those that are promoted tend to find themselves as part of a male-dominated professional network (only one in five C-suite executives is a woman⁵).  Women who do not move into leadership roles often sit in less influential, lower-status positions in organizations.⁶ These positions do not afford women the same connections into higher-status networks, curtailing access to information and sponsorship for better development and career opportunities.

Differences in networks result in different outcomes

While on the surface network differences may not seem like that big of a deal, those differences affect how individuals move around and up through an organization.  There is a tendency for professional networks to be closed, meaning individuals in one group are all connected to each other and the individuals within those networks have access to and share the same information. Therefore, new and unique information often does not flow into the network.

Closed networks tend to impact women differently than they impact men.⁷ For men, as they are more likely to be in networks with others in higher-status roles, information that is shared is likely to be important or strategic, which benefits them. Whereas for women, who are less likely to be in high-power networks, closed networks result in less important, less strategic information sharing.

Specific network characteristics matter for advancement

The literature indicates there are several things individuals should consider when developing networks to facilitate career growth. While these practices are not unique to women’s networks, being aware of these characteristics will enable women to better leverage their professional networks for advancement.

First, women need a small “inner group” of connections who can provide immediate support. Individuals benefit from being a central figure in a close-knit group. The literature indicates that these inner groups are crucial because they create a sense of communality and can tap into a woman’s shared experience.

Second, women need to become “brokers” – people connected to fundamentally different networks that can provide them with new and diverse sources of information.⁸ An individual who can position themselves as a broker between two high-powered groups, or who is directly connected to a broker, has a higher likelihood of accessing unique information and opportunities. The literature also hints that while this is an acceptable and even coveted position for men, women acting as brokers may experience some backlash (which could impact performance⁹).

This brings us to the third characteristic. To counteract backlash, women may also need to become “energizers” in their network. An energizer is someone that engages with others in a way that builds trust, instills a sense of purpose, and fosters an environment of psychological safety where people are not worried that they will be judged or dismissed. Because of this, energizers are presented with new opportunities and information more often than non-energizers. Research¹⁰ suggests that being seen as an energizer is a critical factor in advancement.

What we didn't see:

There were also a couple of thing we expected to see that just didn't show up:

What causes differences

The literature offered little insight into the actual mechanisms that cause differences in networks of men and women. So little has been written on the topic that we found ourselves accessing research in tangential fields to understand how and why these gaps may occur. This gap likely impedes organizational efforts to develop innovative and effective interventions.

Likewise, most of the research geared toward practitioners largely focuses on “fixing” women’s networks through mentoring, sponsorship, and Employee Resource Groups (ERGs). On the surface, these solutions seem like great ideas; however, because they are often not intentionally managed or designed, they may serve as a forum for the shared experience of women rather than a resource for helping women build networks and advance careers.

How technology can help

There was also little research that discussed using technology as a part of the solution to directly address the advancement of women. In fact, we feel that the gaps in current research have impacted the current technology solutions available. While there are technologies with network analysis capabilities, many – if not all – offer only descriptive reports on the structure and makeup of various networks. Descriptive statistics are a good start, but don’t point organizations toward potential drivers of these differences or suggest solutions.

What caught our attention:

In the process of putting this literature review together, we came across several articles that simplified complex ideas, offered unique solutions, or expanded our understanding of the topic.

The first three articles provide insight into social networks, how they impact aspects of our lives including work, and how different groups of women may face very different realities in the workplace. The final two articles are more academic and provide insight into characteristics of professional networks and their consequences for women. We’ve also included a bonus article that highlight network practices that are critical to the success of women in organizations. Finally, a list of additional readings is provided to offer further insight on the topics covered in this literature review.

Social Network Theory: Explaining Society

Tobias Stone

"…understanding the underlying mechanisms of social networks allows you to use them more effectively. Also, this descriptive analysis can explain some of the weirder things happening in our lives."

Highlights:

• Provides a high-level overview of social networks
• Breaks down basic aspects of social network theory and related concepts
• Explains how social networks impact almost every aspect of our lives

This three-part series (provided via text and/or audio) gives an interesting look at social networks and dives into how they impact our world – from happiness to politics. It also asks the question as to whether technologies that tap into our networks are friend or foe.

Mentorship, Sponsorship, and Networks: The Power and Value of Professional Connections

Center for Women and Business at Bentley University

"…when it comes to professional networks, women and men find themselves in very different positions."

Highlights:

• Provides a brief overview of important concepts and the benefits of mentorship and sponsorship to individuals and organizations
• Outlines a framework for understanding networking
• Offers insight on how to establish a mentorship culture for organizations and how to navigate networks for individuals

Not only is this a great review of the current research on sponsorship and mentoring, but it also brings in a network-based perspective. In addition, the list of resources and articles provided is a robust set of materials to help you further understand this topic.

Connections that Count: The Informal Networks of Women of Color in the United States

Catalyst / Katherine Giscombe

"Depending on the work environment, it may be difficult to form relationships at all with dissimilar colleagues, which would then lead women of color to turn to similar colleagues or people from outside the work organization for advice."

Highlights:

• Dives into the increased complexities of professional networks for women of color
• Discusses different network strategies women of color may use when dealing with barriers to organizational advancement
• Provides recommendations for organizations to think past a "one-size fits all" mentality when addressing the professional networks of women

This article highlights the complex network challenges that women of color face. It forces the reader to see that solutions designed for women do not always apply to all women and solutions should not advance one group of women over others.

Do Women Suffer from Network Closure?

Mark Lutter

"Females … have a higher risk of career failure than do their male colleagues when affiliated in cohesive networks, but women have better survival chances when embedded in open, diverse structures."

Highlights:

• Discusses the importance and impact of social capital, along with the two main ways that social capital is built (or borrowed) – cohesive and weak ties
• Illustrates differences in female and male networks and the practical impact that has on women's careers

This is an examination of how women's networks impact career advancement and is an example of what other research is starting to uncover.

To Land Top Jobs, Women Need Different Types of Networks than Men

Kellogg Insight

"While it's true that highly connected women tend to land better jobs, the most successful women also have something they cannot get through ‘beers with the boys’…"

Highlights:

• Summarizes the findings of a recent empirical investigation¹¹ on the impact of differences between men and women’s networks among MBA students
• Illustrates that women need a fundamentally different network to find career success
• Discusses the difference in business networking between men and women

If you can get your hands on the original empirical article that this summary is based on, we highly recommend it. However, if you cannot, this overview hits all the major points and interviews one of the researchers to add context.

Bonus: Invisible Network Drivers of Women’s Success: How Successful People Manage Collaborative Overload

Inga Carboni, Rob Cross, Aaron Page and Andrew Parker

“If the ultimate goal of gender diversity efforts is to build organizations in which employees work together and evolve as professionals without regard to gender, then let’s focus on the relationships themselves.”

• Suggests that understanding gender diversity requires organizations to think beyond implicit bias
• Presents the BEST model to help organizations understand the critical networking practices that distinguish high-performing women, including boundary-spanning, efficiency, stickiness, and trust
• Provides a number of tips for organizations to put their findings into practice

Additional Reading:

• • “What’s in the ‘old boys’ network? Accessing social capital in gendered and racialized networks,” S. McDonald, 2011.

• “The role of organizational network analysis in people analytics,” David Green, 2018.
• “Women and the labyrinth of leadership,” A. Eagly and L. Carli, 2007.
• “Why women build less effective networks than men: The role of structural exclusion and personal hesitation,” E. Greguletz, M. Diehl, and K. Kreutzer, Human Relations, 2018.
• “Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs,” R. Ely, H. Ibarra, and D. Kolb, INSEAD, 2011.
• “Gender, brokerage and performance: A construal approach,” R. Brands, Academy of Management, 2019.caut

It has been a tad shy of a decade since organizations began redesigning their approaches to performance management (PM). While previous approaches focused mainly on top-down, annual, staid processes, organizations now have to go beyond simply managing performance: they need to enable it. More specifically, organizations need practices that motivate, engage, and develop employees through a more collaborative, dynamic, and personalized process.

Yet, with all the changes made to PM, people are still unhappy, unmotivated, and disengaged. In addition, practices hailed as innovated and forward-thinking haven’t shown themselves to be the “cure-all” they may have been touted as.

So, the question remains – Where are we in the great PM experiment?

We have partnered with Glint to answer this question and looked at 40 academic and business articles, reports, and books for this literature review.

What we saw in the literature

Not surprisingly, the literature shows a general consensus that the traditional annual PM process isn’t enough. As it turns out, most traditional processes don’t drive engagement, often don’t encourage development, and don’t focus on the employee experience. While the research recognizes that some of the more traditional aspects of PM are still very necessary, organizations have experimented with ways to better engage employees in the process.

And experiment they have. We found literature on everything from completely ditching the performance review to facilitating continuous conversations, to adaptable goals. And while the sentiment is right, we think that there is an overemphasis in the literature on the process (i.e., the nuts and bolts of how we conduct performance management and its individual components), and an under-emphasis on the changing relationship between employee and employer (manager and up) and what that means for  performance. Specifically, four general themes emerged:

Traditional approaches are no longer appropriate

The traditional model of performance management – the one introduced in the mid 1990s and discussed ad nauseum as an evil necessity – is unlikely to yield the results organizations want because it doesn’t focus on feedback as an informal, real-time way to engage and develop talent. It also disregards the importance of developing and maintaining a relationship between manager and employee, and instead, rigidly sticks to a standardized cycle that is not aligned with how and when work gets accomplished or when feedback is needed.

A “one-size-fits-all” approach to performance management can’t handle the highly dynamic and customized world we live and work in because it doesn’t take into account the work type nor the people in the organization.

Because of this, organizations are shifting performance away from a complex, top-down system to a mechanism that can enhance employee experience – turning something that happens to the employee into something that happens for the employee.

Ratings aren't the problem – we are

Over and over again, authors, particularly in more recent publications, urge caution about removing ratings. In fact, some authors say that organizations have reached premature conclusions about ratings: instead of fixing them, they’re buying into the myth that they serve no purpose and should be removed.

However, the literature also indicates that removing ratings does not exonerate organizations from providing feedback or evaluation; and it may make it harder. Evaluation is necessary to provide meaningful and personalized feedback so employees can improve.

A bigger problem appears to be managers’ inability or unwillingness to diagnose and confront performance problems¹. This is particularly challenging in situations where ratings have been removed. And as organizations remove ratings, they need to rely more heavily on more frequent feedback in order to guide employees. Unfortunately, many organizations aren’t sure that their managers are either willing or able to have those feedback discussions². Which brings us to our third theme.

Relationships are increasingly important

As organizations have replaced annual performance reviews with more regular feedback conversations, there has been a necessary renewed focus on the relationships in organizations – particularly those between employees and managers.

To do this effectively, organizations have to trust their managers to move past just managing projects to truly managing people. This has expanded the role of managers from beyond simply assigning work to one that also includes motivating and engaging team members and holding individuals accountable.

The literature also addresses the growing trend of peer reviews – the practice of employees providing open feedback to each other. This has prompted organizations to begin to think about how best to create a “culture of feedback” where everyone is able to provide quality feedback.

Fairness matters

Finally, fairness. As organizations adopt more frequent feedback and more open conversations, they also need to think through how they create an environment of trust and fairness. More specifically, employees need to feel that the feedback they get is credible and fair – regardless of whether it comes from a peer or a manager.

The literature points out that in most PM processes, subtle forms of bias exist, and these biases can create different outcomes for different groups. For example, similarity bias may subtly influence a manager to provide slightly higher ratings for someone more like them (i.e., same likes/dislikes, same gender and race, similar background). These biases are particularly relevant when talking about the relationship between manager and employee. Most PM systems are not yet set up to protect against them.

Interestingly, removing ratings doesn’t remove the potential for bias – it can actually increase it. When organizations remove ratings, they often replace them with fairly ambiguous criteria for evaluation which allow for much broader interpretation. This broader interpretation can lead to perceptions of unfairness and violate norms of trust.

Articles that caught our eye

Of the literature we reviewed, several pieces stood out to us. Each of the following pieces explored ideas that we found useful and interesting. We found them helpful in expanding the way we have been thinking about PM, its challenges, and its possible solutions.

Performance Management: A Marriage Between Practice and Science – Just Say “I Do”

Paul E. Levy, Steven T. Tseng, Christopher C. Rosen and Sarah B. Lueke

“Spoiler alert: the fix is not to blindly get rid of ratings.”

This chapter discusses recent criticisms of traditional PM practices and reviews them in light of academic research. In an effort to reduce the gap between practice and science in PM, the chapter highlights what organizations can do to improve their PM practices and where scholars should focus their research efforts.

Highlights:

• Argues that practitioners are driving the criticism of PM and that the gap between science and practice needs to be addressed
• Suggests that solutions to address criticisms of PM should come from both a practical and research-based point of view
• Advocates that removing ratings should be the rare exception and not the general rule

"Re-Engineering Performance Management"

Ben Wigert and Jim Harter / Gallup, Inc.

“Performance management has buckled because organizations have prioritized measurement over development.”

This report presents research on why traditional practices are not working, insights on how to improve them, and expectations that today’s employees have for their employing organizations.  The authors recommend that organizations should create a culture of performance development by establishing expectations, continually coaching, and creating accountability.

Highlights:

• Presents the research behind why traditional PM is not effective in today’s organizations
• Discusses the changing nature of what employees expect from their organizations and how organizations can think through what (if any) changes are necessary in their approach to PM

"Straight Talk About Employee Evaluation and Performance Management"

Lucia Rahilly, Bryan Hancock and Bill Schaninger / McKinsey

“…there is still no substitute for the direct feedback and coaching that happens day in and day out…”

This podcast, with transcription provided, discusses recent research by McKinsey on what drives effective PM. The discussion focuses on the role of the manager to engage in quality performance and development conversations with direct reports, the need for some sort of evaluative component, and the finding that perceptions of fairness impact the degree to which PM is seen as effective.

Highlights:

• Discusses the current trends in PM and the necessary reliance on the ability of managers to provide coaching and feedback
• Explains that people still want to know how they’re performing and that some sort of evaluative component is likely necessary
• Illustrates the importance of perceptions of fairness in the PM approach

"3 Biases that Hijack Performance Reviews and How to Address Them"

Beth Jones, Khalil Smith, and David Rock

“…not all biases make us actively malicious. The key is how we manage our biases.”

The article discusses bias from a neuroscience perspective, highlighting that bias is our brain’s constant search for efficiency. While bias is not inherently bad, it can lead to negative outcomes if left unexplored. The authors discuss three biases – expedience, distance, and similarity – and how managers and organizations can mitigate their impact on performance appraisal.

Highlights:

• States that bias negatively impacts performance appraisal and briefly discusses the impact of three prevalent biases
• Provides high-level suggestions on how to mitigate the influence of these biases in performance appraisal

"Putting the System into Performance Management Systems: A Review and Agenda for Performance Management Research"

Deidra J. Schleicher, Heidi M. Baumann, David W. Sullivan, Paul E. Levy, Darel C. Hargrove and Brenda A. Barros-Rivera

"…much work is yet to be done in developing a body of scientific knowledge about performance management systems that can better inform practice."

While this article isn’t particularly provocative or stirring (it's why we put it last), it does provide a foundational summary of current PM research, which is helpful in understanding more progressive and innovative perspectives. The authors present a model of PM and summarize research from 1980 to 2017. Based on this review, they provide recommendations for future research in PM. This article is great for leaders and practitioners that want to geek out on the history of PM.

Highlights:

• Presents a model of PM to organize components of PM and to integrate perspectives
• Suggests that there are only seven core tasks involved in PM
• Illustrates the importance and value of both formal and informal components of PM
• Builds a case that we’ve excluded the examination of important variables in PM
• Argues that more research is still needed on PM

Overall Impressions

The literature on PM is vast and varied, and there are many, many smart people with different perspectives. We’re pretty sure no one perspective is the “right” perspective. That said, we’re starting to see large-scale agreement for the notion that traditional, top-down, annual-driven PM is less likely to reign supreme in the workforce of the future. With this shift, we think we’ll also see an increased emphasis on the role of relationships in organizations, the expectations of managers, and the importance of trust and fairness in PM approaches.