Introduction

Networks are an important topic of interest in the terrain of research in management and organizations. Scholars have shown that networking is important for a successful career, since interpersonal networks can provide job opportunities, support, influence and status attainment, and a higher salary. The research on networks often focuses on the positive sides of networks and neglects the inequalities with regards to networking, even though there is a lot of evidence on network related unequal outcomes.

This paper focuses on gender in networks. Previous studies have shown that there are differences between men and women in structures and success of networks: men have more access to higher status sponsors, strategic network partners, and powerful coalitions. Also, women use their networks for social support, whereas men use networks for self-promotion and increasing their visibility. However, the previous studies have two limitations. First, they consider gender as a variable that explains inequalities in networks. Second, studies on sex differences in networks concentrate on network structures and outcomes, while network outcomes receive much less attention. Kilduff and Brass also note how social network research often fails to take human agency into account. 

The current study has the aim to address these limitations. To reach this, they use a 'practice turn', which means that they focus on what people are actually saying and doing in daily interactions. The other aim of this study is to develop a theoretical framework that combines a practice approach and feminist constructionism to understand how network practices counter or perpetuate gender inequalities. The authors study gender in networking in academic recruitment, and specifically, the recruitment of full professors.

Networking, gatekeeping, and gender practices

Networking has been shown to be an important career management strategy. Successful networking has been linked to better career outcomes, such as increased job opportunities, promotions, visibility and social support.

As mentioned before, the authors use a practice-based approach, which provides a framework for developing a more accurate description and richer theoretical understanding of networking. They study the activities that actors employ when networking, which actors are involved in networking, what resources are distributed through networking, and the implications of networking. Networking practices are defined as the dynamic, socio-political actions of building, maintaining, and using relations at work for personal, career, and organizational benefits. Examples of networking practices are maintaining contacts, socializing, forming coalitions, negotiating, and sharing or withholding information.

Gatekeepers

In professional recruitment, a crucial networking practice is called 'gatekeeping'. Gatekeeping is described as the 'fourth major role' of academics, next to the role of researcher, teacher, and administrator. Gatekeepers evaluate the promises and limitations of aspirants to new positions. Thus, they pick who gets to be a researcher, and who not. Gatekeeping also includes scouting for eligible applicants, through formal or informal networking, and keeping a constant watch on the academic field. This means that the initial selection of candidates takes place at a very early stage, sometimes even long before a position is formally announced.

According to the authors, gender is implicated in gatekeeping. This means that when gatekeepers are predominantly men, women have more difficulty gaining access to desirable academic networks. Often, the term 'homophily' is used to explain this phenomenon. Homophily (the love of the same) refers to that communication and relationship formation between similar people occurs at a higher rate and is easier than contact among dissimilar people. Another term is 'homosociality', which refers to seeking, enjoying and/or favoring the company of one's own gender. McPherson and colleagues distinguished between chance and choice homophily. Chance homophily refers to homophily that can be expected to occur by chance, while choice homophily refers to the amount of homophily over and above the chance. Both kinds of homophily in male-dominated organizations can affect women's opportunities, because they get excluded. 

Gender practices

Gender practices refer to doing, saying, and performing of gender. In other words, gender is seen as something that people do and say in interactions, and when they distinguish between women and men, masculinity and femininity. During interactions, gender practices are created and negotiated. Most of the gender practices are characterized by routines and are unintentional and unconscious. 

Theorizing Gender Practices in Networking

To look at how gatekeepers use gender practices, the work of Martin (2001) is used. She has developed the concept of mobilizing masculinities to theorize the interactions among men at work. Masculinities refer to the practices that are represented or interpreted by either actor and/or observer as masculine within a system of gender relations that give them meaning as gendered masculine. Martin makes a distinction between individual men's 'doing of masculinity' and a group of men collectively 'mobilizing masculinities'. 

For women, when an individual man acts masculine, this does not seem to bother them much. However, when men act masculine together, this is called mobilizing masculinities. It is the mobilizing masculinities which women experience as harmful, because of its exclusionary and devaluing effects. According to Martin, men are often not aware of mobilizing masculinities. This is called 'liminal awareness'. Martin distinguishes between two types of masculinities: contesting and affiliating masculinities. Contesting masculinities refer to men acting together to distance or separate themselves from others by means of showing their superior status, obtaining control over and competing with others. Affiliating masculinities refer to men's actions of aligning with other men in ways that benefit self, others, or both. In this article, the second type of masculinities is used to shed light on the networking practices of gatekeepers.

Networking practices in professional recruitment

In the following sections, details of the research findings will be discussed. The authors make a distinction between three ways in which gatekeepers use their networks in professional recruitment, namely: inviting and nominating candidates, asking for recommendations, and by helping candidates to build a reputation of excellence.

Inviting and Nominating

When there are open positions in the academic world, in the Dutch context, these positions are not advertised. Often, candidates are invited to apply. However, self-nominations are not always welcome: potential candidates must be invited to apply, or they must be explicitly directed to a vacancy. Often, to be considered as an eligible candidate, one must have connections to gatekeepers. In interviews with gatekeepers, they described how they actively seek out potential candidates in their networks. When a potential candidate is not visible to gatekeepers, there is a high chance that a candidate will not be invited to apply or will not be informed about the position. This is called 'scouting for candidates'.

According to a professor, Ed, scouting has the aim to attract the best academics. This is also called 'the quality argument'. Another argument for scouting is that scouts have a superior, overall view of eligible candidates in their fields. This is called 'the overview argument'.

Asking Recommendations

When gatekeepers are looking for candidates, they ask advice and recommendations from trusted network partners. Thus, they use their network connections to solicit nominations. When information comes from trusted network connections, gatekeepers often do not ask for a lot of information. They trust their connections and thus they assume that they have an overview of all eligible candidates in their network.

Building Reputations

Gatekeepers also affect the reputation of candidates. When eminent academics recommend a candidate, people evaluate this candidate similar to the academic. This is called 'basking in reflected glory'. Thus, the reputation of gatekeepers rubs off on the candidates that they support. 

Gender in networking

Recruiting new professors through networking, such as in the case of gatekeepers, has implications for the career opportunities of men and women academics. The authors make a distinction between three manifestations of gender practices identifying with the similar, reproducing the proven success model, and scouting women.

Identifying with the similar

When men are in the majority, they tend to have more homophilous network relationships than women. This is also the case in academia in which the gatekeepers are predominantly men. When these gatekeepers (men) use their social networks to search for candidates, this increases the likelihood that a male candidate will be invited, nominated and selected. Some gatekeepers that were interviewed stated that men form networks with other men not only because men are more available, but also because they like to work with men. Thus, this refers to both chance homophily (men are more available) and choice homophily (men prefer to work with men).

Identifying with the similar is a gender practice of 'affiliating masculinities'. In the interviews, women were most aware of men preferring men. Men seldom mentioned this. Some of the female respondents also stated that men have a lot of opportunity to network and socialize with other men. These women felt excluded by the time or place where the networking took place, such as late-hours meetings, dinners and conferences, or activities such as 'the walking club for men professors'. Women also mentioned that male gatekeepers invite and nominate younger versions of themselves.

According to Anna, a professor in natural sciences, men prefer men candidates. However, they do not consciously exclude women, nor do they consciously include women. Thus, it is a 'liminal process'. However, preferring men is not only something that men do. Female gatekeepers also show a preference for men candidates.

Reproducing the proven success model

Because of an overrepresentation of male professors, there is an image of the academic full professor that is linked to men and masculinity. Both male and female gatekeepers constantly refer to 'him', 'he', and 'guys' when talking about scouting eligible candidates.

Creating opportunities for women

Often spurred by policies that aim for equality, male and female gatekeepers sometimes actively search for and support female candidates. Some universities even make special positions available to promote female academics. However, these positions are often 'personal chairs'. Personal chairs are temporary positions, created for academics who are individually qualified to become a professor. But, they possess less status and hierarchical power.

Legitimating preferences

Gatekeepers often consider female candidates as 'risky'. There are two reasons for this: there is a perceived lack of quality of female candidates, and there are social complications of gendered interactions. Gatekeepers also commented on how male candidates are explicit about their ambitions, whereas women are more modest and reluctant to promote themselves. Thus, women are said to not making themselves visible enough and hurt their chances to obtain a professorial position. However, women who do engage in self-promotion are often socially sanctioned for their non-feminine behavior. Social complications of gendered interactions refer to that female candidates take more time to decide whether they want to participate in the procedure. According to Marc, a professor, gatekeepers hold the expectation that candidates immediately jump at the opportunity to become a professor and that they respond positively and without hesitation. Men often live up to this expectation, while women do not and ask for time to consider the offer. This raises questions about women's commitment. 

A man who works with a lot of young female academics, states that there are difficulties with regards to cross-sex work relationships. He points to the possibility of sexual undertones. 

Discussion

Conditions for networking

Thus, networking is very important in the recruitment for top positions. This is explained by several conditions. First, many procedures are closed and this practice of closed procedures is widespread and seldom contested. This means that there is relatively little transparency and accountability is required of decision makers who write appointment reports. Second, the need to attract potential candidates fast is emphasized. However, fast actions do not go well with elaborate procedures. Finally, the fact that aspiring candidates need to be invited discourages people to apply themselves for professorial positions. Over and over, it has been shown that gatekeepers overlook certain candidates and that open rounds for grants or positions result in many more qualified candidates than anticipated, especially when women candidates are concerned.

Gender in networking

Unfortunately, practices that have the aim to change structural gender inequalities do not always turn out as intended. Such practices have some consequences. For example, they create gender inequality in a novel way when women are more often chosen for personal chairs and positions with less power and status than ordinary chairs and positions. The question is whether these practices will ever become as routinized as the support that men receive.