Networks and leadership development: Building linkages for
capacity acquisition and capital accrual
Kathryn M. Bartol
a,
⁎
, Xiaomeng Zhang
b,1
a
Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1815, United States
b
American University, Kogod School of Business, Washington, DC 20016-8044, United States
Abstract
Social networks can aid the leadership development process through facilitating access to important developmental assignments
and the acquisition of capabilities to handle associated challenges. Although much of the traditional focus of leadership
development has been on building intrapersonal capabilities, functioning effectively as a leader necessitates the development of
interpersonal capabilities associated with dyadic ties and relational capabilities associated with patterns of ties within networks.
Such capabilities allow aspiring managers to accrue not only human capital, but social and system capital as well. Aspiring
managers can tap task, career, and friendship/support networks to aid developmental and career success. Structure factors,
including strategic choices, network characteristics, and the technological interface moderate the ability of managers to convert
potential network contacts into significant leadership development and capital accrual. Personal factors also influence leadership
development prospects. Overall, there are many ways in which network concepts associated with dyadic and relational levels of
analysis can facilitate addressing the challenges that are key to leadership development.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Social networks; Leadership development; Managerial careers; Leader ties
1. Introduction
Although the need for leaders to engage in networking has been long recognized (
relatively little attention has focused on the potential of networking as a means of leadership development. Leadership
development refers to the expansion of an individual's capacity to engage in effective leadership roles and processes
(
Van Velsor, McCauley, & Moxley, 1998
). Leadership roles may involve positions with formal authority or informal
roles without authority. Related leadership processes address the strategies and steps associated with encouraging
individuals to work effectively together.
When considering leadership development, it is important to differentiate between leader development and lea-
dership development (
Day, 2000; Day & O'Conner, 2003
). The former focuses on building intrapersonal competencies,
whereas the latter requires a consideration of interpersonal and relational development. Leadership is essentially an
influencing process (
), through which leaders interact with others (e.g., followers, peers) to affect individual,
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 405 2249; fax: +1 301 314 8787.
E-mail addresses:
(K.M. Bartol),
(X. Zhang).
1
Tel.: +1 301 789 1385; fax: +1 301 314 8787.
1053-4822/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:
www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
team, and organizational performance. For most managers, career success ultimately depends on what they are able to
achieve in connection with others. Therefore, in contrast to the traditionally heavy focus of leadership development on
the capacities of the individual,
have argued recently that leadership can best be viewed as a
social process that involves those connected via social systems. One means of gaining insight into leadership
development as a social process is through the lens of networks. Thus, a social networks perspective provides a useful
framework for addressing the importance of social relationships on leadership development (
).
For the purposes of this paper, we define a network as a set of actors and the set of ties representing some
relationship, or lack thereof, between the actors (
).
have noted that the
emerging network paradigm highlights the advantages of considering individuals as embedded in a web of
relationships whose meaning is dynamically translated by the interacting parties. In this paper, we argue that networks
can help leaders develop leadership capacities both through leveraging existing network connections and working to
build new ones. We also consider important potential moderators of network and capability expansion processes. An
overall conceptual framework is shown in
.
2. Networks types
argues that networks are important to being able to accomplish work, gain upward mobility, and
develop personally and professionally. She posits that three types of networks are especially important to individuals in
managerial positions. Each of these types is particularly relevant to leadership development processes:
Task networks can help leaders accomplish work, including that which involves new challenges. Task networks
facilitate the exchange of resources aimed at accomplishing tasks. Such resources may include information, expertise,
materials, and task-related political access.
Career networks involve relationships with actors who can facilitate career progress by providing career advice,
offering mentoring and sponsorship, aiding in the securing of key developmental assignments, facilitating career-
enhancing visibility, and engaging in advocacy for promotions.
Friendship/social support networks at work address relationships that are based more on closeness and trust than on
task-related needs. These usually emerge from common backgrounds and/or interests and tend to be more informal
Fig. 1. Networks and leadership development conceptual framework.
389
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
linkages based on emergent friendship than patterned along formal structural lines. Such networks, however, often
facilitate work accomplishments and can be helpful to leaders.
As shown in
, each of the three types of networks can be considered in terms of one-on-one interpersonal
sources of development aid (dyadic ties). They can also be viewed more broadly from a relational perspective,
considering the web of multiple relationships in which an individual is embedded as a set of potential developmental
resources. For example, with task-related concerns, individual advisors may be helpful in facilitating task
accomplishment, but task advice conceived as a network phenomenon points to building broader knowledge of
who can aid the process and, equally important, potential access to the who (
). In recognition of the
network potential for facilitating task accomplishment, a number of organizations have set up communities of practice,
which essentially are networks of potential advisors whose expertise can be shared in a more relational way (
). With career-related development, considerable emphasis has been placed on mentor
–protégée relationships
(
Kram, 1985; Kram & Isabella, 1985
). However, more recent research findings suggest that individuals might more
productively think in terms of multiple, less intense relationships, which can be conceptualized as a network of
sponsors (
Higgins & Kram, 2001; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001
). Finally, while social support can be considered in
terms of one-on-one relationships, it may be useful to think of social linkages as encompassing a system or network of
support that may potentially be helpful to leadership development processes. Leaders must understand their role within
social networks in order to strengthen existing relationships and establish new connections between individuals,
groups, and other entities (
). However, little research has focused on how social network
patterns or characteristics influence the leadership development process.
In considering relationships with others,
argue that such linkages in the development
process can fulfill three major developmental functions through providing assessment, facilitating access to or the
handling of challenging developmental assignments, and offering support. Within these three broad functions,
McCauley and Douglas further delineate a number of specific roles. For assessment, the roles are: feedback provider,
sounding board, point of comparison, and feedback interpreter. For challenge, the roles are: dialogue partner,
assignment broker, accountant (monitoring goal progress), and role model. For support, the roles are: counselor,
cheerleader, reinforcer, and cohort (others facing similar challenges). In
, we outline the types of aid that match
well to the three network types, recognizing that there is considerable overlap in the roles that each network type can
play in the developmental process. Thinking of leadership development in terms of multiple linkages and types of aid
can be helpful in pointing to the types of links that upwardly mobile leaders need to cultivate. It also offers the potential
for organizations to facilitate the development of at least task and advice networks. Of course, friendship networks are
more difficult for organizations to directly influence in behalf of aspiring leaders. However, organizations can be
catalysts for the formation of such networks through structural changes, work flows, physical location, and work
assignments (
Brass et al., 2004; Borgatti & Cross, 2003; Cross & Pruzak, 2002
).
3. Major development challenges and development opportunities
McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, and Morrow (1994)
have posited that there are five broad sources of challenge in
developmental jobs: job transitions, creating change, high levels of responsibility, nonauthority relationships, and
obstacles. One might think of these as issues that a leader needs to learn to address effectively, yet each new
developmental assignment by definition brings added challenges. In this next section, we discuss the usefulness of
Table 1
Types of network and aid with sources of development aid
Type of network
a
Sources of development aid
Type of aid
b
Interpersonal
Relational
Task
Individual advisors
Advice networks;
communities of practice
Task adviser, task sounding board,
task feedback provider
Career
Mentors
Mentors/sponsors
Career sounding board, career feedback provider,
cheerleader
Friends/support
Dyadic support
System of support
Supporter, cheerleader, reinforcer
a
Based on
.
b
Based on
390
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
network concepts to address challenges inherent in leadership development.
summarizes our approach. We do
not posit that the materials in
are comprehensive in covering all development opportunities related to leaders
and leadership; rather they are illustrative of developmental opportunities available across the intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and relational domains for each of the potential development challenge sources. In the discussion below,
we will place the most emphasis on issues of networks and interpersonal and relational development. Networks involve
consideration of dyadic ties and also patterns of such relationships.
3.1. Job transitions
Job transitions that are developmental typically involve taking on new duties that are much different, broader in
scope, and/or much larger than previously handled. There is also usually an element of proving oneself to a variety of
constituencies. While intrapersonal elements such as technical task mastery and role clarity are necessary, they are
unlikely to be sufficient to ensure success. Instead, leaders making job transitions, at a minimum, will need to forge
positive interpersonal relationships, or ties, with at least some key subordinates via leader
–member exchange
relationships (LMX;
Graen & Scandura, 1987; Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000
). Often building rapport with a new
boss will also be part of the transition challenge. Thinking more broadly in network terms, however, job transitions are
likely to proceed more smoothly if the new leader can tap into a network of individuals with relevant knowledge about
the new context and/or with experience with similar transitions. It is possible that, if the transition leader does not
already have existing ties with some key individuals in the new context, such resources may be tapped indirectly
through existing ties to others who have ties within the new context. The probability of being able to leverage current
network ties in this way is more likely when upwardly mobile leaders build a diversity of relationships. Moreover,
transition leaders are more likely to be successful when they not only proceed to build relevant ties within their unit, but
also across units with which the work interfaces (
).
3.2. Creating change
Creating change involves being responsible for initiating something new, which may range from dealing with
inherited problems to creating and developing a significant innovation. The more uncertain and complex the change,
Table 2
Major development challenges and development needs/opportunities
Major development challenges
a
Illustrative major development needs/opportunities
Challenges
Nature of challenge
Intrapersonal (Self)
Interpersonal (Dyadic)
Relational (Multiple)
Job transition
Unfamiliar responsibilities,
proving oneself
Task mastery; role
clarity
Establishing leader
–member
exchange (LMX) and other
dyadic
relationships
Building network of
relevant ties; tapping
existing ties for advice/
help
Creating
change
New directions; fixing
inherited problems
Change process
knowledge
Influence and persuasion
skills
Coalition building
High levels
of responsibility
High stakes; business
diversity; job overload;
external pressure
Cross-functional business knowledge;
problem solving; coping with stress
Delegating; handling
interpersonal conflict;
impression management
Adding to and leveraging
network of ties; building
power
Nonauthority
relationships
Influencing without
authority
Reciprocity/exchange concepts;
analyzing dependencies and structure
Building one-on-one
relationships with peers,
people in higher
positions, external
parties, key others;
mutual influence
Building network of key
internal and external
contacts
Obstacles
Adverse business
conditions; lack of top
management support; lack
of personal support;
difficult boss
Self-awareness
Social awareness
System awareness
a
Based on
391
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
the higher the potential for development (
), but also the higher the potential for missteps. From an
intrapersonal point of view, a leader would be aided by acquiring knowledge of change processes, such as
eight steps for creating change, and learning more about influence processes (
). However, the
possession of explicit knowledge regarding change processes and related influence processes does not guarantee that a
leader will be successful in actually implementing change, a notoriously difficult task (
). Instead,
there is much to gain by development processes that target the actual acquisition of interpersonal influenced skills, such
as communication and persuasion. Change processes of significance, however, are likely to require more than thinking
in terms of one-to-one relationships. While such dyadic ties may be useful in terms of building pieces of a coalition,
leaders also need to learn to conceptualize and act more broadly through thinking in terms of diffusion of change
messages indirectly through the ties of coalition members (
Brass & Krackhardt, 1999; Krackhardt & Kilduff, 2002
Change challenges often involve complex problems and constituencies. Managers may be able to alter the pattern of
networks to aid the change process through such means as structural changes that facilitate individuals acting as links
among others (
3.3. High levels of responsibility
The challenges associated with taking on higher levels of responsibility typically encompass higher stakes,
increased business diversity/complexity, and greater need to address external pressures, along with the possibility of the
job becoming overwhelming. From an intrapersonal point of view, knowledge about cross-functional aspects of the
business, strong problem solving skills, and the ability to cope with stress are often helpful. At the interpersonal level,
leaders taking on high levels of responsibility must consider delegating more to the individuals who work for them.
Such leaders are also likely to be required to handle more interpersonal conflict situations due to the wider span of
control (
). Moreover,
have argued for the importance of impression management
skills for effective leadership. They particularly delineate the processes involved in creating and maintaining identities
as charismatic leaders. At the relational levels, advice networks again can be helpful for obtaining counsel regarding
how to function effectively with significantly more responsibility. Such networks are unlikely to be in place unless the
leader has been building networks with an eye toward upward mobility. Such networks need to be reasonably diverse.
found that CEOs with firms registering relatively low performance tended to seek
counsel from executives from other firms who were friends or were similar to them, rather than from acquaintances and
individuals who were dissimilar to them. This tendency led to a lower probability of making necessary strategic
changes and contributed to a downward spiral in performance. Thus, leaders need to learn to develop multiple types of
networks, including social networks for support and task networks for advice. While overlap is possible, upwardly
mobile leaders need to differentiate between individuals who can provide support and those who might make better
task advisors. Mentors/sponsors in high places also can provide insight in attempting to take on higher levels of
responsibility (
3.4. Nonauthority relationships
Gaining the cooperation of individuals who are not in one's reporting chain constitutes a different type of challenge.
Such situations include working with peers, customers, and individuals in other organizations. Cross-function teams are
another context in which one must attempt to influence without direct authority. While understanding reciprocity and
exchange concepts, as well as being able to analyze areas of dependency on others can be helpful, ultimately leaders
need to be able to develop one-on-one relationships with peers, individuals at higher levels outside one's own chain of
command, key others at lower levels, and a variety of external parties.
note a variety of
organizational
“currencies” that can be used to help gain “influence without authority.” Others, such as
, have also addressed
“how to lead when you're not in charge.”
point to possibilities
for shared leadership in which mutual influence processes among team members allow for shifts in the agent and target
of influence depending on the characteristics of the specific task and the knowledge, skills and abilities of team
members. Such an approach offers possibilities for the development of leadership skills among a broader segment of the
organization (
Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2000, 2002
). From a relational point of view, leaders potentially
have much to gain in building networks of individuals whose influence is needed to carry out necessary tasks and
individuals whose expertise, advice and support can be helpful. Research by
points to the value of inter-
392
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
unit connections and group effectiveness. Building networks involving nonauthority relationships is helpful for leaders
to further develop their use of reciprocity and exchange, which are crucial elements in successful network relationships.
3.5. Obstacles
Overcoming obstacles constitutes another major type of developmental challenge. Obstacles are associated with
contextual aspects that make achievement more difficult unless some way is found to remove or otherwise overcome
these impediments to progress. Common obstacles, such as dealing with a difficult boss, facing unsupportive peers, or
confronting adverse economic conditions, can undermine the self-efficacy and morale of developing leaders.
points out that success in overcoming obstacles not only provides experience in dealing with difficult situations,
but also helps leaders develop perseverance and confidence. Yet, she notes that leaders often do not perceive the
positive aspects of dealing with obstacles until they are thinking about the situations in retrospect. By seeking the
advice of mentors and supporters, leaders facing obstacles are likely to be better positioned to deal with the obstacles
both intellectually and emotionally. Moreover, being able to tap a broader network enhances possibilities for
uncovering more useful information to aid in removing, neutralizing, or surmounting obstacles.
4. Capital accrual
Leadership development can be conceptualized as involving three types of capital (
): human,
social, and system. Human capital refers to the knowledge, skills, and abilities that individuals possess that have value to
organizations. Within a leadership development context, the main focus of human capital is on the development of
intrapersonal capabilities. A strong focus on intrapersonal capabilities can help build leader capabilities, but to address
actual leadership capabilities, greater focus on influence processes with people is needed (
). In contrast, social
capital accrues from direct ties to various individuals based on reciprocity and social exchange. Through building positive
relationships and helping others, one accrues good will and some sense of exchange. For example, building positive
leadership relationships with subordinates in the form of leader
–member exchange has been shown to have positive
influences on job related attitudes and behaviors (
). System capital refers to the ability to draw on and
leverage a network of ties, accessing not only one's own direct ties, but, indirectly, the ties of others to tap the resources of a
broad network. Thus, networking is a major way to enhance both social and system capital in an organization because
much of the capital is embedded within networks of mutual acquaintance. Networks of relationships are critical to
conducting business affairs, providing actors with collectively owned capital (
Day, 2000; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998
).
Adding network concepts to more conventional ways of thinking about leadership development allows for the
identification of multiple forms of capital that would-be leaders can advantageously accrue. From an organizational
point of view, it is possible to think in terms of aiding aspiring leader's efforts to accrue social capital through such
measures as developing mentoring programs that are more networks of mentors than individual one-on-one
relationships, encouraging the formation of advice networks, and facilitating the development of cross-organizational
peer relationships through conferences and training programs that not only build human capital, but allow the
formation of systems capital.
5. Network structural factors
In exploring the implications of networks for leadership development, it is also useful to consider a number of
relevant network structural factors. The ability of aspiring leaders to translate the three types of networks
–task, career,
and social
–into capability acquisition is dependent on a number of such factors. Here we first discuss important
strategic considerations before addressing more specific network characteristics likely to influence leadership
development success. Finally, we consider the impact of technology on network building and maintenance for
leadership development purposes.
5.1. Strategic issues
As several researchers on networks have noted, leaders do not possess infinite amounts of time to expend in pursuit
of building and maintaining networks. Therefore, they must make strategic choices with respect to relationships (
393
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
). More time investment is required to build strong ties than weak ties; and there is the question of how many
ties to build.
research on job search suggested that there was strength in weak ties, owing to the
greater amounts of information inherent in more extensive, but weaker ties. In contrast, few stronger ties led to
redundancy of information. Building on this notion,
has argued that the crucial issue is positioning oneself
to fill structural holes. Structural holes are missing links between two individuals who have ties to the aspiring leader.
By acting as the link, the leader is able to gain advantage both by controlling information between the two individuals,
and also having access to information gleaned from the two individuals (and others they are differentially connected
to).
research showed that male managers who positioned themselves to fill structural holes were more
successful in terms of early promotions.
found that weak ties and structural holes led to greater
career success in terms of high salaries, more promotions, and greater career satisfaction. Work by
also pointed to career advantages of large, more diverse networks. A contrasting view from
argues that it is useful to build a dense network of close ties who themselves have other connections that can be
leveraged for mutual benefit. Borrowing from both views, a smaller set of strong ties may make sense for friendship/
support networks, while having broader weak tie networks may be particularly helpful in the task and advice realms.
5.2. Network characteristics
social network theory focuses on relationships between actors, who are embedded in a web of
networks. Network characteristics (e.g., centrality, strength, size, etc.) provide context, determine social structure, offer
opportunities, and constrain actor behaviors, thus influencing leader roles and affecting leader development in
networks. Among the variety of network characteristics, we identify three categories of network characteristics that are
particularly relevant to the leadership development process: individual actor characteristics within a network, dyadic tie
characteristics, and entire network characteristics (
5.2.1. Individual actor relationships within networks
Since a network is defined as relationships among a set of actors, characteristics of individual actor relationships
within networks (e.g., degree, closeness, and status) are fundamental to exploiting networks to aid leadership
development processes. Here we consider three characteristics that research has shown are important to leadership:
centrality (degree), closeness, and status of contacts.
Network centrality refers to the extent to which an actor is central to a network. It is measured a number of different
ways, with one of the most important being degree (the number of direct links with other actors within a network).
Centrality implies greater access to and control over valued resources (
). Studies suggest that network centrality
is positively related to increased power and is predictive of informal leadership (
) and promotions
). Centrality aids incumbent leaders because being in a central position makes it easier for leaders to influence
others and achieve greater work unit stability. In addition, centrality in social networks positively predicts individual work
place performance (
Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001; Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Karimer, 2001
Related to centrality, closeness is one of the measures often used as an indicator of centrality (
Closeness refers to the extent to which an actor can easily reach all the other actors in the network
—i.e., the extent
Table 3
Network categories and characteristics
Network
category
Network characteristics
Individual actor
♦ Centrality: the extent to which an actor is central to a network
♦ Closeness: the extent to which an actor is close to, or can easily reach all the other actors in the network
♦ Status: level of position (hierarchical position) of contacts; or the relative standing of an actor in a social system based on some
measure of prestige
Dyadic ties
♦ Strength: amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services between actors
♦ Symmetry (reciprocity): extent to which relationship is bi-directional
Entire network
♦ Cohesiveness: actors' affinity for one another and their desire to remain part of the group
♦ Density: ratio of number of actual links to the number of possible links in the network [n(n−1)/2]
♦ Size: number of actors in the network
Source: Adapted from
394
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
to which the most direct paths to reach each of the other actors in the network are short or long (
).
The closer an actor is to others, the easier it is for the actor to access different channels of information and to establish
mutual trust and norms (
). Closeness makes the actor less dependent on others because there
are a number of channels through which a leader can reach others in the network (
). Thus, closeness can be a source of social capital, facilitating information exchange and knowledge transfer
among network members, while also reducing dependence.
Another important network characteristic is the hierarchical level or status of one's contacts. Several studies show
that having contacts at higher levels in the hierarchy is associated with greater career success. For example,
found that higher level contacts led to greater access to information and more career sponsorship, which
then translated into greater career success in terms of salary and promotions.
results showed that
hierarchical status (e.g., the hierarchical level of network members) is a predictor of organizational knowledge, task
mastery, and role clarity, all of which are significant indicators of learning.
suggest that the
level of position is the most important structural characteristics in relation to leadership emergence, stability, and
change because it is closely related to access to power (
) and social capital (
). High
status contacts can also create prestige for the actor. Research by
showed that the
perception of a friendship link to a prominent person in an organization was associated with an increase in an
individual's performance reputation.
Overall, network centrality, closeness, and contact status all help individual actors expand their capacities to
effectively engage in leadership roles and processes, thus facilitating leadership development. For leadership roles,
centrality and status predict leadership formation and change, either by strengthening the stability of existing leader
positions, or by facilitating leader emergence without formal authority. For leadership processes, closeness and status
assist network actors in building mutual trust and promote mutual learning.
5.2.2. Characteristics of dyadic network ties
Actors are major components of social networks, but it is dyadic ties that make the connections and represent the
relationships, or lack of relationships, between the actors. Thus, the characteristics of dyadic ties (e.g., tie strength,
symmetry) are an important consideration in attempting to exploit the advantages of networks for leadership
development purposes.
Tie strength refers to the amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services between network
actors.
discusses the weakness of strong ties and indicates that when passed through weak ties
rather than strong ties, whatever is to be diffused can reach a larger number of people and traverse greater social
distance (i.e., path length). Thus, from an actor's point of view, weak ties provide more information because weak ties
enable an actor to connect to diverse groups, while strong ties limit the potential solutions to problems due to their
constraints on the breadth of information and input (
). Similarly,
found that
network tie strength was negatively related to the acquisition of organizational knowledge, thus forestalling personal
development. Therefore, weak ties generally offer greater opportunities for aspiring leaders in a network to expand
their capacities than do strong ties.
Symmetry, or reciprocity, refers to the extent to which the relationship is bi-directional. This means that one actor's
choice of another is reciprocated. For example, one actor reports to be the friend of another actor, and that other actor
makes a corresponding choice, which evidences the acknowledgement and mutual esteem between the two (
).
Brass, Butterfield, and Skaggs (1998)
suggest that unethical behaviors in organizations, such as illegal
brokerage transactions or embezzlement, are most likely to occur in an asymmetric relationship because asymmetric
ties indicate that the trust and emotional involvement of one actor is not reciprocated by another actor. This leaves the
trusting party at risk due to the potential for exploitation by the non-trusting and emotionally uninvolved relationship
actor in the pair. Developing leaders need to be able to build symmetrical ties with key individuals who are critical for
success with respect to a particular development challenge.
5.2.3. Characteristics of entire network
Individual actor network characteristics and dyadic tie characteristics influence actors' leadership development in an
organization as discussed above. However, those characteristics do not take place in isolation, but have meanings only
in the context of broader relational networks (e.g., teams, groups, or an entire organization). Cohesiveness, density, and
size are typical measures used to describe larger (beyond dyadic) network characteristics (
395
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
Cohesiveness refers to actors' affinities for one another and is a measure of the attraction of the members to the
group, the sense of group spirit, and the willingness of the group members to coordinate their efforts. Thus, group
cohesiveness provides insight into how a network functions because a group represents the context of the rational
network (
). High-cohesiveness in a group has been shown to lead to greater intra-group communication
(
), lower perceptions of inter-group conflict (
), and more
favorable interpersonal evaluations within groups (
). Thus, compared with members of a low-
cohesion group, those in a high-cohesion group often are more satisfied with the group, are more cooperative and
friendly with each other, and are likely to be more effective in achieving the aims members set for themselves.
However, high cohesiveness tends to encourage redundant ties and less access to outside information, creating
dilemmas for leaders.
Network size and density are interrelated network characteristics. As mentioned previously, network scholars have
suggested that, for network actors to accomplish tasks and achieve career-related success, a larger network with non-
redundant informational contacts is more effective than a small network in which the parties are highly interconnected
(
Singh, Hybels, and Hills (2000)
indicated that network size is significantly and
positively related to the number of opportunities recognized.
suggested that high density networks
(many connections among ties) are negatively related to the learning of general organizational knowledge, because of
the redundancy of information typically inherent in dense networks. Therefore, larger size networks (numerous
connections) with low density (the absence of many connections among ties) provide more diverse information access
possibilities, which facilitate leadership development.
All in all, network characteristics differentially facilitate or impede the development of interpersonal and relational
skills, while affecting information access, organizational learning, problem solving and opportunity identification. As
pointed out, individuals do not have unlimited time and, therefore, must make careful choices regarding
network ties to cultivate. He argues that seeking to bridge structural holes is an effective strategy. Thinking in terms of
the overall structure of one's networks is important for leaders. The structure may differ for task, advice, and friendship/
support networks. Even following a strategy of fewer ties, but ones that span structural holes, may lead to mundane
thinking unless these contacts also maintain diverse ties.
5.3. Information technology interface
Increasingly, information and communication technologies (ICTs) are being used to facilitate communication within
and across organizations. While such technologies allow for greater reach in terms of networking, they also offer
challenges as a networking interface. For example, ICTs limit the nonverbal cues that aid assessing attentiveness,
interest, and warmth-factors involved in building relational links (
Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004; Gibson &
). Yet ICTs are increasingly used to facilitate the use of virtual teams, enable individuals engaging in
telework, and foster interorganizational connectivity (
). Leadership development in what has been
called the
“digital economy” must incorporate capabilities for interfacing and networking with new technology tools. In
fact,
suggest that technology is considered an important factor influencing network
structure. They found that some employees increased their power and network centrality following a change in
computer technology. More specifically, early adopters of the new technology increased their power and centrality to a
greater degree than later adopters because early adopters were able to reduce uncertainty for others. Thus, aspiring
leaders would do well to stay up on emerging technologies, and aim some of their efforts towards learning how best to
use ICTs to facilitate interpersonal and relational ties. Information technologies enable the maintenance of a broader set
of relationships, though the development of a strong friendship group aimed at support may be difficult to develop on-
line.
At the same time, the use of technology has a role in leadership development programs offered by universities,
communities, and professional organizations (
). On-line programs of various sorts are offered by a
multiplicity of vendors, and organizations themselves are harnessing technology to offer programs via intranets or the
Internet, particularly aimed at increasing intrapersonal capabilities of leaders. Advanced information technologies
include e-mail, message boards, groupware, as well as collaboration tools, techniques, and knowledge, that can
facilitate multiparty participation. Such advances offer new possibilities for leadership development interactions
(
). For example,
argue that technology can enable e-mentoring,
which allows mentoring to transcend the constraints of geographical location and time. Thus, information technology
396
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
provides a number of means that developing leaders might use to access not only intrapersonal development materials,
but also to facilitate network building and opportunities for on-line interactions through emerging group collaboration
software.
6. Personal characteristics
People are social beings who create significant ties with others like themselves to establish identity and friendship
). In organizational settings, different people use different ties for task accomplishment,
career achievement, and social support. For example, the presence of mentors and the availability of a broader network
of supporters are critical factors that may influence an individual's progress and career success (
). However, many researchers have suggested that these sources of support in an organization may not be equally
accessible to diverse groups of people (
Ibarra, 1993; Ragins & Cotton, 1991
). More specifically, the personal
characteristics of individuals, such as gender, race, age, personality, and educational background may have a significant
impact on access to and involvement in networks (
McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001
Research on the social networks in organizations has indicated the importance of categories such as gender and race
as bases for network formation and personal development (e.g.,
Hughes, 1946; Ibarra, 1993; Mehra et al., 1998
). Thus,
we especially focus on gender and race as potential contingencies that moderate the effects of networks on leader skill
acquisition and capital accrual in an organization.
6.1. Gender as a contingency
Although there has been increasing awareness of gender and upward mobility issues in academia and business
organizations, research still indicates that females have not obtained status, influence, and benefits comparable to their
male counterparts (
). In investigating the reasons, considerable research has examined gender discrepancies
in access to and use of networks (e.g.,
Brass, 1985; Ibarra, 1992; Rothstein & Davey, 1995
). Research indicates that
men and women have significantly different network characteristics (e.g., status, centrality, the amount of support
received), which contribute to differential benefits accruing from their networks (
A number of studies have identified a homophily effect with respect to networks, which refers to a tendency for
individuals to interact and develop ties with individuals that are similar to them on such characteristics as gender and
race. For example,
indicated that women tend to interact more with women and men tend to interact more
with men in their interpersonal networks.
found that women were not well-integrated into men's
networks, and vice versa. Since men's networks in organizations often include the organization's dominant coalition,
gender-segregated networks may be disadvantageous to women. Thus, the lack of equal access to informal interactions
and communications may be one reason that females are still underrepresented in high level positions in organizations
(
Bartol, 1978; Bartol, Martin, & Kromkowski, 2003; Brass, 1995
Associated with the homophily effect, women usually have ties to network members with lower status relative to men
because the positions women occupy limit their access to and ability to attract powerful employees as contacts
(
). With their low status, women tend to have low levels of network centrality, which significantly and
negatively impacts their prospects for leadership development and promotions (
), as well as informal
leadership and authority formation (
).
found that female faculty
realized the importance of social support more than male counterparts did, and, therefore, expended more effort than
men to extend their networks in order to obtain higher levels of support.
, however, notes women and new
leaders may have a difficult time breaking into important established networks and may need to seek mentors in order to
do so. Such a strategy, though, has the disadvantage of accessing network connections indirectly (through the mentor), at
least in the short run.
found that high potential women more so than high potential men tended to rely on
close ties and relationships outside of their work subunits, suggesting a potential alternative strategy for women.
Overall, although considerable progress has been made in the access of women to higher level managerial positions
), there is still evidence that females experience difficulty in building contacts and gaining access to the
networks of dominant coalitions in organizations and, therefore, face more challenges in accruing the benefits of
networking in business organizations. Low status, lack of informal networks, low levels of centrality and less support
received from upper levels, all restrain females' intrapersonal, interpersonal, and relational network formation, thereby
reducing the significant opportunities for major leadership development for women.
397
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
6.2. Race as a contingency
Lack of informal interactions and communication is also one of the major reasons that racial minorities are still
underrepresented in leadership positions, and especially in upper-management ranks (
). The homophily effect
with race is even stronger than with gender (
). Compared to majority group members, racial
minorities are more likely to make within-group identity and friendship network contacts (
). Although
these same-race homophilous ties may provide valuable sources of mutual support, the decreased network diversity greatly
restricts racial minorities' access to information networks and related resources in organizations (
). Yet, informational networks are significant indicators of familiarity with organizational knowledge, task mastery,
and role clarity, all of which are closely related to organizational learning and personal development (
).
In addition, research also indicates that minority members tend to have network contacts with lower status because
majority members usually occupy the organization's dominant coalition (
).
found that minority members of boards of directors were more influential as board members if they had direct
or indirect social network ties to majority directors through common memberships on other boards. Such ties enabled the
minority board members to create the perception of similarity with the majority, thus avoiding out-group biases.
Overall, several studies have suggested that networks of information and support in an organization are not equally
accessible to minority managers as compared with majority managers. Because of the relatively small number of
minority managers at high levels in organizations, minority managers tend to have fewer opportunities to form high
status ties and thus have limited access to their organization's dominant coalition. The resulting restricted information
channels, in turn, impede task development and career advancement of minorities.
6.3. Personality as a contingency
Emerging evidence suggests that personality may impact the structure of networks and individuals' positions in
them. For example,
found that high self-monitors were prone to occupy more central positions in
social networks than were their low self-monitoring counterparts. The high self-monitors tended to move into more
central positions as their tenure in their organizations increased, while this was not the case with low self-monitors.
Both high self-monitoring and central position had independent effects on performance. The high-self monitors were
more likely to occupy positions that spanned social divides, thereby allowing them access to a more diverse set of
resources. The authors noted that one challenge for high self-monitors might be how to avoid accepting too many
challenging responsibilities, which might be difficult to carry out while also maintaining a more expansive social
network. Ibarra suggests that individuals who are high self-monitors might be more flexible in making changes that
allow them to fit into different types of positions and social milieu. Thus, high self-monitors may have an edge in using
social networks for development purposes and in facilitating their upward mobility.
Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer (2004)
also provide evidence indicating that personality impacts centrality in team
social networks. More specifically, emotional stability predicted centrality in all three types of networks under study:
high centrality in advice and friendship networks and low centrality in adversarial networks. Openness to experience
was negatively related to centrality in friendship networks and positively related to adversarial centrality, suggesting
that individuals engaged in leadership development need to gauge carefully how they approach attempting to bring
about change so as not to produce adverse reactions.
found that extraversion was related to
centrality in advice and support networks within teams.
7. Conclusions
Networks can aid the leadership development process through facilitating the handling of challenges and the acquisition
of capabilities particularly in the interpersonal and relational realm. Although much of the traditional focus of leadership
development has been aimed at the acquisition of intrapersonal capabilities, functioning effectively as a leader necessitates
the development of interpersonal and relational capabilities. Such capabilities allow aspiring managers to accrue not only
human capital, but social and system capital as well. Aspiring managers can tap task, career, and friendship/support
networks to aid in acquiring and effectively handling challenging assignments, thus facilitating the likelihood of enhanced
career success. Structure factors, including strategic choices, network characteristics, and the technological interface,
moderate the ability of managers to convert potential network contacts into significant leadership development and capital
398
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
accrual. Personal factors also influence leadership development prospects. Organizations can encourage aspiring leaders to
develop appropriate types of networks and can facilitate the integration of functions, such as feedback, coaching, and
mentoring (
), into existing networks. Training programs, conferences, and strategically developed meetings can
also encourage linkages that aid leadership development. Job rotations and related career development programs can be
designed with a network frame in mind. Overall, there are many ways in which network concepts associated with dyadic
and relational levels of analysis can facilitate addressing the challenges that are key to leadership development. Task,
career, and friendship/support networks can all be helpful in differential ways.
References
Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. (2003). Placing the
“E: in E-leadership: Minor tweak or fundamental change. In S. E. Murphy & R.E. Riggio (Eds.), The
future of leadership development Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bartol, K. M. (1978). The sex structuring of organizations: A search for possible causes. Academy of Management Review, 3, 805
−815.
Bartol, K. M., & Liu, W. (2002). Information technology and human resources management: Harnessing the power and potential of netcentricity.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 215
−242.
Bartol, K. M., Martin, D. C., & Kromkowski, J. A. (2003). Leadership and the glass ceiling: Gender and ethnic group influences on leader behaviors
at middle and executive managerial levels. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(3), 8
−19.
Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29,
991
−1014.
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49, 432
−445.
Brass, D. J. (1985). Men's and women's networks: A study of interaction partners and influence in an organization. Academy of Management
Journal, 28, 327
−343.
Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management (pp. 39
−79). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brass, D. J., & Krackhardt, D. (1999). The social capital of 21st century leaders. In J. G. Human, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box
leadership (pp. 179
−194). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Brass, D. J., Betterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 14
−31.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 795
−817.
Bryson, J., & Kelley, G. (1978). A political perspective on leadership emergence, stability, and change in organizational networks. Academy of Management
Review, 3, 713
−723.
Burkhardt, M. E., & Brass, D. J. (1990). Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure
and power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 104
−127.
Burt, R. S. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. New York: Academic Press.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural hole: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cartwright, R. D. (1968). Psychotherapeutic processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 19, 387
−416.
Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Quill William Morrow.
Cohen, R. A., & Bradford, D. L. (1989). Influence without authority: The use of alliances, reciprocity, and exchange to accomplish work.
Organizational Dynamics, 17(3), 5
−17.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.
Combs, G. M. (2003). The duality of race and gender for managerial African American women: Implications of informal social networks on career
advancement. Human Resource Development Review, 2, 385
−405.
Cox, J. G., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr (2003). Toward a broader leadership development agenda: Extending the traditional transactional
–
transformational duality by developing directive, empowering, and shared leadership skills. In S. E. Murph & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of
leadership development (pp. 161
−179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002, June). The people who make organizations go-or stop. Harvard Business Review, 105
−112.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581
−613.
Day, D. V., & O'Connor, P. M. G. (2003). Leadership development: Understanding the process. In S. E. Murphy, & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of
leadership development Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fisher, R., & Sharp, A. (1998). Getting it done: How to lead when you're not in charge. New York: HarperCollins.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32
−58.
Gibson, C. B., & Manuel, J. A. (2003). Building trust: Effective multicultural communication processes in virtual teams. In J. W. Sons (Ed.), Virtual
teams that work (pp. 59
−86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in organizational behavior, 9, 175
−208.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360
−1380.
Hamilton, B. A., & Scandura, T. A. (2003). E-mentoring: Implications for organizational learning and development in a wired world. Organizational
Dynamics, 31, 388
−402.
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 264
−288.
399
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
Hill, L. A. (1992). Becoming a manager: How new managers master the challenges of leadership. Cambridge, MD: Harvard Business School Press.
Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2005). Making the herd drink: The role of organizational efficacy for change in innovation implementation. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Hughes, E. C. (1946). The knitting of racial groups in industry. American Sociological Review, 11, 512
−515.
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, 422
−447.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 471
−501.
Ibarra, H. (1995, March 01). Managerial networks. Harvard Business School Cases, 1
−5.
Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673
−703.
Ibarra, H. (1997). Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 91
−102.
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 87
−108.
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klein, K. J., Lim, B., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 952
−963.
Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1995, March
–April). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 59−67.
Krackhardt, D., & Kilduff, M. (2002). Structure, culture, and Simmelian ties in entrepreneurial firms. Social Networks, 24, 279
−290.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management
Journal, 28, 110
−132.
Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 55
−67.
Lamertz, K., & Aquino, K. (2004). Social power, social status and perceptual similarity of workplace victimization: A social network analysis of
stratification. Human Relations, 57, 795
−822.
Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467
−487.
Luthans, Fred. (1988). Successful vs. effective real managers. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 127
−132.
McCauley, C. D., & Douglas, C. S. (1998). Developmental relationships. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 160
−193). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 544
−560.
McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2003). Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEO's advice networks and firms' strategic responses to poor
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 1
−32.
McGuire, G. M. (2000). Gender, race, ethnicity, and networks: The factors affecting the status of employees' network members. Work and Occupation,
27, 501
−523.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415
−444.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management,
30, 805
−835.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (1998). At the margins: A distinctiveness approach of the social identity and social networks of underrepresented
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 441
−452.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 46, 121
−146.
Mollica, K. A., Bray, B., & Trevino, L. K. (2003). Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers' social networks. Organization Science, 14, 123
−136.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers' relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1149
−1160.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242
−266.
Neubert, M. J., & Taggar, S. (2004). Pathways to informal leadership: The moderating role of gender on the relationship of individual differences and
team member network centrality to informal leadership emergence. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 175
−194.
Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 860
−875.
Ohlott, P. J. (1998). Job assignments. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work
teams, 7, 115
−139.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An
examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leadership behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 6, 172
−197.
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Relationships and resources: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review,
62, 673
−693.
Powell, W. S., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in
biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116
−145.
400
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management
Journal, 34, 939
−951.
Roland, E. K., Kevin, W. M., & Nathan, B. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups
and individuals. Journal of Management, 23, 775
−793.
Rothstein, M. G., & Davey, L. M. (1995). Gender differences in network relationships in academia. Women in Management Review, 10, 20
−25.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219
−237.
Sidle, C. C., & Warzynski, C. C. (2003, Sept./Oct.). A new mission for business schools: The development of actor-network leaders. Journal of Education
for Business, 40
−45.
Singh, R. P., Hybels, R. C., & Hills, G. E. (2000). Examining the role of social network size and structural holes. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship,
3, 47
−59.
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Karimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 316
−325.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, R. A. (2000). Implications of leader
–member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management
systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 137
−185.
Van Velsor, E. V., McCauley, C. D., & Moxley, R. S. (1998). Our view of leadership development. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 1
−25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Webber, C. F. (2003). Technology-mediated leadership development networks: Expanding educative possibilities. Journal of Education of Administration,
41(2), 201
−218.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 366
−398.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations, Fifth Ed. Egnlewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
401
K.M. Bartol, X. Zhang / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 388
–401
Document Outline
- Networks and leadership development: Building linkages for capacity acquisition and capital acc.....
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
Mental Toughness for Peak Performance Leadership Development and Success
MalwareA Future Framework for Device, Network and Service Management
A neural network based space vector PWM controller for a three level voltage fed inverter induction
Piórkowska K. Cohesion as the dimension of network and its determianants
An Optically Isolated Hv Igbt Based Mega Watt Cascade Inverter Building Block For Der Applications
Global Production Networks and World City Network
From Stabilisation to State Building, (DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL?VELOPMENT)
van leare heene Social networks as a source of competitive advantage for the firm
taking stock of networks and organizations a multilevel approach
social networks and the performance of individualns and groups
Email networks and the spread of computer viruses
Production networks and consumer choice in the earliest metal of Western Europe
HP Networking and Cisco CLI Reference Guide June 10 WW Eng ltr
kraatz learning by association interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change
intra organizational networks and performance
social networks and planned organizational change the impact of strong network ties on effective cha
Social Networks and Negotiations 12 14 10[1]
managing collaboration within networks and relatioships
więcej podobnych podstron