ASAP reflection papers (3) based on 5 articles each - Human Resource Management

Women’s Networks: A Career Development Intervention or Impediment?

LAURA L. BIEREMA School of Leadership and Lifelong Learning, University of Georgia, USA

ABSTRACT This case study investigated an in-company women’s network with the mission of improving recruitment, retention, and advancement of women. The Network was unsuccessful in improving women’s standing in the organization due to the nature of the women’s participation and the resilience of the patriarchal culture. The Network was impaired by its members’ attitudes, awareness of gendered power relations, and participation. The Network was also thwarted by the resiliency of the patriarchal organization culture. Study conclusions include that networks may serve to reproduce patriarchy, not erode it; the level of gender consciousness impacts on network participation and commitment; and network success is impacted upon by organization culture. Networks’ viability as an HRD intervention is assessed.

KEY WORDS: Women, in-company networks, diversity

Today women and men populate the workforce in equal numbers. Yet, finding women among the top ranks of organizations is rare. Today only seven women are CEOs in the Fortune 500 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000), slightly more than 1 per cent. Of the top earners in the Fortune 500, 5.2 per cent are women, and only 12.4 per cent of Fortune 500 Boards of Directors are women (Catalyst, 2002b). Further, women fare more poorly than men in pay, promotion, benefits, and other economic rewards (Bowler, 1999; Elder and Johnson, 1999; Kim, 2000; Knoke and Ishio, 1998). Success comes with a high price, often requiring women executives to emulate men and reinforce patriarchal systems that discriminate against women and people of color (Bierema, 2003) and to work long hours, sacrificing health, family, and leisure. It is also well documented that women must work harder than men to advance (Ragins et al., 1998).

The workplace reflects a white-male controlled entity (Ruderman et al., 1995; Sharpe, 1994) where advancement often involves adopting masculine behaviors such as competitiveness and aggressiveness (Diekman and Eagly, 2000; Fagenson, 1990;

Correspondence Address: Laura L. Bierema, Associate Professor, 850 College Station Road, 405 River’s

Crossing, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30605, USA. Tel: + 706 542 6174. Fax: + 706 542 4024.

Email: [email protected]

Human Resource Development International, Vol. 8, No. 2, 207 – 224, June 2005

ISSN 1367-8868 Print/1469-8374 Online/05/020207-18 ª 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: 10.1080/13678860500100517

Kolb, 1999; Maniero, 1994). Barriers to advancement include being a woman and encountering sexism (Korn/Ferry and UCLA, 1993), gender-based stereotypes, exclusion from formal networks, lack of role models, and an inhospitable corporate culture (Catalyst, 2004a).

One way women learn corporate culture is through relationships (Bierema, 1994, 1996, 1999) and they form a variety of social networks as a means of building a community of support. Networks serve psychosocial and instrumental functions (Ibarra, 1995), yet, it is well established that women are excluded from men’s networks. Additionally, women must work harder than men to advance, and enjoy less power, prestige, and pay. The alienating nature of a masculine culture has led to the establishment of women’s networks as a countermeasure. Women need networks because they are not well integrated into men’s networks (Brass, 1985; Catalyst, 2004; Scott, 1998, Travers et al., 1997), lack access to top level management (Belle, 2002; Catalyst, 1999, Morrison and Glinow, 1990; Crampton and Mishra, 1999), and may be isolated from career paths that lead to power (Belle, 2002; Catalyst, 1999).

The focus of this study was on women’s in-company networks, or formally sponsored and structured groups concerned with women’s advancement. Women’s in- company networks typically help women build skills and create knowledge to succeed in organization culture. They are sponsored by the employer organization and function to advise senior management, hold networking events, andcreate mentoring programs.

The purpose of this research was to conduct a case study of an in-company women’s executive network to examine its impact on the women’s careers and organization context. The following research questions were addressed:

1. What were the Network members’ experiences with the network? 2. How did the Network impact on members’ careers and the organization?

Literature Review

This section reviews literature on networks, including definitions, men’s and women’s networks, benefits, effectiveness, and social network theory.

Networks Defined

Networking is ‘the process of contacting and being contacted by people in our social network and maintaining these linkages and relationships. . .a set of relations, linkages, or ties among people’ (Burke, 1993, in Travers et al., 1997, p. 62) or ‘the banding together of like-minded people for the purposes of contact and friendship, and support’ (Vinnicombe and Colwill, 1996, in Travers et al., 1997, p. 62). An informal network is ‘the set of job-related contacts that a manager relies on for access to task-related, career, and social support’ (Ibarra, 1995, p. 674). There are three different types of networks, including professional and occupational networks, training networks and in-company networks (Travers et al., 1997). Keele (1986) defines networks as being composed of weak social ties and used to exchange information and provide support. Networks can be either informal (i.e. professional associations, personal contacts) or formal and structured entities sponsored by an organization.

208 L. L. Bierema

Men’s and Women’s Networks

Both women and men establish networks in support of career advancement. Gender differences in networks are a result of opportunities and constraints arising out of women’s and men’s different locations in the social structure (Moore, 1990). Hanson (2000) notes that men usually belong to larger, more economically focused networks, while women belong to smaller, more localized and community-minded networks. Women tend to have more kin in their social networks than men (Renzulli et al., 2000), even when compared with men in similar social structural positions (Moore, 1990). Networks have been found to be more utilitarian for men and more social for women (Vinnicombe and Colwill, 1996). Ibarra (1993) suggests that women straddle male-dominated networks for access to work issues and women’s networks to find social support. The relational aspect of women’s networks may be attributed to their tendency for relational and connected knowing (Belenky et al., 1986; Caffarella and Olson, 1993).

In a study of women and men’s networks, Ibarra (1997) interviewed sixty-three women and men managers in four Fortune 500 service firms. She found that women’s networks were less homophilous (homophily is the extent to which network members are similar) than men’s but that women with advancement potential relied more on close ties and relationships than did men or women with less advancement potential. She concluded that different types of networks may provide alternative routes to similar career resources for men and women.

As in other realms of organization life, women are at a disadvantage when forming networks in comparison to men. Inhibited structural access is supported by Scott’s (1996) study of women’s personal networks in corporate government affairs. Even when women have the same title, experience, work history and age, men had more contact with top government officials. Scott also found that women are more likely to interact and form networks with other women at similar levels in the organization, but form fewer relationships with women at the top. In spite of this, Brass (1985) found that women are more adept at networking than men.

Benefits of Women’s Networks

Networks may help mollify women’s assimilation into a male-dominated culture while simultaneously giving them collective power and confidence to advocate and act for organization change. Joining a formal women’s network has been stressed as vital in helping women navigate traditionally patriarchal environments (Catalyst, 1999). Hanson (2000) advocates networking: for assistance in landing a job, connecting with diverse colleagues over shared interests, cultivating a support system, and integrating oneself into a career.

Mitchell (1999) surveyed thirty-one members of a women’s networking organiza- tion. The women participated for help with business problems, to solicit advice and to change career direction. Members valued exposure to varied opinions, advice, input, views and support. Members discontinued participation due to time constraints and diminishing group size. Higgins (2000) surveyed the early careers of 138 lawyers and found that the more developmental relationships and assistance received by individuals, the higher their career satisfaction. She also found that receiving high

Women’s Networks 209

psychological support from people of low status also resulted in high levels of work satisfaction, pointing to the importance of developmental relationships in the workplace. She also found that women and racial minorities were less satisfied with their work, making developmental relationships even more important for these groups.

Effectiveness of Networks

Networks serve psychosocial and instrumental benefits for women. Several studies have been conducted on informal social networks (Higgins, 2000; Ibarra, 1992, 1995, 1997; Moore, 1990), but the effectiveness of in-company networks for women is less understood. Little empirical evidence exists demonstrating the effectiveness of in- company networks (Burke et al., 1995; Travers et al., 1997) or group mentoring (Mitchell, 1999). Instead, the literature addresses receptivity to and composition of networks. For instance, 87 per cent of surveyed members of the National Association of Female Executives felt the need to network with both sexes in order to advance in their careers (Smith, 1995).

Network Membership and Identity Development

Successful career women sometimes find themselves assuming masculine attributes, stereotyping gender roles, and following a set of ‘rules’ to get ahead (Diekman and Eagly, 2000; Fagenson, 1990; Maniero, 1994). The literature lauds formal women’s networks as tools to advance women’s careers. What is less clear is whether women’s networks encourage female acculturation to the patriarchal culture or if they are instrumental in fostering real change and opportunity for women.

Networks can function to assimilate members, as well as help them secure a positive sense of identity. Ibarra (1995) outlined the ‘deficit hypothesis’ and a pluralist perspective for exploring network membership of minorities. The deficit hypothesis views minorities as having less instrumentally useful networks due to less political savvy in a white-dominated society. This orientation demands assimilation in order to be successful in an organization. The deficit model can be applied to women who are subordinate to white men in organizations and who must assimilate if they seek advancement. An alternative view advocated by Ibarra is grounded in understandings of pluralism, identity development, and group dynamics. This view suggests that the critical developmental task is developing a positive sense of identity while simultaneously assimilating to the dominant culture when necessary. This view also values both engagement with the disenfranchised group (in the case of this study, women), as well as with the dominant majority for career success. It should be noted that Ibarra (1995) found that establishing a strong sense of identity was more important than assimilation in her research on the networks of white and minority managers.

Social Network Theory

The networking literature is based on social network theory that examines how networks are used to attain organization power (Brass, 1992; Quinlan, 1999). Social network theory views any set of social relationships as embedded within the larger

210 L. L. Bierema

social context that provides access to various social contacts (Alderfer, 1986; Blau, 1977; Ibarra, 1995). Although any social network imposes constraints based on power, resources, and demographics, people take active roles in structuring their social networks in pursuit of their goals and membership in networks.

Ibarra (1997) uses three sets of network-analytic concepts to describe gender differences in managerial networks: homophily, tie strength, and range. Homophily is the tendency of individuals to interact with people who are similar (i.e. race, gender). Tie strength indicates the emotional intensity of the relationship, and range refers to the diversity of groups within an individual’s various networks. These three factors work together to provide access to diverse resources. Weak ties are believed to link more dissimilar individuals than strong ties and serve as bridges to disconnected parts and new information within the social system. People in networks with strong ties will experience redundancy in information and resources due to the tightly knit nature of the network. Thus weak ties and broader range are viewed as advantageous in providing instrumental worth such as access to career opportunities and other resources. Ibarra suggests that women tend to belong to less homophilous networks that have strong ties.

Ibarra (1992) argues that two network mechanisms function to reinforce gendered inequalities in the workplace. These mechanisms include homophily or the tendency to form same-sex network relationships and the ability to convert individual attributes and positional resources into network advantages. She surveyed seventy- three members of a social network in an advertising firm and found that men tended to form homophilous ties across multiple networks and to have stronger homophilous ties. Women obtained social support and friendship from women and instrumental access through network ties to men. Men benefited more from their networks.

Methodology

The purpose of this research was to conduct a case study of an in-company women’s executive network to examine its impact on the women’s careers and organization context. The following research questions were addressed:

1. What were the Network members’ experiences with the network? 2. How did the Network impact on members’ careers and the organization?

Theoretical Framework

The study was based on an interest in women’s career development and learning and grounded in social network theory and feminism. Historically, career development theory and literature has explained the careers of middle-class white men. Alternative models are emerging accounting for the experiences of persons from poor families, persons of color, and women (Burke and Nelson, 2002; Farmer and Associates, 1997). Learning theory also informed this study based on the assumption that networks potentially promote learning. The process of women’s learning is also receiving more attention in adult education (Hayes and Flannery, 2001) and human resource development. The dominant discourse on women’s networks is that they work, all women should get involved, and organizations should support them

Women’s Networks 211

(Catalyst, 1999). Yet, there has been little empirical evidence supporting in-company networks’ effectiveness. Most of the literature on networks is anecdotal and tactical (e.g. Catalyst, 1999). This research was also grounded in social network theory (Brass, 1992) in an effort to understand how access to power and resource affects career success, and data were analyzed through a feminist lens.

A Qualitative Approach

A qualitative methodology was adopted since it is ‘the preferred strategy when ‘‘how’’ or ‘‘why’’ questions are posed, when the investigator has little control over the events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real- life context’ (Yin, 1994, p. 1). My interest was in how the Network impacted on the women and the organization.

Participants

The participants were members of an in-company women’s network that was made up of approximately ten of the top executive women in a Fortune 500 corporation headquartered in the US. The company manufactures hardware, office supplies, sporting goods, and wines and spirits, employs approximately 30,000 worldwide and has over $5 billion in sales. Based on a long-term relationship with the human resources vice president, I was invited to provide facilitation and consultation as an external consultant. Although the organization covered my expenses, I received no payment for consulting services.

The Network was created by the organization’s senior human resource executive vice president and the CEO, both of whom were highly committed to advancing women in the organization. The organization experienced major changes during the course of the research, including the CEO’s retirement, the relocation of the corporate headquarters, declining financial performance, and downsizing. These changes had deleterious affects on both the Network and data collection efforts.

The Network was formed when all members were invited to attend an event focused on women in business. During the course of the meeting, a focus group was held and the Network established. The Network developed a mission to ‘[p]rovide a focus for ongoing leadership, advocacy, and support for the development of women and minorities and to ensure workplace equality remains a vital part of the [company] corporate strategic plan’ (meeting notes 17 June 1998). The Network existed over approximately a four-year period and held a meeting approximately twice annually.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were initially gathered via focus groups, the results of which are published elsewhere (Bierema, in press). After the Network had been operational for over one year, interviews were held with nine members. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim when permitted. However, the subject of the Network caused a great deal of trepidation and reluctance to speak about it on tape. Three executives declined to be taped for some or all of their interviews. Field notes were made when taping was not possible. Participant observation was also used at all meetings of the

212 L. L. Bierema

Network. All correspondence was used to further document the study and memoranda were composed after the various telephone calls and planning sessions that were held between formal meetings of the Network.

Data were analyzed according to the constant comparative method and evaluated for common themes, stories, and clusters of information (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998). Through constant comparison of themes, categories were derived inductively (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998). Themes were organized according to the concerns based adoption model (Hall and Hord, 1984) and a gender consciousness continuum (Brody et al., 2000), since both of these models were similar to the themes that emerged from the data analysis. A matrix describing women’s gender awareness and action was derived from the analysis and is described in the discussion (Bierema, 2002). The findings in this paper will be discussed in terms of the efficacy of women’s in-company networks for women and organizations.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include that it represents a single corporation and its women executives, and the results may not be generalizable to corporate America or women. I had privileged access to the group through my relationship with their top executive, the HR Vice President, but had no previous relationship with this corporation. My relationship with the executive helped bolster my credibility with the group, and I formed personal relationships with most members. My close relationship with the HR executive proved to be an asset, since I was privy to more information about the group and its functioning and correspondence than if there had been no past history between us. A limitation and strength is my perspective as a former executive in a Fortune 500 company. I understand the culture and challenges for women in organizations, but am also critical of them based on my experiences in a corporation and voluntary decision to leave.

Findings

Ultimately, this in-company women’s network failed and was disbanded. The Network dynamics were impacted upon by the women’s attitudes, awareness, and participation, and the resiliency of patriarchal culture within the organization. The women experienced the Network with apprehension and the organization proved more an obstacle than a support. An unexpected finding was that the Network’s results contradicted the original intentions of helping women.

Women’s Attitudes, Awareness, and Participation

Participation was affected by attitudes toward the Network, awareness of gendered power relations, and willingness to take action.

Attitude toward the Network. Network members fretted about the consequences of their participation and the impact on their image. Many viewed participating as potentially career damaging. One member captured this trepidation: ‘I don’t know if I want to stand up and be counted on women’s issues when my organization is

Women’s Networks 213

primarily run by and features men or products most likely used by men.’ Another mused, ‘No one wants to be thought of as someone who needs extra help.’ The Network was also regarded with wariness in the company, as a participant complained: ‘When you hear by way of the grapevine, that there are suspicions held by certain men as to ‘‘well what are these women doing?’’. . .it was difficult to establish an agenda for change that one could have a commitment to.’ Some men jokingly suggested the members were engaged in male bashing and recipe exchanging during their meetings. This resulted in the Network positioning its activities as benefiting both men and women, and allowing concerns over perceptions to outweigh those over benefits.

Awareness of gendered power relations. The women in the Network expressed varying levels of awareness of gendered power relations in the organization. Also known as ‘gender consciousness’, awareness is a measure of the degree to which individuals and organizations recognize how gender differences create privilege for men and oppress women.

The Network purpose was clear about helping women advance in the organization and keeping that goal in the strategic plan, yet some comments during meetings and interviews contradicted stated objectives and appeared ‘gender unconscious’. For instance, some of the members did not view gender as impacting on their careers, exclaiming, ‘Oh we don’t have a problem at all around gender issues or any diversity issues’ or ‘I really don’t think [being a woman] has [helped me] at all. I never have. And I’m very used to being the only woman in the room. Definitely doesn’t hurt me. And I don’t really think it’s helped me either.’ In spite of such declarations in the context of full group meetings, several of the Network members confided in the privacy of interviews that gender was indeed an issue.

Although all the women described themselves as women’s advocates and pioneers, only one identified herself as a feminist. Some of the members recognized inequities based on gender and were strong advocates of equal treatment – but not special – treatment for women. One participant noted that, although the Network seemed the ‘right thing to do’, and that she would ‘like to see women advance’, she would ‘also like to see qualified men be advanced’. The women also uncritically modified their behavior and tolerated inequitable treatment, as noted by this executive reflecting on her felt need to tone down her enthusiasm as it might be perceived as ‘flighty’ around men: ‘I’m not really happy about that kind of thing, but that seems to be what’s needed. You do it.’

Some of the Network members questioned gendered inequities, but most of these conversations happened in the privacy of a one-on-one interview. One participant explained during an interview, ‘Well to be perfectly frank. . .[gender discrimination] is certainly an issue here. Women are not viewed in the same way. . ..You’re very conscious of it.’ Although aware of gendered power relations, the women also noted that being ‘other’ also presented advantages: ‘Being the first woman actually, I think, gave me some opportunities that other people didn’t have.’

Willingness to take action. The Network generated little action around women’s issues beyond meetings and planning. The participants who acknowledged gender inequities but did not take any action to address them blamed a lack of energy for

214 L. L. Bierema

Network idleness. Many were simply too tired to take on one more challenge given the pressures they felt in their jobs, particularly when the personal career costs seemed high. One executive noted, ‘The people themselves, the women themselves, don’t feel like they have time, don’t feel like they have the background, don’t feel like. . .pick something, therefore they couldn’t possibly stand up and be counted on this.’

The members who expressed an awareness of gendered power relations and regularly challenged the culture were few. They were outwardly focused, concerned with helping others negotiate the organizational culture. Their actions involved advocacy of other women and engagement in public discussions about improving the culture for women in the organization. The woman executive who created the Network explained her rationale: ‘I started [the Network] for a couple different reasons, so I guess I’ve been the leader.’ She further noted, ‘The workplace is providing people an opportunity to take leadership roles, and I was kind of hoping that somebody would step in the forefront, but no one has.’

Resiliency of Patriarchal Culture

Every participant in this study cited the culture as a key barrier to the Network having impact. The culture was very male oriented, discriminatory, and unsuppor- tive of the effort. The maleness of the products and culture caused some women to conclude that there was little awareness of diversity as explained by this executive: ‘Management for so long has been white male, and there is not as much awareness of other entities.’

Some of the women acknowledged gender discrimination in the organization and their lack of access to the male network. ‘I’m not going out to play golf with them, you know in groups or anything. . .I don’t have access to that. And I won’t. It’s just not the kind of company that’s even comfortable with that kind of coed experience.’ Another member shared how she garnered a great deal of respect for her ability early in her career although it took her longer to achieve the same level as men regardless of the responsibility. She noted, however, that she never complained about this situation, ‘because it is generally, well totally, a male-dominated place, there wasn’t very many places you could go to take that issue. ‘Cause that would be a woman just complaining.’ There was also a sense that the some of the women had so fully acclimated themselves to the male culture that they did not see the value of a women’s network. The women also questioned the sincerity of the company’s support, even though the Network was endorsed by the CEO. ‘I don’t really know where the support is or what it’s perceived to be doing any more.’ Another noted, ‘I don’t want to be the only one beating the drum [for women’s issues]’. During the course of the study, the CEO retired and a new one took the helm. The Network was unsure if this new CEO would still value the network and this dynamic contributed to the inaction of it.

Contradictions

The creation and continuation of the in-company network bred contradictions. The network provided some benefits to members, but it also caused trepidation about

Women’s Networks 215

organizational perceptions of the network. Finally, it failed in its quest to address women’s issues.

Networks offer a structure for sharing and solidarity among members by minimizing isolation and providing information that could be helpful to members in their careers. The members were disposed to take collective action devoted to women’s advancement, for instance, ‘I’m a firm believer of the power behind the voice, that we’ve gotta sing off the same page.’ Beyond working together to support women’s advancement, it was strongly held that there were sound business reasons for pursuing this initiative and that the company would suffer if no action resulted. The women also felt that they could convince the male executives that this was worthwhile by tapping into their competitive spirit: ‘So we’ve got that political mindset, and this is about power, [and] when it comes down to it, men see things competitively.’ Another observed, ‘It’s all around power, and power’s a relational concept, and I love it, I want it, and it makes good things.’ There was general agreement that this process could only be powerful, however, if the women worked in concert.

The network members showed a ground-breaking spirit as role models for the future. They regularly referred to themselves as ‘pioneers’ when they were speaking about their roles as executive women in the company. One woman reflected, ‘If women were to come [here], I think that they would have to like to be the pioneer, and if they didn’t like that, then it’s really not the place for them. Being a pioneer is not easy.’

Although the Network provided support and inspiration, it also created waves of concern. In theory, these women valued the Network. In practice, however, they expressed fear about their participation in the Network and publicly working to advance women in the company. They were anxious about being perceived as ‘recipe swapping male-bashers’ or appearing to ‘need help’. This thought captures the sentiment: ‘I had a. . .concern that. . .we’ve all participated in these kinds of things before, and [someone’s] specific experience had been that they’re either recipe swaps or male bashing.’ This woman further noted how pleased she was with the process and that ‘what we had here is clearly showing our level in business thinking, our sophistication as business people, and our understanding what the real issue is.’ Another woman shared:

[My boss is] gonna ask me. . . ‘what did they say, what did they do?. . .tell me everything.’ Not because he’s suspicious, but he just has to have his hands in everything. I really was sort of expecting this to be, not necessarily a male bashing thing, but when I left the other day and [my boss] said, ‘have fun, what do you think they’re gonna do?’ I said, ‘I don’t know, we’ll sit around and say ‘‘chicks rule’’,’ but I really thought it was gonna be. . .less of a constructive thing, and I’m so impressed. . .you know some of you I work with, but others I have never met before, and you all are just so articulate, and so you know, just so incredibly impressive, so I’m so glad to be included in your little group.

The dominant Network discourse was skewed toward company performance, not the individual women’s benefit. One participant noted at the end of the focus group, ‘I think it’s another example that shows how when women are given an opportunity,

216 L. L. Bierema

they are going to think holistically and be business minded, and the myth is that we’re just going to take care of our nest.’ The group complimented itself on how ‘business minded and strategic they were during the focus group; as one woman noted, ‘Not one time during our interaction did we not focus on the success of the company as a whole, and how each one of our individual companies could contribute, and I would like that message to be clearly heard by senior management.’ The group also realized that the company would benefit by better integrating women, as captured in this comment: ‘By bringing forward what we have here, that’s something that’s not been done before that will increase market share. . ..We are an untapped resource.’ The women were proud of putting the company first in their conversation; however, this behavior was contradictory, since it distracted attention away from the women themselves. In a sense, the focus group functioned to detract from the real issues the women were facing in their patriarchal work environment, the opposite of the intended result.

Discussion

Women’s in-company networks are being enthusiastically formed (Catalyst, 1999), but there has been little systematic study of them. This study offers a glimpse into the workings of an in-company women’s network. This case study showed that the network dynamics were impacted upon by the women’s attitudes and participation, and the resiliency of patriarchal culture within the organization. An unanticipated finding of the focus group was the inherent contradictions of attempting to sponsor a women’s network in male-dominated organization culture. Complex dynamics caused this network to have the opposite result of its intentions. This study has not sought to be critical of the women’s thinking and behaviors related to the Network, but rather to understand their conceptions of gendered power relations and experiences of working for change in an inhospitable environment using a formal in- company network as its vehicle.

This study offers three conclusions. (1) networks may serve to reproduce patriarchy, not erode it; (2) the level of gender consciousness impacts on network participation and commitment; and (3) network success is impacted upon by organization culture.

Conclusion 1: Networks May Serve to Reproduce Patriarchy, Not Erode It

Powell and Smith-Doer (1994) have described the paradox of networks in that they create bonds of affiliation that both lubricate getting things done while simultaneously providing a glue that brings order and meaning to social life. They note that the structure of networks gives them the ability simultaneously to empower and to constrain, to bind and to blind. The women in this study had power in their positions and were able to bond together in other areas of their work to launch new products and manage key parts of the business. The organization culture and the Network members’ own resistance, however, seemed to bind the group into a state of inaction. It is possible that the Network failed because their power was diminished by association with a ‘women’s group’. They may have met their goals for advancing themselves better in other networks within the company that were more powerful.

Women’s Networks 217

The women were highly assimilated into the corporate culture which may have made challenging a culture that had been very good to them difficult.

To be effective at eroding structural inequality and creating atmospheres that are conducive to women requires that both networks and their organizations work to change the structure of power relations within the organization. Too often networks are left to their own devices to fix cultural and structural problems in organizations. Instead of creating real change, these networks simply reproduce patriarchal power structures without adequate resources or strategy for promoting change. Networks, no matter how useful they may be, are not a dominant source of power for women (Scott, 1998). The network in this case worked in the opposite way to that intended. It caused members to avoid issues affecting women and therefore allowed them to worsen. In some ways women’s networks are a reaction to the ‘men’s network’. Attempting to duplicate male power structures is not the perfect answer to improving women’s presence and power in the workplace. Women might be better off creating alternative structures to promote learning, share power, and challenge the prevailing patriarchal power.

Considering the three characteristics of networks (homophily, tie strength, and range) offers clues as to why the Network may have backfired. The strongest networks are less homophilous, have weak ties, and a wide range (Brass, 1992; Ibarra, 1997). Homophily is the tendency for individuals to interact with those who are similar. By virtue of this being an in-company women’s network, members shared gender and an organization culture. All but one were white and ages ranged from late thirties to late fifties. These women had fairly strong ties due to their common gender, organization, and industry. This may have served to weaken the Network since strong ties are known to increase redundancy of information and resources. All in-company networks will suffer from this problem to a certain extent. Finally, the range of the network refers to the diversity in contacts that each member brings. This was working in the Network’s favor in that the members were dispersed throughout the company, but it still provided less range than an informal network. Almost by design, in-company networks default to a weaker network structure by virtue of these factors. Ultimately, this network had little power to influence the organization and resulted in members silencing their voices rather than speaking up for themselves or other women.

Conclusion 2: The Level of Gender Consciousness Impacts on Participation and Receptivity

Gender consciousness is different degrees of thinking about gender: ‘Gender consciousness refers to a person’s readiness to recognize how sex differences and privilege are deeply embedded in the assumptions, expectations, practices, and manifestations of the society’ (Brody et al., 2000, p. 26). A framework to describe the Network member’s awareness of gendered power relations was derived in this study. The framework (Bierema, 2002), depicted in Figure 1, is a matrix model that categorizes women’s gender consciousness according to their level of awareness (low- to-high) of gendered power relations and actions (low-to-high). The women’s sentiments on the Network ranged from low awareness/low action – ‘Oh we don’t have a problem at all around gender issues or any diversity issues’ – to high

218 L. L. Bierema

awareness/high action – ‘I’m a leader in the organization. I am a professional. I am also – whether I like it or not – I am still a role model for women.’

The matrix was developed through data analysis and building on the continuum of gender consciousness and privilege developed by Brody et al. (2000). As Brody et al. observe, ‘Society has a collective gender consciousness [or unconsciousness] and unidentified and unspoken assumptions about male privilege’ (2000, p. 1). Their study examined how collective consciousness permeates the experiences of both educators and students in both single sex and coed institutions. The matrix devised to analyze the findings of this study examines levels of gender consciousness relevant to organizational settings and in particular to the case of the women’s network.

While some of the executives exhibited low levels of awareness and therefore action (quadrant 1), the majority fell into a category of ‘conscious unconsciousness’ (quadrant 3), that is, they were highly aware of gendered power relations, but unable or unwilling to take any action to change them. They deliberately took a stance of inaction on women’s issues. These Network members critiqued power relations and expressed understanding about how they were affected by these dynamics in the privacy of a one-on-one interview, sometimes without the tape-recorder running, but

Figure 1. Levels of gender consciousness and action

Women’s Networks 219

the issue became a non-discussable in the meetings of the Network. The Network members’ public silence regarding their disagreement with policies and issues related to women was rooted in the high costs of speaking up on behalf of women. One participant explained this dynamic: ‘Sometimes I’ve had to accept less than what I thought may have been right. . ..Sometimes you just have to bite your tongue and not say anything.’ She indicated that speaking up would have rendered her ‘too strong for a woman’. The women in this study publicly identified with the male culture, but their understanding of gendered power relations was not talked about in the public meetings of the group, it was broached only from the safety behind closed doors.

The Network members’ silent protest against the culture rendered the Network ineffective and inactive. The irony of this stance is that taking action is what the Network needed to do to foster change. Further, these women had the stature and power to push the Network if they had so chosen. The only quadrant of the awareness/action matrix that provides leverage toward meaningful change for women is quadrant four. With the exception of two executives, there was little evidence that the Network members were willing to challenge the organization culture or take action when they witnessed gender inequities in the organization. One noted, ‘I’m a leader in the organization. I am a professional. I am also – whether I like it or not – I am still a role model for women’. Women members of networks and their organizations need to identify strategies and policies that help move toward quadrant four, a high awareness and action state.

Conclusion 3: Network Success Is Impacted upon by Organization Culture

Women feel solely responsible for their difficulty in corporate culture and organizational culture perpetuates the exclusion of women (Belle, 2002). Yet culture is a product of the entire organization, not just the women. This research tracked the creation and collapse of an executive women’s network in corporate America. The breakdown of the Network should not rest primarily on the shoulders of the women participants, but rather on the ineffective organizational structure and inhospitable patriarchal culture that stifled action on knowledge about gendered power relations. In fact, the conclusion that this Network initiative did not succeed is in itself a remarkable finding, considering the stature and success all of these women had achieved. The women in this study are extraordinary. They are successful in a competitive environment and have proven their leadership and management abilities during their careers. They are looked up to as role models and as employees with potential to continue advancing in the organization. Some even achieved promotions and special recognition during the life of the Network. Taken in isolation, the Network should have succeeded by the sheer virtue of its members. What cannot be overlooked, however, is the social context surrounding the network and how that impacted on its functioning, particularly since social networks function within a larger context.

Implications for Practice

Networks are being uncritically adopted in many organization settings to address issues of diversity and supposedly increase opportunities for women and other

220 L. L. Bierema

diverse groups. Yet, accomplishing improved organization equity through the use of networks is more complicated than simply creating a network.

The dominant discourse on networks is that they work, all women should get involved, and organizations should support them (Catalyst, 1999). Unfortunately, it is not that simple. To be effective at eroding structural inequality and creating atmospheres conducive to women requires that both networks and their organiza- tions function with high awareness and action around issues of gendered power relations. This study shows the participants in the Network were generally aware of the obstacles their gender presented to advancement, yet they were ineffectual at raising their voices or taking action addressing such problems due to individual fear, denial, frustration, and exhaustion, and organizational sexism and resistance to the Network. The organization functioned at a low level of gender consciousness and action with dynamics falling primarily into quadrants one and two of Figure 1.

Based on the findings, the following practice recommendations may be useful for both women and organizations considering in-company women’s networks: create alternative network structures; invest in development programs that enhance women’s self-efficacy and sense of identity; assess the organization level of gender consciousness; assess the network level of gender consciousness; secure commitment from both management and the network members; vary the level of network members; assess network activities and results; track the lifecycle of the network; reward action aimed at accomplishing the network’s goals; and do not assume that all networks are created equally.

Implications for Research

Research on both effective and ineffective in-company networks is needed to examine their impact on individual career performance and organizational culture and policy. We need to understand what women need and want from networks, and how women, men, and organizations can minimize the perpetuation of patriarchal culture that excludes women and promotes negative attitudes toward them. There is also a need for research on alternatives to formal networks since networks may have the opposite of their intended result, as in this case.

This article reported a case study of a failed in-company women’s network with the goal of examining the impact on the members and organization. The Network was impaired by its members’ attitudes, awareness and participation, and the resiliency of the organization culture to a women’s network. Study conclusions include that networks may serve to reproduce patriarchy, not erode it; the level of gender consciousness impacts on network participation and commitment; and network success is impacted upon by organization culture.

Gloria Steinem (1982) once noted, ‘Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry’ (in Maggio, 1992, p. 348). By virtue of assimilation or aspiration, the Network members perpetuated patriarchy due to their inability or unwillingness to act on gendered power relations. By the same token, the organization’s inhospitable culture also rendered the Network ineffectual. In-company networks are a complex combination of social network factors that interact with the organization context. Both must be considered and understood if in-company networks are to flourish and women are to move beyond pure assimilation of patriarchal corporate culture to

Women’s Networks 221

securing a strong sense of identity that helps create lasting change for themselves and the women who come behind them.

References

Alderferer, C. P. (1986) An intergroup perspective on group dynamics, in: J. Lorsch (Ed.) Handbook of

Organizational Behavior, pp. 190 – 222 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. and Tarule, J. M. (1986) Women’s Ways of Knowing:

The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind (New York: Basic Books).

Belle, F. (2002) Women, managers and organizational power, Women in Management Review, 17(3/4),

pp. 151 – 6.

Bierema, L. L. (1994) Executive businesswomen’s development in male-dominated organizational culture,

unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Bierema, L. L. (1996) How executive women learn corporate culture, Human Resource Development

Quarterly, 7(2), pp. 145 – 63.

Bierema, L. L. (1999) A model of executive women’s learning and development, Adult Education

Quarterly, 49(2), pp. 107 – 21.

Bierema, L. L. (2003) The role of gender consciousness in challenging patriarchy, International Journal of

Lifelong Education, 22(1), pp. 3 – 12.

Bierema, L. L. (in press) Women executive’s concerns related to implementing and sustaining a women’s

network in a corporate context, The Organization Development Journal.

Blau, P. M. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure (New York: The

Free Press).

Bogdan, R. C. and Biklen, S. K. (1998) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and

Methods, 3rd edn (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon).

Bowler, M. (1999) Women’s earnings: an overview’, Monthly Labor Review, December, pp. 13 – 21.

Brass, D. J. (1985) Men’s and women’s networks: a study of interaction patterns and influence in an

organization, Academy of Management Journal, 28 (2), pp. 327 – 43.

Brass, D. J. (1992) Power in organizations: a social network perspective, Research in Politics and Society,

4, pp. 295 – 323.

Brody, C. M., Fuller, K. A., Gosetti, P. P., Moscato, S. R., Nagel, N. G., Pace, G. and Schmuck, P. (2000)

Gender Consciousness and Privilege (London: Palmer Press).

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002) Employment and Earnings Report, January.

Burke, R. J. and Nelson, D. L. (2002) Advancing Women’s Careers (Malden, MA: Blackwell).

Burke, R. J., Rothstein, M. G. and Bristor, J. M. (1995) Interpersonal networks of managerial and

professional women, Women in Management, 10(1), pp. 21 – 8.

Burke, W. (1993) Networking, in: N. Nicholson (Ed.) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior

(Oxford: Blackwell).

Caffarella, R. S. and Olson, S.K. (1993) Psychosocial development of women: a critical review of the

literature, Adult Education Quarterly, 43(3), pp. 125 – 51.

Catalyst (1999) Creating Women’s Networks (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Catalyst (2002a) Census of Women Board Directors, http://www.catalystwomen.org/knowledge/files/

censustoolkitflyer.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2004.

Catalyst (2002b) Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners, http://www.catalystwomen.org/

knowledge/files/censustoolkitflyer.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2004.

Catalyst (2004a) News release: new catalyst study finds female executives are just as likely as male

colleagues to aspire to CEO job. http://www.catalystwomen.org/pressroom/press_releases/

2004wmicl.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2004

Catalyst (2004b) News release: new Catalyst study reveals financial performance is higher for companies

with more women at the top. http://www.catalystwomen.org/pressroom/press_releases/

2004Fin_Per.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2004.

Crampton, S. M. and Mishra, J. M. (1999) Women in management, Public Personnel Management, 28(1),

pp. 87 – 107.

Diekman, A. B. and Eagly, A. H. (2000) Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past,

present and future, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), pp. 1171 – 88.

222 L. L. Bierema

Elder, S. and Johnson, L. J. (1999) Sex-specific labour market indicators: what they show, International

Labour Review, 138(4), pp. 447 – 64.

Fagenson, E. A. (1990) Perceived masculine and feminine attributes examined as a function of individuals’

sex and level in the organizational power hierarchy: a test of four theoretical perspectives, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 75, pp. 204 – 11.

Farmer, H. S. and Associates (1997) Diversity and Women’s Career Development: From Adolescence to

Adulthood (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Hall, G. and Hord, S. (1984) Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process (Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press).

Hanson, S. (2000) Networking, Professional Geographer, 52(4), pp. 751 – 58.

Hayes, E. and Flannery, D. D. (2000) Women as Learners: The Significance of Gender in Learning (San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Higgins, M. C. (2000) The more, the merrier? Multiple developmental relationships and work satisfaction,

Journal of Management Development, 19(4), pp. 277 – 96.

Ibarra, H. (1992) Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an

advertising firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), pp. 422 – 47.

Ibarra, H. (1993) Personal networks of women and minorities in management: a conceptual framework,

Academy of Management Review, 18: 56 – 87.

Ibarra, H. (1995) Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks, Academy of

Management Journal, 38(3), pp. 673 – 703.

Ibarra, H. (1997) Paving an alternative route: gender differences in managerial networks, Social

Psychology Quarterly, 60(1), pp. 91 – 102.

Keele, R. (1986) Mentoring or networking? Strong and weak ties in career development, in: L. L. Moore

(Ed.) Not as Far as You Think (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books).

Kim, M. (2000) Women paid low wages: who they are and where they work, Monthly Labor Review,

September, pp. 26 – 30.

Knoke, D. and Ishio, Y. (1998) The gender gap in company training, Work and Occupations, 25(2),

pp. 141 – 67.

Kolb, J. (1999) The effect of gender role, attitude toward leadership, and self-confidence on leader

emergence: implications for leadership development, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(4),

pp. 305 – 20.

Korn/Ferry International and UCLA Anderson Graduate School of Management (1993) Decade of the

Executive Woman (Los Angeles: Korn/Ferry International).

Maggio, R. (1992) The Beacon Book of Quotations by Women (Boston, MA: Beacon Press).

Mainiero, L. A. (1994) Getting anointed for advancement: the case of executive women, Academy of

Management Executive, 8(2), pp. 53 – 67.

Mitchell, H. J. (1999) Group mentoring: does it work?, Mentoring and Tutoring, 7(2), pp. 113 – 20.

Moore, G. (1990) Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks, American

Sociological Review, 55(5), pp. 726 – 35.

Morrison, A. M. and Glinow, M. A. V. (1990) Women and minorities in management, American

Psychologist, 45(2), pp. 200 – 8.

Powell, W. W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1994) Networks and economic life, in: N. Smelser and R. Souedberg

(Eds) The Handbook of Economic Sociology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Quinlan, K. (1999) Enhancing mentoring and networking of junior academic women: what, why and

how?, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21(1), pp. 31 – 42.

Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B. and Mattis, M. (1998) Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and

female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling, Academy of Management Executive, 12(1),

pp. 28 – 42.

Renzulli, L. A., Aldrich, H. and Moody, J. (2000) Family matters: gender, networks, and entrepreneurial

outcomes, Social Forces, 79(2), pp. 523 – 47.

Ruderman, M. M., Ohlott, P. J. and Kram, K. E. (1995) Promotional decisions as a diversity practice, in:

K. S. McDonald and L. M. Hite (Eds) Journal of Management Development, (14)2, pp. 6 – 23.

Scott, D. B. (1996) Shattering the instrumental-expressive myth: the power of women’s networks in

corporate-government affairs, Gender and Society, 10(3), pp. 232 – 47.

Scott, D. B. (1998) Women at the intersection of business and government: are they in places of power?,

Sociological Spectrum, 18(3), pp. 333 – 64.

Women’s Networks 223

Sharpe, R. (1994) Women make strides, but men stay firmly in company jobs, The Wall Street Journal, 29

March, pp. A1, A8.

Smith, L. (1995) Connecting with other women, Executive Female, 18(4), pp. 57.

Travers, C., Stevens, S. and Pemberton, C. (1997) Women’s networking across boundaries: recognizing

different cultural agendas, Women in Management Review, 12(2), pp. 61 – 70.

Vinnicombe, S. and Colwill, N. L. (1996) The Essence of Women in Management (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall).

Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

224 L. L. Bierema