Why Women May Not Benefit Equally from Networking

Many of my female #coaching clients struggle to build and leverage powerful social networks, which can limit their career opportunities. Many women feel uncomfortable "bragging" about their accomplishments, preferring instead to rely on good performance as a primary career strategy. Furthermore, research shows that when they do talk about their accomplishments, doing so has a less positive impact than when men do the same thing. This new research from Carla Rua-Gomez, Gianluca Carnabuci, and Martin C. Goossen shows that women are well served by building high-status networks through shared connections. Women are about one-third more likely than men to form high-status connections via a third-party tie. "Third-party ties serve as bridges, connecting individuals to a high-status network that might otherwise remain out of reach. Such ties help both men and women forge valuable professional connections. But why are third-party ties especially beneficial for women? Because they are not mere connections; they are endorsements, character references, and amplifiers of capability. They carry the implicit approval and trust of the mutual contact. When a respected colleague introduces a woman to a high-status individual, that introduction comes with a subtext of credibility. It signals to the high-status connection that the woman has already been vetted and deemed competent by someone they trust. This endorsement can be a critical factor in gaining access to circles that might otherwise remain closed off due to conscious or unconscious biases." #careerstrategies #women #networking https://lnkd.in/eDBqbQcG

Can we talk about why women's networks look different? 🤔 Because here's what I've noticed (and the research backs this up): We're depth-over-breadth networkers. Which isn't bad - those deep connections are GOLD. But we also need variety in our networks. We tend to connect with people who look like us, are at similar career levels, and earn similar salaries. Again, not terrible, but we're missing out on the power of diverse perspectives and opportunities. We invest HEAVILY in our relationships (as we should!) but then feel weird about asking for referrals or introductions. Like, we'll bend over backward to help someone, but asking them to connect us with their colleague? Suddenly we're all "Oh, I don't want to bother them." 🙄 And here's another thing - we simply have less TIME. Between work, family, and everything else on our plates, networking often gets pushed to the bottom of the to-do list. Understanding these patterns isn't about beating ourselves up. It's about being strategic and building a strong diverse network to support, and who can support you when you need it! P.S. If this landed with you, give it a share - there's probably some women in your network who need to hear this too! 🥰

networking feels harder for women. but it doesn’t have to be 🤷♀️ over the last 5 years i heard this line on repeat: ‘i’m not good at networking’. what women really mean is - the way networking is usually done doesn’t work for me. think about it  -  networking in india often looks like: - late-night mixers; - portfolio huddles where 90% of the room is men; - and more recently, fitness/ sports invites you never got a lot of women worry about perception: ‘will i be judged if i show up here alone?’ or ‘how do i get in?’. add the double shift of work + home, and there’s just less time to “hang out” after work for the sake of connections. but here’s the thing  -  networking isn’t just attending events and exchanging business cards. it can be: - a 30-min coffee with someone in your industry. - breakfast catchups with old colleagues. - swapping book/article recommendations with someone you met recently at a work thing. - dm’ing someone to say ‘i loved your post, here’s what it sparked for me and how i can help’. - hosting 2-3 peers for lunch or a walk once a quarter. and then someone else repeats the same thing, and you show up. more importantly  -  it can now be done over a book club, a random coffee brainstorm, pickleball or a new restaurant discovery 🌱 consistency > volume. but the biggest mistake (men and women both) make? we wait until we need xyz to start networking. that’s like watering your plant only when it’s already dry. and of course, there’s also the laziness syndrome. it’s easier to scroll, binge or say ‘next week pakka’. but the truth is: relationships compound only if you invest in them regularly. and it’s always a two-way street. hacks that work: - put 1 coffee/zoom/meal/ walk a week on your calendar. treat it like a meeting. - pick a person for the week! i’ve been doing it since june and it’s been great! - start small: nurture 5-10 people deeply > 100 loosely. - lead with value  -  share an intro, an idea, a resource. that’s how trust builds. - normalize ‘the ask’. the women who thrived at leap were the ones who asked for intros, roles and partnerships. not the ones who waited for things to happen for them. networking isn’t harder for women because we can’t do it. it feels harder because the old playbook wasn’t written for us. but we’re already writing a new one. and it looks a lot more like breakfast tables, book swaps and safe circles than smoke-filled clubs 😮💨

I co-founded a women’s networking platform. And I’ll be the first to say it: most networking events don’t work. When The Globe and Mail asked me about this, I didn’t hesitate. I agreed. Because I know exactly how it feels. As a first-gen immigrant, I watched my parents send out résumés with decades of experience and still never get a call back - all because they didn’t have the right connections. Meanwhile, I watched friends land internships through an uncle who “used to golf with someone at the bank.” And when I walked into “networking nights,” it was obvious the rooms were never built for me. (Proven instantly true by the Patagonia-vest men who asked if I worked in marketing without looking at my name tag 🙃) And the data backs it up - we ran a study earlier this year with Environics Analytics, 83% of women say they want more spaces designed specifically for them. Here’s the real problem: Most women’s events are one-off, top-down, and at times even performative. They look great on a company calendar, but they rarely create the kind of trust or relationships that actually move a career forward. Men have had informal systems for decades - golf clubs, alumni ties, investor dinners - where trust builds over time and opportunities circulate. Women are still offered token IWD panels and the one-off mixer. Without consistency or follow-through, those moments don’t compound into anything bigger. That’s why Istiana and I built Monday Girl. We designed for access: a quarterly rotating roster of 100+ hard-to-reach senior execs and founders opening their calendars to our vetted members. We designed for consistency: over 2,000 events a year across our key cities so relationships actually grow. Today, that’s 5,000 paying members. 350,000 in our community. And The Globe and Mail covering how brands like Monday Girl, and founders like Kristine Beese at Untangle Money, are rewriting the rules of networking. But for me, it started with something much simpler: Access should not be a luxury. 👉 What would YOU change about the way networking works today? #WomenInBusiness #Leadership #Networking #CareerGrowth #FutureOfWork

On the power of mentorship & coauthorship (or evidence that providing access to women to academic networks matters). Every so often, I hear men grumble that women have it good in academe. Yet. The evidence suggests that we still have not reached gender parity. Why? One can suggest many reasons, but one is that women lack access to networks necessary to publish. Amy Smith, Ph.D., Norma Riccucci, Kimberley Isett & Leisha DeHart-Davis, PhD provide powerful evidence that is the case in #publicadministration. So what to do? (1) read the paper & assess the evidence. (2) be sensitive to gender when building a team - something that I freely admit that I don't think about enough. (3) give a leg up to talented early-career people, regardless of gender, note that asking for women to be included in author teams does not mean excluding others - it means be sensitive to the implications of who you help & how & when. Give the paper a read; it offers food for thought! Citation: Smith, A. E., Riccucci, N. M., Isett, K. R., DeHart‐Davis, L., & St Clair Sims, R. (2025). Where power & scholarship collide: Gender & coauthorship in public administration research. Public Administration Review. https://lnkd.in/esXznf4Y Abstract: Publishing is a source of capital & power in academia, & coauthoring is a common way to publish. However, studies in public administration have not yet examined the structure of coauthorship patterns, how these patterns have evolved over time, or the extent to which these patterns are gendered. We use bibliometric data to examine coauthorship in public administration scholarship over four decades with a particular focus on gendered patterns. Descriptive statistics, regression, & social network analysis suggest that when women are first authors, the research team is more likely to contain other women & while women are increasingly represented in coauthorship structures, men-only groups of coauthors continue to persist. These findings have implications for the coauthoring practices of individual scholars, perceptions of coauthorship in hiring, tenure, & promotion decisions, & efforts in the field to promote diversity, equity, & inclusion. Implications * Coauthorship patterns & the extent to which these patterns are gendered should be of interest to public administration scholars because collaborations are important in the production of scientific research, affect individual researcher productivity, and, increasingly, can be factors in funding opportunities. * Given the high value placed on social equity in public administration, the inclusiveness of collaboration with respect to gender is important. Individual scholars should be mindful of how coauthorship provides access to research networks. In this context, considering gender diversity in research teams is important. * journals should consider not only gender diversity in authorship of published articles, but also of those submitting to the journal. #genderequity

𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙥.   I learned this sitting at a board dinner in Sydney - the only woman among twelve men.   The chairman mentioned they couldn't find female directors.   Days earlier, I had met five board-ready women actively seeking directorships.   This disconnect revealed everything wrong with how we approach professional advancement.   A few truths about real networking:   • Casual connections rarely create opportunities • Random events waste valuable time   • Most networking advice focuses on quantity over quality   𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙓𝙄𝙈𝙄𝙏𝙔 𝙏𝙊 𝙋𝙊𝙒𝙀𝙍 determines advancement more than talent.   Our research shows fewer than 5% of ASX and NASDAQ companies have balanced leadership. This persists because:   The system serves itself, not talent. Generic networking preserves existing hierarchies. Good networkers often make terrible leaders.   Here's what actually works:   𝘽𝙐𝙄𝙇𝘿 𝙎𝙏𝙍𝘼𝙏𝙀𝙂𝙄𝘾 𝙉𝙀𝙏𝙒𝙊𝙍𝙆𝙎 • Start with your end goal • Identify specific decision-makers • Create value before asking favors • Track every promising connection   𝙁𝙊𝘾𝙐𝙎 𝙊𝙉 𝘾𝙊𝙉𝙑𝙀𝙍𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉 • One champion outweighs 100 contacts • Quality of connections beats quantity • Measure results, not activity   𝙇𝙀𝙑𝙀𝙍𝘼𝙂𝙀 𝙉𝙀𝙏𝙒𝙊𝙍𝙆 𝙀𝙁𝙁𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙎 • Help others reach their goals • Build reputation through results • Create new pathways to leadership   At Ellect, we tested this framework:   Results after 5 events: - 3 women secured board interviews - 2 received executive offers - 90% made advancement-focused connections   𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩. 𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙘 𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙙𝙤𝙤𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣.   The difference drives everything.   https://lnkd.in/etjAFXks