Search results

While studies have established that networking is an investment in an individual's career that pays off, recent research has begun to examine the potential costs of networking. This study suggests that prior research is limited in scope, as it remains focused on the work domain. Drawing upon the work home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012), the authors broaden this perspective and develop a framework of negative consequences in nonwork domains. The paper proposes that networking generates costs in nonwork domains, because it requires the investment of finite energy resources in the work domain, and people lack these resources in other domains.

This study uses structural equation modeling of multisource data from N = 306 individuals and their partners to examine how networking affects two distinct nonwork outcomes: work–family conflict and work–life balance.

Analyses support the general framework: networking is related to time- and strain-based work–family conflict, and work time mediates the relationship between networking and these forms of conflict. Moreover, networking exhibits an inverted U-shaped relationship with work–life balance, indicating that excessive networking as well as a lack of networking decrease work–life balance.

This study adds to the emergent literature on the negative consequences of networking. The findings suggest that employees and organizations should adopt a broader and more balanced perspective on networking: one that takes the well-known benefits – but also potential costs in work and nonwork domains – into account.

Networking refers to goal-directed behaviors focused on building and cultivating informal relationships to obtain career-related resources. According to Gibson et al.'s (2014) model, personality traits represent prominent and important antecedents of networking. This study seeks to provide robust evidence on relationships between personality and networking by summarizing prior research using meta-analytical tools.

The authors classify linking attributes between networking and personality into social, idea-related, task-related and affective behavioral domains and additionally include three compound traits that relate to several domains. They investigate two potential moderators: internal vs. external networking and prominent networking measures. Their comprehensive literature search identified 41 studies with 46 independent samples.

The authors find that social, idea-related and task-related traits have positive relationships with networking of medium effect size, whereas affective traits exhibit small but significantly positive effects. The compound trait of proactive personality appears to be the best predictor of networking. Moderator analyses indicate that there were hardly any differences concerning internal and external networking and also prominent measures.

The present study goes beyond narrative reviews contributing the first quantitative summary of these relationships. It identifies four behavioral domains that represent characteristics relevant to networking. The findings largely corroborate, but at times correct, narrative reviews on dispositional antecedents of networking. The authors highlight the importance of compound traits that have yet been overlooked by narrative reviews (e.g. self-monitoring).

The purpose of this paper is to suggest a comprehensive framework to elucidate the relationship between personality and networking. Using the Five Factor Model as a framework, the paper aims to argue that traits tapping into social (i.e. extraversion, agreeableness) and informational (i.e. openness to experience) features are relevant in explaining how individual dispositions facilitate networking behaviors. Moreover, it aims to delineate structural and functional differences in networking (i.e. building, maintaining, and using contacts within and outside the organization) and to theorize how these differences yield differential relationships of personality traits with networking dimensions.

Online surveys were administered to two samples, from Germany and the UK, respectively (n=351). Structural equation modeling is used to test the hypotheses.

Personality traits reflecting social (extraversion) and informational aspects (openness to experience) are broadly related to networking in general. The paper also finds support for differential relationships, for example, agreeableness is related to internal, but not external networking. Both conscientiousness and emotional stability are not related to networking behaviors.

The findings help explain why some individuals experience more barriers to networking than others and can be used in networking trainings. Practitioners should also note that there is more than extraversion to accurately predict networking skills in selection assessments.

The paper provides further insights into determinants of networking, which is an important career self‐management strategy. It also offers an integrative framework on the personality‐networking relationship as prior research has been fragmentary. Establishing differential relations also furthers understanding on core differences between networking dimensions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships of internal and external networking behaviors of managers and professionals with their affective, continuance, and normative commitment.

Data were obtained from 335 managers and professionals of a health system who completed a survey on networking behavior and organizational commitment. Correlation analyses and multiple regressions were performed to test our hypotheses.

The results showed that networking behavior focussed within an individual's organization was positively related with affective commitment and normative commitment. Networking with individuals outside of an individual's organization showed a significant negative relationship with normative commitment. Contrary to expectations, networking externally was not related to affective commitment, and neither internal nor external networking behaviors were related to continuance commitment.

Because data were collected at a single point in time, no statements can be made about causality. Future research is needed assessing both internal and external networking behavior and the three types of organizational commitment across time to help determine direction of causality or whether reciprocal relationships exist.

Organizations that encourage internal networking behaviors may see individuals who are more connected with their colleagues and affectively committed to their organizations. However, encouraging external networking behavior may result in a drop in normative commitment as individuals might identify more with their profession than their employer.

Although previous research has shown that networking behavior is related to job performance and career success measures, the research extends the literature by investigating whether networking is related to attitudinal variables such as organizational commitment. The paper explores whether differential relationships exist between internal and external networking behavior with three types of organizational commitment.

The labor theory of value (LTV) offers a lucid and forceful example of a “theory” thought to stand outside “history.” Considered as an “objective” form of theorizing, the LTV seeks transhistorical truths about the relationship between humans and nature – whereby, as everyone knows, value in the world is produced by the fundamental force of human labor power. Marx is typically taken to have subscribed to some form of the LTV, and thus to have signed on to this form of theorizing. This article refuses to treat Marx as an analytic, ahistorical theorist who would either affirm or deny the LTV. Rather, I read Marx as a genealogist who excavates the story of labor and value within the specific historical context of an emerging capitalist social formation. This genealogical approach to Marx, and particularly to his less-often-discussed, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, shows plainly that Marx never subscribed to the LTV, but more importantly that he eschewed the form of theory that the LTV presumes. Rather than seeking to make transhistorical theoretical claims about the relation between labor and value, Marx meant to demonstrate to his readers something about the way in which a definite and concrete (historically situated) capitalist social formation establishes value. A capitalist social formation establishes its own specific value relations, by first constituting, and then dissimulating, a link between labor and value.