Published Online:29 Mar 2023https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2021.0083
Abstract
The critical role that referrals play in the hiring process, particularly for candidates contending with negative stereotypes and biases, has been well-documented. However, how those stereotypes and biases impact sponsors, and the effectiveness of the referrals that they provide, is not well-understood. Drawing on evidence of reversals of gender bias, we explore the impact of sponsors’ gender and tenure on the effectiveness of their referrals in the context of Supreme Court of the United States law clerk hiring decisions. This is an appropriate setting because success in the application process for these elite early-career positions is contingent on having a strong recommendation from a judge with which the candidate has previously worked, making it ideal to study gender differences in the effectiveness of referrals. Analyses show that candidates recommended by male sponsors are more likely to be hired compared to those recommended by female sponsors overall, but this dynamic is also dependent on the sponsor’s tenure and the candidate’s gender. For female sponsors, higher levels of tenure are associated with better hiring outcomes for their female candidates only. None of the other gender combinations benefit from sponsor seniority. Possible mechanisms, limitations, and implications for future research directions are discussed.
Whiteboard Video Abstract
REFERENCES
- 2020. Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: An examination of networking among entrepreneurs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65: 151–180. Google Scholar
- 2010. Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98: 256–267. Google Scholar
- 2013. Ask and ye shall receive? How gender and status moderate negotiation success. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6: 253–272. Google Scholar
- 2009. Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
- 2019. The top 100 law reviews: A reference guide based on historical USNWR data. UTK Law Faculty Publications. Retrieved from https://ir.law.utk.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=utklaw_facpubs Google Scholar
- 2015. The paradox of corrupt networks: An analysis of organizational crime at Enron. Organization Science, 26: 980–996. Google Scholar
- 1994. The federal judicial law clerk hiring problem and the modest march 1 solution. Yale Law Journal, 104: 207–225. Google Scholar
- 2018, June 28. After #metoo, the ripple effect. New York Times. Google Scholar
- 2001. Why the U.S. news and world report law school rankings are both useful and important. Journal of Legal Education, 51: 487–502. Google Scholar
- 2001. Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57: 707–724. Google Scholar
- 1997. Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 544–557. Google Scholar
- 2009. CEM: Coarsened exact matching in Stata. Stata Journal, 9: 524–546. Google Scholar
- 2019. The dynamics of discrimination: Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 109: 3395–3436. Google Scholar
- 2017. Pursuing quality: How search costs and uncertainty magnify gender-based double standards in a multi-stage evaluation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 698–730. Google Scholar
- 2007. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103: 84–103. Google Scholar
- 2017. Leaning out: How negative recruitment experiences shape women’s decisions to compete for executive roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 405–442. Google Scholar
- 1985. Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 327–343.Link , Google Scholar
- 1998. The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society, 10: 5–46. Google Scholar
- 2022. He’s overqualified, she’s highly committed: Qualification signals and gendered assumptions about job candidate commitment. Organization Science. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1550 Google Scholar
- 2005. Social networks and employee performance in a call center. American Journal of Sociology, 110: 1243–1283. Google Scholar
Catalyst . 2020. Pyramid: Women in S&P 500 Companies. Catalyst. Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-sp-500-companies/ Google Scholar- 2018, May 8. More than 1 in 3 lawyers are women. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/05/women-lawyers.html Google Scholar
- 2015. An empirical study of political bias in legal scholarship. Journal of Legal Studies, 44: 277–314. Google Scholar
- 2002. Inside appellate courts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
- 2011. Gender-bias primes elicit queen-bee responses among senior policewomen. Psychological Science, 22: 1243–1249. Google Scholar
- 2011. Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116: 104–115. Google Scholar
- 2012. The impact of categorical status, numeric representation, and work group prestige on preference for demographically similar others: A value threat approach. Organization Science, 23: 386–401. Google Scholar
- 2007. Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31: 1–12. Google Scholar
- 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109: 573–598. Google Scholar
- 2009. Pitfalls of empirical studies that attempt to understand the factors affecting appellate decision-making. Duke Law Journal, 58: 1895–1989. Google Scholar
- 2001. Referral hiring and ethnically homogeneous jobs: How prevalent is the connection and for whom? Social Science Research, 30: 401–425. Google Scholar
- 2017. Nothing changes, really: Why women who break through the glass ceiling end up reinforcing it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43: 638–651. Google Scholar
- 2000. Social capital at work: Networks and employment at a phone center. American Journal of Sociology, 105: 1288–1356. Google Scholar
- 2005. Gendering the job: Networks and recruitment at a call center. American Journal of Sociology, 111: 859–904. Google Scholar
- 2014. Law review: Will it open doors for your career? Retrieved from https://abaforlawstudents.com/2014/03/01/law-review-will-open-doors-career/ Google Scholar
- 2000. Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 21–42. Google Scholar
- 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360–1380. Google Scholar
- 1995. Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
- 2012. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32: 113–135. Google Scholar
- 2015. The collapse of the house that Ruth built: The impact of the feeder system on female judges and the federal judiciary, 1970–2014. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 24: 61–106. Google Scholar
- 2013. Forget a mentor, find a sponsor: A new way to fast-track your career. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Google Scholar
- 2017. Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20: 1–24. Google Scholar
- 1992. Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 422–447. Google Scholar
- 1993. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18: 56–87.Link , Google Scholar
- 1997. Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60: 91–102. Google Scholar
- 2010, September. Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review. Google Scholar
- 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71: 589–617. Google Scholar
- 2014, April 2. Google data-mines its approach to promoting women. Washington Post. Google Scholar
- 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Books Group. Google Scholar
- 2008. Deliberation and strategy on the United States Courts of Appeals: An empirical exploration of panel effects. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157: 1319–1381. Google Scholar
- 1991. Confessions of a bad apple. Yale Law Journal, 100: 1707–1730. Google Scholar
Legal Information Institute . 2018. 28 U.S. Code § 371—Retirement on salary; retirement in senior status. US Law. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/371 Google Scholar- 2017. Why and when does the gender gap reverse? Diversity goals and the pay premium for high potential women. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 402–432.Link , Google Scholar
- 2017. Panel assignment in the federal courts of appeals. Cornell Law Review, 103: 65–116. Google Scholar
- 2003, January 31. A once-doomed nomination wins senate panel approval. New York Times. Google Scholar
- 2015. Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large scale natural field experiment. Management Science, 61: 2016–2024. Google Scholar
- 2000. Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29: 785–795. Google Scholar
- 2001. Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
- 2015. Do women suffer from network closure? The moderating effect of social capital on gender inequality in a project-based labor market, 1929 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 80: 329–358. Google Scholar
- 2006. When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 777–785. Google Scholar
- 2001.
Social networks, job changes, and recruitment . In I. BergA. L. Kalleberg (Eds.), Sourcebook of labor markets: Evolving structures and processes: 467–502. New York, NY: Plenum Publishers. Google Scholar - 2015, January 28. D.C. Circuit’s Patricia Millet reflects on clerking, diversity. National Law Journal. Google Scholar
- 2011. What’s in the “old boys” network? Accessing social capital in gendered and racialized networks. Social Networks, 33: 317–330. Google Scholar
- 2009. Networks of opportunity: Gender, race, and job leads. Social Problems, 56: 385–402. Google Scholar
- 2002. Gender, race, and the shadow structure: A study of informal networks and inequality in a work organization. Gender & Society, 16: 303–322. Google Scholar
- 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 415–444. Google Scholar
- 2017. Lasting effects? Referrals and career mobility of demographic groups in organizations. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 70: 105–131. Google Scholar
- 2008. The new legal realism. University of Chicago Law Review. University of Chicago. Law School, 75: 823–881. Google Scholar
- 2012. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109: 16474–16479. Google Scholar
NYT Editorial Board . 2013, May 31. What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different? New York Times. Google Scholar- 2020. Scouting and schmoozing: A gender difference in networking during job search. Academy of Management Discoveries. Google Scholar
- 2016, December 16. Women make up the majority of U.S. law students for first time. New York Times. Google Scholar
- 2021. What’s behind the growing gap between men and women in college completion? Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/08/whats-behind-the-growing-gap-between-men-and-women-in-college-completion/ Google Scholar
- 2006. Courtiers of the marble palace: The rise and influence of the Supreme Court law clerk. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
- 2000. Offering a job: Meritocracy and social networks. American Journal of Sociology, 106: 763–816. Google Scholar
- 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisims of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107: 33–60. Google Scholar
- 2005. Status signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
- 2011. Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- 2012. Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77: 999–1022. Google Scholar
- 2016. Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered effect of social class signals in an elite labor market. American Sociological Review, 181: 1097–1131. Google Scholar
- 2010. Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 221–235. Google Scholar
- 2013. Missing links: Referrer behavior and job segregation. Management Science, 59: 2470–2489. Google Scholar
- 1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 629–645. Google Scholar
- 2006. Social structure and exchange: Self-confirming dynamics in Hollywood. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 560–589. Google Scholar
- 2005. Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89: 845–851. Google Scholar
- 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 315–349. Google Scholar
- 2006. Are judges political? Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press. Google Scholar
Supreme Court of the United States . 2016. Public Information Office. Google Scholar- 2014. Tips for capturing 2014 federal court clerkships. Vanderbilt Law Review, 66: 145–152. Google Scholar
- 2003, February 7. What’s so important about the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals? Slate. Google Scholar
U.S. Courts . 2017a. FAQs: Federal judges. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges Google ScholarU.S. Courts . 2017b. Court role and structure. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure Google ScholarU.S. News & World Report . 2018. Best law schools ranked in 2019. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings Google Scholar- 2006. Sorcerers apprentices: 100 years of law clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York, NY: New York University Press. Google Scholar
- 2018. The women’s leadership gap. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/womens-leadership-gap-2/ Google Scholar
- 2012, January 19. Law review leads to legal jobs, recruiters say. U.S. News & World Report. Google Scholar
- 2021. Whether, how, and why networks influence men’s and women’s careers: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 47: 207–236. Google Scholar
- 2013. Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Google Scholar
- 2006. Stages of the recruitment process and the referrer’s performance effect. Organization Science, 17: 710–723. Google Scholar
- 1991. Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond the numbers. Gender & Society, 5: 178–192. Google Scholar
- 2015, April 3. The phrase “glass ceiling” stretches back decades. Wall Street Journal. Google Scholar
