你可能感兴趣的试题

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.

In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. (1) often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a (2) is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use (3) better than women.
Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics (4) the effect of a network on (5) using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, (6) in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now (7) boards and the other 400, the latter, (8) , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%
The really (9) finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male (10) . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this (11) , from interruptions to women’s careers to old-fashioned (12) . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully (13) by the effect of executives’ networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more (14) board ; women don’t seem to be able to.
Women could just have (15) connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing (16) acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal (17) through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing (18) of men on boards and a male (19) for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be (20) if talented women don’t stay on the radar.