1932

Abstract

Social networks involve ties (and their absence) between people in social settings such as organizations. Yet much social network research, given its roots in sociology, ignores the individuality of people in emphasizing the constraints of the structural positions that people occupy. A recent movement to bring people back into social network research draws on the rich history of social psychological research to show that () personality (i.e., self-monitoring) is key to understanding individuals’ occupation of social network positions, () individuals’ perceptions of social networks relate to important outcomes, and () relational energy is transmitted through social network connections. Research at different levels of analysis includes the network around the individual (the ego network), dyadic ties, triadic structures, and whole networks of interacting individuals. We call for future research concerning personality and structure, social network change, perceptions of networks, and cross-cultural differences in how social network connections are understood.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045357
2020-01-21
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/7/1/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045357.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045357&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Baer M. 2010. The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: a comprehensive examination and extension. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:3592–601
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker W, Cross R, Wooten M 2003. Positive organizational network analysis and energizing relationships. Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline KS Cameron, JE Dutton, RE Quinn 328–42 San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker WE. 2019. Emotional energy, relational energy, and organizational energy: toward a multilevel model. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 6:373–95
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Balkundi P, Harrison DA. 2006. Ties, leaders, and time in teams: strong inference about network structure's effects on team viability and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 49:149–68
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Balkundi P, Kilduff M. 2006. The ties that lead: a social network approach to leadership. Leadersh. Q. 17:4419–39
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Balkundi P, Kilduff M, Harrison DA 2011. Centrality and charisma: comparing how leader networks and attributions affect team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:61209–22
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barley SR. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Adm. Sci. Q. 31:178–108
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berkowitz SD. 1982. An Introduction to Structural Analysis: The Network Approach to Social Research Toronto: Butterworths
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bian Y. 1997. Bringing strong ties back in: indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62:3366–85
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G 2009. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323:5916892–95
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brands RA. 2013. Cognitive social structures in social network research: a review. J. Organ. Behav. 34:S1S82–103
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brands RA, Kilduff M. 2014. Just like a woman? Effects of gender-biased perceptions of friendship network brokerage on attributions and performance. Organ. Sci. 25:51530–48
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brands RA, Menges JI, Kilduff M 2015. The leader-in-social-network schema: perceptions of network structure affect gendered attributions of charisma. Organ. Sci. 26:41210–25
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brass DJ. 1985. Men's and women's networks: a study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Acad. Manag. J. 28:2327–43
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Browne CG. 1951. Study of executive leadership in business. IV. Sociometric pattern. J. Appl. Psychol. 35:134–37
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Burt RS. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Burt RS. 2002. Bridge decay. Soc. Netw. 24:4333–63
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Burt RS. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Sociol. 110:2349–99
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Burt RS. 2005. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Burt RS. 2007. Secondhand brokerage: evidence on the importance of local structure for managers, bankers, and analysts. Acad. Manag. J. 50:1119–48
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Burt RS. 2010. Neighbor Networks: Competitive Advantage Local and Personal Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Burt RS. 2012. Network-related personality and the agency question: multirole evidence from a virtual world. Am. J. Sociol. 118:3543–91
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Burt RS, Burzynska K. 2017. Chinese entrepreneurs, social networks, and Guanxi. Manag. Organ. Rev 13:2221–60
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Burt RS, Kilduff M, Tasselli S 2013. Social network analysis: foundations and frontiers on advantage. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64:1527–47
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Burt RS, Merluzzi J. 2016. Network oscillation. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2:4368–91
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Burt RS, Ronchi D. 1990. Contested control in a large manufacturing plant. Social Networks through Time J Weesie, H Flap 121–57 Utrecht, Neth.: ISOR/Univ. Utrecht
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Carnabuci G, Dioszegi B. 2015. Social networks, cognitive style, and innovative performance: a contingency perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 58:3881–905
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Carter DR, DeChurch LA, Braun MT, Contractor NS 2015. Social network approaches to leadership: an integrative conceptual review. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:3597–622
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Casciaro T, Gino F, Kouchaki M 2014. The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties: how networking can make us feel dirty. Adm. Sci. Q. 59:4705–35
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Casciaro T, Lobo MS. 2008. When competence is irrelevant: the role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Adm. Sci. Q. 53:4655–84
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Colbert AE, Bono JE, Purvanova RK 2016. Flourishing via workplace relationships: moving beyond instrumental support. Acad. Manag. J. 59:41199–223
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Coleman JS. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94:S95–120
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Cook KS, Yamagishi T. 1992. Power in exchange networks: a power-dependence formulation. Soc. Netw. 14:3245–65
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Daraganova G, Robins G. 2013. Autologistic actor attribute models. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications D Lusher, J Koskinen, G Robins 102–14 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. DellaPosta D, Shi Y, Macy M 2015. Why do liberals drink lattes. ? Am. J. Sociol. 120:51473–511
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Dodds PS, Muhamad R, Watts DJ 2003. An experimental study of search in global social networks. Science 301:5634827–29
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ertug G, Gargiulo M, Galunic C, Zou T 2018. Homophily and individual performance. Organ. Sci. 29:5912–30
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Fang R, Landis B, Zhang Z, Anderson MH, Shaw JD, Kilduff M 2015. Integrating personality and social networks: a meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organ. Sci. 26:41243–60
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Fernandez RM, Castilla EJ, Moore P 2000. Social capital at work: networks and employment at a phone center. Am. J. Sociol. 105:51288–356
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fernandez RM, Sosa ML. 2005. Gendering the job: networks and recruitment at a call center. Am. J. Sociol. 111:3859–904
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Fernandez RM, Weinberg N. 1997. Sifting and sorting: personal contacts and hiring in a retail bank. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62:6883–902
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Flynn FJ, Reagans RE, Amanatullah ET, Ames DR 2006. Helping one's way to the top: self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91:61123–37
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Fowler JH, Christakis NA. 2008. Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ 337:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Galaskiewicz J, Burt RS. 1991. Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Adm. Sci. Q. 36:188–105
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Gee LK, Jones JJ, Fariss CJ, Burke M, Fowler JH 2017. The paradox of weak ties in 55 countries. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 133:362–72
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gluckman M. 1955. The Judicial Process among the Barotse of Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Granovetter M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78:61360–80
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Granovetter M. 1983. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol. Theory 1:201–33
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Granovetter M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91:3481–510
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Harris JK. 2014. An Introduction to Exponential Random Graph Modeling Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Heider F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Horak S, Taube M. 2016. Same but different? Similarities and fundamental differences of informal social networks in China (guanxi) and Korea (yongo). Asia Pac. J. Manag. 33:3595–616
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Ibarra H. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Adm. Sci. Q. 37:3422–47
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Ingram P, Morris MW. 2007. Do people mix at mixers? Structure, homophily, and the “life of the party.”. Adm. Sci. Q. 52:4558–85
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Janicik GA, Larrick RP. 2005. Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88:2348–64
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kapferer B. 1972. Strategy and Transaction in an African Factory: African Workers and Indian Management in a Zambian Town Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kelly GA. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs New York: Norton
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kilduff M. 1990. The interpersonal structure of decision making: a social comparison approach to organizational choice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 47:2270–88
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kilduff M. 1992. The friendship network as a decision-making resource: dispositional moderators of social influences on organizational choice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62:1168–80
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kilduff M, Brass DJ. 2010. Organizational social network research: core ideas and key debates. Acad. Manag. Ann. 4:1317–57
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Kilduff M, Crossland C, Tsai W, Bowers MT 2016. Magnification and correction of the acolyte effect: initial benefits and ex post settling up in NFL coaching careers. Acad. Manag. J. 59:1352–75
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kilduff M, Crossland C, Tsai W, Krackhardt D 2008. Organizational network perceptions versus reality: a small world after all. ? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 107:115–28
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kilduff M, Krackhardt D. 1994. Bringing the individual back in: a structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 37:187–108
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kilduff M, Tsai W. 2003. Social Networks and Organizations London: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Klein KJ, Lim B-C, Saltz JL, Mayer DM 2004. How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Acad. Manag. J. 47:6952–63
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE. 2014. Network responsiveness: the social structural microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 28:4353–67
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Krackhardt D. 1992. The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action N Nohria, RG Eccles 216–39 Boston, MA: Harvard Bus. Sch. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Krackhardt D. 1998. Simmelian ties: super strong and sticky. Power and Influence in Organizations R Kramer, M Neale 21–38 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Krackhardt D. 1999. The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations SB Bacharach, SB Andrews, D Knoke 183–210 Stamford, CT: JAI Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Krackhardt D, Kilduff M. 1990. Friendship patterns and culture: the control of organizational diversity. Am. Anthropol. 92:1142–54
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Krackhardt D, Kilduff M. 1999. Whether close or far: social distance effects on perceived balance in friendship networks. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76:5770–82
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Krackhardt D, Kilduff M. 2002. Structure, culture and Simmelian ties in entrepreneurial firms. Soc. Netw. 24:3279–90
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Krackhardt D, Porter LW. 1986. The snowball effect: turnover embedded in communication networks. J. Appl. Psychol. 71:150–55
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Landis B. 2016. Personality and social networks in organizations: a review and future directions. J. Organ. Behav. 37:S1S107–21
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Landis B, Kilduff M, Menges JI, Kilduff G 2018. The paradox of agency: feeling powerful reduces brokerage opportunity recognition yet increases willingness to broker. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:8929–38
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Larson A. 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of the governance of exchange relationships. Adm. Sci. Q. 37:176–104
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lazer D, Pentland A, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabási A-L et al. 2009. Computational social science. Science 323:5915721–23
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Levin DZ, Walter J, Murnighan JK 2011. Dormant ties: the value of reconnecting. Organ. Sci. 22:4923–39
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Lewin K. 1936. Principles of Topological Psychology New York: McGraw-Hill
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Lin N. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G 2012. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Mayhew BH. 1980. Structuralism versus individualism: Part 1, shadowboxing in the dark. Soc. Forces 59:2335–75
    [Google Scholar]
  84. McEvily B, Soda G, Tortoriello M 2014. More formally: rediscovering the missing link between formal organization and informal social structure. Acad. Manag. Ann. 8:1299–345
    [Google Scholar]
  85. McFadyen MA, Cannella AA. 2004. Social capital and knowledge creation: diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 47:5735–46
    [Google Scholar]
  86. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:1415–44
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Mehra A, Dixon AL, Brass DJ, Robertson B 2006. The social network ties of group leaders: implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organ. Sci. 17:164–79
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ 1998. At the margins: a distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Acad. Manag. J. 41:4441–52
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ 2001. The social networks of high and low self-monitors: implications for workplace performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 46:1121–46
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Methot JR, Lepine JA, Podsakoff NP, Christian JS 2016. Are workplace friendships a mixed blessing? Exploring tradeoffs of multiplex relationships and their associations with job performance. Pers. Psychol. 69:2311–55
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Mitchell JC. 1974. Social networks. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 3:1279–99
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Moreno JL. 1934. Who Shall Survive? A New Approach to the Problem of Human Interrelations Washington, DC: Nervous Mental Dis. Publ. Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Newcomb TM. 1961. The Acquaintance Process New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Obstfeld D. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 50:1100–30
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Ody-Brasier A, Fernandez-Mateo I. 2017. When being in the minority pays off: relationships among sellers and price setting in the champagne industry. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:1147–78
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Perry-Smith JE. 2006. Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 49:185–101
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Petersen T, Saporta I, Seidel M-DL 2000. Offering a job: meritocracy and social networks. Am. J. Sociol. 106:3763–816
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Podolny JM, Baron JN. 1997. Resources and relationships: social networks and mobility in the workplace. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62:5673–93
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Quintane E, Carnabuci G. 2016. How do brokers broker? Tertius gaudens, tertius iungens, and the temporality of structural holes. Organ. Sci. 27:61343–60
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Reagans R, McEvily B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48:2240–67
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Rivera MT, Soderstrom SB, Uzzi B 2010. Dynamics of dyads in social networks: assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 36:191–115
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Robins G, Daraganova G. 2013. Social selection, dyadic covariates, and geospatial effects. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications D Lusher, J Koskinen, G Robins 91–101 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Roethlisberger FJ, Dickson WJ. 1939. Management and the Worker Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Sampson S. 1969. Crisis in a cloister PhD thesis. Cornell Univ Ithaca, NY:
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Sasovova Z, Mehra A, Borgatti SP, Schippers MC 2010. Network churn: the effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Adm. Sci. Q. 55:4639–70
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Seibert SE, Kraimer ML, Liden RC 2001. A social capital theory of career success. Acad. Manag. J. 44:2219–37
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Simmel G. 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel New York: Free Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Smith EB, Menon T, Thompson L 2012. Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organ. Sci. 23:167–82
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Smith KP, Christakis NA. 2008. Social networks and health. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34:1405–29
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Snijders T, Koskinen J. 2013. Longitudinal models. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications D Lusher, J Koskinen, G Robins 130–40 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Snyder M. 1987. Public Appearances, Private Realities: The Psychology of Self-Monitoring New York: WH Freeman
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Soda G, Tortoriello M, Iorio A 2018. Harvesting value from brokerage: individual strategic orientation, structural holes, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 61:3896–918
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Sosa ME. 2011. Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Organ. Sci. 22:11–21
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Tasselli S, Kilduff M. 2018. When brokerage between friendship cliques endangers trust: a personality-network fit perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 61:3802–25
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Tasselli S, Kilduff M, Landis B 2018. Personality change: implications for organization behavior. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12:467–93
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Tasselli S, Kilduff M, Menges JI 2015. The microfoundations of organizational social networks: a review and an agenda for future research. J. Manag. 41:51361–87
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Thomas WI, Thomas DS. 1928. The Child in America New York: Knopf
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Tortoriello M, Krackhardt D. 2010. Activating cross-boundary knowledge: the role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Acad. Manag. J. 53:1167–81
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Tröster C, Parker A, van Knippenberg D, Sahlmüller B 2019. The coevolution of social networks and thoughts of quitting. Acad. Manag. J. 62:122–43
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Uzzi B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Adm. Sci. Q. 42:135–67
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Uzzi B, Spiro J. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. Am. J. Sociol. 111:2447–504
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Vedres B, Stark D. 2010. Structural folds: generative disruption in overlapping groups. Am. J. Sociol. 115:41150–90
    [Google Scholar]
  123. von Hippel E. 1994. “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Manag. Sci. 40:4429–39
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Walter J, Levin DZ, Murnighan JK 2015. Reconnection choices: selecting the most valuable (versus most preferred) dormant ties. Organ. Sci. 26:51447–65
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Wang D. 2015. Activating cross-border brokerage: interorganizational knowledge transfer through skilled return migration. Adm. Sci. Q. 60:1133–76
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Wang P. 2013. Exponential random graph model extensions: models for multiple networks and bipartite networks. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications D Lusher, J Koskinen, G Robins 115–29 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Wang P, Robins G, Pattison P, Lazega E 2013. Exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. Soc. Netw. 35:196–115
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393:6684440–42
    [Google Scholar]
  129. White HC. 1992. Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Xiao Z, Tsui AS. 2007. When brokers may not work: the cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Adm. Sci. Q. 52:11–31
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Xin KK, Pearce JL. 1996. Guanxi: connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Acad. Manag. J. 39:61641–58
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Yamagishi T, Yamagishi M. 1994. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv. Emot. 18:2129–66
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045357
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045357
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error