An expanding number of methodological resources, reviews, and commentaries both highlight endogeneity as a threat to causal claims in management research and note that practices for addressing endogeneity in empirical work frequently diverge from the recommendations of the methodological literature. We aim to bridge this divergence, helping both macro and micro researchers understand fundamental endogeneity concepts by: (1) defining a typology of four distinct causes of endogeneity, (2) summarizing endogeneity causes and methods used in management research, (3) organizing the expansive methodological literature by matching the various methods to address endogeneity to the appropriate resources, and (4) setting an agenda for future scholarship by recommending practices for researchers and gatekeepers about identifying, discussing, and reporting evidence related to endogeneity. The resulting review builds literacy about endogeneity and ways to address it so that scholars and reviewers can better produce and evaluate research. It also facilitates communication about the topic so that both micro- and macro-oriented researchers can understand, evaluate, and implement methods across disciplines.

No abstract

An immense amount of work has investigated how adverse situations affect anxiety using chronic (i.e., average) or episodic conceptualizations. However, less attention has been paid to circumstances that unfold continuously over time, inhibiting theoretical testing and leading to possible erroneous conclusions about how stressors are dynamically appraised across time. Because stressor novelty, predictability, and patterns are central components of appraisal theories, we use the COVID-19 crisis as a context to illustrate how variation in the phenomenon’s patterns of change (specifically, total cases [average level] but also the rate of linear [velocity] and nonlinear growth [acceleration] in cases) influence anxiety. We also show the implications of anxiety for next-day functioning at work. These effects are tested in data drawn from a sample of employed adults in a daily diary study conducted in four overlapping waves. The data span the emergence, exponential rise, and initial tapering of the virus in the United States (February 10, 2020 to April 28, 2020). Our results show that although the impact of level of COVID-19 cases on anxiety decreases over time, the effect of change in cases (velocity and acceleration) increases over time. Anxiety is then associated with next-day work functioning (engagement, performance, and emotional exhaustion).

Most models of negative workplace behaviors (NWB) are individual in nature, focusing on individual attitudes (e.g., satisfaction) and general workplace perceptions (e.g., procedural justice) that motivate NWB. Less commonly considered are explorations of relationally based negative workplace behaviors—how NWB from Party A is related to reciprocation of NWB from Party B. Based on 2 competing conceptualizations in the literature, that behavior is reciprocated “in-kind” in an eye for an eye exchange or that behavior tends to escalate or spiral over time, we develop a framework for negative reciprocity that considers NWB in terms of severity, activity, and target. This framework addresses (a) whether Party A’s NWB is associated with behavior of a similar or greater level (i.e., activity and severity) from Party B; and (b) whether Party B’s reciprocating behavior is directed back at Party A (i.e., direct) or transferred onto others (i.e., displaced). We meta-analytically test these relationships with 246 independent samples (N = 96,930) and find strongest support for relationships indicating that NWB from Party A is largely returned in-kind, followed closely by relationships indicative of escalation. We also found that as the frequency of Party A’s NWB increases, so too does the frequency of reciprocity behavior of equal levels. Surprisingly, differences related to the target of the behavior as well as differences based on whether the data were cross-sectional or longitudinal were generally negligible.

No abstract