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.

Board composition is a critical element in the ability of the board to impact firm outcomes. While much of this research has focused on size and independence, there is growing literature that investigates the composition of directors’ demography, human capital, and social capital. The purpose of this article is to synthesize this diverse literature. The authors first review the literature on board demographics, human capital, and social capital composition research. In doing so, they highlight the theoretical and methodological approaches utilized. Finally, they suggest avenues for future research that can advance our understanding of the effects of board composition.

This paper builds and tests the thesis that CEO influence evolves differently for founders and agents. We theorize that at the beginning of their tenures, founder CEOs can pursue market expansion more aggressively than agent CEOs, because they take office with the combination of motivation, power, and requisite knowledge that agent CEOs build over time. Subsequently, however, founder CEOs have less access to the administrative infrastructure necessary to sustain a growing firm, making them less able than agent CEOs to continue market expansion mid‐tenure and more severely constrained by market complexity. A longitudinal study of cable television operators confirms that the firm's market expansion follows an inverted U‐shape for agents and a downward slope for founders, while market complexity reduces market expansion, especially for founders. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The authors reviewed recently published research on small groups and teams to understand how within-team nonresponse is reported and handled. They used Monte Carlo simulation to investigate how data-handling choices affect measurement reliability and hypothesis testing under conditions of random and systematic nonresponse. More complete reporting of nonresponse is recommended by the authors, and they propose guidelines for analyzing team-level constructs using data from teams without full response.

We provide a review of the literature surrounding institutional investor classifications, and we extend this research by examining the aforementioned classification systems and relate this to the three predominant financial systems (market-based, family-centred, and bank-centred systems). After integrating this literature we propose that future research can contribute to the corporate governance field in three main ways: through improved measurement of the central constructs, through more complex research designs (through moderated and/or longitudinal relationships), and through asking new types of questions. We suggest several questions and approaches for future research on institutional investors and their interrelationship with country financial systems. Copyright (c) 2010 The Authors. Journal of Management Studies (c) 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies.