Research Question/Issue In this comprehensive literature review, we synthesize and analyze the current state of academic research regarding the relatively understudied relationship between the type of owners and board governance. Research Findings/Insights Our review of the existing literature at the intersection of ownership and board governance research discusses how six distinct ownership types—pertaining to family, lone founder, corporation, institutional investor, state, and venture capitalist—shape board governance, defined as board structure, composition, and processes. We also uncover the influence of ownership type on board functional performance (i.e., monitoring, resource provision, and strategic involvement) and the implications of these owner–board relationships for a variety of firm outcomes (related to performance and compliance). Theoretical/Academic Implications We present identifiable patterns in board governance and functional performance associated with each ownership type and their respective implications for a wide range of firm outcomes. We then propose seven core emerging themes that deserve further scholarly attention. Practitioner/Policy Implications Our analysis cautions against the application of the “one‐size‐fits‐all” best‐practices approach in board governance advocated by policy makers, scholars, and corporate governance activists and underscores the need to consider the contingent effects of different owners' behaviors and interests in shaping and assessing board governance.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect and offer insights on how to justify the use of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as a research method for understanding the complexity of organizational phenomena, by applying the principles of the neo-configurational approach. Design/methodology/approach We present and critically examine three arguments regarding the use of QCA for management research. First, they discuss the need to assume configurational theories to build and empirically test a causal model of interest. Second, we explain how the three principles of causal complexity are assumed during the process of conducting QCA-based studies. Third, we elaborate on the importance of case knowledge when selecting the data for the analysis and when interpreting the results. Findings We argue that it is important to reflect on these arguments to have an appropriate research design. In the true spirit of the configurational approach, we contend that the three arguments presented are necessary; however, each argument is insufficient to warrant a QCA research design. Originality/value This paper contributes to management research by offering key arguments on how to justify the use of QCA-based studies in future research endeavors.

Manuscript Type: EmpiricalResearch Issue: Research on board involvement has evolved and shifted towards seeking the appropriate role these boards should play in the strategy process. Current theoretical debates and inconclusive empirical findings in the literature point to an unresolved issue regarding the level of board involvement that is conducive to effective strategy formulation. This study aims to identify the levels of board involvement that are associated with highly effective and less effective strategy formulation.Research Findings: We examine the boards of 16 intergovernmental organizations by conducting an inductive fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to identify different levels of board involvement that are associated with highly effective and less effective strategy formulation. Our results illustrate that both active and less active board involvement are associated with highly effective strategy formulation, while an intermediate level of board involvement is associated with less effective strategy formulation.Theoretical Implications: This study contributes to the literature seeking to understand board involvement in the strategy process. We build a multi-dimensional board involvement framework consisting of board dynamics, the use of director resources, and context. We use the information-processing perspective to elucidate the relationship between different levels of board involvement and effective strategy formulation.Practitioner Implications: Our findings suggest that the optimal level of board involvement in strategy formulation depends on an organization's complexity, a factor which determines its information-processing needs.

Research question/issue Albeit the fact that the “one‐size‐fits‐all” corporate governance model has been mostly discarded, the debate on what constitutes a well‐governed firm has converged toward a set of practices that comprise what we refer to as the global good governance norm. Whereas extant research has focused mainly on the benefits of good governance, we build on neo‐institutional theory to explore how firm conformity or nonconformity to this global norm is associated with the cost of board governance, captured as board compensation. Research findings/insights Using a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) of firms listed in the Stockholm Stock Exchange, we find that the configurations of board practices conforming to the global good governance norm are associated with higher board compensation than those that score low on conformity. Based on our findings, we deduce four archetypical board design strategies jointly shaped by two central forces: the pressure toward conformity to the good governance norm and the extent of governance discretion, denoting firm agentic behavior. Theoretical/academic implications First, our study highlights that conformity to the global good governance norm is accompanied with higher costs than nonconformity. Second, while most of the extant research discusses conformity and agentic behavior as two opposing forces, we uncover that they simultaneously co‐exist in board governance, stressing their interconnectedness. Practitioner/policy implications Conformity to the global good governance norm influences the strategic choices of board designs and the costs associated with such choices.

No abstract