Konteksti avamisel märgitakse muuhulgas:

Two main types of governance are widely discussed in the literature: formal governance and relational governance (Cao and Lumineau 2015). While formal governance is based on formal (Li et al. 2010) and explicit contracts and rules (Zhou and Poppo 2010), relational governance follows social relations, trust and shared norms (Adler 2001; Poppo et al. 2008) to make SNs work.

Küsimus, millele vastust otsitakse:

Based on this gap, our article aims to answer the following question: how do different configurations of formal and relational governance influence the performance of SNs’ members?

Meeldetuletuseks strateegilistest võrgustikest (ehk SN):

Strategic networks (Saz-Carranza and Ospina 2010) are formally established, governed, and goal-oriented (Kilduff and Tsai 2003) rather than occurring serendipitously (Provan and Kenis 2008). […] While individual firms may use traditional bureaucratic and hierarchical mechanisms to complement social coordination and guarantee the authority and the execution of activities, SNs need to find forms of multilateral coordination to stimulate collective actions (Mehouachi and Perret 2013). Strategic networks demand effective governance to ensure effectiveness (Vangen et al. 2015) and so that relational rents can be generated and appropriated by the member firms (Dyer and Singh 1998; Dyer et al. 2018).

Meeldetuletuseks valitsetusest:

Network governance refers to the design of the structure and coordination of networks (Mariani 2016; Provan and Kenis 2008) to organize collective actions and to address the activities for reaching common goals (Albers 2005, 2010). Governance also involves “designing, managing, and controlling networks in order to reduce uncertainties and improve competitive position” (Grabher and Powell 2004, p. xiii). The main goal of network governance is to foster goal consensus among partners to provide the impetus for collaboration (Vangen and Huxham 2011).

Formaalne ja relatsiooniline valitsetus:

Formal governance refers to the structure and formal rules of SNs’ internal coordination (Albers 2005; Albers et al. 2016; Provan and Kenis 2008), including the structure of decision-making processes, rights, and contract design (Windsperger et al. 2018). […] Trust and relational norms are frequently considered as the two most important relational governance dimensions (Griffith and Myers 2005). Trust is a relational governance mechanism (Poppo and Zenger 2002; Yu et al. 2006; Zaheer and Venkatraman 1995) widely addressed by scholars as a basis for cooperation (e.g., Bachmann 2001; Krishnan et al. 2006; Sydow 1998).

Mõned järeldused:

The first cluster includes firms that participate in younger and smaller SNs (when compared with the other SNs of this study) that exalt both types of governance. […] The second cluster also directs to a different configuration that theoretically we are used to. This cluster shows that relational governance is comparatively more important than formal governance in older and larger SNs.

Wegner, D., Sarturi, G., & Klein, L. L. (2021). The governance of strategic networks: how do different configurations influence the performance of member firms?. Journal of Management and Governance, 1-25