The Variety of Governance Structures Beyond Market and Hierarchy

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

While research has identified a variety of hybrid governance structures, it has described and sought to explain this variety from different theoretical perspectives that are not readily reconcilable. This limits our ability systematically to compare different types of hybrids and on this basis to further theoretical understanding. Results of an empirical survey of transactions in buyer–supplier relations in the German construction industry provide novel insights into three distinct, widely employed types of hybrid governance structures. The study systematically compares the found hybrid governance structures and explores their rationales. As its main theoretical contribution, this study offers an empirically based typology of hybrid governance structures that complements earlier theorizing. It suggests that embeddedness and transaction cost arguments complement one another in explaining different and previously theoretically unspecified types of hybrid governance structures.

Related collections

Most cited references 130

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Philip M Podsakoff, Scott MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee … (2003)

Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.