Contractual governance, relational governance, and the performance of interfirm service exchanges: The influence of boundary-spanner closeness

340 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The dynamics of contractual and relational governance: Evidence from long-term public–private procurement arrangements (2008, positive): “Previous studies have suggested that contractual and relational governance need to be considered as complementary mechanisms (Ferguson et al., 2005; Poppo and Zenger, 2002) but very little work has explored the details and dynamics of this interplay (Klein Woolthuis et al.”
Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: matching alliance governance to asset type (2009, background): “Formal governance mechanisms are generally understood to include ‘depersonalized exchanges, a reliance on financial parameters, and the drafting and implementation of formal contracts’ (Ferguson, Paulin, and Bergeron, 2005: 217).”
The effects of supplier capabilities on industrial customers’ loyalty: the role of dependence (2010, background): “After Williamson (1975, 1985) highlighted negative motivations for relationship maintenance, marketing researchers began to use measures that focus on negative motivations such as switching costs (Anderson and Narus 1990; Bansal et al. 2004; Burnham et al. 2003; Ferguson et al. 2005; Heide and Joh”