Do measurement methods matter? A meta-analysis of antecedents and outcomes of contractual governance in interorganisational relationships

Abstract

Existing literature uses multiple measurement methods for contractual governance; however, it is unclear whether such differences impact the effect sizes of the relationships between contractual governance and its antecedents and outcomes in interorganisational relationships. This study revisits commonly explored relationships by examining the moderating impacts of the measurement factors. We meta-analysed 141 articles involving 32,763 interorganisational relationships. The results indicate that subjective and objective measurements cannot be interchangeable in certain relationships. Contractual governance, measured by multiple dimensions and multiple items per dimension, exhibits a stronger relationship with other constructs. Furthermore, mixing contract provisions and contract applications when using reflective indicators to measure contractual governance is not a serious issue. These findings advance our understanding of the boundary conditions of the relationships between contractual governance and other constructs. An implication for managers is that they should pay attention to both contracts per se and how contracts are subjectively perceived.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.