contracts and noncontractual agreements that are internally enforceable documents –
such as job descriptions, division of tasks, rules and procedures [48]. Critics of
structural governance mechanisms argue that they are too expensive (due to the
transaction costs involved) and too restrictive concerning creativity and flexibility
[49–51].
The relational perspective builds on social exchange theory according to which
human beings are social, capable to trust and be trusted [52–54]. As described by Gil
[55], relational governance is one in which the partners’ personal relations (e.g. social
norms such as trust, cooperation and solidarity) are deeply intertwined with their
economic exchange. This perspective suggests that opportunistic attitude and behaviour of partners can be overcome as they get to know each other. Trust-based
relationships are therefore believed to be the potential asset that needs to be developed
over time for the partnership to yield high returns [56]. With trust, partners expect
each other’s behaviour and willingness to adhere to commonly accepted principles or
individual commitments [57, 58]. Governance mechanisms associated with this
perspective emphasise safeguards that are self-enforcing through social interaction
and control. They further rely on informal norms and rules (not written in any
documents) to indicate how responsibilities and rights are distributed among partners
[59, 60]. Some literature often describes relational governance and structural governance as being mutually exclusive [61]. However this view has been challenged by
evidence suggesting that the two perspectives are complementary. Structural governance is increasingly perceived as providing a solid basis for creating trust, especially
in partnerships where members do not know each other or have not collaborated
before [44, 46, 58, 62].
In this discussion, the influence of national culture on the extent to which
partnering organisations use and/or prefer either structural or relational perspectives
must be emphasised. In line with Hofstede’s [63] widely used cultural dimensions
(uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus
feminity and power distance),
2 it is expected that organisations from a country
dominated by a certain culture will prefer a particular governance perspective over
another. For example, organisations coming from individualistic cultures would rely
more on structural mechanisms, while those from collectivist cultures would prefer
2 Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and
organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (p. 28).
Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is
expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its
opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong and
cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetimes continue to protect them in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty (p. 51). Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles are
clearly distinct (i.e. men are supposed to be assertive, tough and focused on material success,
whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life.
Femininity pertains to societies in which social gender roles overlap (i.e. both men and women are
supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life) (pp. 82–83). Uncertainty
avoidance is defined as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or
unknown situations (p. 167).
Promoting Smart Water Systems in Developing Countries Through. . .
175
such as job descriptions, division of tasks, rules and procedures [48]. Critics of
structural governance mechanisms argue that they are too expensive (due to the
transaction costs involved) and too restrictive concerning creativity and flexibility
[49–51].
The relational perspective builds on social exchange theory according to which
human beings are social, capable to trust and be trusted [52–54]. As described by Gil
[55], relational governance is one in which the partners’ personal relations (e.g. social
norms such as trust, cooperation and solidarity) are deeply intertwined with their
economic exchange. This perspective suggests that opportunistic attitude and behaviour of partners can be overcome as they get to know each other. Trust-based
relationships are therefore believed to be the potential asset that needs to be developed
over time for the partnership to yield high returns [56]. With trust, partners expect
each other’s behaviour and willingness to adhere to commonly accepted principles or
individual commitments [57, 58]. Governance mechanisms associated with this
perspective emphasise safeguards that are self-enforcing through social interaction
and control. They further rely on informal norms and rules (not written in any
documents) to indicate how responsibilities and rights are distributed among partners
[59, 60]. Some literature often describes relational governance and structural governance as being mutually exclusive [61]. However this view has been challenged by
evidence suggesting that the two perspectives are complementary. Structural governance is increasingly perceived as providing a solid basis for creating trust, especially
in partnerships where members do not know each other or have not collaborated
before [44, 46, 58, 62].
In this discussion, the influence of national culture on the extent to which
partnering organisations use and/or prefer either structural or relational perspectives
must be emphasised. In line with Hofstede’s [63] widely used cultural dimensions
(uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus
feminity and power distance),
2 it is expected that organisations from a country
dominated by a certain culture will prefer a particular governance perspective over
another. For example, organisations coming from individualistic cultures would rely
more on structural mechanisms, while those from collectivist cultures would prefer
2 Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and
organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (p. 28).
Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is
expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its
opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong and
cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetimes continue to protect them in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty (p. 51). Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles are
clearly distinct (i.e. men are supposed to be assertive, tough and focused on material success,
whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life.
Femininity pertains to societies in which social gender roles overlap (i.e. both men and women are
supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life) (pp. 82–83). Uncertainty
avoidance is defined as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or
unknown situations (p. 167).
Promoting Smart Water Systems in Developing Countries Through. . .
175