Search results

This paper aims to offer an integrative conceptual theory of conflict and reports on the nomological net of team conflict profiles. Specifically, it integrates social self-preservation theory with information-processing theory to better understand the occurrence of team profiles involving task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict.

The study collected data from 178 teams performing and engineering design tasks. The multilevel nomological net that was examined consisted of constructive controversy, psychological safety and team-task performance (team level), as well as perceptions of learning, burnout and peer ratings of performance (individual level).

Findings indicated mixed support for the associations between conflict profiles and the hypothesized nomological net.

Future research should consider teams’ profiles of team conflict types rather than examining task, relationship and process conflict in isolation.

Teams can be classified into profiles of team conflict types with implications for team functioning and effectiveness. As a result, assessment and team launch should consider team conflict profiles.

The complexity perspective advanced here will allow research on conflict types to move forward beyond the extensive research examining conflict types in isolation rather than their interplay.

The Telex system has been installed and in operation at Aslib headquarters since Monday 29th August. Telex no. 23667; answer‐back code ‘Aslib London’.

This study aims to offer a bibliometric analysis of the already substantial and growing literature on global virtual teams (GVTs).

Using a systematic literature review approach, it identifies all articles in the Web of Science from 1999 to 2021 that include the term GVTs (in the title, the abstract or keywords) and finds 175 articles. The VOSviewer software was applied to analyze the bibliometric data.

The analysis revealed three dialogizing research clusters in the GVTs literature: a pioneering management information systems and organizational cluster, a general management cluster and a growing international management and behavioural studies cluster. Furthermore, it highlights the most cited articles, authors, journals and nations, and the network of strong and weak links regarding co-authorships and co-citations. Additionally, this study shows a change in research patterns regarding topics, journals and disciplinary approaches from 1999 to 2021. Finally, the analysis illustrates the position and centrality in the network of the most relevant actors.

The findings can guide management practitioners, educators and researchers to the most meaningful clusters of publications on GVTs, and help navigate and make sense of the vast body of the available literature. The importance of GVTs has been growing in the past two decades, and Covid-19 has accelerated the trend.

This study provides an updated and comprehensive systematic literature review on GVTs. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is also the first systematic literature review and bibliometry on GVTs. It concludes by suggesting future research paths.

Austrian economist Ludwig Mises’s central role in the socialist calculation debates has been consensually acknowledged since the early 1920s. Yet, only recently Nemeth, O’Neill, Uebel, and others have drawn particular attention to Mises’s encounter with logical empiricist Otto Neurath. Despite several surprising agreements, Neurath and Mises certainly provide different answers to the questions “what is meant by rational economic theory” (Neurath) and whether “socialism is the abolition of rational economy” (Mises). Previous accounts and evaluations of the exchange between Neurath and Mises suffer from attaching little regard to their idiosyncratic uses of the term “rational.” The paper at hand reconstructs and critically compares the different conceptions of rationality defended by Neurath and Mises. The author presents two different resolutions to a detected tension in Mises’s deliberations on rationality: the first is implicit in Neurath’s, O’Neill’s, and Salerno’s reading of Mises and faces several interpretational problems; the author proposes a divergent interpretation. Based on the reconstructions of Neurath’s and Mises’s conceptions of rationality, the author suggests some implications with respect to Viennese Late Enlightenment and the socialist calculation debates.