Search results

The aim of this study is to understand the levels (i.e. mild vs intense) of task conflict (TC) expressions between angel investors and entrepreneurs at the post-investment stage and how it affect angel investors’ follow-on investment intentions with the same entrepreneur.

Survey data was gathered from 71 angel investors in China. Mplus was used to test the proposed research model.

This study found that angels perceive affective conflict (AC) when engaged in intense TC, unlike the case for mild TC expressions. Furthermore, the analysis shows that, unlike mild TC expressions, intense TC expressions impede angels’ reinvestment intentions when they perceive ACs. Other results indicate that when angels perceive that entrepreneurs are not open to coaching, the prominence of mild TC expression is sharply mitigated and becomes as detrimental as intense TC expressions.

This study only focused on one specific aspect of the angel–entrepreneur post-investment relationship: The effect of their TC expressions on angels’ reinvestment intentions. By no means do the authors imply that TC expression in the angel–entrepreneur post-investment relationship is the only factor that matters to angel investors in their follow-on investment intentions with the same entrepreneur.

The findings suggest that entrepreneurs should pay careful attention to TC that may arise between them and their financiers. TCs are not entirely detrimental, but their negative effect might depend on how they are expressed. An appropriate level of TC may also improve enterprise performance and collaboration. Thus, angels and entrepreneurs should set clear goals and performance standards, where task interactions mainly focus on the goals and expected outcomes.

Prior to this study, little was known about whether all TCs potentially lead to ACs. By distinguishing between levels (i.e. mild vs intense) of TC expressions between angels and entrepreneurs, this study adds a novel aspect to it by showing that TC, in and of itself, does not necessarily lead to AC but can lead to AC once its intensity grows.

This paper presents an historical reconstruction of the radicalisation of Alan Fox, the industrial sociologist and a detailed analysis of his early historical and sociological writing in the classical pluralist phase.

An intellectual history, including detailed discussion of key Fox texts, supported by interviews with Fox and other Biographical sources.

Fox’s radicalisation was incomplete, as he carried over from his industrial relations (IR) pluralist mentors, Allan Flanders and Hugh Clegg, a suspicion of political Marxism, a sense of historical contingency and an awareness of the fragmented nature of industrial conflict.

Recent academic attention has centred on Fox’s later radical pluralism with its “structural” approach to the employment relationship. This paper revisits his early, neglected classical pluralist writing. It also illuminates his transition from institutional IR to a broader sociology of work, influenced by AH Halsey, John Goldthorpe and others and the complex nature of his radicalisation.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize library and information science (LIS) as fragmenting discipline both historically and by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory about the organization of sciences and Fuchs’ (1993) theory about scientific change.

The study combines historical source analysis with conceptual and theoretical analysis for characterizing LIS. An attempt is made to empirically validate the distinction between LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The origin of fragmentation in LIS due the contributions of other disciplines can be traced in the 1960s and 1970s for solving the problems produced by the growth of scientific literature. Computer science and business established academic programs and started research relevant to LIS community focusing on information retrieval and bibliometrics. This has led to differing research interests between LIS and other disciplines concerning research topics and methods. LIS has been characterized as fragmented adhocracy as a whole, but we make a distinction between research topics LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The paper provides an elaborated historical perspective on the fragmentation of LIS in the pressure of other disciplines. It also characterizes LIS as discipline in a fresh way by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory.