Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 343–377 | Cite as

A replicated quasi-experimental study on the influence of personality and team climate in software development

  • Marta N. Gómez
  • Silvia T. AcuñaEmail author


This article reports a replication of a quasi-experimental study analyzing how personality factors and team climate influence software development team effectiveness, product quality and team member satisfaction. The replication was designed on the basis of the original quasi-experimental study, both of which were run in an academic setting. In the original study, data were collected from a sample of 35 three-member developer teams. All these teams used an adaptation of extreme programming (XP) to the academic environment to develop the same software system. In the replication, the data were collected from a sample of 34 three- or four-member developer teams working on the same software project. Student teams used a common object-oriented software development paradigm to solve the set problem and applied the Unified Process. In both studies all teams were formed at random, and their members were blind to the quasi-experimental conditions and hypotheses. The replication of this empirical study aims to verify the results of the original quasi-experiment. It examines, first, whether personality factors (neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness, openness to experience and conscientiousness) are related to the quality of the developed software and team member satisfaction and, second, whether the preferences, perceptions and preferences-perceptions fit for the four team climate factors (participative safety, support for innovation, team vision and task orientation) are related to the quality of the developed software and team member satisfaction. The results of the replication corroborate some of the findings of the original study. On the one hand, the results revealed that there is a significant correlation between the extroversion personality factor and software quality, but no significant correlation between the extroversion personality factor and team satisfaction. Also, we found that the perception of team climate where participative safety is high is related to better quality software. We observed significant relationships between the perception of the four team climate factors and team member satisfaction. Additionally, the results showed a positive relationship between software quality and teams in which the real climate perception at the end of the project is better than preferences stated by team members at the outset of the project for the participative safety factor. Finally, we found that teams where the real climate is better than the stated preferences for the team orientation factor exhibit a direct and positive relationship to team member satisfaction.


Personality factors Team climate Software quality Team satisfaction Team building Quasi-experimental replication 



This research has been funded by the following projects: Experiment Replication and Synthesis Technologies in SE (MICINN TIN2011-23216) and Go Lite (MICINN TIN2011-24139).


  1. Acuña ST, Gómez M, Juristo N (2008) Towards understanding the relationship between team climate and software quality—a quasi-experimental study. Empir Softw Eng 13(4):401–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acuña ST, Gómez M, Juristo N (2009) How do personality, team processes and task characteristics relate to job satisfaction and software quality? Inf Softw Technol 51(3):627–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson N, Burch GJ (2003) The team selection inventory. ASE, NFER-Nelson, SloughGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson N, West M (1994) The team climate inventory. ASE, NFER-Nelson, WindsorGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson N, West M (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. J Organ Behav 19(3):235–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson N, West M (1999) The team climate inventory: user’s guide, 2nd edn. ASE, NFER-Nelson, WindsorGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991) The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol 44(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK (1998) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J Appl Psychol 83:377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barry B, Stewart GL (1997) Composition, process and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. J Appl Psychol 82(1):62–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  11. Beck K, Beedle M, Cockburn A, Cunnimgham W, Fowler M et al (2001) Agile Manifesto []
  12. Bentley J (2000) Programming pearls, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  13. Boehm BW, Abts C, Brown WA, Chulani S, Clark BK, Horowitz E, Madachy R, Reifer DJ, Steece B (2000) Software cost estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks A, Rooper M, Wood M, Daly J, Miller J (2008) Replication’s role in software engineering. In: Shull F, Singer J, Sjberg D (eds) Guide to empirical software engineering (chapter 14). Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  15. Burch GJ, Anderson N (2004) Measuring person-team fit: development and validation of the team selection inventory. J Manag Psychol 19(4):406–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carver J (2010) Towards reporting guidelines for experimental replications: a proposal. In: 1st International Workshop on Replication in Empirical Software Engineering Research (RESER 2010)Google Scholar
  17. Cook TD, Campbell DT (1979) Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issues for the field settings. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR (2002) Inventario de Personalidad NEO Revisado (NEO PI-R): Inventario NEO Reducido de Cinco Factores (NEO-FFI). Manual profesional. TEA, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  19. Cruz SSJO, da Silva FQB, Monteiro C, Santos P, Rossilei I (2011) Personality in software engineering: preliminary findings from a systematic literature review. In: 15th Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2011), 1–10Google Scholar
  20. Curral LA, Forrester RH, Dawson JF, West MA (2001) It’s what you do and the way that you do it: team task, team size, and innovation-related group. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 10(2):187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dybå T, Dingsøyr T (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf Softw Technol 50:833–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gladstein DL (1984) Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Adm Sci Q 29(4):499–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gómez OS (2012) Tipología de Replicaciones para la Síntesis de Experimentos en Ingeniería del Software. Ph.D. thesis. Madrid, Spain: Universidad Politécnica de MadridGoogle Scholar
  24. Goparaju PS, Ayesha F, Sanghamitra P (2011) Soft factors affecting the performance of software development teams. Team Perform Manag 17(3–4):187–205Google Scholar
  25. Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1980) Work redesign. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  26. IEEE (2004) Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge-SWEBOK version 2004. IEEE Computer Society, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobson I, Booch G, Rumbaugh J (1999) The unified software process development. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  28. Jehn KA (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adm Sci Q 40:256–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q 42:530–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macias F, Holcombe M, Gheorghe M (2003) A formal experiment comparing extreme programming with traditional software construction. In: Fourth Mexican International Conference on Computer Science (ENC 2003), 73–80Google Scholar
  31. Mañas MA, González-Romá V, Peiro JM (1999) Work-group climate. Determinants and consequences. Universidad de Almería, Instituto de Estudios Almerienses, AlmeríaGoogle Scholar
  32. Molleman E (2000) The modalities of self-management: the “must”, “may”, “can” and “will” of local decision making. Int J Oper Prod Manag 20(8):889–910Google Scholar
  33. Molleman E, Nauta A, Jehn KA (2004) Person–job fit applied to teamwork: a multi-level approach. Small Group Res 35(5):515–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peslak A (2006) The impact of personality on information technology team projects. In: 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR. Claremont, California, USA, 273–279Google Scholar
  35. Pfleeger SL (2001) Software engineering: theory and practice, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  36. Pfleeger SL (2005) Soup or art? The role of evidential force in empirical software engineering. IEEE Softw 22(1):66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Selby R (2007) Empirical software engineering research roadmap: discussion and summary. In: Basili V, Rombach D, Schneider K, Kitchenham B, Pfahl D, Selby R (eds) Empirical software engineering issues. Critical assessment and future directions, 4336 lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 184–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sfetsos P, Stamelos I, Angelis L, Deligiannis I (2009) An experimental investigation of personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming. Empir Softw Eng 14:187–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stokes JP (1983) Toward an understanding of cohesion in personal change groups. Int J Group Psychother 33:449–467Google Scholar
  40. Van der Vegt G, Emans B, Van de Vliert E (2001) Affective reactions to individual task interdependence in outcome interdependence groups. Pers Psychol 54:51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang H-L, Tang J-H (2004) Team structure and team performance in IS development: a social network perspective. J Inf Manag 41(3):335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zander A (1994) Making groups effective, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Escuela Politécnica SuperiorUniversidad CEU San PabloMadridSpain
  2. 2.Escuela Politécnica SuperiorUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations