Abstract
Reflexivity, the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning, is widely recognized as a key factor influencing performance of work teams. The paper proposes that outcome interdependence, defined as the extent to which team members perceive that attainment of goals by their colleagues will facilitate their own goal achievement, will moderate the effect of team reflexivity on its performance. An empirical study with 332 team members of 34 software projects reveals that as predicted team reflexivity and outcome interdependence have both synergistic and antagonistic impacts on team performance. While high outcome interdependence magnified the positive impacts of team reflexivity on its effectiveness, an increase in team reflexivity at low outcome interdependence had a deleterious impact. However, an opposite effect was observed for team efficiency. Further, agile teams demonstrated higher outcome interdependence and team reflexivity, and thereby higher effectiveness, but lower efficiency, compared to teams adopting plan-drive methods of software development. Finally, in general, agile software development projects performed better than plan driven projects for innovative software development, while projects adopting plan-driven methods performed better than agile projects for routine software development.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aiken L, West S (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Babbage C (1835) On the economy of machinery and manufacturing. Knight, London
Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embrace change, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston
Boehm B (2002) Get ready for agile methods, with care. Comput 35(1):64–69
Boehm B, Turner R (2004) Balancing agility and discipline: evaluating and integrating agile and plan-driven methods. In: Proceedings 26th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2004), pp 718–719
Brodbeck FC (1994) Intensive Kommunikation lohnt sich für SE-Projekte. In: Brodbeck FC, Frese M (eds) Produktivität und Qualität in Software-Projekten. Oldenbourg, München, pp 51–67
Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The management of innovation. Tavistock, London
Campbell JP, Pritchard RD (1976) Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In: Dunnette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago
Campion MA, Medsker GJ, Higgs AC (1993) Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Pers Psychol 46:823–850
Capretz L (2003) Personality types in software engineering. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58(2):207–214
Cohen J (1978) Partialled products are interactions: partialled powers are curve components. Psychol Bull 85:858–866
Conboy K, Fitzgerald B (2004) Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: a study of agility in different disciplines. In: Proceedings of XP/Agile Universe, Springer
Cortina JM (1993) Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: implications for multiple regression. J Manag 19(4):915–922
Cummins RA, Gullone E (2000) The case for subjective quality of life measurement. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on quality of life in cities, pp 74–93
De Dreu C (2002) Team innovation and team effectiveness: the importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. Europ J Work Organ Psychol 3:285–298
Deutsch M (1949) An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Hum Relat 2:199–231
Deutsch M (1973) The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press, New Haven
Deutsch M (1980) Fifty years of conflict. In: Festinger L (ed) Retrospections on social psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 46–77
Dingsøyr T, Nerur S, Balijepally V, Moe NB (2012) A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. J Syst Softw 85(6):1213–1221
Duncan RB (1976) The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In: Kilmann RH, Pondy LR, Slevin D (eds) The management of organization. North-Holland, New York, pp 167–188
Dunlap WP, Kemery ER (1987) Failure to detect moderating effects: is multicollinearity the problem? Psychol Bull 102:418–420
Faix WG, Laier A (1996) Soziale Kompetenz: Wettbewerbsfaktor der Zukunft, 2nd edn. Gabler, Wiesbaden
Flor N (1998) Side-by-side collaboration: a case study. Int J Hum Comput Stud 49:201–222
Fraser R (1947) The incidence of neurosis among factory workers. Report No. 90, Industrial Health Research Board, HMSO, London
Gersick CJ, Hackman JR (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 47:65–97
Grant AM, Parker SK (2009) Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Acad Manag Ann 3(1):317–375
Guzzo RA (1986) Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations. In: Goodman P (ed) Designing effective work groups. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Hackman JR (1987) The design of work teams. In: Lorsch JW (ed) Handbook of organizational behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 67–102
Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1974) The job diagnostic survey: an instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED099580.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017
Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
He Z, Wong P (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15(4):481–494
Hirokawa RY (1990) The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: a task-contigency perspective. Small Group Res 21:190–204
Hirst G, Mann L, Bain P, Pirola-Merlo A, Richter A (2004) Learning to lead: the development and testing of a model of leadership learning. Leadersh Q 15:311–327
Hislop GW, Lutz MJ, Naveda JF, McCracken WM, Mead NR, Williams LA (2002) Integrating agile practices into software engineering courses. Comput Sci Educ 12(39):169–185
Hoegl M, Gemuenden H (2001) Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ Sci 12(4):435–449
Hoegl M, Parboteeah KP (2006) Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Manag 36(2):113–125
Jackson SE (1989) Does job control control job stress? In: Sauter SL, Hurrell JJ Jr, Cooper CL (eds) Job control and worker health. Wiley, Chichester
Jansen JJ, Van Den Bosch FA, Volberda HW (2005) Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter? Acad Manag J 48(6):999–1015
Jessop B (2002) Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance. Antelope 34:105–125
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1989) Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Edina, MN Interaction Book
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2005) New developments in social interdependence theory. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 134(4):285–358
Johnson DW, Maruyama G, Nelson D, Skon S (1981) Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 89:47–62
Kakar AK (2014) Teaching theories underlying agile methods in a systems development course. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp 4970–4978
Locke EA, Latham GP (1990) A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Loureiro-Koechlin C (2008) A theoretical framework for a structuration model of social issues in software development in information systems. Syst Res Behav Sci 25(1):99–109
Melnik G, Maurer F (2006) Comparative analysis of job satisfaction in agile and non-agile software development teams. In: International conference on extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 32–42
Nerur S, Mahapatra R, Mangalaraj G (2005) Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Commun ACM 48(5):72–78
O’Reilly CA III, Tushman ML (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harv Bus Rev 82(4):74–81
Osterman P (2000) Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: trends in diffusion and effects on employee welfare. Ind Labor Relat Rev 53:179–196
Parker SK (1998) Role breadth self-efficacy: relationship with work enrichment and other organizational practices. J Appl Psychol 83:835–852
Parker SK, Wall T (1998) Job and work design: organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness. Sage, London
Parker SK, Wall TD, Cordery J (2001) Future work design research and practice: towards an elaborated model of work design. J Occup Organ Psychol 74:413–440
Petre M (2004) Team coordination through externalised mental imagery. Int J Hum Comput Stud 61(2):205–218
Royce WW (1970) Managing the development of large software systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE WESTCON, p 8
Royce WW (1987) Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: ICSE, pp 328–339
Saavedra R, Earley PC, Van Dyne L (1993) Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. J Appl Psychol 78:61–72
Schwaber K (1997) Scrum development process. In: Business object design and implementation. Springer, London, pp 117–134
Schwenk CR (1988) The essence of strategic decision making. Lexington, DC Heath
Scrum Alliance (2008) World Wide Web electronic publication. www.scrumalliance.org/view/scrum_framework. Accessed 8 July 2015
Sicotte H, Langley A (2000) Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance. J Eng Technol Manag 17:1–37
Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Strahan and Cadell, London
Steiner ID (1966) Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behav Sci 11:273–283
Stevens MJ, Campion MA (1994) The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: implications for human resource management. J Manag 20(2):503–530
Stone EF, Hollenbeck JR (1989) CIarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: empirical evidence and related matters. J Appl Psychol 74:3–10
Taylor FW (1911) The principles of scientific management. Harper, New York
Tesluk PE, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ, Marks MA (1997) Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C (eds) Team performance and measurement: theory, methods, and applications. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 197–224
Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New York
Tjosvold D, Deemer DK (1980) Effects of controversy within a cooperative or competitive context on organizational decision making. J Appl Psychol 65:590–595
Tjosvold D, Andrews IR, Struthers JT (1991) Power and interdependence in work groups. Group Organ Stud 16:285–299
Trist E (1981) The evolution of socio-technical systems. Occasional paper
Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA III (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38(4):8–30
Van De Ven AH, Delbecq AL, Koenig RJ (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am Soc Rev 41(2):322–338
Van der Vegt GS, Emans BJM, Van de Vliert E (1998) Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group Organ Manag 23:12–144
Vinekar V, Slinkman CW, Nerur S (2006) Can agile and traditional systems development approaches coexist? An ambidextrous view. Inf Syst Manag 23(3):31–42
Wageman R (1995) Interdependence and group effectiveness. Adm Sci Q 40:145–180
Walker CR, Guest RH (1952) The man on the assembly line. Harv Univ Press, Cambridge
Wall TD, Cordery JL, Clegg CW (2002) Empowerment, performance, and operational uncertainty: a theoretical integration. Appl Psychol 51:146–169
West MA (1996) Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration. In: West MA (ed) Handbook of work group psychology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 555–579
West MA (2000) Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. In: Beyerlein MM, Johnson DA, Beyerlein ST (eds) Product development teams, vol 5. JAI, Stamford, pp 1–29
Wright BM, Cordery JL (1999) Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. J Appl Psychol 84:456–463
Zand DE (1981) Information, organization, and power: effective management in the knowledge society. McGraw-Hill, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted after one revision by Prof. Dr. Becker.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kakar, A.K. Do Reflexive Software Development Teams Perform Better?. Bus Inf Syst Eng 59, 347–359 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0481-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0481-5