Balancing Individual and Collaborative Work in Agile Teams

  • Hamish T. Barney
  • Nils B. Moe
  • Tore Dybå
  • Aybüke Aurum
  • Martha Winata
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 31)

Abstract

In the agile approach, the self-organizing team itself decides how work is coordinated. For individuals in a team to be motivated and satisfied with their job they need to have control over their work and over the scheduling and implementation of their own tasks. However, individual and team level autonomy may conflict, and reduce the effectiveness of the team. Therefore, there is a need to investigate how to achieve empowerment at the individual and team levels simultaneously. An Australian software developer, Atlassian, has developed an interesting way of solving these problems with FedEx Day. Once every three months, developers get a day to work on whatever they like! Like an express courier, a developer must deliver something in a day. Developers then present their work to the rest of the company. Some of this work then ends up getting incorporated into the products.

Keywords

teamwork individual work autonomy self-managing self-organizing agile software development scrum XP FedEx day case study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Langfred, C.W.: The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21, 563–585 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gagne, M., Deci, E.: Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26, 331–362 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osterloh, M., Frey, B.: Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms. Organization Science 11, 538–550 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoegl, M., Parboteeah, K.P.: Creativity in innovative projects: How teamwork matters. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 24, 148–166 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foss, K., Foss, N., Klein, P.: Original and Derived Judgment: An Entrepreneurial Theory of Economic Organization. Organization Studies 28, 1–20 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm, B.W., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barker, J.R.: Tightening the Iron Cage - Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 38, 408–437 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Markham, S.E., Markham, I.S.: Self-management and self-leadership reexamined: A levels-of-analysis perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 6, 343–359 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trist, E.: The evolution of socio-technical systems: a conceptual framework and an action research program. Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre, Ontario (1981)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guzzo, R.A., Dickson, M.W.: Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology 47, 307–338 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parker, S., Wall, T., Jackson, P.: That’s Not My Job: Developing Flexible Employee Work Orientations. Academy of Management Journal 40, 899–929 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Volberda, H.W., Lewin, A.L.: Co-evolutionary Dynamics Within and Between Firms: From Evolution to Co-evolution. The Journal of management studies 40, 2111 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tata, J., Prasad, S.: Team Self-management, Organizational Structure, and Judgments of Team Effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues 16, 248–265 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deci, E., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B., Leone, D.: Facilitating Internalization: The Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Journal of Personality 62, 119–142 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baard, P., Deci, E., Ryan, R.: Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis of Performance and Weil-Being in Two Work Settings 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34, 2045–2068 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deci, E., Ryan, R., Gagne, M., Leone, D., Usunov, J., Kornazheva, B.: Need Satisfaction, Motivation, and Well-Being in the Work Organizations of a Former Eastern Bloc Country: A Cross-Cultural Study of Self-Determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27, 930 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gagne, M., Koestner, R., Zuckerman, M.: Facilitating Acceptance of Organizational Change: The Importance of Self-Determination 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30, 1843–1852 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Amabile, T.: The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, 357–376 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grolnick, W., Ryan, R.: Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 890–898 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benware, C., Deci, E.: Quality of Learning With an Active Versus Passive Motivational Set. American Educational Research Journal 21, 755 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B.: Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 42, 58–74 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yin, R.K.: Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morgan, G.: Images of Organizations. SAGE publications, Thousand Oaks (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hamish T. Barney
    • 1
  • Nils B. Moe
    • 2
  • Tore Dybå
    • 2
  • Aybüke Aurum
    • 1
  • Martha Winata
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems, Technology and ManagementUNSWSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.SINTEF ICTTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations