Int. J.

Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhcs

Engendering cohesive software development teams: Should we focus on

interdependence or autonomy?
Adarsh Kumar Satindarlal Kakar
Alabama State University, 915 S Jackson St, Montgomery, AL 36104 United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Empirical evidence suggests that both autonomy and interdependence are important considerations in team de-
Team cohesiveness sign. But how do interdependence and autonomy affect team cohesiveness, an important antecedent of team
Autonomy performance? The results of this multi-year study with software development projects show that task interdepen-
Task interdependence
dence and task autonomy have both synergistic and antagonistic impacts on team cohesiveness. At high levels
Outcome interdependence
of outcome (goal) interdependence, task autonomy and task interdependence have a synergistic impact on team
cohesion, while at low levels of outcome interdependence, task autonomy and task interdependence have an
antagonistic impact on team cohesion. Further, taylorist teams showed lower cohesiveness compared to agile
teams.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction such as software development, this can lead to frequent adjustment of

tasks, compromises, and conflicts (Niepce and Molleman, 1998). Keep-
Cohesion reflects the degree of attraction among group members ing this context in view, this study investigates the interplay between
(Shaw, 1981). A study of cohesiveness is considered essential for un- task interdependence and autonomy in engendering team cohesiveness.
derstanding group dynamics in teams (Zander, 1979). Cohesiveness is The aim is to get answers to the following questions: What is the trade-
critical for social integration and sustenance of groups (O’Reilly et al., off in deciding between task interdependence and autonomy for enhanc-
1989). Studies have shown that cohesive groups coordinate better and ing team cohesion? When should one focus on autonomy versus inter-
display more altruistic behaviors (Berkowitz, 1954; Hogg, 1992; Shaw, dependence?
1981). Team members of cohesive groups willingly assist others, partic- These questions are relevant to all teams but particularly those en-
ipate in group activities and consider group goals as their own (Henry, gaged in knowledge work such as software development. Depending
Arrow, and Carini, 1999; Moreland & Levine, 1984). on the philosophy they subscribe to, the work in software develop-
However, engendering cohesive teams can be tricky. Cognitive Eval- ment is designed to provide different levels of task autonomy and in-
uation Theory (CET) (Deci and Ryan, 1985) suggests that both auton- terdependence providing the variation necessary to comprehensively
omy and relatedness are fundamental human needs that should be met investigate the research questions. Plan-driven software development
to enhance intrinsic motivation of team members. Teams are therefore approaches prefer a hierarchical control and command team structure.
designed to provide high levels of task interdependence as well as auton- Managers not only assign tasks to the team members but also specify
omy to its team members (Cannon-Bowers, Oser, and Flanagan, 1992; how (process) they should be performed and by when (schedule) they
Sundstrom et al., 1990). However, this creates a dilemma as high inter- should be completed (Melnik and Maurer, 2006). By contrast, agile
dependence may constrain autonomy and high autonomy may under- software development approaches deploy autonomous self-organizing
mine interdependence (Janz, Collquitt, and Noe, 1997). Further, while teams (Moe, Dingsøyr, and Dybå, 2009). Agile teams set and accom-
high interdependence is likely to enhance group cohesion, high auton- plish their own goals through participation among team members, have
omy might hamper it. autonomy in the way they perform tasks, and repeatedly reorganize
Autonomy is defining as little as possible how tasks should be per- by allocating work among themselves based on changing circumstances
formed, practicing the principle of self-management (Herbst, 1974; Mor- (Nerur, Mahapatra, and Mangalraj, 2005).
gan, 1986), and allowing as much independence in terms of work pace It would therefore be interesting to examine autonomy and inter-
and work methods as possible for performing tasks (Hackman and Old- dependence in plan-driven versus agile software development teams
ham, 1976). However, for group tasks requiring high interdependence, and how they affect team cohesion. To accomplish the aforementioned

E-mail address: akakar@alasu.edu

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.11.001
Received 13 July 2016; Received in revised form 17 October 2017; Accepted 7 November 2017
Available online 11 November 2017
1071-5819/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

goals, this study first identifies the relevant constructs by gleaning con- satisfaction and motivation could be enhanced by improving working
cepts from a multi-disciplinary review of literature and then develops conditions (Mayo, 1933, 1945; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). Some
a theoretical model of relationship between the constructs. The model researchers proposed that enriched job characteristics such as enlarged
is then tested with team members of industrial software development rather than narrow tasks improve employee motivation and satisfaction
projects. The findings are analyzed and their implications for the prac- (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1967; Turner and
tice of software development in particular and work groups in general Lawrence, 1965). Hackman and Oldham (1976) suggested that when
are discussed. employees have freedom to schedule their work and decide on proce-
dures it increases the motivating potential of work.
2. Literature review This transition in focus from process to people, and from division of
labor and rigid task interdependencies to task autonomy and integra-
2.1. Autonomy and interdependence in the era of scientific management tion, was also seen in the evolution of software development methods
with the introduction of the Agile manifesto in 2001. Agile development
Work design research began with the economic perspectives on the proponents questioned the assumption that change and uncertainty can
division of labor and task specialization (Babbage 1835; Smith 1776). be controlled through a high degree of advanced planning and rigid pro-
Adam Smith (1776) suggested division of labor by breaking down com- cesses (Nerur, Mahapatra, and Mangalraj, 2005). Software developers
plex jobs into simpler jobs as a way of enhancing performance. Expand- realized that while the Tayloristic plan-driven methods do work well
ing on these ideas Babbage (1835) pointed out the added advantages of in stable conditions, under uncertain conditions, managers planning,
job simplification such as requirement of less skilled and hence cheaper assigning and controlling tasks of software developers may not work.
labor. Specialization and division of labor creates interdependencies Group members should be able to deal with disruptive events as and
within work groups or departments (Saavedra, Earley, and Van Dyne, when they arise. Agile methods therefore emphasize team and employee
1993; Thompson, 1967; van de Ven, Delbecq, and Koenig, 1976). autonomy in organizing and performing work.
The concepts of Charles Babbage and Adam Smith influenced the However, despite these trends of increased employee autonomy and
methods of software development during the early stages of its evolu- integration of tasks into meaningful work, the importance of interde-
tion. Methods such as the waterfall method (Royce, 1970) and its vari- pendence did not decline. With tasks becoming more socially embed-
ants encouraged division of labor leading to specialized roles of busi- ded than at any other time in the past, work design researchers recog-
ness analysts, system architects, programmers, and testers (Melnik and nize that work is inextricably intertwined with interactions among team
Maurer, 2006). These plan-driven methods were also influenced by the members and interpersonal relationships (Grant and Parker, 2009).
concepts of Taylor (1911, 1947) who introduced Scientific Management Therefore work in agile teams is not defined by industrial engineers
with the aim of controlling every work activity, from the simplest to and assigned by supervisors but by self-organizing teams through mu-
the most complicated. He applied to workers the ideas Whitney (see tual adjustment amongst team members. Therefore, in today’s context
Mirsky and Nevins, 1952) earlier used for making interchangeable parts. of uncertain business environments and rapidly evolving customer re-
Taylor analyzed tasks into their minutest details and arrived at a quirements, it is reasonable to assume that both employee autonomy
standardized process; the one best way to do the job (Kanigel, 1997), and interdependence are important considerations in successful team
just as Eli Whitney analyzed a musket into its smallest parts and made a design.
machine to manufacture each part (Mirsky and Nevins, 1952). Together
the ideas of Whitney, Taylor and Ford (of moving assembly line) ush- 2.3. Impact of autonomy and interdependence on team cohesion
ered in the era of mass production. As applied to software development,
these concepts led to the development of factory like concepts. Bemer But how do employee autonomy and interdependence impact team
of General Electric (Bemer, 1969) was among its earliest proponents. cohesion? Cohesiveness is the degree to which team members like each
He suggested that General Electric adopt standardized tools to reduce other, identify themselves positively with the team and want to re-
variability in programmer productivity and keep a database of histori- main its members (Hackman and Morris, 1975; Shaw, 1981). Two meta-
cal records for management control. Mellroy of AT&T (Mellroy, 1968) analyses (Evans and Dion, 1991; Mullen and Cooper, 1994) have re-
emphasized systematic reusability of code for enhancing productivity. ported a positive relationship between cohesiveness and performance.
By the late 1960s, the term ‘software factory’ was in popular use However, team cohesion is not a panacea for all ills. Cohesive teams
and became associated with computer-aided tools, management-control may be more susceptible to group think and may not generate the most
systems, modularization, and reusability (Cusumano, 1989). Taylorist creative solution to problems due to increased conformity and con-
approaches such as the waterfall model (Royce, 1970) and its vari- servatism in problem-solving approaches (Janis, 1972, 1982; McAvoy
ants promoted upfront requirements gathering, systems design, and lin- and Butler, 2009). High team cohesiveness can also lead to ineffectual
ear sequential development phases. These concepts were implemented decision making such as groupthink and the Alibene paradox (Janis,
through detailed planning, defined processes, coding standards, inspec- 1972, 1982; McAvoy and Butler, 2009). Abilene Paradox is a decision
tions and reviews, productivity metrics, and statistical quality control. taken by a group which no individual decision maker would have taken
Efficiency of software development processes were measured through (Harvey, 1974). In groupthink socio-psychological factors prevent dis-
the use of control charts. Process models such as Capability Maturity sension and the individual accepts the view of the group as correct
Model (CMM) gained popularity for defining and improving software (Janis, 1972, 1982; Manz and Sims, 1987).
development processes (Huh, 2001). Overall, these developments had Yet, cohesion in teams is critical for keeping the team members
an adverse impact on autonomy of team members. aligned with a common purpose and goals Ramesh, Cao, Mohan, and
Xu, 2006). Team cohesion is a one of the six key facets of Team Work
2.2. Autonomy and interdependence and the human relations movement Quality (Hoegl and Gemuenden, 2001). Without a sense of togetherness
and belonging no meaningful collaboration is possible in groups. Further
In the domain of manufacturing, while mass production resulted in team cohesion promotes sharing of tacit knowledge amongst team mem-
an improvement in the standard of living of society, it had deleterious bers. For example technicians are known to learn more about repairing
psychological consequences for the workers. Repetitive jobs were found copiers by “hanging around swapping stories than from company man-
to be boring, tiring, dissatisfying and potentially damaging to mental uals” (Fortune, 1991; Madhavan and Grover, 1998).
health (Fraser, 1947; Walker and Guest, 1952). These costs of division of Hardy, Eys, and Carron (1995) noted that team cohesion provides
labor and task specialization diverted the focus of researchers to human numerous psychosocial and work benefits outcomes of teams. Cohesive
issues at work. Studies were conducted to investigate whether employee teams demonstrate increased collective efficacy (Paskevich, Brawley,

2
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

Dorsch, and Widmeyer, 1995) and greater team success (Carron, Col- ing between initiated and received task interdependence. Received task
man, Wheeler, and Stevens, 2002). Cohesive team members are interdependence is defined as the extent to which a person in a particu-
less anxious (Eys, Hardy, Carron, and Beauchamp, 2003), more lar job is affected by the work-flow from one or more other jobs (van der
satisfied (Widmeyer and Williams, 1991), have higher self-esteem Vegt, Emans, and van de Vliert, 1998). Initiated task interdependence is
((Julian, Bishop, and Fiedler, 1966), conform to group norms the extent to which work flows from one particular job to one or more
(Prapavessis and Carron, 1997), make personal sacrifices for the team other jobs so that the performance of the latter depends on the initi-
(Prapavessis and Carron, 1997), share responsibility for team failure ating job (van der Vegt, Emans, and van de Vliert, 1998). Pearce and
(Brawley, Carron and Widmeyer, 1987) and are less likely to indulge Gregersen (1991) argued that reciprocal interdependence, a character-
in social loafing (Naylor and Brawley, 1992). Additionally, cohesive- istic of most jobs, which occurs when employees initiate as well as re-
ness reduces dysfunctional conflicts. Breakdown in coordination are a ceive interdependence, as in software development, would cultivate the
significant contributor to bugs and design flaws (Petre, 2004). highest levels of felt responsibility and thus motivate extra-role helping
Empirical studies have shown that cohesive teams are effective and citizenship behaviors. When both received and initiated interdepen-
(McGrath, 1984; Prapavessis and Carron, 1997; Sundstrom et al., 1990; dence exists, team members are more likely to put in efforts to develop
Yang and Tang, 2004). They are more likely to produce better software working relationships leading us to the following hypotheses:
products than those riddled with conflicts (Carmel and Sawyer, 1998).
Hypothesis 2. Task Interdependence will increase cohesiveness of soft-
Some deleterious symptoms of lack of cohesion include political prob-
ware development teams
lems in teams (Bradley and Hebert, 1997) and “analysts not speaking
To further examine the interactions between task interdependence
with developers and testers remaining independent of the rest of the
and autonomy we also examined the moderating and direct effects of
team” (Sawyer, 2004).
outcome interdependence on team cohesiveness. Outcome interdepen-
Work design research provides evidence (Champoux, 1991; Johns,
dence is defined as the extent to which team members believe that their
Xie, and Fang, 1992; Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Slavin, 1983; Stone,
personal benefits and costs depend on successful goal attainment by
1986; Wageman, 1995; Campion et al., 1993, 1996) that both autonomy
other team members (van der Vegt, Emans, and van de Vliert, 1998).
and interdependence are important considerations in team design. The
Deutsch (1949, 1973, 1980) and Kelley and Thibaut (1978) proposed
right blend of cooperation and autonomy are required to achieve flex-
that when outcome interdependence is high, mutual cooperation pre-
ibility, responsiveness, and synergy in groups (Nerur, Mahapatra, and
dominates and when outcome interdependence is low competition pre-
Mangalraj, 2005). But increasing task interdependence may constrain
dominates. Team members believe that other team members’ goal at-
autonomy and increasing autonomy may reduce task interdependence.
tainment facilitates movement toward their own goals. In the case of
So where does the balance lie? Further, how does one decide what lev-
low outcome interdependence, team members believe that other team
els of autonomy and interdependence will produce the best results in
members’ successful goal attainment makes them less likely to achieve
enhancing cohesiveness among team members? However, no study to
their goals.
the best of our knowledge has investigated the interplay between task
As evidenced by research findings in social and organizational psy-
interdependence and autonomy in designing work for engendering co-
chology, group members working under circumstances of high, as op-
hesiveness in teams engaged in knowledge work such as software devel-
posed to low, outcome interdependence are more open-minded regard-
opment.
ing others’ arguments and desires, more concerned about each others’
outcomes, and more inclined to search for solutions and compromises
2.4. Theory development (Campbell and Pritchard, 1976; Deutsch, 1949, 1973, 1980; Guzzo,
1986; Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Maruyama, Nelson, and
Studies have shown that autonomy provides higher job satisfaction Skon, 1981; Tjosvold et al., 1991; Tjosvold and Deemer, 1980). Estab-
and motivation to knowledge workers than any other job characteristic lishing common ground is essential for collaboration (Flor, 1998). At low
(Cheney, 1984; Goldstein and Rockart, 1984; Janz et al., 1997). Auton- outcome interdependence members of a work team feel thwarted by the
omy is the degree to which the job provides freedom, independence, sound job performances of fellow team members while at high outcome
and discretion to the employee in scheduling work and in determin- interdependence members of a work team benefit from the sound job
ing the procedures to be used in carrying it out (Hackman and Old- performances of fellow team members (van der Vegt, Emans, and van
ham, 1976). However, higher team member autonomy comes at a cost de Vliert, 1998). Positive outcome interdependence increases their trust,
to team cohesion (Moe, Dingsøyr, and Dybå, 2008). It can lead to fre- commitment and cohesion leading us to the following hypotheses:
quent adjustment of tasks, compromises, and conflicts within the team
(Niepce & Molleman, 1988). Software development team members rely Hypothesis 3. Outcome Interdependence will increase cohesiveness of
on other team members completing their tasks on schedule and with software development teams
requisite quality for timely and successful accomplishment of their own Theoretically, high and low degrees of outcome interdependence
tasks. As a result, team members instead of valuing their autonomy may may exist independent of the degree of task interdependence and au-
dislike the time and effort spent in negotiations and decision-making tonomy. Outcome interdependence is achieved through the way the
processes that could have been utilized in completion of their own tasks goals are defined and achieved and the way that performance is re-
(Janz, Collquitt, and Noe, 1997); thereby reducing interpersonal inter- warded (Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Wageman, 1995). For example,
action (Moe, Dingsøyr, amd Dybå, 2008). Limited interaction among group goals may be set at different levels of task interdependencies and
team members reduces the possibility that group cohesion will develop autonomy such as for programmers working independently as well as
(Sawyer, 2004) leading us to the following hypothesis: those engaged in paired programming. However, low outcome inter-
dependence (e.g. team member does not see how his work relates to
Hypothesis 1. Autonomy will decrease cohesiveness of software devel- overall project goals or end product) will exacerbate the impact of low
opment teams interdependence (e.g. team member is working independently on tasks
Interdependence is the defining characteristic of groups and the without much interaction with other team members) and low autonomy
reason why they are formed (Campion, Medsker, and Higgs, 1993; (e.g. team member has little leeway in planning and executing his tasks,
Cartwright and Zander, 1968; Shea and Guzzo, 1987). Interdependence supervisors tell give him deadlines for completion of task and also how
among work teams exists because they contain interrelated tasks for to perform them) on team cohesion. The team member working under
converting input into output. Kiggundu (1981, 1983) argued that task such conditions will feel stifled and increasingly isolated from his fel-
interdependence is a job attribute with significant motivating potential. low team members as well as his supervisors to the detriment of team
Further he classified task interdependency into two types by differentiat- cohesion.

3
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

By contrast, high outcome interdependence (such as employee re-

lates his work with overall team goals and group rewards are in play)
will magnify the impact of high interdependence (his work depends on
work outputs of one or more team members and his work output is used
by one or more team members) and high autonomy (he gets to estimate
his own work and how to accomplish it) on team cohesion. Common
goals and rewards mitigate the deleterious impacts of high autonomy
and augment the positive impact of high interdependence on group co-
hesion. Employees will use their autonomy to pursue group goals more
proactively and enthusiastically in collaboration with other team mem-
bers. They will view superior performance of fellow employees as en-
ablers and not as a threat and look forward to collaborating with them
to achieve group goals. When outcome interdependence is high, auton-
omy helps develop employee confidence and capabilities for carrying
out a wider range of responsibilities and tasks (Parker, 1998). Armed
with this higher role-breadth efficacy (Burr and Cordery, 2001; Parker,
1998; Speier and Frese, 1997) employees under conditions of high out-
come interdependence will seek more responsibility for external coordi-
nation (Batt, 1999) leading to development of more proactive role ori-
entations (Parker, Wall, and Jackson, 1997) and greater use of personal
initiative and engagement with other team members in accomplishing
tasks (Frese, Kring, Soose, and Zempel, 1996), thereby enhancing the
combined effect of interdependence and autonomy on team cohesion.
This leads us to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4. At low level of outcome interdependence, task inter-

dependence and autonomy will impact team cohesion antagonistically,
while at high level of outcome interdependence, task interdependence
and autonomy will impact team cohesion synergistically
According to a typology of interdependence (Fig. 1) by
Tesluk et al. (1997) the degree of interdependence increases from
pooled to sequential to reciprocal to intensive. Pooled interdependence
does not involve any interaction between team members. Performance
of the group is an aggregation of individual team member’s perfor- Fig. 1. Typology of interdependence (adopted from Tesluk et al., 1997).
mance. In sequential interdependence, work flows unidirectionally
from one member to another. Reciprocal interdependence is similar to
group members in accomplishing tasks. This leads us to the following
sequential interdependence except that the workflow is bidirectional.
hypothesis:
In intensive interdependence the entire group must interact with each
other to accomplish group goals. Hypothesis 5. Plan-driven methods of software development will be
According to a typology of interdependence (Fig. 1) by lower in autonomy, task interdependence and outcome interdependence
Tesluk et al. (1997) the degree of interdependence increases from than agile methods and will therefore result in lower team cohesion
pooled to sequential to reciprocal to intensive. Pooled interdependence
does not involve any interaction between team members. Performance 3. Method
of the group is an aggregation of individual team member’s perfor-
mance. In sequential interdependence, work flows unidirectionally To test the proposed hypotheses we conducted a multi-year survey
from one member to another. Reciprocal interdependence is similar to with development team members of 34 software projects. The devel-
sequential interdependence except that the workflow is bidirectional. opers were employees of a university’s industry partners and graduate
In intensive interdependence the entire group must interact with each students of the university who had to complete a software development
other to accomplish group goals. project with the industry partners which included 18 companies with 3
Plan driven methods of software development such as the waterfall of them in the Fortune 500 list. The graduate students were all academ-
method and its variants promote conformance to plan and encourage ically accomplished and were admitted to the graduate degree program
division of labor leading to specialized roles of business analysts, sys- by invitation only. The type of projects included 14 which the industry
tem architects, programmers and testers (Melnik and Maurer, 2006). partners characterized as Waterfall method, 4 V-method, 9 Extreme pro-
In plan-driven methods tasks are process-driven, team members have gramming, 3 Scrum, 1 Crystal methodologies, 1 Dynamic Software de-
little autonomy, and points of employee interfaces are few. Sequential velopment method (DSDM), 1 Feature Driven Development (FDD) and 1
interdependence predominates as can be seen from Fig. 2 for the water- Lean Software Development Method (LSDM. This characterization was
fall model (Royce, 1987). Typically, testers interact with coders but not vetted by trained research associates. Of the 34 projects 18 were new
with designers, designers interact with requirement gatherers but not software development projects and 16 were upgrades or customization
with system implementers. of existing software. The university has a policy of randomly assigning
By contrast the agile methods deploy self-managing teams. Teams the students to alphabetically listed projects in the ascending order of
and its members have more autonomy. Outcome interdependence is their last names.
high. Group goals are the norm and points of employee interface are The capstone projects enable students of this large public university
many. Practices such as pair programming, planning game, daily stand- located in the United States of America to work on industrial project
up meetings and frequent integration of code to produce working prod- and provide them with job opportunities. The university has a high
ucts in quick iterations represent intensive interdependence among placement rate and many of the students who work on the capstone

4
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

Fig. 2. Sequential Interdependence of Plan drive methods (Royce, 1987).

projects are employed by the industry partners. The study was com- bipolar scale anchored at 1 (negative) and 9 (positive). Scale items were
pleted over a 4-year period involving 332 developers who answered a averaged to create an overall value for each construct. Responses were
paper-and-pencil questionnaire based survey at the end of completion coded such that high levels of the constructs are represented by high
of their projects. The students worked on the project along with the de- values. Some items were reverse coded.
velopment team of the industry partners at their premises as well as at
the university. The overall response rate was 89%, 88% by students and
91% by employees of industry partners. Further responses ranged from 3.2. Procedure
84% to 92% across teams. The projects lasted for a period between 4–6
months. The subjects were between 21–39 year old, 194 males and 148 Subjects answered a paper-and pencil based survey that captured
females who worked on software development projects involving be- data on independent variables, task interdependence, outcome inter-
tween 6 to 16 team members. The average age of the subjects was 28.4 dependence and autonomy, and, dependent variable, team cohesion of
years, average experience in industrial software development projects the software development project. The questionnaire items listed were
was 6.3 years and the average number of team members working on the scrambled. Data on independent variables, task interdependence, out-
projects was 10. come interdependence and autonomy was collected from the subjects in
the first round of the study. Data on the dependent variables, team cohe-
sion was collected in the second round a week later. Previous research
3.1. Variables used in the study demonstrates that the temporal separation between measures reduces
potential effects due to Common Method Variance (Sharma, Yetton, and
The independent variables are task interdependence, outcome in- Crawford, 2009).
terdependence and autonomy of team members of software develop-
ment projects. The dependent variable is team cohesion. Tested mea-
sures from prior literature were adapted to capture data pertaining to 3.3. Method of analyses
these variables.
Task Interdependence. Tested sub-scales (Kiggundu, 1983; Pearce To establish reliability and validity of the measures used in the study,
and Gregersen, 1991) of initiated and received interdependence con- factor analysis was performed and internal reliabilities and the corre-
sisting of a total of 8 items were used. A sample item of initiated in- lation matrix of the measures were examined. Moderated Hierarchical
terdependence from this scale is “To what extent do your colleagues Multiple Regression (MHMR), a widely recommended method for test-
depend on you for information and advice?” A sample item of received ing moderating relationships or interactions between independent vari-
interdependence is: “To what extent do you depend on your colleagues ables (Cohen, 1978; Cortina, 1993; Dunlap and Kemery, 1987; Stone
for doing your work well?” and Hollenbeck, 1989), was used for analyzing the data. MHMR analy-
Outcome Interdependence. A bipolar scale of six items (van der sis reveals how well each independent variable predicts the dependent
Vegt, Emans, and van de Vliert, 1998) was used to measure outcome variable, after extracting variance due to other independent and control
interdependence. A sample item from this scale is: “When my colleagues variables in the regression equation and interaction effects after extract-
succeed in their jobs, it works out negatively/ positively for me” ing variance due to independent and control variables.
Autonomy. The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman and Old- MHMR was therefore conducted to first test for the main effects of
ham, 1974) list of 3 items was used to measure Autonomy. A sample independent variables task interdependence, outcome interdependence
item from this scale is: “The job gives me considerable opportunity for and autonomy on team cohesion, and then for the two-way interaction
independence and freedom in how I do the work.” effects between task interdependence and autonomy and finally for the
Team Cohesiveness. The Yu and Chu (2007) list of 7 items based moderating effect of outcome interdependence on the effects of task in-
on the Carron et al. (1985) group environment questionnaire was used terdependence and autonomy on team cohesion. Team size, gender and
to measure team cohesiveness. A sample item (reverse coded) from this years of software development experience of team members were con-
scale is: “Members of our team would rather go out on their own than trolled for in the analysis, as they were not the variable of interest in
get together as a group” this study. Large team sizes make it more difficult for team members
For a complete list of items used in the measures please see to interact with all other team members given the dramatic increase
Appendix A. While Autonomy and Team Cohesiveness used a 9-point of possible individual links between team members as team size grows
Likert scale with anchors of 1 (strongly disagree) and 9 (strongly agree) (Steiner, 1966). It can thus affect collaborative task process (Hackman,
or 1 (very little) and 9 (very much), Outcome Interdependence used a 1987; Campion et al., 1993) and team cohesion.

5
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

Table 1 has a significantly (p < .05) negative impact (B = −0.229, −0.172) on

Internal consistency reliability of scales.
team cohesion. Thus Hypothesis 4 was fully supported.
Name of the scale Cronbach’s coefficient Alpha Number of items Further, Table 3 shows, the two-way interaction effect of autonomy
Task Interdependence (TI) 0.80 8
and task interdependence on team cohesion was significant (p < .001)
Outcome Interdependence (OI) 0.91 6 but negative. While we report this finding only for the sake of com-
Autonomy (A) 0.92 3 pleteness, the interpretation of the two-way interaction is constrained
Team Cohesiveness (TC) 0.85 7 by the presence of the significant three-way interaction. The presence of
a significant (p < .01) three way interaction supports Hypothesis 4. The
Table 2 synergistic (positive effect) of task interdependence and autonomy on
Means, standard deviations, correlations. team cohesion at high outcome interdependence as well an antagonistic
Variable Mean Std Dev 1 2 3 4 effect (negative impact) of task interdependence and autonomy on team
cohesion at low outcome interdependence were observed as expected.
TI 5.28 1.11 1
OI 5.23 0.90 0.28∗ ∗ ∗ 1
Further, t-tests conducted for ascertaining the difference in means
A 5.67 0.94 0.05 0.01 1 showed that software development projects using agile methods which
TC 6.29 0.83 0.15∗ ∗ ∗ 0.14∗ ∗ -0.19∗ ∗ ∗ 1 were found to be significantly (p < .05) higher than plan-driven methods
∗
p < .05 ∗∗
p < .01 ∗∗∗
p< .001
in all the three criteria: task interdependence, outcome interdependence
as well as autonomy were also significantly higher in team cohesion (see
Table 4). Thus Hypothesis 5 was also supported.
4. Results and analyses
5. Discussion
The factor analysis procedure was done using IBM© SPSS© Statistics
Version 19. Dimension reduction was performed on the data pertaining Thus, overall the suggested model of relationships between task in-
to the 4 measurement scales. The results of Varimax rotation showed terdependence, outcome interdependence, autonomy, and team cohe-
that the 4 factors extracted represented each of the 4 scales. All items of sion was supported by data. The results of the study show that autonomy
a scale (Task Interdependence: T1 to T8, Outcome Interdependence: O1 has a significant positive impact on team cohesion only when both task
to O6, Autonomy: A1 to A3 and Team Cohesion: C1 to C7) loaded on as well as outcome interdependence is high. When the team members’
the respective factors (highlighted in bold in Appendix B). Convergent perception of outcome dependence is low, an increase in task autonomy
and discriminant validity between scales were evident (see Appendix B) as well as task interdependence can be counterproductive for enhancing
by the high loadings within factors (>.50) and no cross loadings (>.40) team cohesion. Therefore, software projects that wish to enhance team
between factors. The internal consistency reliability of the scales used in cohesion should focus on enhancing each: autonomy, task and outcome
the study: task interdependence, outcome interdependence, autonomy interdependence.
and team cohesion were then examined. As can be seen from the Table 1, The validity of this approach is evidenced from the results presented
the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for each factor extracted is greater than in Table 4 when interpreted further in the context of the practices of
.70. the two major paradigms of software development. The study findings
Table 2 provides the means and standard deviations of the data col- of higher cohesion in teams adopting agile methods are not only con-
lected in this survey. From the correlation between variables in Table 2 it sistent with the findings across multiple empirical studies in the past
is clear that none of the correlations are too high (> 0.65) demonstrating (Cockburn and Highsmith, 2001; Dyba and Dinsoyr, 2008; Layman,
that each scale is adding something new. As predicted task interdepen- Williams, and Cunninghma, 2004; Mann and Maurer, 2005; Mannaro,
dence and outcome interdependence have a positive impact on team Melis, and Marchesi, 2004; Melnik and Maurer, 2006), but also, as ex-
cohesion while task autonomy has a negative impact on team cohesion, pected, the result of outcome interdependence converting the negative
thus supporting Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3. two-way interactional impacts of task interdependence and autonomy
Before analyzing the results of MHMR in Table 3, the normal prob- on team cohesion (Step 3, Table 3) into a positive three-way interac-
ability plot was examined to ascertain the normal distribution of resid- tional impact (Step 4, Table 3).
uals. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) option was included in the Unlike the heavy-weight process driven approach of plan-driven
analyses to explore the extent of multicollinearity in the results. All the methods, Agile processes are typically light weight (unlike plan-driven
VIF values were less than 1.5 indicating a lack of multicollinearity in methods). The focus in agile methods is on establishing a self-organizing
the results (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham, 2006). team culture that emphasizes common responsibilities and goals and yet
Results from MHMR analysis in Table 3 show a significant (p < .01) individual team members are trusted to decide for themselves the best
three-way interaction among task interdependence, outcome interde- way to perform a task. Practices such as collective ownership of code
pendence and autonomy in predicting team cohesion. For analyzing the promote positive outcome interdependence. It implies that the code is
interactional impacts we performed a simple slope test as recommended owned by everyone and can be changed by anyone to improve the sys-
by Aiken and West (1991). Further we also conducted a slope difference tem (Beck, 1999). Autonomous self organizing teams use planning game
test suggested by Dawson and Richter (2006) to determine if the differ- or sprint planning meetings to plan for the next development iteration
ence in slopes calculated by the Aiken and West (1991) method at 1 (or sprint). Developers have autonomy to estimate their own stories
standard deviation (1SD) above mean and 1 standard deviation (1 SD) (Whitworth and Biddle, 2007). All team members participate in these
below mean of the moderating variables is significant. meetings where interdependence among team members in achieving the
Analyses of the three way interaction reveals that at high outcome in- goals of the upcoming iteration gets highlighted (Beck, 1999; Alliance,
terdependence (1 Standard Deviation above mean) and high task inter- 2008). Developing working products in iterations enhances interaction
dependence (1 Standard Deviation below mean) autonomy has a signif- and interdependence among team members (Ramesh, Cao, Mohan, and
icantly (p < .01) positive impact (B = 0.432) on team cohesion while at Xu, 2006; Whitworth and Biddle, 2007). At the completion of iteration
high outcome interdependence (1 Standard Deviation above mean) and retrospectives are conducted where team members collaboratively dis-
low task interdependence (1 Standard Deviation below mean) autonomy cuss their performance in the previous iteration and identify strategies
has a non-significant (p > .05) impact on team cohesion. Further, at low for improvement (Alliance, 2008). The effect of these agile practices is
outcome interdependence (1 Standard deviation below mean), and high borne out by the findings of the study (Tale 4) which show that agile
task interdependence (1 Standard Deviation above mean) as well as low methods are more successful in enabling positive outcome interdepen-
task interdependence (1 Standard deviation below mean), Autonomy dence among team members than plan-driven methods. By establishing

6
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

Table 3
Moderated hierarchical multiple regression analysis results for team cohesiveness.

Step Variables added in each step Change in R-square (∆R2 ) 2) Regression coefficients (𝛽)

1 Control variable
Gender, Experience, Team Size 0.04∗ 0.02, 0.05∗ , 0.04∗
2 Main effects
Task Interdependence (TI) 0.19∗ ∗ ∗ 2.99∗ ∗ ∗
Outcome Interdependence (OI) 0.18∗ ∗ ∗ 2.48∗ ∗
Autonomy (A) 0.09∗ ∗ -1.64∗
3 Two way interaction
A ∗ TI 0.06∗ ∗ - 3.41∗ ∗ ∗
4 Three way interaction
A ∗ TI ∗ OI 0.09∗ ∗ ∗ 4.97∗ ∗
2
Note: ∆R is the incremental variance explained by each predictor after the other predictors have been
entered into the equation within each step. Total ∆R2 = 0.63
∗
p < .05 ∗ ∗ p < .01 ∗ ∗ ∗ p<.001; N = 332

Table 4
Comparison of agile and plan-driven methods.

Variables Agile methods Plan-driven methods Difference in means

Mean Standard deviation N Mean Standard deviation N

Task Interdependence (TI) 5.54 1.12 163 5.03 0.98 169 0.51∗ ∗ ∗
Outcome Interdependence (OI) 5.60 0.85 163 4.88 1.06 169 0.72∗ ∗ ∗
Autonomy (A) 6.66 0.98 163 4.74 0.93 169 1.92∗ ∗ ∗
Team Cohesiveness (TC) 6.53 1.19 163 6.05 1.03 169 0.48∗ ∗ ∗
∗∗∗
p < .001

collective responsibility and ownership, the agile methods are thus able the context of software development projects might be applicable to all
to simultaneously leverage the salutary effects of high autonomy and teams in general.
high task interdependence in enhancing team cohesion. Nevertheless, the findings of the study should be viewed in the light
However, although software development methods are broadly clas- of its limitations. The use of self-report of team members to the variables
sified into two categories, the Agile methods and the Plan-driven or Tay- used in the survey raises the issue of common method bias inflating the
lorist methods, within each category there are many different methods effect size. However, the study was designed to introduce temporal sep-
each with their own principles and practices making comparisons be- aration between user responses which has the effect of mitigating com-
tween them confusing. For example, there are many Agile methods cur- mon method bias (Sharma, Yetton, and Crawford, 2009). Additionally,
rently in use such as Extreme programming, Scrum, Crystal methodolo- the methods bias is unlikely to produce such inflation for moderation
gies, Dynamic Software development method (DSDM), Feature Driven effects (Schmitt, 1994); the interaction effects are more likely to be at-
Development (FDD) and Lean Software Development Method (LSDM) tenuated rather than inflated (Evans, 1985).
with each focusing heavily on some of the principles of the agile mani- Finally, the causal relationship suggested in the study may be con-
festo and completely ignoring others making it impossible to reach any tested on philosophical and methodological grounds. Causal relation-
conclusions on specific agile methods and their use (Conboy and Fitzger- ships can be extremely complex and inconclusive and cannot be resolved
ald, 2004). The sample size did not permit further statistical analyses of mathematically or statistically (DeLong and Summers, 1994). Further,
differences within these two major paradigms. temporal precedence, a key condition of causality (Hume, 1977) is of-
Therefore the results only broadly reflect the distinction between ten difficult to detect (Simon, 1953). A strong case is therefore made
Agile methods and plan-driven methods, although they do provide use- in literature for the adopting a “theory-based discovery of causal rela-
ful insights into the characteristic differences between the two major tionships” (Lee, Barua and Whinston, 1997). Accordingly, we have de-
paradigms of software development. However, it needs to be pointed fended the causal direction proposed in the study based on theoretical
out that these paradigms neither originated nor are exclusive to soft- reasoning. We also argue that team cohesion builds later over time. In
ware development. They originated in manufacturing and the vast body terms of precedence, the stage is set first by different levels of the pro-
of literature on work design. These paradigms are also consistent with posed causal variables, autonomy and interdependence, depending on
literature on general organizational theory. While plan-driven methods the methodology adopted by the team.
represent the ‘mechanistic’ structures associated with routinized tasks,
codified knowledge and centralized decision-making appropriate for sta-
ble conditions, agile methods represent the ‘organic’ structures associ- 5.1. Contribution and practical implications
ated with tacit knowledge sharing and decentralized decision-making
appropriate for more uncertain environments (Boehm, 2002; Boehm and Cohesion is considered important for team success. Cohesive groups
Turner, 2004; Burns and Stalker, 1961; Vinekar, Slinkman, and Nerur, demonstrate higher commitment to group tasks and achieving group
2006). Past research suggests that both types of teams are important for goals than non-cohesive groups (Berkowitz, 1954; Shaw, 1981). Group
organizational success. While mechanistic structures influence exploita- cohesion is also known to positively enhance team performance
tive behavior and attainment of goals related to process, stability, and (Basadur, 1997; Balthazard et al., 2004; Yang and Tang, 2004). Keeping
efficiency, organic structures promote explorative behavior and attain- this context in view, this study, a first of its kind, models and tests the
ment of goals related to flexibility, adaptability, and innovation (Burns relationship between autonomy, task interdependence, outcome inter-
and Stalker, 1961; Duncan, 1976; He and Wong, 2004; Jansen, Van den dependence and their impact on team cohesion. The model is found to
Bosch, and Volberda, 2005; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004; Tushman and be valid. By expounding and testing the complex relationships between
O’Reilly, 1996). Thus the findings of the study although conducted in these constructs the study provides a systematic way of designing teams

7
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

for enhancing team cohesion without compromising higher levels of ei- Finally, the study highlights the essential differences between the
ther task interdependence or autonomy. two major paradigms of software development, the agile and the plan-
While the direct impact of task interdependence is positive for team driven method. “Theoretically comprehending the distinction between
cohesion, the direct impact of autonomy is negative for team cohesion. agile methods and plan-driven methods is a concern begging for re-
However, just as task interdependence is considered a key characteris- search attention.” (Dingsoyr, Nerur, Balijepally, and Moe, 2012). This
tic of teams, autonomy has a positive impact on team member moti- study suggests that the distinction may lie in the way the two teams are
vation, facilitates rapid adjustment to changing environments and pro- designed. Agile methods were introduced as a reaction to the process
motes innovation. The findings of synergistic impacts of high autonomy dominated approach of plan-driven methods. When processes become
and high task interdependence on team cohesion at high outcome inter- heavy weight and compliance is enforced, they hamper creativity and
dependence thus resolves an apparent dilemma in designing teams by flexibility at work. Additionally, they inhibit agility in responding to un-
accomplishing the goal of enhancing team cohesion without incurring certainty and change. Further, processes that specify how work should
the detrimental effects of low autonomy. be done inhibit employee autonomy which is considered a key factor
Software development is a knowledge-intensive endeavor in work motivation. By setting collective goals and highlighting task in-
(Robillard, 1999) rooted in innovation management and creativity terdependence (through frequent face to face interactions in the form
(Brooks 1997; Carayannis and Coleman 2005; Conboy and Morgan, of daily stand-up meetings and team planning exercises) but leaving
2010; Cougar 1990; Elam and Mead 1987; Gallivan, 2003; Lobert and the choice on how to perform the individual tasks to the team mem-
Dologite 1994; Nambisan and Wilemon, 2000). Although, individual bers, agile methods enhance team cohesion by harnessing the syner-
creativity is important and crucial, software development is rarely an gistic impacts of higher outcome interdependence, task e interdepen-
individual undertaking but creative cooperation of the entire team dence and autonomy. Further, keeping in view the salutary impacts of
(Leonard and Sensiper, 1998). Software development thus typically team cohesion on its performance, the study also provides a reason for
represents teams that create complex products and services through the effectiveness and increasing popularity of agile methods compared to
integration of the unique skills, diverse knowledge, and cognitive plan-driven methods of software development (Abrahamsson, Conboy, and
abilities of the knowledge workers with varied personalities (Blackler, Wang, 2009; Dyba and Dingsøyr, 2008).
1995; Capretz, 2003). The unpredictable and evolving nature of knowl-
edge work makes helping and sharing behaviors among team members Appendix A. Measures used in the study
critical for successful outcomes (Janz, Collquitt, and Noe, 1997). It
is not surprising that team cohesion is considered a prerequisite for
Measures and Items
creative and innovation behaviors of knowledge teams (Hülsheger,
Team Cohesiveness
Anderson, and Salgado, 2009; West and Farr, 1989; Woodman et al., I am not happy with my share of resources for performing my tasks
1993) as it provides a safe environment in which team members feel I am unhappy with the level of my team’s desire to excel
free to challenge the status quo and explore new ways of doing things This team does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal
(King et al., 1991; West and Wallace, 1991). By providing deeper performance
I do not like the way the team is managed
insights into team structures and variables that promote team cohesion,
Members of our team would rather go out on their own than get together as a
the study findings thus have useful implications for all teams engaged group
in innovation and knowledge work such as software development. Members of our team do not stick together outside the context of work
Further, the study findings provide pointers to managing software Our team members have conflicting aspirations in terms of team performance
Task Interdependence - Received
development teams in the context of the rapidly changing nature of work
To what extent do you depend on your colleagues for information and advice?
as well as the environment under which the work is undertaken. Due To what extent do you depend on your colleagues for materials, means, and
to decentralization of work processes and globalization, virtual teams other things you need?
are becoming increasingly prevalent. These geographically dispersed To what extent do you depend on the presence, help, and support of your
virtual team members communicate and coordinate their work with colleagues?
To what extent do you depend on your colleagues for doing your work well?
each other mostly impersonally through voice or video-conferences and
Task Interdependence - Initiated
emails. Effective supervision and coordination among team members of To what extent do your colleagues depend on you for information and advice?
such virtual teams is therefore challenging. Additionally, software is in- To what extent do your colleagues depend on you for materials, means, and
creasingly integrated with physical products requiring the deployment other things they need?
To what extent do your colleagues depend on your presence, help, and support?
of cross-functional teams in the development and maintenance phases.
To what extent do your colleagues depend on you for doing their work well?
Cross functional teams comprising business users from across functional Outcome Interdependence
areas and engineering groups from multiple disciplines lack hierarchical It (benefits/hinders) me when my colleagues attain their goals.
authority (Bligh et al., 2006). The things my colleagues want to accomplish and the things I want to
Work in such teams is accomplished through trust, negotiations and accomplish are (compatible/ incompatible).
It is (advantageous/ disadvantageous) for me when my colleagues succeed in
relational contracts (Powell, 1990) making team cohesion unavoidable
their jobs.
for achieving results. However, identifying and resolving team disputes When my colleagues succeed in their jobs, it is at my (expense/benefit).
and engendering team cohesion is particularly difficult leading to im- My concerns and those of my colleagues are (harmonious/ clashing).
paired performance (Bell and Kozlowksi, 2002; Duarte and Snyder, When my colleagues succeed in their jobs, it works out (positively/ negatively)
1999; Hertel, Geister, and Konradt, 2005). The findings of the study in- for me.
Autonomy
dicate that enhancing outcome interdependence by setting group goals The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in
and team based rewards can provide a means of increasing cohesion how I do the work
among group members. Thereby facilitating geographically dispersed The job denies me any chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in
team members and sub-groups from different disciplines to realize their carrying out the work. (Reverse coded)
The job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the
common stake in the success of the project and motivating them to par-
employee in scheduling his work and in determining the procedures to be used
ticipate willingly in interdependent tasks while retaining their auton- in crying it out.
omy.

8
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

Appendix B. Results of factor analyses Campion, M.A., Papper, E.M., Medsker„ G.J., 1996. Relations between work team char-
acteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension. Personnel Psychol. 49,
429–452.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Oser, R., Flanagan, D.L., 1992. Work teams in industry: a selected
Items Factor review and proposed framework. In: Swezey, RW, Salas, E (Eds.), Dam: Their Training
and Performance. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, pp. 355–377.
1 2 3 4 C Carmel, E., Sawyer, S., 1998. A Packaged software teams: what makes them so special.
Inf. Technol. People 11, 6–17.
T1 0.939 0.015 −0.045 −0.045 0.886 Capretz, L., 2003. Personality types in software engineering. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud.
T2 0.904 0.016 0.024 0.039 0.820 58:2, 207–214.
T3 0.918 0.018 −0.045 −0.024 0.846 Carron, A.V., Colman, M.M., Wheeler, J., Stevens, D., 2002. Cohesion and performance in
T4 0.789 −0.026 0.042 0.092 0.633 sport: a meta analysis. J. Sport Exercise Psychol. 24, 168–188.
T5 0.849 0.003 0.017 −0.138 0.740 Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W., Brawley, L., 1985. The development of 1000 an instrument to
T6 0.841 −0.025 0.070 −0.038 0.714 assess cohesion in sport teams: the group environment questionnaire. J. Sport Psychol.
T7 0.879 0.011 0.030 0.059 0.777 7, 244–266.
T8 0.848 0.007 0.018 −0.138 0.739 Cartwright, C., Zander, A., 1968. Group dynamics: Research and Theory. Harper & Row,
A1 0.041 0.883 0.121 0.123 0.811 New York.
A2 0.058 0.840 0.129 0.009 0.726 Carayannis, E., Coleman, J., 2005. Creative system design methodologies. Technovation
A3 0.025 0.860 0.133 0.092 0.766 25, 831–840.
Champoux, J.E., 1991. A multivariate test of the job characteristics theory of work moti-
O1 −0.082 0.001 0.635 0.275 0.486
vation. J. Org. Behav. 12, 431–446.
O2 0.085 0.081 0.881 0.004 0.790
Cheney, P.H., 1984. Effects of individual characteristics, organizational factors, and task
O3 0.016 0.108 0.856 0.080 0.751 characteristics on computer programmer productivity and job satisfaction. Inform.
O4 0.037 0.203 0.836 0.113 0.754 Manag. 7, 209–214.
O5 0.030 0.215 0.844 0.015 0.760 Cockburn, A., Highsmith, J., 2001. Agile software development: the people factor. Com-
O6 −0.097 0.050 0.765 0.126 0.613 puter 131–133.
C1 −0.014 0.112 0.378 0.727 0.684 Cohen, J., 1978. Partialled products are interactions: partialled powers are curve compo-
C2 0.036 0.150 0.114 0.875 0.802 nents. Psychol. Bull. 85, 858–866.
C3 0.001 0.067 0.139 0.853 0.751 Conboy, K., Fitzgerald, B., 2004. Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: a
C4 −0.019 0.022 −0.037 0.837 0.703 study of agility in different disciplines. In: Proceedings of XP/Agile Universe. Springer
C5 0.016 0.146 0.095 0.857 0.765 Verlag.
C6 −0.007 0.054 0.116 0.868 0.770 Conboy, K., Morgan, L., 2010. Future research in agile systems development: applying
C7 −0.008 0.008 −0.029 0.829 0.688 open innovation principles within the agile organization. In: Agile Software Develop-
ment, pp. 223–235.
Note: 1 = Task Interdependence (T1..T7); 2 = Autonomy (A1..A3);); Cortina, J.M., 1993. Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: implications for mul-
3 = Outcome Interdependence (O1..O6) 4 = Team Cohesion (C1..C7) C= tiple regression. J. Manag. 19, 915–922.
Communality. Cougar, J., 1990. Ensuring creative approaches in information system design. Manag. De-
cision Econ. 11, 281–295.
Cusumano, M.F., 1989. The software factory: a historical interpretation. IEEE Softw.
Magaz. 23–30.
References Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Be-
havior. Plenum, New York.
Aiken, L., West, S., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage, DeLong, J.B., Summers, L.H., 1994. Equipment investment and economic growth: A reply.
Thousand Oaks, CA. Q. J. Econ. 109, 803–807.
Abrahamsson, P., Conboy, K., Wang, X., 2009. Lots done, more to do’: the current state of Deutsch, M., 1949. An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition
agile systems development research. Euro. J. Inf. Syst. 18, 281–284. upon group process. Human Relations 2, 199–231.
Babbage, C., 1835. On the Economy of Machinery and Manufacturing. London: Knight. Deutsch, M., 1973. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes.
Bathazard, P., Porter, R., Warren, J., 2004. Expertise, extraversion and group interaction Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
styles as performance indicators in virtual teams. Database Adv. Inf. Syst. 35, 41–64. Deutsch, M., 1980. Fifty years of conflict. In: Festinger, L. (Ed.), Retrospections on Social
Basadur, M., 1997. In: Katz, R. (Ed.), Managing Creativity: A Japanese Model, in The Hu- Psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 46–77.
man Side of Managing Technological Innovation. Oxford University Press, NY, USA, Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., Moe, N.B., 2012. A decade of agile methodologies:
pp. 68–79. towards explaining agile software development. J. Syst. Softw. 85, 1213–1221.
Batt, R., 1999. Work organization, technology, and performance in customer service sales. Duarte, D.L., Snyder, N.T., 1999. Mastering Virtual Teams. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Ind. Labor Relations Rev. 52, 539–564. Duncan, R.B., 1976. The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for inno-
Beck, K., 1999. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, First ed Addison-Wes- vation. In: Kilmann, R.H., Pondy, L.R., Slevin, D. (Eds.). In: The Management of Or-
ley Professional. ganization, 1. North-Holland, New York, pp. 167–188.
Bell, B.S., Kozlowski, S.W.J., 2002. A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective Dunlap, W.P., Kemery, E.R., 1987. Failure to detect moderating effects: is multicollinearity
leadership. Group Org. Manag. 27, 14–49. the problem. Psychol. Bull. 102, 418–420.
Bemer, R.W., 1969. Position Papers for Panel Discussion – The Economics of Program Dyba, T., Dinsoyr, T., 2008. Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic
Production. Information Processing 68, Amersterdam, North-Holland, pp. 1626–1627. review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 833–859.
Berkowitz, L., 1954. Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations Elam, J., Mead, M., 1987. Designing for creativity: considerations for DSS development.
7, 509–519. Inf. Manag. 13, 215–222.
Blackler, F., 1995. Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and in- Evans, M.G., 1985. The Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance
terpretation. Org. Stud. 16, 1021–1046. in moderated multiple regression analysis. Org. Behav. Human Decision Process. 36,
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L., Kohles, J.C., 2006. The importance of self-and shared leadership 305–323.
in team based knowledge work: a meso-level model of leadership dynamics. J. Manag. Evans, C.R., Dion, K.L., 1991. Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small
Psychol. 21 (4), 296–318. Group Res. 22, 175–186.
Boehm, B., 2002. Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer 35, 64–69. Eys, M.A., Hardy, J., Carron, A.V., Beauchamp, M.R., 2003. The relationship between task
Boehm, B., Turner, R., 2004. Balancing agility and discipline: evaluating and integrating cohesion and competitive state anxiety. J. Sport Exercise Psychol. 25, 66–76.
agile and plan-driven methods. In: Software Engineering, 2004. ICSE 2004. Proceed- Flor, N., 1998. Side-by-side collaboration: a case study. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud. 49,
ings. 26th International Conference on. IEEE, pp. 718–719. 201–222.
Bradley, J.H., Hebert, F.J., 1997. The effect of personality type on team performance. J. Fortune, 1991. In: Brainpower, 3, pp. 44–60. June.
Manag. Develop. 16, 337–353. Fraser, R., 1947. The Incidence of Neurosis Among Factory Workers. HMSO, London Re-
Brawley, L.R., Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W.N., 1987. Assessing the cohesion of teams: va- port No. 90, Industrial Health Research Board.
lidity of the group environment questionnaire. J. Sport Exercise Psychol. 9, 275–294. Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., Zempel, J., 1996. Personal initiative at work: differences
Brooks, F.P., 1997. No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. The between East and West Germany. Acad. Manag. J. 39, 37–63.
Mythical Man-Month Reprinted in the 1995 edition of. Gallivan, M., 2003. The Influence of software developer’s creative style on their attitudes
Burns, T., Stalker, G.M., 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock, London. to and assimilation of a software process innovation. Inf. Manag. 40, 443–465.
Burr, R., Cordery, J.L., 2001. Self-management efficacy as a mediator of the relation be- Goldstein, D.K., Rockart, J.F., 1984. An examination of work-related correlates of job
tween job design and employee motivation. Human Perform. 14, 27–44. satisfaction in programmer/analysts. MIS Q. 8, 103–115.
Campbell, J.P., Pritchard, R.D., 1976. Motivation theory in industrial and organizational Grant, A.M., Parker, S.K., 2009. Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational
psychology. In: Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psy- and proactive perspectives,”. Acad. Manag. Ann. 3, 317–375.
chology. Rand McNally, Chicago. Guzzo, R.A., 1986. Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations. In:
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., Higgs, AC., 1993. Relations between work group character- Goodman, P. (Ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
istics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Hackman, JR., 1987. The design of work teams. In: Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Or-
Psychol. 46, 823–850. ganizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315–342.

9
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

Hackman, J.R., Morns, C.G., 1975. Groups tasks, group interaction process, and group MeIlroy, M.D., 1968. Mass produced software components. In: Report NATO Conference.
performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In: Berkowitz, L (Ed.), on Software Engineering, Garmisch, pp. 138–152.
Advances in Erperimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp. 45–99. Melnik, G., & Maurer, F. (2006). Comparative analysis of job satisfaction in agile and
Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., 1974. The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the non-agile software development teams. XP2006.
diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. JSAS Catalog of Selected Mirsky, J., Nevins, A., 1952. The World of Eli Whitney. The Macmillan Company, New
Documents in Psychology (Ms. No. 810) 4, 148. York.
Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a Moe, N.B., Dingsoyr, T., Dyba, T., 2008. Understanding self-organizing teams in Agile
theory. Org. Behav. Human Perform. 16, 250–279. software development. In: ASWEC 08 (Wash-ington, 2008). IEEE, pp. 76–85.
Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T., 2009. Overcoming barriers to self-management in soft-
Data Analysis, sixth ed Prentice Hall, New Jersey. ware teams. IEEE Softw. 26, 20–26.
Hardy, J., Eys, M.A., Carron, A.V., 2005. Exploring the potential disadvantages of high Moreland, R.L., Levine, J.M., 1984. Role transitions in small groups. In: Allen, V.,
cohesion in sports teams. Small Group Res. 36, 166–187. Vliert, E.Van De (Eds.), Role Transitions: Explorations and Explanations. Plenum, New
Harvey, J., 1974. The Abilene paradox: the management of agreement. Org. Dynam. 3, York.
63–80. Morgan, G., 1986. Images of Organizations. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
He, Z., Wong, P., 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity Mullen, B., Copper, C., 1994. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance:
hypothesis. Org. Sci. 15, 481–494. an integration. Psychol. Bull. 115, 210–227.
Henry, K.B., Arrow, Carini, H.B., 1999. A tripartite model of group identification- theory Nambisan, S., Wilemon, D., 2000. Software development and new product development:
and measurement. Small Group Res. 30, 558–581. potentials for cross-domain knowledge sharing. In: Engineering Management, IEEE
Herbst, P.G., 1974. Socio-Technical Design: Strategies in Multidisciplinary Research. Tavi- Transactions on, 47, pp. 211–220.
stock Publications, London. Naylor, K., Brawley, L.R., 1992. Social loafing: perceptions and implications. Paper
Hertel, G., Geister, S., Konradt, U., 2005. Managing virtual teams: a review of current presented at the joint meeting of the Canadian Association of Sport Sciences and
empirical research. Human Resour. Manag. Rev. 15, 69–95. the Canadian Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology Association Saskatoon,
Herzberg, F., 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. Oxford: World Publishing. Saskatchewan, Canada.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B.B., 1967. The Motivation to Work. Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., Mangalaraj, G., 2005. Challenges of migrating to agile method-
Hoegl, M., Gemuenden, H., 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative ologies. In: Communications of the ACM, pp. 72–78.
projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Org. Sci. 12, 435–449. Niepce, W., Molleman, E., 1998. Work design issues in lean production from a socio-tech-
Hogg, M.A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: from attraction to social nical systems perspective: NeoTaylorism or the next step in socio-technical design.
identity, New York University Press. Human Relations 51, 259–287.
Huh, W.T., 2001. Software process improvement: operations perspectives. In: Manage- O’Reilly, III,C.A., Caldwell, D.F., Barnett, W.P., 1989. Work group demography, social
ment of Engineering and Technology, PICMET’01. Portland International Conference, integration, and turnover. Admin. Sci. Q. 34, 21–37.
1, pp. 428–429. O’Reilly III, C.A., Tushman, M.L., 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business
Hülsheger, U.R., Anderson, N., Salgado, J.F., 2009. Team-level predictors of innovation Rev. 82, 74–81.
at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. J. Appl. Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R., 1997. That’s not my job: developing flexible em-
Psychol. 94, 1128–1145. ployee work orientations. Acad. Manag. J. 40, 899–929.
Hume, D.A., 1977. Treatise of Human Nature. J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London. Parker, S.K., 1998. Role breadth self-efficacy: relationship with work enrichment and other
Janis, K.A., 1972. Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. organizational practices. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 835–852.
Janis, I., 1982. Groupthink, (second ed.) Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Paskevich, D.M., Brawley, L.R., Dorsch, L.R., Widmeyer, W.N., 1995. Implications of in-
Jansen, J.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A., Volberda, H.W., 2005. Managing potential and realized dividual and group level analyses applied to the study of collective efficacy and co-
absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter? Acad. Manag. J. 58, hesion. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 7.
999–1015. Petre, M., 2004. Team coordination through externalised mental imagery. Int. J. Human–
Janz, B.D., Colquitt, J.A., Noe, R.A., 1997. Knowledge worker team effeectiveness: the role Comput. Stud. 61, 205–218.
of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Pearce, J.L., Gregersen, H.B., 1991. Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: a test
Personnel Psychol. 50, 877–904. of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. J. Appl. Psychol. 76, 838–844.
Johns, G., Xie, J.L., Fang, Y., 1992. Mediating and moderating effects in job design. J. Powell, W., 1990. Neither markets nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Res.
Manag. 18, 657–676. Organ. Behavior 12, 295–336.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., 1989. Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Prapavessis, H., Carron, A.V., 1997. The role of sacrifice in the dynamics of sport teams.
MN Interaction Book Company, Edina. Group Dynamics 1, 231–240.
Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Nelson, D., Skon, S., 1981. Effects of cooperative, compet- Ramesh, B., Cao, L., Mohan, K., Xu, P., 2006. Can distributed software development be
itive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychol. agile. Commun. ACM 49, 41–46.
Bull. 89, 47–62. Robillard, P.N., 1999. The role of knowledge in software development. Commun. ACM
Julian, J., Bishop, D., Fiedler, F.E., 1966. Quasitherapeutic effects of intergroup competi- 42, 87–94.
tion. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 3, 321–327. Roethlisberger, F.J., Dickson, W.J., 1939. Management and the Worker. Harvard Univer-
Kanigel, R., 1997. The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Effi- sity Press, Boston.
ciency. Viking, New York. Royce, W.W., 1970. Managing the development of large software systems. Proceedings of
Kelley, H.H., Thibaut, A., 1978. Interpersonal Relations. John Wiley, New York. IEEE WESCON (26:8).
Kiggundu, M.N., 1981. Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Acad. Manag. Royce, W.W., 1987. Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and
Rev. 6, 499–508. techniques. In: In ICSE (1987), pp. 328–339.
Kiggundu, M.N., 1983. Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Org. Behav. Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C., Van Dyne, L, 1993. Complex interdependence in task-perform-
Human Perform. 31, 145–172. ing groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 61–72.
King, N., Anderson, N., West, M.A., 1991. Organizational innovation: a case study into Sawyer, S., 2004. Software development teams. Commun. ACM 47, 95–99.
perceptions and processes. Work Stress 5, 331–339. Schmitt, N., 1994. Method bias: the importance of theory and measurement. J. Org. Behav.
Layman, L., Williams, L., Cunningham, L., 2004. Exploring extreme programming in con- 393–398.
text: an industrial case study. Agile Development Conference. Alliance, Scrum, 2008. World Wide Web electronic publication
Lee, B., Barua, A., Whinston, A.B., 1997. Discovery and representation of causal relation- http://www.scrumalliance.org/view/scrum_framework.
ships in MIS research: a methodological framework. MIS Q. 21, 109–136. Sharma, R., Yetton, P., Crawford, J., 2009. Estimating the effect of common method vari-
Leonard, D., Sensiper, S., 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. CA. ance: the method–method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS
Manag. Rev. 40, 112–132. Q. 33, 473–490.
Lobert, B., Dologite, D., 1994. Measuring creativity of information system ideas: an ex- Shaw, M.E., 1981. Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior, third ed.
ploratory investigation. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Confer- McGraw-Hill, New York.
ence on Systems Science. Hawaii. IEEE Computer Society. Shea, G.P., Guzzo, R.A., 1987. Groups as human resources. In Rowland Kh4. In: Ferris, R.
Madhavan, R., Grover, R., 1998. From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new (Ed.). In: Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 5. JAI Press,
product development as knowledge management. J. Market. 1–12. Greenwich, CT, pp. 323–356.
Mann, C., Maurer, F., 2005. A case study on the impact of scrum on overtime and customer Simon, H.A., 1953. Causal ordering and identifiability. In: Hood, W.C., Koopmans, T.C.
satisfaction. Agile Development Conference. (Eds.). Studies in Econometric Methods, 14. Wiley, New York, NY Cowles Commission
Mannaro, K., Melis, M., Marchesi, M., 2004. Empirical analysis on the satisfaction of IT on Research.
employees comparing XP practices with other software development methodologies. Slavin, R.E., 1983. Cooperative Learning. Longman, New York.
Extreme Programming and Agile. Smith, A., 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations W. Strahan
Manz, C.C., Sims Jr, H.P., 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leader- and T. Cadell, London.
ship of self-managing work teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 32, 106–128. Speier, C., Frese, M., 1997. Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between
Mayo, E., 1933. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. MacMillan, New York. control and complexity at work and personal initiative: a longitudinal field study in
Mayo, E., 1945. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Harvard University East Germany. Human Perform. 10, 171–192.
Press, Cambridge, MA. Steiner, I.D., 1966. Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential
McAvoy, J., Butler, T., 2009. The role of project management in ineffective decision mak- group productivity. Behavioral Sci. 11, 273–283.
ing within Agile software development projects. Euro. J. Inf. Syst. 18, 372–383. Stone, E.F., 1986. Job scope-job satisfaction and job scope-job performance relationships.
McGrath, J., 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, In: Locke, EA (Ed.), Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings. Lexington Books,
NJ. Lexington, MA, pp. 189–206.

10
A.K.S. Kakar Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 111 (2018) 1–11

Stone, E.F., Holfenbeck, J.R., 1989. CIarifying some controversial issues surrounding sta- Vinekar, V., Slinkman, C.W., Nerur, S., 2006. Can agile and traditional systems develop-
tistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: empirical evidence and related ment approaches coexist? An ambidextrous view. Inf. Syst. Manag. 23, 31–42.
matters. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 3–10. Wageman, R., 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Admin. Sci. Q. 40,
Sundstrom, E, DeMeuse, M., Futrell, D, 1990. Work teams: applications and effectiveness. 145–180.
Am. Psychol. 45, 120–133. Walker, C.R., Guest, R.H., 1952. The Man on the Assembly Line. Harvard University Press,
Taylor, F.W., 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. W. W. Norton, New York. Cambridge.
Taylor, F.W., 1947. Shop Management (published as Part of Scientific Management). West, M.A., Farr, J.L., 1990. Innovation at work. In: West, M.A., Farr, J.L. (Eds.), Inno-
Harper, New York. vation and Creativity At work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Wiley,
Tesluk, P.E., Mathieu, J.E., Zaccaro, S.J., Marks, M.A., 1997. Task and aggregation issues Chichester, England, pp. 3–13.
in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In: Brannick, M.T., Salas, E., West, M.A., Wallace, M., 1991. Innovation in health care teams. Euro. J. Soc. Psychol. 21,
Prince, C. (Eds.), Team Performance and measurement: Theory, methods, and Appli- 303–315.
cations. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 197–224. Whitworth, E., Biddle, R., 2007. Motivation and cohesion in agile teams. In: Agile
Thompson, J.D., 1967. Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York. Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. Berlin Heidelberg.
Tjosvold, D., Andrews, I.R., Struthers, J.T., 1991. Power and interdependence in work Springer, pp. 62–69.
groups. Group Org. Stud. 16, 285–299. Widmeyer, W.N., Williams, J.M., 1991. Predicting cohesion in a coacting sport. Small
Tjosvold, D., Deemer, D.K., 1980. Effects of controversy within a cooperative or competi- Group Res. 22, 548–570.
tive context on organizational decision making. J. Appl. Psychol. 65, 590–595. Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., Griffin, R.W., 1993. Toward a theory of organizational
Turner, A.N., Lawrence, P.R., 1965. Industrial Jobs and the Worker. Harvard University creativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 18, 293–321.
Press, Boston. Yang, H.L, Tang, J.H., 2004. Team structure and team performance in IS development: a
Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly III, C.A., 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolution- social network perspective. Inf. Manag. 41, 335–349.
ary and revolutionary change. CA. Manag. Rev. 38, 8–30. Yu, C.P., Chu, T.H., 2007. Exploring knowledge contribution from an OCB perspective.
Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M., Van de Vliert, E., 1998. Motivating effects of task and Inf. Manag. 44, 321–331.
outcome interdependence in work teams. Group Org. Manag. 23, 12–144. Zander, A., 1979. The psychology of group processes. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 30, 417–451.
Van De Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L., Koenig, R., 1976. Determination of coordination modes
within organizations. Am. J. Soc. 41, 322–338.

11