See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352998977

Motivation in IT Projects: Investigating the Effect of Agile Practices on Team

Members’ Intrinsic Motivation

Conference Paper · July 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 703

5 authors, including:

Armela Memeti Veronika Huck-Fries

Technische Universität München Technische Universität München
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 195 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Manuel Wiesche Helmut Krcmar

Technische Universität Dortmund Technische Universität München
190 PUBLICATIONS 3,405 CITATIONS 488 PUBLICATIONS 4,634 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Armela Memeti on 24 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Association for Information Systems
AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Pacific Asia Conference on Information

PACIS 2021 Proceedings Systems (PACIS)

7-12-2021

Motivation in IT Projects: Investigating the Effect of Agile

Practices on Team Members’ Intrinsic Motivation
Armela Memeti
Technical University of Munich, [email protected]

Veronika Huck-Fries
Technical University of Munich, [email protected]

Manuel Wiesche
Technical University Dortmund, [email protected]

Jason Bennett Thatcher

Temple University, [email protected]

Helmut Krcmar
Technical University of Munich, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2021

Recommended Citation
Memeti, Armela; Huck-Fries, Veronika; Wiesche, Manuel; Thatcher, Jason Bennett; and Krcmar, Helmut,
"Motivation in IT Projects: Investigating the Effect of Agile Practices on Team Members’ Intrinsic
Motivation" (2021). PACIS 2021 Proceedings. 161.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2021/161

This material is brought to you by the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) at AIS Electronic
Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in PACIS 2021 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of
AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected].
 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

Motivation in IT Projects:
Investigating the Effect of Agile Practices on
Team Members’ Intrinsic Motivation
Completed Research Paper

Armela Memeti Veronika Huck-Fries

Technical University of Munich Technical University of Munich
Boltzmannstraße 3, Boltzmannstraße 3,
85748 Garching b. Munich, Germany 85748 Garching b. Munich, Germany
[email protected] [email protected]

Manuel Wiesche Jason Bennett Thatcher

Technical University Dortmund Temple University
Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 12, Speakman 210 1810 N. 13th Street
44227 Dortmund, Germany Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
[email protected] [email protected]

Helmut Krcmar
Technical University of Munich
Boltzmannstraße 3,
85748 Garching b. Munich, Germany
[email protected]

Abstract

Many information technology (IT) projects are still failing, even after attempting to
structure work using agile practices. Using a quantitative analysis of data drawn from 74
IT workers, we investigate the direct and indirect effect of agile practices on team
members’ intrinsic motivation, an important driver of IT worker performance. We
investigate how agile practices directly impact self-determination and indirectly shape
intrinsic motivation by using structural equation modelling. Our results indicate that agile
practices increase professional efficacy and perceived control, while they diminish
psychological ownership. These are then positively related to team members’ intrinsic
motivation.

We extend earlier research on agile information systems development by suggesting that

self-determination serves as an intermediary between agile practices and intrinsic
motivation. For practitioners, our study expounds on why and how agile practices can be
used to strengthen the fulfilment of the employees’ self-determination needs.

Keywords: Agile practices, agile information systems, intrinsic motivation, self-

determination needs, psychological ownership, perceived control, professional efficacy

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 1

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

Introduction
Since the publication of the Agile Manifesto in 2001 (Dingsøyr et al. 2012), many researchers have
investigated the impact of agile practices on information technology (IT) projects and IT workers. While
some people consider agile practices an important innovation, other people question their value (Cohen
et al. 2004). On the one side, many scholars have reported an increase in the success of IT projects
caused by implementing the principles of agility (Serrador and Pinto 2015). On the other side, many IT
projects do not meet the expectations projected by management for success, and many agile ones are
failing (Hastie and Wojewoda 2015). Because agile practices have inconsistent impacts on IT projects,
there is a need for further research that improves understanding of factors that shape their impact on IT
project success.
Agile practices direct attention to developing responsive and people-focused information systems
development (ISD) methods (Lalsing et al. 2012). Agile practices focus on improving collaboration and
communication among humans by restructuring how they develop software and communicate with
stakeholders (Coram and Bohner 2005). However, by changing how we work, agile practices likely
impact employees job satisfaction and motivation. Thus, to increase understanding of how to better
employ agile ISD, research has directed attention to improving understanding of the effects agile
methodologies have on people.
While some research has examined agile practices’ impact on job satisfaction and work engagement
(Prommegger et al. 2019; Tripp et al. 2016), we need a richer understanding of agile practices impact
on employee motivation, especially intrinsic motivation (IM). Intrinsic motivators are those that come
from within a person, for example, feelings of being accomplished, of doing important work, of
autonomy, of freedom (Miner 2005, p. 109). IM is based on the desire for competence and is mediated
by enhancing the people’s sense of self-determination, for instance by providing a choice of what to
work on or what order to work on tasks, and by enhancing a sense of competence through the use of
positive feedback (Miner 2005, p. 109). Examining the link between indicators of self-determination,
such as self-efficacy, and IM is important because extant research has shown that the structure of IT
work impacts outcomes such as professional efficacy (Ply et al. 2012). Thus, in this paper, we
concentrate on investigating how the usage of agile practices affects employees’ sense of self-
determination, directly, and their IM, indirectly.
In this paper, our goal is to improve the understanding of how agile practices in project management
(APPM) as well as in software development (APSD) influence IM both directly and indirectly. Agile
practices influence IM through a connection with the self-determination needs, namely professional
efficacy (PE), psychological ownership (PO) and perceived control (PC), which are strongly positively
correlated with the IM (Deci and Ryan 1980; Deci and Ryan 2000).
The structure of this paper is the following. First, we explain the theoretical background research
regarding APPM, APSD and IM in the context of agile IT. Then, we present the research model as well
as the hypotheses. We continue with the description of the methodology as well as the study design.
Last, we introduce the results of the structural equation model as well as discuss implications and further
recommendations related to the relationship between agile practices and IM.

Theoretical Background
Agile Information Systems Development

Highsmith and Highsmith (2002) define agility as the ability to create change by also responding to
change while creating a profitable business result. The three main characteristics of agility are
incremental procedures, customer collaboration and the focus on people (Sutherland 2017). Self-
organized teams make independent decisions about the implementation of the requirements. The
efficiency of agile teams is increased due to flat hierarchies (Moe et al. 2008).

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 2

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

Agile principles completely move the centre of attention to people and change (Lalsing et al. 2012).
Agile methods become popular in software development, attracting the attention not only of many
researchers but also of many practitioners in other industries as well (Hoda et al. 2017). Agile project
success factors can be classified into five categories: organizational, people, process, technical, and
project. Among them, people, motivated individuals, are a keystone of agile software development
(Melo et al. 2012). By affording opportunities for self-organization and continuous collaboration, agile
methods motivate teams to perform at high levels (Moe et al. 2012; Ramesh et al. 2010).

Intrinsic Motivation at Work

Motivation at work refers to the inclination to apply high effort which supports the achievement of
organizational goals by also satisfying individual needs (Robbins 2016, p. 212). It can be distinguished
between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, which can be additive. The first one refers to compensation
or tangible rewards. The second one is based on the desire for competence and self-determination,
which means that it is mediated by enhancing the people’s sense of self-determination, for instance by
providing a choice of what to work on or what order to work on tasks, and by enhancing a sense of
competence through the use of positive feedback (Miner 2005, p. 109).
Self-determination theory helps to explain how the fulfilment of essential psychological needs triggers
IM. This theory suggests that in an ideal world organizations would fulfil basic psychological needs at
a point between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Hagger and Chatzisarantis 2009); however, evidence
suggests that the most effective motivational systems rely more on designs that rely on intrinsic factors
(such as autonomy) than those that tap into extrinsic factors (such as compensation) (Hurkmans et al.
2010; Mata et al. 2011).
Self-determination theory focuses on three needs: competence, autonomy and relatedness. Competence
means that individuals can learn and grow in an environment, in this case, in their working environment
(Deci and Ryan 1980; Deci and Ryan 2000). PE is the feeling of being competent and finishing the
tasks or assignments given (Bandura 2010). PO directs attention to how one feels about the work itself
and pride in completing work. PC refers to the extent to which people consider the performance of
behaviour to be under their voluntary control (Trafimow et al. 2002) and can arise from autonomy,
which refers to the desire to make decisions on how to integrate the work with the self-sense (Ryan and
Connell 1989).
While extrinsic motivators are important, organizations increasingly turn to IM as a lever to keep
employees from leaving. IT companies, which are preferred by young workers at the beginning of their
career to gain experience and certifications, struggle to retain more experienced workers who lack IM
(Thatcher et al. 2012). Thus, managing the intrinsic rewards becomes a lever to avoid IT workers’
turnover (Thomas 2000).

Motivation in Agile Information Systems Development

Consistent, successful accomplishment of ISD projects hinges on the motivation of the developers
(Procaccino et al. 2005). This is because employees’ motivation strongly correlates with performance
improvement (Beecham et al. 2008). However, the research in agile software engineering is mostly
based on the technical perspective rather than on the connection with the human or social factor (Dybå
and Dingsøyr 2008; Whitworth and Biddle 2007). This, ironically, contradicts a guiding principle of
the Agile Manifesto, which puts people over processes (Fowler and Highsmith 2001). While not the
focus of software engineering, agile practices are frequently connected to motivation, in terms of
strengthening individual and team self-esteem, motivation, job satisfaction, productivity, performance
and maintenance (Asproni 2004; Melnik and Maurer 2006; Tessem and Maurer 2007). Some of the
most frequent motivators in the agile IT field summarised also in table 1, are the identification with the
task, correspondence with the career path, autonomy, perceived level of control and the addressing of

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 3

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

the development needs (Ghayyur et al. 2017; Woit and Bell 2014). These motivators are increased by
how agile shapes understanding of development needs, increases task identification and fosters trust
among team members (Melo et al. 2012).
Agile practices, such as sprints, burndown charts, and retrospectives, have a clear, positive impact on
motivation through their impact on developers’ task autonomy, sense of belonging, and task
identification (McHugh et al. 2010; McHugh et al. 2011). Further, agile practices that demand constant
communication with the customer and frequent deliveries increase the motivation of the developers
(Augustine et al. 2005). Moreover, by dividing the work into small increments, for example, through
sprints, agile practices increase task identification and motivation (Whitworth and Biddle 2007).
Through encouraging activities, such as burndown charts, which make it easier to keep track of the
work done and visualize the progress of the team members, agile practices increase team member
motivation (Melo et al. 2012). Retrospectives enable to clarify the value of the efforts as a whole
increment, which can also motivate the developers for their work (Whitworth and Biddle 2007).
Agile practices can also impact professional efficacy. Continuous integration and testing provide
feedback for the efforts taken by the team members and increase the perception of self-efficacy by
improving enactive mastery (Whitworth and Biddle 2007). Pair programming and refactoring are
related to motivators such as accomplishment feeling and learning opportunities, which increase
efficacy through vicarious learning and have a positive impact on the IM of the employees (Law and
Charron 2005; Melo et al. 2012). Moreover, automated build and testing show a positive connection
with motivators such as learning support, task identification as well as lack of bureaucracy (Law and
Charron 2005). All in all, current research suggests that agile development and management practices
have a positive relationship with the motivation of the IT workers (Kim et al. 2009).

Table 1. Motivators in agile ISD (Melo et al. 2012)

Intrinsic Extrinsic

Task identification Successful company

Career path Sufficient resources
Development needs addressed Good working conditions
Technically challenging work Good work-life balance
Autonomy Job security
Making a contribution Good management
Responsibility Good communication
Trust Lack of bureaucracy

Research Model
Rooted in our literature review, we briefly articulate a research model to investigate the direct and
indirect effects that agile practices in software development (APSD) and project management (APPM)
have on intrinsic motivation (IM). First, we hypothesize that APSD and APPM positively directly
impact the IM of employees (H1 & H2). Then, APSD and APPM positively affect the self-determination
needs: perceived control (PC), psychological ownership (PO) and professional efficacy (PE), which
have a positive correlation with the IM (H3, H4 & H5). Figure 1 illustrates the research model.

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 4

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

Figure 1. Research Model

Direct Influence of Agile Practices on Intrinsic Motivation

Tripp et al. (2016) have proven the positive effect that agile practices have on the perceived job
characteristics and have shown that APPM positively affect job satisfaction. Huck-Fries et al. (2019)
have proven a positive influence on job resources such as perceived meaningfulness and job autonomy.
Agile practices focus their attention on the individual. Self-organization, the freedom to decide by
themselves for the type and amount of work to be delivered, the connection feeling between employees
and company, increase (Iivari and Iivari 2011) and so may do a key intrinsic motivator, their pleasure
in doing their work. Following this research, we suggest that all APPM and APSD positively correlate
with employees’ IM:
H1: The extent of use of APPM positively influences IM
H2: The extent of use of APSD positively influences IM.

Indirect Influence of Agile Practices on Intrinsic Motivation

We suggest that all APPM and APSD have a positive impact on the self-determination needs and
subsequently IM of the employees. McHugh et al. (2011) have found that three specific agile practices,
namely stand-ups, retrospectives and iterative planning, positively influence motivators that are
correlated with PC (e.g. empowerment, autonomy), PE (e.g. good job done) and PO (e.g. identification
with the task). However, they were only concentrated on three project management agile practices and
not specifically on the IM of the employees. The agile practices included in our research are those
considered by Tripp et al. (2016). The APPM studied include iterative delivery, stand-ups,
retrospectives, and burndown charts. We hypothesize:
H3: The extent of use of APPM positively influences self-determination needs.
The agile software development practices included in our research consist of automated build,
continuous integration, coding standards, pair programming, refactoring, and unit testing. All these
practices support the early production of code and increase the flexibility and communication between
customers and developers. Continuous communication and feedback increase the developers’
awareness and makes them part of the project vision (Schneider and Vasa 2006). Thus, we suggest:
H4: The extent of use of APSD positively influences self-determination needs.
Based on the self-determination theory, individuals develop IM constructed on the degree to which
work fulfils their essential psychological needs. If these needs are fulfilled, the individuals start to be
intrinsically motivated by feeling growth, integrity and well-being (Deci and Ryan 1980; Deci and Ryan
2000). We want to review and strengthen these results in our study and thus, propose:

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 5

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

H5: Self-determination needs positively influence IM.

To sum up, our model expects that APPM and APSD have a positive effect on the self-determination
needs of the employees and as a result, also on their IM. We expect to reinforce the theory of self-
determination, which states that IM is positively influenced by the self-determination needs of an
individual (Deci and Ryan 1980; Deci and Ryan 2000).

Methodology
Research Design and Data Collection Procedure

To test the influence of agile practices on IM, we gathered data at one German branch of a global IT
consulting services company that offers professional technology and outsourcing services. The
company employs around 270000 people in over 50 countries. 16309 of those work in the branches
located in Central Europe and 4193 in Germany. The company has not only implemented agile
methodologies in its projects but being an IT consulting corporation, it also offers help to clients to
combine agile practices with their current IT and operating landscape. At our research site, we were
provided access to software developers, business analysts, software testers, team leaders, scrum masters
and consultants.
We used purposive sampling to recruit a sample of IT workers with diverse backgrounds, overall work
experience, and/or specific technical experience. Almost half of our respondents had worked 5 – 10
years; almost 17% were in the first years of their work experience; 15,5% had been working for 11 –
15 years, 8,4% for 16 – 20 years, whereas the rest was at a higher level of their career, having been
working for more than 20 years. Regarding their agile experience, only 1,3% responded that they do
not use agile practices. Around 20% had been in touch with agile practices in the last 1,5 years; 33,8%
had a little bit more experience with 1,5 – 3 years, whereas the rest had been working with agile
methodologies for more than 3 years. Half of the respondents were working as software developers,
whereas 32,4% worked as business or data analysts. The rest was divided between leadership roles,
such as project or team leaders and software testers, as illustrated in table 2. Most of the interviewees
were involved in only one project at the same time and the average duration of each project was more
than 12 months.

Table 2. Participants’ job position (n = 74)

Function in Company Percentage

Project leader 2.7 %
Business/ Data Analysts 32.4 %
Senior manager (e.g. Team Leader) 8.1 %
Software developer 48.7 %
Software tester 5.4 %
Other 2.7 %

Our online survey was accessed 156 times. Of which, 74 observations provided responses of sufficient
quality to use in our analysis (a usable response rate of around 47%). Calculations for the minimum
sample size based on Cohen et al. (2004) (48; α=0,05; 1-β=80%) as well as with the statistical power
analysis program G*Power (55; linear multiple regression test with 2 tails, f 2=0.15, α= 0.05, 1-β= 0.8
and 5 predictors), showed that the sample size was sufficient.
To examine the distribution of our variables, we used the one sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Test and
tested our data against a given normal distribution. The one-sample K-S Test showed a lack of

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 6

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

normality. This motivated us to conduct further tests for skewness and kurtosis. After the necessary
calculations, the results showed values exceeding the guidelines for normally distributed data.
Moreover, our model included two second-order constructs with reflective-formative character and our
sample size was limited (n=74). Given our model included second-order constructs and was not
normally distributed, we chose Partial Least Squares over Covariance Based Squares structural equation
modelling and SmartPLS as the appropriate software for the analysis (Wong 2013). To proceed with
the model analysis, we followed the instructions given by Hair et al. (2016).

Construct Measures

We used measurement scales with good quality criteria that had been used in previously published
research (Taherdoost 2016). All scales were defined as reflective, based on the scales of the respective
authors.
For the usage of APSD and APPM, we were based on Tripp et al. (2016), who uses ten agile practices,
four APPM and six APSD, based on the sixth annual state of agile development survey. APPM, which
support the management of the development project, are daily stand-ups, retrospectives, burndown
charts and iterative planning and delivery. APSD enhance the process of software implementation, and
the ones chosen are unit testing, automated build, refactoring, coding standards, continuous integration,
and pair programming (Tripp et al. 2016). Observing the cumulative percentages, we saw that for pair
programming, more than 90% of the respondents gave an answer below 4, which showed a non-usage
of the practice. The other practices non-usage cumulative percentages were all below 20%. Thus, we
decided to exclude pair programming from our model. The agile practices included in the model
analysis are both APPM (iterative delivery, stand-ups, retrospectives & burndown charts) and APSD
(unit testing, continuous integration, automated build, coding standards and refactoring).
The scales for self-determination needs and IM were taken from psychology. The scale used for PC was
taken from Green et al. (2004). PE measurement scale was based on Schaufeli and Salanova (2007).
The PO scale was based on Brown et al. (2014). Finally, IM was asked by 3 indicator questions. All
items used a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Model Analysis

Our model was analysed in two steps: measurement and structural.

Evaluation of the measurement model: The internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and
discriminant validity were tested. All constructs fulfilled the requirement of Cronbachs’s alpha (value
above 0,7) except PC, which showed a value of 0,649. Before removing items of PC, we decided to do
further tests concerning internal consistency. The construct PC was again very critical with a value of
0,15, which is way below the normally accepted thresholds of 0,6 - 0,7 (Hair et al. 2016, p. 124). We
investigated the single items of PC and had also a look at the outer loadings. Based also on the results
of the analysis of the outer loading, we decided to remove all the items with outer loading values below
0,7. A recalculation showed that Cronbach’s alpha, as well as the composite reliability of PC, improved.
After analysing the outer loadings of our indicators, we observed that there were some problematic
values not only for PC, as expected from the problematic Cronbach’s Alpha, but also one of the
automated build indicators was showing a value under 0,7, so we removed it from the model.
The next step to confirm convergent validity was the testing of the average variance extracted (AVE).
All our constructs reached an AVE value higher than 0,50, so they showed a high level of convergent
validity. Then, we tested if the discriminant validity is ascertained, which means that constructs do not
influence the variation of the other variables except the observed one (Farrell 2010). The cross-loading
analysis showed that all indicative items had a higher correlation with their own constructs than with
the other ones, and the difference was at least 0,10. The correct Fornell-Larcker Criterion values proved
that each construct had more common variance with its indicators than with the other constructs. The

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 7

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

Heterotarait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) tests showed a strong correlation between refactoring and
continuous integration. After observing that two questions for these constructs could be mostly
interpreted as similar to each other, we dropped one of them and rerunning the HTMT results showed
a significant improvement. Thus, the construct’s discriminant validity was proven.
To measure the second-order constructs, we modelled the constructs APPM and APSD as reflective-
formative second-order constructs by following the approach of Wetzels et al. (2009). The first one
consisted of four practices: burndown charts, stand-ups, retrospective and iterative delivery, whereas
the second one consisted of five practices: automated build, coding standards, refactoring, continuous
integration, and unit testing. The reflective formative second-order constructs APSD and APPM were
evaluated based on guidelines by (Hair et al. 2016). The bootstrapping results of the path coefficients
showed that all first-order constructs loaded significantly respectively on APPM and APSD.
Furthermore, all first-order constructs related to APPM and APSD showed a significant correlation,
which is desirable because we defined both second-order constructs as aggregate ones for the
corresponding agile practices (Polites et al. 2012). In conclusion, both of our second-order constructs
were proved to be valid.
As advised by Siponen and Vance (2010), we used the multilevel approach, to investigate the added
effects of APPM and APSD on the model. Firstly, we included PE, PO, PC and their effects on the
dependent variable IM. In this model. 44,2% of the variance of IM was explained by the manifest
variables (R2Model1 = 0,442). The addition of APPM and APSD, in a second model, showed a small
increase of 1,8% to the prediction of the IM variance (R2Model2 = 0,460). Therefore, we conducted a
pseudo F-test by following the instructions of Chin et al. (2003) to see if this change was significant or
not. The result showed that the change in R2 was not significant (F=2.04, df: 1, 74). The null hypothesis,
in this case, states that the first model fits the data as good as the second model including the addition
of agile practices (Mathieson et al. 2001). Given we wanted to test the whole effects that APPM and
APSD have on self-determination needs and as a result on IM, we analysed the indirect effects and total
effects as well and were not based only on the direct effects.
Evaluation of the structural model: The final step of the model analysis was the evaluation of the
structural model, including analysis of the collinearity, R2, and Q2 values. All inner variance inflation
factor (VIF) values below 5 proved the correctness of the model. All Q2 values calculated by the
blindfolding procedure were over 0, which showed that the predictive relevance of the model is
guaranteed (Hair et al. 2016, p. 202). The acceptable values of R2 depend on the research discipline and
complexity of the model, but we referred to Chin (1998) for threshold values for the coefficient of
determination. IM showed a moderate effect with an R2 of 0,460. The other endogenous variables PO
and PE showed also moderate effects with respective values of 0,338 and 0,425, whereas PC can be
considered as weak with its value of 0,270. Altogether, these values show a moderate predictive
accuracy.

Results
Our analysis focused on understanding the effects that APSD and APPM have on IM. Figure 2 shows
an overview of only the significant path coefficients and associated explained variance (e.g. R2).
Firstly, the results showed no direct effect of APPM and APSD on the IM of the employees. With a p-
value over 0.10 and path coefficients respectively 0.192 and-0.103, H1 and H2 had to be rejected.
However, the strong connection between self-determination needs and IM could be confirmed. By
increasing the feeling of PO, PC as well as PE, one could also increase the level of IM for the workers
(path coefficients: PE-IM 0.464, p < 0.01; PO-IM 0.262, p < 0.05; PC-IM 0.362, p<0.05). We have
hereby confirmed H5.

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 8

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

Figure 2. Path Model Estimation

Then, APPM and APSD do not concentrate their impacts on the same self-determination needs (H3 and
H4). APSD have a strong positive correlation with PE (0.438, p < 0.05). This means that the usage of
practices such as unit testing, refactoring or continuous integration increase the perception of self-
efficacy of the developers (H4). Another finding was that APPM affects the other two self-
determination needs but in two opposite ways (H3). PO is affected negatively (-0.536, p < 0.01), which
shows that these practices do not help the employees identify with the task or perceive ownership
towards the work that they do, but they decrease the feeling of belonging and ownership. On the other
hand, PC is strongly positively affected by the usage of APPM (0.438, p < 0.05). This indicates that the
control given to the employees as the basis of the self-organization characteristic of agile methods was
perceived very positively.

Discussion
Theoretical Implications

Our study extends the literature related to IM in general and draws it more closely to the topic of agile
development practices. The foundation of our study was the self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan
1980; Deci and Ryan 2000). We contribute to this literature by connecting agile practices to self-
determination needs and IM. Moreover, we go beyond the work of Tripp et al. (2016), who first drew
attention to APPM and APSD, by elaborating on how agile practices directly impact PE, PO, and PC
and indirectly impact employees’ motivation.
APPM’s effect on IM was not completely as predicted. While positive, we did not find significant direct
effects from APPM on IM or PE. However, the path coefficient APPM - PC greater than 0.5 indicates
that the control given to the employees as the basis of the self-organization characteristic of agile
methods is perceived very positively. This result supports McHugh et al (2011) who state that practices
such as iterative delivery have a positive impact on the autonomy and the responsibility given to the
worker. However, contrary to McHugh et al. (2011), the effect that APPM has on the PO of the
employees is significant, but on the contrary direction. This also reduces the total effect that these
practices have, not only on the self-determination needs but also finally on the IM of the employees.
APSD effects on have on self-determination needs were only partially supported. There is a strong
positive connection between APSD and PE. This finding is consistent with the results of Whitworth and
Biddle (2007), stating that practices such as continuous integration and testing provide feedback for the
efforts taken by the team members and are seen as methods to increase the perception of self-efficacy.
However, given our small sample size and purposive sampling across job categories, these results
should be probed within specific types of IT workers.

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 9

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

Furthermore, our findings shed light on agile, individuals, and intrinsic motivation. The existing
literature does not make a difference between individual and team motivation or between intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. Our research was focused on the individual level, making sure to capture the most
important factors of the IM, because behaviours that are more autonomous and caused by an intrinsic
trigger are more frequently commenced than those caused by an external factor (Hurkmans et al. 2010;
Mata et al. 2011).
Finally, we extend the research related to the effects of agile practices on the IM, joining the studies by
(Law and Charron 2005; Melo et al. 2012; Whitworth and Biddle 2007). We do so by including self-
determination needs in our model, which act as an intermediary for the influence of agile practices on
IM. Our results show that agile practices indirectly impact IM through their effect on the self-
determination of employees. By doing so, our research adds nuance to our understanding of the
relationship between agile practices and IM and agile project success.

Practical Implications

Our study provides interesting insights for practitioners. Managing the intrinsic rewards has become a
very important step to avoid turnover (Thomas 2000). Our study confirmed the strong connection
between self-determination needs and IM. Thus, directing managers attention to PE, PO and PC is a
mechanism to improve IM and increase the quality of IT workers performance.
Firstly, the positive influence that APPM has on PC indicates that agile methods that give control to IT
workers have positive implications for motivation. Practices such as iterative delivery and planning
have a positive impact on the autonomy and responsibility given to the worker. However, this does not
mean that the management positions completely lose their control, as the supervisor support is still
important for the employees (Prommegger et al. 2019). The enforcement and support of these practices
on the part of the management are important to give the workers the level of autonomy needed to
complete their tasks, which increases their IM.
Secondly, the relationship between APPM on PO should direct practitioners’ attention more into
changing the way they follow agile practices to increase the employees’ sense of belonging and task
identification. This can be improved by enabling employees to make creative contributions to their
work, by learning and taking their own decisions (Campbell Pickford et al. 2016).
Thirdly, for managers interested in how APSD builds PE, our work directs attention to practices such
as continuous integration and testing that increase the perception of self-efficacy through the provision
of frequent feedback (Whitworth and Biddle 2007). Also, automated build and testing show a positive
connection with motivators such as learning support, task identification as well as lack of bureaucracy
(Law and Charron 2005). These are all practices that should be further supported in organizations
interested in building employee PE.
Finally, given our study was conducted in an IT consulting company, which is in constant contact with
external clients, it suggests managers consider how agile practices may impact projects that require
cross-organization coordination. Thus, the implementation of agile practices does not only mean an
internal process, where the agile practices are implemented, but it also means a common understanding
and cooperation with the clients to follow the agile practices. Therefore, it is important for all the
stakeholders and employees participating in the projects to understand the advantages that the
implementation of agile practices has on the motivation of the employees, which as a consequence,
increases the success of the project and decreases the turnover rate.

Limitations and Future Work

Our research revealed important findings regarding the correlation of agile practices, self-determination
needs as well as IM. Different from other studies, which have slowly started to investigate the impact
of agile practices on the motivation of employees, our study argues that self-determination should be

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 10

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

included in models that explain how agile practices impact IT workers as they are directly relevant to
the formation of IM. Future research needs to further explicate the correlation between agile practices
and self-determination.
To elaborate on this contribution, future work will need to address several limitations.
First, future work needs to examine a diverse set of companies. Our study was conducted within one
single company. On the one side, it could be advantageous because the results have higher internal
validity. However, from the other side, the results are dependent on the characteristics of the company.
Consequently, the results could be different if the study is conducted in cooperation with companies in
other industries or with different characteristics from ours. Therefore, we recommend conducting the
study with other target groups in various industries.
Second, the time this study was conducted was a difficult one for many companies worldwide, because
of a global pandemic. Presentations, presence workshops and face to face communication were not
possible, which made it more difficult to achieve a high participation rate. Even though power analysis
suggested we met minimum sample requirements, future research should solicit larger samples to more
effectively probe our non-significant paths.
Third, because almost all of the teams at the company in question were already familiar with agile
practices, we could not do a comparison and test the difference in self-determination needs or IM
between groups that use or do not use agile practices. In future work, it would be useful to compare
teams that were more and less familiar with agile methods using a mixed-methods approach. By doing
so, research could build on our work’s focus on linking agile practices to self-determination and IM.
Fourth, as one of the correlations showed a negative direction, contrary to our assumptions, it would be
of great interest to study the reasons why such a negative effect is caused by APPM on the PO. The
investigation of different target groups in other industries and with a different level of agile experience
would be beneficial, to have a better and more complete overview of the impacts that agile practices
have not only on the IM but also on the self-determination needs.
Finally, examining the interplay between the motivators at the individual level with those on the team
level could also help in giving a more complete overview of the topic. The focus of our study was on
individuals and agile practices, but there is more to agility than just individuals’ perceptions of agile
tools, techniques, and meetings. Changing the focus from the correlation between IM and agile practices
to the one between teams, motivation and agile practices could yield important insights on how to
increase the impact of agile development on ISD success.

Conclusion
In this paper, we examined the effects that APPM and APSD have on the self-determination needs and
IM of the employees. We followed a quantitative approach by using an online survey and the data
collection was conducted in an IT consulting company located in Germany. The research model was
based on the self-determination theory by Deci and Ryan (2000) and can be seen as its extension and
application to the field of agile IT. Our results demonstrate that even though there is no direct influence
of the agile practices into IM, they can be used to encourage and strengthen the fulfilment of self-
determination needs. APPM have a positive effect on the PC of the employees, whereas the PO is
affected negatively. APSD have a positive impact on PE. Finally, all self-determination needs positively
influence IM. With our study, we have come one step closer to closing the research gap of the influence
of agile practices on the human psychological factor. However, further investigations have still to be
made about the human factor in agile research. As Cockburn and Highsmith (2001) say, “Agile is for
people” and a motivated individual is key to achieve success.

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 11

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

References
Asproni, G. 2004. "Motivation, Teamwork, and Agile Development," Agile Times (4:1), pp. 8-15.
Augustine, S., Payne, B., Sencindiver, F., and Woodcock, S. 2005. "Agile Project Management:
Steering from the Edges," Communications of the ACM (48:12), pp. 85-89.
Bandura, A. 2010. "Self‐Efficacy," The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology), pp. 1-3.
Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H., and Sharp, H. 2008. "Motivation in Software
Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review," Information and software technology (50:9-
10), pp. 860-878.
Brown, G., Crossley, C., and Robinson, S. L. 2014. "Psychological Ownership, Territorial Behavior,
and Being Perceived as a Team Contributor: The Critical Role of Trust in the Work
Environment," Personnel psychology (67:2), pp. 463-485.
Campbell Pickford, H., Joy, G., and Roll, K. 2016. "Psychological Ownership: Effects and
Applications," Saïd Business School WP (32).
Chin, W. W. 1998. "The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling," Modern
methods for business research (295:2), pp. 295-336.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., and Newsted, P. R. 2003. "A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable
Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation
Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study," Information systems research (14:2),
pp. 189-217.
Cockburn, A., and Highsmith, J. 2001. "Agile Software Development, the People Factor," Computer
(34:11), pp. 131-133.
Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., and Costa, P. 2004. "An Introduction to Agile Methods," Adv. Comput.
(62:03), pp. 1-66.
Coram, M., and Bohner, S. 2005. "The Impact of Agile Methods on Software Project Management,"
12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based
Systems (ECBS'05): IEEE, pp. 363-370.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. 1980. "The Empirical Exploration of Intrinsic Motivational Processes," in
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Elsevier, pp. 39-80.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. 2000. "The" What" and" Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the
Self-Determination of Behavior," Psychological inquiry (11:4), pp. 227-268.
Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., and Moe, N. 2012. "A Decade of Agile Methodologies:
Towards Explaining Agile Software Development," Journal of Systems and Software (85), pp.
1213-1221.
Dybå, T., and Dingsøyr, T. 2008. "Empirical Studies of Agile Software Development: A Systematic
Review," Information and software technology (50:9-10), pp. 833-859.
Farrell, A. M. 2010. "Insufficient Discriminant Validity: A Comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and
Shiu (2009)," Journal of business research (63:3), pp. 324-327.
Fowler, M., and Highsmith, J. 2001. "The Agile Manifesto," Software Development (9:8), pp. 28-35.
Ghayyur, S., Ahmed, S., Naseem, A., and Razzaq, A. 2017. "Motivators and Demotivators of Agile
Software Development: Elicitation and Analysis," International Journal of Advanced
Computer Science and Applications (8).
Hagger, M. S., and Chatzisarantis, N. L. 2009. "Integrating the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Self‐
Determination Theory in Health Behaviour: A Meta‐Analysis," British journal of health
psychology (14:2), pp. 275-302.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M. 2016. A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (Pls-Sem). Sage publications.
Hastie, S., and Wojewoda, S. 2015. "Standish Group 2015 Chaos Report-Q&a with Jennifer Lynch. ."
Highsmith, J. A., and Highsmith, J. 2002. Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Addison-Wesley
Professional.

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 12

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

Hoda, R., Salleh, N., Grundy, J., and Tee, H. M. 2017. "Systematic Literature Reviews in Agile
Software Development: A Tertiary Study," Information and Software Technology (85), pp. 60-
70.
Huck-Fries, V., Prommegger, B., Wiesche, M., and Krcmar, H. 2019. "The Role of Work Engagement
in Agile Software Development: Investigating Job Demands and Job Resources," 52nd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Hurkmans, E., Maes, S., De Gucht, V., Knittle, K., Peeters, A., Ronday, H., and Vlieland, T. V. 2010.
"Motivation as a Determinant of Physical Activity in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis,"
Arthritis care & research (62:3), pp. 371-377.
Iivari, J., and Iivari, N. 2011. "The Relationship between Organizational Culture and the Deployment
of Agile Methods," Information and software technology (53:5), pp. 509-520.
Kim, S., Hwang, S., and Song, S. 2009. "An Empirical Analysis on the Effects of Agile Practices on
Motivation and Work Performance of Software Developers," in: Korean Society for
Management Information System Conference. pp. 529-544.
Lalsing, V., Kishnah, S., and Pudaruth, S. 2012. "People Factors in Agile Software Development and
Project Management," International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (3:1), p.
117.
Law, A., and Charron, R. 2005. "Effects of Agile Practices on Social Factors," Proceedings of the 2005
workshop on Human and social factors of software engineering, pp. 1-5.
Mata, J., Silva, M. N., Vieira, P. N., Carraça, E. V., Andrade, A. M., Coutinho, S. R., Sardinha, L. B.,
and Teixeira, P. J. 2011. "Motivational “Spill-over” During Weight Control: Increased Self-
Determination and Exercise Intrinsic Motivation Predict Eating Self-Regulation,").
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., and Chin, W. W. 2001. "Extending the Technology Acceptance Model:
The Influence of Perceived User Resources," ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for
Advances in Information Systems (32:3), pp. 86-112.
McHugh, O., Conboy, K., and Lang, M. 2010. "Motivating Agile Teams: A Case Study of Teams in
Ireland and Sweden," International Research Workshop on IT Project Management.
McHugh, O., Conboy, K., and Lang, M. 2011. "Using Agile Practices to Influence Motivation within
It Project Teams," Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, (23:2), pp. 59-85.
Melnik, G., and Maurer, F. 2006. "Comparative Analysis of Job Satisfaction in Agile and Non-Agile
Software Development Teams," International conference on extreme programming and agile
processes in software engineering: Springer, pp. 32-42.
Melo, C. d. O., Santana, C., and Kon, F. 2012. "Developers Motivation in Agile Teams," 2012 38th
Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications: IEEE, pp. 376-
383.
Miner, J. B. 2005. Organizational Behavior: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. One.
ME Sharpe.
Moe, N. B., Aurum, A., and Dybå, T. 2012. "Challenges of Shared Decision-Making: A Multiple Case
Study of Agile Software Development," Information and Software Technology (54:8), pp. 853-
865.
Polites, G. L., Roberts, N., and Thatcher, J. 2012. "Conceptualizing Models Using Multidimensional
Constructs: A Review and Guidelines for Their Use," European Journal of Information Systems
(21:1), pp. 22-48.
Procaccino, J. D., Verner, J. M., Darter, M. E., and Amadio, W. J. 2005. "Toward Predicting Software
Development Success from the Perspective of Practitioners: An Exploratory Bayesian Model,"
Journal of Information Technology (20:3), pp. 187-200.
Prommegger, B., Huck-Fries, V., Wiesche, M., and Krcmar, H. 2019. "Agile and Attached: The Impact
of Agile Practices on Agile Team Members’ Affective Organisational Commitment," in: 14th
International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik,. Siegen, Germany.
Ramesh, B., Cao, L., and Baskerville, R. 2010. "Agile Requirements Engineering Practices and
Challenges: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Journal (20:5), pp. 449-480.

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 13

 Intrinsic motivation in agile information systems development projects

Robbins, S. P. 2016. Organizational Behavior.

Ryan, R. M., and Connell, J. P. 1989. "Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Examining
Reasons for Acting in Two Domains," Journal of personality and social psychology (57:5), p.
749.
Schaufeli, W. B., and Salanova, M. 2007. "Efficacy or Inefficacy, That's the Question: Burnout and
Work Engagement, and Their Relationships with Efficacy Beliefs," Anxiety, stress, and coping
(20:2), pp. 177-196.
Schneider, J.-G., and Vasa, R. 2006. "Agile Practices in Software Development-Experiences from
Student Projects," Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'06): IEEE, pp. 10
pp.-410.
Serrador, P., and Pinto, J. K. 2015. "Does Agile Work?—a Quantitative Analysis of Agile Project
Success," International Journal of Project Management (33:5), pp. 1040-1051.
Siponen, M., and Vance, A. 2010. "Neutralization: New Insights into the Problem of Employee
Information Systems Security Policy Violations," MIS quarterly), pp. 487-502.
Sutherland, K. S. a. J. 2017. "The Scrum Guide™," Scrum (ed.).
Taherdoost, H. 2016. "Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation
of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research," International Journal of Academic Research in
Management (5), pp. 28-36.
Tessem, B., and Maurer, F. 2007. "Job Satisfaction and Motivation in a Large Agile Team,"
International Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software
Engineering: Springer, pp. 54-61.
Thomas, K. W. 2000. Intrinsic Motivation at Work: Building Energy & Commitment. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Trafimow, D., Sheeran, P., Conner, M., and Finlay, K. A. 2002. "Evidence That Perceived Behavioural
Control Is a Multidimensional Construct: Perceived Control and Perceived Difficulty," British
journal of social psychology (41:1), pp. 101-121.
Tripp, J., Riemenschneider, C., and Thatcher, J. 2016. "Job Satisfaction in Agile Development Teams:
Agile Development as Work Redesign," Journal of the Association for Information Systems
(17), pp. 267-307.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., and Van Oppen, C. 2009. "Using Pls Path Modeling for
Assessing Hierarchical Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration," MIS
quarterly), pp. 177-195.
Whitworth, E., and Biddle, R. 2007. "Motivation and Cohesion in Agile Teams," International
Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering: Springer,
pp. 62-69.
Woit, D., and Bell, K. 2014. "Do Xp Customer-Developer Interactions Impact Motivation? Findings
from an Industrial Case Study," Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative
and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, pp. 79-86.
Wong, K. K.-K. 2013. "Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (Pls-Sem) Techniques
Using Smartpls," Marketing Bulletin (24:1), pp. 1-32.

Twenty-fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2021 14

View publication stats