TITLEOFTHEMASTERTHESIS
Building Projects around Motivated Individuals? The
Effects of Following the Guidelines from the
Scrum-Framework on (Employee) Intrinsic Motivation
Masterthesis
___________________________________________________________________________ COMPOSER
Name : Nancy Elisabeth Maria Kluvers
Student card number : 10145796
INSTITUTION : Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam
Track : Entrepreneurship and Innovation SUPERVISOR
Within MBA Track : Dr. Michele Piazzai, Assistant Professor DATE : 22-06-2018–Final version
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Nancy Kluvers who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and
that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have
been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the
supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 4
Introduction ... 5
Literature Review... 10
The Origins of Scrum... 10
Scrum and Motivation... 12
Work motivation ... 12
Intrinsic motivation ... 14
The Job Characteristics Model and Work Design Theory ... 15
Motivation within the three practices of Scrum ... 19
Sprint Planning... 19 Daily Standup... 20 Retrospective... 22 Method ... 24 Participants ... 24 Measures ... 24
The Work Design Questionnaire ... 26
Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale... 26
Control variables ... 27 Statistical Analyses ... 28 Procedure ... 30 Results ... 32 Descriptive Statistics ... 32 Hypothesis testing ... 35 Discussion ... 40
Implications for theory ... 43
Implications for practice ... 45
Limitations and directions for future research ... 46
Conclusion ... 49
Abstract
Previous research indicated that Scrum could be motivating due to (the design of) its framework (Tessem & Maurer, 2007). If the Scrum framework is positively related to employee motivation, then it can be expected that this is due to the framework’s practices and the guidelines that make up these practices. Therefore, the current study examined the three most used practices of Scrum: the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective (Version One, 2017) and its accompanying guidelines in relation to intrinsic motivation. Work characteristics task identity and feedback were considered potential mediators. Using a cross-sectional survey design, the study yielded N = 75 participants (employees that work with Scrum). The Scrum Practices and Guidelines Questionnaire (SPGQ) was created to measure the extent to which the guidelines from the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective were followed. Furthermore, participants filled out questionnaires on task identity, feedback from the job and intrinsic motivation. The findings indicated that there is a positive relationship between the three Scrum practices and intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, the positive relationship between the extent to which the guidelines from the sprint planning are followed and intrinsic motivation is mediated by task identity. The same result was found for the daily standup. The positive relationship between the extent to which the guidelines from the retrospective are followed and intrinsic motivation is mediated by feedback from the job. The findings are promising, however due to the cross-sectional design of the study, future research should further examine the causal relationships of these variables.
Key words: Scrum, Scrum questionnaire, Scrum guidelines, sprint planning, daily standup,
task identity, feedback, feedback from job, intrinsic motivation, Scrum tenure, tenure, team tenure, team size, sprint duration, sprint stage
Introduction
To be or not to be agile, that is the Shakespearean question that seems to occupy today’s businesses. It is an ever-changing time, and as a result, business is increasingly defined by volatility and uncertainty (Highsmith, 2002a). According to Highsmith (2002a), in these circumstances growth lies in being agile and flexible. Consequently, the interest in a specific innovation has blossomed over the past few years: the agile framework (Highsmith, 2002a). Agile is derived from the term “agility”. In business, agility can be defined as “the ability to both create and respond to change in order to profit in a turbulent business environment” (Highsmith, 2002b, p. 29). However, agile goes beyond the term agility as it is the agile framework through which agility is achieved. Agile is an umbrella term for several iterative and incremental (software) development processes (Version One, 2017), carried out by self-organizing and cross-functional teams (Nerur, Mahapatra & Mangalaraj, 2005; McHugh, Conboy & Lang, 2011). These development processes are incorporated within a framework, which means that teams have to follow a particular set of practices to be considered agile (CPrime, 2016). As such all frameworks share a common vision and core values (Agile Manifesto, 2001; Version One, 2017), incorporate (short) iteration cycles, encourage the adaptation of continuous feedback and change (Nerur et al., 2005, Version One 2017), collaborative decision making (Nerur et al., 2005) and customer involvement (Highsmith, 2002a; Nerur et al., 2005).
The most frequently used agile framework is Scrum (Version One, 2017). Scrum can be defined as an agile ‘framework within which people can address complex adaptive problems, while productively and creatively delivering products of the highest possible value’ (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016, p. 3; 2017, p. 3). Its main component is the “iteration” or “sprint”: an event lasting a “month or less, during which a done or usable and potentially releasable product increment is produced” (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016, p. 9; 2017, p.9).
The iteration consists of multiple practices, of which the most commonly used ones are the sprint planning, the daily standup and the retrospective (McHugh et al., 2011; Version One, 2017). During the sprint planning, the (amount of) work that will be done during the iteration is estimated and prioritized. Second, the daily standup is an event during which the work that is done the previous day is discussed as is the work that will be done during the present day. Third is the sprint retrospective, a meeting in which the team can reflect and give feedback on itself and can make a plan for incorporating this feedback during the next sprint (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017).
In the meantime, a growing number of software project teams start using an agile framework (Abrahamsson, Conboy & Wang, 2009; McHugh, Conboy & Lang, 2011). Consequently, Scrum is gaining momentum as a popular and also an in-demand framework (Scrum Alliance, 2015). Even more notable, although agile frameworks like Scrum were originally formalized for the software development industry, they nowadays are “spreading across a broad range of industries and functions” (Rigby, Sutherland & Takeuchi, 2016, p. 1). Specifically, nowadays Scrum is reaching beyond the IT sector and is represented in multiple industries, functional areas and regions around the world (Scrum Alliance, 2015).
It thus seems that companies in different industries have come to see the benefits of agile frameworks, including Scrum, as this innovation seems to be beneficial in today’s business environment. One of the reasons that this framework could be promising, is that Scrum seems to have the potential of motivating its employees’ due to its design (Tessem & Maurer, 2007). The importance of motivation is underlined by Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier and Vileneuve, as they state that “given today’s economy, a motivated workforce represents both a competitive advantage and a critical strategic asset in any work environment” (2009, p. 1).
Therefore, it is important to fully address the link between Scrum and motivation, because of the various positive effects motivation could have on software engineers and their companies: timely project delivery, productivity, adherence to budgets, increases in staff retention, reduced absenteeism, less turnover and delivering high-quality software systems (Hall, Sharp, Beecham, Baddoo & Robinson, 2008). Given that agile frameworks including Scrum nowadays can be used in multiple industries means that these motivational benefits could go way beyond the IT industry.
Previous research, however, did not yet make an important distinction regarding types of motivation. Nevertheless, the research from Tessem and Maurer (2007), provides an indication that the Scrum framework is intrinsically motivating for the employees that work with it. Intrinsic motivation is the tendency to engage in an activity “because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable” (Deci & Ryan, 2000b, p. 55). People thus do “an activity for its own sake, […] because it is interesting and enjoyable in itself (Gagné, Forest & Vansteenkiste, 2015, p. 179). This study will focus on intrinsic motivation, because it leads to the most positive consequences in functioning – for example by fostering employee engagement and retention (Tremblay et al. 2009). Therefore, there is a need to understand the characteristics which are responsible for an increase in intrinsic motivation for employees that work with the Scrum framework.
Addressing if working with the Scrum framework increases the intrinsic motivation of employees working with it, however, is a very broad question. Important information about Scrum will get lost, as Scrum consists of multiple practices. Therefore, the three most frequently used practices (Version One, 2017) are selected for this research: the sprint planning, the daily standup and the sprint retrospective. If it indeed is the design of the Scrum framework that has the potential of motivating employees (Tessem & Maurer, 2007), it can be expected that the underlying practices of this design (in this case the sprint planning, daily
standup and retrospective) and their accompanying guidelines as described in the Scrum Guide (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017) play an important part in evoking employee intrinsic motivation.
Not much research has been done regarding this matter, and previous research is descriptive and explorative, which has the disadvantage that the interpretation of findings commonly is judgmental. Nonetheless, qualitative research indeed suggests a possible link between these three practices and motivation (McHugh et al., 2011). The research from McHugh et al. (2011) furthermore provides an indication that the guidelines from the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective can contribute to motivation. However, it is not yet clear if the guidelines from the three practices bring about intrinsic motivation, the study is based on a limited number of cases and describes the guidelines that are used within the teams studied. It is known that people who work with the Scrum framework can adjust the guidelines (Darken, 2017) as described in the Scrum Guide (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017) and this also seems to be the case in some of the examples mentioned by McHugh et al. (2011). Therefore, it is not yet clear if following the guidelines of the three Scrum practices does contribute to intrinsic motivation of employees that work with it. Investigating this matter is helpful: because not every Scrum team implies these components, knowing which ones are responsible for an increase in intrinsic motivation could help companies to imply them or to pay extra attention to them.
However, when examining the link between the extent to which the guidelines from the three Scrum practices are followed and intrinsic motivation in general, underlying mechanisms responsible for an increase in motivation would be ignored. One such characteristic is task identity. According to literature on job design (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), task identity has the potential to enhance motivation. It is possible that the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective have the potential to enhance task identity by
concretizing the processes and accompanying necessities that lead to creating a whole piece of work from beginning to end. Another characteristic that potentially increases motivation is feedback from the job (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Scrum could potentially enhance feedback from the job, because it’s iterative nature is accompanied with many feedback loops that at the same time provide the employee with clear information regarding his or her performance.
Summarizing, it is possible that following the guidelines from the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective is positively related to task identity and feedback. According to Houkes, Janssen and Nijhuis (2001), work characteristics such as task identity and feedback from the job are primarily related to intrinsic (employee) motivation. Therefore, this research will look into the relationship between the extent the guidelines from the three Scrum practices are followed and employee intrinsic motivation and whether this relationship is explained by task identity and feedback. Therefore, the central research question is:
How does Following the Guidelines from the Sprint planning, Daily standup and Retrospective relate to Employee Intrinsic Work Motivation?
In addressing the central research question, a cross-sectional survey design was adopted. The participants were N = 75 Dutch employees that work with Scrum framework. They filled out questions regarding following the guidelines from the three Scrum practices, task identity, feedback from the job and intrinsic motivation. The data was analyzed through multiple regression analyses.
The remaining research paper will be structured as followed: firstly, the literature review including theoretical foundations and implications will be discussed. Thereafter, the
methodology-, results- and discussion sections will be discussed. The paper will conclude with a short conclusion on the subject matter and recommendations for future research.
Literature Review
The Origins of Scrum
The fundamentals of Scrum were introduced by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1986) by describing teams incorporating a set of characteristics that would manage the fast-paced, fiercely competitive world of commercial new product development by offering speed and flexibility. These teams have built-in stability, are self-organizing, use (overlapping) development phases, are multi-learning, exercise subtle control and transfer learning (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1986). The characteristics were listed under the term Scrum, or rugby approach, because the authors used analogies from rugby.
As a response, the first Scrum software was created in 1993 and Sutherland introduced the first Scrum practices (Sutherland, 2011). In 1995, Schwaber and Sutherland presented Scrum as an integrated development process (Sutherland, 2011). Eventually, in 2001 the Agile Manifesto was introduced and agile became the umbrella term for Scrum and other iterative and incremental practices (Agile Manifesto, 2001; Version One, 2017). Because Scrum is an agile framework, it is consistent with the four values of the Agile Manifesto (Scrum Alliance, 2016), which affect the entire organization. According to these values: individuals and interactions should be valued over processes and tools, working software should be valued over comprehensive documentation, customer collaboration should be valued over contract negotiation and responding to change should be valued over following a plan (Agile Manifesto, 2001). The agile values and principles are embodied in the iteration and the corresponding practices (i.e. the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective). These principles that underlie the use of agile frameworks like Scrum, provide
employees working in these teams with much more authority. The manager, in contrast, instead of the primary decision maker, becomes more of a facilitator (McHugh et al., 2011).
Besides being consistent with the agile values, (the) Scrum (framework) itself is defined completely in the Scrum Guide. In other words: Scrum, as well as its accompanying practices and guidelines are described in detail in the Scrum Guide. This guide was written by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland (Scrum.org, 2018) who, as already mentioned, introduced the first Scrum practices (Sutherland, 2011). The Scrum Guide can be considered the official guide to Scrum (The Scrum Master, 2017) and “is maintained independently of any company or vendor and therefore lives on a brand neutral site” (Scrum.org, 2018, n.p.).
What is interesting when considering the Agile Manifesto and the Scrum framework (and its accompanying practices and guidelines) is the following. According to the Agile Manifesto, one of the additional principles for the structure to work (McHugh et al., 2011), is that ‘projects should be built around motivated individuals which should be given the needed environment, support and trust’ (Agile Manifesto, 2001, n.p.). According to Tessem and Maurer (2007), the Scrum framework has the potential to motivate those that work with it, due to its design. It is a possibility that the Scrum practices and accompanying guidelines are be motivating (McHugh et al., 2011). In this sense, the Scrum framework sounds promising, because it offers a basis for projects to be built around motivated individuals. Furthermore, having such a motivated workforce offers multiple benefits to companies (Hall et al., 2008; Tremblay et al., 2009). Therefore, the next section addresses in more detail what is known up to now about motivation and the Scrum framework.
Scrum and Motivation
Work motivation
“Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration” (Latham & Pinder, 2005, p. 486; Tremblay et al., 2009, p. 213; Pinder, 1998, p. 11; 2014, p. 11). According to Tremblay et al. (2009), having a motivated workforce gives companies a competitive advantage as well as a critical strategic asset in every possible working environment. If the Scrum framework truly motivates the employees that work with it, it thus provides companies with important benefits. However, it is not yet completely clear if this relationship holds true and what exactly about Scrum is motivating. Previous research regarding this matter is limited. Also, the qualitative research that has been done thus far concerning this matter is descriptive and explorative, which has the disadvantage that the interpretation of findings commonly is judgmental. The presence of variables is derived from interviews and based on those findings, conclusions about a target group are drawn. This is problematic when conclusions based on a limited number of cases, are generalized to a whole target group; should those conclusions even be generalized?
Witworth and Biddle (2008) investigated the positive experiences of practitioners of agile software development. The authors conclude that aspects of agile teams can provide motivation for individuals to work harder. This research focused on agile (frameworks) in general. Because Scrum is an agile framework and thus is consistent with the values of the Agile Manifesto (2001), this could be an indication that Scrum is motivating. However, up to this point this is not entirely clear. Therefore, it is important to specifically research employees working in Scrum teams.
Tessem and Maurer (2007) did a case study to investigate if large Scrum teams ensure motivation in software developers. In this study, a Scrum team which used XP (another agile
framework) practices was used for their research. The researchers conducted five semi-structured interviews and described that several job characteristics were observable in the specific team that was investigated. For example, they describe that the way work is allocated within agile frameworks enables the employees that work with it to easily identify with the tasks that are fulfilled, which is an indication of task identity. Because the presence of these job characteristics (like task identity) is said to ensure motivation, they concluded that a large Scrum team can show properties that are motivating. Therefore, this research provides the first indication that Scrum could be motivating to its design. Unfortunately, this research ignores how the practices that are characteristic of Scrum teams, impact motivation.
McHugh et al. (2011) explored if the daily standup, sprint planning and retrospective bring about motivation or de-motivation in Scrum teams. Seventeen employees, divided over 2 teams, were interviewed. Based on those interviews, the authors distinguish factors that contribute to motivation, but also factors that contribute to de-motivation within agile teams. The authors conclude that the three agile practices can contribute to motivation as well as to demotivation. Although, this was not what McHugh et al. (2011) investigated, this research sheds some light on how the planning, daily standup and retrospective and the guidelines accompanying these three practices contribute to motivation. For example, it is described that the sprint planning involves prioritizing tasks and deciding how many points can be done during the sprint, which is motivating for employees who work with the Scrum framework.
However, as already mentioned, the study is based on a limited number of cases and describes the guidelines that are used within the teams studied. It is known that people who work with the Scrum framework can adjust the guidelines as described in the Scrum Guide (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017). For example, Darken (2017, n.p.) mentions that: “once teams become comfortable with the basics of an agile environment, they usually start breaking the ‘rules’ and start to make changes to adjust to their own particular style”. This
also seems to be the case in some of the examples mentioned by McHugh et al. (2011). It is mentioned that the software demonstration is a part of the retrospective in one of the cases. However, according to the Scrum Guide (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017), the demonstration is part of the sprint review – another practice of Scrum. Therefore, it is not yet clear if and how following the guidelines of the three Scrum practices does contribute to motivation of employees that work with it. Investigating this matter is helpful: because not every Scrum team implies these practices (and their accompanying guidelines), knowing which ones are responsible for an increase in motivation could help companies to imply or to pay extra attention to them.
Intrinsic motivation
What is remarkable considering the research from Witworth and Biddle (2008), Tessem and Maurer (2007) and McHugh et al. (2011), is that an important distinction between types of motivation was not yet made. According to the self-determination theory (SDT), a distinction can be made in types of motivation. One such type is intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000a; Deci & Ryan, 2000b; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Gagné et al., 2015). The SDT is an approach to human motivation and personality (Deci & Ryan, 2000a) which focuses on the why of behavior (Tremblay et al., 2009). Intrinsic motivation is the tendency to engage in an activity “because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable” (Deci & Ryan, 2000b, p. 55). In other words, people perform “an activity for its own sake, […] because it is interesting and enjoyable in itself” (Gagné et al., 2015, p. 179). The focus of this study lies on intrinsic motivation because it leads to the most positive consequences in employee functioning – for example by fostering employee engagement and retention (Tremblay et al. 2009).
Scrum framework are indeed intrinsically motivated. Their interviewees used phrases like: “I like the software” (p. 59) and “I think I’m very happy to be here. I’m honored to be on this project” (p. 60).
Hence, this research will look into the relationship between the extent the rules of the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective are followed and intrinsic employee motivation. It is expected that the more those rules are followed, the better the outcomes will be. To investigate this matter, the work design theory (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), which builds on the Job Characteristics Model (JCM) of Hackman and Oldham (1975; 1980), will be used. Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), identify 21 work characteristics which are placed into three categories: motivational (task- and knowledge characteristics) social and contextual. The basic principle behind the motivational characteristics, is that work will be made more motivating if high levels of these characteristics are present (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). As such the work design theory can be used to take a closer look at the effect of following the guidelines from the three Scrum practices on these work characteristics that can increase employee intrinsic motivation. The work design theory will be described in the next section. However, firstly the JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; 1980) will be explained further, because the work design theory builds on the JCM.
The Job Characteristics Model and Work Design Theory
A robust framework that has identified multiple characteristics that are related to motivation is the Job Characteristics Model (JCM). The JCM is a framework considering job design and it is intended to diagnose existing jobs in order “to determine if (and how) jobs might be redesigned to improve employee motivation and productivity and to evaluate the effects of job changes on employees” (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, p. 159). Hackman & Oldham (1975), distinguish five job characteristics: skill variety, task identity, task
significance, autonomy and feedback. To maintain scope, this research will focus on the two most prominent work characteristics that can be enhanced by following the guidelines from the three practices of Scrum: task identity and feedback (from the job); therefore, these terms will be explained in more detail.
According to Hackman & Oldham, task identity is “the degree to which the job requires completion of a "whole" and identifiable piece of work—that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome (1975, p. 161). When it comes to feedback, the focus here is on feedback from the job itself: “The degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job results in the employee obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance” (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, p. 162).
These characteristics influence three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness of the work, experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work and knowledge of the actual results of the work activities (Fried & Ferris, 1987). These critical states in turn affect work outcomes like internal work motivation (Fried & Ferris, 1987).
The Job Characteristics model remains the dominant theoretical model in work design (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). However, the JCM dates from more than 40 years ago. In the meantime, hardly any new theoretical work has been done regarding this topic (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Considering the modern forms of work and employment, the JCM needs to be updated. In addition, the psychometric properties of the Job Characteristics Model can be considered questionable (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). To take care of these issues, Morgeson & Humphrey (2006) developed the work design theory and accompanying measure: the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). The work design theory is a framework considering work design. If work is designed in such a manner that the characteristics as described by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) are present, work is made more motivating. In contrast to the JCM, the focus of the work design theory is on work- rather than on job
design. Morgeson and Humphrey consider job design a narrower term, and state that work design instead acknowledges “both the job and the link between jobs and the broader
environment” (2006, p. 1322).
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) identify 21 work characteristics which are placed into three categories: motivational (subdivided into task- and knowledge requirements of work), social and contextual. The definitions of both task identity and feedback from the job are derived from the JCM. In line with the JCM, task identity and feedback from job are task requirements of work, falling within the category motivational characteristics: work will be made more motivating if high levels of these characteristics are present (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
“Task identity reflects the degree to which a job involves a whole piece of work, the results of which can be easily identified.
(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006, p. 1323).
“Feedback from job reflects the degree to which the job provides direct and clear information about the effectiveness of task performance. The focus is on feedback directly from the job itself or knowledge of one’s own work activities”
(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006, p. 1323).
Despite the similarities in terminology from the JCM and the work design theory, the work design theory distinguishes itself due to better psychometric properties and accordingly uses a broader approach (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) to test task identity and feedback
(from the job), compared to Hackman & Oldham (1974). In addition, according to the motivational approach, work will be made more motivating if high levels of these characteristics are present (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). More specifically, according to Houkes et al. (2001), work characteristics such as autonomy, skill variety, task significance, task identity and feedback from the job are primarily related to (employee) intrinsic motivation, which is the focus of this research.
Therefore, it is interesting to take a closer look at the following: do(es following) the guidelines from the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective have the potential to enhance these task characteristics? To maintain scope, this research will focus on the two most prominent work characteristics that can be enhanced by following the guidelines from the three practices of Scrum: task identity and feedback from the job. As stated by McHugh et al. (2011), (when following the guidelines) agile projects are broken down into sprints which from the beginning have clear goals that can be seen by the members of the team. Therefore, task identity seems to be very prominent in these teams, as people know that they will be performing multiple tasks from the beginning until the end. It is possible that the guidelines from the sprint planning, daily standup and sprint retrospective contribute to enhancing task identity by concretizing the processes and accompanying necessities that lead to creating a whole piece of work from the beginning until the end.
Also, these three practices could enhance feedback from the job. Sprints can last up to a month. The most common sprint length is two weeks (Scrum Alliance, 2015), due to which the feedback loops within the Scrum team are very short. The short iteration length thus makes it possible to get feedback very often. It is a possibility that the guidelines from the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective enhance feedback from the job by providing employees with direct and clear information about how an employee has performed (during the sprint). The possible relationship between the extent to which the guidelines from the
sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective are followed and task identity or feedback from the job will be addressed in more detail in the following section.
Motivation within the three practices of Scrum
Sprint Planning
The first practice is the sprint planning. According to the guidelines which are described in the Scrum Guide, this is an event during which the work that will be done during the sprint is planned. More specifically, the (amount of) work that will be done during the sprint is estimated and prioritized (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017). The sprint planning answers two questions: what can be done during this sprint and how will the chosen work be done (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017). As explained by Schwaber and Sutherland (2016; 2017), the team tries to forecast its functionality in order to answer the first question. In doing so the entire team collaborates on understanding the work that will be done and jointly determines the objective and sprint Goal. The items will be placed and sequenced on the Product Backlog which is “the latest product increment, projected capacity of the development team during the sprint, and past performance of the development team” (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016, p. 9; Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017, p. 10). It is up to the development team to estimate what can be accomplished during the upcoming sprint.
To answer the second question, the team decides how to transfer the different items on the backlog into “done” product increments that sprint. To do so, the team usually begins with designing the system and the necessary work to turn the different items into working product increments (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017). According to Schwaber & Sutherland (2016; 2017), at the end of every sprint planning each team should be able to explain how it intends to work in a self-organizing way to achieve the sprint goal and how it
will create the anticipated increments within the given time, thereby clarifying whether or not the planning is realistic.
The guidelines which are described seem to present an overall picture: the sprint planning is very much about concretizing: how much work can be done, what exactly needs to be done and by which means can the work be completed. By concretizing the processes and accompanying necessities that lead to creating a whole piece of work, task identity could be enhanced. When a job is designed in such a manner that it highly reflects task identity, improvements in motivation, satisfaction and performance are predicted (Hackman, 1980). Houkes et al. (2001) go a step further by stating that task identity is related to intrinsic (employee) motivation. It thus seems that the guidelines from the sprint planning could possibly enhance task identity and thereby intrinsic motivation.
Daily Standup
The second practice is the daily standup or ‘daily Scrum’ (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017). According to the guidelines which are described in the Scrum Guide, the goal of the daily standup is to keep track of the team’s progress towards the sprint goal and how members are making progress in completing their tasks. As such, this meeting greatly contributes to reaching the sprint goal (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017). Each time, the daily standup is held at the same place, at the same time. In this manner, complexity is reduced. During the event, the Scrum team has 15 minutes to synchronize activities and each member has to come up with a plan for that specific day (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017). To do this, team members discuss the work they have done since the last meeting and forecast what they will be able to do until the next meeting. Three questions are answered by each member of the Scrum team: ‘what he or she did the previous day to help the team reach the sprint goal’, ‘what he or she will do that specific day to help the team meet the sprint
goal’ and ‘if the member sees any hurdles that could prevent him or her from reaching the sprint goal’ (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017).
To sum up, the guidelines from the daily standup seem to be very much about concretizing what team members have done the previous day and about making a plan for the current day. By making this plan, the task that has to be done on that specific day, from the beginning until the end, is made very clear. This notion is supported by the research of McHugh et al., (2011): it was mentioned that the daily standup helps employees working in’ Scrum teams to communicate their daily goals. Similarly, in an interview it was mentioned that the daily standup supported the Scrum team in selecting better and more accurate daily goals (McHugh et al., 2011). In this manner, the daily standup thus could contribute to task identity.
Summarizing, both the sprint planning as described in the previous section, as well as the daily standup seem to present a similar picture: both Scrum practices and their accompanying guidelines seem to be very much about concretizing the processes and accompanying necessities that lead to creating a whole piece of work from beginning to end. Therefore, the guidelines from both Scrum practices could positively relate to task identity. Task identity could mediate the relationship between the extent to which the guidelines from the sprint planning and daily standup are followed and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the hypotheses are as follows:
H1a - There is a positive relationship between the extent to which the guidelines from the sprint planning are followed and intrinsic motivation.
H1b - There is a positive relationship between the extent the guidelines from the sprint planning are followed and motivation and this relationship is explained by task identity.
H1c - There is a positive relationship between the extent to which the guidelines from the daily standup are followed and intrinsic motivation.
H1d - There is a positive relationship between the extent the guidelines from the daily standup are followed and motivation and this relationship is explained by task identity.
Retrospective
The final Scrum practice that is discussed, is the retrospective. According to the guidelines which are described in the Scrum Guide, this meeting is meant for the Scrum team to inspect itself, to give feedback on the way it has been working during the sprint and to make a plan to incorporate this feedback during the next sprint (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017). For teams that have one-month sprints, the event lasts around three hours. For teams that have shorter sprints, the event is usually shorter (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; 2017). The purpose of this event is threefold: “to inspect the state of affairs from the last sprint considering people, relationships, processes and tools”; “to describe the most important things that went well, but also describe possible improvements” and “to create a plan for the next sprint to incorporating these improvements regarding the way the Scrum team works” (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016, p. 12). When the guidelines are properly enacted, the retrospective provides the Scrum team with the opportunity to continuously improve its way of working (Scrum Alliance, 2018).
It thus emerges that feedback is provided during the retrospective. The team reflects on itself and gives general feedback to create a plan for improvements. By doing this, team members derive direct and clear information about their performance. When a job is designed in such a manner that it highly reflects feedback from the job, improvements in motivation
to intrinsic (employee) motivation. It thus seems that the retrospective has characteristics that possibly could enhance feedback from the job and thereby intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the hypotheses are:
H2a – There is a positive relationship between the extent to which the guidelines from the retrospective are followed and intrinsic motivation.
H2b - There is a positive relationship between the extent the guidelines from the retrospective are followed and motivation and this relationship is explained by feedback.
All the variables of interest and the relationships between these variables are depicted in the conceptual model of the current study (Figure 1).
Method
Participants
Using a non-probability convenience sampling approach, the researcher contacted multiple Dutch organizations from different industries out of her personal network. The condition for participation was that these organizations had implemented the Scrum framework. The eventual sample consisted of N = 75 Dutch employees that work with Scrum. These participants had an average (organizational) tenure of M = 4.46 years (SD = 5.99), an average Scrum tenure of M = 3.89 years (SD = 3.27) and an average team tenure of M = 1.26 (SD = 0.98). The invitation to participate in the survey was distributed by the participating firms to the employees within the organization that were working with the Scrum framework. Invitations to participate in the survey were also spread via Facebook, LinkedIn and business cards. To the (potential) participants it was emphasized that their contribution was very important for research purposes. Furthermore, to reduce the likelihood that only Scrum-enthusiasts would participate in this study, participants were informed that completing the survey provided them with the opportunity to be entered into a raffle to win a €20,- Bol.com gift card.
Measures
The Scrum Practices and Guidelines Questionnaire
To measure the extent to which the guidelines from the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective are followed, the Scrum Practices and Guidelines Questionnaire (SPGQ) was developed, as none such questionnaire existed yet. The questions for the SPGQ were derived from the Scrum Guide (Schwaber & Sutherland 2016; 2017), which is the official guide to Scrum (The Scrum Master, 2017). In order to reflect the guidelines from the Scrum Guide as much as possible, it was decided to stick as much as possible to the original wording
used in the Scrum Guide (2016; 2017). The questionnaire consists of 29 items. These 29 items are spread over the three subscales: The sprint planning-, daily standup- and retrospective subscale. All items can be answered on a 7-point likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Low scores on the subscales reflect that the guidelines are followed to low extent. High scores on the subscales reflect the guidelines are followed to high extent. An example from the sprint planning subscale is: “During the Sprint Planning… The work to be performed in the sprint is planned”. An example from the daily standup subscale is: “During the Daily Standup… The Scrum team creates a plan for the next 24 hours”. Lastly, an example from the retrospective subscale is: “The purpose of the retrospective is to… Identify and order the main things that went well”.
Before being administered, however, the SPGQ was checked by several employees that currently work with the Scrum framework. With their feedback adjustments were made in order to improve the quality of the questionnaire. Specifically, two items were deleted from the sprint planning subscale, because the items were not representative for the sprint planning. They were substituted by two items that better suited the guidelines of the sprint planning. Furthermore, some other items were slightly rephrased, to be made more consistent with the Scrum Guide. Also, due to the feedback, small adjustments have been made concerning the layout and punctuation of the questionnaire. The final questionnaire shows good reliability concerning all 3 subscales. The sprint planning subscale had a respectable reliability, with a Cronbach’s α of .77. The daily standup subscale also had a very good reliability: Cronbach’s α is .81. Lastly, the retrospective subscale had a very good reliability as well, with a Cronbach’s α of .89. The final version of the SPGQ is provided in Appendix B.
The Work Design Questionnaire
To measure task identity and feedback from the job, two subscales from the work design questionnaire (WDQ) of Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) were used. The task identity subscale consists of 4 items, the feedback from the job subscale consists of 3 items. Every item can be answered on a 7-point likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Low scores on the task identity subscale reflect low task identity and high scores reflect high task identity. The same applies to the feedback from the job subscale. An example of a question from the task identity subscale is: “the job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of work from beginning to end” (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006, p. 1337). An example of a question from the feedback from the job subscale is: “the job itself provides me with information about my performance” (Morgeson & Humphrey, p. 1338). The task identity subscale had a very good reliability, with a Cronbach’s α of .81. The feedback from the job subscale also had a very good reliability: Cronbach’s α is .84. The WDQ is included in Appendix C.
Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale
To measure intrinsic motivation, the English multidimensional work motivation scale (MWMS) was used (Gagné et al., 2015). Specifically, because the current study focuses on intrinsic motivation, the intrinsic motivation subscale (3 items, e.g., “Because I have fun doing my job”) was used. The general stem considering this questionnaire is “Why do you or would you put efforts into your current job?” (Gagné et al., 2015, p. 196). All items from this questionnaire can be answered on a 7-point likert scale. The scale points are ranged as followed: 1 = “not at all”, 2 = “very little”, 3 = “a little”, 4 = “moderately”, 5 = “strongly”, 6 = “very strongly”, 7 = “completely” (Gagné et al., 2015, p. 196). Low scores on this subscale reflect low intrinsic motivation and high scores reflect high intrinsic motivation. The intrinsic
motivation subscale showed a very good reliability (α = .91). The MWMS was included in Appendix D.
Control variables
“A control variable is simply a third variable considered in a relationship between independent and dependent variables” (Atinc, Simmering & Kroll, 2012, p. 59). There were six such control variables in this study: team size, sprint stage, sprint duration and multiple forms of tenure. Both tenure and team size are common demographic control variables in organizational research (Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016). Kuvaas (2006) furthermore provided evidence of a relationship between tenure and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, tenure was considered a potential control variable. In the current study, three types of tenure were distinguished: organizational tenure, Scrum tenure and team tenure. All types of tenure were measured in the amount of time (e.g. years).
When it comes to team size, Schwaber and Sutherland (2017) state that the ideal Scrum team should not have fewer than three and should not have more than nine members. Previous research indicates that when teams become too big, this is associated with drops in motivation (in general) (Ingham, Levinger, Graves & Peckham, 1974; Kerr & Bruun, 1983). In this case, intrinsic motivation could be positively influenced if the group sizes are between three and nine members. Therefore, team size was included as a control variable, measured in the amount of members.
Lastly, two new control variables were identified in the current study: the sprint stage and the duration of the sprint. Concerning the sprint stage, participants could manually enter if they were at the beginning of a sprint (coded as 1), half-way (coded as 2) or (almost) at the end of a sprint (coded as 3). It is a possibility that as the sprint progresses, one obtains more direct and clear information about the effectiveness of task performance. Therefore, sprint
stage could have a positive influence on feedback from the job. Furthermore, it is a possibility that as the sprint progresses, one is able to complete multiple entire pieces of work from the beginning to the end. For that reason, the sprint stage could have a positive influence on task identity.
Concerning the sprint duration, participants were asked to indicate the duration of their sprint in weeks. If participants indicated that the duration of their sprint varied, the average duration was taken into account. It is a possibility that if the duration of the sprint increases, this provides employees with more direct and clear information about the effectiveness of task performance. For that reason, is it possible that the duration of the sprint has a positive influence on feedback from the job. Furthermore, it is also a possibility that if the duration of the sprint increases, employees are able to complete more whole (small) pieces of work from the beginning to the end. Therefore, the duration of the sprint could have a positive influence on task identity.
Statistical Analyses
All analyses are conducted by means of SPSS version 25.0. Reliability analyses were conducted for all questionnaires. According to DeVellis, reliability coefficients between the .70 and .80 are respectable, coefficients between the .80 and .90 are very good and coefficients much above .90 signify the need to reduce the number of scale items (1991, p. 85, cited in Ong & Van Dulmen, 2006, p. 69). It appeared that the sprint planning subscale had a respectable reliability, with a Cronbach’s α of .77. The intrinsic motivation subscale does not have a reliability substantially above the .90 (Cronbach’s α = .91) and therefore also shows a very good reliability. All other (sub)scales are between the .80 and .90 and therefore have a very good reliability. For all scales, it applied that none of the items would substantially affect the reliability if they would be deleted. Therefore, no items were deleted.
Means for the scores on the sprint planning-, daily standup-, retrospective-, task identity-, feedback from the job- and intrinsic motivation subscales were computed. To observe the relationships between all variables, a Pearson Correlation analysis was conducted for computing correlation coefficients (Field, 2013). The Correlation analysis was conducted two-sided, yielding significant results at the < .05 level and the < .01 level. The correlation matrix of the current study is displayed in Table 1.
All hypotheses were tested by using regression models. ‘For a regression model to generalize one must be sure that underlying assumptions have been met’ (Field, 2013, p. 309). Therefore, before testing the actual hypotheses, multiple hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the assumptions. In each first step, the control variables were added, in the second step the predicator variable (and in the third step the mediating variable). For all analyses, the assumptions of independent errors, normally distributed errors, homoscedasticity and linearity were met. Furthermore, there was no perfect multicollinearity and the assumptions of non-zero variance were met as well.
To test the hypotheses, three mediation analyses were conducted, using the method of Baron and Kenny (1986). This method states that there are multiple conditions that have to be met when testing mediational hypotheses. The method consists of four steps. The first step is to assess if the predictor variable and the dependent variable are correlated (i.e. path c). This step enables testing Hypothesis 1a, Hypothesis 1c and Hypothesis 2a. The second step is determining if there is a correlation between the predictor variable and the mediator (i.e. path a). Thirdly, the mediator has to affect the outcome variable (i.e. path b). Lastly, when there is full mediation, there should not be a significant relationship between the predictor variable and the dependent variable, when the mediator is included in the model (i.e. path c’). However, according to Baron and Kenny, “a more realistic goal may be to seek mediators that significantly decrease Path c rather than eliminating the relation between the independent
and dependent variables altogether” (1986, p. 1176). This phenomenon is also known as partial mediation. A Sobel test will be conducted to assess if significant results were caused by adding the mediator into the model (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
To further inspect the findings resulting from the Baron and Kenny method (1986), the bootstrap method from Preacher and Hayes (2004) was conducted. According to Preacher and Hayes, “a necessary component of mediation is a statistically and practically significant
indirect effect” (2004, p. 717). The bootstrap method therefore enables assessing the (non)significance of a mediation effect, by assessing the (non)significance of the indirect effect (i.e. path ab). Based on 5000 bootstrap samples, the bootstrap method obtains a 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect. In order to speak of a significant indirect effect, the confidence interval should not include zero. The bootstrap method is included in the output from the PROCESS Macro.
All hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS Macro in SPSS. PROCESS operates by conducting multiple regression analyses. Within this Macro, Model 4 for simple mediation (Hayes, 2017) is able to test both the relationships between the predictor variable and the dependent variable as well as the mediating effects. All control variables were entered in the covariates section.
Procedure
Participants received an invitation to participate in the survey via e-mail (forwarded by someone in their organization) or were invited to participate via Facebook or LinkedIn. The researcher also distributed business cards, which contained the link to the survey. Firstly, the participants were presented with the informed consent which described the study in more detail, informed the participant about confidentiality of the research data, the voluntariness of their participation and that there were no risks associated with participating in this study.
Participants were also informed that the study would take roughly 15 minutes to complete. One could either choose to continue or to discontinue participation. In the latter case, one was directed towards the end of the study. After reading and accepting the informed consent, participants could continue their participation and were presented with some questions about their professional experience (e.g., “How long have you been working with Scrum? (the amount of time, e.g. 1.5 years)”). The informed consent and the questions about professional experience are included in Appendix A. Thereafter, to control for order effects – when ‘answers to a given item are influenced by the […] questions that precede it’ (Schuman & Presser, 1996, p. 12) – participants were randomly presented questions about either the three Scrum practices, the work characteristics or intrinsic motivation. Order effects present a threat to interpreting survey results, because that what looks “to be a response due to question form or content may in fact be partly or entirely due to question order” (Schuman & Presser, 1996, p. 23). It is a possibility, that if participants firstly were primed with the framework they work with, this could have an impact on their responses on the task identity, feedback from the job and intrinsic motivation questionnaire. I.e. when reminding someone who works with the Scrum framework about of the guidelines of the framework, someone could realize it is the framework due to which he or she enjoys work. This phenomenon is referred to as a consistency effect, which means “that when a question is preceded by certain others the respondent tends to give answers similar to those given to the preceding ones” (Groves, 2004, p. 478). Therefore, these three blocks were randomized (and were evenly presented) to prevent that the participants were influenced by the presented order of the questionnaires. Lastly, participants were asked some final questions. They were given the opportunity to leave behind remarks considering the survey and to fill out their e-mail to obtain information about the results of the current study and/ or to be entered into a raffle to win a €20,- Bol.com gift card.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
A total of 156 participants started the survey, but a large part (73 participants) completed only the first part of the survey. Because, those participants missed one or more scores on the remaining parts of the survey, they were not included in the analyses. Furthermore, eight participants missed one or more scores for items on the control variables. These participants therefore were not included in the analyses. This left a total of N = 75 participants, whose data was used in the analyses.
According to Field (2013), when a sample size is large enough, normality matters less. This statement is supported by Ghasemi and Zahediasl (2012), who state that violating the normality assumption should not be problematic with sample sizes above 30 or 40. This is because with large enough samples, ‘the sampling distribution tends to be normal’, ‘regardless of what the data looks like’ (Ghasemi & Zahediasl, 2012, p. 486; Field, 2013, p. 184). This implies that parametric procedures can be used, if the normality assumption in these samples is violated (Ghasemi & Zahediasl, 2012). The best advice when having a large enough sample is not using significance tests of normality (Field, 2013). In these cases, it is better to ‘examine the shape of the distribution visually’ and to ‘interpret the value of the skewness and kurtosis statistics’ (Field, 2013, p. 184). The sample size of the current study is N = 75, which is a sample size above 30 or 40. Therefore, instead of conducting tests of normality, the distributions- as well as the values of skewness and kurtosis of task identity, feedback from the job and intrinsic motivation were examined and interpreted.
According to George and Mallery, a skewness and kurtosis value ‘between 1.0 is considered excellent for most psychometric purposes, but a value between 2.0 is […] also acceptable’ (2016, p. 114; p. 115). All values of skewness and kurtosis were < 1, except for
considered acceptable, no transformations were performed. The variables of interest and the relationships between these different variables are displayed in Table 1.
There are a number of things that stand out from the correlation table. Firstly, the Pearson correlation analyses were used to investigate if the predictor variables and the dependent variable are correlated. According to Table 1, there is a positive correlation between the sprint planning and intrinsic motivation, r = .34, p < .01. Also, it appeared that there is a positive correlation between the daily standup and intrinsic motivation, r = .35, p < .01. Lastly, there also is a positive correlation between the retrospective and intrinsic motivation, r = .33, p < .01. These results correspond to the expectations that there would be a positive relationship between following the guidelines of the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective and intrinsic motivation.
Secondly, Pearson correlation analyses were also used to inspect if the predictor variables and the mediating variables are correlated. Table 1 shows that there is a positive correlation between the sprint planning and task identity, r = .34, p < .01, and the daily standup and task identity, r = .38, p < .01. There also is a positive correlation between the retrospective and feedback from the job, r = .38, p < .01. This corresponds to the expectations: if there is mediation, one could expect these variables (the predictor variable and the mediator) to be correlated.
Thirdly, if there is mediation, it can be expected that the mediator and the dependent variable correlate. Consistent with the expectations, Table 1 also shows that there is a positive correlation between task identity and intrinsic motivation, r = .42, p < .01 and between feedback from the job and intrinsic motivation, r = .42, p < .01.
Furthermore, when taking a closer look at Table 1, it appears that there is a positive correlation between team tenure and the extent to which the guidelines from the sprint
* p < .05, ** p < .001 Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations of the Current Study
M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. Scrum Tenure 3.89 3.27 2. Tenure 4.46 5.99 .25* 3. Sprint Duration 2.26 .62 .19 -.00 4. Sprint Stage 2.38 .74 -.06 .07 -.11 5. Team Tenure 1.26 .98 .36** .50** .10 -.11 6. Team Size 6.75 2.93 -.01 .03 .09 .05 -.15 7. Sprint Planning 5.33 .94 .06 .18 -.02 .09 .23* -.08 8. Daily Standup 5.51 .85 .03 .16 -.07 .15 .14 -.08 .64** 9. Retrospective 5.79 .81 .05 .08 .07 .07 .21 -.15 .62** .62** 10. Task Identity 4.94 1.16 -.04 .04 -.06 .00 .06 -.25* .34** .38** .37** 11. Feedback (job) 4.29 1.35 -.10 .05 -.03 -.10 ,24* -.19 .39** .48** .38** .47** 12. Intrinsic Motivation 5.37 1.20 .10 -.05 -.14 -.16 .03 -.07 .34** .35** .33** .42** .42**
planning are followed: the longer a team is together, the better the guidelines are followed, r = .23, p < .01. It is a possibility that when teams are together for a longer period of time, their internal coordination improves – due to which they are better able to follow the guidelines from the sprint planning.
Lastly, it appears that all predictor variables: the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective are correlated. The sprint planning is positively correlated with the daily standup, r = .64, p < .01, and the retrospective, r = .62, p < .01. The daily standup is also correlated with the retrospective, r = .62, p < .01. This makes perfect sense, because the sprint planning, daily standup and retrospective are a part of the same framework: Scrum; they are all part of the same measure. This is also the case for task identity and feedback, which are positively correlated, r = .47, p < .01; both task identity and feedback are work characteristics and they also are part of the same measure. Because the correlating variables were part of the same measure, none of the variables were included as control variables.
Hypothesis testing
Firstly, the PROCESS mediation analysis (Model 4) for testing Hypothesis 1a and Hypothesis 1b was conducted, with the sprint planning as predictor, task identity as mediator and intrinsic motivation as dependent variable. All control variables were entered into the covariates part. It appeared that there is a positive relationship between the sprint planning and intrinsic motivation, = .51, t(68) = ,3.55 p < .001, R2 = .22, F(6, 68) = 3.26, p = .007); the greater the score on the sprint planning subscale, the higher intrinsic motivation. This result provides support for Hypothesis 1a. Secondly, is was assessed if there is a correlation between the sprint planning and task identity. This relationship was significant as well, = .49, t(68) = 3.54, p < .001, R2 = .18, F(6, 68) = 2.40, p = .036, meaning that the higher the score on the sprint planning subscale, the higher task identity. Thirdly, it was examined if
there is a positive relationship between task identity and intrinsic motivation. This was indeed the case, = .35, t(67) = 2.90, p = .005. Fourth, the sprint planning significantly predicts intrinsic motivation, when task identity is included in the model, = .34, t(67) = 2.29, p = .025, R2 = .31, F(7, 67) = 11.46, p < .001. When adding the mediator to the model, Beta decreases from = .51 to = .34. Because all steps yielded significant results, a Sobel test was carried out. This test shows that the partial mediation is significant: Z = 2.19, p = .028. Therefore, task identity partially mediates the relationship between the sprint planning and intrinsic motivation. From the output of the bootstrap method, it appeared that there was a significant indirect effect of the sprint planning on intrinsic motivation through task identity, = 0.169, BCa CI [0.017, 0.418]. The confidence interval does not include zero, which indicates that task identity indeed is a mediator of the relationship between the sprint planning and intrinsic motivation. These results are consistent with Hypothesis 1b. The path coefficients and indirect effects for this mediation analysis are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Mediation Analysis for Sprint Planning on Intrinsic Motivation through Task Identity (N = 75)
Consequent
Task Identity (M) Intrinsic Motivation (Y)
Antecedent
Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p 95% BCa CI
Lower Upper Sprint planning (X) a1 .48 .14 < .001 c1 .51 .14 < .001 Task Identity (M) b1 .35 .12 .005 Sprint planning (X) (M included in the model) c’1 .34 .15 .025 Indirect effect a b .17 .10 .017 .418
Secondly, the PROCESS mediation analysis (Model 4) for testing Hypothesis 1c and Hypothesis 1d was conducted, with the daily standup as predictor, task identity as mediator and intrinsic motivation as dependent variable. All control variables were entered into the covariates part. Firstly, it was examined if there is a correlation between the daily standup and intrinsic motivation. This was indeed the case, = .54, t(68) = 3.49, p < .001, R2 = .22,
F(6, 68) = 3.19, p = .008, meaning the greater the score on the daily standup subscale, the
higher intrinsic motivation. This result provides support for Hypothesis 1c. Thereafter, it was assessed if the daily standup and task identity were related. This relationship was significant as well, = .57, t(68) = 3.90, p < .001, R2 = .20, F(6, 68) = 2.86, p = .015, meaning that the greater the score on the daily standup subscale, the higher task identity. Thirdly, it was examined if there is a positive relationship between task identity and intrinsic motivation – which indeed was the case, = .34, t(67) = 2.82, p = .006. In other words, the higher task identity, the higher intrinsic motivation. Lastly, the daily standup significantly predicts intrinsic motivation, when task identity is included in the model, = .34, t(67) = 2.11, p = .039, R2 = .30, F(7, 67) = 4.15, p < .001. When adding the mediator to the model, Beta decreases from = .54 to = .34. Because all steps yielded significant results, a Sobel test was carried out. This test shows that the partial mediation is significant: Z = 2.24, p = .025. Therefore, task identity partially mediates the relationship between daily standup and intrinsic motivation. From the output of the bootstrap method, it appeared that there was a significant indirect effect of the sprint planning on intrinsic motivation through task identity, = 0.196, BCa CI [0.028, 0.484]. This confidence interval also did not include zero, indicating that task identity is a mediator of the relationship between the daily standup and intrinsic motivation. These results are consistent with Hypothesis 1d. The path coefficients and indirect effects for this mediation analysis are summarized in Table 3.
![[Review of: J. Ingleson (2014) Workers, Unions and Politics: Indonesia in the 1920s and 1930s] - 22134379_170_04_s010_text]()