Study Context Balancing Individual and Collaborative W

scope at every level of the organization [12]. Self-management can also directly influ- ence team effectiveness since it brings decision-making authority to the level of op- erational problems and uncertainties and, thus, increases the speed and accuracy of problem solving [13]. Even though there are several studies on the benefits of self-organizing teams, there is substantial variance in research findings regarding the consequences of such teams on such measures as productivity, turnover, and attitudes [10, 13]. Tata and Prasada [13] found that employees really need to affect managerial decisions in order to achieve the putative benefits of a self-managed team. It is important that the team does not experience autonomy that is only symbolic. The fact that autonomy can simultaneously reside at both the group and the indi- vidual level in a work group is often neglected in studies of self-management [1]. A group may have considerable discretion in deciding what group tasks to perform and how to carry them out, but individual members within the group may have very little discretion or control over their jobs. Encouraging individual autonomy has been shown to have many positive effects in both laboratory and field research [2]. Offering workers greater individual autonomy increases: the degree to which extrinsic motivation offered employees is internalised [14], job satisfaction and positive work attitudes [15-17]. Greater internalisation of extrinsic motivation has been shown to lead to effective performance on tasks requir- ing creativity, cognitive flexibility and conceptual understanding [18-20]. These are the very characteristics of software development work. Practices that increase indi- vidual autonomy are, therefore, extremely valuable, especially if they can be lever- aged to provide real value to the employer. Kirkman and Rosen [21] emphasized the importance of taking both individual and group effects into account, stating that ”what is needed most in the team effectiveness literature is research that examines empowerment at the individual and team levels simultaneously.” Additionally, a practical implication of Langfred’s [1] findings is that, if an organization believes in letting teams be more self-managing, great care must be taken in the implementation. Autonomy at the individual level may conflict with autonomy at the group level, producing countervailing influence on the cohe- siveness and, indirectly, effectiveness of the team. An organization could thus experi- ence little or no results from empowering employees. As far as the authors are aware, there is no empirical work from the software industry on how the balance between individual and team autonomy can be achieved. 3 Research Method Given the focus discussed above, we choose a case study that would allow us to in- vestigate our research question.

3.1 Study Context

The case study was undertaken at Atlassian, a medium-sized company selling mass- market software. The software is also used internally in Atlassian, which means that the developers are also users of the software. This is seen as a positive thing within the company and something that may be important in facilitating a practice like FedEx Day. For instance, the program manager commented that “the fact that we use our own products to help communicate and to help foster that culture is a really cool reinforcing kind of loop and it means that everyone owns their own products and we all use [the Atlassian products] internally, so it means you can be really proud of a product… In some of the companies I previously worked at I’ve had no idea how to use our products or what the typical user’s problems might be”. The company is based in Australia but has offices in several countries in Europe and the United States. Software development is undertaken at all of these locations. The company has, since its inception, used a combination of XP and Scrum, and has undergone rapid growth; approximately doubling its size each year of its seven year existence. Atlassian is an open company with important company details being available to all employees. Internal and external wikis and blogs are used heavily and these often host lively discussions about the company. As one of the managers commented, “eve- rything gets documented on the [intranet], everyone has buy in and everyone has a say in everything so that’s why it’s such a cool place to work”. The founders of the company were responsible for the initial development of some of Atlassian’s products. They still play a role in software development and are well- known within the company for quickly developing prototypes of new features. When interviewed, the head of engineering commented on this practice: “Yes, especially [one of the founders]. But hes prototyping, hell be: I cant tell you what I want, so let me code it real quick, then I’ll show you, thats [one of the founders]. Yeah its scary.” The attitude displayed by the founders towards prototyping has translated itself throughout the company to a preference for action rather than just words or ideas. One of the core company values is for individuals within the company to be proactive, not just to have ideas but also to do something about them. A tech lead discussed this aspect of Atlassian’s culture: “its just ideas and I have ideas and I want other people to see my ideas, our company isnt as big on it. Its basically do it. Dont just tell me about some great dashboard, show me a prototype, do something, make it happen in the product or something.”

3.2 Data Sources and Analysis