Mastery As A Motivator For Software Developers
Mastery As A Motivator For Software Developers
Mastery As A Motivator For Software Developers
Software Projects
Executive Summary
The literature on software development shows there is a strong link between developer
motivation and the success of a software project, meaning motivation is a critical issue for
project managers. A recent book by business writer Daniel Pink proposes that mastery is a
key motivational factor for modern information workers, such as software developers. He
defines mastery as "the desire to get better and better at something that matters". Based on
this, the following thesis is proposed - that mastery is an effective means of motivating
group, and are typically growth-oriented employees, who need challenges and also value
technical competence. Research shows that two key motivators for software developers are
having their development needs addressed and engaging in technically challenging work.
solve problems and master new skills. The motivators identified above correspond closely
with this concept. Therefore, this paper concludes that mastery is an effective means of
This conclusion has implications for the managers of software projects, as well as software
team leaders. For example, it suggests that providing training and using new technology can
outcomes.
4 Models of Motivation................................................................................................................................................... 8
8 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
9 References..................................................................................................................................................................... 23
The impact of “soft” or “human” factors on the success of software development projects
has long been recognised. DeMarco & Lister (2013) state that “The major problems of
[software development] are not so much technological as sociological in nature.” One of the
key concerns is software developer motivation, with many studies now asserting a
relationship between developer motivation, productivity and project success. A large body
of literature has built up around this subject (e.g. Beecham et al. 2007, Sharp et al. 2009,
César et al. 2012, França 2014). Strategies to improve project success are of great interest to
all involved in project management, and hence this topic has been selected.
One popular contribution to the field came from business writer Daniel Pink, who released a
bestselling book called "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" (Pink 2010).
Pink summarises his message in this way - "Carrots & sticks are so last century. Drive says
for 21st century work, we need to upgrade to autonomy, mastery and purpose" (Pink 2010,
p. 203). Much of the book is spent describing and applying these three terms.
Pink believes his theory is especially applicable to workers in the creative and information
industries (Pink 2010, pp. 21-33). He references a number of studies in his book, but does
not seek to prove his ideas with academic rigour. This paper will take one element of Pink's
theory, mastery, and conduct a targeted literature review that will confirm it is a useful way
levels of performance
The literature on this subject variously refers to software engineers, software developers
and computer programmers. This paper assumes that these are interchangeable, and will
César et al. (2012) state that, “Motivation can be generically defined as the set of ‘factors or
events that energize, channel, and sustain human behavior over time’”. For the purpose of
their study on engineering motivation, however, they come up with a more practical
definition: motivation is an “employee’s willingness to apply effort in a task”. This paper will
This paper is a literature review only. No new field research has been undertaken to
confirm the results. Certain deductions and conclusions have been drawn from the
Note also that this paper is a targeted literature review – it presents a positive argument in
favour of the proposed thesis. It does not aim to present a thesis and antithesis and evaluate
both equally.
developer performance. In his seminal work on the subject, Weinberg observed that
developers with similar levels of intelligence, experience and training could still produce
Subsequent research has broadly confirmed Weinberg’s thesis. Drawing on several studies,
Sharp et al. (2009) report that “Motivation in software engineering is recognized as a key
success factor for software projects”. França et al. (2011) explain that “Motivation is
McConnell (1996, p. 40) concurs, stating that “Study after study has shown that motivation
probably has a larger effect on productivity and quality than any other factor”. Beecham et
al. (2007) observe that “Motivation in Software Engineering is reported to have the single
largest impact on practitioner productivity and software quality management.” They also
Software Engineering.” Asghar and Usman (2013) state that “…previous research shows
that motivation is amongst the most frequently highlighted causes of software projects
Referencing a classic case study on the subject, Walsh and Schneider (2002) explain that it –
development methodology into such a situation would not likely have changed
impact on success.”
Nierstrasz (2004) also finds a powerful link between software developer motivation and
output. In reviewing the research, he notes that "technology has only a limited effect on
between individual developers” and that “motivation [has] repeatedly been shown to far
“Software developers do better work and stay with one company if they’re
al. (2014) across various occupations, which concluded that “…motivation is a medium to
Why does motivation lead to better performance and more successful projects? A recent
analysis of several case studies (França 2014) helps supply the answer. It found the
software developers –
Careful Careless
Focused Distracted
Communicative Uninvolved
Involved Lazy
Hard-working Indifferent
Interested Bored
Pro-active Absent
Troublemaker
It is evident that the behaviours on the left will lead to better project outcomes. These
findings confirm an earlier meta-analysis (Beecham et al. 2008) that showed motivated
developers were not only more productive but also tended to display higher employment
retention levels.
apply effort in a task” (César et al. 2012). Motivated software developers are more focused,
involved and hard-working than unmotivated developers, and so are more productive in
their jobs. Given this, it is not surprising that multiple studies have affirmed that developer
motivation is strongly linked with both individual performance and project success.
Having defined motivation and explained its relationship to developer performance and
Employee motivation has been studied for a long time, and numerous motivation models
have been devised. In a systematic review of the literature covering software developer
motivation, Hall et al. (2009) identified eight different motivation models that had been
applied by researchers. Two of these were much more popular than the others – the Job
Characteristics Theory and the Motivation-Hygiene Theory. Given the prevalence of these in
The Job Characteristics Theory (JCT) states that the nature of the work itself is the most
important fact with regards to motivation. Each job is rated against “five core dimensions” –
skill variety
task identity
task significance
autonomy
job feedback
Using these ratings, an overall figure called the Motivational Potential Score (MPS) of the job
is calculated. Each employee is then rated according to their need for internal growth and
development, and given a Growth Need Strength (GNS) rating. According to the theory,
when the GNS of the employee matches the MPS of the job, the employee will be highly
The Motivation-Hygiene Theory (MHT) divides motivational factors into two classes –
Intrinsic factors, which are internal to the employee (such as responsibility) and can
Extrinsic (or hygiene) factors, which are external to the employee (such as pay) and
better performance
The following intrinsic and extrinsic factors were identified in the original theory –
Achievement Pay
Work conditions
Personal life
Job security
According to this theory, to motivate employees to achieve better performance “there must
be sufficient intrinsic factors in their jobs. The extrinsic conditions of a job will not do this”
Both the Job Characteristics Theory and the Motivation-Hygiene Theory are referred to in
Both motivational theories described above suggest that different people will be motivated
by different job types (the Job Characteristics Theory actually makes this explicit). It is
A systematic literature review by Beecham et al. (2008) identified 92 studies on the topic of
software developer motivation, and one of their research questions concerned occupational
grouping. According to their meta-analysis, the majority of studies confirmed “that Software
França et al. (2011) performed a follow-up literature review several years after the study by
Beecham et al. (2008) and identified an additional 53 relevant papers. Between them, these
meta-studies found that software developers exhibit the following characteristics (ranked
Growth-orientated Autonomous
Introverted Growth-orientated
their characteristics include growth-orientation, a need for challenge and the valuing of
technical competence. Applying the Job Characteristics Theory, it is clear that developers
exhibit a high Growth Need Strength and require jobs with a correspondingly high
Motivational Potential Score (Bartol & Martin 1982, Beecham et al. 2008).
Having determined that software developers comprise a distinct occupational group with
certain characteristics, specific motivators for this group can now be identified. The
literature reviews by Beecham et al. (2008) and França et al. (2011) are here used to
One limitation is that both meta-analyses primarily drew upon papers from the United
States and Europe, though a small number of articles were sourced elsewhere. The bias was
not intentional – it simply reflected the paucity of research available from other regions.
Preliminary research by Asghar and Usman (2013) has found that, “National culture
The following table shows the most important motivators identified in each meta-study.
The motivational factors are ranked by frequency of citation. Note that in some cases the
Identify with the task - Employee has clear goals, understands the purpose of the
assigned task and also comprehends how it supports the “big picture”. The
employee also has a personal interest in the work, finds it satisfying and is given an
Employee participation – Employee identifies with the company and believes their
Career path – Employee has the opportunity to advance their career via
Rewards and incentives – Employee receives pay increases and other benefits in
performance
interesting
Trust/respect – Mutual trust and respect exist between the employee and fellow
workers
The two meta-studies contain many similar items though the rankings are often quite
different. This difference might be explained by the fact that the later study covered a much
Both studies paint a picture of employees who are motivated primarily by the nature of the
job itself, with other factors being secondary. This picture is consistent with other research
results in this field (e.g. Tessem & Maurer 2007, Sach, Sharp & Petre 2011).
path and development needs addressed should be noted. These factors were ranked highly in
both meta-studies. According to the Job Characteristics Theory, this is consistent with
software developers possessing high Growth Need Strength (Bartol & Martin 1982,
Examining software developer hygiene factors (de-motivators) will help provide a “negative
confirmation” of the thesis. The meta-studies identified above have yielded the following
lists of hygiene factors, once more ranked by citation frequency. As before, some
levels, physical isolation, company instability, poor job security and a lack of
resources
organisation
Task complexity – Tasks are either too complex or not complex enough (i.e.
boring)
We should note the presence of task complexity and lack of promotion opportunities in the
amongst software developers (Hall et al. 2009). Both of these hygiene factors confirm the
challenges.
This paper has examined the defining characteristics of software developers and identified
their motivators and de-motivators. This section will examine the assertion put forward in
Pink explains mastery as "the desire to get better and better at something that matters"
(Pink 2010, p. 110). He suggests that information workers are highly motivated by jobs that
This type of motivation has been studied by psychologists for many years and is labelled
solve a problem or master a skill or task which is at least moderately challenging for him or
Most of the research concerning mastery motivation has focused on children and
adolescents, though Morgan, Harman & Maslin-Cole (1990) point out that their definition is
not specific to any age. They note the following characteristics of mastery motivation –
too easy will not provoke mastery motivation (as the skill is already mastered), and
The lack of mastery motivation studies focused on adults (let alone software developers) is
a limitation that must be acknowledged. However, the key point to note is that Pink’s
psychological phenomenon.
This section will draw the various threads of evidence together. We have seen that mastery
work determinedly to unravel a problem or improve a skill (Morgan, Harman & Maslin-Cole
1990). What is the evidence that software developers would be especially disposed toward
mastery motivation?
Beecham et al. (2008) presented evidence that software developers are a distinct
occupational group, with certain characteristics. Furthermore, this study and the follow-up
study by França et al. (2011) both found that developers are growth-oriented people, who
require challenges and also value technical competence. Beecham et al. (2008) stated that
“Software Engineers displayed very high growth needs and were concerned about learning
These characteristics closely match the definition of mastery motivation given by Morgan,
Harman & Maslin-Cole (1990), who defined it as the drive “to solve a problem or master a
skill” that is reasonably difficult or challenging. This correspondence strongly suggests that
motivation.
This conclusion is confirmed when we look at the explicit motivational factors identified by
developers themselves. The meta-studies by Beecham et al. (2008) and França et al. (2011)
both found that having technically challenging work and development needs addressed are
two of the crucial motivators for software developers (with development needs being
A recent case study by França (2014) provides a confirming example of this. In one
organisation it was observed that “frustrated growth needs, caused by poor career
development support and other organisational factors, were the core forces that reduced
contemporary study, this one focusing on agile software development teams, found that
“The strongest result [motivator], therefore, is that agile methods address development
needs of specialization and training” (Melo, Santana & Kon 2012), which also tends to
interviews with software developers. This study concluded that “’The work’ is the most
frequent theme emerging from responses to the questions investigating the enjoyable and
motivator in the original systematic literature review, ‘technically challenging work’” (Sach,
performance.
This paper has considered the use of mastery to motivate software development
robustly asserts that there is a significant link between the motivation of the developers and
software project success, meaning this is an important issue for project managers.
Motivated developers are more focused and hard-working, and hence are more productive
in their jobs.
The consensus view of the research is that software developers are a discrete occupational
group and are marked by certain characteristics. Amongst other features, they are growth-
oriented employees, who value both challenges and technical competence. Furthermore,
two important meta-analyses both found that performing technically challenging work and
having their development needs addressed are significant motivators for software
developers.
significant software developer motivators identified above both correspond with this
definition, as does the growth-oriented nature of most software developers. Therefore, this
paper finds that mastery is an effective means of motivating software developers to high
levels of performance. One caveat is that only a small amount of relevant research has been
Affording developers the opportunity to use new technology and skills in their work
These are, of course, tentative. Ideally, each item above would be tested in one or more
future studies. Confirmation of these conclusions would provide project managers and
software team leaders with important strategies for motivating their staff.
Asghar, I. & Usman, M. 2013, ‘Motivational and De-motivational Factors for Software
Bartol, K. & Martin, D. 1982, ‘Managing Information Systems Personnel: A Review of the
Beecham, S., Sharp, H., Baddoo, N., Hall, T. & Robinson, H. 2007, ‘Does the XP environment
meet the motivational needs of the software developer? An empirical study’, in Agile
Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H. & Sharp, H. 2008, ‘Motivation in Software
Cerasoli, C., Nicklin, J. & Ford, M. 2014, ‘Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives jointly
p. 980.
César, A., França, C., de LC Felix, A., & Da Silva, F. 2012, ‘Towards an Explanatory Theory of
DeMarco, T. & Lister, T. 2013, Peopleware: productive projects and teams, 3rd edn, Addison-
Wesley.
França, A. 2014, ‘A theory of motivation and satisfaction of software engineers’, PhD Thesis,
França, A., Gouveia, T., Santos, P., Santana, C., & da Silva, F. 2011, ‘Motivation in software
Engineering (EASE 2011), 15th Annual Conference on, IET, pp. 154-163.
Hall, T., Baddoo, N., Beecham, S., Robinson, H., & Sharp, H. 2009, ‘A systematic review of
Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 18, no. 3, p. 10.
Hall, T., Sharp, H., Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., & Robinson, H. 2008, ‘What do we know about
Education.
Melo, C., Santana, C. & Kon, F. 2012, ‘Developers motivation in agile teams’, Software
Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), 2012 38th EUROMICRO Conference on,
Morgan, G., Harmon, R. & Maslin-Cole, C. 1990, ‘Mastery motivation: Definition and
Software and Systems Engineering in the Future, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 274-
282.
Pink, D. 2010, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Canongate Books.
Sach, R., Sharp, H. & Petre, M. 2011, ‘Software Engineers Perceptions of Factors in
Sharp, H., Baddoo, N., Beecham, S., Hall, T., & Robinson, H. 2009, ‘Models of motivation in
software engineering’, Information and Software Technology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 219-
233.
Tessem, B., & Maurer, F. 2007, ‘Job satisfaction and motivation in a large agile team’, Agile
Walsh, K. & Schneider, H. 2002, ‘The role of motivation and risk behaviour in software