Engineering Management Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/uemj20

Agile Practices and IT Development Team Well-Being:

Unveiling the Path to Successful Project Delivery

Sarmann I Kennedyd, Adel A. Zadeh, Jeonghwan Choi & Shawn Alborz

To cite this article: Sarmann I Kennedyd, Adel A. Zadeh, Jeonghwan Choi & Shawn
Alborz (25 Oct 2024): Agile Practices and IT Development Team Well-Being: Unveiling
the Path to Successful Project Delivery, Engineering Management Journal, DOI:
10.1080/10429247.2024.2413710

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2024.2413710

© 2024 The Author(s). Published with View supplementary material

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 25 Oct 2024. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1432 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uemj20
ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2024.2413710

Agile Practices and IT Development Team Well-Being: Unveiling the Path to

Successful Project Delivery
Sarmann I Kennedyda, Adel A. Zadeh b
, Jeonghwan Choic, and Shawn Alborza
a
University of Texas Dallas; bNortheastern University; cUniversity of Maine

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Agile methods have become popular in the field of software development, offering improved efficiency Agile Principles; Job
and product quality. Despite this widespread use, fewer studies have explored in one model their effect Satisfaction; Job Stress; Job
on job stress, psychological safety, job engagement, and enhanced job and career satisfaction, which are Engagement; Psychological
Safety; Career Satisfaction;
all the factors that can impact project success delivery. Our study surveyed software development teams
Project Success
with extensive agile experiences. The findings showed that agile practices have a positive influence on
job and career satisfaction, better job engagement, improved psychological safety, and project success EMJ FOCUS AREAS
delivery. However, there are high levels of job stress reported that negatively affect job satisfaction and Engineering Management
project results. Therefore, successfully implementing agile methods depends on maintaining sustainable Profession; Knowledge
development practices and improving the level of motivation in the agile teams. Management; Leadership;
Program; Project
Management

Introduction
negatively impact project success when using agile methods
Since the introduction of the Agile Manifesto in 2001, the like Scrum, Kanban, and XP.
use of agile methods has grown, especially in software devel­ Conversely, sustainable development, a key agile principle,
opment and delivery (Shrivastava, 2010; Wiesche, 2021). helps ensure successful project delivery by promoting
Agile methodologies are often more effective than tradi­ a healthy, manageable work pace over the long term, prevent­
tional upfront plan-driven approaches like Waterfall, espe­ ing burnout and stress in each iteration (Fowler & Highsmith,
cially when customer requirements are not clear from the 2001). Agile teams, including product owners, project man­
start and continuous customer involvement throughout the agers, developers, and quality analysts, must maintain a steady,
development process. The 15th Annual State of Agile Report healthy work pace to avoid burnout. This underscores the
(2021), highlights that key reasons for adopting agile importance of another agile principle: maintaining
include the need for speed and flexibility in dynamic envir­ a sustainable development pace. Fowler and Highsmith
onments and the desire to enhance team alignment (2001) emphasize the importance of motivated, self-
throughout the software delivery process (Nicholls et al., managing teams. These teams are trusted to make their own
2015). decisions about task assignments and maintain a sustainable
However, not all experiences with agile adoption are posi­ pace, reducing the constant emergency mode described in
tive. Many blog posts and online discussions criticize agile negative blog posts (Church, 2015).
adoption, particularly from the software development commu­ Agile methodologies enhance employee productivity, moti­
nity, often highlighting negative experiences. Examples of vation, and involvement while improving team coordination
negative perceptions include headlines like “Why Don’t We on projects (Uludağ et al., 2021). Tessem (2014) found that
Like Scrum Anymore?” (Ingaldi, 2021), “Developers Should agile processes increase work satisfaction and motivation
Abandon Agile” (Jeffries, 2018), and “Why “Agile” and espe­ among software developers due to their higher levels of
cially Scrum are terrible” (Church, 2015). empowerment compared to non-agile developers. The author
Scrum, the most popular agile framework (Bott & Mesmer, also noted that empowered agile teams experience greater
2020), is often described in these discussions as creating career satisfaction, higher motivation, and longer career
a constant state of emergency, leading to increased job stress. tenure.
Additionally, these environments can diminish psychological Thus, it’s crucial to study how agile teams handle the
safety among team members, resulting in lower job engage­ ongoing pressures of sprint deadlines and project priorities.
ment and career satisfaction (Church, 2015; Ingaldi, 2021). Laanti (2013) surveyed well-being in agile environments, par­
These combined factors likely reduce job satisfaction and ticularly focusing on Kanban and Scrum methodologies. The

CONTACT Adel A. Zadeh [email protected], Northeastern University, 360 huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115
Refereed Research Manuscript Accepted by Handling Associate Editor: Edson Pinheiro de Lima, PhD.
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2024.2413710
© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The
terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

research investigated the impact that a sustainable pace and ● Assessing the potential role of job satisfaction as
successfully managing stress had on the empowerment of a mediator, influencing the impact of psychological
teams. The findings revealed that teams that consistently safety, job stress, and job engagement on the successful
maintained a sustainable pace achieved a better workload delivery of agile projects.
balance and were more effective in managing stress. There
has been a lack of study on the influence that agile techniques This study aims to advance engineering management by
have on the job perceptions of team members (Tripp et al., revealing agile project management dynamics. Analyzing
2016). This is even though agile methods are known to these elements’ direct and indirect effects will yield these
increase motivation and work satisfaction. This research fresh insights.
endeavors to investigate the connection between job satisfac­
tion and the accomplishment of agile projects, with a special
Job Satisfaction
focus on the ways in which job satisfaction affects the results of
projects. In addition, it intends to contribute to the existing Although the agile methodology has been extensively applied
body of knowledge by exploring the ways in which job stress, across various sectors over time, research exploring its influ­
career satisfaction, psychological safety, and job engagement ence on job satisfaction remains scarce. Job satisfaction reflects
influence job satisfaction, and consequently, the success of the extent to which employees find their work fulfilling or in
a project. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) will be utilized harmony with their principles (Morris & Venkatesh, 2010;
to accomplish this goal. This will involve the analysis of the Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), embodying individuals’ percep­
causal links that exist between these variables, which will tions and feelings toward their employment (Aziri, 2011).
provide insights into the direction and influence of these Research by Cockburn and Highsmith (2001) underscored
causes. the capacity of agile approaches to bolster employee output,
satisfaction, and overall wellness. Subsequent investigation by
Fisher (2003) suggested that employees are more inclined to
Theoretical Framework invest in the prosperity of their work environment when they
experience job satisfaction. Earlier examinations have demon­
Agile Project Success
strated that diminished job satisfaction can lead to subpar
A project’s success depends on many stakeholders’ opinions. project execution, endanger the achievement of projects, and
Baccarini (1999) identifies two main factors: product and project undermine broad objectives (Jugdev & Müller, 2005).
management success. Product success means the product meets The investigation by Melnik and Maurer (2006) comparing
its standards, whereas project management success means mana­ agile and traditional software development teams highlighted
ging the project well. Success is defined as having a larger impact that the adoption of agile methodologies is largely driven by
and benefiting many stakeholders, not only being efficient the aim to improve employee satisfaction.
(Serrador & Turner, 2015). Agile methodologies may substan­ Researchers found that larger teams who utilized Scrum,
tially change project results by overcoming traditional methods’ a particular agile methodology, reported better levels of enthu­
strict constraints (Papatheocharous & Andreou, 2014). siasm and job satisfaction (Rietze & Zacher, 2022). Agile teams
Agile project management challenges quality, timeliness, benefit from fewer hierarchical structures, better flexibility,
and budget performance and requires customer engagement and higher levels of team motivation. The higher job satisfac­
and team adaptability (Kerzner, 2003). tion, higher emotional involvement in the firm, and improved
Agile principles, which promote job autonomy and alleviate employee engagement are all outcomes that may be attributed
stress, have the potential to enhance job satisfaction and pro­ to these characteristics. When compared to traditional, plan-
ject success (Fitzgerald et al., 2006; Laanti, 2013). Psychological oriented techniques, agile procedures result in much greater
safety within agile teams enhances both creativity and perfor­ levels of satisfaction among the clients (Kropp et al., 2020). By
mance, resulting in improved project outcomes (Zhao et al., highlighting the effectiveness of agile approaches in enhancing
2022; Zhou et al., 2020). job satisfaction, this difference shows the importance of agile
This study examines job satisfaction and agile project per­ practices.
formance to fill a gap in project management research. Agile As a result of enhanced autonomy, different skill sets, and
project environments affect IT software development job customer involvement, agile development is associated with
engagement, job satisfaction, career satisfaction, psychological a positive association with job satisfaction, as it creates
safety, and job stress, but the extant research does not fully a more rewarding work environment (Setor & Joseph,
explain how. All these variables are crucial for project success. 2019). Agile approaches, which are distinguished by their
This research aims to investigate the following inquiries: iterative approach and the incorporation of talents from
a wide range of team members, significantly increase work
● Understanding the interplay among job engagement, job satisfaction (Tripp et al., 2016). Using a case study,
stress, career satisfaction, and psychological safety within a previous study demonstrated the positive influence that
the agile project framework and how these factors collec­ Scrum teams’ high levels of self-management have on devel­
tively influence job satisfaction. opment work outcomes (Tessem, 2014), which ultimately
● Exploring the relationship between job satisfaction of IT results in greater levels of employee satisfaction and motiva­
software development team and the successful comple­ tion. This impact is a result of the priority that the agile
tion of agile projects. framework places on self-organizing teams that are able to
 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 3

independently manage their workflow and the allocation of reduces job stress, and it may indirectly affect project
tasks (Moe et al., 2010). success.
In light of this information, the purpose of the inquiry is to
investigate the considerable connection that exists between H2: Job stress is negatively correlated with agile project
being satisfied in one’s IT development work while using success.
agile project frameworks. Consequently, the following hypoth­
esis is put up for consideration: H3: Job stress is negatively correlated with job satisfaction.

H1: Job satisfaction positively correlates with project success. H4: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between job
stress and agile project success.

Job Stress
High levels of stress in the workplace have a detrimental influ­ Career Satisfaction
ence on performance and can lead to undesirable feelings and
actions at work. The level of job satisfaction is influenced by Career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and agile project suc­
both direct and indirect impacts. cess are key to understanding organizational dynamics in
Severe job stress can negatively impact performance, beha­ software development. Career satisfaction—positive feelings
vior, and emotions, as demonstrated by the correlation and prospects for career advancement (Arthur et al., 2005)
between job stress, job satisfaction, and the success of agile —is essential for employee engagement, organizational
projects. Low job performance can be attributed to factors such competitiveness, and productivity. This suggests that link­
as role ambiguity, employment instability, and task overload ing professional identity with agile project values improves
(Joy & Kumar, 2018) career satisfaction and project performance (Adams et al.,
Through the definition of roles, the distribution of tasks, 2006).
and the creation of a supportive workplace, agile techniques Employee motivation and engagement show how career
have the potential to minimize work-related stress, hence satisfaction influences agile project performance. Project
boosting job satisfaction (Gomes Silva et al., 2022; Rietze & teams need professional development, good feedback, and
Zacher, 2022; Venkatesh et al., 2020). a sense of belonging to succeed (Safavi & Karatepe, 2018;
Sustainable Scrum practices decrease overtime, impacting Seiler et al., 2012). These factors improve cooperation,
work-life balance (Mann & Maurer, 2005). By reducing team productivity, career satisfaction, and agile project success.
workload, agile techniques can improve project delivery, Job and career satisfaction are linked with professional
according to Huck-Fries et al. (2019), agile practices foster growth and work-life balance. A clear career path boosts
a stress-free working mind-set. job satisfaction and organizational productivity (Mwaniki
Several factors affect job stress, job satisfaction, and agile & Muturi, 2020).
project performance. Job features can generate stress, lowering Career satisfaction indirectly affects agile project perfor­
satisfaction and performance (Barnes-Farrell et al., 2005). mance, showing a complicated relationship. Career satis­
Insecurity, ambiguous roles, and severe workloads cause stress faction increases job satisfaction and agile project success
(Joy & Kumar, 2018). In contrast, George and Dimitrios (2008) indirectly. Therefore, firms should prioritize career satis­
claimed that stress itself might boost contentment by challen­ faction to improve agile project outcomes (Jiang & Klein,
ging and disrupting routine. These findings may demonstrate 2002; Turner et al., 2008).
the complex link between job stress, job satisfaction, and agile Career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and agile project per­
project performance. formance are interconnected in this study. It takes
Despite their challenges, agile project initiatives can boost a comprehensive approach by hypothesizing on the direct
job satisfaction (Kropp et al., 2020; Pinto et al., 2014). Agile and indirect linkages between career fulfillment and agile
approaches reduce stress due to their flexibility and focus on project performance, mediated via job satisfaction. Career
continual improvement. Iterative and adaptive, agile may make satisfaction and project success are thus linked by job satis­
typical stresses like customer expectations easier to handle faction. High career satisfaction boosts job satisfaction and
(Hoda et al., 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2020). Agile techniques agile project success. Job satisfaction indirectly influences
explain better task responsibilities and their allocation, improv­ project performance by creating a healthy and positive
ing job satisfaction (Gomes Silva et al., 2022; Rietze & Zacher, work environment (Turner et al., 2008).
2022; Venkatesh et al., 2020). Work-life balance is promoted by
Scrum (Huck-Fries et al., 2019; Mann & Maurer, 2005). H5: Career satisfaction is positively correlated with job
This study claims that job stress directly affects agile satisfaction.
project success, using job satisfaction as a mediator, given
the ambiguous effects of agile approaches on stress. Stress H6: Career satisfaction is positively correlated with agile pro­
from unclear responsibilities and large workloads might ject success.
affect workplace performance. Agile approaches can boost
job satisfaction and minimize job stress and improve pro­ H7: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between career
ject success delivery (Joy & Kumar, 2018). Job satisfaction satisfaction and agile project success.
4 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

Job Engagement Methods

Job engagement represents the enthusiasm and commitment Operationalizing the Theoretical Constructs
of employees to their roles, indicating a state of energized
Hypotheses were developed to investigate the ways in which
dedication (Tims et al., 2013). It’s seen as an individual’s active
job engagement, job stress, career satisfaction, and psycholo­
involvement with their work efforts (Roberts & Davenport,
gical safety impact both job satisfaction and the effectiveness of
2002), crucial for enhancing productivity and organizational
project delivery within agile project contexts. This was done to
competitiveness (Griffin et al., 2008). The agile manifesto’s
answer the research questions that were presented in the pre­
emphasis on people over processes (Fowler & Highsmith,
ceding section. These hypothesized relationships were then
2001) aligns with this, promoting collaboration through
empirically tested using a survey.
Scrum practices (Müller et al., 2021).
This study measured job satisfaction in agile using variables
Job engagement is a key metric for job satisfaction and the
such as recognition, belongingness, job security, and wages.
extent of turnover among agile professionals (Bakker, 2017).
These factors determine job satisfaction (Melnik & Maurer,
Agile methodologies boost job satisfaction and team efficacy,
2006; Rietze & Zacher, 2022). The questions included items
attributed to the deeper engagements within the agile environ­
such as ‘I receive recognition for a job well done (Recognition);
ments (Malik et al., 2021; Peeters et al., 2022). In agile envir­
‘I feel secure about my job’ (security); ‘I feel good about my
onments, development IT teams associated with high
job’ (Belongingness); ‘My wages are good (Wages). The scale
engagement often deliver superior software swiftly (Tripp &
for job satisfaction and agile methodology was adopted from
Riemenschneider, 2014). The agile framework, with its flat
(Macdonald & Maclntyre, 1997). See the Appendix A for
structure and autonomy, enhances job satisfaction, dedication,
detailed Job Satisfaction constructs.
and engagement (Rietze & Zacher, 2022). Principles such as
Job stress in agile workers has been assessed with variables
self-management positively influence team engagement and
such as the pressure a team member feels from their work due
project delivery outcomes (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). This
to workload, time limits, and fast delivery requirements. The
synthesis underscores the direct link between job engagement
survey questions included “My job requires me to work fast”
and job satisfaction in agile settings.
(Fast delivery requirements); “My job experiences a large
increase in workload” (Workload); “My job leaves me with
H8: Job engagement positively correlates with job satisfaction.
little time to get things done” (Time Limits); “I am often
unclear on what my responsibilities are (Role uncertainty).
The scale for job stress was adopted from Caplan et al. (1975).
Job engagement has been measured using factors like job
Psychological Safety
motivation levels when working on agile projects. The ques­
Psychological safety refers to the extent in which an employee tions range from ‘I completed my work punctually (on time),”
perceives that they are free from danger and supported by their I am task oriented, I do a great deal of work.’ Questions were
workplace (Baer & Frese, 2003). Employees are able to take asked about supervisor support, commitment to complete the
interpersonal risks and express themselves without fear of assigned work, and energy to complete the work. The scale for
negative repercussions when they work in environments that job engagement and agile methodology was adopted from
have a high psychological safety (Baer & Frese, 2003; (Morris & Venkatesh, 2010; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Edmondson, 1999). These environments create trust and col­ In this study, psychological safety was assessed using vari­
laboration via the presence of high psychological safety. ables such as “recognition,” “optimism,” “hope,” and “open­
A direct and positive association between psychological safety ness,” which are considered key components of psychological
and job satisfaction is hypothesized to exist among the parti­ safety. The survey questions employed in this research covered
cipants in this study. In an atmosphere where there is a high a range of topics such as the recognition of unique skills and
level of psychological safety, individuals of the team are able to talents, the ability to raise problems openly, the perception of
freely express their thoughts, admit when they are wrong, and safety in taking risks, and the assurance that team members’
innovate without the fear of experiencing adverse repercus­ efforts are valued and respected. The scale for measuring
sions when they speak up (Clark, 2022). psychological safety was adopted from Edmondson (1999).
According to a previous studies, workplaces with high psy­ Multiple validation studies of the psychological safety mea­
chological safety have been associated with considerable surement tool have demonstrated sufficient consistency, with
increases in worker satisfaction (Stray et al., 2016). Further, it a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.707 indicating acceptable
has been demonstrated via research that agile methodologies reliability.
that place an emphasis on psychological safety have the poten­ In this study focusing on career satisfaction among agile
tial to improve team relations by fostering transparency and workers, the evaluation criteria included “professional devel­
productivity (Rietze & Zacher, 2022; Valentine et al., 2015). As opment,” “success,” “job security,” and “financial stability.”
a result, the findings of this study suggest that psychological The scale used to measure career satisfaction was adopted
safety within agile teams considerably boosts job satisfaction, from Greenhaus et al. (1990). The questions included in the
which ultimately results in improved project achievement. research related to career satisfaction are “success I achieved in
my career (achievement), “progress made toward meeting my
H9: Psychological safety positively correlates with job career goals (career security), “progress achieved toward
satisfaction. income goal (economic stability), “progress made toward the
 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 5

H8 H9
Job Psychological
Job Satisfaction
Engagement Safety

H1
H3 H6
H4 H7

H2 H5 Career
Job Stress Project Success
Satisfaction

Exhibit 1. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

development of new skills (professional development). selected, as the other responses were either incomplete or
Validation studies confirmed the consistency of the career invalid.
satisfaction measurement tool (Cronbach’s alpha = .823). The survey included 60 female and 143 male respondents,
Additionally, the variables that assessed the criteria for with 63% (62 individuals) having 1–5 years of work experience.
project success were “budget delivery,” “on-time delivery,” Among them, 54% utilized the Scrum framework, primarily in
“stakeholder satisfaction,” and “quality work.” The scale for the IT sector, while 30% used Kanban. Software developers
project success was adopted from (Serrador & Turner, 2015). constituted 46% of the agile professionals surveyed, with
The question for this research work ranged from “projects Scrum Masters accounting for 25%. In addition to other soft­
being delivered within budget,” “timely completion of the ware development team roles such as business analysts, quality
projects,” conformance to customer specification, and “con­ assurance, architecture designers, and GUI interface designers.
sistently produced high-quality work.” Multiple validation This sample offers a representative view of Agile framework
studies of the measurement of project success confirmed the users, especially in IT roles such as software development and
reliability of the project success measurement tool (Cronbach’s organizations focused on software product development. The
alpha = 0.785). The theoretical constructs and their sources are demographic detail is shown in Exhibit 2 below.
provided in Exhibit 1.
Structural Equation Modeling Analyses and Confirmatory
Factor Analysis
The Sample and Adequacy of the Data Collection Method
The proposed hypotheses were tested using Structural Equation
The hypotheses were tested using data from an online survey Modeling (SEM) to explore not only the relationships but also
instrument through a quantitative analytical approach. The the causal pathways between job stress, job engagement, psy­
survey instrument included 15 questions, and it was shared chological safety, career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and pro­
with participants that use agile frameworks in various industries ject success. This approach allows for a more comprehensive
and agile practitioners including teams utilizing Product understanding of how these constructs influence each other.
Owners, Scrum Masters, Architects, and Designers in their SEM analysis was conducted using AMOS 24 on a path
agile project development work. Responses were made on model with computed factors to evaluate the relationships
5-point Likert-type scales: 1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 among the latent factors that have the proven benefit of theo­
(Undecided), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly agree). The question­ retical framework assessment (Hair et al., 2014; Kline, 2011;
naire was related to ‘job engagement levels when working in an Reisinger & Turner, 1999). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
agile project,’ job satisfaction levels in an agile project;’ ‘job stress was used to evaluate the survey’s Likert scale data against the
or the pressure a team member feels from their work due to specified study model and hypotheses using software develop­
workload, time limits, and fast delivery requirements;’ and ‘psy­ ment professionals’ survey data input. Fit indices like chi-
chological safety if the project team are comfortable to bring up square fit statistics/degree of freedom (CMIN/DF),
issues or ask questions without negative consequences. Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of
A Qualtrics survey link was shared using LinkedIn, Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root Mean Square
WhatsApp, and Reddit forums. Professionals from various Residual (SRMR), and PClose were used to assess the model’s
software development backgrounds and geographies partici­ fit. SPSS and AMOS was employed to analyze the data (Hair
pated in the survey, with many respondents from the Asia- et al., 2014; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2011).
Pacific region. A total of 349 survey responses were collected As a result, rather than calculating the latent factors sequen­
over two months. After a detailed inspection, only 204 were tially in the traditional multiple regression models, the
6 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

Exhibit 2. Survey Participant Demographic Breakdown Exhibit 3. CFA Model Fit Measures and Threshold Comparisons (Hu & Bentler,
IT Role 1999)
Measure Estimate Threshold Interpretation
Analyst (Requirement Gathering) 8%
Architecture 1% CMIN 186.357 – –
Design (UI) 2% DF 135 – –
Other 3% (χ)2/DF 1.38 Between 1 & 3 Excellent
Quality Assurance (Testing) 8% CFI 0.970 >0.95 Excellent
Software Developer (Programmer) 46% SRMR 0.058 <0.08 Excellent
System Integrator 1% RMSEA 0.044 <0.06 Excellent
Product Owner 6% PClose 0.746 >0.05 Excellent
Scrum Master 25%
Gender
Female 30%
Male 70% thresholds of χ2 between 1 and 3; CFI > 0.95; SRMR < 0.08;
Region RMSEA < 0.06; PClose < 0.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The out­
Africa 4% comes of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and con­
Asia-Pacific Area 55% struct validity are concisely presented in Exhibit 3.
Europe 7%
Middle East 3%
North America (US & Canada) 24%
Other 5% Results and Discussions
South America 2%
Descriptive Statistics Results
Education
High School 2% Essential descriptive statistical metrics such as means, standard
Bachelor 69%
Master 25% deviations, correlations, and reliability indices of the examined
PhD 2% variables are detailed in Exhibit 4. The reliability of the key
Years of Experience variables in this study has been confirmed through Cronbach’s
<1 Year 5% alpha calculations, which yielded values between 0.640 and
1-5 Years 63%
11-15 Years 5% 0.785. These figures fall within the acceptable range, affirming
16-20 Years 3% the measurement’s reliability.
6-10 Years 22%
>20 Years 1%
Agile Framework Most Used Hypothesis Test Results
SCRUM 54%
Kanban 30% As indicated in Exhibit 5 and 6, Hypothesis 1 demonstrated
SCRUM and Kanban 6% a significant positive relationship between job satisfaction and
Extreme Programming (XP) 5%
Test Driven Development (TDD) 4% agile project success delivery (β = .31, t = 6.587, p < .001).
Industry of Agile Use SEM uses “beta” (β) and “t-value” (t) to explain and mea­
Software Development 78% sure relationships between variables. Beta (β) shows how much
Product Development 12% the dependent variable is expected to change when the inde­
Engineering Projects 4%
Health Care Delivery 2% pendent variable changes by one unit, while other factors
Financial Services 3% remain unchanged. The t-value (t) assesses the significance of
β. A t-value over 1.96 at a 95% confidence level means the
relationship between the variables is significant (Bollen, 2002).
This aligns with previous research indicating that satisfied
coefficients for all the latent variables are generated concur­ employees tend to exhibit higher levels of productivity, com­
rently in addition to assessing any mediated direct or indirect mitment, and overall performance (Judge et al., 2002;
effects (Beran & Violato, 2010; Hair et al., 2014; Kline, 2011). Srivastava, 2012). In the context of agile projects, where colla­
The immediate interaction effects between the dependent and boration, adaptability, and innovation are emphasized, satis­
independent variables in the traditional statistics techniques fied team members are likely to demonstrate greater
could not be carried out simultaneously (Pang, 1996; Yilmaz, engagement and contribute more effectively to project success
2004). We also conducted a formal test of common method (Anantatmula & Rad, 2018).
bias using Harman’s Single Test and found there are no com­ Conversely, Hypothesis 2 revealed a negative relationship
mon method bias. between job stress and agile project success (β = − .082,
To undertake the previously mentioned research constructs t = −25.387, p < .001). Elevated workplace stress can result in
and their relationship effects, measurement, and structural decreased worker effectiveness, higher turnover, and reduced
models were formulated according to the relevant theoretical work quality and productivity, thus undermining project suc­
literature in this study. The measurement model was tested cess (Wang et al., 2020). In agile projects, stressful work envir­
using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on a hypothesized onments contribute to negative health impacts on employees,
six-factor latent model comprising career satisfaction, job such as increased anxiety and job uncertainty, which in turn
engagement, psychological safety, job stress, job satisfaction, can negatively affect the success of projects.
and project success delivery. The hypothesized model fit with On the other hand, some researchers suggested that mod­
the data was excellent (χ2/135 = 1.38; CFI = 0.97; SRMR = erate levels of stress may actually enhance performance and
0.058; RMSEA = 0.044; PClose = 0.746) when compared to the motivation in certain situations, known as the Yerkes-Dodson
 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 7

Exhibit 4. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities of Key Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Job Satisfaction 4.05 .767 (.685)
2 Job Stress 3.13 .707 −.077 (.640)
3 Psychological Safety 2.22 .847 −.250* .758*** (.707)
4 Project Success 2.99 .627 .731*** −.133 −.325*** (.785)
5 Career Satisfaction 2.90 .629 .703*** −.058 −.293** .818*** (.738)
6 Job Engagement 3.01 .623 .804*** .066 −.366*** .591*** .559*** (.677)
Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) are reported in diagonal.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

1.03*** 0.91***
Job Psychological
Job Satisfaction
Engagement Safety

.31 ***
- .82 *** 0.36**
- .25*** .11***

-.08*** 0.65** Career

Job Stress Project Success
Satisfaction

Exhibit 5. Results of Hypotheses Testin

Exhibit 6. Hypotheses Testing Results

Relationship between variables Relationships Standardized coefficients (β) Hypothesis Testing Result
Direct Effect Job Satisfaction→ Project Success .31*** H1: Supported
Job Stress → Project Success − .08 *** H2: Supported
Job stress → Job Satisfaction − .82*** H3: Supported
Career Satisfaction → Job Satisfaction .36 *** H5: Supported
Career Satisfaction → Job Satisfaction .36 *** H6: Supported
Job Engagement → Job Satisfaction 1.03*** H8: Supported
Psychological Safety → Job Satisfaction .91*** H9: Supported
Indirect Effect Job Stress → Job Satisfaction → Project Success − .251*** H4: Supported
Career Satisfaction → Job Satisfaction → Project Success .111*** H7: Supported

law (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Additionally, individual differ­ is consistent with the findings of this research. Job stressors
ences in coping mechanisms and resilience may mitigate the such as role ambiguity, workload pressure, and inter-team
negative effects of job stress on project outcomes (Cavanaugh disputes can have a major influence on levels of job satisfaction
et al., 2000). Moreover, within agile project teams, effective in agile projects, which are by nature characterized by quick
stress management strategies, such as workload balancing, changes, tight deadlines, and high levels of uncertainty.
clear communication channels, and supportive leadership, The fourth hypothesis, which investigated the indirect
can help mitigate the detrimental impacts of job stress on impact of job stress on project performance through job
project success. satisfaction, was shown to be substantially different from
Hypothesis 3, which posited a negative relationship zero (β = −.25, p < .001). The evidence presented here lends
between job stress and job satisfaction, was strongly supported validity to the concept that the influence of job stress on job
(β = −0.82, t = −25.387, p < .001). The results of this study satisfaction in agile projects has a significant bearing on the
indicate that members of a team who are experiencing higher success of various agile project initiatives. Previous studies
levels of stress related to their jobs are more likely to report have demonstrated, time and time again, that high levels of
lower levels of job satisfaction in agile project contexts. job stress are connected to lower levels of job satisfaction,
A substantial body of research suggests that increased levels whereas job satisfaction is linked to positive outcomes such
of workplace stress can have a detrimental impact on the as higher productivity and successful completion of projects
attitudes and views that workers have toward their work (Ganster & Rosen, 2013; Judge et al., 2002; Podsakoff et al.,
(Ganster & Rosen, 2013; Podsakoff et al., 2007). This finding 2007). These findings highlight the significance of reducing
8 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

stress on the job and encouraging job satisfaction to improve inclusive culture can improve organizational psychological
the effectiveness of projects in organizations that embrace agile safety (Clark, 2022). Team members are happier and more
practices. likely to engage in agile efforts when they feel secure and
In agile project contexts, the analysis of the data showed supported.
several notable results relating to career satisfaction, job satis­ In agile teams, job satisfaction may not depend exclusively
faction, and project success delivery (H5–7). To begin, it is on psychological safety. Agile team job satisfaction may be
worth noting that there exists a robust and positive correlation affected by team dynamics, leadership style, task clarity, and
between career satisfaction and the successful execution of corporate principles, according to Ingaldi (2021). This shows
agile projects (H5). This suggests that greater levels of career how intricate the relationship is and how many elements must
satisfaction are linked to enhanced project success (β =.65, t = be considered.
14.105, p < .001). This conclusion is consistent with the find­ In summary, these indirect mediating effects support that
ings of prior study that highlighted the influence of career job satisfaction mediates the relationship between job stress,
satisfaction on the outcomes of work and the success of pro­ and career on overall agile project success delivery as indicated
jects (Arthur et al., 2005). Furthermore, it is worth noting that in the Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 6.
career satisfaction has a positive impact on job satisfaction (β
= 0.36, t = 22.559, p < .001). This implies that individuals who
are content with their career trajectory are more likely to Theoretical Implications
experience greater levels of job satisfaction when working in
an agile project environment (H6). This supports prior studies Findings from the survey conducted here within the software
highlighting the connection between career satisfaction and development community indicate a robust, positive correla­
overall job satisfaction (Adams et al., 2006; Mwaniki & Muturi, tion between job engagement, psychological safety, career
2020). satisfaction, and job satisfaction in agile environments. This
Furthermore, the analysis reveals that job satisfaction med­ corroborates previous research, which underscores the positive
iates the relationship between career satisfaction and project impact of agile practices on job engagement and team perfor­
success (H7) (β = .11, p < .001). This suggests that career satis­ mance (Bakker, 2017; Malik et al., 2021; Peeters et al., 2022).
faction indirectly impacts project success through its influence The study also affirmed that psychological safety boosts team
on job satisfaction. When employees are satisfied with their performance and project goals, contradicting Joseph et al.
career progression and opportunities, they are more likely to (2006) who found negative career satisfaction among IT pro­
experience higher job satisfaction levels, which in turn con­ fessionals due to heavy workloads.
tributes to improved project success. A high degree of job stress, which is frequently associated
Hypothesis 8 test results showed a positive relationship with the dynamic and fast-paced character of agile projects
between job engagement and job satisfaction in the path coef­ (Hoda et al., 2011; Laanti, 2013; Pinto et al., 2014; Venkatesh
ficient from job engagement to job satisfaction (β = 1.03, t = et al., 2020), has a considerable and detrimental effect on both
46.59, p < .001). This finding suggests that higher levels of job job satisfaction and the success of the project delivery. This
engagement among IT software development teams in agile study also concludes that there are negative effects of stress on
projects are associated with increased job satisfaction. work performance in agile environment, consistent with pre­
Highly engaged employees feel fulfilled and happy, which vious studies (Barnes-Farrell et al., 2005; Joy & Kumar, 2018).
boosts job satisfaction. Numerous studies show that engaged The study emphasizes the significance of adhering to agile
workers are happier and healthier (Roberts & Davenport, principles in order to minimize stress, particularly with regard
2002). Agile project job engagement may be improved in to self-organizing teams and establishing a sustainable devel­
several ways. Agile teams are autonomous and self- opment approaches that minimize worker overloads (Fowler &
managing, giving individuals authority over their work. This Highsmith, 2001; Nedashkovskaya, 2022). Furthermore, it
increases engagement (Moe et al., 2010). Agile methods also demonstrates how agile methodologies effectively adopt team
encourage teamwork and camaraderie, which boosts work approaches and encourage active engagement in the accom­
engagement (Tripp et al., 2016). This devotion improves job plishment of project objectives (Malik et al., 2021).
satisfaction and project success. Engaged employees are more By contributing to a more in-depth knowledge of the effect
motivated, devoted, and proactive, improving performance that agile practices have on job satisfaction, stress, engagement,
and productivity (Tims et al., 2013). Businesses should prior­ and psychological safety, the findings add to such an under­
itize methods and procedures that promote software develop­ standing. This significantly highlights that the success of an
ment team’s job engagement in agile projects to improve work agile project is significantly dependent on the level of develop­
satisfaction and project performance. ment team’s job satisfaction, which is influenced by a variety of
Research shows that psychological safety positively affects elements like job engagement, stress, psychological safety, and
job satisfaction in agile projects (H9) (β = 0.91, t = 25.559, p careers that are fulfilling. Because job engagement and content­
< .001). Psychological safety in agile projects increases job ment play such an important part in agile teams, the research
satisfaction (Edmondson, 1999). This finding emphasizes the underlines the need of creating agile project settings that foster
importance of psychological safety in agile teams which is self-motivation and productivity. Also, how psychological safety
a prerequisite for its success (Valentine et al., 2015). Open helps members of a team to take chances and express them­
communication, constructive criticism, and a supportive and selves, which ultimately results in improved project outcomes.
 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 9

Practical Implications settings, upper management should keep these findings in

mind. Setting up open lines of communication within the
Based on the results of this study, different links within agile
team and with stakeholders, while putting psychological safety
settings have been seen as useful for making projects work and
first, encourages trust and teamwork (Akkaya et al., 2022).
keeping employees happy. Each suggestion is based on study
Making sure there is clear communication helps everyone on
results and is backed up by additional research.
the team understand what is expected of them, deal with
Our results show that psychological safety and job satisfac­
problems quickly, and stay focused on the same goals.
tion are strongly linked in a good way. Creating an open and
transparent atmosphere should be a top priority for businesses.
Some practical steps could be to set up such as regular feedback Conclusion
loops and encourage team retrospectives where workers can
talk about their wins and mistakes without worrying about Within the context of agile project frameworks, the purpose of
getting in trouble. Psychological safety makes teams more this study was to conduct an in-depth investigation into
engaged and creative (Frazier et al., 2017). whether IT software development teams experience higher
Similar benefits may be seen by organizations, as shown by job stress, decreased job engagement, lower psychological
the good results seen in agile teams with a high level of safety, and career dissatisfaction. The study attempted to assess
psychological safety (Joo et al., 2022). This study also shows how these aspects affect the job satisfaction and success of
that while agile methods tend to make jobs less stressful, these individuals in delivering positive project results. In
certain practices need to be carefully handled to avoid too doing so, it sheds light on the interplay among these factors
much work and unclear roles (Fitriani et al., 2016; Rietze & and their consequences for project success results, which in
Zacher, 2023; Rogers, 2023). Setting clear goals can help keep turn gives useful insights into agile philosophy and project
development teams motivated and create a better work atmo­ management research.
sphere (Işık & Çifci, 2023; Tims et al., 2013; Tripp & Using quantitative analysis, the study evaluated the influ­
Riemenschneider, 2014). This basic knowledge is necessary ences that factors such as job engagement, career satisfaction,
for working together and getting things done (Govindaras psychological safety, and job stress have on job satisfaction and
et al., 2023; Hoda et al., 2011; Moe et al., 2010). the outcomes of agile projects. The study has shown that highly
Organizations can set clear roles for agile team members engaged IT development teams who are content with their
and make sure that everyone is sharing the work equally. This career prospects are more productive and devoted, which
could be helped by agile coaching and making internal rules ultimately contributes to the success of the project.
that make it clear what each team member is responsible for. On the other hand, high levels of occupational stress are
Joy and Kumar (2018) emphasize that these kinds of practices detrimental to both performance and job satisfaction, which
not only lower stress but also improve project results by mak­ can jeopardize project results. Because of this, organizations
ing things clearer and bringing the team closer together. need to make sure that their development teams and employ­
There was a strong link between career satisfaction, job ees in general are satisfied with their jobs to increase their
satisfaction, and project success. As a result, agile organiza­ productivity and the success of their projects in agile settings.
tions should focus on making it easy for employees to move up In the realm of IT development teams, this highlights the
in their careers and improve their skills. This could include important connection that exists between supportive working
customized training programs, mentorship opportunities, and circumstances and the effectiveness of agile approaches.
clear, open communication with all workers about how to
move up in the career ladder. Unger et al. (2023) states that
Limitations and Future Research
these can make employees more satisfied with their careers,
which in turn makes them succeed in their project deliveries. This study may have several limitations. First, cross-sectional
There is a link between job engagement and job satisfaction, studies have causality verification concerns. Cross-sectional
organizations should use agile methods that increase engage­ designs collect data at one point, making it hard to establish
ment and the freedom to choose their own tasks within directional influences between variables (Bono & McNamara,
a project, rewarding teams based on performance, and includ­ 2011). Convenience sampling may restrict the study’s general­
ing everyone in the decision-making process. Malik et al. izability. The results may not apply to all agile IT software
(2021) found that these factors have a big effect on job satisfac­ development teams since convenience samples are not repre­
tion in agile settings. This is probably because they make sentative of the population. Third, job engagement and job
development teams feel more in control of their work and satisfaction had multicollinearity issues in the SEM study
feel empowered. (Jöreskog, 1999), with correlations over 1.00. Multicollinearity
What these results also mean depends on the job of any can confuse SEM analysis results, making it difficult to deter­
development team member in the organization. A project mine how these variables affect project performance.
manager, their main goal should be to keep the tasks and To address these concerns and improve the reliability of the
duties of the team balanced, clear and without any ambiguities. findings, it is recommended that future research take into
Developers may benefit more from agile practices that make consideration the use of longitudinal study designs. Studies
them feel safer and more engaged at work, such as having a say that follow the same people over time, known as longitudinal
in decisions and being recognized for their work. When mak­ studies, provide a more accurate depiction of the causal links
ing rules and frameworks that affect the work culture in agile between variables. Future study can better validate the causal
10 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

pathways and give more thorough insights into how job stress, ORCID
job engagement, psychological safety, and career satisfaction
Adel A. Zadeh http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7826-1460
affect job satisfaction and project performance success in agile
settings if the scope of the research is expanded and the dura­
tion of the research is increased. References
In addition, the investigation of hybrid techniques that
15th annual state of agile report. (2021). https://digital.ai/resource-center
blend agile and classic waterfall processes could provide /analyst-reports/state-of-agile-report/
more insightful perspectives. The hybrid techniques that Adams, K., Hean, S., Sturgis, P., & Clark, J. M. (2006). Investigating the
are currently gaining popularity may be able to overcome factors influencing professional identity of first‐year health and social
some of the constraints that are associated with the strictly care students. Learning in Health and Social Care, 5(2), 55–68. https://
agile or waterfall approaches, and they may also disclose doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2006.00119.x
Akkaya, B., Panait, M., Apostu, S. A., & Kaya, Y. (2022). Agile leadership
how the combined tactics impact the results of projects and perceived career success: The mediating role of job embeddedness.
and the dynamics of development teams. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19
(8), 4834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084834
Anantatmula, V. S., & Rad, P. F. (2018). Role of organizational project
Disclosure Statement management maturity factors on project success. Engineering
Management Journal, 30(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 10429247.2018.1458208
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. (2005). Career success
in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior:
Notes on contributors The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 26(2), 177–202. https://doi.
Sarmann I. Kennedyd is an Associate Professor of Instruction in
org/10.1002/job.290
Operations Management at the Jindal School of Management,
Aziri, B. (2011). Job satisfaction: A literature review. Management
University of Texas at Dallas. With over 20 years of experience in business
Research & Practice, 3(4), 77–86.
process reengineering, IT systems development, and project management,
Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project
he has worked with companies like AOL, Fannie Mae, and Verizon. His
success. Project Management Journal, 30(4), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.
research focuses on agile project management, e-commerce, and virtual
1177/875697289903000405
communication. Dr. Kennedyd holds a PhD from SKEMA Business
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for
School and an MBA from Johns Hopkins University. He is a certified
initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm
Project Management Professional (PMP) and Certified Scrum Master
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International
(CSM).
Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Adel A. Zadeh is a Professor and CPS Director at Northeastern University and Behavior, 24(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179
in Toronto. He holds a Ph.D. in Engineering from Cambridge University, Bakker, A. B. (2017). Strategic and proactive approaches to work
UK, and has over a decade of combined industrial and academic experi­ engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 67–75. https://doi.org/
ence. Dr. Zadeh is actively engaged in various research projects, including 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.002
organizational transformation, AI in project and construction manage­ Barnes-Farrell, J. L., Barling, J., Kelloway, E., & Frone, M. (2005). Older
ment, agile and hybrid project management, sustainable construction, workers. In Handbook of work stress (pp. 431–454).
lean construction, and green buildings. Beran, T. N., & Violato, C. (2010). Structural equation modeling in
medical research: A primer. BMC Research Notes, 3(1), 1–10. https://
Jeonghwan Choi is a business faculty member at the University of Maine
doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-267
at Presque Isle, with a distinguished career spanning 25 years in both
Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social
engineering and business problem-solving. He specializes in leadership
sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 605–634. https://doi.
development, human resource management (HRM), organizational beha­
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239
vior (OB), and social entrepreneurship. Dr. Choi holds a master’s degree
Bono, J. E., & McNamara, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ —part 2: Research
in mechanical engineering and spent seven years as an R&D engineer at
design. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 657–660. https://doi.
BOSCH before transitioning his focus to business, where he applies his
org/10.5465/amj.2011.64869103
expertise to optimizing the performance of technical professionals, parti­
Bott, M., & Mesmer, B. (2020). An analysis of theories supporting agile
cularly scientists and engineers. His research centers on fostering self-
scrum and the use of scrum in systems engineering. Engineering
directed employee behavior, developing entrepreneurial leaders capable
Management Journal, 32(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.
of generating high-quality jobs, and advancing socially responsible busi­
2019.1659701
ness practices. Dr. Choi is also committed to transforming toxic organiza­
Caplan, R., Cobb, S., French, J. Jr., Van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. Jr.
tional environments into productive, sustainable workplaces, making his
(1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational
contributions highly relevant to contemporary engineering and manage­
differences. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
ment challenges. Dr. Choi earned a PhD in human resource development
Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for
from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, and an MBA
Occupational Safety and Health.
from HHL-Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Germany.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W.
Shawn Alborz is a Professor of Instruction in the Operations (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among
Management Department at the Jindal School of Management, the U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. https://doi.
University of Texas at Dallas. He has 25 years of experience delivering org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65
professional services in information systems and academia in higher Church, M. (2015, June 6). Why “agile” and especially scrum are terrible.
education. Dr. Alborz has also served as Associate Dean and Dean of Michael O. Church. https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2015/06/
Undergraduate Programs at the Jindal School of Management, UT Dallas. 06/why-agile-and-especially-scrum-are-terrible/
He currently teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in project Clark, T. R. (2022, February 21). Agile doesn’t work without psychological
management, operations management, and business information systems. safety. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/02/agile-doesnt-
Dr. Alborz earned his PhD in Information Systems Management from the work-without-psychological-safety
University of Melbourne, Australia, and an MBA from Pepperdine Cockburn, A., & Highsmith, J. (2001). Agile software development, the people
University. factor. Computer, 34(11), 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.963450
 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 11

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2002). A discrepancy model of information system
work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. personnel turnover. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19
https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 (2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2002.11045722
Fisher, C. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and perfor­ Joo, B.-K., Yoon, S. K., & Galbraith, D. (2022). The effects of organiza­
mance are correlated? Possible source of a commonsense theory. tional trust and empowering leadership on group conflict:
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 753–777. https://doi.org/ Psychological safety as a mediator. Organization Management
10.1002/job.219 Journal, 20(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-07-2021-1308
Fitriani, W. R., Rahayu, P., & Sensuse, D. I. (2016). Challenges in agile Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient Be?. http://
software development: A systematic literature review. In 2016 www.statmodel.com/download/Joreskog.pdf
International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Joseph, D., Ang, S., & Slaughter, S. (2006). Examining the role of general
Information Systems (ICACSIS) (pp. 155–164). https://doi.org/10.
and firm-specific human capital in predicting it professionals’ turnover
1109/ICACSIS.2016.7872736
behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference on
Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G., & Conboy, K. (2006). Customising agile
computer personnel research: Forty four years of computer personnel
methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. European Journal of
research: achievements, challenges & the future (SIGMIS CPR ‘06) (pp.
Information Systems, 15(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.
120–122). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
ejis.3000605
USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1125170.1125204
Fowler, M., & Highsmith, J. (2001). The agile manifesto. Software
Development, 9(8), 28–35. Joy, A., & Kumar, G. (2018). Impact of job stress on employee perfor­
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & mance: A study of software professionals in Kerala. International
Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR), 5(4), 2349–5138.
and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/ Judge, T. A., Parker, S. K., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2002). Job
10.1111/peps.12183 satisfaction: A cross-cultural review. In Handbook of industrial, work &
Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: organizational psychology - Volume 2: Organizational psychology (pp.
A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1085–1122. 25–52). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475815 9781848608368
George, H., & Dimitrios, B. (2008). The influence of stress and satisfaction Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving
on productivity. Retrieved November, 22. understanding of project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4),
Gomes Silva, F. J., Kirytopoulos, K., Pinto Ferreira, L., Sá, J. C., Santos, G., 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600403
& Cancela Nogueira, M. C. (2022). The three pillars of sustainability Kerzner, H. (2003). Advanced project management: Best practices on
and agile project management: How do they influence each other. implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 29(5), Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
1495–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2287 (3rd ed. pp. xvi, 427). Guilford Press.
Govindaras, B., Wern, T. S., Kaur, S., Haslin, I. A., & Ramasamy, R. K. Kropp, M., Meier, A., Anslow, C., & Biddle, R. (2020). Satisfaction and its
(2023). Sustainable environment to prevent burnout and attrition in correlates in agile software development. The Journal of Systems &
project management. Sustainability, 15(3), Article 3. 2364. https://doi. Software, 164, 110544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.110544
org/10.3390/su15032364 Laanti, M. (2013). Agile and wellbeing – stress, empowerment, and
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of performance in scrum and Kanban teams. In 2013 46th Hawaii
race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4761–4770). https://
career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64–86. doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.74
https://doi.org/10.2307/256352 Macdonald, S., & Maclntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction scale:
Griffin, R., Plessis, G., Chin, D., & Dale, J. (2008). Gas-tight Scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13
rotary-shouldered connection riser simplifies intervention. In IADC/ (2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1300/J022v13n02_01
SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference 2008 - “‘Drilling Malik, M., Sarwar, S., & Orr, S. (2021). Agile practices and performance:
Technology to Access Future Energy Demand and Environmental
Examining the role of psychological empowerment. International
Challenges,’” (pp. 557–564). https://doi.org/10.2118/115215-ms
Journal of Project Management, 39(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014).
j.ijproman.2020.09.002
Multivariate data analysis: Global edition (7th ed.). Pearson
Mann, C., & Maurer, F. (2005). A case study on the impact of scrum on
Education Limited. 10.4324/9781351269360
overtime and customer satisfaction. In Agile Development Conference
Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2011). The impact of inadequate
(ADC’05) (pp. 70–79). https://doi.org/10.1109/ADC.2005.1
customer collaboration on self-organizing agile teams. Information
Melnik, G., & Maurer, F. (2006). Comparative analysis of job satisfaction
and Software Technology, 53(5), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
in agile and non-agile software development teams. In International
infsof.2010.10.009
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Engineering (pp. 32–42).
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for
1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 understanding an agile team: A case study of a scrum project.
Huck-Fries, V., Prommegger, B., Wiesche, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019). The Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480–491. https://doi.org/
role of work engagement in agile software development: Investigating 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004
job demands and job resources. In Hawaii International Conference on Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job characteristics and job satis­
System Sciences 2019 (pp. HICSS–52). https://aisel.aisnet.org/hicss-52/ faction: Understanding the role of enterprise resource planning system
st/agile_development/12 implementation. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.
Ingaldi, C. (2021, April 21). Why don’t we like scrum anymore?. Geek 2307/20721418
culture. https://medium.com/geekculture/why-dont-we-like-scrum- Müller, D., Kropp, M., Anslow, C., & Meier, A. (2021). The effects on
anymore-d1f22f87e4b4 social support and work engagement with scrum events. In 2021 IEEE/
Işık, G., & Çifci, M. C. (2023). A model proposal for scaling the produc­ ACM 13th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects
tivity increase in agile project management methodology. International of Software Engineering (CHASE) (pp. 101–104). https://doi.org/10.
Journal of Pioneering Technology and Engineering, 2(2), Article 02. 1109/CHASE52884.2021.00019
147–164. https://doi.org/10.56158/jpte.2023.48.2.02 Mwaniki, E. W., & Muturi, W. (2020). Factors affecting labour turnover in
Jeffries, R. (2018, October 5). Developers should abandon agile. https:// organizations: A case study of delmonte limited, Kenya. International
ronjeffries.com/articles/018-01ff/abandon-1/ Research Journal of Business and Strategic Management, 1(1), 13–23.
12 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

Nedashkovskaya, V. (2022). How to keep your agile team stress- between public sector and private sector managers. Asia-Pacific Journal
free—Rocketech software development blog. Rocketech. https://rocke of Management Research and Innovation, 8(4), 517–523. https://doi.
tech.it/blog/post/how-to-keep-your-agile-team-stress-free org/10.1177/2319510X13481914
Nicholls, G. M., Lewis, N. A., & Eschenbach, T. (2015). Determining when Stray, V., Fægri, T. E., & Moe, N. B. (2016). Exploring norms in agile
simplified agile project management is right for small teams. software teams. In International Conference on Product-Focused
Engineering Management Journal, 27(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10. Software Process Improvement (pp. 458–467.
1080/10429247.2015.11432031 Tessem, B. (2014). Individual empowerment of agile and non-agile soft­
Pang, N. S. (1996). School values and teachers’ feelings: A LISREL model. ware developers in small teams. Information and Software Technology,
Journal of Educational Administration, 34(2), 64–83. https://doi.org/ 56(8), 873–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.005
10.1108/09578239610112114 Tims, M., van Rhenen, D., Derks, W., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job
Papatheocharous, E., & Andreou, A. S. (2014). Empirical evidence and crafting at the team and individual level implications for work engage­
state of practice of software agile teams. Journal of Software: Evolution ment and performance. Group & Organization Management, 38(4),
and Process, 26(9), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1664 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113492421
Peeters, T., Van De Voorde, K., & Paauwe, J. (2022). The effects of Tripp, J. F., & Riemenschneider, C. K. (2014). Toward an understanding
working agile on team performance and engagement. Team of job satisfaction on agile teams: Agile development as work redesign.
Performance Management: An International Journal, 28(1/2), 61–78. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-07-2021-0049 3993–4002).
Pinto, J. K., Dawood, S., & Pinto, M. B. (2014). Project management and Tripp, J. F., Riemenschneider, C., & Thatcher, J. B. (2016). Job satisfaction
burnout: Implications of the demand–control–support model on pro­ in agile development teams: Agile development as work redesign.
ject-based work. International Journal of Project Management, 32(4), Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(4), 1. https://
578–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.003 doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00426
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential Turner, R., Huemann, M., & Keegan, A. (2008). Human resource man­
challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, agement in the project-oriented organization: Employee well-being
turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A and ethical treatment. International Journal of Project Management,
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 438–454. https:// 26(5), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.005
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438 Uludağ, Ö., Putta, A., Paasivaara, M., & Matthes, F. (2021). Evolution of the
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1999). Structural equation modeling with agile scaling frameworks. In P. Gregory, C. Lassenius, X. Wang, &
Lisrel: Application in tourism. Tourism Management, 20(1), 71–88. P. Kruchten (Eds.), Agile processes in software engineering and extreme
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00104-6 programming (pp. 123–139). Springer International Publishing.
Rick, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement Unger, D., Kornblum, A., Grote, G., & Hirschi, A. (2023). Boundaries
antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of for career success? How work–home integration and perceived super­
Management Journal, 55(3), 617–635. visor expectation affect careers. Journal of Occupational &
Rietze, S., & Zacher, H. (2022). Relationships between agile work practices Organizational Psychology, 96(1), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/
and occupational well-being: The role of job demands and resources. joop.12416
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 Valentine, M. A., Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2015).
(3), 1258. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031258 Measuring teamwork in health care settings: A review of survey
Rietze, S., & Zacher, H. (2023). Agile work practices: Opportunities and instruments. Medical Care, 53(4), e16–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/
risks for occupational well-being. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. MLR.0b013e31827feef6
Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 54(4), Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Chan, F. K., Hoehle, H., & Spohrer, K.
483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-023-00712-6 (2020). How agile software development methods reduce work
Roberts, D. R., & Davenport, T. O. (2002). Job engagement: Why it’s exhaustion: Insights on role perceptions and organizational skills.
important and how to improve it. Employment Relations Today, 29(3), Information Systems Journal, 30(4), 733–761. https://doi.org/10.
21–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.10048 1111/isj.12282
Rogers, B. (2023). Agile XP, stress, trust and empowerment in distributed Wang, Z., Zaman, S., Rasool, S. F., Zaman, Q. U., & Amin, A. (2020).
workforce environments. D.O.D.C. Bowling Green State University. Exploring the relationships between a toxic workplace environment,
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2823320861/abstract/
workplace stress, and project success with the moderating effect of
3CF4AAD7747E4292PQ/1
organizational support: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Risk
Safavi, H. P., & Karatepe, O. M. (2018). High-performance work practices
Management and Healthcare Policy, 13, 1055–1067. https://doi.org/
and hotel employee outcomes: The mediating role of career
adaptability. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 10.2147/RMHP.S256155
Management, 30(2), 1112–1133. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07- Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research
2016-0367 in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1–74.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and Wiesche, M. (2021). Interruptions in agile software development teams.
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample Project Management Journal, 52(2), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/
study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi. 8756972821991365
org/10.1002/job.248 Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus
Seiler, S., Lent, B., Pinkowska, M., & Pinazza, M. (2012). An integrated to rapidity of habit‐formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and
model of factors influencing project managers’ motivation—findings Psychology, 18(5), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.920180503
from a Swiss survey. International Journal of Project Management, 30 Yilmaz, V. (2004). Consumer behavior in shopping center choice. Social
(1), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.03.002 Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 32(8), 783–790.
Serrador, P., & Turner, R. (2015). The relationship between project https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.8.783
success and project efficiency. Project Management Journal, 46(1), Zhao, F., Hu, W., Ahmed, F., & Huang, H. (2022). Impact of ambidex­
30–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21468 trous human resource practices on employee innovation performance:
Setor, T., & Joseph, D. (2019). When agile means staying: The relationship The roles of inclusive leadership and psychological safety. European
between agile development usage and individual it professional out­ Journal of Innovation Management, 26(5), 1444–1470. https://doi.org/
comes (pp. 168–175). https://doi.org/10.1145/3322385.3322387 10.1108/EJIM-04-2021-0226
Shrivastava, S. V. (2010). Distributed agile software development: A Zhou, W., Zhu, Z., & Vredenburgh, D. (2020). Emotional intelligence,
review. ArXiv Preprint. arXiv:1006.1955 psychological safety, and team decision making. Team Performance
Srivastava, S. (2012). Workplace passion as a moderator for workplace Management: An International Journal, 26(1/2), 123–141. https://doi.
deviant behaviour–job satisfaction relationship: A comparative study org/10.1108/TPM-10-2019-0105
 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 13

Appendix
Appendix A. Theoretical Constructs and the Indicator Variables

Constructs Measurement Sources

Job Engagement When working on an agile project. . . Rick et al., (2010)
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
1. I complete my work punctually (on time)
2. I complete my work purposefully and according to the plan
3. I need very little encouragement or supervision to complete my work
4. I am task oriented
5. I maintain a high work tempo
6. I do a great deal of work
7. I produce a lot of high-quality work
8. I consistently produce high-quality work
9. I am very energetic and active when carrying out my work
Job Satisfaction When working on an agile project. . . Macdonald and Maclntyre
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) (1997)
10. I receive recognition for a job well done
11. I feel close to the people at work
11. I feel good about working at this company
12. I feel secure about my job
13. My wages are good
14. All my talents and skills are used at work
15. I get along with my supervisors
16. I feel good about my job
Job Stress When working on an agile project. . . Caplan et al. (1975)
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
17. my job requires a great deal to be done.
18. my job requires me to work very fast.
19. my job experiences a large increase in workload.
20. my job leaves me with little time to get things done.
21. I am often unclear about what my responsibilities are.
Psychological When working on an agile project, I believe Edmondson (1999)
Safety (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
22. if you make a mistake, it is often held against you.
23. members are able to bring up problems and tough issues.
24. members sometimes reject others for being different.
25. it is safe to take a risk.
26. it is difficult to ask other members for help.
27. no one would deliberately act in a way that undermines team member’s efforts.
28. my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized
Project Success The last agile project I worked on, was delivered . . . Serrador and Turner (2015)
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
29. On-time
30. Within budget
31. Conformed to customer specifications (requirements)
32. The project sponsor accepted the outcome
33. The end user accepted the project results.
Career Satisfaction Overall, regarding my career . . . Greenhaus et al. (1990)
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
34. I am satisfied with the success I have achieved in my career
35. I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my overall career goals
36. I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my goals for income
37. I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my goals for advancement
38. I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my goals for the development of new
skills.