Motivators influencing the efficiency and commitment of employees of agile teams

Trzeciak, Mateusz; Banasik, Paulina Article Motivators influencing the efficiency and commitment of employees of agile teams Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Provided in Cooperation with: Society of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (SOItmC) Suggested Citation: Trzeciak, Mateusz; Banasik, Paulina (2022) : Motivators influencing the efficiency and commitment of employees of agile teams, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, ISSN 2199-8531, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040176 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/274477 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Trzeciak, M.; Banasik, P. Motivators Influencing the Efficiency and Commitment of Employees of Agile Teams. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176. https:// doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040176 Received: 5 August 2022 Accepted: 21 September 2022 Published: 27 September 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Article Motivators Influencing the Efficiency and Commitment of Employees of Agile Teams Mateusz Trzeciak 1,* and Paulina Banasik 2 1Faculty of Organization and Management, Silesian University of Technology, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland 2Future Processing S.A., 44-100 Gliwice, Poland *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The production of new IT products and services in today’s dynamic world of business and ever-evolving technology requires specific enterprise policies geared toward supporting innovation. Striving to provide the customer with the required value that meets the customer’s current requirements is becoming quite a challenge for IT enterprises at this time. Moreover, innovative ideas are not created in “rigid” authoritarian-managed teams, but in an open culture based on the principles of self-organization and self-discipline, a characteristic of agile teams. One of the key determinants of a company’s competitive advantage is employee effectiveness and commitment. Moreover, there are few publications covering research on employee effectiveness in agile teams. Therefore, the overarching goal of this article is to identify the motivators influencing the commitment and effectiveness of agile teams. In order to achieve the desired goal, an analysis of the research on the effectiveness and commitment of employees of a selected Polish IT company within the industry was conducted. As a result of the analysis of the obtained research results, seven determinants were developed, which have the greatest importance for agile teams and their motivation and effectiveness. Moreover, as the concluded research results show, the use of agile team models and open innovation positively affects the efficiency and commitment of employees. Keywords: engagement; effectiveness; project management; agile; innovation; project team 1. Introduction The increasing dynamics of the environment [ 1 ], the high level of volatility [ 2 ], and adaptation to constantly changing requirements [ 3 ] is intensifying the search among enterprises for tools and ways to adapt to changes, and ways to create these tools [ 4 ]. Enterprises are forced to increasingly search for new solutions or methods to support compliance with market requirements. This boils down to an increasingly conscious use of knowledge transfer [ 5 , 6 ]. In other words, companies are increasingly turning their attention to the open innovation model [ 7 , 8 ], which is becoming a common business phenomenon [ 9 ], thus arousing interest in the scientific community [ 10 , 11 ]. Although there has been a significant increase in scientific research in the field of open innovation (OI) [ 12 – 16 ], it mainly takes an enterprise perspective [ 9 ]. As Bagherzadeh et al. [ 9 ] note, in order to fully understand IO management, it is necessary to shift research to the project level, of which there is relatively little in the literature. The above is also confirmed by Felin and Zenger [ 17 ], who note that different projects will require different mechanisms for open innovation. Open innovation, according to the general definition by Chesbrough and Bogers [ 18 ], is an innovation process based on deliberately managed internal and external knowledge flows, using financial and non-financial mechanisms consistent with the organization’s business model. The above definition was adopted considering three arguments: • An enterprise must adopt a set of practices that facilitate internal and external knowledge transfer [16]. • Processes [ 19 ], competencies [ 20 ], and adequate human resources [ 21 ] must be integrated. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040176 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 2 of 18 •Financial and non-financial mechanisms [22] must be present. The level of innovation at both the enterprise and project levels is influenced by the efficiency and commitment of employees [ 23 , 24 ], which also plays a key role in building a company’s competitive advantage. Satisfaction of the team translates into productivity at work and a low percentage of turnover in individual projects, which in turn affects the satisfaction of existing customers and facilitates the acquisition of new opportunities and development options. Furthermore, an analysis of the literature highlights the commitment and effectiveness of agile teams [25,26]. The agile approach to project management, as opposed to the traditional one, is based on greater freedom in project execution [ 27 ], a focus on the expectations of the environment [ 28 ], and speed of response to changes that occur [ 29 ], which are enforced by using less formalized and rigorous solutions in favor of greater flexibility of activities in the implemented project [ 30 ]. In addition, the agile approach assumes that the team is not only competent [ 31 ], but also motivated to create an innovative product (such as software) [ 32 , 33 ]. Given the above, it can be concluded that the effectiveness of agile team members is one of the key factors in the success of IT projects [ 34 ], which is also confirmed by global reports (Chaos Report). In addition, the continuous development of software development techniques and the implementation of innovative technologies and devices ensure growth, resilient development, and the high position of organizations in the global market [ 35 ]. The process of digitization, as well as changes in society and the desire for automation, affect the ever-increasing demand for IT services [ 36 ]. According to data published by the Statistics Poland office [ 37 ], in 2018–2020, product innovations or business process innovations were introduced by almost one in three enterprises in Poland (31.1%). Considering only ICT enterprises, innovations were introduced by nearly one in two enterprises (47.2%), with service enterprises (47.7%) introducing them more often than manufacturing enterprises (43.0%). Business process innovations were more common in both the ICT sector and the economy as a whole. Given the above, the overarching goal of the article is to conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of employees of agile project teams of an IT company and competing companies, which will ultimately contribute to identifying the factors that matter most to the teams and influence their motivation and effectiveness. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. Characteristics of Agile Project Teams In projects characterized by innovation, it is problematic to indicate the full scope of project work, which is required when implementing work based on the cascade model and traditional management methods (e.g., PMBoK, ICB, Prince2) [ 38 , 39 ]. Agile methods discard the need to create descriptions of the task elements to be implemented, while the priority is on functionality and a properly functioning system or component that is ready to be handed over to the customer [ 40 ]. The basis of agile methods is teamwork, self-organization of team members, proper communication, and creativity [ 41 , 42 ]. The agile approach to project management largely boils down to the human factor, placing special emphasis on communication, commitment, collaboration, and stakeholder proactivity [ 30 ]. Increasingly, it is emphasized that project success in modern reasoning should consider not only the dimension of efficiency and business impact on the organization and customer (benefits), but also new perspectives for all stakeholder groups, directly related to the appropriate achievement of their desired level of satisfaction, viewed from the perspective of organizational, personal, and technical implementation of the project [41,43,44]. In the teamwork models used in IT projects, the issue of communication between project team members is of particular importance [ 30 , 41 ]. Moreover, each team member in an agile approach to project management should be empowered to make day-to-day decisions inside established boundaries, which promotes independent work [ 45 ]. In contrast, issues that exceed the team’s designated decision-making authority are escalated (formally or informally) to the project level, most often by the team leader, for quick resolution. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 3 of 18 Although the topic of agile project management methods has been covered by many researchers [ 38 – 43 ], it still remains relevant [ 46 – 49 ]. Moreover, there are few publications covering research on employee effectiveness in agile teams. Thus, in accordance with the call of Khan et al. [ 50 ] and Doblinger et al. [ 51 ] regarding research needs in the field of agile teams, a research gap has been identified that requires conducting studies on the engagement and effectiveness of agile teams. 2.2. Team Effectiveness Factors Effectiveness is a basic category for indicating the state and describing how things work, as well as determining the opportunity for employee development in the organization. In the literature, it is translated as the results of an action, which are mostly combined with an economic effect [ 52 ]. It affects an employee’s ability and willingness to carry out the company’s strategy and achieve a certain goal [ 53 ]. Efficiency is used to evaluate the performance of the entire enterprise, but it is also applied to teams and individual units [ 54 ]. The concept of efficiency is associated with the principle of rational management and maximization of the effect in relation to the limitation of inputs [ 55 ]. The concept of efficiency is also equated with effectiveness. However, Helms [ 56 ] pointed out the difference, emphasizing that efficiency involves doing work in the right, correct way, while effectiveness is about doing the right thing. An aspect that particularly needs attention is the effectiveness of the team and its members. The team should be seen as an organism that represents more than just the results achieved. There are also factors such as job satisfaction and motivation that are strongly interconnected and affect the end result of work. The ability to work effectively diminishes when employees feel frustration and lack of satisfaction, a sense of influence, or appreciation. Effective work should not be considered to be when the task has been completed and the goal achieved, but the team members are burned out and reluctant to do more. An important factor affecting the effectiveness of a team is the characteristics of the team built and its tasks, as well as the potential of the employees and their relationships. The traits of an effective team include [57]: •Finding the right target that engages the entire team and is challenging; • Identifying and defining a mode of work that has been accepted by all members (e.g., organization of meetings, means of communication, schedule); •Complementary competencies among team members; •The appropriate number of people in a given team; •Shared responsibility for both successes and failures. High cognitive properties can positively affect team functioning [ 58 ]. They determine the cognitive potential together with the level of reasoning and the speed of information processing. Diverse in terms of seniority, knowledge, and experience positively influences a team’s efficiency and innovation. Given the above, it is therefore necessary to refine the indicated research gap by identifying the determinants of engagement and effectiveness of agile teams. 2.3. Motivating and Building Employee Commitment One of the main dimensions that builds employee commitment is proper motivation. As Wulf et al. [ 59 ] point out, motivation is a state in which behavior is activated to point in a particular direction. Each individual has different and individual aspects that increase their commitment to specific tasks. The purpose of motivation is to influence employees using different types of incentives. The above considerations are also confirmed by Fischer et al. [ 60 ], further highlighting the impact of motivation on employee creativity and innovation. This should result in increased willingness to work and greater efficiency [ 61 ]. As pointed out by Zameer et al. [ 62 ], the greatest benefit of motivation comes when the employee ties his goals to the organization [ 59 ]. In order to adjust motivators in an appropriate and correct way, it is necessary for an individual to determine his or her J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 4 of 18 individual motivational needs and for a leader or manager to recognize them [ 63 ]. Measures should be selected separately for each employee. An incentive system is made up of factors and rules that create incentives that affect employees in order to encourage them to work for the benefit of the employer [ 64 ]. Moreover, according to the insights of researchers [ 65 – 67 ], there is no universal system—what works well for one person may affect another in an opposite, negative way. Each organization should have a system and motivational tools tailored to its characteristics and values, while taking into account the requirements and specific needs of employees. 3. Materials and Methods Conclusions drawn from the analysis of the literature covering IT project management methods using agile approaches [ 42 , 45 ], and employee effectiveness and engagement [ 54 , 63 ] indicate a research need for evaluating measures taken in IT companies to sustain or enhance the effectiveness of agile teams. Furthermore, given the suggestions of researchers covering the existence of different motivators and the lack of universal principles [ 65 – 67 ], this article focuses on conducting an analysis of the effectiveness of employees of the selected company using agile methods in project management and comparing the results with motivators in order to understand their impact on efficiency. In addition, to increase the reliability of the measurement of effectiveness, complementary research was conducted at other IT companies using agile methods in project management. Taking into account the small scientific exploration in the above scope, a deductive approach was adopted, focusing at the same time on qualitative research including analysis and comparison of the results of standardized interviews, which were conducted among employees of the selected enterprise and employees of other IT companies. As emphasized by some authors [ 68 ], designing a case study is particularly useful when a researcher develops a theoretical approach in a specific context. The selection of the company was based on several criteria. Firstly, the company operates in the IT industry on an international scale. Secondly, the company uses an agile approach to project management, characterized by self-organization of team members, collaboration, and open communication. Thirdly, the company uses the open innovation model. 3.1. Properties of the Selected Enterprise The IT company selected for the research operates on the international market. It is headquartered in Poland; however, its branches can also be found in the UK, Germany, Ukraine, and the Philippines. It currently employs more than 900 people, fulfilling orders from customers in various industries from 15 countries. In accordance with the company’s decision, its full name has not been used to preserve anonymity. The company’s approach is characterized by a friendly way of managing people and creating relationships on trust. The company’s mission is: “We create technology solutions that empower people and organizations to realize their full potential and make a positive contribution to human life.” Based on this, the approach is based on five pillars: technical expertise, high quality service, partnership based on trust, flexible approach to operations, and high work ethics. The company also uses an open innovation model where not only is there a focus on employee development and knowledge sharing, but cooperation with partner companies also plays an important role, as about 20% of technical people in projects are developers and testers working together on a body leasing basis. The company uses the principles of an agile approach to project management to implement projects, and teams produce software based on the adopted Scrum method. Moreover, an employee is assigned to a project only when he or she expresses interest in it. This way ensures that the development in a given team is in line with the direction in which the interested person wants to go. At any time, the employee has the opportunity to request a change; this request is always accepted after individual arrangements between the project manager and the technician. These changes are not frequent in the company J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 5 of 18 due to the selection of clients similar in values and culture and close-knit project teams with friendly attitudes and strong relationships. “Happy Team” research is conducted periodically at the company, once a year in the autumn, with the aim of identifying the factors that properly engage and motivate employees to work effectively, and which ones still need to be improved. Based on the results of the research, a strategy for the company’s development is created, as well as an indication of the direction in which the company should go. 3.2. Research Tools The company’s “Happy Team” research is based on a structured interview with 54 questions grouped under nine categories. Each employee receives a unique link to the website where questionnaire is located in their individual e-mail inbox. The questions primarily use a five-point Likert scale: strongly agree, agree, do not know/no opinion, disagree, strongly disagree. Furthermore, questions related to the employee’s future at the company are added, as well as space for additional comments. The result, which indicates how things are in a given company, is a performance matrix. It shows the distribution of employees in terms of their perceived level of commitment and support. It assigns employees to four categories: • Most effective—show a high level of commitment and at the same time assess that they have a lot of support from the organization; • Distanced—rate support from the organization highly, but do not feel adequately involved. • Frustrated—believes he or she is engaged; however, is not receiving support from the company; • The least effective—is not engaged or supported in any way by the organization, and thus cannot be effective. The study was conducted at the end of 2020. A total of 677 employees participated in the research, with 53 choosing not to participate. This is an all-time high of 93% of all employees, including 91% of technicians working on agile-managed projects. In order to compare the results of the company’s “Happy Team” research with other companies in the industry, an additional structured interview was conducted among employees of IT companies working in agile teams. The interview questionnaire was sent online using the social networking site Facebook, sharing a link to the form on closed topic groups aimed at people interested in software development and testing. The interview questionnaire primarily targeted employees of IT companies working in an agile team on a daily basis. The sample was randomly selected, and the questionnaire could be filled out by any person who had access to it. The structured interview was based on 17 questions selected from the “Happy Team” research, which directly relate to the previously mentioned nine categories, as well as a metric and the motivators used in the company. A total of 67 people responded. After verification of the accuracy of the completed questionnaires, 61 completed questionnaires that met the adopted assumptions were finally taken into account. Considering the qualitative nature of the research, it is assumed that they should be reliable. This reliability results from the size of the error that is related to the measurement tool used, and which is generated randomly in the subsequent measurements with the use of a given tool [ 69 ]. Furthermore, if the research tool includes a qualitative rating scale, the resulting data should be checked for internal consistency. The most common of the techniques used to measure reliability is Cronbach’s alpha [ 70 ]. According to the accepted interpretation of the literature [ 69 – 71 ], a coefficient result above 0.6 is considered satisfactory, above 0.8 indicates very good reliability, and 0.9 indicates excellent reliability of the research. The results of data reliability measurement are presented in Table 1. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 6 of 18 Table 1. Measuring the reliability of the interview questionnaire. Specification Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Value Enterprise IT Industry How many years do you plan to stay and work at your current company? 0.9809 0.9488 I would recommend working at the company where I work to family members and friends. 0.9794 0.9448 At work I have the opportunity to perform challenging and interesting tasks. 0.9789 0.9437 My work allows me to make good use of my skills and abilities. 0.9787 0.9444 I have a good understanding of the strategy and goals of the company I work for. 0.9787 0.9461 I work for a company that has good prospects for growth in the next 2–3 years. 0.9787 0.9448 My team works well together 0.9800 0.9479 The company where I work relies on honest and open communication. 0.9803 0.9435 I trust my immediate supervisor. 0.9798 0.9453 I feel that my company provides development opportunities. 0.9792 0.9450 I have advancement opportunities. 0.9787 0.9464 My salary is fair and comparable to similar positions in other companies 0.9808 0.9452 I receive other benefits and perks from my employer that are attractive. 0.9788 0.9465 I get clear and real feedback on the quality of my work. 0.9794 0.9460 I see a clear link between my performance and my salary. 0.9802 0.9439 My company takes care of its employees. 0.9805 0.9424 I am happy in the company where I currently work. 0.9787 0.9429 4. Results In the following section, the analysis of selected 17 questions from the “Happy Team” research was performed first. In addition, the obtained results were compared with the results of a survey of employees of IT companies working in an agile approach to project management. It should also be noted that within both target groups, the questions were asked in the same form. Then, on the basis of the collected responses and the respondents’ declarations regarding the used motivators, a comparison was made and the weighted average was calculated, on the basis of which the motivators that translate to the greatest extent into employee efficiency were determined. Furthermore, the section was divided into nine sub-sections representing the categories assigned in the “Happy Team” research. It should also be noted that to make the data presented clear, the responses expressed on the Likert scale were grouped into three categories covering positive, neutral, and negative responses. 4.1. Commitment In the conducted research, negative answers in the question on the length of time the respondent plans to stay at the current company are considered for the options of less than 1 year and 1 to 2 years. A range of willingness to stay in the current company from 3 to 5 years is considered neutral. A positive answer is to mark the option of more than 5 years. A comparison of responses from the two researches (Figure 1) shows no significant differences, with almost half of all responses being positive. In 2020, the Bulldog Job portal [ 72 ] conducted anonymous research on a group of 5500 participants related to IT and other industries. The analysis of the report shows that the largest group of employees changes jobs every 2–3 years or so; this option was indicated by 44% of respondents. Such a high share of positive responses may indicate employees’ attachment to the company where they currently works, the right atmosphere, and overall satisfaction with the situation. An employee who shows a willingness to stay at one company for a longer period of time is likely to receive support from the employer, feel that he or she has the opportunity to grow, and demonstrate efficiency and commitment. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 7 of 18 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19 to 5 years is considered neutral. A positive answer is to mark the option of more than 5 years. A comparison of responses from the two researches (Figure 1) shows no significant differences, with almost half of all responses being positive. In 2020, the Bulldog Job portal [72] conducted anonymous research on a group of 5500 participants related to IT and other industries. The analysis of the report shows that the largest group of employees changes jobs every 2–3 years or so; this option was indicated by 44% of respondents. Such a high share of positive responses may indicate employees’ attachment to the company where they currently works, the right atmosphere, and overall satisfaction with the situation. An employee who shows a willingness to stay at one company for a longer period of time is likely to receive support from the employer, feel that he or she has the opportunity to grow, and demonstrate efficiency and commitment. Figure 1. Comparative analysis of performed research in the enterprise and IT industry—engagement. According to the results, 85% of the employees of Company X would recommend working at this company, a result 21 percentage points higher than seen in research on employees of other IT companies. Despite the rather significant differences in response to this question in both researches, more than half of the respondents indicated the answer that they would recommend working at the company where they currently work. Given the scarcity of specialists in the labor market, employers are trying to provide the best possible working conditions in order to reduce turnover at their company and attract more employees. 4.2. Support According to the results of the research (Figure 2), both in the industry and in the company, positive responses prevail, amounting to about 70%. Thus, it can be concluded that employees of agile teams in IT companies receive adequate support from the company they work for—they are offered interesting and challenging tasks and projects in which they have the opportunity to demonstrate and use their skills. One of the primary factors identified by the Total Rewards model [73] is attention to employee development opportunities. A factor that positively influences an employee’s effectiveness is his or her correct assignment to the right project, where the tasks will be interesting and challenging, where he or she will have the opportunity to use his or her potential and learn new aspects, but at the same time, where it will not be too difficult to accomplish his or her tasks. It is therefore important to correctly match the type and level of assignments to the position and experience of the employee in question. 47% 29% 24% 48% 31% 21% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses How many years do you plan to stay and work at your current company? Enterprise IT industry 84% 13% 3% 64% 20% 16% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses I would recommend working at the company where I work to family members and friends. Enterprise IT industry Figure 1. Comparative analysis of performed research in the enterprise and IT industry—engagement. According to the results, 85% of the employees of Company X would recommend working at this company, a result 21 percentage points higher than seen in research on employees of other IT companies. Despite the rather significant differences in response to this question in both researches, more than half of the respondents indicated the answer that they would recommend working at the company where they currently work. Given the scarcity of specialists in the labor market, employers are trying to provide the best possible working conditions in order to reduce turnover at their company and attract more employees. 4.2. Support According to the results of the research (Figure 2), both in the industry and in the company, positive responses prevail, amounting to about 70%. Thus, it can be concluded that employees of agile teams in IT companies receive adequate support from the company they work for—they are offered interesting and challenging tasks and projects in which they have the opportunity to demonstrate and use their skills. One of the primary factors identified by the Total Rewards model [ 73 ] is attention to employee development opportunities. A factor that positively influences an employee’s effectiveness is his or her correct assignment to the right project, where the tasks will be interesting and challenging, where he or she will have the opportunity to use his or her potential and learn new aspects, but at the same time, where it will not be too difficult to accomplish his or her tasks. It is therefore important to correctly match the type and level of assignments to the position and experience of the employee in question. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19 Figure 2. Comparative analysis of performed research in the enterprise and IT industry–support. 4.3. Clear and Engaging Direction Of responses from the “Happy Team” research, 77% indicate that employees understand the company’s strategy (Figure 3). This result is higher than the assessment of this aspect by employees of competing IT companies. Moreover, according to the majority of employees at Company X (77%), the company has good growth prospects in the coming years. Furthermore, more than half of the industry responses indicate that the company where the respondents work is prosperous and that this will be evident over the next 2–3 years. Given the nature of agile teams and the results of research presented by The Standish Group “Chaos Report” [74,75], one of the factors in IT project failures is a misunderstanding of the goals and needs of customers or users. The goals that an IT project is supposed to achieve are most often derived from the organization’s strategy and, in a way, involve a number of changes in the functioning of parts or even the entire enterprise [30]. IT companies in most cases try to define and communicate the company’s strategy and planned development to their employees. IT companies openly and clearly indicate the directions they are taking and involve employees in the joint achievement of goals. Figure 3. Comparative analysis of performed research in the enterprise and IT industry—clear and engaging direction 4.4. Cooperation According to the research results (Figure 4), employees of IT agile teams overwhelmingly believe that the work in their team is going well. 65% 22% 13% 69% 16% 15% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses At work I have the opportunity to perform challenging and interesting tasks. Enterprise IT industry 79% 15% 6% 71% 8% 21% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses My work allows me to make good use of my skills and abilities. Enterprise IT industry 77% 19% 4% 62% 18% 20% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses I have a good understanding of the strategy and goals of the company I work for. Enterprise IT industry 77% 19% 4% 59% 33% 8% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses I work for a company that has good prospects for growth in the next 2–3 years. Enterprise IT industry Figure 2. Comparative analysis of performed research in the enterprise and IT industry–support. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 8 of 18 4.3. Clear and Engaging Direction Of responses from the “Happy Team” research, 77% indicate that employees understand the company’s strategy (Figure 3). This result is higher than the assessment of this aspect by employees of competing IT companies. Moreover, according to the majority of employees at Company X (77%), the company has good growth prospects in the coming years. Furthermore, more than half of the industry responses indicate that the company where the respondents work is prosperous and that this will be evident over the next 2–3 years. Given the nature of agile teams and the results of research presented by The Standish Group “Chaos Report” [ 74 , 75 ], one of the factors in IT project failures is a misunderstanding of the goals and needs of customers or users. The goals that an IT project is supposed to achieve are most often derived from the organization’s strategy and, in a way, involve a number of changes in the functioning of parts or even the entire enterprise [ 30 ]. IT companies in most cases try to define and communicate the company’s strategy and planned development to their employees. IT companies openly and clearly indicate the directions they are taking and involve employees in the joint achievement of goals. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19 Figure 2. Comparative analysis of performed research in the enterprise and IT industry–support. 4.3. Clear and Engaging Direction Of responses from the “Happy Team” research, 77% indicate that employees understand the company’s strategy (Figure 3). This result is higher than the assessment of this aspect by employees of competing IT companies. Moreover, according to the majority of employees at Company X (77%), the company has good growth prospects in the coming years. Furthermore, more than half of the industry responses indicate that the company where the respondents work is prosperous and that this will be evident over the next 2–3 years. Given the nature of agile teams and the results of research presented by The Standish Group “Chaos Report” [74,75], one of the factors in IT project failures is a misunderstanding of the goals and needs of customers or users. The goals that an IT project is supposed to achieve are most often derived from the organization’s strategy and, in a way, involve a number of changes in the functioning of parts or even the entire enterprise [30]. IT companies in most cases try to define and communicate the company’s strategy and planned development to their employees. IT companies openly and clearly indicate the directions they are taking and involve employees in the joint achievement of goals. Figure 3. Comparative analysis of performed research in the enterprise and IT industry—clear and engaging direction 4.4. Cooperation According to the research results (Figure 4), employees of IT agile teams overwhelmingly believe that the work in their team is going well. 65% 22% 13% 69% 16% 15% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses At work I have the opportunity to perform challenging and interesting tasks. Enterprise IT industry 79% 15% 6% 71% 8% 21% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses My work allows me to make good use of my skills and abilities. Enterprise IT industry 77% 19% 4% 62% 18% 20% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses I have a good understanding of the strategy and goals of the company I work for. Enterprise IT industry 77% 19% 4% 59% 33% 8% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Positive responses Neutral responses Negative responses I work for a company that has good prospects for growth in the next 2–3 years. Enterprise IT industry Figure 3. Comparative analysis of performed research in the enterprise and IT industry—clear and engaging direction. 4.4. Cooperation According to the research results (Figure 4), employees of IT agile teams overwhelmingly believe that the work in their team is going well. The reason why this can happen is the self-organization of the team and the flexible approach of superiors and management to the project at hand. Inadequate selection of people to work on the project, both in terms of professional competence and soft skills and personal qualities, can cause failure to achieve the goals and lead to de-motivation and lower efficiency of employees. The atmosphere within the team is also key, as good relationships foster better performance and a sense of satisfaction and attachment to the current job, which is conducive to reducing turnover in the company. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 15 of 18 motivators [ 79 – 82 ]. On the other hand, the next ones, covering team integration funding, supporting from the company with the responsibilities of personal life, and interest sections, reflect the specificity of the agile team. We acknowledge the disadvantages of the research process, which mainly result from the decisions we have made regarding the methodological approach. First, the research was conducted on a single case of an IT company and compared with experts from other companies working in agile teams. Both the company and the respondents who took part in the research show work in both agile and open innovation models. Consequently, the research results obtained do not reflect the total state of the IT industry. Secondly, the relationship of efficiency and engagement with open innovation models was also not investigated. Accordingly, it is recommended that more extensive research be conducted, both qualitative and quantitative, covering the impact of the open innovation model in terms of collaboration with the environment, knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity, and organizational maturity in terms of employee engagement and effectiveness. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.B.; methodology, M.T.; validation, M.T. and P.B.; formal analysis, P.B.; investigation, M.T.; data curation, P.B.; writing—original draft preparation, P.B.; writing—review and editing, M.T.; supervision, P.B.; funding acquisition, M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the Silesian University of Technology, Poland, grant number 13/010/BK_22/0069. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Ge, J.; Xu, H.; Pellegrini, M.M. The effect of value co-creation on social enterprise growth: Moderating mechanism of environment dynamics. Sustainability 2019,11, 250. [CrossRef] 2. Oliva, F.L.; Kotabe, M. Barriers, practices, methods and knowledge management tools in startups. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019 ,23, 1838–1856. [CrossRef] 3. Reis, J.; Amorim, M.; Melão, N.; Matos, P. Digital Transformation: A Literature Review and Guidelines for Future Research. In Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies; Rocha, Á., Adeli, H., Reis, L.P., Costanzo, S., Eds.; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 411–421. [CrossRef] 4. Berends, H.; Smits, A.; Reymen, I.; Podoynitsyna, K. Learning while (re) configuring: Business model innovation processes in established firms. Strateg. Organ. 2016,14, 181–219. [CrossRef] 5. Veer, T.; Yang, P.; Riepe, J. Ventures’ conscious knowledge transfer to close partners, and beyond: A framework of performance, complementarity, knowledge disclosure, and knowledge broadcasting. J. Bus. Ventur. 2022,37, 106191. [CrossRef] 6. Krylova, K.O.; Vera, D.; Crossan, M. Knowledge transfer in knowledge-intensive organizations: The crucial role of improvisation in transferring and protecting knowledge. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016,20, 1045–1064. [CrossRef] 7. Bigliardi, B.; Ferraro, G.; Filippelli, S.; Galati, F. The past, present and future of open innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020 ,24, 1130–1161. [CrossRef] 8. Lee, M.; Yun, J.J.; Pyka, A.; Won, D.; Kodama, F.; Schiuma, G.; Park, H.; Jeon, J.; Park, K.; Jung, K.; et al. How to Respond to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or the Second Information Technology Revolution? Dynamic New Combinations between Technology, Market, and Society through Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018,4, 21. [CrossRef] 9. Bagherzadeh, M.; Markovic, S.; Bogers, M. Managing open innovation: A project-level perspective. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2019 , 68, 301–316. [CrossRef] 10. Heras-Rosas, C.D.L.; Herrera, J. Research Trends in Open Innovation and the Role of the University. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 29. [CrossRef] 11. Odriozola-Fernández, I.; Berbegal-Mirabent, J.; Merigó-Lindahl, J.M. Open innovation in small and medium enterprises: A bibliometric analysis. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2019,32, 533–557. [CrossRef] 12. Paternoster, N.; Giardino, C.; Unterkalmsteiner, M.; Gorschek, T.; Abrahamsson, P. Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2014,56, 1200–1218. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 16 of 18 13. Cano-Kollmann, M.; Awate, S.; Hannigan, T.J.; Mudambi, R. Burying the hatchet for catch-up: Open innovation among industry laggards in the automotive industry. Calif. Manage. Rev. 2018,60, 17–42. [CrossRef] 14. Naramski, M. The Application of ICT and Smart Technologies in Polish Museums—Towards Smart Tourism. Sustainability 2020 , 12, 9287. [CrossRef] 15. Abubakar, M.N. Innovation Co-operation Impact on Operations of Small, Medium and Large (SML) Firms: A Malaysia Perspective. IPJAF 2018,2, 4–15. [CrossRef] 16. Saebi, T.; Foss, N.J. Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. Eur. Manag. J. 2015,33, 201–213. [CrossRef] 17. Felin, T.; Zenger, T.R. Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Res. Policy 2014 ,43, 914–925. [CrossRef] 18. Chesbrough, H.; Bogers, M. Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation. New Frontiers in Open Innovation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 3–28. 19. Gianiodis, P.T.; Ellis, S.C.; Secchi, E. Advancing a typology of open innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2010 ,14, 531–572. [CrossRef] 20. Zaman, U.; Nawaz, S.; Nadeem, R.D. Navigating Innovation Success through Projects. Role of CEO Transformational Leadership, Project Management Best Practices, and Project Management Technology Quotient. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020 ,6, 168. [CrossRef] 21. Huizingh, E.K. Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 2011,31, 2–9. [CrossRef] 22. Spender, J.C.; Corvello, V.; Grimaldi, M.; Rippa, P. Startups and open innovation: A review of the literature. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2017,20, 4–30. [CrossRef] 23. Samanta, A.K. Organizational culture and employee engagement: A review of selected studies. Asian J. Manag. 2021 ,12, 201–204. [CrossRef] 24. Siengthai, S.; Swierczek, F.; Bamel, U.K. The effects of organizational culture and commitment on employee innovation: Evidence from Vietnam’s IT industry. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2019,13, 719–742. [CrossRef] 25. Koch, J.; Schermuly, C.C. Who is attracted and why? How agile project management influences employee’s attraction and commitment. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2020,14, 699–720. [CrossRef] 26. Prommegger, B.; Huck-Fries, V.; Wiesche, M.; Krcmar, H. Agile and attached: The impact of agile practices on agile team members’ affective organisational commitment. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Siegen, Germany, 24–27 February 2019. 27. Azanha, A.; Argoud, A.R.T.T.; Camargo Junior, J.B.d.; Antoniolli, P.D. Agile project management with Scrum: A case study of a Brazilian pharmaceutical company IT project. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2017,10, 121–142. [CrossRef] 28. Vallon, R.; Estácio, B.J.D.S.; Prikladnicki, R.; Grechenig, T. Systematic literature review on agile practices in global software development. Inf. Softw.Technol. 2018,96, 161–180. [CrossRef] 29. Schmitt, A.; Hörner, S. Systematic literature review–improving business processes by implementing agile. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2021,27, 868–882. [CrossRef] 30. Trzeciak, M. Sustainable risk management in it enterprises. Risks 2021,9, 135. [CrossRef] 31. López-Alcarria, A.; Olivares-Vicente, A.; Poza-Vilches, F. A systematic review of the use of agile methodologies in education to foster sustainability competencies. Sustainability 2019,11, 2915. [CrossRef] 32. Liebert, F.; Trzeciak, M. Virtual Temporary Collaboration Networks-A Case Study of the IT Industry. Manag. Issues 2019 ,17, 56–73. [CrossRef] 33. Malik, M.; Sarwar, S.; Orr, S. Agile practices and performance: Examining the role of psychological empowerment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021,39, 10–20. [CrossRef] 34. Trzeciak, M. Key risk factors in it projects managed with the use of agile methods. Sci. Pap. Sil. Univ. Technol. Organ. Manag. Ser. 2020,145, 533–546. [CrossRef] 35. Hysa, E.; Kruja, A.; Rehman, N.U.; Laurenti, R. Circular Economy Innovation and Environmental Sustainability Impact on Economic Growth: An Integrated Model for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2020,12, 4831. [CrossRef] 36. Kagermann, H. Change Through Digitization—Value Creation in the Age of Industry 4.0. In Management of Permanent Change; Albach, H., Meffert, H., Pinkwart, A., Reichwald, R., Eds.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2015; pp. 23–45. [CrossRef] 37. Statistics Poland. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/science-and-technology/information-society (accessed on 3 September 2022). 38. Trzeciak, M. Analysis of risk management processes in the IT industry. Sci. Pap. Sil. Univ. Technol. Organ. Manag. Ser. 2020 ,142, 95–106. [CrossRef] 39. Rasnacis, A.; Berzisa, S. Method for adaptation and implementation of agile project management methodology. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017,104, 43–50. [CrossRef] 40. Bogdanova, M.; Parashkevova, E.; Stoyanova, M. Agile project management in governmental organizations–methodological issues. IJASOS 2020,6, 262–275. [CrossRef] 41. Tam, C.; Moura, E.J.D.C.; Oliveira, T.; Varajão, J. The factors influencing the success of on-going agile software development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 2020,38, 165–176. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 17 of 18 42. Bergmann, T.; Karwowski, W. Agile Project Management and Project Success: A Literature Review. In Advances in Human Factors, Business Management and Society; Kantola, J.I., Nazir, S., Barath, T., Eds.; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 405–414. [CrossRef] 43. Dhir, S.; Kumar, D.; Singh, V.B. Success and Failure Factors that Impact on Project Implementation Using Agile Software Development Methodology. In Software Engineering; Hoda, M., Chauhan, N., Quadri, S., Srivastava, P., Eds.; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Krems, Austria, 2019; pp. 647–654. [CrossRef] 44. Mishra, A.; Abdalhamid, S.; Mishra, D.; Ostrovska, S. Organizational issues in embracing Agile methods: An empirical assessment. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2021,12, 1420–1433. [CrossRef] 45. Ghozali, R.P.; Saputra, H.; Nuriawan, M.A.; Utama, D.N.; Nugroho, A. Systematic literature review on decision-making of requirement engineering from agile software development. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019,157, 274–281. [CrossRef] 46. Mkoba, E.S.; Marnewick, C. Organisational Culture Attributes Influencing the Adoption of Agile Practices: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2022,7, 11690. [CrossRef] 47. Neto, J.D.S.A.; Penha, R.; da Silva, L.F.; Scafuto, I.C. The importance of leadership in agile projects: Systematic literature review. Res., Soc. Dev. 2022,11. [CrossRef] 48. Marnada, P.; Raharjo, T.; Hardian, B.; Prasetyo, A. Agile project management challenge in handling scope and change: A systematic literature review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022,197, 290–300. [CrossRef] 49. Ozkan, N.; Erdil, O.; Gök, M.¸S. Agile Teams Working from Home During the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Literature Review on New Advantages and Challenges. In Lean and Agile Software Development; Przybyłek, A., Jarz˛ebowicz, A., Lukovi´c, I., Ng, Y.Y., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 38–60. [CrossRef] 50. Khan, R.A.; Abrar, M.F.; Baseer, S.; Majeed, M.F.; Usman, M.; Ur Rahman, S.; Cho, Y.-Z. Practices of Motivators in Adopting Agile Software Development at Large Scale Development Team from Management Perspective. Electronics 2021,10, 2341. [CrossRef] 51. Doblinger, M. Individual competencies for self-managing team performance: A systematic literature review. Small Group Res. 2022,53, 128–180. [CrossRef] 52. Parast, M.M. The effect of Six Sigma projects on innovation and firm performance. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 2011 ,29, 45–55. [CrossRef] 53. Werdhiastutie, A.; Suhariadi, F.; Partiwi, S.G. Achievement Motivation as Antecedents of Quality Improvement of Organizational Human Resources. BIRCI-J. 2020,3, 747–752. [CrossRef] 54. Sonmez Cakir, F.; Adiguzel, Z. Analysis of leader effectiveness in organization and knowledge sharing behavior on employees and organization. Sage Open 2020,10, 2158244020914634. [CrossRef] 55. Jing, R.; Xu, T.; Lai, X.; Mahmoudi, E.; Fang, H. Technical efficiency of public and private hospitals in Beijing, China: A comparative study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 82. [CrossRef] 56. Helms, M.M. Encyklopedia of Management; Thompson Gale: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2006; p. 211. Available online: http://dspace.vnbrims.org:13000/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/4363/Encyclopedia%20Of%20Management%205th% 20Edition.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 1 July 2022). 57. Ko˙ zusznik, B. Zachowania Człowieka w Organizacji; PWE: Warsaw, Poland, 2014. Available online: https://www.pwe.com.pl/ ksiazki/zasoby-ludzkie/zachowania-czlowieka-w-organizacji,p515754526 (accessed on 1 July 2022). (In Polish) 58. LePine, J.A. Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005,90, 1153–1167. [CrossRef] 59. Wulf, G.; Lewthwaite, R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2016,23, 1382–1414. [CrossRef] 60. Fischer, C.; Malycha, C.P.; Schafmann, E. The influence of intrinsic motivation and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation. Front. Psychol. 2019,10, 137. [CrossRef] 61. Shahzadi, I.; Javed, A.; Pirzada, S.S.; Nasreen, S.; Khanam, F. Impact of employee motivation on employee performance. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2014,6, 159–166. 62. Zameer, H.; Ali, S.; Nisar, W.; Amir, M. The impact of the motivation on the employee’s performance in beverage industry of Pakistan. Int. J. Acad. Res. Account. Financ. Manag. Sci. 2014,4, 293–298. 63. Paais, M.; Pattiruhu, J.R. Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. J. Asian Finance Econ. Bus. 2020,7, 577–588. [CrossRef] 64. Taba, M.I. Mediating effect of work performance and organizational commitment in the relationship between reward system and employees’ work satisfaction. J. Manag. Dev. 2018,37, 65–75. [CrossRef] 65. Petrovskaya, A.; Pavlenko, D.; Feofanov, K.; Klimov, V. Computerization of learning management process as a means of improving the quality of the educational process and student motivation. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020,169, 656–661. [CrossRef] 66. Gribanova, S.; Abeltina, A.; Ozols, J. Evaluation of factors that influence the motivation of it specialists in latvia. In Proceedings of the Society, Integration, Education, Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 16–18 May 2019; pp. 156–168. 67. Grasser, R.; Newman, A.H.; Xiong, G. Does Pay Transparency Help or Hurt? Evidence on Employee Motivation. 2022. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3802785 (accessed on 1 July 2022). 68. Ebneyamini, S.; Sadeghi Moghadam, M.R. Toward developing a framework for conducting case study research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2018,17, 1609406918817954. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 176 18 of 18 69. Cresswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2009. Available online: http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/2232-9641/2016/2232-96411612191V.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022). 70. Chan, L.L.; Idris, N. Validity and reliability of the instrument using exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2017,7, 400–410. 71. Nunally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. 72. 2020 IT Community Survey. Available online: https://bulldogjob.pl/it-report/2020#profile (accessed on 9 September 2022). 73. Mabaso, C.M. Total Rewards as a Psychosocial Factor Influencing Talent Retention. In Psychology of Retention; Coetzee, M., Potgieter, I., Ferreira, N., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 415–433. [CrossRef] 74. Varajão, J.; Trigo, A.; Pereira, J.L.; Moura, I. Information systems project management success. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2021 ,9, 62–74. [CrossRef] 75. Kumar, T. Problems in the Area of Agile Methodologies. In Strategic Approaches to Digital Platform Security Assurance; IGI Global: Hershey, Pennsylvania, 2021. [CrossRef] 76. Kolb, A.; Hecker, P. Agile Engineering: Introduction of a new Management Concept. J. Appl. Leadersh. Manag. 2016,4, 41–50. 77. Flewelling, P. The Agile Developer’s Handbook: Get More Value from Your Software Development: Get the Best Out of the Agile Methodology; Packt Publishing Ltd.: Birmingham, UK, 2018. 78. Randhawa, N. Performance evaluation system–key to employee development. IMPACT: IJRBM 2017,5, 21–34. 79. Vishnubhotla, S.D.; Mendes, E.; Lundberg, L. Investigating the relationship between personalities and agile team climate of software professionals in a telecom company. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2020,126, 106335. [CrossRef] 80. Ali, B.J.; Anwar, G. An empirical study of employees’ motivation and its influence job satisfaction. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2021 ,5, 21–30. [CrossRef] 81. Strode, D.; Dingsøyr, T.; Lindsjorn, Y. A teamwork effectiveness model for agile software development. Empir. Softw. Eng. 2022 , 27, 1–50. [CrossRef] 82. Reddy, M.K.R. The Impact of Employee Feed Back System and Evaluation. International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET) EATHD-2015 Conference Proceeding, 14–15 August 2016. Available online: https://www.smec.ac.in/assets/images/journals/mba/16-17/THE%20IMPACT%20OF%20EMPLOYEE%20FEED%20 BACK%20SYSTEM%20AND%20EVALUATION.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022). 83. Rangus, K.; Slavec, A. The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and absorptive capacity on firms’ innovation and business performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017,120, 195–203. [CrossRef] 84. Amundsen, O.; Aasen, T.M.B.; Gressgård, L.J.; Hansen, K. Preparing organisations for employee-driven open innovation. IJBSAM 2014,9, 24–35. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/190651 (accessed on 1 July 2022). 85. Naqshbandi, M.M.; Tabche, I.; Choudhary, N. Managing open innovation: The roles of empowering leadership and employee involvement climate. Manag. Decis. 2019,57, 703–723. [CrossRef] 86. Trzeciak, M.; Kopec, T.P.; Kwilinski, A. Constructs of Project Programme Management Supporting Open Innovation at the Strategic Level of the Organisation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 58. [CrossRef]