Motivations and behaviors of software professionals

Abstract

This paper reports on a study exploring the motivations of professional software workers. We hypothesized that extrinsic motivation is more important to software professionals of today than to those of fifteen to twenty years ago, and that among those in the field today, it is most important for those who had been in the prqfession for the shortest time. Conversely, we hypothesized that intrinsic motivation is less important to software professionals of today than to those of fifteen to twenty years ago, and that among those in the field today, it is least important for those who had been in the profession for the shortest time.We also expected to find that hours of recreational computer use would be positively correlated with intrinsic motivation and negatively correlated with extrinsic motivation.A review of the literature uncovered a number of studies of DPlMIS personnel which showed that they have high growth needs. This indicates that DP/MIS personnel are concerned with intrinsic factors. We found no longitudinal surveys studying the motivation of computer professionals.Analysis of data from studies in 1969-70 and 1972-73 [26, 271 suggested that at the times of these studies intrinsic motivations were more important to software professionals than to the general workforce, and extrinsic motivations less important. However, the numbers of respondents in these studies who were software professionals were so small (three and eight, respectively) that the results are not statistically valid.We designed and carried out a Survey of Software Professionals ("SSP"), obtaining responses from local businesses and through the Usenet worldwide computer network. After analyzing data from the SSP and from the earlier studies we have concluded (1) that the longer a person has been in the software field the less Authors' address:

How do interactive tabletop systems influence collaboration?

“…At the end of the experiment, users had to fill in the same questionnaire as in Experiment 1. Furthermore, in order to test our H2 hypothesis, we added a few scales (fun of use, self-assessment of creativity) as well as a customized motivation scale inspired by existing scales (Chow & Law, 2005;Pelletier, Vallerand, Green-Demers, Blais, & Brière, 1996;Rubin & Hernandez, 1988;Zaharias, 2006). For the motivation scale, users had to rate their agreement on 7-point Likert scales to the following items: ''I was motivated to do well'' (1-7), ''The results are important to me'' (1-7), ''I tried to do my best'' (1-7), ''I would like to know my performance'' (1-7), ''I would like to know the others' performance'' (1-7), ''I would like to carry on using the interactive tabletop device'' (1-7).…”

Dynamic tabletop interfaces for increasing creativity

“…The first section was dedicated to usability criteria (easiness, fun, agreeableness, satisfaction, self-assessed level of collaboration with the other participants, self-assessed quantity and quality of ideas generated). The second section was a customized motivation questionnaire inspired by existing scales (Rubin & Hernandez, 1988;Pelletier et al, 1996;Chow & Law, 2005;Zaharias, 2006). The following items were used: "I was motivated to do well, the results are important to me, I tried to do my best, I would like to know my performance, I would like to know the others' performance."…”

A systematic review of theory use in studies investigating the motivations of software engineers

“…However, only 9 of these articles mention the theory explicitly and 7 of these articles only at an interpretational level. This suggests that while there is low explicit use of goal setting theory, many studies generate findings that we have found to be (Hackman and Oldham) Way the Theory is Used in the Study Not Explicitly But Explicitly (n = 35) Total Article References (n = 37) Related (n = 2) Interpretational Underpinning Motivated for Row Zawacki [1992], Miller et al [1993] √ 2 Gambill et al [2000], Dittrich et al [1985], Khalil et al [1997], Roberts et al [2004], Couger [1988], Couger [1992], Couger and Adelsberger [1988], Couger and Ishikawa [1995], Couger and McIntyre [1987a], Couger and McIntyre [1987b], Couger et al [1989], Couger et al [1990], Garza et al [2003], Procaccino et al [2005], Smits et al [1997] √ √ √ 15 Igbaria et al [1995], Nelson and LeRouge [2001], Burn et al [1992], Cheney [1984], Goldstein and Rockart [1984], Jordan and Whiteley [1994], Lending and Chervany [1997], Mak and Sockel [2001] √ √ 8 Bartol and Martin [1982], Baroudi and Ginzberg [1986], Carayon et al [2003], Myers [1991], Reid et al [2006], Rubin and Hernandez [1988], Santana and Robey [1995], …”

“…Rubin and Hernandez [1988] suggest that software engineers who are relatively new to their jobs tend to be less motivated by factors directly related to the tasks they are doing. They are more motivated by factors external to their tasks, such as pay.…”

“…This is a typical expression of Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory. As software engineers mature in their jobs, the immediate factors of physical and job security are replaced by factors like (Maslow) Way the Theory is Used in the Study Article References Not Explicitly Explicitly (n = 11) Total (n = 23) But Related (n = 12) Interpretational Underpinning Motivated for Row Zawacki [1992], Couger [1988], Cheney [1984], Rubin and Hernandez [1988], Santana and Robey [1995], Ramachandran andRao [2006, Enns [2006], Darcy and Ma [2005], Agarwal and Ferratt [2000], Crook et al [1991], Goldstein [1988], √ 12 Ferratt and Short [ , Burn et al [1992, Smits et al [1992], Linberg [1999] √ 4 NB See Section 3.2 for an explanation of the labels used in this table. self-esteem. Another manifestation of Maslow's needs hierarchy is shown in the study by Burn et al [1992], where due to an unstable environment, pay and benefits are viewed as a motivation factor.…”