Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Leading Self-Organizing Teams in the Evolutionary Development of Software Projects: The Effects of Shared Leadership,Power Distance,and Constructive Controversy on Collaborative Software Process Tailoring
Software process tailoring (SPT), which involves continuously adjusting development to accommodate project dynamics, has received increasing attention in modern software projects. In self-organizing software teams, SPT often involves conflicts, thus leadership and power dynamics are especially important. Drawing on social interdependence theory, we propose a model to examine how shared leadership, manager-based and member-based power distance, and constructive controversy influence SPT performance. Moreover, we utilize social exchange theory to explain how shared leadership affects the newly identified member-based power. The results show that shared leadership reduces both manager-based and member-based power distance, fosters constructive controversy, and ultimately enhances SPT performance.
AhmadR.NawazM. R.IshaqM. I.KhanM. M.AshrafH.A. (2023). Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1015921.
2.
AlegriaJ. A.BastarricaM.C.QuispeA.OchoaS. F. (2014). MDE-based process tailoring strategy. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 26(4), 386–403.
3.
Al-GhazaliB. M.AfsarB. (2021). Investigating the mechanism linking task conflict with employees’ innovative work behavior. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(4), 599–625.
4.
AimeF.HumphreyS.DeRueD. S.PaulJ. B. (2014). The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 327–352.
5.
AppelbaumN. P.LockemanK. S.OrrS.HuffT. A.HoganC. J.QueenB. A.DowA. W. (2020). Perceived influence of power distance, psychological safety, and team cohesion on team effectiveness. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(1), 20–26.
6.
ArmstrongJ. S.OvertonT. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
7.
BaltesS.RalphP. (2022). Sampling in software engineering research: A critical review and guidelines. Empirical Software Engineering, 27(4), 94.
8.
BarberE.WarnJ. (2005). Leadership in project management: From firefighter to firelighter. Management Decision, 43(7), 1032–1039.
9.
BassJ. M. (2016). Artefacts and agile method tailoring in large-scale offshore software development programmes. Information & Software Technology, 75(75), 1–16.
10.
BrislinR.W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
11.
BurgaR.SpraakmanC.BalestreriC.RezaniaD. (2022). Examining the transition to agile practices with information technology projects: Agile teams and their experience of accountability. International Journal of Project Management, 40(1), 76–87.
12.
CampanelliA. S.ParreirasF. S. (2015), Agile methods tailoring—A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 110, 85–100.
13.
CampanelliA. S.CamiloR. D.ParreirasF. S. (2018). The impact of tailoring criteria on agile practices adoption: A survey with novice agile practitioners in Brazil. Journal of Systems and Software, 137, 366–379.
14.
CarsonJ. B.TeslukP. E.MarroneJ. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234.
15.
CaseyD.MurphyK. (2009). Issues in using methodological triangulation in research. Nurse Researcher, 16(4), 40–55
16.
ChenC. Y.HsuP. Y.VuH. N. (2023) Collaborative process tailoring in evolutionary software development: A teamwork-quality perspective. Software Quality Journal, 31(1), 89–119.
17.
ChenC. Y.LeeJ.C. (2023). Exploring teams’ temporal factors for determining process tailoring that promotes the evolution of agile-based software development. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 54(1), 46–65.
18.
ChenC.Y.TaiK.Y. (2023). Exploring the effects of team learning capabilities and team climates in software process tailoring. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 9286–9298. 10.1109/TEM.2023.3314284
19.
ChiuC. Y. C.OwensB. P.TeslukP. E. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1705–1720.
20.
ChenW.ZhangJ. H. (2023). Does shared leadership always work? A state-of-the-art review and future prospects. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 15(1), 51–66.
21.
ClugstonM.HowellJ. P.DorfmanP. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment?Journal of Management, 26(1), 5–30.
22.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Erlbaum.
23.
ColeM. S.CarterM. Z.ZhangZ. (2013). Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 962–973.
24.
ConboyK.FitzgeraldB. (2010). Method and developer characteristics for effective agile method tailoring: A study of XP expert opinion. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 20(1), 1–30.
25.
CuiT.WuY.TongY. (2018). Exploring ideation and implementation openness in open innovation projects: IT-enabled absorptive capacity perspective. Information & Management, 55(5), 576–587.
26.
DanielsM. A.GregurasG. J. (2014). Exploring the nature of power distance. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1202–1229.
27.
DuanJ.WangX.WangX. H.XuR.FanY.PengT. (2025). The negative consequences of team voice: an interaction of frequency and centralization. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 10.1108/JMP-04-2024-0281
28.
DöösM.WilhelmsonL. (2021). Fifty-five years of managerial shared leadership research: A review of an empirical field. Leadership, 17(6), 715–746.
29.
GandomaniT. J.TavakoliZ.ZulzalilH.FarsaniH. K. (2020). The role of project manager in agile software teams: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 8, 117109–117121.
30.
GheorgheA.FodorO. C.CurșeuP. L.TrifS.CirebeaL. (2023). The effect of humor and perceived social interdependence on teamwork engagement in student groups. Current Psychology, 42(27), 23830–23841.
31.
GinsbergM. P.QuinnL. H. (1995). Process tailoring and the software capability maturity model. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-024. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.
32.
GrahamK. A.DustS. B.ZiegertJ. C. (2018). Supervisor-employee power distance incompatibility, gender similarity, and relationship conflict: A test of interpersonal interaction theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 334–346.
33.
GreerL. L.Van BunderenL.YuS. (2017). The dysfunctions of power in teams: A review and emergent conflict perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 103–124.
34.
GuhrN.LebekB.BreitnerM. H. (2019). The impact of leadership on employees’ intended information security behaviour: An examination of the full-range leadership theory. Information Systems Journal, 29(2), 340–362.
35.
GusicM.ThorndykeL. (2022). Functional mentoring. In FornariA.ShahD. T. (Eds.), Mentoring in health professions education: Evidence-informed strategies across the continuum (pp. 73–79). Springer International Publishing.
36.
HadiN. U.ChaudharyA. (2021). Impact of shared leadership on team performance through team reflexivity: examining the moderating role of task complexity. Team Performance Management, 27(5/6), 391–405.
37.
HairJ.HollingsworthC. L.RandolphA. B.ChongA. Y. L. (2017) An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458.
38.
HarkemaL.VriensD.VermeerbergenL.GerritsenD.VermeulenP. (2025). Failure or success of self-organizing teams in long-term care organizations: an integrative systematic literature review on the role of the organization structure. BMC Health Services Research, 25(1), 1–17.
39.
HauffS.RichterN. (2015). Power distance and its moderating role in the relationship between situational job characteristics and job satisfaction: An empirical analysis using different cultural measures. Cross Cultural Management, 22(1), 68–89.
40.
HenselerJ.HubonaG.RayP. A. (2016) Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20.
41.
HodaR.NobleJ.MarshallS. (2013). Self-organizing roles on agile software development teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(3), 422–444.
42.
HodaR.NobleJ.MarshallS. (2010, May). Organizing self-organizing teams. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1 (pp. 285–294).
43.
HofmanM.GrelaG.OronowiczM. (2023). Impact of shared leadership quality on agile team productivity and project results. Project Management Journal, 54(3), 285–305.
44.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.
HoggM. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.
47.
HoggM. A.van KnippenbergD.RastD. E., III. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258–304.
48.
HollenbeckJ. R.BeersmaB.SchoutenM. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 82–106.
49.
HuJ.ErdoganB.JiangK.BauerT. N.LiuS. (2018). Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313–323.
50.
HuJ.JudgeT. A. (2017). Leader–team complementarity: Exploring the interactive effects of leader personality traits and team power distance values on team processes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 935–955.
51.
HusseinA. (2009). The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined?Journal of Comparative Social Work, 4(1), 106–117.
52.
ImamH.ZaheerM. K. (2021). Shared leadership and project success: The roles of knowledge sharing, cohesion and trust in the team. International Journal of Project Management, 39(5), 463–473.
53.
JamesL. R.DemareeR. G.WolfG. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.
54.
JiangJ. J.ChenV.GoodeS.FernandezW. (2013). Conflict resolution satisfaction and IS program effectiveness: Constructive controversy theory. 8th Pre-ICIS International Research Workshop on Information Technology Project Management, Milan, Italy, pp.15–26.
55.
JohnsonD. W. (2003). Social interdependence: Interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 934–935.
56.
JohnsonD.W. (2015). Constructive controversy: Theory, research, practice. Cambridge University Press.
57.
JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73.
58.
JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T. (2008). Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning: The teacher's role. In GilliesR. M.AshmanA. F.TerwelJ. (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 9–37). Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-70892-8
59.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
60.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T.TjosvoldD. (2006). Constructive controversy. In DeutschM.ColemanP. T.MarcusE. C. (Eds), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 69–91). Jossey-Bass.
61.
JollyP. M.KongD. T.KimK. Y. (2021). Social support at work: An integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 229–251.
62.
JungstS. E.ThompsonJ. R.AtchisonG. J. (2003). Academic controversy: Fostering constructive conflict in natural resources education. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 32(1), 36–42.
63.
KakarA. K. (2017). Investigating the prevalence and performance correlates of vertical versus shared leadership in emergent software development teams. Information Systems Management, 34(2), 172–184.
64.
KangJ. H.MatusikJ. G.KimT. Y.PhillipsJ. M. (2016). Interactive effects of multiple organizational climates on employee innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 628–642.
65.
KarnJ. S.CowlingA. J. (2008). Measuring the effect of conflict on software engineering teams. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 582–589.
66.
KawalekP.LeonardJ. (1996). Evolutionary software development to support organizational and business process change: A case study account. Journal of Information Technology, 11(3), 185–198.
67.
KlaicA.BurtscherM. J.JonasK. (2020). Fostering team innovation and learning by means of team-centric transformational leadership: The role of teamwork quality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(4), 942–966.
68.
KlasmeierK. N.RowoldJ. (2020). A multilevel investigation of predictors and outcomes of shared leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(9), 915–930.
69.
KimuraT.SugiharaM.TakaramotoM.ToriyaM.TomaT. (2022, October). A team performance measurement by pulse survey results of corporate planning members. In Transdisciplinarity and the future of engineering (pp. 259–268). DOI:10.3233/ATDE220654
70.
KorkmazA. V.Van EngenM. L.KnappertL.SchalkR. (2022). About and beyond leading uniqueness and belongingness: A systematic review of inclusive leadership research. Human Resource Management Review, 32(4), 100894.
71.
KuenziM.SchminkeM. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal of Management, 35(3), 634–717.
72.
KukenbergerM. R.D'InnocenzoL. (2020). The building blocks of shared leadership: The interactive effects of diversity types, team climate, and time. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 125–150.
73.
LeeJ. C.ChenC. Y. (2024). The impact of knowledge inertia on process tailoring in the dynamic development of software projects in Chinese industries. Information and Software Technology, 165, 107337.
74.
LeeJ. C.ChenC. Y. (2020). Exploring the team dynamic learning process in software process tailoring performance: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(3), 502–518.
75.
LeeJ. C.ChenC. Y. (2022a). Exploring the effects of team coordination and power distance on effective software process tailoring: A theoretical perspective. Information Technology & People, 35(3), 1009–1028.
76.
LeeJ. C.ChenX. (2022b). Exploring users’ adoption intentions in the evolution of artificial intelligence mobile banking applications: The intelligent and anthropomorphic perspectives. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40(4), 631–658.
77.
LeeJ. C.ChenC. Y. (2022c). Motivating members’ involvement to effectually conduct collaborative software process tailoring. Empirical Software Engineering, 27(7), 183.
78.
LeeJ. C.ChouI. C.ChenC. Y. (2021). The effect of process tailoring on software project performance: The role of team absorptive capacity and its knowledge-based enablers. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 120–147`
79.
LeeJ. C.WangY. T.ChenC. Y. (2020). The effect of transactive memory systems on process tailoring in software projects: The moderating role of task conflict and shared temporal cognitions. Journal of Systems and Software, 164, 110545.
80.
LeeN. C.WangE. T. (2016). Translation to inter-organizational systems integration: The effect of power and the mediating role of the obligatory passage point. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(3), 4.
81.
LiangB.van KnippenbergD.GuQ. (2021). A cross-level model of shared leadership, meaning, and individual creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(1), 68–83.
82.
LiangT. P.JiangJ.KleinG. S.LiuY. C. (2010). Software quality as influenced by informational diversity, task conflict, and learning in project teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(3), 477–487.
83.
LinT. C.ChenC. M.HsuS. C.FuT. W. (2015). The impact of team knowledge on problem solving competence in IS development teams. International Journal of Project Management, 33(8), 1692–1703.
84.
LyndonS.PandeyA.NavareA. (2020). Shared leadership and team creativity: Investigating the role of cognitive trust and team learning through mixed method approach. Personnel Review, 49(9), 1805–1822.
85.
MalhotraD.GinoF. (2011). The pursuit of power corrupts: How investing in outside options motivates opportunism in relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 559–592.
86.
MassaF. G.O’MahonyS. (2021). Order from chaos: How networked activists self-organize by creating a participation architecture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 1037–1083.
87.
MitchellR.von StieglitzS.GuJ.BoyleB.OcampoA. C. G. (2025). Tackling adversity with open minds: Team personality composition facilitates shared leadership and team resilience. Applied Psychology, 74(1), e12568.
88.
MoeN. B.AurumA.DybåT. (2012). Challenges of shared decision-making: A multiple case study of agile software development. Information and Software Technology, 54(8), 853–865.
89.
NaumanS.BhattiS. H.ImamH.KhanM. S. (2022). How servant leadership drives project team performance through collaborative culture and knowledge sharing. Project Management Journal, 53(1), 17–32.
90.
NicolaidesV. C.LaPortK. A.ChenT. R.TomassettiA. J.WeisE. J.ZaccaroS. J.CortinaJ. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 923–942.
91.
OrekoyaI. O. (2024). Inclusive leadership and team climate: The role of team power distance and trust in leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(1), 94–115.
92.
OuZ.ChenT.LiF.TangP. (2018). Constructive controversy and creative process engagement: The roles of positive conflict value, cognitive flexibility, and psychological safety. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(2), 101–113.
93.
ParkS. H.BaeD. H. (2013). Tailoring a large-sized software process using process slicing and case-based reasoning technique. IET Software, 7(1), 47–55.
94.
ParkS. H.NaH.ParkS.SugumaranV. (2006). A semi-automated filtering technique for software process tailoring using neural network. Expert Systems with Applications, 30(2), 179–189.
95.
ParoliaN.JiangJ. J.KleinG.SheuT. S. (2011). The contribution of resource interdependence to IT program performance: A social interdependence perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 313–324.
96.
PattersonM.WarrP.WestM. (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 193–216.
97.
PearsallM. J.VenkataramaniV. (2015). Overcoming asymmetric goals in teams: The interactive roles of team learning orientation and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 735–748.
98.
PengJ.WangZ.ChenX. (2019). Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 419–433.
99.
PolitisJ. D. (2005). The influence of managerial power and credibility on knowledge acquisition attributes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(3), 197–214.
100.
PollackJ.AlgeoC. (2014). Perspectives on the formal authority between project managers and change managers. Project Management Journal, 45(5), 27–43.
101.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
102.
QuillJ. C.DarcyC.GaravanT.AktarM. W. (2024). Shared leadership in MNC agile software teams: The role of team leadership style and attitude to sport. European Management Journal. 10.1016/j.emj.2024.08.002
103.
RalphP. (2019). Toward methodological guidelines for process theories and taxonomies in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 45(7), 712–735.
104.
RandelA. E.GalvinB. M.ShoreL. M.EhrhartK. H.ChungB. G.DeanM. A.KedharnathU. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203.
105.
RingleC. M.WendeS.BeckerJ. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH.
106.
RobertsG. C.TreasureD. C.BalagueG. (1998). Achievement goals in sport: The development and validation of the Perception of Success Questionnaire. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16(4), 337–347.
107.
RussoD.HanelP. H.AltnickelS.van BerkelN. (2021). Predictors of well-being and productivity among software professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic—A longitudinal study. Empirical Software Engineering, 26(4), 62.
108.
RussoD.StolK. J. (2021). PLS-SEM for software engineering research: An introduction and survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(4), 1–38.
109.
Salas-VallinaA.RofcaninY.Las HerasM. (2022). Building resilience and performance in turbulent times: The influence of shared leadership and passion at work across levels. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 25(1), 8–27.
110.
SarstedtM.HairJ. F.PickM.LiengaardB. D.RadomirL.RingleC.M. (2022). Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 1035–1064.
111.
SawyerS. (2001). Effects of intra-group conflict on packaged software development team performance. Information Systems Journal, 11(2), 155–178.
112.
SchneiderB.HangesP. J.SmithD. B.SalvaggioA. N. (2003). Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance?Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 836–851.
113.
SchneiderS.WollersheimJ.KrcmarH.SunyaevA. (2018). How do requirements evolve over time? A case study investigating the role of context and experiences in the evolution of enterprise software requirements. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 151–170.
114.
Scott-YoungC. M.GeorgyM.GrisingerA. (2019). Shared leadership in project teams: An integrative multi-level conceptual model and research agenda. International Journal of Project Management, 37(4), 565–581.
115.
ShastriY.HodaR.AmorR. (2021). The role of the project manager in agile software development projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 173, 110871.
116.
SiasP. M.TsetsiE.WooN.SmithA. D. (2020). With a little help from my friends: Perceived task interdependence, coworker communication, and workplace friendship. Communication Studies, 71(4), 528–549.
117.
SinhaR.ChiuC. Y.SrinivasS. B. (2021). Shared leadership and relationship conflict in teams: The moderating role of team power base diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(5), 649–667.
118.
SomechA.DesivilyaH. S.LidogosterH. (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359–378.
119.
SpieglerS. V.HeineckeC.WagnerS. (2021). An empirical study on changing leadership in agile teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 26(3), 1–35.
120.
StolK. J.SchaarschmidtM.GoldblitS. (2022). Gamification in software engineering: The mediating role of developer engagement and job satisfaction. Empirical Software Engineering, 27(2), 1–34.
121.
SteffensN. K.MuntK. A.van KnippenbergD.PlatowM. J.HaslamS. A. (2021). Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader group prototypicality. Organizational Psychology Review, 11(1), 35–72.
122.
SutcliffeK. M. (1994). What executives notice: Accurate perceptions in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1360–1378.
123.
TangG.ChenY.van KnippenbergD.YuB. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of empowering leadership: Leader power distance, leader perception of team capability, and team innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 551–566.
124.
TannenbaumS.SalasE. (2020). ‘Cognitions: Are we on the same page?’ Teams that work: The seven drivers of team effectiveness (online edition). Oxford Academic. 10.1093/oso/9780190056964.003.0008
125.
ThomasC.KoehnJ.TurnerJ. (2024). Promising practices for leadership development: Exploring a collaborative professional learning and coaching program. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 204, 88–103.
126.
TjosvoldD.WedleyW. C.FieldR. H. (1986). Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton model, and managerial decision-making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7(2), 125–138.
127.
TjosvoldD.WongA. S. H.ChenN. Y. F. (2014). Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 545–568.
128.
TjosvoldD.XueHuangY.JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T. (2008). Social interdependence and orientation toward life and work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 409–435.
129.
TrippJ. F.ArmstrongD. J. (2018). Agile methodologies: Organizational adoption motives, tailoring, and performance. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58(2), 170–179.
130.
TyagiS.SibalR.SuriB. (2022). Empirically developed framework for building trust in distributed agile teams. Information and Software Technology, 145, 106828.
131.
VollmerA.SeyrS. (2013). Constructive controversy research in the business organizational context: A literature review. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 399–420.
132.
WangD.WaldmanD. A.ZhangZ. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198.
133.
WilliamsS. S.HeilemanJ. M. (2024). Insights on the transition to leadership: The power of onboarding and networking. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 26(2-3), 115–127.
134.
XuP.RameshB. (2007). Software process tailoring: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 293–328.
135.
XuP.RameshB. (2008). Impact of knowledge support on the performance of software process tailoring. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 277–314.
136.
YuanF.ZhouJ. (2015). Effects of cultural power distance on group creativity and individual group member creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), 990–1007.
137.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G., Jr.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
138.
ZhangJ.GuoJ.JiangJ.WuX.JiangR. (2021). Moderating effect of requirements uncertainty on task interdependence and NPD performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 121(2), 456–477.
139.
ZhuJ.LiaoZ.YamK. C.JohnsonR. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 834–852.
