Mastery as a Motivator in

Software Projects
 Executive Summary

The literature on software development shows there is a strong link between developer

motivation and the success of a software project, meaning motivation is a critical issue for

project managers. A recent book by business writer Daniel Pink proposes that mastery is a

key motivational factor for modern information workers, such as software developers. He

defines mastery as "the desire to get better and better at something that matters". Based on

this, the following thesis is proposed - that mastery is an effective means of motivating

software developers to high levels of performance.

The academic consensus is that software developers comprise a distinct occupational

group, and are typically growth-oriented employees, who need challenges and also value

technical competence. Research shows that two key motivators for software developers are

having their development needs addressed and engaging in technically challenging work.

“Mastery” is understood to refer to mastery motivation, a recognised psychological desire to

solve problems and master new skills. The motivators identified above correspond closely

with this concept. Therefore, this paper concludes that mastery is an effective means of

motivating software developers to high levels of performance.

This conclusion has implications for the managers of software projects, as well as software

team leaders. For example, it suggests that providing training and using new technology can

be effective strategies to motivate developers, and ultimately achieve better project

outcomes.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 1 of 25

Contents
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Assumptions and Limitations................................................................................................................................... 4

3 The Value of Motivation.............................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Motivation and Software Project Success.................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Motivated vs. Unmotivated Developers...................................................................................................... 6

4 Models of Motivation................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Job Characteristics Theory............................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Motivation-Hygiene Theory............................................................................................................................. 9

5 Software Developers as an Occupational Group............................................................................................ 10

6 Software Developer Motivation............................................................................................................................ 12

6.1 Motivational Factors........................................................................................................................................ 12

6.2 Hygiene Factors (de-motivators)................................................................................................................ 15

7 Mastery as a Motivator for Software Developers........................................................................................... 17

7.1 Mastery Motivation Defined......................................................................................................................... 17

7.2 Mastery Motivation and Software Developers......................................................................................18

8 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................................... 21

9 References..................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 2 of 25

1 Introduction

The impact of “soft” or “human” factors on the success of software development projects

has long been recognised. DeMarco & Lister (2013) state that “The major problems of

[software development] are not so much technological as sociological in nature.” One of the

key concerns is software developer motivation, with many studies now asserting a

relationship between developer motivation, productivity and project success. A large body

of literature has built up around this subject (e.g. Beecham et al. 2007, Sharp et al. 2009,

César et al. 2012, França 2014). Strategies to improve project success are of great interest to

all involved in project management, and hence this topic has been selected.

One popular contribution to the field came from business writer Daniel Pink, who released a

bestselling book called "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" (Pink 2010).

Pink summarises his message in this way - "Carrots & sticks are so last century. Drive says

for 21st century work, we need to upgrade to autonomy, mastery and purpose" (Pink 2010,

p. 203). Much of the book is spent describing and applying these three terms.

Pink believes his theory is especially applicable to workers in the creative and information

industries (Pink 2010, pp. 21-33). He references a number of studies in his book, but does

not seek to prove his ideas with academic rigour. This paper will take one element of Pink's

theory, mastery, and conduct a targeted literature review that will confirm it is a useful way

to motivate software developers. The thesis is -

That mastery is an effective means of motivating software developers to high

levels of performance

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 3 of 25

2 Assumptions and Limitations

The literature on this subject variously refers to software engineers, software developers

and computer programmers. This paper assumes that these are interchangeable, and will

use software developer as the preferred term.

César et al. (2012) state that, “Motivation can be generically defined as the set of ‘factors or

events that energize, channel, and sustain human behavior over time’”. For the purpose of

their study on engineering motivation, however, they come up with a more practical

definition: motivation is an “employee’s willingness to apply effort in a task”. This paper will

assume that definition.

This paper is a literature review only. No new field research has been undertaken to

confirm the results. Certain deductions and conclusions have been drawn from the

literature review, but these require independent empirical verification.

Note also that this paper is a targeted literature review – it presents a positive argument in

favour of the proposed thesis. It does not aim to present a thesis and antithesis and evaluate

both equally.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 4 of 25

3 The Value of Motivation

3.1 Motivation and Software Project Success

Researchers have long recognised motivation as an important predictor of software

developer performance. In his seminal work on the subject, Weinberg observed that

developers with similar levels of intelligence, experience and training could still produce

substantially different levels of performance. This "residue of unexplained performance" he

ascribed to motivation (Weinberg 2011).

Subsequent research has broadly confirmed Weinberg’s thesis. Drawing on several studies,

Sharp et al. (2009) report that “Motivation in software engineering is recognized as a key

success factor for software projects”. França et al. (2011) explain that “Motivation is

believed by researchers and practitioners to be a source of many benefits for projects in

general, such as performance, productivity, retention, success, etc.”

McConnell (1996, p. 40) concurs, stating that “Study after study has shown that motivation

probably has a larger effect on productivity and quality than any other factor”. Beecham et

al. (2007) observe that “Motivation in Software Engineering is reported to have the single

largest impact on practitioner productivity and software quality management.” They also

note that “Motivation is increasingly cited as a particularly pernicious people problem in

Software Engineering.” Asghar and Usman (2013) state that “…previous research shows

that motivation is amongst the most frequently highlighted causes of software projects

failure. Motivation greatly impacts practitioner’s productivity.”

Referencing a classic case study on the subject, Walsh and Schneider (2002) explain that it –

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 5 of 25

 “...showed the importance of power and politics on software success,

demonstrating how an individual’s motivation can have a dramatic impact on

the success of a systems implementation. Introducing a better software

development methodology into such a situation would not likely have changed

the results. By contrast, changes in personnel motivation had on overwhelming

impact on success.”

Nierstrasz (2004) also finds a powerful link between software developer motivation and

output. In reviewing the research, he notes that "technology has only a limited effect on

software productivity.” He also finds that there is “a huge difference in productivity

between individual developers” and that “motivation [has] repeatedly been shown to far

outweigh any technological factor in the success of projects."

Hall et al. (2008) effectively summarise the consensus opinion by stating -

“Software developers do better work and stay with one company if they’re

motivated—indeed, evidence exists that developer motivation affects project

productivity, software quality, and a project’s overall success. By improving how

they manage software developers’ motivations, companies could significantly

improve their ability to deliver good-quality software systems.”

These findings are broadly confirmed by a 40-year meta-analysis conducted by Cerasoli et

al. (2014) across various occupations, which concluded that “…motivation is a medium to

strong predictor of performance”.

3.2 Motivated vs. Unmotivated Developers

Why does motivation lead to better performance and more successful projects? A recent

analysis of several case studies (França 2014) helps supply the answer. It found the

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 6 of 25

 following contrasting behavioural descriptors were attached to motivated and unmotivated

software developers –

Motivated Developers Unmotivated Developers

Careful Careless

Focused Distracted

Communicative Uninvolved

Involved Lazy

Hard-working Indifferent

Interested Bored

Pro-active Absent

Troublemaker

It is evident that the behaviours on the left will lead to better project outcomes. These

findings confirm an earlier meta-analysis (Beecham et al. 2008) that showed motivated

developers were not only more productive but also tended to display higher employment

retention levels.

To summarise, motivation may be understood as a software developers “willingness to

apply effort in a task” (César et al. 2012). Motivated software developers are more focused,

involved and hard-working than unmotivated developers, and so are more productive in

their jobs. Given this, it is not surprising that multiple studies have affirmed that developer

motivation is strongly linked with both individual performance and project success.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 7 of 25

4 Models of Motivation

Having defined motivation and explained its relationship to developer performance and

project success, it is necessary to examine the mechanics of motivation in more detail.

Employee motivation has been studied for a long time, and numerous motivation models

have been devised. In a systematic review of the literature covering software developer

motivation, Hall et al. (2009) identified eight different motivation models that had been

applied by researchers. Two of these were much more popular than the others – the Job

Characteristics Theory and the Motivation-Hygiene Theory. Given the prevalence of these in

the relevant literature it is necessary to present a brief overview of both models.

4.1 Job Characteristics Theory

The Job Characteristics Theory (JCT) states that the nature of the work itself is the most

important fact with regards to motivation. Each job is rated against “five core dimensions” –

 skill variety

 task identity

 task significance

 autonomy

 job feedback

Using these ratings, an overall figure called the Motivational Potential Score (MPS) of the job

is calculated. Each employee is then rated according to their need for internal growth and

development, and given a Growth Need Strength (GNS) rating. According to the theory,

when the GNS of the employee matches the MPS of the job, the employee will be highly

motivated (Hall et al. 2009).

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 8 of 25

4.2 Motivation-Hygiene Theory

The Motivation-Hygiene Theory (MHT) divides motivational factors into two classes –

 Intrinsic factors, which are internal to the employee (such as responsibility) and can

motivate better performance

 Extrinsic (or hygiene) factors, which are external to the employee (such as pay) and

which can be a source of demotivation, but in and of themselves won’t motivate

better performance

The following intrinsic and extrinsic factors were identified in the original theory –

Motivation (intrinsic) Hygiene (extrinsic)

Achievement Pay

Recognition Interpersonal relationships

The work itself Status

Possibility of growth Supervision

Advancement Company policies

Work conditions

Personal life

Job security

According to this theory, to motivate employees to achieve better performance “there must

be sufficient intrinsic factors in their jobs. The extrinsic conditions of a job will not do this”

(Hall et al. 2009).

Both the Job Characteristics Theory and the Motivation-Hygiene Theory are referred to in

the discussion that follows.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 9 of 25

5 Software Developers as an Occupational Group

Both motivational theories described above suggest that different people will be motivated

by different job types (the Job Characteristics Theory actually makes this explicit). It is

important, then, to determine whether software developers comprise a discrete

occupational group that can be defined by certain characteristics.

A systematic literature review by Beecham et al. (2008) identified 92 studies on the topic of

software developer motivation, and one of their research questions concerned occupational

grouping. According to their meta-analysis, the majority of studies confirmed “that Software

Engineers do form a distinct occupational group.”

Having established this, it is necessary to determine the characteristics of that group.

França et al. (2011) performed a follow-up literature review several years after the study by

Beecham et al. (2008) and identified an additional 53 relevant papers. Between them, these

meta-studies found that software developers exhibit the following characteristics (ranked

by frequency of citation in the analysed studies) –

Beecham et al. (2008) França et al. (2011)

Growth-orientated Autonomous

Introverted Growth-orientated

Autonomous Need for challenge

Need for stability Need for stability

Technically competent Technically competent

Following is an explanation of these characteristics –

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 10 of 25

  Growth-oriented – likes learning and improving skills

 Introverted – has a low need for social interaction

 Autonomous – has a high need for independence

 Need for stability – desires organisational stability

 Technically competent – places great value on own technical abilities

 Need for challenge – enjoys difficult and thought-provoking tasks

In summary, software developers form a recognisable occupational group, and some of

their characteristics include growth-orientation, a need for challenge and the valuing of

technical competence. Applying the Job Characteristics Theory, it is clear that developers

exhibit a high Growth Need Strength and require jobs with a correspondingly high

Motivational Potential Score (Bartol & Martin 1982, Beecham et al. 2008).

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 11 of 25

6 Software Developer Motivation

Having determined that software developers comprise a distinct occupational group with

certain characteristics, specific motivators for this group can now be identified. The

literature reviews by Beecham et al. (2008) and França et al. (2011) are here used to

identify the main motivators.

One limitation is that both meta-analyses primarily drew upon papers from the United

States and Europe, though a small number of articles were sourced elsewhere. The bias was

not intentional – it simply reflected the paucity of research available from other regions.

Preliminary research by Asghar and Usman (2013) has found that, “National culture

impacts factors that (de)motivate software engineers in a country. Therefore, the

conclusions of this paper are most applicable to Western-centric cultures.

6.1 Motivational Factors

The following table shows the most important motivators identified in each meta-study.

The motivational factors are ranked by frequency of citation. Note that in some cases the

terminology has been standardised between the two studies.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 12 of 25

 Beecham et al. (2008) França et al. (2011)

Identify with the task Employee participation

Good management Career path

Employee participation Development needs addressed

Career path Autonomy

Variety of work Trust/respect

Sense of belonging Identify with the task

Rewards and incentives Variety of work

Recognition Good management

Technically challenging work Technically challenging work

Development needs addressed Team quality

Following is an explanation of these terms –

 Identify with the task - Employee has clear goals, understands the purpose of the

assigned task and also comprehends how it supports the “big picture”. The

employee also has a personal interest in the work, finds it satisfying and is given an

opportunity to produce good quality results

 Good management – Employee has the support of senior management, a good

organisational culture exists and there is good communication and feedback

between all levels

 Employee participation – Employee identifies with the company and believes their

individual contributions are valued

 Career path – Employee has the opportunity to advance their career via

promotions and/or other means

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 13 of 25

  Variety of work – Employee is exposed to a range of different activities that make

good use of their skills, and also stretch them appropriately

 Sense of belonging – Employee identifies with the workplace and enjoys

supportive and respectful relationships there

 Rewards and incentives – Employee receives pay increases and other benefits in

return for strong performance

 Recognition – Employee receives acknowledgement and respect for strong

performance

 Technically challenging work – Employee finds the work stimulating and

interesting

 Development needs addressed – Employee is given appropriate training and the

chance to improve their skills

 Autonomy – Employee is given the required degree of independence when

completing a task, and they are not micro-managed

 Trust/respect – Mutual trust and respect exist between the employee and fellow

workers

 Team quality – Employee is part of a high-performance team

The two meta-studies contain many similar items though the rankings are often quite

different. This difference might be explained by the fact that the later study covered a much

narrower period, or it could reflect a genuine shift in software developer attitudes.

Additional research would be required to understand the variation.

Both studies paint a picture of employees who are motivated primarily by the nature of the

job itself, with other factors being secondary. This picture is consistent with other research

results in this field (e.g. Tessem & Maurer 2007, Sach, Sharp & Petre 2011).

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 14 of 25

 For the purpose of our study, the rank of items such as technically challenging work, career

path and development needs addressed should be noted. These factors were ranked highly in

both meta-studies. According to the Job Characteristics Theory, this is consistent with

software developers possessing high Growth Need Strength (Bartol & Martin 1982,

Beecham et al. 2008).

6.2 Hygiene Factors (de-motivators)

Examining software developer hygiene factors (de-motivators) will help provide a “negative

confirmation” of the thesis. The meta-studies identified above have yielded the following

lists of hygiene factors, once more ranked by citation frequency. As before, some

terminology has been standardised.

Beecham et al. (2008) França et al. (2011)

Poor working environment Stress

Poor management Task complexity

Uncompetitive pay Uncompetitive pay

Stress Poor management

Lack of promotion opportunities Poor working environment

These terms are described below –

 Poor working environment – Employee experiences things such as wrong staffing

levels, physical isolation, company instability, poor job security and a lack of

resources

 Poor management – Employee lacks the support of higher management, and a

poor organisational culture is in evidence

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 15 of 25

  Uncompetitive pay – Employee pay does not match the market

 Stress – Employee is expected to meet unrealistic goals and deadlines

 Lack of promotion opportunities – Employee is unable to progress in the

organisation

 Task complexity – Tasks are either too complex or not complex enough (i.e.

boring)

We should note the presence of task complexity and lack of promotion opportunities in the

lists. According to Motivation-Hygiene Theory, these factors will lead to demotivation

amongst software developers (Hall et al. 2009). Both of these hygiene factors confirm the

picture of software developers as growth-oriented individuals who require appropriate

challenges.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 16 of 25

7 Mastery as a Motivator for Software Developers

7.1 Mastery Motivation Defined

This paper has examined the defining characteristics of software developers and identified

their motivators and de-motivators. This section will examine the assertion put forward in

the thesis, linking mastery to developer motivation.

Pink explains mastery as "the desire to get better and better at something that matters"

(Pink 2010, p. 110). He suggests that information workers are highly motivated by jobs that

provide them with the opportunity to improve their skills.

This type of motivation has been studied by psychologists for many years and is labelled

mastery motivation. A formal definition of mastery motivation is “a psychological force that

stimulates an individual to attempt independently, in a focused and persistent manner, to

solve a problem or master a skill or task which is at least moderately challenging for him or

her” (Morgan, Harman & Maslin-Cole 1990).

Most of the research concerning mastery motivation has focused on children and

adolescents, though Morgan, Harman & Maslin-Cole (1990) point out that their definition is

not specific to any age. They note the following characteristics of mastery motivation –

 It is directed toward solving a specific problem or learning a specific skill, rather

than being just a general desire to learn

 It differs from simple persistence in that the subject is using an under-developed

skill set that they wish to improve

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 17 of 25

  The challenge level must be relative to the subject’s current skill level. A task that is

too easy will not provoke mastery motivation (as the skill is already mastered), and

a task that is too difficult will simply lead to frustration

The lack of mastery motivation studies focused on adults (let alone software developers) is

a limitation that must be acknowledged. However, the key point to note is that Pink’s

understanding of mastery as a motivation corresponds with a genuinely observed

psychological phenomenon.

7.2 Mastery Motivation and Software Developers

This section will draw the various threads of evidence together. We have seen that mastery

(more formally, mastery motivation) is a psychological state that drives an individual to

work determinedly to unravel a problem or improve a skill (Morgan, Harman & Maslin-Cole

1990). What is the evidence that software developers would be especially disposed toward

mastery motivation?

Beecham et al. (2008) presented evidence that software developers are a distinct

occupational group, with certain characteristics. Furthermore, this study and the follow-up

study by França et al. (2011) both found that developers are growth-oriented people, who

require challenges and also value technical competence. Beecham et al. (2008) stated that

“Software Engineers displayed very high growth needs and were concerned about learning

new technology”, thereby explicitly link growth-orientation in software developers to the

acquisition of new skills.

These characteristics closely match the definition of mastery motivation given by Morgan,

Harman & Maslin-Cole (1990), who defined it as the drive “to solve a problem or master a

skill” that is reasonably difficult or challenging. This correspondence strongly suggests that

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 18 of 25

 software developers, as a discrete occupational group, would be stimulated by mastery

motivation.

This conclusion is confirmed when we look at the explicit motivational factors identified by

developers themselves. The meta-studies by Beecham et al. (2008) and França et al. (2011)

both found that having technically challenging work and development needs addressed are

two of the crucial motivators for software developers (with development needs being

understood as the desire to learn and improve their skills).

A recent case study by França (2014) provides a confirming example of this. In one

organisation it was observed that “frustrated growth needs, caused by poor career

development support and other organisational factors, were the core forces that reduced

motivation, contributing to increasing the intention to leave the organisation”. Another

contemporary study, this one focusing on agile software development teams, found that

“The strongest result [motivator], therefore, is that agile methods address development

needs of specialization and training” (Melo, Santana & Kon 2012), which also tends to

confirm the finding.

Additional confirmation is found in a recent qualitative analysis of semi-structured

interviews with software developers. This study concluded that “’The work’ is the most

frequent theme emerging from responses to the questions investigating the enjoyable and

potentially motivating areas of software... It corresponds to the most commonly reported

motivator in the original systematic literature review, ‘technically challenging work’” (Sach,

Sharp & Petre 2011).

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 19 of 25

 In summary, the evidence from the literature strongly supports the research thesis, namely

that mastery is an effective means of motivating software developers to high levels of

performance.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 20 of 25

8 Conclusion

This paper has considered the use of mastery to motivate software development

professionals to higher levels of performance. The research on software development

robustly asserts that there is a significant link between the motivation of the developers and

software project success, meaning this is an important issue for project managers.

Motivated developers are more focused and hard-working, and hence are more productive

in their jobs.

The consensus view of the research is that software developers are a discrete occupational

group and are marked by certain characteristics. Amongst other features, they are growth-

oriented employees, who value both challenges and technical competence. Furthermore,

two important meta-analyses both found that performing technically challenging work and

having their development needs addressed are significant motivators for software

developers.

Mastery is best understood to refer to motivation mastery, which is a psychological

compulsion to apply effort to solving a problem or mastering a challenging skill. The

significant software developer motivators identified above both correspond with this

definition, as does the growth-oriented nature of most software developers. Therefore, this

paper finds that mastery is an effective means of motivating software developers to high

levels of performance. One caveat is that only a small amount of relevant research has been

conducted on non-Western countries.

Several conclusions may be drawn from this thesis –

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 21 of 25

  An effective training program will help to maintain high levels of motivation

amongst software developers

 Affording developers the opportunity to use new technology and skills in their work

will increase their level of motivation

 A software project using newer technology will tend to motivate software

developers more highly than a project using older technology

These are, of course, tentative. Ideally, each item above would be tested in one or more

future studies. Confirmation of these conclusions would provide project managers and

software team leaders with important strategies for motivating their staff.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 22 of 25

9 References

Asghar, I. & Usman, M. 2013, ‘Motivational and De-motivational Factors for Software

Engineers: An Empirical Investigation’, Frontiers of Information Technology, 2013 11th

International Conference on, IEEE, pp. 66-71.

Bartol, K. & Martin, D. 1982, ‘Managing Information Systems Personnel: A Review of the

Literature and Managerial Implications’, MIS Quarterly, vol. 6, pp. 49-70.

Beecham, S., Sharp, H., Baddoo, N., Hall, T. & Robinson, H. 2007, ‘Does the XP environment

meet the motivational needs of the software developer? An empirical study’, in Agile

Conference (AGILE), 2007, IEEE, pp. 37-49.

Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H. & Sharp, H. 2008, ‘Motivation in Software

Engineering: A systematic literature review’, Information and Software Technology,

vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 860-878.

Cerasoli, C., Nicklin, J. & Ford, M. 2014, ‘Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives jointly

Predict Performance: A 40-year meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 140, no. 4,

p. 980.

César, A., França, C., de LC Felix, A., & Da Silva, F. 2012, ‘Towards an Explanatory Theory of

Motivation in Software Engineering: a Qualitative Case Study of a Government

Organization’, in Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), 16th

International Conference on, pp. 72-81.

DeMarco, T. & Lister, T. 2013,  Peopleware: productive projects and teams, 3rd edn, Addison-

Wesley.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 23 of 25

 França, A., Da Silva, F., de LC Felix, A., & Carneiro, D. 2014, ‘Motivation in software

engineering industrial practice: A cross-case analysis of two software organisations’,

Information and Software Technology, vol. 56, no .1, pp. 79-101.

França, A. 2014, ‘A theory of motivation and satisfaction of software engineers’, PhD Thesis,

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.

França, A., Gouveia, T., Santos, P., Santana, C., & da Silva, F. 2011, ‘Motivation in software

engineering: A systematic review update’, in Evaluation & Assessment in Software

Engineering (EASE 2011), 15th Annual Conference on, IET, pp. 154-163.

Hall, T., Baddoo, N., Beecham, S., Robinson, H., & Sharp, H. 2009, ‘A systematic review of

theory use in studies investigating the motivations of software engineers’, ACM

Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 18, no. 3, p. 10.

Hall, T., Sharp, H., Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., & Robinson, H. 2008, ‘What do we know about

developer motivation?’, IEEE Software, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 92-94.

McConnell, S. 1996, Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules, Pearson

Education.

Melo, C., Santana, C. & Kon, F. 2012, ‘Developers motivation in agile teams’, Software

Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), 2012 38th EUROMICRO Conference on,

IEEE, pp. 376-383.

Morgan, G., Harmon, R. & Maslin-Cole, C. 1990, ‘Mastery motivation: Definition and

measurement’, Early Education and Development, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 318-339.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 24 of 25

 Nierstrasz, O. 2004, ‘Software evolution as the key to productivity’, Radical Innovations of

Software and Systems Engineering in the Future, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 274-

282.

Pink, D. 2010, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Canongate Books.

Sach, R., Sharp, H. & Petre, M. 2011, ‘Software Engineers Perceptions of Factors in

Motivation: The Work, People, Obstacles’, 2011 International Symposium on Empirical

Software Engineering and Measurement, IEEE, pp. 368-371.

Sharp, H., Baddoo, N., Beecham, S., Hall, T., & Robinson, H. 2009, ‘Models of motivation in

software engineering’, Information and Software Technology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 219-

233.

Tessem, B., & Maurer, F. 2007, ‘Job satisfaction and motivation in a large agile team’, Agile

Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, Springer Berlin

Heidelberg, pp. 54-61.

Walsh, K. & Schneider, H. 2002, ‘The role of motivation and risk behaviour in software

development success’, Information Research, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 15.

Weinberg, G. 2011, The Psychology of Computer Programming: Silver Anniversary eBook

Edition, Weinberg & Weinberg.

Mastery as a Motivator in Software Projects Page 25 of 25