The affective, behavioural and cognitive outcomes of agile project management: A preliminary meta‐analysis

Agile project management (APM) refers to a set of project management frameworks that are increasingly common in a range of industries. Even though the positive effects of APM for employees and organizations are widely assumed, no systematic account of affective, behavioural and cognitive outcomes ap...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of occupational and organizational psychology 2023-09, Vol.96 (3), p.678-706
Main Authors: Koch, Jan, Drazic, Ivana, Schermuly, Carsten C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
affective
agile project management
Analysis
Averages
behavioural
Clinical outcomes
cognitive
Cognitive-behavioral factors
Empowerment
Health care
Independent study
Job satisfaction
Meta-analysis
Occupational psychology
Occupations
Organizational commitment
Project management
Psychological empowerment
review
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Agile project management (APM) refers to a set of project management frameworks that are increasingly common in a range of industries. Even though the positive effects of APM for employees and organizations are widely assumed, no systematic account of affective, behavioural and cognitive outcomes appears in the academic literature. In this pre‐registered meta‐analysis, we examine the effects of APM based on K = 40 records (with k = 41 independent studies, N = 73,825). Our analyses indicate the beneficial effects of APM across outcomes: For the affective outcomes of job satisfaction, affective strain and organizational commitment, the effect sizes were, on average, small. For the behavioural outcomes of performance and innovative behaviour, the effect sizes were medium to large. For the cognitive outcome of psychological empowerment, the results of our meta‐analysis suggest a medium effect. Furthermore, we explore the moderating effects of contextual (team size, occupational groups, culture) and methodological boundary conditions (publication status, study design, levels of analysis, study quality). Compared to studies conducted with software developers, the effect sizes are stronger in other occupations, such as manufacturing, health care and logistics. Moreover, stronger effect sizes are found in published than in unpublished records. We conclude by discussing the state of quantitative APM research and highlight avenues for future study.
ISSN:0963-1798
2044-8325
DOI:10.1111/joop.12429