The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Impact of Ideology on Effectiveness in Open Source Software Development Teams1,2
Abstract
The emerging work on understanding open source software has questioned what leads to effectiveness in OSS development teams in the absence of formal controls, and it has pointed to the importance of ideology. This paper develops a framework of the OSS community ideology (including specific norms, beliefs, and values) and a theoretical model to show how adherence to components of the ideology impacts effectiveness in OSS teams. The model is based on the idea that the tenets of the OSS ideology motivate behaviors that enhance cognitive trust and communication quality and encourage identification with the project team, which enhances affective trust. Trust and communication in turn impact OSS team effectiveness. The research considers two kinds of effectiveness in OSS teams: the attraction and retention of developer input and the generation of project outputs. Hypotheses regarding antecedents to each are developed. Hypotheses are tested using survey and objective data on OSS projects. Results support the main thesis that OSS team members’ adherence to the tenets of the OSS community ideology impacts OSS team effectiveness and reveal that different components impact effectiveness in different ways. Of particular interest is the finding that adherence to some ideological components was beneficial to the effectiveness of the team in terms of attracting and retaining input, but detrimental to the output of the team. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346
An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251829 · Cited by 6,822
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250951 · Cited by 4,726
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 · Cited by 2,273
Swift Trust and Temporary Groups
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996) · Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research · doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n9 · Cited by 1,982
Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study
von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., & Lakhani, K. R. (2003) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(03)00050-7 · Cited by 1,025 · cited 4×
“While commercial projects have employees paid and directed though formalized mechanisms, a critical step in becoming effective in an OSS project is to attract developers and motivate their input to the project (Mockus et al. 2002; Sturmer 2005; von Krogh et al. 2003).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe power of gifts: organizing social relationships in open source communities
Bergquist, M., & Ljungberg, J. (2001) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.2001.00111.x · Cited by 480 · cited 1×
“…with the open source development community in which OSS teams function, and several have suggested that it may be the ideology that facilitates team effectiveness in the absence of traditional organizational incentives and controls (Bergquist and Ljungberg 2001; Markus et al. 2000; Raymond 2001).”
BackgroundRaymond, E. S. (1998) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v3i10.621 · Cited by 290 · cited 4×
“(Raymond 1998)”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Digital Product Innovation Within Four Classes of Innovation Networks
Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & Boland Jr., R. J. (2016) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12093 · Cited by 806
Risius, M., & Spohrer, K. (2017) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-017-0506-0 · Cited by 803
Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000110 · Cited by 616
Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2021/15882 · Cited by 512
Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000113 · Cited by 375
Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001 · Cited by 346
Can AI chatbots help retain customers? Impact of AI service quality on customer loyalty
Chen, Q., Lu, Y., Gong, Y., & Xiong, J. (2023) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-09-2021-0686 · Cited by 260
Beyond the organizational ‘container’: Conceptualizing 21st century sociotechnical work
Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Butler, B. (2014) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.10.003 · Cited by 178
Collaboration Through Open Superposition: A Theory of the Open Source Way1
Howison, J., & Crowston, K. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.02 · Cited by 175
Who Will Stay in the FLOSS Community? Modeling Participant’s Initial Behavior
Zhou, M., & Mockus, A. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2014.2349496 · Cited by 141
Tsai, J. C.-A., & Hung, S.-Y. (2019) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.09.014 · Cited by 104
Sustainability of Free/Libre Open Source Projects: A Longitudinal Study
University at Albany, Chengalur-Smith, I., Sidorova, A., University of North Texas, Daniel, S., & University of Pittsburgh (2010) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00244 · Cited by 97
Hassan, N., Abdelraouf, M., & El-Shihy, D. (2025) · Future Business Journal · doi:10.1186/s43093-025-00476-z · Cited by 96
The Sustainability of Polycentric Information Commons1
Mindel, V., Mathiassen, L., & Rai, A. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/14015 · Cited by 90
Folding and Unfolding: Balancing Openness and Transparency in Open Source Communities
Shaikh, M., & Vaast, E. (2016) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2016.0646 · Cited by 78
Acceptance of Monetary Rewards in Open Source Software Development
Krishnamurthy, S., Ou, S., & Tripathi, A. K. (2014) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.007 · Cited by 65
Maruping, L. M., Daniel, S. L., & Cataldo, M. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13928 · Cited by 64
The Impact of Ideology Misfit on Open Source Software Communities and Companies1
Daniel, S. L., Maruping, L. M., Cataldo, M., & Herbsleb, J. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/14242 · Cited by 58
The sensemaking-coevolution-implementation theory of software design
Ralph, P. (2015) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2014.11.007 · Cited by 60
Barcomb, A., Kaufmann, A., Riehle, D., Stol, K.-J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2018.2872713 · Cited by 44
Reputation in an open source software community: Antecedents and impacts
Cai, Y., & Zhu, D. (2016) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.08.004 · Cited by 43
Do I Belong? Modeling Sense of Virtual Community Among Linux Kernel Contributors
Trinkenreich, B., Stol, K.-J., Sarma, A., German, D. M., Gerosa, M. A., & Steinmacher, I. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00038 · Cited by 25
Pull Request Governance in Open Source Communities
Alami, A., Pardo, R., Cohn, M. L., & Wasowski, A. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3128356 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Stewart, K. J., & Gosain, S.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2006-06-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 291-314
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W3158650448
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 23.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
