CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesKnowledge Management and Sharing

The Impact of Ideology Misfit on Open Source Software Communities and Companies1

Open access
Daniel, Sherae L., Maruping, Likoebe M., Cataldo, Marcelo, Herbsleb, Jim·2018·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.25300/misq/2018/14242
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Corporate involvement in open source software (OSS) communities has increased substantially in recent years. Often this takes the form of company employees devoting their time to contribute code to the efforts of projects in these communities. Ideology has traditionally served to motivate, coordinate, and guide volunteer contributions to OSS communities. As employees represent an increasing proportion of the participants in OSS communities, the role of OSS ideology in guiding their commitment and code contributions is unknown. In this research, we argue that OSS ideology misfit has important implications for companies and the OSS communities to which their employees contribute, since their engagement in such communities is not necessarily voluntary. We conceptualize two different types of misfit: OSS ideology under-fit, whereby an employee embraces an OSS ideology more than their coworkers or OSS community do, and OSS ideology over-fit, whereby an employee perceives that their coworkers or OSS community embrace the OSS ideology more strongly than the employee does. To develop a set of hypotheses about the implications of these two types of misfit for employee commitment to the company and commitment to the OSS community, we draw on self-determination theory. We test the hypotheses in a field study of 186 employees who participate in an OSS community. We find that OSS ideology under-fit impacts the company and the community in the same way: it decreases employee commitment to the company and commitment to the OSS community. In contrast, we find that OSS ideology over-fit increases commitment to the company but decreases commitment to the OSS community. Finally, we find that employees’ commitment to their company reinforces the impact of their commitment to the OSS community in driving ongoing code contributions. This provides a holistic view of OSS ideology and its impacts among an increasingly pervasive yet understudied type of participant in OSS research. It provides insights for companies that are considering assigning their employees to work in OSS communities as well as for OSS communities that are partnering with these companies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2018/14242

Cites

145 of 145 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Issues from interrelated open source sustainabilities may help understand better the complexity of open source development and the relations with the increasing involvement of companies.

    “Issues from interrelated open source sustainabilities may help us understand better the complexity of open source development and the relations with the increasing involvement of companies (Daniel et al., 2018).”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Daniel et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Corbet, 2013, Linux Kernel Development: How Fast It Is Going, Who Is Doing It, What They Are Doing, and Who Is Sponsoring It
  2. Dahlander, 2007, Penguin in a New Suit: A Tale of How, de novo Entrants Emerged to Harness Free and Open Source Software Communities,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 913
  3. Dedrick, 2008, Movement Ideology Vs. User Pragmatism in the Organizational Adoption of Open Source Software
  4. Fink, 2002, The Business and Economics of Linux and Open Source
  5. Gold, 2015, Big Names Like Google Dominate Open-Source Funding, Network World
  6. Greene, 2003, Econometric Analysis
  7. Raymond, 2001, The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musing on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary
  8. Robert, 2001, Should Business Adopt Free Software, Upgrade–The European Online Magazine for the IT Professional, 6, 12
  9. Skinner, 1953, Science and Human Behavior
  10. Stallman, 2002, Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman
  11. Trice, 1993, The Cultures of Work Organizations
  12. Wagstrom, 2009, Vertical Communication in Open Software Engineering Communities
  13. Wagstrom, 2010, The Impact of Commercial Organization on Volunteer Participation in an Online Community, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Daniel, S. L., Maruping, L. M., Cataldo, M., & Herbsleb, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • Uber, New York, NY 10199 U.S.A.
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2018-12-01
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
1069-1096
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.25300/misq/2018/14242
OpenAlex
W2903058292
Cited by
58
References
145
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
open source software, organizational commitment, community commitment, self-determination theory, corporate volunteering, business-community partnerships

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