Penalty policies in professional software development practice: a multi-method field study

Organizational Punishment/Penalty is a pervasive phenomenon in many professional organizations. In some software development organizations, punishment measures have been adopted in an attempt to improve software developers' performance, reduce the software defects, and hence ensure software quality. It is unclear whether these measures are effective. This article presents the results of a multi-method field study that analyzes software engineers' perception towards penalty policies in relation to software quality in a software development process. The results were generated via both qualitative and quantitative methods. Through interviews, we collected the individuals' perception towards the penalty policy. By extracting data in a software configuration management system, we identified several patterns of defects change. We found that while a penalty mechanism does help to reduce software defects in daily coding activity, it fails in achieving programmers' maximum work potential. Meanwhile, experienced software programmers require less time to adapt to penalty policies and benefit from exist of less experienced developers. Some additional findings and implications are also discussed.

[1]  Edward L. Deci,et al.  The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation , 1972 .

[2]  Helen Sharp,et al.  Models of motivation in software engineering , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[3]  Gregory A Davis,et al.  Use of discipline in an organization: a field study , 1984 .

[4]  Kenneth D. Butterfield,et al.  Punishment from the Manager's Perspective: A Grounded Investigation and Inductive Model , 1996 .

[5]  Norman E. Fenton,et al.  A Critique of Software Defect Prediction Models , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[6]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[7]  E. Vance Wilson,et al.  Effects of group task pressure on perceptions of email and face-to-face communication effectiveness , 2001, GROUP '01.

[8]  D. Mcgregor,et al.  The Human Side of Enterprise , 1960 .

[9]  Linda Klebe Trevino,et al.  Organizational Punishment from the Manager's Perspective: An Exploratory Study , 2005 .

[10]  Linda Klebe Trevino,et al.  The Social Effects of Punishment in Organizations: A Justice Perspective , 1992 .

[11]  C. Hauert,et al.  Reward and punishment , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Peter Patton,et al.  Design for Trustworthy Software: Tools, Techniques, and Methodology of Developing Robust Software , 2006 .

[13]  Halit Keskin,et al.  Antecedents and consequences of team memory in software development projects , 2009, Inf. Manag..

[14]  Linda Klebe Trevino,et al.  Punishment in organizations; descriptive and normative perspectives , 1998 .

[15]  Edward L. Deci,et al.  Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior , 1975, Perspectives in Social Psychology.

[16]  Alan MacCormack,et al.  The Impact of Component Modularity on Design Evolution: Evidence from the Software Industry , 2007 .

[17]  H. P. Sims,et al.  A conceptual analysis of cognition and affect in organizational punishment , 1991 .

[18]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Socio-technical congruence: a framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity , 2008, ESEM '08.

[19]  Thomas Bartz-Beielstein,et al.  High-order punishment and the evolution of cooperation , 2006, GECCO '06.

[20]  Marshall Schminke,et al.  Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Processes , 1998 .

[21]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Just and Unjust Punishment: Influences on Subordinate Performance and Citizenship , 1994 .

[22]  Christopher L. Martin,et al.  Just laid off, but still a “good citizen?” only if the process is fair , 1993 .