The Dynamic Transformation of an Open Source Software Project Leader: A Micro-organizational Behavioral Perspective

Transcription

1 The Dynamic Transformation of an Open Source Software Project Leader: A Micro-organizational Behavioral Perspective Li Yan Tan Chuan Hoo Teo Hock Hai liyan@comp.nus.edu.sg tanch@comp.nus.edu.sg teohh@comp.nus.edu.sg Department of Information Systems National University of Singapore Abstract Open Source Software (OSS) development has aroused the interest of many IS researchers. Much of the interest lies in identifying factors leading to an individual s contribution to the OSS development. However, there have been relatively fewer studies that examine the role a key OSS person plays at every stage of an OSS project. Little is known about what motivates a potential OSS leader to initiate an OSS project and subsequently motivate others to contribute to it. In this study, we aim to fill this gap by addressing two research questions: First, what important personality traits can we identify from the key OSS person at different stages of the OSS development? Second, how these personality traits and other macro-level factors like culture will influence the key OSS person s performance? Rooted in Microorganizational behavior literature and real world cases, a four-stage model articulating the dynamic role transformation of a key OSS person is presented and four distinctive roles played him creator, initiator, inspirer and leader are identified. Theories of personality, motivation, leadership and culture are applied at different stages to explain the role the key OSS person plays. From the study, we hope to shed light on this important yet to be explored area of OSS leadership study and provide a starting point for further research. Keywords: Open Source Software, Leadership, Micro-organizational Behavior 1. Introduction The Open Source Software (OSS) development does not fit with the conventional software development methods employed in a formal organization. The OSS developers, by sharing the source code, cooperate under a model of rigorous peer-review and joint force virtual collaboration in debugging and enhancing the functionalities. Most prior research has narrowly focused on identifying factors leading to individual developer s contribution to OSS (Tirole and Lerner 2000). Few rigorous studies have been conducted to understand the dynamic role transformation of a key OSS person at every stage of an OSS project which is very important for the success of an OSS project. This research aims to understand what motivates one to initiate an OSS project and how the same person motivates and leads others to contribute to the software development subsequently. Rooted in the rich Micro-organizational behavior literature and real world cases, a fourstage model articulating the dynamic role transformation of a key OSS person is presented and four distinctive roles played by him creator, initiator, inspirer and leader are identified. Through analyzing the dynamic role a key OSS person plays at different stages of an OSS project, we aim to construct a clear picture of the dynamic transformational process through which the key OSS person undergoes. This conceptual model will serve as a starting point for further research examining individual stage in details. 2. Conceptual Model and Propositions Raymond (1996) relates the OSS projects as complex self-organizing collaborations that the levels of software development progress depend upon local interactions that are 2226

2 synonymous to evolutionary processes featuring the absence of formal authority. Adding to this, some antecedent evidence indicates that there is a strong respect for the OSS leader (Tirole and Lerner 2000) and, hence, the degree of OSS success, to certain extent, depends on the ability of the OSS leader to manage and motivate the developers. Figure 1 posits the four stages that match the behavioral demands on a creator/leader through an OSS development. At stage 1, we focus on the origin of an OSS project the creator. Particularly, based on many well-cited OSS initiations, we found that many of these projects originated from a simple idea generated to solve a workplace problem or merely out of curiosity. At stage 2, we examine the question of why one would like to share his idea and make his programs readily available rather than to profit from it, thus initiate an OSS project the initiator. At stage 3, we investigate how an initiator is able to attract contributions the inspirer. At stage 4, we examine the transitional role of an inspirer to a leader who holds the dominating and influencing role in the OSS community. Do note that not every individual interested in an OSS project will experience all the four stages so as to become an OSS leader. Depending on the project progress, some OSS initiations may terminate prematurely and the role transformation of the key OSS person may never proceed beyond stage two, while in other cases, some stage may be skipped for that person to transform into a leader directly. OSS development Stage 3 - Inspirer Stage 2 - Initiator Stage 4 - Leader Stage 1 - Creator Time Figure 1. Dynamic Transformation of a key OSS Person in OSS development 2.1 Stage One: The Creator The first stage is characterized by the motivation of an OSS creation. Prior studies on human motivational factors can be categorized into extrinsic motivations (produced by external rewards and punishments) and intrinsic motivations (doing an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence) (Ryan and Deci 2000). Extrinsically motivated OSS creations include the development of Perl by Larry Wall in 1987 to meet practical needs and the launch of Apache project by Brain Behlendorf in 1994 due to dissatisfaction with the existing systems. One of the most-cited intrinsically motivated OSS creations is the Linux project by Linus Torvalds in 1991 that was created to satisfy intellectual curiosity. An intrinsically motivated person acts for the fun or challenge entailed rather than due to external prods, pressures, or rewards. The relationship among motivation, personality and performance has found to be that the effects of personality on performance are mediated by motivation (Herron and Robinson, Jr. 1993). Hence, we posit that personality of an OSS project creator has a significant influence on his motivation to generate an OSS idea. We adopt the Big Five taxonomy (Digman 1990) to analyze the personality of the potential OSS creator and its relationship with the action he takes to generate an OSS idea and create an OSS project. This taxonomy is considered to be the most valuable in personality research (Barrick, Mount and Judge 2001) because of the replicability of the five factor structure across different theoretical frameworks, using different assessment approaches such as questionnaires, in different cultures, with different languages, and using ratings from different sources (Digman and Shmelyov 1996). This suits the nature of our research across different contexts and is the main reason why this taxonomy is adopted in the creator s stage and the following stage. 2227

3 The taxonomy consists of five dimensions. The first dimension is extroversion, which consists of sociability, positive emotionality, ambition and excitement-seeking. A person who is high in extroversion tends to be sociable, prefers working in groups, and is energetic. The second dimension is neuroticism. A person who is high in neuroticism tends to exhibit high level of insecurity, suspicious, and low in self-confidence. The third dimension is agreeableness, which is a trait of one who is simply easier to get along with than others. One is likely to be more tolerant, trusting, generous, warm, and good-natured. The forth dimension is conscientiousness, which characterizes a person who is responsible, dependable, persistent, and oriented toward work. The last dimension is openness, which describes a person who is creative, curious, unconventional, and broad-minded (Costa and MaCrae 1992). Relating personality to motivational factors in OSS creation, the conceptual model of an OSS creator at the first stage is developed (See Figure 2) and associated propositions for the personality traits of a potential OSS creator are formulated subsequently. Based on the result of a meta-analysis for each of the Big Five dimensions carried out by Barrick, Mount and Judge (2001), the neuroticism dimension is not strongly related to the creative occupations. So at the creator s stage, we drop this dimension and focus on the remaining four. Extrinsic motivations. A potential OSS creator tends to be less tolerant or less trusting. He is likely to be unsatisfied or doubtful with the existing system and hence, generates practical needs (i.e. extrinsic motivation) to create a solution (P1a). Furthermore, a potential OSS creator will be more likely to be driven by the responsibility to generate an OSS idea to accomplish a task if he is responsible, dependable, persistent, and oriented toward work (P1b). P1a. Agreeableness in a potential OSS creator s personality would be negatively associated with his extrinsic motivation to generate an OSS idea. P1b. Conscientiousness in a potential OSS creator s personality would be positively associated with his extrinsic motivation to generate an OSS idea. Personality Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extroversion Openness (-) Extrinsic Motivations 1. Practical Needs 2. Dissatisfaction with the existing system 3. Responsibility Intrinsic Motivations 1. Intellectual Curiosity 2. Dislike of proprietary software 3. Belief that source code should be open OSS Idea Generation Figure 2. Stage one: Behavioral Model of a key OSS person at the Creation Stage of OSS Intrinsic motivations. An OSS project is usually carried out in the belief that Open good, closed bad (Barton and Nissanka 2001). It emphasizes on openness and sharing. A person who is high in openness tends to believe that source code should be open and dislike the proprietary software (Lakhani and Wolf 2003). Furthermore, OSS task itself is highly innovative which requires creativity and unconventionality from the creators and intellectual curiosity is the major driver for the creation of an OSS project. Hence, one who is creative, curious, unconventional, broad-minded, has broad interests is more likely to generate an OSS idea (P1c). Furthermore, one who is ambitious, in terms of enjoyment and/or excitement seeking, is more likely to generate an OSS idea (P1d) (Hars and Ou 2000). P1c. Openness in a potential OSS creator s personality would be positively associated with his intrinsic motivation to generate an OSS idea. P1d. Extroversion in a potential OSS creator s personality would be positively associated with his intrinsic motivation to generate an OSS idea. 2228

4 2.2 Stage Two: The Initiator At stage 2, the creator is at a dichotomy: he may choose to share the idea he generated at the first stage to the public and initiate an OSS project (e.g., LINUX) or choose to keep the new idea to himself or to his own group or organization (e.g., Microsoft). If one has chosen to share the program, one becomes an initiator of an OSS project. This is a necessary precondition that the potential OSS leader, after having come up with a new idea at the creation stage, is willing to share it with the public. In many previous studies on personality and performance, the influence of macro-level variables of social context (e.g., culture) on the micro-level variables (e.g., personality, performance) has not been considered (Chu 2000). At this stage, we introduce in culture and examine how it, jointly with personality, will affect the willingness to share a generated idea that will initiate an OSS project (see Figure 3). Based on the result of the same meta-analysis for each of the Big Five dimensions carried out by Barrick, Mount and Judge (2001), we only focus on three dimensions of the Big Five taxonomy which are Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Openness since they are more strongly related to the willingness to share an idea. Culture (Collectivism/ Individualism) Personality Neuroticism Agreeableness Openness (-) Willingness to share a generated idea that will initiate an OSS project Figure 3. Stage Two: Factors affecting the willingness to share the generated idea. Culture. The individualism-collectivism dimension of Hofstede model (1980) of national culture is adopted for its comprehensiveness and popularity in organizational behavior research. The individualism-collectivism refers to whether individual or collective action is the preferred way to deal with issues. In cultures oriented toward the individualism such as USA and Canada a person tends to emphasize on the individual needs, concerns and interests over those of his group or organization, while the opposite is true in countries which score high on collectivism, for example Asian countries. Intuitively, one may think that a person in collectivism culture is more willing to share an idea to the public. However, contrary to intuition, in collectivist societies, the social structure is segregated in the sense that each person socially and economically interacts mainly with members of a specific religious, ethnic, or familial group in which contract enforcement is achieved through informal economic and social institutions, and members of collectivist societies feel involved in the lives of other members of their group (Grief 1994). At the same time, noncooperation characterizes the relation between members of different groups. While in the individualist societies, the social structure is integrated in the sense that economic transactions are conducted among people from different groups and a person shifts frequently from one group to another (Grief 1994). This implies that a person in collectivism culture is more likely to keep an idea to his own group while a person in the individualism culture, due to the integration characteristic, would be more likely to share an idea (P2a). To compensate for the national level view of culture in Hofstede model, we further analyze the influence of personality on willingness to share from the individual level. On individual level, we identify three out of the five traits of the Big Five Model of personality which will more likely to have significant effect on the willingness to share an idea. One reason that may hinder one from sharing is the feeling of insecurity. One who is insecure, has high anxiety level, easily upset, suspicious and low in self-confidence is less likely to share with the public (P2b). On the contrary, one who is tolerant, trusting, generous, warm and kind 2229

5 will be more willing to share (P2c). Additionally, one who is broad-minded, curious, and has broad interests will be more likely to share with the public (P2d). P2a. Compared with collectivism culture, the individualism culture would be more positively associated with the potential OSS initiator s willingness to share his idea to the public. P2b. Neuroticism in a potential OSS initiator s personality would be negatively associated with his willingness to share the new idea that would initiate an OSS project. P2c. Agreeableness in a potential OSS initiator s personality would be positively associated with his willingness to share the new idea that would initiate an OSS project. P2d. Openness in a potential OSS initiator s personality would be positively associated with his willingness to share the new idea that would initiate an OSS project. 2.3 Stage Three: The Inspirer At the third stage, a real OSS project has just begun and the initiator has evolved into one who encourages and inspires people to contribute the inspiration stage. The major task of the inspirer is to attract large number of users to contribute and instill his vision of the OSS project. For example, Brian established a mailing list to collect and integrate the patches to the NCSC server at the University of Illinois to build Apache web server application; and Linus posted his Linux operating system on a university server to encourage contributions in a series of postings to on-line bulletin boards. It is believed that to attract contributions, it is imperative that an OSS inspirer possesses great communication skills (Raymond 1996). This is due to the reason that to build an OSS development community, one needs to attract people and interest them (Raymond 1996). In the context of attracting and inspiring contributors, we examine two potential leadership traits transformational and transactional leaderships. Transformational leadership, which is also known as charismatic leadership, is based on the leader s effect on the followers values, self-esteem, trust, and confidence in the leader, with the motivation to perform above and beyond the call of duty (House 1987). The transformational leader s influence is based on the leader s ability to inspire and raise the consciousness of the followers by appealing to their higher ideals and values. This can be exhibited through the electronic correspondences between the inspirer and the contributors in several ways. First, through the communications, the charismatic inspirer creates a special bond with the contributors (i.e. the followers) by articulating a vision with which the contributors identify and work towards. Second, an inspirer can create high expectations on the quality of the contribution by highlighting the expected output or benchmarks. Third, an inspirer can target at the individual level by coaching, advising, and delegating task to contributors by writing to the targeted developer. Lastly, an inspirer can stimulate contributors intellectually through arousing and challenging them to develop new ways to interpret and solve problems through postings. Transactional leadership, comparatively, assumes an inspirer and a contributor as bargaining agents, negotiating to maximize their own position (Downton 1973). A contributor s motivation to comply with the inspirer is self-interest, because the inspirer can provide payoffs, perhaps both economic and psychological, that are valued by the contributor. An inspirer can use contingent rewards for great accomplishment in OSS enhancements and bug solving. This could come in the form of either promoting a contributor to a more influential position, such as a leader, or publicly compliment the contribution. Furthermore, the inspirer must be able to anticipate, detect and take corrective actions for any deviation of OSS development from the original intention. Conclusively, transactional leadership works within the context of the contributors self-interests while transformational leadership seeks to change that context. Since the focus in stage 3 of OSS project is to attract contributors, we believe that one with transformational leadership will be more likely to be effective in instillation of an OSS project compared with that of transactional leadership (P3). 2230

6 P3. Compared with transactional leadership, transformational/charismatic leadership would be more effective at the inspiration stage of an OSS project. 2.4 Stage Four: The Leader At the last stage, the OSS project reaches a stable period of continuous development and the leader has the authority to decide on the direction of the OSS development. Tirole and Lerner (2000) note that it may appear the unconstrained, quasi-anarchistic nature of the OSS project leaves little scope for a leadership, which implies management and control will be extremely difficult in an OSS scenario. However, while the leader has no formal authority, he has substantial real authority in an OSS project. An OSS leader has the authority to set ground rules for each OSS project and decide which code submission to accept, modify or reject. Four groups of control mechanism used in OSS projects are identified: (1) importance of an individual reputation, (2) membership management, (3) rules and institutions, and (4) sanctions (or threat of sanctions) against undesirable behavior (Gallivan 2001). OSS leaders will actually exert his right of control through these four mechanisms. We believe that the transformational/charismatic leadership (P4a) and transactional leadership (P4b) will continue to play an important role at stage 4 (Figure 4) in motivating developers to contribute to the OSS project (see table 1 for a brief discussion of the motivational factors of OSS contributors). For example, Linus, in leading the Linux project, kept his users/developers constantly stimulated (intrinsically motivated) and rewarded (extrinsically motivated)---stimulated by the prospect of having an ego-satisfying piece of the action, rewarded by the sight of constant improvement of their work. OSS contributors motivations Intrinsic Extrinsic Hobby Pursuer Practical needs ( work related, non-work-related) Self-satisfaction from peers recognition Improved programming skills Code for project is intellectually stimulating to write Commercialization of related products and services. Enjoy working with the development team Advertisement for one s programming skills to Dislike proprietary software and want to defeat them enhance one s professional status. Altruism Table 1. OSS contributors motivations ( Lanhani and Wolf 2003; Hars and Ou 2000) P4a. Transformational leadership would moderate the relationship between the developer s intrinsic motivation and his contribution to the OSS project. P4b. Transactional leadership would positively affect the developer s extrinsic motivation to contribute to the OSS project. Developers Intrinsic Motivations Transformationa l Leadership Leadership Transactional Leadership Developers Contribution to the OSS Project Developers Extrinsic Motivations Figure 4. Stage 4: Different Roles of Transformational and Transactional leadership 3. Conclusion This study provides the first comprehensive analysis of the dynamic transformation of an OSS leader through an OSS development. To date, the study of dynamic behavioral transformation of an OSS leader is still in the theoretical development stage. Notwithstanding the lack of empirical validation, the conceptual four-stage model indicates that there is a significant role demand for an initiator/leader to play in every OSS development stage. In 2231

7 particular, the better the fit between the personality traits and the external macro-level factors (e.g. culture) of an initiator/leader and the need of development of the OSS venture, the more likely an OSS will be successful. In addition, our study is the first one in identifying the four distinctive roles played by the key OSS person from creator, initiator, and inspirer to leader in an OSS project development. The conceptual four-stage model will serve as a platform or a starting point for further research examining individual stage in details. References Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., and Judge, T. A. Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next?, Personality and Performance (9:1), 2001, pp Barton, P., and Nissanka, V. Innovation V Suppression: An English View of Open Source Software Licensing, Journal of Internet Law, 2001, pp Chu, P. The Characteristics of Chinese Female Entrepreneurs: Motivation and Personality, Journal of Enterprising Culture (8:1), 2000, pp Costa, P. T. and McCrae, P. R., Revised NEO Personality Inventory and Five-Factor Model Inventory Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL, Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior, Plenum Press, New York, Digman, J. M. Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model, Annual Review of Psychology (41), 1990, pp Digman, J. M., and Shmelyov, A. G. The Structure of Temperament and Personality in Russian Children, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (71), 1996, pp Downton, J. V. Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process, Free Press, New York, Gallivan, M.J. Striking a Balance between Trust and Control in a Virtual Organization: A Content Analysis of Open Source Software Case Studies, Information Systems Journal (11:4), 2001, pp Grief, A. Cultural Beliefs and the Organization of Society: A Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist Societies, Journal of Political Economy (102:5), 1994, pp Hars, A., and Ou, S. Why Is Open Source Software Viable? - A Study of Intrinsic Motivation, Personal Needs, and Future Returns, Proceedings of Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2000, pp Herron, L., and Robinson, R. B. Jr. A Structural Model of the Effects of Entrepreneurial Characteristics on Venture Performance, Journal of Business Venturing (8:3), 1993, pp Hofstede, G. Culture s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, House, R. J., and Singh, J. V. Organization Behavior: Some New Directions for I/O Psychology, Annual Review of Psychology (38), 1987, pp Lakhani, K. R., and Wolf, R. G. Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects, MIT Sloan School of Management, Working Paper, 2003, pp Raymond. E. S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, O Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA, Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2000, 25, pp Tirole, J., and Lerner, J. The simple economics of open source, Harvard Business School, working paper,