Work Motivational Challenges Regarding the Interface Between Agile Teams and a Non-Agile Surrounding Organization: A case study

There are studies showing what happens if agile teams are introduced into a non-agile organization, e.g. higher overhead costs and the necessity of an understanding of agile methods even outside the teams. This case study shows an example of work motivational aspects that might surface when an agile team exists in the middle of a more traditional structure. This case study was conducted at a car manufacturer in Sweden, consisting of an unstructured interview with the Scrum Master and a semi-structured focus group. The results show that the teams felt that the feedback from the surrounding organization was unsynchronized resulting in them not feeling appreciated when delivering their work. Moreover, they felt frustrated when working on non-agile teams after have been working on agile ones. This study concludes that there were work motivational affects of fitting an agile team into a non-agile surrounding organization, and therefore this might also be true for other organizations.

💡 Research Summary

**
The paper presents a qualitative case study investigating how the interface between agile teams and a surrounding non‑agile organization influences work motivation. The study was conducted at a Swedish automotive supplier (referred to as Company X) that had recently launched a pilot Scrum implementation for a safety‑critical supply‑chain software extension. Two Scrum teams, sharing the same Scrum Master, participated together with a total of 23 members; a subset of ten members took part in a semi‑structured focus group. Data collection consisted of a 40‑minute unstructured interview with the Scrum Master and a one‑hour focus group, both recorded only in handwritten notes to encourage free expression of emotions. The authors then performed a thematic analysis, extracting statements related to motivation, categorising them, and comparing the findings with existing literature on agile adoption and job satisfaction.

Three main motivational challenges emerged. First, asynchronous feedback: Agile teams expect rapid, sprint‑end feedback that validates their work, whereas the surrounding organization follows a traditional stage‑gate model with fixed milestones. Consequently, team members reported feeling unappreciated when their sprint deliveries were not acknowledged promptly, and conversely, they sometimes received premature positive feedback that did not correspond to actual delivery status. This misalignment undermines the sense of achievement and reduces intrinsic motivation.

Second, role‑transition stress: Many participants were simultaneously involved in other non‑agile projects. The contrast between the self‑organising, fast‑decision nature of Scrum and the top‑down, slower decision cycles of traditional projects created cognitive overload. Team members described difficulty switching mental models, leading to frustration and a perceived loss of control when moving between contexts.

Third, cultural mismatch: Scrum emphasises transparency, trust, and egalitarian communication, which clash with the hierarchical, documentation‑heavy culture of the broader organisation. The shared Scrum Master had to juggle responsibilities across both teams, resulting in role overlap and occasional conflict. Participants noted that while the agile team achieved higher productivity and felt “way ahead” of non‑agile counterparts, the need to conform to pre‑defined budgets, stage‑gate checkpoints, and rigid requirement documents (e.g., Business Rules Description) limited the full expression of agile values.

The authors argue that these motivational issues are not merely anecdotal but have tangible organisational consequences: reduced job satisfaction can increase turnover risk, impede knowledge sharing, and ultimately hinder the scaling of agile practices across the enterprise. They also acknowledge methodological limitations: the single‑company sample, lack of audio recordings (preventing quantitative frequency analysis), and potential researcher bias in coding.

In the discussion, the paper situates its findings within the broader agile‑non‑agile integration literature, noting that while many studies report higher job satisfaction on agile teams, they often overlook the friction points at organisational boundaries. The authors suggest practical interventions: synchronising feedback loops by aligning sprint reviews with stage‑gate milestones, clarifying role responsibilities to minimise dual‑context overload, and fostering an organisation‑wide cultural shift that embraces agile principles beyond the pilot teams. They recommend future research to include multi‑site studies, mixed‑methods designs, and experimental interventions that test the impact of such synchronisation mechanisms on motivation and performance.

In conclusion, the study demonstrates that embedding an agile team within a non‑agile surrounding organization can generate specific motivational challenges—unsynchronised feedback, role‑transition stress, and cultural misalignment—that diminish the otherwise positive effects of agile work. Addressing these challenges through deliberate organisational design and cultural change is essential for preserving the motivational benefits of agile methods and ensuring successful large‑scale adoption.