Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (2026)

Volume 22 Issue 4: 46-66

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7341/20262243

JEL Codes: L26, O32, M12

Ewa Sońta-Drączkowska, Ph.D., DSc., SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Department of Project Management, al. Niepodległości 162, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tomasz Pilewicz, Ph.D., SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Institute of Enterprise, ul. Madalinskiego 6/8, 02-513 Warsaw, Poland, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract

PURPOSE: There is limited empirical research exploring human motivation in the dynamic context of New Technology-Based Firms (NTBFs). This study aims at examining founders’ and employees’ perceptions of motivational mechanisms within agile, self-organizing teams developing new technology-based products. Additionally, it investigates contextual factors that may influence motivation in the entrepreneurial setting of NTBF product development teams. METHODOLOGY: A qualitative multi-source study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with both founders and employees of 26 NTBF cases engaged in new product development using agile team management practices. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) served as the theoretical framework for data analysis. FINDINGS: The findings summarize and rank motivational drivers from the perspectives of founders, employees, and an aggregated view, interpreting them through the lens of SDT. The most important drivers include financial rewards (salary/equity), product impact and working solutions, team belonging and atmosphere, and autonomy/independence. Furthermore, we identified several contextual factors that influence psychological need satisfaction and, consequently, motivation: (1) organizational structure, including flat hierarchies and flexible work arrangements; (2) work process context, particularly agile management practices; (3) communication and team collaboration practices; and (4) a customer- and innovation-oriented culture. IMPLICATIONS: This study applies Self-Determination Theory to the NTBF context and provides a nuanced understanding of motivation in entrepreneurial team settings. It offers insights into how motivation among both founders and employees is shaped by psychological needs and regulatory mechanisms. Additionally, it provides practical guidance for founders and managers on designing organizational structures and motivational systems that enhance engagement, strengthen employee loyalty, and improve overall motivational outcomes. ORIGINALITY & VALUE: This research contributes to the literature on NTBF success factors by focusing specifically on founder and employee motivation. It offers novel insights into how the organizational setup of agile product development shapes human motivation and highlights both founder and employee perspectives. The study also provides practical implications for designing effective motivational systems in fast-growing NTBFs.

Keywords: new technology-based firms, self-organization, motivation, self-determination theory, team management, agile teams, self-organizing teams, startup motivation, entrepreneurial teams, new product development, workforce agility.

INTRODUCTION

New technology-based firms (NTBFs) are important for creating new jobs and fostering innovation ecosystems; therefore, studying the factors contributing to their success is a relevant research area (e.g., Onetti et al., 2012; Navarro-Castillo et al., 2024). Since NTBFs aim to develop technological innovations and commercialize them, new product development (NPD) is a key function that determines NTBF performance. Given the nature of NTBFs, these companies manage their product development processes by leveraging flexibility to navigate constant uncertainty in achieving product-market fit (Buganza et al., 2010). To pursue the NPD process, they apply agile team practices to a large extent (Sońta-Drączkowska & Mrożewski, 2019). At the same time, NTBFs face a unique organizational challenge. While founders are typically intrinsically motivated entrepreneurs driven by innovation, autonomy, and venture creation (Colombo & Grilli, 2005), the growth of the firm requires the recruitment of employees who may not share the same motivational drivers. As NTBFs expand, tensions may emerge between the autonomy inherent in self-organizing agile teams and the need for managerial control and coordination (Sine et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2009; Malik et al., 2021). Past research on NTBFs has paid far more attention to founder human capital, resources, networks, and commercialization conditions than to explicit motivational theory (Colombo & Grilli, 2005). Limited empirical research has explored what motivates founders and how to design motivation systems that simultaneously support employee autonomy, engagement, and organizational control in agile NTBF environments.

Studies emphasize the importance of agile practices and self-organization in managing new product development under conditions of high uncertainty (Buganza et al., 2010; Sońta-Drączkowska & Mrożewski, 2019). However, the majority of research on self-organizing teams has been conducted in the software development literature and has primarily focused on team processes and agile practices rather than the underlying motivational dynamics (Hoda et al., 2012; Hoda et al., 2013; Hoda & Murugesan, 2016).

In this study we address the above research gap by examining how motivation is configured in self-organizing agile NPD teams in NTBFs and how founders may design work environment that supports both autonomy and organizational coordination. The aim of the study is to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What factors are perceived by NTBF founders and team members as positively influencing their motivation?

RQ2: What are the contextual factors that may determine team motivation in the NTBF context?

To answer these questions, we applied a qualitative, multi-source research design, including semi-structured interviews with founders and employees of 26 NTBFs. As a theoretical lens of analysis, we used self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The underlying assumption here is that NTBF employees are proactive in their approach to work and autonomously motivated. Thus, self-organization as opposed to bureaucratic organizational structures seems to be more appropriate as a management principle for fast-growing NTBFs (Martela & Kostamo, 2017).

This study contributes to theory by examining motivation within agile entrepreneurial organizations. In this context, characterized by limited hierarchy, fluid roles, high levels of change, and innovation pressure, it explores motivational factors relevant to founders and employees, as well as how organizational conditions may relate to job satisfaction. The findings indicate a set of organizational practices that may support internal motivation and the fulfillment of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) needs in agile NTBF environments.

The study also offers practical implications by presenting how NTBF founders and team members perceive motivation in their work. These insights may help entrepreneurs better understand factors underlying human behavior, including mechanisms associated with intrinsic motivation. This understanding can inform the development of people management practices that support employee engagement and empowerment. Additionally, the study provides insights that may be relevant to managers in fast-growing NTBFs that struggle to balance providing more structure and control with maintaining employee engagement and motivation.

The next sections present the conceptual background of the study, followed by the research design, findings, and finally, discussion and conclusion.

LITERATURE REVIEW

New technology-based

The concept of NTBFs emerged in the late 1970s within research streams on entrepreneurship and innovation (Cooper, 1971; Little, 1977). Although definitions vary across studies (Cunha et al., 2013), NTBFs are often treated as synonymous with high-technology startups or independent high-technology SMEs (Murphy & Ledwith, 2007; Midler & Silberzahn, 2008; García-Cabrera et al., 2021). Three characteristics are commonly used to define NTBFs: 1) Youth - firms typically operate for a limited number of years (Little, 1977 suggested fewer than 25 years), 2) Technological orientation - firms focus on exploiting inventions or technological innovations within high-tech or medium-high-tech sectors, 3) Independence - the majority of ownership remains with the founder or founding team, and the firm operates independently of larger capital groups (Cunha et al., 2013).

From a management perspective, early-stage ventures can be interpreted as projects aimed at exploring market opportunities (Casson & Wadeson, 2007; Sońta-Drączkowska & Mrożewski, 2019). NTBFs typically operate in conditions of high uncertainty and complexity (Sommer et al., 2015), which makes their activities similar to those of exploration projects (Lenfle, 2008). Their success is therefore strongly influenced by founders’ expertise and professional experience (Colombo & Grilli, 2005). High-technology ventures often exhibit entrepreneurial management styles characterized by organic structures, highly skilled and motivated employees, continuous monitoring of short and long-term goals, and the ability to identify market opportunities (Warren & Hutchinson, 2000; Hirisatja et al., 2021).

Agile, self-organizing teams in the context of NTBFs

The concept of agility has earlier roots in production management and new product development. Takeuchi and Nonaka first mentioned it in their 1986 article, “The New Product Development Game.” Scrum, which is currently the most popular agile framework (Cervone, 2011), was recognized there as a means of organizational knowledge creation, particularly valuable for enabling continuous, incremental, and spiral innovation. Another milestone in the development of agile was the publication of the Agile Manifesto (Beck et al., 2001), which originated from software development practice. In this study, we adopt the Scrum framework as the underlying agile approach, as it is currently the most widely used in agile management practice (Cervone, 2011; Sauer & Nicklich, 2021). At the core of Scrum are small, flexible, and adaptive teams. Studies indicate that Scrum relies on self-organization and informal communication rather than formal control mechanisms and extensive documentation (Lee & Xia, 2010). The framework defines three main roles: (1) Product Owner, responsible for maximizing product value and managing the Product Backlog; (2) Development Team (up to nine professionals), who perform the work and determine how it should be done; and (3) Scrum Master, responsible for promoting and supporting the Scrum method. Scrum also defines a set of events, artifacts, and rules that structure the team’s work (Rising & Janoff, 2000; Pinto & Leme, 2024).

Agile methods are particularly useful for NTBFs because they emphasize flexibility, customer interaction, and openness to uncertainty and change. They also rely on a modified team structure that incorporates the principle of self-organization and a limited number of team members, typically ten or fewer people (Serrador & Pinto, 2015; Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Conforto et al. (2016, p. 667) define project team’s agility as the “ability to quickly change the project plan as a response to customer or stakeholders needs, market or technology demands in order to achieve better project and product performance in an innovative and dynamic project environment.”. Previous empirical studies confirm that agile management practices positively influence project success, both in terms of efficiency (time, scope, and budget) and effectiveness (including customer satisfaction and project outcomes) (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). This suggests that agile practices can facilitate the implementation of new product development in NTBFs through small self-organized teams (Sońta-Drączkowska & Mrożewski, 2019).

The basic philosophy of Scrum is related to team self-organization. The idea of self-organization originates from the Tavistock Institute in the 1950s within the Socio-Technical Systems (STS) paradigm (Trist, 1981). STS research advocated self-organizing work systems as an alternative to the principles of scientific management introduced by Taylor. According to this perspective, technology, work tools, and organizational structures outside the team should not be the primary controlling mechanisms of work processes (Mumford, 2006).

Self-organizing teams can be described as “teams of employees who typically perform highly related or interdependent jobs, who are identified and identifiable as a social unit in an organization, and who are given significant authority and responsibility for many aspects of their work, such as planning, scheduling, assigning tasks to members, and making decisions with economic consequences” (Moe et al., 2008, p. 77). They differ from semi-autonomous groups by possessing both the knowledge and authority to set goals, commit to, and accomplish work assignments (Mumford, 2006; Malik et al., 2021). In agile project contexts, self-organizing teams are composed of “individuals that manage their own workload, shift work among themselves based on need and best fit, and participate in team decision making” (Highsmith, 2009, p. 107). Such teams require a common focus, mutual trust, and respect among members (Hoda et al., 2012). Takeuchi and Nonaka (1986) further describe self-organizing teams as exhibiting autonomy, self-transcendence, and cross-fertilization. Self-organization, rather than bureaucratic organizational structures, seems more appropriate as a management principle for fast-growing NTBFs (Martela & Kostamo, 2017). The underlying assumption here is that employees are proactive in their approach to work and autonomously motivated.

Researchers claim, that implementing self-organization in practice may be challenging. Moe et al. (2008), focusing on autonomy, identified division of work based on specialized skills as one of the main barriers to self-organization. They emphasize that although Scrum builds on the principle of self-organization, it does not provide clear guidance on how it should be achieved. Existing studies on agile teams focus mostly on software development but the topic of motivation is neglected in the literature (e.g., Hoda et al., 2012; Hoda et al., 2013; Hoda & Murugesan, 2016; Kakar 2017; Kakar, 2018). In this study we aim to shed light on this research gap.

Self-determination theory (SDT) in the entrepreneurial context

Self-determination theory (SDT) was selected as an interpretative theoretical lens of this study, as it focuses on the degree to which an individual’s behavior is self-motivated and self-determined and elaborates on the psychological needs on an individual that drive motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

For managing teams in NTBFs the underlying assumption is that they are proactive in their approach to work and autonomously motivated. The distinctive capabilities of NTBFs are closely related to the knowledge and skills of their founders (Colombo & Grilli, 2005). Based on this, the factors affecting founders’ motivation can be perceived as an important driver of NTBF success. As the company grows, entrepreneurs need to hire additional employees and develop more advanced organizational structures. However, newly hired employees may not necessarily have a predisposition to operate under conditions of self-organization or be driven by the same motivational factors as the founding team. A natural consequence of NTBF growth is therefore the emergence of tensions between the pursuit of autonomy by individual team members and the simultaneous need for control from the perspective of ownership interests (Sine et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2009; Malik et al., 2021). NTBF founders thus face the challenge of designing motivation systems that both attract and retain valuable employees while maintaining a certain degree of organizational control. In addition, a well-functioning HR function may not yet be established in a new, growing enterprise.

We briefly outline the major concepts of this theory because it serves as a framework for mapping informants’ data in the empirical part of the study. According to SDT, three innate psychological needs support optimal functioning and personal growth: 1) Competence - the desire to control outcomes and experience mastery (White, 1959), 2) Relatedness - the need to interact with others, feel connected, and experience care and belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), 3) Autonomy - the desire to act as the causal agent of one’s own life and behave in accordance with one’s integrated self, which does not necessarily imply independence from others (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004).

Scholars highlight three fundamental assumptions underlying SDT (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004). First, humans are inherently proactive and capable of mastering internal forces such as drives and emotions. Second, humans possess an inherent tendency toward growth, development, and integrated functioning. Third, optimal development and action are inherent potentials but do not occur automatically, as individuals require supportive social environments to realize them. When these conditions are met, positive outcomes such as well-being and growth are likely to occur. Conversely, when basic psychological needs are not fulfilled, negative consequences may arise. Thus, SDT emphasizes the natural human tendency toward positive motivation while recognizing that this process may be hindered if basic needs remain unmet.

Central to SDT is the distinction between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Autonomy involves acting with a sense of volition and choice. When the perceived locus of control shifts toward employees, it enhances self-determination and fosters a sense of empowerment (Malik et al., 2021). SDT suggests that autonomous and controlled motivations differ not only in their regulatory processes but also in the experiences that accompany them. Behaviors can therefore be characterized according to the degree to which they are autonomous or controlled (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Figure 1 illustrates types of motivational mechanisms regulating human behavior, which are as follows:

• intrinsic motivation - driven by interest in the activity itself and the inherent desire to seek challenges and new opportunities (e.g., “I work because it is fun”);
• integrated regulation - the most internalized form of extrinsic motivation, where behaviors are fully integrated with an individual’s sense of self;
• identified regulation - behavior that aligns with personal goals and values, resulting in a sense of volition and personal importance;
• introjected regulation - behavior driven by internal pressures such as maintaining self-worth or avoiding guilt, often associated with ego involvement;
• external regulation - the least autonomous form of motivation, where behavior is driven by external demands or rewards (Gagné & Deci, 2005).

Figure 1. The self-determination continuum of motivation

Source: Adapted from Gagné and Deci (2005, p. 336).

More recent contributions on SDT provide relevant insights for our research. Studies emphasize that satisfying the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can enhance creativity and work performance (Li, 2025). Authors confirm that self-determination is strongly related to workforce agility and its proactive, adaptive, and resilient behaviors (Muduli & Pandya, 2018). Thus, we can assume that an agile work environment, as a contextual factor for NTBFs, may be perceived as a mechanism to enhance both founders’ and employees’ motivation, leading to increased company performance.

METHODOLOGY

Research design

Since the research problem is relatively new and aims to understand people’s perceptions, experiences, and behaviors, we used an inductive, multi-source qualitative design. As a research method, we used content and thematic analysis (Bengtsson, 2016). We applied purposeful sampling to gain data that reflect the studied phenomenon. We applied selection criteria for NTBFs aligned with the Theoretical Foundation section. The studied companies were: 1) existing less than 10 years on the market, 2) affiliated to high-tech (and medium high-tech) sectors according to the OECD classification, 3) remained operationally independent from a venture capital firm or a large capital group, but having heterogeneous financing (e.g., own funds, public funding as specified in Appendix 1). Since NTBFs are working on new products aimed at commercializing specific technological inventions within the boundaries of newly established firms with flat hierarchies, we assume that they can serve as a “proxy” for self-organized teams. All of the NTBFs studied applied some variation of agile methods in product development, albeit at different levels of maturity.

Two researchers with both academic and practical backgrounds have been involved in data collection and analysis. Both were independent of the interviewed companies and had practical experience in managing NTBF teams and agile methods. Given this professional background, there was a potential for researchers’ bias affecting data analysis and interpretation. To mitigate this bias, we used a jargon-neutral language to avoid directing informants towards specific conclusions. Moreover, we applied an intercoder agreement strategy and iterative data analysis, including three alignment workshops.

Data collection

Recruitment of informants occurred via LinkedIn digital platform and the personal connections of the researchers involved in data collection. Details about the informants are summarized in Appendix 1. We collected data over 6 months. 18 of the NTBF cases were located in Poland, 8 in Germany. Our research was a follow-up to a project on project management practices in self-organizing agile teams, initiated in 2018 as part of a grant co-financed by the Polish-German Foundation for Science. Consequently, some connections to relevant informants already existed. Two potential sources of sampling bias need to be acknowledged: overrepresentation of well-connected, visible startups, and the participation of respondents who are more willing to discuss or present their organizations in a more positive light. To mitigate sampling biases, we applied purposeful sampling, specifying NTBFs’ selection criteria and including multiple respondent roles: founders and team members.

Data were collected in two rounds via semi-structured interviews with representatives of company founders (or founding teams) and employees, conducted independently. Additionally, before each interview, we investigated the company website to understand the product, market, and business model, and to better understand the setup of each NTBF. We developed and tested the research interview protocol as part of a pilot study. The total duration of the interviews amounted to ca. 28,5 hours. Detailed time of interviews is provided in Appendix 1. The data were recorded, transcribed, and subsequently summarized into research memos, which also included information on each NTBF’s product type, website, and business model. Finally, all data were stored in a research case library.

All participants were informed about the purpose of the research and provided their voluntary consent prior to the interviews. To ensure confidentiality, participants and companies were anonymized using coded identifiers (F - founders, E - employees). Interview recordings and transcripts were stored in a secure research database accessible only to the research team.

Data analysis

We analyzed the interview data using a qualitative content analysis procedure following Bengtsson (2016). First, a database of transcripts was created in Microsoft Word. In the decontextualization stage, the data were systematically broken down into smaller meaning units using an open coding procedure (Berg, 2001). Coding was conducted using a hybrid approach: some codes were generated deductively from the interview structure, while others aligned with categories derived from SDT.

During the open coding stage, text fragments were initially color-coded and subsequently transferred into a structured format in Microsoft Excel. To ensure coding reliability, a systematic validation procedure was implemented. An initial codebook was developed and iteratively refined. Two independent coders double-coded a subset of the data - 5 cases (20%) and we set the predefined threshold of 70% indicating acceptable reliability. In our case, the data percentual alignment between coders was estimated at 82%, exceeding the assumed threshold. In dedicated reconciliation workshops, we discussed and iteratively resolved discrepancies and refined the coding scheme. In the recontextualization stage, coded data were compared with the original transcripts, and the most frequent meaning units were selected and condensed. A second round of double-coding was conducted on a subset of the data to assess the stability of coding across 5 cases (20%), achieving 85% intercoder agreement, which confirmed the stability of the coding scheme. Discrepancies were again resolved through discussion and consensus.

In the categorization stage, data were structured according to the following scheme: meaning unit, condensed meaning, code, category, and theme. Post-it notes were used to facilitate the iterative grouping and reorganization of codes. At this stage, intercoder agreement was achieved during a workshop. Points of coding reconciliation and alignment are marked in Figure 2. In the compilation stage, findings were synthesized across cases, linking the analytical structure with illustrative quotations to ensure close grounding in the empirical data.

The validity of the study is supported by the purposeful sampling of NTBFs. Furthermore, the use of well-established theoretical constructs from motivation research strengthens the conceptual robustness of the study. However, a potential limitation relates to interviewee bias, as participants may have been inclined to present themselves in a favorable light. To mitigate this risk, interviewees were explicitly encouraged to respond honestly and avoid “self-marketing.”

The reliability of the findings is supported by the relatively large sample of NTBF cases and the inclusion of both founders’ and employees’ perspectives. Data saturation was achieved through an iterative process of data collection and analysis. After approximately two-thirds of the interviews had been coded, no substantially new themes were identified, and subsequent interviews largely confirmed previously identified patterns. Cross-case comparisons further reinforced the consistency and robustness of the findings across the analyzed cases.

Figure 2. Coding procedure including coders’ agreement strategy

Source: Own elaboration based on Bengtsson (2016).

RESULTS

In response to RQ1: What factors are perceived by NTBF founders and team members as positively influencing their motivation? Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the main findings on the perceptions of NTBF founders and employees, including illustrative quotations. Table 3 consolidates results from both the founder and employee perspectives.

The most frequently cited motivational driver for NTBF founders was product impact (n=12). This reflects identified regulation and a strong link to the need for competence, as founders emphasized the importance of building functional solutions with real-world application. Financial reward (n=11), while prominent, was typically framed as a secondary outcome of value creation that emerges as a natural consequence of product commercialization.3 Autonomy emerged as a central motivational force (n=10), both as a psychological need and as a structurally embedded feature of the entrepreneurial role, supporting intrinsic and integrated regulation. Similarly, task achievement (n=9) reinforced motivation through competence satisfaction, combining introjected and identified regulation as founders tracked progress through venture milestones. Meaning and mission (n=8) were associated with integrated regulation, highlighting a deep alignment between personal values and the broader purpose of the venture, linking autonomy and relatedness needs. Mastery and learning (n=7) highlighted the important role of learning and technical competency improvement in driving founders. This relates to intrinsic motivation and competency development. Team belonging and atmosphere (n=6), fun/interesting work (n=4), and benefits/perks (n=2) were identified as motivational drivers, but they seem to play a secondary role based on the founders’ perception.

Table 1. Ranked motivational drivers in NTBFs with frequencies and illustrative quotes -founders

Rank	Motivation Driver	Regulatory style (SDT)	Needs (SDT)	Frequency (N=26)	Illustrative Quote (Founder)	Interpretation
1	Product impact / working solution	Identified regulation	Competence (mastery) + Meaning	12	“The most motivating moment is when we see the product actually working and customers using it to solve a real problem.” (F 4)	Founders derive strong motivation from technological success and real-world impact.
2	Financial reward / equity	External regulation (partially internalized for some)	---	11	“Of course financial success matters, but it usually comes as a result of building something valuable.” (F 10)	Financial outcomes are recognized but not necessarily framed as the primary driver.
3	Autonomy / independence	Intrinsic / integrated	Autonomy	10	“I started the company because I wanted the freedom to make my own decisions.” (F 17)	Entrepreneurial independence is a major founder motivation.
4	Task achievement / progress	Introjected + Identified regulation	Competence (mastery)	9	“Every milestone we reach confirms that the company is moving in the right direction.” (F 21)	Venture progress and milestone completion reinforce motivation.
5	Meaning / mission	Integrated regulation	Autonomy + Relatedness (value alignment)	8	“We want to create technology that genuinely improves how people solve this problem.” (F 13)	Founders connect motivation to purpose and mission.
6	Mastery / learning	Intrinsic motivation	Competence (mastery)	7	“Solving complex technical challenges is something I personally enjoy.”(F15)	Learning and technical mastery motivate founders.
7	Team belonging / atmosphere	Identified / intrinsic (social internalization)	Relatedness	6	“Building a team of people who trust each other is essential for a startup.” (F 19)	Team cohesion contributes to motivation but is secondary.
8	Fun / interesting work	Intrinsic motivation	Competence + Autonomy	4	“Working on innovative technology is simply exciting.”(F 11)	Enjoyment of creative work supports intrinsic motivation.
9	Benefits / perks	External regulation	----	2	“Perks are not what motivates founders - building the company is.” (F 10)	Perks play almost no role in founder motivation.

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings.

From the employee perspective, the most frequently cited driver was financial reward (n=15), reflecting external regulation and the importance of financial stability in a competitive IT labor market. Social factors were also highly salient, with team belonging and a positive atmosphere (n=13) strongly associated with the need for relatedness and partially internalized (identified or intrinsic) motivation. Several motivation drivers reflected more autonomous forms of regulation. Product impact (n=9), task achievement (n=8), mastery and learning (n=7) were primarily linked to identified and introjected regulation, respectively, and were closely associated with the need for competence, as employees emphasized the importance of seeing tangible outcomes and progress in their work.

Overall, while external rewards were the most frequently mentioned, the majority of motivation drivers clustered around competence and relatedness needs and corresponded to more autonomous forms of regulation (identified, integrated, and intrinsic), indicating a substantial presence of high-quality motivation among employees.

Table 2. Ranked motivational drivers in NTBFs with frequencies and illustrative quotes – employees

Rank	Motivation Driver	Regulation Style (SDT)	Needs (SDT)	Frequency (N=26)	Illustrative Quote (Employee)	Interpretation
1	Financial reward / salary	External regulation	----	15	“In such a competitive IT market, salary and financial stability are very important.” (E 12)	Financial stability is the most frequently mentioned employee driver.
2	Team belonging / atmosphere	Intrinsic / identified (social internalization)	Relatedness	13	“Working in a supportive team with a good atmosphere motivates me a lot.” (E 4)	Team culture strongly influences employee motivation.
3	Product impact / working solution	Identified regulation	Competence (mastery) + Meaning	9	“Seeing that the product we built actually works and is used by customers is very motivating.” (E 8)	Product success motivates employees similarly to founders.
4	Autonomy / independence	Intrinsic / identified	Autonomy	8	“I appreciate the flexibility to decide how to approach technical problems.” (E 4)	Task autonomy and flexibility support employee motivation.
5	Task achievement / progress	Introjected + Identified regulation	Competence (mastery)	8	“Completing sprints and delivering features gives a real sense of progress.” (E 25)	Agile milestones reinforce motivation.
6	Meaning / mission	Integrated regulation	Autonomy + Relatedness (value alignment)	7	“It’s motivating to know that our product solves an important problem.” (E 22)	Purpose contributes to work motivation.
7	Mastery / learning	Intrinsic motivation	Competence/ Mastery	7	“I joined because I can learn new technologies and develop my skills.” (E 13)	Learning opportunities motivate employees.
8	Fun / interesting work	Intrinsic motivation	Competence + Autonomy	5	“The projects are challenging and interesting, which keeps the work engaging.” (E 5)	Enjoyment of work tasks contributes to motivation.
9	Benefits / perks	External regulation	----	4	“The company supports conferences and provides good equipment.” (E 18)	Benefits are appreciated but not primary drivers.

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings.

The aggregated results (Table 3) suggest that motivation in NTBFs emerges from a combination of intrinsic drivers related to technological achievement and learning and extrinsic drivers related to financial security and team environment. Financial reward is the most frequent overall driver of an extrinsic nature, but mainly for employees, while founders are more driven by product impact, autonomy, and meaning. Across both groups, competence emerges as the central need, supported by relatedness (team) and autonomy. Overall, motivation is mixed but leans toward higher-quality, internalized forms, especially among founders.

Table 3. Overall ranking (NTBFs founders and employees aggregated unique cases)

Rank	Motivation Driver	Total Frequency [Founders + Employees]	Regulation Style (SDT)	Needs (SDT)	Interpretation
1	Financial reward / salary / equity	26	External regulation	----	Most universal driver across both groups, though qualitatively different (primary for employees, secondary for founders).
2	Product impact / working solution	21	Identified regulation	Competence (mastery) + Meaning	Strong shared motivator linked to competence and value creation.
3	Team belonging / atmosphere	19	Intrinsic / identified (social internalization	Relatedness	Social environment highly important, especially for employees.
4	Autonomy / independence	18	Intrinsic / identified	Autonomy	Core driver across both groups, structurally stronger among founders.
5	Task achievement / progress	17	Introjected + Identified regulation	Competence (mastery)	Progress and milestones consistently reinforce motivation.
6	Meaning / mission	15	Integrated regulation	Autonomy + Relatedness (value alignment)	Purpose-driven motivation present in both groups.
7	Mastery / learning	14	Intrinsic motivation	Competence/ Mastery	Competence development equally important across groups.
8	Fun / interesting work	9	Intrinsic motivation	Competence + Autonomy	Intrinsic enjoyment moderately relevant.
9	Benefits / perks	6	External regulation	----	Least important overall; marginal motivator.

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings.

Several patterns reflected in the collected data may help identify contextual factors relevant to fostering team motivation in NTBFs. By identifying these, we may address RQ2: What are the contextual factors that may determine team motivation in the NTBF context?  Both founders and employees highlighted organizational structure as a major contextual factor shaping motivation (Table 4). Flat organizational arrangements and flexible work structures supported autonomy, while the need for hierarchy emerged as a potential tension during company growth. Autonomy-supporting structures were widely reported. However, founders simultaneously acknowledged the organizational tension between autonomy and coordination during firm growth. As the company is growing, there is an increased need to implement more control and coordination.

Table 4. Organizational arrangement as contextual factor

Code	Founders (N=26)	Employees (N=26)	Interpretation	Quote
C1 Flat organizational structure	18 (69%)	----	Founders emphasize decentralized leadership	“We try to keep the structure as flat as possible. Everyone can propose ideas and make decisions quickly without too many managerial layers.” (F 5)
C2 Need for hierarchy	9 (35%)	----	Recognition of scaling challenges	“As the company grows, we realize that some level of hierarchy becomes necessary to coordinate teams and projects.” (F 13)
EC4 Flexible work structure	----	16 (62%)	Employees experience autonomy in daily work	“I really appreciate that we can decide how and when to work on tasks. The flexibility makes it easier to stay motivated.” (E 13)

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings.

Agile work practices were mentioned by both founders and employees as a mechanism supporting competence development and task mastery (Table 5). From the data, we can get an insight into what agile routines provide: clear task structure, learning cycles, and frequent feedback. These elements strongly support the need for competence, which is a key motivational mechanism in Self-Determination Theory.

Although most of the interviewees explicitly claimed to work in an agile mode, agile roles and rituals were rarely carried out in a strict, disciplined manner as defined in the Scrum approach (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Only in 5 cases were teams mature and large enough to follow agile rituals strictly. These teams were at a more advanced level in product development, larger in size, and had been working for more than 1 year in the same team setup. The majority (17 cases) adopted selected agile practices, while some (remaining 4 cases) implemented agile principles without explicitly labeling them as “agile” (e.g., iterative product development or continuous client feedback). Generally, software- or Internet-based companies reported using agile to a greater extent than hardware-based companies or companies developing products that use both hardware and software.

Table 5. Agile practices as contextual factor

Code	Founders (N=26)	Employees (N=26)	Interpretation	Quote
C3 Agile routines	20 (77%)	----	Founders stress agile management	“Our agile routines help us constantly test ideas and improve the product step by step.” (F 15)
EC1 Agile team organization	----	21 (81%)	Employees experience agile workflow	“Working in agile teams makes progress visible every week, which keeps the team engaged.” (E 24)
EC6 Product-centered work	----	17 (65%)	Focus on delivering working products	“In agile work, real progress is when people use the product - and the team sees it working.” (E 17)

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings.

Communication and collaboration patterns strongly influenced team cohesion and relatedness. Both groups (employees and founders) reported that informal communication and collaboration contribute to a sense of belonging, reinforcing relatedness, another core SDT need. (Table 6).

Table 6. Communication as contextual factor

Code	Founders (N=26)	Employees (N=26)	Interpretation	Quote
C4 Direct communication	19 (73%)	----	Founders emphasize informal interactions	“We communicate directly and informally. If there is a problem, we solve it together quickly.” (F 22)
C5 Digital coordination tools	14 (54%)	----	Infrastructure supporting collaboration	“Digital tools help us coordinate work efficiently even when teams are distributed.” (F18)
EC2 Collaborative teamwork	----	22 (85%)	Strong team-based work structure	“People here are always willing to help each other solve problems.” (E5)
EC3 Open communication environment	----	20 (77%)	Transparency supports trust	“Information is shared openly, so everyone understands the goals of the project.” (E18)

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings.

Motivation was also shaped by meaning-related contextual factors, particularly mission orientation and product development goals (Table 7). Direct contact with customers and shared mission narratives foster meaningful work, strengthening identified and intrinsic motivation. Some interviewees emphasized the role of culture, atmosphere, or simply founder’s personality (having a “feeling for people issues”) as factors contributing to motivation (E 16; F 12). We could find quotes pointing directly towards SDT theory concepts: “We do not have a motivation system. I do not believe in motivation systems but clear rules. What motivates us is mastery, autonomy, meaning (…) In the long run, this kind of motivation will not expire and will last...” (F 11), “People know that we are doing a good job and this company will flourish. I do not want people motivated by money here, because they will probably jump to another company when offered a better salary… It is rather our culture, which attracts …” (F 12).

Table 7. Customer and innovation-oriented culture

Code	Founders (N=26)	Employees (N=26)	Interpretation	Quote
C7 Customer contact proximity	15 (58%)	----	Customer feedback strengthens purpose	“Talking directly to customers helps us understand how our technology is used in real situations.” (F 26)
C8 Information transparency	17 (65%)	----	Open strategy communication	“We have an open-door policy, everyone hears everything, and we try to stay at a similar level of knowledge. So that we all pull in the same direction, so that everyone has the same level of knowledge.” (F 17)
EC7 Mission-driven organization	----	14 (54%)	Employees motivated by vision	“It’s motivating to know that the company is working toward a clear mission.” (E 10)
EC8 Innovation-oriented culture	----	19 (73%)	Technological challenge motivates teams	“The culture here encourages experimentation and new ideas.” (E 8)

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings.

Several informants especially founders, emphasized structural challenges emerging during organizational growth. As NTBFs grow they introduce structural pressures that may influence motivation by limiting autonomy, increasing coordination demands, creating capability gaps. Founders of more mature NTBFs emphasized the need of reallocating human resources between the operating business and the development of new product features. They expressed the need for specialized resources and role division. For example, some would hire additional staff to manage NPD process quality (e.g., Quality Manager), but could not afford it. Moreover, some stressed that, with limited resources, it is difficult to meet the rising demands of necessary exploitation and growth.

Table 8. Contextual factor - company growth and scaling

Code	Founders (N=26)	Employees	Interpretation	Quote
C9 Recruitment / training gap	13 (50%)	----	Skill shortages threaten competence	“Finding people with the right skills is still one of our biggest challenges.” (F 15)
C10 Scaling / professionalization	12 (46%)	----	Need for management systems	“As the company grows, we need more structured management processes.” (F 17)

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings.

We can summarize the following challenges related to company growth that support that can be mapped with both Code 9 and C10:

1. C9 Recruitment/training gap: Talent acquisition and selection - “We had to learn how to recruit people and get rid quickly of people we do not want to keep… Maybe to keep one person we need to recruit two and fire one…” (F5),
2. C10 Scaling/professionalization: Maintaining employee engagement and performance - “I have the energy… but this is not the case for everybody… I need an operational manager to discipline people…” (F 7),
3. C10 Scaling/professionalization: Role specialization and division of labor - “Some hierarchy, higher level of management, and lower level are necessary…” (F 8),
4. C10 Scaling/professionalization: Emergence of management - “What we need now is management…” (F 7),
5. C10 Scaling/professionalization: Balancing exploitation and exploration - “We do not have enough capacity to look for new trends and opportunities…” (F 12),
6. C10 Scaling/professionalization: Coordination of multiple agile teams - “With more teams, it becomes harder to cascade work and coordinate activities, so some hierarchy and management structures are necessary.” (F 17).

The data analysis suggests that motivation in NTBF agile teams emerges from the interaction of the following domains that create the context for team operations: 1) organizational structure, including flat hierarchy and flexible work arrangements organizational, 2) work process context - practices of agile team management, 3) communication and team collaboration practices, 4) customer and innovation-oriented culture. These domains collectively support the team satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, the core psychological needs proposed by Self-Determination Theory. However, as the company grows, many additional challenges may emerge for self-organization as more structure and division of work may be required. Figure 2 illustrates a summary of the main research findings for RQ2.

Figure 3. Contextual factors, psychological needs and motivational outcomes in agile, self-organizing NTBF teams

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings.

DISCUSSION

Our study connects with prior research on the positive impact of founders’ team human capital on NTBF growth (Colombo & Grilli, 2005) and contributes to the exploration of team motivational factors within the context of self-organizing agile teams.

Financial rewards/equity seem to be the major motivational mechanism. Studies on SDT evaluate the role of financial rewards as context-dependent. In the controlling role it may undermine autonomy and intrinsic motivation, especially for interesting tasks. However, in the informational role, the meaning of reward, not the reward itself, determines the outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Therefore the design of the financial reward system may also address key psychological needs of NTBFs personnel. For example, it may support autonomy by expanding choice in incentives, competence by reflecting mastery within the reward structure, and relatedness by reinforcing connection (e.g., through shared incentives). This level of differentiation was beyond the scope of our research questions, but it represents a relevant and promising avenue for future research.

Our research reveals that a strong product orientation is important for both employees and founders. Product impact and the delivery of working solutions are among the most frequently mentioned motivational factors. This can be linked to the sense of mastery associated with product delivery, which is characteristic of engineering culture (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2012). A mature product that has achieved product-market fit may then be successfully commercialized (Sanasi et al., 2023). Agile practices emphasize a strong focus on the working product and its incremental delivery; therefore, embedding product focus in daily operations may enhance motivational outcomes, such as innovation and creativity, within development teams (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020).

Autonomy and independence are also highly visible in how both founders and employees assess motivational drivers. This aligns with previous studies on NTBFs, which show that independence is one of the major motives for starting a new technology business, followed by wealth (Oakey, 2003). Autonomy appears to be especially important for founders. Employees likewise value flexible work arrangements and flat hierarchies, which may offer greater autonomy than working in a large corporation. Agile team practices foster autonomous action because autonomy is rooted in agile values: development teams are empowered to act and make decisions (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Earlier research on agile teams likewise identified autonomy as a universal driver of motivation in agile settings (Hoda et al., 2012; Kakar, 2017).

Employees’ motivation profiles, which combine intrinsic drivers with more controlled mechanisms such as stable pay, benefits, and flexible work arrangements, illustrate the SDT continuum from autonomous to controlled regulation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). This pattern suggests that NTBFs operate in environments where intrinsic motivation dominates in the early stages, for example, when company formation is driven by the founders’ team, but controlled extrinsic motivators become more relevant as organizational complexity increases and external staff must be hired. Therefore, motivation systems in NTBFs cannot be reduced solely to factors that drive intrinsic motivation; they must also provide a stable set of incentives that support controlled motivation.

At the same time, we observed challenges to autonomy and self-organization arising from company growth and scaling. As the number of team members and agile teams increases, tensions emerge between flexibility and autonomy on the one hand, and the growing need for management and control mechanisms on the other. These growth-related challenges and their impact on organizational structure have already been discussed in earlier studies. As technology startups move beyond the stage of informal coordination, they increasingly require more formal management control systems and organizational control mechanisms (Davila, 2005; Davila et al., 2009). In agile environments, company expansion is reflected in the need to coordinate multiple agile teams. This phenomenon has been examined in the large-scale agile literature (e.g., Dingsøyr et al., 2017, 2023), which consistently shows that once agile practices extend across many teams, organizations need explicit cross-team coordination mechanisms such as inter-team meetings, communities of practice, governance roles, and architecture oversight.

These observations also resonate with prior research highlighting barriers to self-organization, including skill-based work division and the lack of clear guidance on self-organization in the Scrum framework (Moe et al., 2008; Murugesan, 2016). The tension between maintaining agility and introducing formal structures underscores the dynamic nature of NTBF management and the limits of pure self-organization in high-growth contexts. This finding suggests that agility should be conceptualized as a spectrum rather than a binary state. Organizations may benefit from hybrid models that preserve autonomy while introducing selective governance mechanisms (Handoko & Tjaturpriono, 2023). Such models could include modular HR practices aligned with agile rituals, ensuring that motivation systems remain responsive to both employee needs and organizational objectives. NTBFs may therefore benefit from hybrid organizational models that preserve core agile values while introducing selective formalization to manage complexity.

Studies also show that adding a middle-management layer can help scale startups by freeing founders’ attention and improving innovation performance. This is a classic hybrid move away from a purely flat startup model (Grimpe et al., 2019). Earlier studies also suggest that how companies use agile in team management may depend on the type of product. A fully agile approach may work well for software-based products; however, a hybrid approach may be necessary for a technology-based product that combines hardware and software components. In such cases, a hybrid team setup may be more suitable (Sońta-Drączkowska & Mrożewski, 2019). Thus, product complexity and the NTBF business model may also be relevant factors in team work design. To summarize, in the dynamic environment of NTBFs, adaptive motivational systems appear to be the most appropriate because they evolve alongside organizational growth. NTBFs cannot rely on static approaches. Instead, they need flexible frameworks that integrate intrinsic motivators with scalable extrinsic mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

This study aimed to explore perceived drivers of motivation in agile, self-organizing teams from the perspectives of both NTBF founders and employees. Moreover, it sought to identify contextual factors influencing team motivation in an agile setup. The cross-case aggregated analysis indicates that financial rewards (salary, equity) are the most universal motivational driver across both groups, though qualitatively different (primary for employees, secondary for founders). Notably, product impact and mastery-related factors strongly reinforce competence and are particularly important for NTBF founders. NTBF employees particularly value a team atmosphere that supports relatedness, and autonomy emerges as a fundamental driver across both groups. More deeply internalized motivations, such as meaning/mission (integrated regulation), further highlight value alignment as an important factor. Finally, purely extrinsic factors such as benefits and perks rank lowest, indicating a limited motivational impact compared to more psychologically fulfilling drivers.

Moreover, we identified several contextual factors shaping team motivation in the agile NTBF environment: (1) organizational structure, including flat hierarchies and flexible work arrangements, (2) work process context, including agile team management practices, (3) communication and team collaboration practices, and (4) a customer- and innovation-oriented culture. Company growth and scaling were identified as challenges requiring constant and dynamic adaptation of motivational mechanisms to address the needs of both founders and employees.

Our study contextualizes SDT in the entrepreneurial setting of a technology startup and integrates it with agile organizational design. It sheds light on the factors driving motivation and on how the teamwork-based organizational environment shapes the psychological needs of both founders and employees. Moreover, the study contributes to research on NTBF success factors by exploring founder and employee motivation as a major component of team human capital. It provides qualitative insights into how motivation is shaped and the challenges that emerge in a fast-growing, technology-based startup. The integration of SDT into NTBF contexts adds a theoretical layer that has not been sufficiently discussed in earlier work. With this study, we contribute to addressing this research gap.

This research provides practical guidance for NTBF founders and managers in more established NTBFs. First, it emphasizes how teamwork practices may influence the psychological needs of both employees and founders, leading to increased intrinsic motivation. This may be especially important when NTBFs cannot afford to increase salaries or introduce additional benefit packages that serve as external motivational drivers. Second, the study highlights the need to implement more structured processes as NTBFs grow, offering actionable insights for designing motivation systems and a teamwork culture aligned with agile principles. For example, founders could consider product-centered work and the delivery of a functioning product as major drivers of engineering motivation, creating a sense of mastery and achievement. By introducing a participatory style and empowering employees in decision-making, owners can foster motivation rooted in the need for autonomy. Team building and the creation of a strong team identity may serve as mechanisms that enhance the need for relatedness. These practices may help entrepreneurs prevent turnover of valuable, specialized personnel, a scarce resource in the highly competitive IT sector. Lastly, by enhancing employee motivation, a higher impact on innovation output can be expected.

This research has limitations inherent to qualitative methods. The purposefully selected sample and inductive design limit generalizability across the wider NTBF population. The perceptions of founders and employees may be biased, despite efforts to mitigate bias through dual perspectives, iterative data analysis, and instructions to informants to avoid self-promotional statements. While the study identifies recurring patterns, it does not capture dynamic changes in founders' and employees' motivation over time. Moreover, the research setup does not allow for in-depth elaboration on the NTBF founders’ and employees’ perceptions of the role of financial rewards and benefits.

Future research should address these limitations by conducting longitudinal studies that examine how motivational mechanisms evolve during company scaling and agile transitions. Quantitative investigations could validate the observed patterns and assess their impact on performance outcomes. It would be interesting to further investigate how the design of financial rewards and benefit systems influences not only employees’ extrinsic motivation in NTBFs but also their psychological needs. Of particular interest are how to design material reward systems to support employee autonomy in reward choice, how to align rewards with employees’ competencies, and how to incorporate shared rewards that foster a sense of relatedness within the team. Future research could also examine hybrid organizational forms in NTBFs that combine mechanisms of autonomy and control in an agile context. Comparative studies across cultural and sectoral settings would enrich understanding of the contextual factors shaping motivation, while experimental designs could provide causal insights into the effectiveness of specific motivational interventions. Extending this research to agile teams in large corporate settings would also offer valuable perspectives on scaling agility beyond NTBF environments and provide insights into motivating employees within corporate venturing programs.

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R. C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., & Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. https://agilemanifesto.org

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Buganza, T., Gerst, M., & Verganti, R. (2010). Adoption of NPD flexibility practices in new technology-based firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011013230

Casson, M., & Wadeson, N. (2007). The discovery of opportunities: Extending the economic theory of the entrepreneur. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9037-7

Cervone, H. F. (2011). Understanding agile project management methods using Scrum. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 27(1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650751111106553

Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy, 34(6), 795–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.001

Conforto, E. C., Salum, F., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., & Almeida, L. F. M. (2016). The agility construct on project management theory. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 660–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.007

Cooper, A. C. (1971). The founding of technologically-based firms. Center for Venture Management.

Cunha, D., Silva, S., & Teixeira, A. A. (2013). Are academic spin-offs necessarily new technology-based firms? (FEP Working Papers No. 482). Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.

Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413–452. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.3.413

Davila, T. (2005). An exploratory study on the emergence of management control systems: Formalizing human resources in small growing firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(3), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2004.05.006

Davila, A., Foster, G., & Li, M. (2009). Reasons for management control systems adoption: Insights from product development systems choice by early-stage entrepreneurial companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 322–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.08.002

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–107). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0006

Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia, 27, 17–34.

Dingsøyr, T., Rolland, K., Moe, N. B., & Seim, E. A. (2017). Coordination in multi-team programmes: An investigation of the group mode in large-scale agile software development. Procedia Computer Science, 121, 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.017

Dingsøyr, T., Bjørnson, F. O., Schrof, J., & Sporsem, T. (2023). A longitudinal explanatory case study of coordination in a very large development programme: The impact of transitioning from a first- to a second-generation large-scale agile development method. Empirical Software Engineering, 28(1), Article 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10230-6

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

García-Cabrera, A. M., García-Soto, M. G., & Nieves, J. (2021). Knowledge, innovation and NTBF short- and long-term performance. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 1067–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00656-z 

Grimpe, C., Murmann, M., & Sofka, W. (2019). Organizational design choices of high-tech startups: How middle management drives innovation performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(3), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1330

Handoko, I., & Tjaturpriono, H. A. (2023). The evolution of organizational design: The case of digital startups. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 20(7), 2891–2912. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2022-0847

Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile project management: Creating innovative products (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional.

Hirisatja, T., Surachaikulwattana, P., & Lohwongwatana, B. (2021). The adoption of the agile-stage-gate model under contextual conditions of startups. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(Special Issue 5), 1–10.

Hobbs, B., & Petit, Y. (2017). Agile methods on large projects in large organizations. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800301

Hoda, R., & Murugesan, L. K. (2016). Multi-level agile project management challenges: A self-organizing team perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, 117, 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.02.049

Hoda, R., Babb, J., & Nørbjerg, J. (2013). Toward learning teams. IEEE Software, 30(4), 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2013.90

Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2013). Self-organizing roles on agile software development teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(3), 422–444. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2012.30

Kakar, A. K. (2017). Assessing self-organization in agile software development teams. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 57(3), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/07362994.2016.1184002

Kakar, A. K. (2017). Investigating the motivating potential of software development methods: Insights from a work design perspective. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(4), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.17705/1pais.09404

Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721416

Lenfle, S. (2008). Exploration and project management. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.017

Li, W. (2025). Research on the motivation of knowledge workers from the perspective of self-determination theory. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 56, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.54097/ha866v84

Arthur D. Little. (1977). New technology-based firms in the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society.

Malik, M., Sarwar, S., & Orr, S. (2021). Agile practices and performance: Examining the role of psychological empowerment. International Journal of Project Management, 39(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.09.002

Martela, F., & Kostamo, T. (2017). Adaptive self-organizing: The necessity of intrinsic motivation and self-determination. In A. Eskola (Ed.), Navigating through changing times: Knowledge work in complex environments (pp. 53–70). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315164663-4

Midler, C., & Silberzahn, P. (2008). Managing robust development process for high-tech startups through multi-project learning: The case of two European start-ups. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.003

Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2008). Understanding self-organizing teams in agile software development. In Proceedings of the 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 76–85). IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASWEC.2008.4483194

Muduli, A., & Pandya, G. (2018). Psychological empowerment and workforce agility. Psychological Studies, 63(3), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-018-0451-4

Mumford, E. (2006). The story of socio-technical design: Reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Information Systems Journal, 16(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00221.x

Murphy, A., & Ledwith, A. (2007). Project management tools and techniques in high-technology SMEs. Management Research News, 30(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170710722973

Murugesan, L. K. (2016). Overcoming challenges in self-organizing agile software teams. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research (ICCIC) (pp. 1–4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIC.2016.7919515

Navarro-Castillo, Y., Mastrostefano, K., Grijalvo, M., & Morales-Alonso, G. (2024). Navigating the valley of death: Open innovation strategies for start-up survival. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 12(3), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2024.120310

Oakey, R. P. (2003). Technical entrepreneurship in high technology small firms: Some observations on the implications for management. Technovation, 23(8), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00045-2

Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M. V., & McDougall-Covin, P. P. (2012). Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: Business models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3), 337–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9154-1

Pinto, J. de S., & Leme, R. da S. (2024). Analysis of project management principles with the Scrum framework in systems development: A case study in a public organization. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(2), Article 1878. https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.1878.2024

Rising, L., & Janoff, N. S. (2000). The Scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE Software, 17(4), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.854065

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Sanasi, S., Ghezzi, A., & Cavallo, A. (2023). What happens after market validation? Experimentation for scaling in technology-based startups. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 196, Article 122839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122839

Sauer, S., & Nicklich, M. (2021). Empowerment and beyond: Paradoxes of self-organised work. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 15(2), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.13169/workorgalaboglob.15.2.0073

Serrador, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2015). Does Agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.006

Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game (Version 2020). https://scrumguides.org/

Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785590

Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product development performance through agile/stage-gate hybrids: The next-generation stage-gate process? Research-Technology Management, 58(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5801236

Sońta-Drączkowska, E., & Mrożewski, M. (2020). Exploring the role of project management in product development of new technology-based firms. Project Management Journal, 51(3), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819851939

Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review, 64(1), 137–146.

Trist, E. L. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework and an action research program (Issues in the Quality of Working Life, No. 2). Ontario Ministry of Labour, Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.

Warren, L., & Hutchinson, W. E. (2000). Success factors for high-technology SMEs: A case study from Australia. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(3), 86–91. https://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30066534

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934

Appendix 1. Contextual information about cases and informants

Case no.	Informant 1 (F - Founder)	Informant 2 (E - Employee)	Interview length *in some cases additional round has was needed	~Total (min.)	Language	Number of employees of the firm	Industry (sector)	Existence on the market (in years)	Financing
Case no.	Informant 1 (F - Founder)	Informant 2 (E - Employee)	Interview length*in some cases additional round was needed	~Total (min.)	Language	Number of employees of the firm	Industry (sector)	Existence on the market (in years)	Financing
1	CTO	Team member - multiple functions	24+40	64	Polish	15	Photovoltaics	3	Private investors/Public
2	CEO	Developer	30+23	53	Polish	11	ICT: Finance/ Internet based	6	Own
3	CTO	Developer	40+25	65	Polish	15	ICT: Logistics	5	Own/Investor
4	CEO	Product Owner	40+21	61	Polish	7	Edu-Health technology	3	Own/Public/Investor
5	CEO	Project Manager	34+25	59	Polish	17	ICT: Internet-based/Fashion	8	Own/Investor
6	CEO	Lead Product Manager	33+17	50	German	10	Healthcare	4	Own/Investor
7	CEO	Project Manager	30+20	50	Polish	10	Unmanned aerial systems	3	Own/Partnership
8	CEO	Senior Developer	34+16+30*	70	Polish	10	Telemedicine	3	Own/Investor
9	CEO	Product Manager	36+39	75	Polish	3	Gaming/ Education	3	Own
10	CEO	Developer	55+15	70	German	30	ICT: Software	5	Own/Investors
11	CEO	Project Manager / Developer	40+26	66	Polish	10	ICT: HR technologies	3	Own
12	CTO	Product Owner	45+10+20*	75	German	90	ICT: AI technologies	3	Own/ Investor
13	CMO/PO	Product Owner	23+40	63	German	60	ICT: Software	6	Own/Investor
14	CEO	Lead Engineer	47+30	77	Polish	26	Energy	5	Own/Public investor
15	CEO	Developer	60+25	85	Polish	18	ICT: Business process management systems (BPMS)	3	Own/Public
16	CEO	Developer	34+22	56	Polish	15	ICT: Software	8	Own/Public/Investor
17	CEO	Engineer	36+18	54	German	20	ICT: Software	4	Own
18	CEO	Developer	45+30	75	Polish	10	ICT: Software	6	Venture capital/Business Angel/ Public
19	CEO	Developer	47+20	67	Polish	12	ICT: Software	5	Own/Public/Investor
20	CEO	PO	40+26	46	German	10	ICT: Construction/ Software	4	Investors/Own
21	CEO	Employee	50+30	90	Polish	8	Hardware	4	Public/Investor
22	CEO	R&D Manager	45+15+20*	85	German	20	Medical technologies	3	Business Angel /Public/Venture Capital
23	CEO	Team member	43+26	69	Polish	8	Augmented reality/ ITC Software	7	Own/Investors
24	CEO	PMMCoordinator	46+15	59	Polish	17	ICT Services	7	Public/Own
25	CTO	Lead Engineer	37+23	60	Polish	35	ICT: Software/AI	8	Investor
26	CEO/ CTO	Product Publisher	45+23	68	German	35	Optic communication	3	Public/Venture Capital

Appendix 2. Main codebook - founders (excerpt)

Code ID	Code Name	Definition	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria	Need (SDT)	Regulatory style	F - Founders	Example from Data
M1	Financial reward	Motivation through salary, bonuses, equity, or financial stability.	Mentions of salary, bonus systems, equity, commission, stable pay.	Business success mentioned without employee reward.	-	External	Secondary	“The team is motivated by stable salaries.”
M2	Status/position	Motivation derived from status, leadership roles, ownership, or prestige.	CEO, partner, founder, co-owner, promotion.	Responsibility without status recognition.	Relatedness/ Competence	External/ Introjected	Primary	“Being a co-owner is the biggest motivator.”
M3	Task completion/small wins	Motivation arising from finishing tasks or achieving short-term milestones.	Completing tasks, closing topics, sprint success.	Long-term mission statements without milestone achievement.	Competence	Introjected/ Identified	Secondary	“We celebrate small successes during weekly meetings.”
M4	Business validation	Motivation when the product proves successful in the market.	Users adopting the product, sales, market traction.	Internal technical completion without customer interaction.	Competence	Identified	Primary	“When we see people using the product and clicking on it.”
M5	Customer impact	Motivation from creating value for customers or users.	Customer feedback, client success, improved service outcomes.	Business growth without reference to users.	Relatedness	Identified/ Integrated	Secondary	“Positive feedback from the client.”
M6	Meaning/purpose	Motivation from feeling that work has meaning and contributes to something bigger.	Sense of purpose, contributing to a larger mission.	Enjoyment without meaningful contribution.	Autonomy/ Relatedness	Identified/ Integrated	Secondary	“People understand their work is part of a bigger whole.”
---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---

Appendix 3. Main codebook - employee motivation (excerpt)

Code ID	Code Name	Definition	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria	Need (SDT)	Regulatory Style	Example Indicators
E1	Salary/financial reward	Motivation derived from financial compensation and income stability.	Fixed salary, competitive pay, bonuses, salary increases.	Statements about career growth or enjoyment without financial reference.	-	External	“Fixed salary that covers normal living needs.”
E2	Performance bonuses	Motivation based on financial rewards linked to performance outcomes.	Bonuses for good results, variable compensation.	Stable salary without performance element.	-	External	“Extra bonuses for good performance.”
E3	Employee ownership/stock options	Motivation through participation in company ownership.	Equity programs, stock options, co-ownership schemes.	General pride in company without ownership.	Autonomy/ Competence	External/ Identified	“Employee option program.”
E4	Workplace benefits	Motivation derived from additional benefits offered by the employer.	Health insurance, benefit packages, equipment, office perks.	Professional development activities.	Relatedness (weak)	External	“Health insurance and benefit packages.”
E5	Professional perks	Motivation from resources that support professional activities.	Conference participation, advanced IT equipment, infrastructure.	Fun/social benefits unrelated to work tasks.	Competence	External/ Identified	“Participation in conferences.”
E6	Workplace comfort	Motivation from pleasant workplace environment and facilities.	Comfortable office, good coffee, office amenities.	Team atmosphere unrelated to environment.	Relatedness (weak)	External	“Cool office and best coffee machine.”
E7	Task progress/ achievements	Motivation from completing tasks or achieving milestones.	Finishing tasks, reaching project goals, small successes.	Long-term vision statements without concrete achievement.	Competence	Introjected/ Identified	“Achieving small successes and closing tasks.”

Appendix 4: Context / process codebook organizational conditions) - founders (excerpt)

Code ID	Code Name	Definition	Inclusion Criteria	Need SDT	Regulatory Style	F - Founders	Example
Code ID	Code Name	Definition	Inclusion Criteria	Need SDT	Regulatory Style	F - Founders	Example
C1	Flat organizational structure	Teams operate with minimal hierarchy and shared decision-making.	Mentions of flat teams, collaborative leadership.	Autonomy/ Relatedness	Identified/ Integrated	Primary	“We operate in a flat structure.”
C2	Need for hierarchy	Recognition that more structure or authority is needed.	Statements about introducing hierarchy or leadership roles.	Competence	Identified	Primary	“We will need a hierarchical structure.”
C3	Agile routines	Use of agile practices such as standups, sprints, retrospectives.	Scrum, Kanban, daily meetings.	Competence/ Autonomy	Identified/ Integrated	Secondary	“Daily standups and two-week iterations.”
C4	Direct communication	Informal or face-to-face communication among team members.	Open office communication, quick conversations.	Relatedness	Identified	Secondary	“I just go downstairs and talk to them.”
C5	Digital coordination tools	Tools used for internal communication or project coordination.	Slack, Trello, Podio, email, Rocketchat.	Competence (supporting)	External/ Identified	Secondary	“Podio allows more efficient work.”

Appendix 5. Main Code book context / organizational process codebook - employee perspective (excerpt)

Code ID	Code Name	Definition	Inclusion Criteria	Need SDT	Regulatory style	Example
EC1	Agile team organization	Work organized through agile teams and iterative processes.	Scrum, Kanban, sprint planning.	Competence/ Autonomy	Identified/Integrated	“Participating in agile rituals.”
EC2	Collaborative teamwork	Work coordinated through collaborative team interaction.	Joint problem solving, team-based work.	Relatedness	Identified/Integrated	“Working as part of a team.”
EC3	Open communication environment	Transparent communication within teams.	Information sharing, communication transparency.	Relatedness	Identified	“Transparent communication.”
EC4	Flexible work structure	Flexible work arrangements and schedules.	Flexible hours, remote work options.	Autonomy	Identified/Integrated	“Flexible working hours.”
EC5	Professional development environment	Workplace encourages learning and skill growth.	Conferences, technical learning, skill development.	Competence	Identified/Integrated	“Participation in conferences.”

Biographical notes

Ewa Sońta-Drączkowska is an Associate Professor in Department of Project Management at SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland. Her research and professional interests focus on project management, translating strategy into actionable initiatives, managing in multi-project environments, and leading teams and individuals within projects. She is an experienced project management practitioner, academic researcher, lecturer, and trainer. She is the author of numerous publications and a speaker at national and international conferences in the domain of management sciences.

Tomasz Pilewicz is an Assistant Professor in Institute of Enterprise at SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland. His research focuses on the competitiveness of public and private sector enterprises, managerial decision-making frameworks, technological entrepreneurship, and new product and service development. He is an experienced consultant for start-ups and small and medium enterprises.

Author contribution statement

Ewa Sońta-Drączkowska: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Data Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Literature Investigation, Writing - Original Draft Preparation. Tomasz Pilewicz: Literature Investigation, Supervision, Methodology Review, Writing – Review & Editing.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Citation (APA Style)

Sońta-Drączkowska E., & Pilewicz T. (2026). Motivating self-organizing agile teams in new technology-based firms: An exploratory study. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 22(4), 46-66. https://doi.org/10.7341/20262243

---

Received 24 October 2025; Revised 20 March 2026, 20 April 2026; Accepted 18 May 2026.

This is an open-access paper under the CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode).

1. 3 We did not map “financial rewards/benefits” to specific SDT needs because, depending on the context, this motivational mechanism may fulfill different functions. It can serve a controlling role, supporting only extrinsic motivation; however, the design of the financial reward system may also address key psychological needs. For example, it may support autonomy by expanding choice in incentives, competence by reflecting mastery within the reward structure, and relatedness by reinforcing connection (e.g., through shared incentives). This level of differentiation was beyond the scope of our research questions, but it represents a relevant and promising avenue for future research.