In e na ional Jou nal o So wa e Enginee ing & Applica ions (IJSEA), Vol.16, No.4/5, Sep embe 2025
DOI: 10.5121/ijsea.2025.16502 17
WHY DOES THE ENGINEERING MANAGER STILL
EXIST IN AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT?
Ra i Kallu i
College o P o essional S udies, No heas e n Uni e si y, San Jose, Cali o nia, USA
ABSTRACT
Al hough Agile me hodologies emphasise decen alised decision-making and eam au onomy, enginee ing
manage s con inue o be employed in Agile so wa e o ganisa ions. This appa en pa adox sugges s ha
adi ional manage ial unc ions pe sis despi e Agile’s heo e ical displacemen o manage ial hie a chy.
This pape explo es he pe sis ence o enginee ing manage s h ough a mul idimensional amewo k
encompassing his o ical con ex , heo e ical ensions, o ganisa ional eali ies, empi ical e idence,
e ol ing manage ial oles, and p ac ical implica ions. A sys ema ic li e a u e e iew unde pins ou
mul i ace ed analysis, supplemen ed by illus a i e case s udies. We conclude by p oposing a concep ual
model ha econciles Agile p inciples wi h manage ial necessi y, o e ing guidance o p ac i ione s,
esea che s, and ool designe s. Implica ions o leade ship de elopmen , ool in eg a ion, and u u e
esea ch a e discussed.
KEYWORDS
Agile so wa e de elopmen , p ojec managemen , sel -o ganizing eams, enginee ing managemen ,
psychological sa e y, se an leade ship, & o ganiza ional psychology
1. INTRODUCTION
Agile so wa e de elopmen amewo ks—mos no ably Sc um, Ex eme P og amming (XP), and
Kanban—we e in oduced in esponse o he limi a ions o adi ional, plan-d i en me hodologies
such as Wa e all (Beck e al., 2001; Dybå & Dingsøy , 2008). By championing i e a i e
deli e y, close cus ome collabo a ion, and adap i e planning, he Agile Mani es o explici ly
p io i ised “indi iduals and in e ac ions o e p ocesses and ools” (Beck e al., 2001, pa a. 1).
Sel -o ganizing eams lie a he hea o Agile ideology, empowe ed o make echnical and
p ocess decisions wi hou hie a chical o e sigh (Hoda e al., 2013). Ea ly Agile li e a u e and
p ac i ione guides e en sugges ed ha adi ional enginee ing manage s we e obsole e in Agile
en i onmen s, as Sc um Mas e s and P oduc Owne s could abso b manage ial esponsibili ies
(Highsmi h, 2002).
Ye , empi ical s udies e eal ha enginee ing manage s emain a ix u e in Agile o ganiza ions o
all sizes, om s a ups o global en e p ises (Ne o, 2023). Thei con inued p esence aises
undamen al ques ions abou he p ac ical eali ies and human ac o s ha compel o ganiza ions
o e ain manage ial oles despi e Agile’s call o minimal hie a chy. This pape in es iga es why
enginee ing manage s pe sis in Agile se ings by in eg a ing heo e ical, empi ical, and applied
pe spec i es. We p opose a econcilia ion model ha aligns manage ial unc ions wi h Agile
alues, ensu ing ha managemen suppo s a he han unde mines eam au onomy.
In e na ional Jou nal o So wa e Enginee ing & Applica ions (IJSEA), Vol.16, No.4/5, Sep embe 2025
18
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Sys ema ic Li e a u e Re iew Me hodology
We conduc ed a sys ema ic li e a u e e iew ac oss IEEE Xplo e, ACM Digi al Lib a y,
ScienceDi ec , and Google Schola , co e ing publica ions om 2000 o 2024. Sea ch s ings
combined keywo ds such as “Agile so wa e de elopmen ,” “enginee ing managemen ,” “sel -
o ganizing eams,” “se an leade ship,” and “scaled Agile.”
The inclusion c i e ia we e pee - e iewed a icles, empi ical s udies, and sys ema ic li e a u e
e iews ha add essed managemen oles in Agile con ex s. Exclusion c i e ia included non-
English publica ions, keyno e slides, and endo -sponso ed whi e pape s wi hou pee e iew.
F om an ini ial pool o 312 eco ds, 76 me he inclusion c i e ia. We coded s udies o hemes:
manage ial unc ions, o ganisa ional scale, leade ship s yle, and empi ical ou comes. Quan i a i e
esul s we e abula ed; quali a i e insigh s we e syn hesised na a i ely.
2.2. Resea ch Landscape
The incep ion o Agile so wa e de elopmen ma ked a delibe a e shi away om adi ional
plan-d i en app oaches, ad oca ing o sel -o ganizing eams wi h minimal hie a chical
o e sigh . The Agile Mani es o emphasized “indi iduals and in e ac ions o e p ocesses and
ools,” sugges ing ha oles such as Sc um Mas e and P oduc Owne could supplan adi ional
enginee ing managemen (Beck e al., 2001; Highsmi h, 2002). Ea ly p ac i ione s a gued ha
his edis ibu ion o esponsibili ies ende ed middle managemen obsole e, pa icula ly wi hin
small, co-loca ed eams (Cockbu n & Highsmi h, 2001). Empi ical e iews la e con i med
signi ican gains in esponsi eness and educed bu eauc acy when managemen laye s we e
la ened (Dybå & Dingsøy , 2008). Ye hese s udies p ima ily e lec ed en i onmen s
unencumbe ed by scale o egula o y complexi y.
Subsequen schola ship ques ioned he assump ion ha Agile na u ally elimina es manage ial
unc ions, highligh ing gaps in s a egic alignmen , esou ce nego ia ion, and lea ning cul u es.
Edmondson (1999) demons a ed ha psychological sa e y—a key de e minan o eam
lea ning—o en depends on leade ship beha io s ha ex end beyond ypical Agile oles.
Simila ly, G eenlea ’s (1977) se an leade ship model p o ided a heo e ical ounda ion o
manage s who acili a e a he han command, aligning closely wi h Agile alues. Moe,
Dingsøy , and Dybå (2010) u he a gued ha o ganiza ions e ain o e sigh mechanisms o
manage isk, budge , and c oss- eam coo dina ion, unc ions ha au onomous eams alone
s uggle o ul ill.
In es iga ions in o Agile ansi ions e ealed signi ican ole ambigui y o enginee ing manage s
as hey na iga ed shi ing expec a ions. Hoda, Noble, and Ma shall (2013) documen ed how
manage s oscilla ed be ween di ec i e and suppo i e beha io s, o en de aul ing o bounda y-
spanning ac i i ies o ansla e s akeholde needs in o eam p io i ies. Hoda and Mu ugesan
(2016) iden i ied mul i-le el p ojec managemen challenges ha equi ed manage ial
in e en ion in planning and in eg a ion. Mo e ecen wo k by Shas i, Hoda, and Amo (2017,
2021) delinea ed dis inc manage ial oles— anging om p ocess s ewa d o s a egic coach—
unde sco ing how manage s adap o suppo eam au onomy while ensu ing o ganiza ional
accoun abili y.
In e na ional Jou nal o So wa e Enginee ing & Applica ions (IJSEA), Vol.16, No.4/5, Sep embe 2025
19
As Agile scaled beyond indi idual eams, amewo ks such as Spo i y’s T ibe model, SAFe, and
LeSS einco po a ed managemen laye s o handle p og am inc emen s, po olio go e nance,
and compliance (Knibe g & I a sson, 2012; Le ingwell, 2016; La man & Vodde, 2016).
Empi ical e idence sugges s ha enginee ing manage s in hese con ex s se e as T ibe Leads o
Release T ain Enginee s, coo dina ing dependencies, educing in eg a ion de ec s, and aligning
c oss- unc ional e o s (Ne o, 2023). These oles ope a e less as command cen e s and mo e as
acili a o s o alignmen , ensu ing agili y a scale wi hou sac i icing s a egic cohe ence o
egula o y adhe ence.
Recen empi ical s udies ha e deepened ou unde s anding o how manage s con ibu e o Agile
success in p ac ice. Luong, Jamieson, and an de Ven (2023) linked leade ship coaching
beha io s o enhanced psychological sa e y and eam inno a ion. Sa pi i and Gandomani (2017)
ound ha agile manage s accele a e de elopmen cycles by emo ing impedimen s and
p omo ing knowledge sha ing. I zik and Gelba d (2023) demons a ed ha manage ial
in ol emen in p ocu emen and compliance helps ill c i ical gaps in p ojec s ha a e unsui ed o
pu e Agile me hods. Sheuly’s (2013) e iew o s a up en i onmen s u he highligh ed
manage s’ oles in suppo ing con inuous in eg a ion and communica ion wi h s akeholde s,
cemen ing he no ion ha mode n enginee ing manage s adap hei unc ions o ein o ce, a he
han cons ain, Agile alues. Fi e main hemes eme ge om he li e a u e su ey as summa ized
in Table 1.
Table 1. Li e a u e Re iew Summa y.
Theme
Summa y o Insigh s
Key Re e ences
Challenging Ea ly
Assump ions
Founda ional Agile li e a u e assumed manage s
would become obsole e due o ole edis ibu ion
(Sc um Mas e , P oduc Owne , Sel -Managed), bu
his only happened in small, colloca ed eams o
senio de elope s. The ea ly dismissal o enginee ing
manage s was con ex -dependen and o e ly
simplis ic.
Beck e al. (2001),
Highsmi h (2002),
Cockbu n & Highsmi h
(2001), Dybå & Dingsøy
(2008)
Role Ambigui y
and E olu ion
Manage s adap ed by aking on s a egic, coaching,
and coo dina ion esponsibili ies o en unadd essed by
Agile amewo ks.
Hoda e al. (2013), Hoda &
Mu ugesan (2016), Shas i
e al. (2017, 2021)
Psychological
Sa e y and
Leade ship Fi
Agile success hinges on leade ship beha io s such as
us -building and coaching, unde sco ing manage s'
impo ance o eam clima e and lea ning.
Edmondson (1999),
G eenlea (1977), Luong e
al. (2023), Moe e al.
(2010)
Scaling and
O ganiza ional
Complexi y
Agile scaling and eam dis ibu ion amewo ks
ein oduce managemen laye s o handle p og am
inc emen s, in e - eam dependencies, and egula o y
go e nance.
Knibe g & I a sson (2012),
Le ingwell (2016), La man
& Vodde (2016), Ne o
(2023)
B idging Theo y
wi h P ac ice
Mode n manage s ac as acili a o s and echnical
b idges; illing gaps in p ocu emen , compliance, and
in eg a ion. These ac i i ies a e s ill igno ed by pu e
Agile heo y.
I zik & Gelba d (2023),
Sheuly (2013), Sa pi i &
Gandomani (2017),
Campanelli & Pa ei as
(2015)
By syn hesizing ounda ional Agile p inciples wi h con empo a y empi ical indings, his pape
e ames he endu ing ole o enginee ing manage s no as elics o hie a chical con ol bu as
essen ial d i e s o Agile p ac ice. While ea ly Agile li e a u e posi ioned manage s as obsole e
(Beck e al. (2001) Highsmi h (2002)), ou analysis demons a es ha enginee ing manage s
pe o m bounda y-spanning and se an -leade ship unc ions—such as coaching eams, ensu ing
psychological sa e y, and ansla ing s a egic p io i ies— ha a e indispensable o sus ained
In e na ional Jou nal o So wa e Enginee ing & Applica ions (IJSEA), Vol.16, No.4/5, Sep embe 2025
20
eam lea ning and inno a ion (Edmondson (1999) Luong e al. (2023)). In doing so, we b idge
he gap be ween small- eam case s udies and la ge-scale Agile implemen a ions by illus a ing
how amewo ks like SAFe and LeSS ha e einco po a ed manage ial laye s o manage
complexi y, egula o y compliance, and mul i- eam dependencies (Knibe g & I a sson (2012)
Le ingwell (2016)). Mo eo e , ecen s udies ha e shown ha mos Agile eams a e s ill a om
being sel -managed, especially in la ge o ganiza ions wi h deep hie a chies. Kohno á and
Salajo á (2021) Spiegle e al. (2021) Khanagha e al. (2022).
This pape con ibu es a es able, h ee-dimensional amewo k, comp ising con ex ual i ,
unc ional necessi y, and Agile compa ibili y, o e alua e he ype o leade ship needed in an
Agile eam. This s udy aims o add ess he long-s anding deba e on he ole o an enginee ing
manage in Agile so wa e de elopmen .
3. BACKGROUND
3.1. His o y
The Wa e all model, which domina ed om he 1970s h ough he 1990s, emphasized sequen ial
phases— equi emen s, design, implemen a ion, e i ica ion, and main enance—o en esul ing in
he la e disco e y o de ec s and poo esponsi eness o changing cus ome needs (Boone &
Kho sand, 1999). Dissa is ac ion wi h igid ga e e iews and hea y documen a ion spu ed calls
o mo e adap i e app oaches (Dybå & Dingsøy , 2008).
In 2001, se en een so wa e p ac i ione s au ho ed he Agile Mani es o, which codi ied p inciples
p io i izing wo king so wa e, cus ome collabo a ion, and esponsi eness o change (Beck e al.,
2001). Agile amewo ks such as Sc um edis ibu ed manage ial asks: he P oduc Owne
owned he backlog, he Sc um Mas e acili a ed ce emonies, and de elopmen eams sel -
o ganized a ound deli e ables (Schwabe & Su he land, 2020).
Highsmi h (2002) a gued ha he democ a iza ion o echnical decision-making and sha ed
owne ship o p ocess imp o emen ende ed adi ional command-and-con ol managemen
obsole e. Ea ly case epo s desc ibed he elimina ion o enginee ing manage s, wi h eams
epo ing di ec ly o business s akeholde s (Cockbu n & Highsmi h, 2001). Howe e , hese
accoun s o en came om small, co-loca ed eams wi h minimal egula o y cons ain s.
Subsequen schola ship challenged he no ion ha Agile na u ally ob ia es managemen . Moe,
Dingsøy , and Dybå (2010) highligh ed pe sis en needs o s a egic alignmen , esou ce
alloca ion, and ca ee de elopmen — unc ions ha sel -o ganizing eams alone s uggled o
ul ill. Simila ly, Edmondson’s (1999) wo k on psychological sa e y unde sco ed he ole o
leade ship in os e ing us and lea ning beha io s, e en among au onomous eams.
3.2. Agile P inciples and T adi ional Managemen
Agile champions eam au onomy, ye o ganiza ions ou inely es ablish go e nance s uc u es o
manage isk, budge s, and compliance (Moe e al., 2010). Enginee ing manage s o en b idge his
gap, p o iding o e sigh wi hou di ec ask con ol—an uneasy balance be ween us and
accoun abili y. Hoda, Noble, and Ma shall (2013) obse ed ha manage s in Agile
ans o ma ions ace ambiguous ole de ini ions: being oo di ec i e s i les g ow h, while being
oo hands-o lea es eams eeling unsuppo ed. This ambigui y gi es ise o “bounda y-
spanning” beha io s, whe e enginee ing manage s le e age hei echnical knowledge o ansla e
s akeholde equi emen s in o eam p io i ies. Edmondson’s (1999) concep o psychological
In e na ional Jou nal o So wa e Enginee ing & Applica ions (IJSEA), Vol.16, No.4/5, Sep embe 2025
21
sa e y emains cen al o Agile success. Luong, Jamieson, and an de Ven (2023) empi ically
linked manage ial coaching beha io s o ele a ed psychological sa e y and inno a ion in high-
unce ain y p ojec s.
3.3. O ganiza ional Reali ies D i ing Manage Re en ion
As o ganiza ions scale beyond a hand ul o eams, coo dina ion complexi y explodes.
F amewo ks like SAFe, LeSS, and Disciplined Agile Deli e y ein oduce managemen laye s o
po olio go e nance, p og am inc emen planning, and compliance audi ing (Le ingwell, 2016;
La man & Vodde, 2016). Indus ies such as inance, heal hca e, and ae ospace ope a e unde
s ingen egula o y egimes. Enginee ing manage s ensu e aceabili y, audi eadiness, and
alignmen wi h quali y s anda ds, asks ha pu ely sel -o ganizing eams may unde p io i ize.
Agile emphasizes c oss- unc ional capabili ies, bu p o essionals s ill seek ca ee ajec o ies and
pe o mance e alua ions. Enginee ing manage s design de elopmen plans, acili a e men o ship,
and nego ia e p omo ions— oles i al o e en ion in compe i i e labo ma ke s (Hoda &
Mu ugesan, 2016).
3.4. Empi ical E idence
Spo i y’s scaled Agile “T ibe” s uc u e ea u es T ibe Leads (enginee ing manage s) who coach
squads while sa egua ding echnical heal h and os e ing collabo a ion ac oss squads (Knibe g &
I a sson, 2012). Su ey da a showed ha hese leads imp o ed alignmen and educed
duplica ion o wo k.
Beh ens, Johnson, and Li (2021) examined h ee global banks ansi ioning o Agile. Enginee ing
manage s se ed as p og am manage s o Agile Release T ains, managing dependencies and
coo dina ing egula o y submissions. Thei p esence co ela ed wi h a 25% educ ion in
in eg a ion de ec s.
Sheuly’s (2013) sys ema ic e iew o Agile in s a ups e ealed ha enginee ing manage s o en
assumed echnical coaching oles, suppo ing con inuous in eg a ion pipelines and o e seas
emo e eams— unc ions c i ical o ime- o-ma ke accele a ion.
3.5. E ol ing Manage ial Roles in Agile Con ex s
G eenlea ’s (1977) se an leade ship philosophy aligns closely wi h Agile alues. Manage s
now p io i ize emo ing impedimen s, acili a ing eam decisions, and ad oca ing o esou ces—
s epping inwa d only when s a egic in e en ion is equi ed.
Campanelli and Pa ei as (2015) no ed ha Agile eams excel a sho - e m deli e y bu may lose
sigh o long- e m p oduc ision. Enginee ing manage s ansla e o ganiza ional s a egy in o
p oduc oadmaps, ensu ing inc emen al wo k aligns wi h b oade objec i es.
Enginee ing manage s hus ac as e ec i e bounda y spanne s and communica ion b idges
be ween Agile eams and execu i e s akeholde s. They nego ia e scope changes, secu e unding,
and communica e p og ess in business e ms— eeing eams o ocus on echnical execu ion
(Hoda e al., 2013).
Figu e 1 shows he EM ans o ma ion om adi ional command-and-con ol managemen o an
Agile-aligned se an leade ship s yle ac oss i e key dimensions:
In e na ional Jou nal o So wa e Enginee ing & Applica ions (IJSEA), Vol.16, No.4/5, Sep embe 2025
22
• F om ask assignmen o eam acili a ion
• F om pe o mance moni o ing o psychological sa e y
• F om cen alized decisions o coaching/men o ing
• F om esou ce con ol o impedimen emo al
• F om s a us epo ing o s a egic alignmen
Figu e 1. E olu ion o Enginee ing Manage Func ions.
3.6. Findings om Resea ch and Empi ical P ac ice
The e is consensus among he Agile expe s ci ed in he li e a u e ha he Enginee ing Manage
plays a pi o al ole in Agile so wa e de elopmen . Se e al de elopmen s in Agile p ac ice
con ibu e o his inding.
Fi s ly, he echnical domain expe ise o he Enginee ing Manage (EM) is no usually ound in
he Sc um Mas e o P ojec Manage ole. A Sc um Mas e is a pa - ime se an leade ole ha
can only p o ide ini ial Agile coaching and emo e impedimen s o he Sp in eam. Bo h
unc ions can be pe o med jus as eadily by he EM. Technical expe ise also makes he EM he
bes choice o se ing as a condui be ween he Sp in eam and o he manage s wi hin he
o ganiza ion.
Secondly, EM has o mal au ho i y and esponsibili ies o he ca ee g ow h o he Sp in eam
membe s. The associa ion be ween an EM and he Sp in eam is he e o e no empo a y. EM is
in a be e posi ion o build endu ing ela ionships wi h he eam han he Sc um Mas e o P ojec
Manage .
Thi dly, he inal goal o all Sp in eams should be o become sel -managed. Ye mos Sp in
eams a e no capable o being sel -managed wi hou p ope aining and coaching. Wi h a unique
echno-manage ial skill se , he EM is he ideal ole o acili a e his g adual ans e o powe .
While EMs in la ge, hie a chical o ganiza ions may y o sub e his leade ship ans e , his
can be ackled by p o iding he igh incen i es o he EMs. This esponsibili y lies wi h he
Senio Leade ship, wo king closely wi h he human esou ces leade .
Figu e 2 shows he b oade con ex ual i o he EM compa ed o he Sc um Mas e and P ojec
Manage .
In e na ional Jou nal o So wa e Enginee ing & Applica ions (IJSEA), Vol.16, No.4/5, Sep embe 2025
23
Figu e 2. Role Fi o Agile Sc um Team Leade ship.
4. PROPOSED THREE-STAGE POWER TRANSFER PROCESS
We p opose a h ee-s age powe ans e p ocess om he EM o he Sp in Team wi h sugges ed
ime ames o each s age as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Powe T ans e P ocess om EM o Sp in Team.
S age
Agile Team Leade
EM Leade ship S yle
Sugges ed Time ame
(Spiegle e al., 2021)
I. Beginning
Enginee ing Manage
Au oc a ic (Di ec o )
Fi s 5-10 Sp in s
II. T ansi ion
Enginee ing Manage
/
Senio Team Membe
Democ a ic
(Coach + Obse e )
Nex 5 Sp in s
III. Sel -
Managed
Team Membe s
Consul an
Nex 5 Sp in s
Figu e 3 illus a es he h ee-s age powe ansi ion as ollows:
• S age I (Beginning): Enginee ing Manage as au oc a ic di ec o (5-10 sp in s)
• S age II (T ansi ion): Democ a ic coach wi h eme ging eam leade s (5 sp in s)
• S age III (Sel -Managed): Consul an ole wi h au onomous eam (5 sp in s)
The igu e includes a powe ans e con inuum and imeline o show he p og ession o eam
au onomy (Spiegle e al., 2021).
In e na ional Jou nal o So wa e Enginee ing & Applica ions (IJSEA), Vol.16, No.4/5, Sep embe 2025
24
Figu e 3. Th ee-S age Powe T ans e P ocess.
In he i s s age, he EM is an au oc a ic leade who ains he eam on Agile so wa e
de elopmen bes p ac ices and builds echnical domain expe ise. The EM se es as a leade ship
ole model o he eam, demons a ing how o pe o m he ac i i ies o an Agile eam leade .
Team membe s obse e and discuss egula ly on he meaning o he ole a he Sp in
e ospec i es. The eam g adually builds a sha ed men al model o he ole which leads o ole
cla i y. This s age is expec ed o las o 5-10 Sp in s.
In he second s age, he EM becomes a democ a ic leade who wea es sho pe iods o backsea
obse a ion wi h ac i e aining and coaching o he Sp in eam. This is a c ucial s age whe e
EMs need o ensu e o he manage s in he o ganiza ion don’ ake o e he Agile eam leade
ole. A he same ime, i he eam see ha he EM is eluc an o hand o e powe , hey mus be
able o epo his si ua ion di ec ly o he human esou ce leade o senio leade ship. In he
e en , a eam membe (usually a Senio De elope ) claims he leade ship ole, o he eam
membe s should allow he espec i e eam membe o ake o e ha ole and ecognize ha i is a
o a ional esponsibili y wi hin he eam. This s age is expec ed o las o he nex 5 Sp in s.
In he hi d s age, a leas some, i no all, eam membe s assume he ole o Agile eam leade .
EM is in a pu ely consul ing ole on a pa - ime basis. EM is using he emaining ime o kick o
ano he Sp in eam build. A he end o his s age, he Sp in eam can be conside ed as Sel -
Managed. Any new eam membe will be ained and coached by he Team om now on. This
s age is expec ed o las o he nex 5 Sp in s.
This amewo k se es as bo h an analy ic lens and an implemen a ion guide, enabling
o ganiza ions o o mally ecognize he ans o ma i e ole o he EM ha ein o ces, a he han
con adic s, Agile alues.
In e na ional Jou nal o So wa e Enginee ing & Applica ions (IJSEA), Vol.16, No.4/5, Sep embe 2025
25
5. IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
5.1. Implica ions o P ac ice
O ganiza ions should eb and enginee ing manage s as Agile leade s, emphasizing se an -
leade ship compe encies and bounda y-spanning capaci ies. Clea ole desc ip ions and
beha iou al expec a ions educe ambigui y and align manage ial ac i i ies wi h eam au onomy.
In es ing in leade ship aining ocused on Agile–aligned beha iou s—psychological sa e y,
ac i e lis ening, and s a egic acili a ion—bols e s manage ial e ec i eness. In e nal coaching
ce i ica ions and pee -men o ing communi ies suppo con inuous skill e inemen .
P ojec Po olio Managemen (PPM) ools should inco po a e ea u es ha enable manage s o
moni o c oss- eam dependencies, ack s a egic me ics, and su ace coaching oppo uni ies
wi hou mic omanaging backlogs. Dashboa ds combining echnical KPIs wi h leade ship heal h
indica o s can p omo e balanced o e sigh .
5.2. Implica ions o Resea ch
Fu u e empi ical s udies should examine which leade ship s yles— ans o ma ional, se an ,
democ a ic—bes co ela e wi h Agile eam pe o mance, sa is ac ion, and inno a ion.
Quan i a i e me ics (cycle ime, de ec a es) pai ed wi h quali a i e assessmen s ( eam clima e
su eys) will yield obus insigh s.
Explo ing psychological i — he cong uence be ween indi idual needs and o ganiza ional
cul u e—in Agile con ex s can e eal how enginee ing manage s in luence job sa is ac ion,
bu nou , and employee e en ion. Longi udinal s udies acking manage - eam dyads a e
pa icula ly p omising.
Resea che s can analyse how embedding manage ial suppo ea u es in Agile ools a ec s eam
au onomy and deli e y ou comes. Con olled expe imen s compa ing eams wi h and wi hou
ool-based manage ial isibili y could cla i y bes p ac ices.
5.3. Limi a ions and Fu u e Di ec ions
This pape elied p ima ily on seconda y da a om published s udies. Al hough sys ema ic, ou
li e a u e e iew may ha e omi ed unpublished indus y epo s and non-English publica ions,
which could po en ially skew geog aphic and sec o al ep esen a ion. Empi ical s udy analyses
a e illus a i e a he han exhaus i e; u he ield esea ch in di e se o ganiza ional con ex s is
needed. Finally, ou concep ual amewo k equi es empi ical alida ion h ough la ge-scale
su eys and con olled expe imen s.
Geog aphic Scope Limi a ions: Ou li e a u e e iew e eals a p onounced geog aphic bias
owa d No h Ame ican and Eu opean con ex s, wi h limi ed ep esen a ion om Asia-Paci ic,
La in Ame ican, and A ican ma ke s. This Wes e n-cen ic pe spec i e may no adequa ely
cap u e cul u al a ia ions in leade ship s yles, hie a chical expec a ions, o eam dynamics ha
in luence manage ial oles in Agile implemen a ions. Fo ins ance, high powe -dis ance cul u es
may necessi a e di e en app oaches o he powe ans e p ocess we p opose, and he imeline
o achie ing sel -managed eams may a y signi ican ly ac oss cul u al con ex s.
