| Course | MGMT 8920M Developing the Content Literature Review and Research Method and Design |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Literature matrix |
| Length | About 660 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 8920M Week 3
Five Claims, Five Studies and a Design Strip Under Each: A Literature Matrix on Shared Leadership in Agile Software Teams Showing Which Studies Support, Qualify or Contradict Each Claim and How Thinly Several Claims Rest on Repeated Observation
Student Name
Walden University
MGMT 8920M: Developing the Content Literature Review and Research Method and Design
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Five Claims, Five Studies and a Design Strip Under Each: A Literature Matrix on Shared Leadership in Agile Software Teams Showing Which Studies Support, Qualify or Contradict Each Claim and How Thinly Several Claims Rest on Repeated Observation
How to Read the Matrix
The review asks how shared leadership, leadership spread across team members rather than held by one designated leader, works in agile software teams. Five claims that appear repeatedly in the literature run down the left side of the matrix, each written as a sentence. Five studies form the columns. Each cell records whether the study supports, qualifies or contradicts the claim, or does not test it. Beneath each claim, a design strip records how the studies bearing on that claim were built.
The Matrix
Table 1
Claims About Shared Leadership in Agile Teams, by Study
| Claim | Wang et al. (2014) | D'Innocenzo et al. (2016) | Carson et al. (2007) | Hoda et al. (2013) | Moe et al. (2010) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Shared leadership is associated with team performance in agile teams | Supports for teams in general; agile teams not separated | Supports for teams in general; agile teams not separated | Supports in consulting teams | Not tested | Qualifies: sharing was hard where members specialized |
| 2. The association is stronger in mature teams | Not tested | Not tested | Not tested | Not tested | Qualifies: team practices shifted over the project |
| 3. The association weakens under deadline pressure | Not tested | Not tested | Not tested | Not tested | Not tested |
| 4. It depends on a scrum master who steps back | Not tested | Not tested | Qualifies: external coaching predicted shared leadership | Supports: roles emerged as members took on leadership tasks | Not tested |
| 5. It is measured mostly by members' ratings of one another | Supports | Supports: measurement approach moderated effect sizes | Supports: network ratings within teams | Not applicable: interviews | Not applicable: observation and interviews |
"Supports for teams in general" marks evidence from meta-analyses that pool many kinds of teams. "Not tested" means the study does not address the claim.
Design Strips
Table 2
How the Studies Behind Each Claim Were Built
| Claim | Designs of studies bearing on it |
|---|---|
| 1 | Two meta-analyses of mostly single-occasion surveys; one survey of consulting teams; one case study |
| 2 | One case study following a single Scrum project |
| 3 | None |
| 4 | One survey of consulting teams; one grounded theory study of agile practitioners |
| 5 | Two meta-analyses and one survey, all relying on team members' ratings |
What the Strips Reveal
The claims, read on their own, suggest a well-established body of knowledge. The strips show otherwise. Claim 1 rests mainly on meta-analyses: Wang et al. (2014) found a positive overall relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness, and D'Innocenzo et al. (2016) found a positive relationship with team performance whose size depended on how shared leadership was measured. Neither separates agile teams. Claims 2 and 3, which concern when shared leadership helps, rest on one case study and on nothing at all. Claim 4 draws on Hoda et al. (2013), whose grounded theory of agile practitioners found members taking on informal roles that spread leadership across the team. Moe et al. (2010), the one study that followed a Scrum project over time, bears on claim 1 instead: members' specialization made sharing harder than the method assumed. Carson et al. (2007) found that external coaching predicted shared leadership in consulting teams, which supports the idea that a coach's behavior matters, though not specifically a scrum master's.
Claim 5 is less a finding than a description of the field's measures, and the matrix shows it holds: the quantitative evidence rests on members rating one another at one point in time. Taken together, the strips suggest that what the literature knows is that teams whose members rate leadership as shared tend to perform better, and what it does not know is how shared leadership develops in agile teams and under what conditions, especially deadline pressure, it holds up. That second question would need repeated observation of teams over time, which only the Moe et al. (2010) case study attempted.
References
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159921
D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership-team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964-1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205
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
Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034531
Reading the MGMT 8920M Week 3 instructions
The third week asks you to build a literature matrix that tests claims against studies. Write four to six claims your literature makes, each as a full sentence. Place them down the left side and your key studies across the top. In each cell, record whether the study supports, qualifies or contradicts the claim, or does not test it, with a few words of explanation. Beneath each claim, add a design strip listing how the studies bearing on it were built: survey or observation, single or repeated measurement, team or individual level. Close with a paragraph reading the strips as a pattern. The matrix should fill most of three pages; explain any symbols or labels so a reader can scan it without you.
How the MGMT 8920M Week 3 example is put together
The shared leadership matrix explains its labels, then sets five claims against Wang and colleagues, D'Innocenzo and colleagues, Carson and colleagues, Hoda and colleagues and Moe and colleagues. Cells mark the meta-analyses as supporting the performance claim for teams in general, Moe and colleagues as qualifying it because specialization made sharing hard, Carson and colleagues as qualifying the coaching claim, and many cells as not tested. A second table gives the design strips. The reading paragraph notes that the claims about when shared leadership helps rest on one case study or none, and that the quantitative evidence relies on members rating one another once, which points toward repeated observation.
MGMT 8920M Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks
The matrix is judged on honesty. Graders check a sample of cells against the studies, and cells that claim support a study does not give cost marks. Claims must be written as testable sentences, not topics. "Not tested" cells are expected and earn credit when they are accurate, because a matrix that shows its own empty cells is more useful than one that hides them. The design strips carry significant weight, because they reveal patterns the claims alone hide. The closing reading should draw a specific conclusion about what kind of evidence is missing. Matrices that fill every cell with support, that list studies without claims or that omit the design strips fall into the middle band, as do matrices whose reading paragraph only restates the cells.
Common MGMT 8920M Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Draft your claims first, in sentences you could defend in a defense meeting. Then reread each key study with the claims beside you and mark what it actually shows; resist marking support when a study only mentions a claim. Use "not tested" freely. For the design strips, note each study's method in a few words and look down the column for repetition. A literature where every claim rests on single-occasion surveys tells you something important about what study to design. Keep cell entries short and consistent. Explain your labels above the table. A tutor can help you check your cells against the studies, and the agile team matrix above shows a full example.
Get a MGMT 8920M Week 3 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 3 prompt and rubric and the list of studies your search retained. A claim-sorted matrix from a neighboring literature, with placements and a design strip under every claim, returns inside 24-48h, and there is no charge for a first request. Its claims belong to that body of work, and the ones in your matrix can only come out of your own reading.
More MGMT 8920M papers and PhD in Management samples
- MGMT 8920M Week 1: Discussion Post
- MGMT 8920M Week 2: Search Strategy
- MGMT 8920M Week 4: Theme Paragraph
- MGMT 8920M Week 5: Synthesis Draft
- MGMT 8920M Week 6: Gap Statement
- MGMT 8920M Week 7: Method Fit
- MGMT 8920M Week 8: Sampling Plan
- MGMT 8920M Week 9: Data Collection Plan
- MGMT 8920M Week 10: Analysis Plan
- MGMT 8920M Week 11: Chapter Assembly
- MGMT 8910M Week 3: Chapter Outline
- MGMT 8003M Week 3: Research Appraisal
- MGMT 8900M Week 3: Problem Statement
- MGMT 8009M Week 3: Framing Analysis
MGMT 8920M Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 8920M Week 3 sample paper?
The shared leadership matrix, with its design strips and reading, is reproduced above.
What does a design strip record in the MGMT 8920M Week 3 sample?
How the studies behind each claim were built, such as survey or observation and single or repeated measurement.
Which claim has no evidence at all?
That the association between shared leadership and performance weakens under deadline pressure.
Why do the meta-analyses only partly support the first claim?
They pool many kinds of teams and do not separate agile software teams.
What evidence does the matrix say is missing?
Repeated observation of agile teams over time, which only one case study attempted.