Tải bản đầy đủ

Social capital and job performance the roles of knowledge sharing knowledge acquisition in social media communities

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
International School of Business
------------------------------

LE DANG PHUONG

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND JOB
PERFORMANCE: THE ROLES OF
KNOWLEDGE SHARING, KNOWLEDE
ACQUISITION IN SOCIAL MEDIA
COMMUNITIES
ID: 22120102

MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours)
SUPERVISOR: Dr.LE NHAT HANH

Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2014


1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere thankfulness to my research advisor, Dr. Le
Nhat Hanh for her time and enthusiasm in guiding me to complete this thesis. She has
spent all her time in Saturday morning during our preparation for this thesis to help,
support and solve hard problems for us. I am sure that the thesis would not have
finished without her support.
I also give many thanks to Prof. Nguyen Dinh Tho and Dr. Nguyen Thi Mai
Trang for carefully guiding me in Research and Design subject to help me have
enough knowledge to finish this thesis.
I would like to thank all ISB lecturers and staffs who facilitate necessary
knowledge and materials for us to study and finish this course.
Finally, I would like to give my special thanks for my wife and family for
supporting me during my study.


2
ABSTRACT
Social media professional groups have been developing in recent years. Many
people come there for seeking for knowledge to solve problems at work. However,
seeking knowledge on social media professional groups can be difficult because
people tend to hoard rather than exchange knowledge to other people. This study
focuses on social interaction ties, trust, and shared language of the social capital
theory to explore which motivations make people to share and acquire knowledge in
social media professional groups. Besides that, this research go further to investigate
how these knowledge affect on job performance.
Data collected from 207 members of social media professional groups in Ho
Chi Minh city of Viet Nam support for the proposed model. The results indicate social
interaction ties have positive impact on knowledge acquisition. Trust and shared
language have positive impact on knowledge sharing and knowledge acquisition.
Besides that the finding also shows that knowledge acquisition has a positive
relationship with job performance.
Keywords: Social capital, social media professional groups, knowledge
sharing, knowledge acquisition, Job performance.


3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 7
1. 1 Background ................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Research Questions and Objectives .............................................................. 10
1.3 Research Delimitation .................................................................................. 11

1.4 Research contribution................................................................................... 11
1.5 Thesis Structure ........................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................... 12
2.1 Knowledge, Knowledge sharing and Knowledge acquisition. ...................... 12
2. 2 Social capital theory and knowledge sharing and knowledge acquisition..... 13
2.3. Social interaction ties .................................................................................. 14
2.4 Trust ............................................................................................................ 15
2.5 Shared language ........................................................................................... 16
2.6 The relationship between knowledge sharing, knowledge acquisition and job
performance. ...................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 20
3.1 Research processes....................................................................................... 20
3.2 The unit of observation ................................................................................ 21
3.3 Sample: ........................................................................................................ 21
3.4 Measures of the constructs ........................................................................... 21
3.4.1 Social interaction ties. ..................................................................................... 21
3.4.2 Trust. ................................................................................................................... 22
3.4.3 Shared language................................................................................................ 23
3.4.4 Knowledge sharing. ......................................................................................... 23
3.4.5 Knowledge acquisition. ................................................................................... 24
3.4.6 Job performance................................................................................................ 25
3.5 Qualitative research...................................................................................... 25
3.6 Quantitative research .................................................................................... 26
3.7 Data collection ............................................................................................. 27
3.8 Data coding. ................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 29


4
4.1 Respondents’ demographics ......................................................................... 29
4.2 Reliability Analysis ...................................................................................... 31
4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) .............................................................. 34
4.4 Regression Analysis ..................................................................................... 37
4.4.1 The relationship between social interaction ties, trust, shared language
and Knowledge sharing. ............................................................................. 38
4.4.2 The relationship between social interaction ties, trust, shared language
and knowledge acquisition. ........................................................................ 40
4.4.3 The relationship between knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing
and Job performance. .................................................................................. 42
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS .......... 46
5.1. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 46
5.2 Implication ................................................................................................... 47
5.3 Limitations and future research .................................................................... 48

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 50


5

TABLE OF FIGUIRES
Figure 2.7: Research model ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.4: Research processes ................................................................................. 20
Figure F1: Histogram of knowledge sharing ............................................................. 74
Figure F2: Normal P-P Plot of knowledge sharing .................................................... 74
Figure F4: Histogram of knowledge acquisition........................................................ 75
Figure F5: P-P Plot of knowledge acquisition ........................................................... 75
Figure F6: P-P Scatter Plot of knowledge acquisition ............................................... 75
Figure F7: Histogram of Job performance................................................................. 76
Figure F8: Normal P-P Plot of job performance ........................................................ 76
Figure F9: Scatter plot job performance .................................................................... 76

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Scales of Social Interaction Ties .............................................................. 21
Table 3.2: Scales of Trust ......................................................................................... 22
Table 3.3 : Scales of Shared language ....................................................................... 23
Table 3.4: Scales of Knowledge sharing ................................................................... 23
Table 3.5: Scales of acquisition ................................................................................ 24
Table 3.6: Scales of Job performance ....................................................................... 25
Table 4.1: Respondents’ demographics .................................................................... 30
Table 4.2: Cronbach’s Alpha ................................................................................... 32
Table 4.3: KMO and Bartlett's Test .......................................................................... 34
Table 4. 5 Rotated Component Matrix ..................................................................... 36
Table 4.6: Results of Pearson correlations ................................................................ 38
Table 4.7: Model Summary of social interaction ties, trust and shared language to
knowledge sharing .................................................................................................... 38


6

Table 4.8: ANOVA of social interaction ties, trust and shared language to knowledge
sharing ...................................................................................................................... 39

Table 4.9: Coefficients of social interaction ties, trust and shared language to
knowledge sharing .................................................................................................... 39

Table 4.10: Model Summary of social interaction ties, trust and shared language to
knowledge acquisition ............................................................................................. 41

Table 4.11: ANOVA of social interaction ties, trust and shared language to knowledge
acquisition ................................................................................................................ 41

Table 4.12: Coefficients of social interaction ties, trust and shared language to
knowledge acquisition .............................................................................................. 41

Table 4.13: Model Summary of knowledge sharing and knowledge acquisition to job
performance.............................................................................................................. 43

Table 4.14: ANOVA of

knowledge sharing and knowledge acquisiton to job

performance.............................................................................................................. 43

Table 4.15: Coefficients of knowledge sharing and knowledge acquisiton to job
performance.............................................................................................................. 43

Table 4.16: Summary of hypotheses testing .............................................................. 45


7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. 1 Background
The development of internet has made human being’s life change. The
development of technology applied on the internet and the popular use of the internet
in recent years have led to a communication revolution (Massari, 2010; Coyle, 2008).
This communication revolution has made a change in people communication (Coyle,
2008). Social networking sites are established and developed strongly in the trend of
this revolution (Moqbel, Nevo, & Kock, 2012). The expansion of online social
networking tools creating an “unprecedented levels of personal connection and
communication which transcend time and distance limitations” (North, 2010, p. 192).
Many people use SNSs for entertainment or meet other people. Kuss and
Griffiths (2011) report that Social Networking Sites (SNSs) are social networks where
users can “create individual public profiles, interact with real-life friends, and meet
other people based on shared interests” (p. 3528). People take part in social networks,
especially in social media professional groups for accessing knowledge, experiences,
and skills to find solution for work (Chiu, Hsu, and Wang, 2006). Hof, Browder, and
Elstrom (1997) say that 42% of social media professional groups members state it
relate to their profession. Massari (2010) claims that SNSs such as: Facebook, Flickr,
MySpace, Orkut, YouTube, LinkedIn can involve in both business and personal
environments, and help members to improve business and decline costs, to support
learning, to connect with friends and interact with each other. Furthermore, Bennett,
Owers, Pitt, and Tucker (2010) report that the benefits of SNSs usage in the workplace
can improve collective knowledge, and increase effectiveness.


8
SNSs are also very popular in Viet Nam. Pham (2013) emphasizes that Viet
Nam is the leading country in using internet in ASEAN area. Facebook, Zing Me, and
YouTube, LinkedIn are the most popular ones. Social media professional groups are
also established as a trend of development of the SNSs. They are related to careers and
specific benefit of one’s groups. Social media professional groups allow creating and
developing company’s profile, advertising products or disclosing helpful information
about companies. Marketers know how to connect with customers and get feedback
from customers to create wonderful achievements for themselves in social media
professional groups (“Building strategic online marketing,” 2013). 36% of Viet Nam
internet users are members of SNSs (Cimigo, 2011). People use SNSs for many
different purposes. According to InfoQ Viet Nam (2013), people use SNSs for
keeping contact with friends (97%), updating information (75%), expanding new
relationship (56%), solving problem at workplace (47%). According to “Surprised
advantage of SNSs,” (2013), Social media professional groups can help people to be
better in many fields. For example, YouTube can teach people how to cook, make
clothes, or offer basic knowledge in many areas that people concern. Moreover, they
are channels to access information in order to serve for working and learning.
Moreover, according to “Advantage of SNSs” (2014), people use SNSs to
introductions to business people whom known to their contacts. Cuong Nguyen Cao, a
lecturer of University of Social Sciences, and Humanities, says that he uses SNSs to
share his material and lectures and this receives the good feedback from students. He
emphasizes that it is very useful for students to interact and learn from each other.
Tham Trinh Thi, a student of University of Social Sciences, and Humanities,


9
comments that SNSs are very helpful for students, they can share knowledge and learn
from classmates. In addition, comments of other students help to create many
interesting ideas to solve problems.
In summary, people participate in social media professional groups, mainly for
entertainment or gaining and exchanging knowledge. This paper focuses on the facet
of gaining and sharing knowledge in social media communities. Knowledge plays a
very important role in operating and developing a company. According to Berman,
Down, and Hill (2002), knowledge is very important and valuable intangible resource
in acquiring competitive advantage that many organizations try to get it to meet their
business needs and goals. Knowledge exchanging among members is important to
improve performance (Huang, Liu, & Warden, 2005; Käser & Miles, 2002). However,
an individual may keep knowledge for themselves rather than share to the others
because knowledge is valuable and important for them to create competitive
advantages with their colleagues (Osterloh & Frey, 2000). According to Chiu et al.,
(2006), “the biggest challenge in fostering a virtual community is the supply of
knowledge, namely the willingness to share knowledge with other members” (p.
1873). Therefore, this paper will collect data and use social capital theory to identify
factors that affect on people behavior to share and acquire knowledge in social media
professional groups and then continue to identify how this knowledge affect on job
performance.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) basically define social capital theory with three
dimensions: structural, relational, and cognitive. The structural dimension of social
capital displays through social interaction ties, the relational dimension displays


10
through trust, norm of reciprocity and identification, and the cognitive dimension
displays through shared vision and shared language. This study focuses on social
interaction ties of the structural dimension, trust of the relational dimension and
shared language of the cognitive dimension to explore how these factors impact on
people behavior to share and acquire knowledge in social media professional groups
and then how this knowledge affect on job performance. The research model is at
figure 1.1

Figure 1.1 Research model
1.2 Research Questions and Objectives
This research aims to examine whether the social capital has any impacts on
knowledge sharing and knowledge acquisition within social media professional
groups, which in turn affect the job performance. Specifically, it investigates:
-

The impact of interaction ties, trust, and shared language on knowledge sharing
in social media professional groups.

-

The impact of interaction ties, trust, and shared language on knowledge
acquisition in social media professional groups.

-

The relationship between knowledge sharing and job performance.


11
-

The relationship between knowledge acquisition and job performance.

1.3 Research Delimitation
This study focuses on employees who use social media professional groups and
work for organizations in Ho Chi Minh City of Viet Nam. This study focuses on social
interaction ties of the structural dimension, trust of the relational dimension, and
shared language of the cognitive dimension to investigate the impact of these factors
on people who share and acquire knowledge in social media professional groups and
then how this knowledge affect on job performance.
1.4 Research contribution
Base on the results of this study, the author hope to provide practical
contribution to members of social media professional groups who would like to use
social media professional groups to share and acquire knowledge for solving problem
at work. A new point of this paper in comparison with previous researches is to
combine the use of social capital theory to investigate the motivation employees share
knowledge in social media professional groups and the impact of knowledge on job
performance.
1.5 Thesis Structure
The structure of this thesis is as follows:
-

Chapter 1 is the research background, research questions and objectives,
research delimitation, significance of the Research and thesis structure.

-

Chapter 2 presents the literature review and conceptual research model and
its hypotheses.

-

Chapter 3 introduces the methodology used to test the research model.

-

Chapter 4 presents research results of data analysis.

-

Chapter 5 summarizes the research results; provide the findings, and
recommendations.


12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is an overview of social capital theory, knowledge sharing,
knowledge acquisition, job performance, and their relationships that previous
researchers have conducted. Based on these studies, the author builds the conceptual
model and develop the hypotheses.
2.1 Knowledge, Knowledge sharing and Knowledge acquisition.
According to Nonaka (1994), knowledge has two foundation forms, tacit and
explicit. Explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that has been articulated and written
down. It can be “transmittable in formal, systematic language” (p. 16). Knowledge
published in books, journals, manuals, guidelines, databases, and so on are examples
for explicit form (Panahi, Watson & Partridge, 2012). On the other hand, “tacit
knowledge has a personal quality, which makes it hard to formalize and
communicate” (Nonaka, 1994, p.16). Tacit knowledge refers to “personal knowledge
of an individual” in the forms of experience, skills, know-how, insight, expertise, and
so on. Tacit knowledge can be found in discussions in the people lives, “face-to-face
informal meetings and reports” (Panahi, Watson & Partridge, 2012, p. 1096).
Moreover, Akram and Bokhari (2011) (as cited in Davenport and Prusak, 1998) view
“knowledge as an evolving mix of framed experience, values, contextual information,
and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new
experiences and information” ( p. 44).
Berman et al. (2002) state that tacit knowledge is more meaningful for both the
organization and individual rather than explicit knowledge. Yang and Farn (2009)
argue that tacit knowledge is the most the important asset for organizational members


13
includes critical resources that are difficult to imitate and lead to competitive
advantages. So knowledge used in this study is tacit knowledge.
Knowledge sharing is the action of transferring tacit knowledge from people to
people on social media communities. While Knowledge acquisition is the action to
acquire tacit knowledge shared by other people in social media communities.
2. 2 Social capital theory and knowledge sharing and knowledge acquisition.
Many researchers have proved that social capital plays an important role in
knowledge exchange. Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) claim that social capital facilitates
resource exchange and production innovation within the organization. Renko, Autio,
and Sapienza discover the effects of social capital on knowledge acquisition in young
technology-based firms.
Wasko and Faraj (2005) find that social capital is very important in knowledge
exchange and the authors claim that social capital is useful in knowledge contribution.
According to Coleman (1988), social capital theory is the relationships among people
and these relationships can be helpful resources for actors. Nahapiet and Ghoshal
(1998) define social capital theory as “the sum of the actual and potential resources
embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships
possessed by an individual or social unit” (p. 243). Putnam (1995) states that social
capital creates coordination and cooperation for getting mutual benefit. Individuals
can share a lot of knowledge through a network though they may not know each other
in the real life (Wasko & Faraj, 2005) (as cited in Brown and Duguid, 2000). Nonaka
(1994) suggest that knowledge sharing is subject to social interaction.


14
However, Chiu et al., (2006) consider that knowledge transfers in social media
professional groups are different from organizational settings because interaction
among social media professional groups’ members is mainly through online network.
Therefore, whether the impact of social capital on resource exchange and knowledge
management activities found in the organizational settings could be applied to social
media professional groups is still unclear. Chiu et al., (2006) claim that
Members in social media communities differ from general internet users in that
shared interests, goals, needs, or practices bring virtual community members
together. This begs the key question — whether the social capital developed in
virtual communities is strong enough to stimulate members to overcome the
barriers of complex knowledge sharing process, and then share valuable
knowledge, especially when no extrinsic reward is provided (p. 1875).
2.3. Social interaction ties
According to Tsai and Ghoshal (1998, p. 467), social interaction ties are
“channels for information and resource flows”. An actor may “gain access to other
actors’ resources through social interactions”. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) state “The
fundamental proposition of the social capital theory is that network ties provide access
to resources. Network ties influence both access to parties for combining and
exchanging knowledge and anticipation of value through such exchange” (p. 252).
Social interaction ties among members of social media professional groups can help
people to achieve a lot of knowledge sources with low cost (Chiu et al. 2006). Wasko
and Faraj (2005) claim that the willingness of contributing knowledge depends on


15
individual’s position in the network. Moreover, Marques, Cardoso, and Zappala
(2008, p. 167) (as cited in Lee, 2002) suggest that
measuring social interaction is a possible and good way to measure tacit
knowledge sharing because in the context of these interactions, the exchange
transcends the simple channeling of knowledge, being complemented by nonverbal communication, tips, advice, and all sorts of elements that can facilitate
this transfer.
In addition, Yang and Farn (2009) also mention tacit knowledge exchanging as
a process of social interaction. Panahi, Watson, and Partridge (2012) (as cited in
Zheng, Li, and Zeng, 2010) claim that social media supports for social interaction,
and knowledge sharing” (p. 1098). Social interactions and tacit knowledge sharing
have a close relationship in social media (Panahi et al., 2006). Nonaka (1994) suggests
that knowledge sharing is related to the social interaction between individuals who
exchange and develop knowledge. Therefore, the hypotheses are as follow:
H1a. Members' social interaction ties are positively related with knowledge
sharing.
H1b. Members' social interaction ties are positively related with the knowledge
acquisition.
2.4 Trust
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) suggest that when parties are highly in trust,
people are willing to participate in cooperative interaction. Panahi et al. (2012) agree
that there is a “positive relationship between trust and professionals’ intention to share


16
and use tacit knowledge” (p. 1099). Chiu et al. (2006) says that trust has an important
role in knowledge sharing in social media professional groups. Nonaka (1994)
believes that trust is important for employees to exchange knowledge so the author
emphasizes that it is necessary to build trust among people. Moreover, Trust plays an
important role in online transactions in social media communities (Ridings, Gefen &
Arinze, 2002).
In addition, Yang and Farn (2009) imply that members can easier get
knowledge from the others when trust exists between them in the social network. They
find that there is a positively relationship between trust and an individual’s tacit
knowledge acquisition. Building trust in social media is as important as face-to-face
communication for knowledge exchanging (Panahi et al., 2012). Thus, the hypotheses
are:
H2a. Trust is positively associated with the knowledge sharing.
H2b. Trust is positively associated with the knowledge acquisition.
2.5 Shared language
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) state that shared language create the conditions
for the combination and exchange of intellectual capitals in many ways. First,
language plays an important function in social relation, shared language creates ability
of people to get information from the others. Second, shared language facilitates a
common conceptual equipments for evaluating the likely benefits of exchange and
combination. Finally, shared language increases the capability of combining the


17
knowledge and information that members achieve from social exchange. Moreover,
Chiu et al., (2006) report that:
Shared language is essential to learning in virtual communities. It provides an
avenue in which participants understand each other and build common
vocabulary in their domains. In this regard, shared language not only helps
share ideas but also enhances the efficiency of communication between people
with similar background or practical experience.
In addition, Wasko and Faraj (2005, p.43) report that “Language is the means
by which individuals engage in communication. It provides a frame of reference for
interpreting the environment and its mastery is typically indicated by an individual's
level of expertise”.
Accordingly, shared language also plays an important role in knowledge
sharing and acquisition. It will motivate people to involve in knowledge exchange
activities. Therefore, the hypotheses are:
H3a. Shared language is positively associated with knowledge sharing.
H3b. Shared language is positively associated with knowledge acquisition.
2.6 The relationship between knowledge sharing, knowledge acquisition and job
performance.
Marques et al (2008) finds that individuals who exchange knowledge likely get
higher job performance and individuals who have better performance usually
exchange their knowledge. They emphasize that the relationship between knowledge
sharing and individual performance score is extremely important, because it gives


18
strong proofs to confirm their expectations and beliefs that emerged from previous
researches and it contributes to this scientific field. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, p.
247) (as cited in Coke & Yanow, 1993) “Knowledge workers are key factors in the
organization’s performance, particularly in the contexts where the performance of
individual is crucial”. Burt (1992) claims that information networks improve problems
in knowledge exchanging because they provide more related information and rise
efficiency performance in workplace.
Furthermore, Du, Ai, and Ren (2007) report that the way to get better
innovative and performance is to share experience. Berman et al., (2002) finds the
positive relationship between knowledge exchanging and performance. Quinones,

Ford, and Teachout (1995) discover the strong relationship between knowledge
exchanging to get experience and job performance.
Moreover, Ingram, and Simons (2002) state that job performance is directly
related to knowledge exchanging. Panahi et al., (2012, p. 1095) claim that the
knowledge is the a key element in enhancing performance and it is considered an
important asset to ameliorate the quality of work and task performance.
In addition, Akram and Bokhari (2011) report that knowledge exchanging
impact on improvement of individual performance. Therefore, the hypothesis are:
H4a: Knowledge sharing is positively related to individual job performance.
H4b: Knowledge acquisition is positively related to individual job
performance.


19
2.7. Research model:

Figure 2.7: Research model
Hypotheses:
H1a. Members' social interaction ties are positively related with knowledge sharing.
H1b. Members' social interaction ties are related with the knowledge acquisition.
H2a. Trust is positively associated with the knowledge sharing.
H2b. Trust is positively associated with the knowledge acquisition.
H3a. Shared language is positively associated with knowledge sharing.
H3b. Shared language is positively associated with knowledge acquisition.
H4a: Knowledge sharing is positively related to individual job performance.
H4b: Knowledge acquisition is positively related to individual job performance.

In conclusion, this chapter go through the literature to find the definition and
the relationship among variables and then use the deduction method to develop the
hypotheses and build the conceptual model.


20
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the author reported the methodology that the author used to do
the research.
3.1 Research processes
Figure 3.1: Research processes


21
3.2 The unit of observation
The objective of the study was to investigate the motivation of knowledge
sharing and knowledge acquisition of professional groups in social media community
so that the professional groups members in social media community was the unit of
observation.
3.3 Sample:
The author conducted the survey in Ho Chi Minh City of Viet Nam, focused on
employees who joined in professional groups in social media. Then the process of
research methodology would conduct to test hypothesizes.
3.4 Measures of the constructs
The scale of the study was established based on the theory and was used the
scale that previous researchers have used for their studies. For all measurement scales,
a seven-point Likert scale was adapted with anchors ranging from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (7).
3.4.1 Social interaction ties.
These scales adapted from Chiu et al., (2006).
Table 4.1:
Scales of Social Interaction Ties
No.
1.

Item
I maintain close social relationships with some members in the social media
professional groups.


22
2.

I spend a lot of time interacting with some members in the social media
professional groups.

3.

I know some members in the social media professional groups on a personal
level.

4.

I have frequent communication with some members in social media professional
groups.

3.4.2 Trust.
Scales are adapted from Chiu et al., (2006).
Table 4.2:
Scales of Trust
No.
1.

Item
Members in the social media professional groups will always keep the
promises they make to one another.

2.

Members in the social media professional groups are truthful in dealing with
one another.

3.

Members in the social media professional groups would knowingly do
anything to disrupt the conversation.

4.

Members in the social media professional groups behave in a consistent
manner.

5.

Members in the social media professional groups will not take advantage of


23
others even when the opportunity arises.

3.4.3 Shared language.
Scales of Shared language low from Chiu et al., (2006).
Table 4.3 :
Scales of Shared language

No.
1.

Item
The members in the social media professional groups use common terms or
jargons.

2.

Members in the social media professional groups use understandable
communication pattern during the discussion.

3.

Members in the social media professional groups use understandable narrative
forms to post messages or articles.

3.4.4 Knowledge sharing.
Scales are adapted from Chiu et al., (2006).
Table 4.4:
Scales of Knowledge sharing
No.
1.

Item
The knowledge shared by members in the social media professional groups is
relevant to the topics.


24
2.

The knowledge shared by members in the social media professional groups is
easy to understand.

3.

The knowledge shared by members in the social media professional groups is
accurate.

4.

The knowledge shared by members in the social media professional groups is
complete.

5.

The knowledge shared by members in the social media professional groups is
reliable.

6.

The knowledge shared by members in the social media professional groups is
timely.

3.4.5 Knowledge acquisition.
Scales are following Yang and Farn (2009).
Table 4.5:
Scales of acquisition
No.
1.

Item
I can always acquire working experience or know-how from other group
members in social media professional groups

2.

I can always acquire the ways to solve problems from other group members
at my request in social media professional groups

3.

Other group members always try to share their expertise from their education
or training with me in a more effective way in social media professional
groups


Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay

×