«. FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF PANNONIA Pannon Management Review EDITOR ZOLTÁN VERES This journal is produced the ...»
The result we have obtained is likely a demonstration of the fact that individuals at lower levels of the organization (and likely members of Gen Y) are more likely to make use of external social networking for friendship and informal, personal communication rather than work related activities.
This research was designed to find out more about the relation between social media tools and knowledge sharing within organizations. We can state that all stages (Bellefroid,
2012) of knowledge sharing can be found in the Hungarian organizations, but the third stage (social networks) has not been widely achieved as most of the organizations do not allow their employees to utilize the benefits of the social media tools and do not support to develop social networks through these technologies.
Table 4 presents the possible social media tools that can be used by the communities with the aim to share knowledge with the wider audience and within the organization.
NÓRA OBERMAYER-KOVÁCS – ANTHONY WENSLEY 57
SOCIAL MEDIA IN ORGANIZATIONS: LEVERAGING KNOWLEDGE SHARINGTable 4. Usage possibilities of external social media tools for knowledge sharing
PANNON MANAGEMENT REVIEW
We would also observe that there are numerous opportunities to using social media tools
in a manner meaningful to organizations:
• communication between employees can be encouraged to support problem solving: if organization needs an expert for a specific task, a post can be placed on a blog and likely receive a response from another employee or search on LinkedIn to find the a person, who can help.
• convert personal knowledge to organisational knowledge: if the senior employees record videos about their work and share it with the new employees, the organization can use these videos instead of expensive training programs to explain the details.
• discuss professional problems: with a group of people who are active practitioners in a particular area, professional communities (communities of practices – CoP) can be useful because they are neutral and can provide a way to share best practices, ask questions of and provide support for each other outside the organization.
• reduce time and money through integrated system: using a “new” technology, the calendar, but not because of the calendar function, but organizing and sharing events, meetings, making appointment in a shorter time (instead of phone calls or sending lots of e-mails).
In general, it is recommended that management support the introduction of social media technologies, establish the terms and conditions of their usage, communicate the benefits and provide the necessary training for their effective use. Moreover, organizations should develop a reward system to provide additional motivation to employees to use social media tools for knowledge sharing.
Discussion and future research
Amazingly rapid expansion of the content sharing technologies has led to many of these technologies becoming an integral part of many people’s daily routine. We can easily collaborate and work with our colleagues at the opposite side of the world with the help of professional, fast instant messaging services in an effective way. Communities of practices’ “Meetup” video can be accessed almost immediately after the event on a video sharing site. Companies have to clearly identify what information and knowledge is to be kept confidential and what is to be shared and made available to others. Such practices as crowd-sourcing and open inNÓRA OBERMAYER-KOVÁCS – ANTHONY WENSLEY 59
SOCIAL MEDIA IN ORGANIZATIONS: LEVERAGING KNOWLEDGE SHARINGnovation practices have demonstrated the value of sharing information and knowledge that has previously been considered to be confidential.
In future, we expect that both the internal and external usage of the social media tools will increase. In our study, social media emerges a new perspective. Enormous information and knowledge can be shared using powerful tools to a world in which the social factors play an essential role. In our new accelerated world, numerous technologies have been developed to support social capital connections (social networking services like Facebook, LinkedIn) and to communicate in a more effective way (instant messaging services like Skype, Viber).
This paper introduces a survey that explores the usage of social media technologies through an investigation of the willingness of employees to participate in knowledge sharing.
In addition, we have explored whether there are generational differences relating to knowledge sharing behaviours. When we consider potential limitations the sample was gathered in Hungary, so we can make statements only for the Hungarian organizations. However, this permitted an in-depth study, and the scope of the survey with 299 respondents was larger than similar previous research studies. Most of our findings were unexpected and are not consistent with stereotypes about the generations.
We have hypothesized that younger generations have a greater willingness to use social media technologies. After our investigations we can state however that the members of Generation Y (younger generation) or employees with lower level position are less likely social media technologies in the workplace. We would postulate that this is because social media tools are more common among young people but they use them for private purposes, while using these tools for work (mainly for knowledge sharing or professional development) is more typical for Generation X and Baby Boomers (elder generations).
In 1993 Drucker predicted how Knowledge Economy will need to progress in order to obtain competitive advantage. He stated that “the productivity of knowledge is going to be the determining factor in the competitive position in a company, an industry, an entire country. No country, industry or company has any ‘natural’ advantage or disadvantage. The only advantage it can possess is the ability to exploit universally available knowledge. The only thing that increasingly will matter in national as in international economics is management’s performance in making knowledge productive” (Drucker, 1993. p. 193).
It seems that he predicted the rise of the online, open source, social media tools that can become widely available and prevalent in our modern business life. The willingness to use these technologies by Generation Y (and later for Generation Z) will not be enough. These new generations must be encouraged to make use of these technologies for work as well as for non-work related activities.
PANNON MANAGEMENT REVIEWVOLUME 4 • ISSUE 1 (MARCH 2015) Our research could be expanded, as it would be interesting to make a comparison between knowledge sharing practices and usage of social media tools in other countries. The authors are already working on extending their work in this manner.
Anderson, P. (2007): What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education, JISC reports. Online: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/ techwatch/ tsw0701b.pdf Argote, L. – Ingram, P. – Levine, J. M. – Moreland, R. L. (2000): Knowledge Transfer in Organizations. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1–8.
Bellefroid, B. (2012): The new way of knowledge sharing a thesis research about the effects of NWOW on knowledge sharing. Online: http://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/ handle/1874/268187/Thesis_BartBellefroid_v1.01_final_screen.pdf ?sequence=1 Bock, G. W. – Zmund, R. W. – Kim, Y. G. – Lee, J. N. (2005): Behavioural Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, SocialPsychological Forces, and Organizational Climate. MIS Querterly, 29 (1), 87–111.
Bohl, J.C. (2009): Generation X and Y in Law School: Practical strategies for teaching the ‘MTV/Google’ generation. Loyola Law Review, Vol. 54, 1–37.
Bonsón, E. – Flores, F. (2011): Social media and corporate dialogue: the response of the global financial institutions. Online Information Review, 35 (1), 34–49.
Bowley, R. C. (2009): A comparative case study: Examining the organizational use of
social networking sites. Thesis, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, Online:
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/3590/ thesis.pdf ?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Busch, P. – Venkitachalam, K. – Richards, D. (2008): Generational differences in soft knowledge situations: Status, need for recognition, workplace commitment and idealism.
Knowledge & Process Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, 45–58.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999): Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organisational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, (42), 273–287.
Choo, C. (1998): The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information for Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge and Make Decisions, Oxford Press, New York NÓRA OBERMAYER-KOVÁCS – ANTHONY WENSLEY 61
SOCIAL MEDIA IN ORGANIZATIONS: LEVERAGING KNOWLEDGE SHARINGCsepregi, A. (2012): Lost in knowledge sharing: possible lessons and implications for middle managers and their organizations. Pannon Management Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 67–88.
Cummings, J. N. (2004): Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50 (3), 352−364.
Cyr, S. – Choo, C. (2010): The Individual and Social Dynamics of Knowledge Sharing:
An Exploratory Study. Journal of Documentation, 66 (6), 824–846.
Dalkir, K. (2005): Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. MA: Elsevier, Boston Davenport, T. H. – Prusak, L. (1998): Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Denyer, D. – Parry, E. – Flowers, P. (2011): “Social”, “Open” and “Participative”? Exploring Personal Experiences and Organizational Effects of Enterprise 2.0 Use”. Long Range Planning, 44, 375–396.
Drucker, P. (1993): Post-capitalist Society. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
European Commission (2010): Communication from the Commission Europe 2020:
A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Online: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f= ST%207%202010%20INIT Fournier, S. – Avery, J. (2011): The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54 (2), 193–207.
Gaál Z. – Szabó, L. – Csepregi, A (2013): Organizational characteristics that influence the way middle managers and their subordinates are available to each other. in Proceedings of 14th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2013), Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania, 227–235.
Gaál Z. – Szabó, L. – Kovács, Z. – Obermayer-Kovács, N. – Csepregi, A. (2009): Consequence of Cultural Capital in Connection with Competitiveness. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, Vol. 8, No. 10, 79–90.
Gaál Z. – Szabó, L. – Kovács, Z. – Obermayer-Kovács, N. – Csepregi A. (2008): “Knowledge Management Profile” Maturity Model. in Proceedings of 9th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2008), Southampton, UK, 209–216.
Gaál Z. – Szabó, L. – Obermayer-Kovács, N. (2014): Personal knowledge sharing: Web
2.0 role through the lens of Generations. in Proceedings of 15th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2014), School of Management and Technology ‐ Polytechnic Institute of Santarem, Portugal, 362–370.
Gottschalk, P. (2007): CIO and corporate strategic management: changing role of CIO to CEO. Idea Group Publication, Hershey PA
PANNON MANAGEMENT REVIEWVOLUME 4 • ISSUE 1 (MARCH 2015) Grail Research (2011): Consumers of Tomorrow Insights and Observations About Generation Z, Online: http://www.grailresearch.com/pdf/ContenPodsPdf/ Consumers_of_Tomorrow_Insights_and_ Observations_About_Generation_Z.pdf Gray, P. H. (2001): The Impact of Knowledge Repositories on Power and Control in the Workplace. Information Technology and People, 14 (4), 368–384.
Günther, O. – Krasnova, H. – Riehle, D. – Schoendienst, V. (2009): Modeling Microblogging Adoption in the Enterprise. in Proceedings of AMCIS 2009, San Francisco, California, 544.
Gupta, A. K. – Govindarajan, V. (2000): Knowledge management’s social dimension:
Lessons from Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, 71−80.
Hall, H. (2001): Social Exchange for Knowledge Exchange, Managing Knowledge: Conversations and Critiques, University of Leicester Management Centre. Online:
http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/publication/op/getpublication/ publicationid/321908 Hammill, G. (2005): Mixing and Managing Four Generations of Employees, FDU Magazine, Winter/Spring 2005, Vol 12, No 2, Online: http://www.fdu.edu/news pubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm
Hansen, M. T. – Mors, M. L. – Løvås, B. (2005): Knowledge sharing in organizations:
Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5), 776–793.
Hansen, M. T. – Nohria, N. – Tierney, T. (1999) What is your strategy for managing knowledge. Harvard Business Review, March/ Apr, 106–116.
Huysman, M. H. – Wit, D. (2004): Knowledge Sharing in Practice, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academics.
Ipe, M. (2003): Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2 (4), 337–359.
Jalonen, H. (2014): Social Media And Emotions In Organisational Knowledge Creation.
in Proceedings of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Warsaw, 1371–1379.
Janz, B.D. – Prasarnphanich, P. (2003): Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences, 34 (2), 351–384.