Technology Acceptance in the Workplace:
An Analysis of “Workplace by Facebook” Through Individual Social Media Use
Hande CORAPCIOGLU 11660007
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme Communication Science
Supervisor: Jessica Taylor Piotrowski February 2019
1 Abstract
This study examined the factors that influence technology acceptance of employees with regards to new workplace information technologies through their personal social media site use. As the new information technology, Workplace by Facebook was chosen and the acceptance levels were predicted by Facebook literacy. Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness were used a mediators and motivations were investigated as moderator effects. As suggested, Facebook literacy was able to predict Workplace acceptance and in addition to this, this relationship was significantly mediated by perceived usefulness. While the variables correlated with each other as drawn in the research model, the effects of motivations and perceived ease of use on technology acceptance were not significant.
Keywords: Technology acceptance, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, Facebook
2 Introduction
Social Networking Sites (SNS) have redefined our ways of communication and connection. There are copious studies on how, why and when people use SNS and the outcomes of this use. Among all SNS, Facebook, was launched in 2004. It has been 14 years and already it has become part of, as well as furthering, global culture. One of the many reasons for using Facebook is social connectedness (Joinson, 2008; Grieve et al., 2013). Facebook connects people from all around the world, and overcomes geographical distances instantly, creating an opportunity to not only maintain existing social connectedness, but also develop new connections (Grieve et. al., 2013).
As businesses globalize, the need to connect employees who are located all around the world increases. In large-scale organisations, especially, bridging employees physically and building social connections is costly and time-consuming. So, more companies are using new social networking tools because of their capabilities to connect employees and distribute knowledge within the organisations (Richter & Riemer, 2009).
In 2016, Facebook launched their new product “Workplace”, tailored and only made available for companies and their employees, for solely working purposes. Three years on, it has been embraced by large companies including Spotify, Heineken and Air Asia. Just as Facebook forges communication in personal lives, Workplace aims to “transform
communications, culture and workflows inside organizations of all shapes, sizes and industries,” (Making Work Better, 2018). While Workplace is a familiar tool with similar features to Facebook, it has a different purpose, mode and motive, which could trigger resistance to accept and adapt.
Personal adoption of a new technology or communication tool requires a complex mixture of individual skills and characteristics. Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, 1989) suggests that the acceptance level of a new workplace information technology is
3 dependent on behavioural intention, determined by two factors: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness is defined as the extent to which a person believes that using the system will enhance his or her job performance, while perceived ease of use is related to the extent to which a person believes that using the system will be free of extra effort.
In addition, TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Sun & Zhang, 2006) furthers the original theory by adding moderating factors such as personal motivations and social
influence. However, studies on technology acceptance predominantly use measurements that predict technology acceptance from workplace performance and skills rather than personal technology adoption and usage. Therefore, investigating the individual motivational
differences for using SNS and levels of digital literacy in an employee’s personal life can add another dimension to the existing predictors of technology acceptance. To refine the subject, this study will only focus on factors influencing Workplace acceptance and Facebook knowledge and literacy will be used to understand Workplace acceptance and therefore the following research question is posited:
RQ: What is the relationship between individual Facebook literacy and technology
acceptance of Workplace by Facebook?
Theoretical Framework Facebook Literacy
Gilster’s (1997) theory of digital literacy was defined as a measure of an individual’s ability to understand and use information from a variety of digital sources. After the measurement was established, it was proposed that digital literacy level might be able to predict technology acceptance of a specific new technology system. This is thought to be
4 because digital literacy is directly related to the self-efficacy of using a new system (Gilster, 1997, Kuo, Walker, Schroder, Belland, 2014). However, as technology has advanced, the term “digital literacy” has been re-shaped and Gilster’s description has evolved.
Numerous scholars have furthered the term by adding new components: Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton and Robison (2009) suggested that new media literacies have shifted towards community involvement rather than a skill that can be assessed on an individual level. Stating that new literacies build and develop on collaboration and
networking, and, thus, can be measured by various indicators such as networking skills and navigation. Ahn (2013) demonstrated that quality and quantity of activity level on FB
correlates with Jenkins and colleagues’ new media literacy skill measures. She proposed that Facebook activities relate strongly with the aforementioned new media skills. Furthermore, Ahn’s study indicates that Facebook activities also affect social learning behaviors in digital spaces as using Facebook is an everyday activity for many people.
Furthermore, Davies (2012) argues that managing online networks and presenting oneself on Facebook develops a set of abilities and skills. These abilities and skills provide the opportunity for the adoption of new media literacy practices, thus creating the new term “Facebook Literacy”. In her study, Ahn (2013) concludes that not only can general social media skills predict new media literacy levels, but different Facebook activities can also predict specific aspects of new media literacy; with predominant Facebook activities being related to new media literacy skills such as networking, negotiation, appropriation, and transmedia navigation. Literat (2014) also suggests that people with higher levels of new media literacy also have higher levels of digital participation. Therefore, it can be suggested that people with greater Facebook usage and knowledge will demonstrate higher levels of Workplace acceptance. This theoretical conclusion motivates this paper’s first hypothesis:
5 H1: Facebook Literacy is positively associated with Workplace acceptance.
In addition to Facebook literacy, there are also many ways to use Facebook and also many different reasons and motivations to do so, including social connectedness, social interaction and expressing identities (Cheung, Chiu & Lee, 2011; Pempek, Yermolayeva, Calvert, 2009). It is not only the frequency of usage or the knowledge on the platform that defines the experience but also, motivations for using a particular website or an SNS can differ from person to person and differences in motivation can alter the experience dramatically (Ross et al., 2009). Facebook contains various different features from
fundraising to playing games, and thus offers a different user experience for every individual depending on their usage motivations and perceptions.
Motivations
Personal motivations can be viewed through two distinct categories: utilitarian and hedonic. With regards to online activity, those with utilitarian motivations are typically rational and goal-oriented (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994), while hedonic motivations centre on the search for short-term joy and entertainment (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994). Activities on Facebook such as reading the news or fundraising, can be classified as utilitarian usage whereas watching humorous videos or playing games can be classified as hedonic usage. However, many of the motivations for these activities are not mutually exclusive and there are many reasons for using Facebook that combine. Thus, it is not possible to define a specific motivation to use Facebook but some people may display tendencies toward the utilitarian or hedonic aspects of the platform.
According to Van der Heijden (2004), information systems can be classified into two main orientations: goal or pleasure. Goal-oriented systems focus more on practicality and are
6 therefore utilitarian in nature, while pleasure-oriented systems target the fun aspect of use and can be classified as hedonic. Individual reasons for using Facebook can determine an
individual’s perception of the platform as either a utilitarian or hedonic platform. While both aspects influence attitudes toward Facebook, or any SNS, the level of technology acceptance can differ between those who perceive Facebook as a hedonic information technology and those who perceive it as a utilitarian information technology. New technologies at work are almost always connected to core principle of increasing company performance (Mun & Hwang, 2013) and can be considered as utilitarian systems. Therefore, the following hypothesis can be suggested:
H2: Individuals whose motivation for FB use is primarily utilitarian will demonstrate greater Workplace acceptance than individuals whose motivation is primarily hedonic.
Technology Acceptance Model
In his research, the originator of Technology Acceptance Model, Davis (1985), focuses on acceptance of new information and communication technologies implemented in organizations. He suggests that usage of a new information or communication technology at work can be predicted from the attitude towards using the system. The use of a new system is defined by “actual direct usage of the given system in the context of his or her job,” (Davies, 1989, p. 25). Therefore, technology acceptance in the workplace should be considered not solely using the new technology, but also by the use of that technology for on-task, work-oriented purposes. Attitude toward using a system, on the other hand, is related to cognitive responses to many aspects of the information system including visual appearance and the features available to the user. Davis therefore suggests the Technology Acceptance Model, where various aspects of the system directly influence cognitive responses such as perceived
7 ease of use and perceived usefulness. As alluded to in the introduction, perceived ease of use of a system depends on “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” and the perceived usefulness as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis, 1989, p. 3).Therefore, in order to be accepted, the proposed system should improve employee performance to an extent that these benefits outweigh any necessary effort to use the system. Agarwal & Prasad (1999) propose that perception of new technology is also dependent on individual personality traits and the subsequent inter-relationship. Their findings suggest that prior individual experience with the given technology has a positive relationship with perceived usefulness and ease of technological adoption. As mentioned earlier Workplace, has similar interface to Facebook. Therefore, it is highly likely that the level of Facebook literacy in daily life, can predict the acceptance and adoption of Workplace in work spaces, as it would require less effort to learn and adapt. Theory suggests that those with higher Facebook usage frequency and greater Facebook literacy will perceive Workplace as an easier and more useful tool to use; as the systems are similar to operate. Therefore, perceived ease of use and usefulness of Workplace can mediate the relationship between Facebook literacy and
Workplace acceptance, which draws the following hypothesis:
H3: The relationship between FB literacy and Workplace acceptance is positively mediated by perceived ease of use of Workplace.
H4: The relationship between FB literacy and Workplace acceptance is positively mediated by perceived usefulness of Workplace.
8 As discussed in the previous sections, it is evident that individual differences on social media knowledge and usage motivations may alter the acceptance level of technology. However, it is also crucial to investigate the relationship of the previously discussed concepts with each other and their effect on technology acceptance. The association between two variables can said to be moderated when the size and sign of this association depends on another variable (Hayes, 2013). Therefore, Facebook literacy and Workplace acceptance might depend on the interaction of the utilitarian or hedonic motivations that underpin an individual’s Facebook use. Thus, the following hypothesis refers to the following moderation effect:
H5: The relationship between Facebook literacy and Workplace acceptance is moderated by individual motivation for Facebook use such that individuals with utilitarian motives who have increased Facebook literacy will demonstrate the greatest Workplace acceptance.
Moreover, the previously outlined concepts may operate in a way that is co-dependent. Hayes (2013) further suggests “processes modelled with mediation analysis likely are
contingent and hence moderated, in that they operate differently for different people or in different context or circumstances”. Therefore, to have a deeper understanding of the effect of Facebook literacy on Workplace acceptance, an analysis should be made to model a more complex relationship between these two concepts. This analysis, however, must leave room to understand the factors that intertwine to create dependent effects that vary by context,
9 H6: Individuals with utilitarian motives who have increased Facebook literacy will perceive Workplace as an easier tool and subsequently, demonstrate the greatest Workplace acceptance.
H7: Individuals with utilitarian motives who have increased Facebook literacy will perceive Workplace as a more useful tool and subsequently, demonstrate the greatest Workplace acceptance.
Sample & Data Collection
For the participation recruitment, only the internal employees of the examined
company were recruited. Data was gathered and accessed through Qualtrics survey software. The survey was conducted online and the respondents were initially contacted via the
company’s internal communication tool and company e-mail address.
Initially 145 employees took the survey however, after data cleaning the sample was reduced to 81 participants. The missing 64 respondents are those who did not complete the survey and merely clicked on the shared link or dropped out as responses to all the questions were mandatory, giving the participants no opportunity to skip. The mean age of respondents is 33.41 (SD = 10.25) and 60% of the participants are women. Although the participants are from diverse parts of the world such as Oceania, Asia, Africa; the overwhelming majority (70%) are from various European countries.
Operationalisation
Building on the research question and the theoretical background of the topic, the following model was drawn to illustrate the relationships that were considered in this study.
10 Figure 1: Model of the Study
Facebook Literacy. In her study investigating a measure of new media literacies,
Literat (2014) suggested a questionnaire, built on the aforementioned 11 new media skills developed by Jenkins et al. (2016). Her results demonstrated that engagement with Facebook has a strong correlation with higher new media literacy levels. In addition to this, her study demonstrated that an individual’s level of exposure to media is affected by their level of new media literacy. Therefore, concluding that the more familiar a person is with new media, the more they use it and the further engagement they experience. Moreover, Ahn (2013)
suggested that individual participation on social media is linked to the new media literacies and she furthers this suggestion, stating that specific Facebook activities such as messaging, link sharing, friending can predict specific new media literacy skills such as networking, negotiation, transmedia navigation. Thus, to measure individual new media literacy levels through Facebook literacy, this study developed a questionnaire based on the aforementioned studies. The aim is to assess the Facebook literacy levels of a person through their activity frequency and purpose of using Facebook such as sharing videos and photos or frequency of messaging.
To construct the Facebook Literacy variable, all items were operationalised using Principal Component Analysis. Facebook Literacy (MFB_LIT = 2.84, SDFB_LIT = 1.21), as all the
11 variables in the study, was operationalised using an eight item 7-point Likert-scale: 1 (= ‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (= ‘strongly agree’) with statements including: “I use Facebook chat
often” and “I comment on my friends’ post often” resulting in a reliable scale, Cronbach’s
⍺welf=.85(For a full list and factor loadings, see Appendix A).
Motivations. The motivations for using Facebook were separated into two main items:
Hedonic and Utilitarian. Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann (2003) developed a
hedonic/utilitarian scale for understanding consumer perceptions of products (see Table 2).
Table 1: Hedonic / Utilitarian Scale (Voss et al. 2003)
Utilitarian Hedonic Effective Fun Helpful Exciting Functional Delightful Necessary Thrilling Practical Enjoyable
These items were used to determine whether participants perceive Facebook, in their personal life, as a hedonic or utilitarian information system. To construct the two variables, two measures (Hedonic and Utilitarian) were operationalised using Principal Component Analysis. Hedonic motivations were classified using statements such as: “I use Facebook
because it is fun” whereas utilitarian motivations were measured through statements including
items such as “I use Facebook because it is efficient”. Both variables, Hedonic (MHed= 3.20,
12 Cronbach’s Alphas of ⍺hed= .92 and⍺utilit= .88, respectively (For a full list and factor loadings, see Appendix B).
Perceived Usefulness & Perceived Ease of Use. The original questionnaire from
Davis’ (1989) study was modified into a 7-point Likert scale to measure these two items. The negative items in the perceived ease of use questionnaire were first reverse coded to assess the overall score of all the items together. To construct the two variables, two measures (Ease and
Usefulness) were operationalised using Principal Component Analysis. For perceived
usefulness, the questionnaire included items such as: “Using Workplace improves my job
performance” and for perceived ease of use items such as “I find it easy to get Workplace to
do what I want it to do,” were included. Both variables Usefulness (MUseful= 3.87, SDUseful = 1.63) and Ease (MEase= 5.51, SDHed = .87) resulted in a reliable scale, with Cronbach’s Alphas of ⍺hed=.97 and⍺utilit=.87 respectively (For a full list and factor loadings, see Appendix C).
Workplace Acceptance. The variable was measured through two steps: Workplace
Literacy and On-Task Workplace usage. Papacharissi & Mendelson (2010) and Smock et al. (2011) both investigated Facebook consumption through uses and gratifications theory by adapting Papacharissi & Rubin’s (2000) prior study on the predictors of Internet use. While Papacharissi & Rubin initially studied general predictors of internet use, they built upon the scale to understand particular motives for using Facebook demonstrating that Facebook consumption motives cluster into different categories such as entertainment, information seeking, social interaction and new technology.
In order to understand the on-task Workplace usage behaviours, a questionnaire was built by modifying those from both the Papacharissi and Mendelson study (2010) and the study from Smock et al.’s (2011). Participants were asked to assess the degree to which they
13 agree/relate to the given motives of consumption. In addition, Workplace literacy levels were measured with the same items as Facebook literacy.
To construct both variables, two measures (OnTask and WP Literacy) were operationalised using Principal Component Analysis. For on-task Workplace usage, the questionnaire included items such as: “I use Workplace to be in contact with colleagues from
my office and different parts of the world.” and for Workplace Literacy, the questionnaire
included items such as “I set-up groups to work on different projects/events often.” Both variables, On-Task (MOnTask= 4.10, SD1.25 = 1.25) and WP Literacy (MWPLIT= 3.37, SDWPLIT = 1.27), resulted in a reliable scale, with Cronbach’s Alpha’ of ⍺OnTask=.73 and⍺WPLIT=.86, respectively (For a full list and factor loadings, see Appendix D). After the reliability check, the dependent variable Workplace Acceptance (MWPLIT= 3.74, SDWPLIT = 1.12) was created by computing the average score for the On-Task and WP Literacy variables. The outcome of the new dependent variable resulted in a scale with a reliable Cronbach’s Alpha ⍺OnTask=.72.
Method
This study hypothesizes that Facebook Literacy (X) indirectly influences Workplace literacy (Y) through two parallel multiple mediators: perceived ease of use (Ma) and perceived usefulness (Mb), with the moderating effect of motivations (W); see Figure 2. In addition to this, Facebook Literacy (X) and Motivations (W) are hypothesized to exert a direct influence on Workplace literacy (Y). Hence the direct effects were tested with regression analysis and and Independent Samples T-Test whereas the overall indirect effects model was tested with PROCESS (Model 4 and 8; 5000 bootstraps, Hayes, 2013) analysis.
14 Figure 2: Pathways of analysis
Results
Initially, a correlation analysis was run to assess the strength of the relationships between the individual variables. Facebook literacy correlates with perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, utilitarian motivations and Workplace literacy positively (p < .05). Furthermore, utilitarian motivations also positively correlate with perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (p < .05) however, there was no correlation found between utilitarian motivations and Workplace acceptance (r= .68, p = .155). (For the full correlations table, see Appendix E).
Direct Effects
The first hypothesis (H1) stated that Facebook Literacy is positively associated with Workplace acceptance. A linear regression analysis was used to predict Workplace
15
=6.18, p=.01) with an R² =.07. A respondent's Workplace literacy score increased .19 for
every one point increase in their Facebook literacy score. H1 is therefore supported.
To test H2, which stated those who displayed utilitarian motives for Facebook use will demonstrate greater Workplace acceptance, the data was recoded into two groups in order to categorise respondents by their motivations. Those who scored very low and high on both motivations were excluded as the hypothesis concerns those with primary motivations. However, the distribution of participants overwhelmingly favoured those with primarily utilitarian motivations (NUtil=35, NHed =6). This limits the power of the analysis, and thus the conclusions that can be drawn in relation to this hypothesis. Nevertheless, an independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare Workplace acceptance across those with hedonic and utilitarian motivations. No significant difference was found between those with hedonic motivations (MHed=3.68, SDHed=.93) and those with utilitarian motivations (MUtil=3.74,
SDUtil=1.13); t (7.73) =.13, p = .89. While the mean score was slightly higher for those with utilitarian motivations, the lack of statistical significance and the, aforementioned problems with group size, resulted in the rejection of H2.
Indirect Effects Mediation
From the parallel mediation analysis, perceived usefulness was found to indirectly influence Workplace acceptance through its effect on Facebook literacy (H4), however there was no such relationship found with regards to perceived ease of use (H3). From the values given in Table 2, it is shown that (through pathway a1b*bb) perceived usefulness
significantly mediated the relationship between Workplace acceptance and Facebook literacy
16 pathway a1a*ba) did not mediate the relationship (b= .82, t(77)= .95, p=.344, 95% BCBCI
[-.08, .25]).
Moreover, the association between Facebook literacy and perceived usefulness was examined. Facebook literacy was able to significantly predict perceived usefulness: F (1, 79)
=6.21, p=.01 with an R² =.07. Thus, a respondent's perceived usefulness score increased .36
for each one point increase in their FB literacy score. Secondly, Workplace acceptance was added to a regression model with both, perceived usefulness and Facebook literacy. The regression proved to be significant F (2, 78) =34.98, p<.001) with an R² =.47. The Sobel z-value calculation (Jose, 2013) also proves the mediation effect of perceived usefulness
(𝛽=.358, R²=.07, p=0.01) (see figure 3). Hence, while H3 is rejected, H4 is supported.
Figure 3: Mediation model of perceived usefulness on Workplace Acceptance
*. Effect is significant at the 0.05 level **. Effect is significant at the 0.01 level
Moderation
Moreover, the results for H5, stating that utilitarian motivations have a moderating role on relationship of FB literacy and WP acceptance, show that (through pathway c3), there is no moderation effect (b= .03, t (74) = .89, p=.37, 95% BCBCI [-.04, .11]. Therefore, H5 is
17 rejected and it can be concluded that utilitarian motivations do not moderate the established relationship between Workplace acceptance and Facebook literacy.
Moderated Meditation
Furthermore, when investigating the moderated mediation effect, suggested in H6 and H7, the results show that utilitarian motivations do not act as a significant moderator: neither when Facebook literacy is mediated by perceived ease of use, through pathway a3a*ba (b=
.01, 95% BCBCI [-.007, .03]) nor when it is mediated by perceived usefulness, through
pathway a3b*bb (b= .02, 95% BCBCI [-.04, .09]). Thus, H6 and H7 can be rejected.
Table 2: Regression coefficients, Standard Errors and 95% Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Confidence Interval values for model pathways: Indirect Effects
Path Coeff. 95% CI SE c3 .03 -.04 to .11 .04 a1a*ba .82 -.08 to .25 .08 a1b*bb .61* .43 to .78 .08 a3a*ba .01 -.007 to .03 .01 a3b*bb .02 -.04 to .09 .03
18 Discussion
As shown in the results section, Facebook literacy has a positive association with Workplace literacy. This association is also positively mediated by perceived usefulness but not by the perceived ease of use. Although the participants mainly used Facebook with utilitarian motivations, it was observed that the effect of motivations did not intervene on the levels of Workplace acceptance. It is therefore suggested that the Workplace acceptance levels reaches the highest possible score when employees demonstrate high levels of Facebook literacy and perceive Workplace as a useful tool.
Results show that participants did not, in general, score highly on Facebook literacy. This result is in line with the dominant perspective on Facebook in the aftermath of recent privacy scandals and with the recent statistics on the decline of Facebook use (“Americans are changing their relationship with Facebook.” 2018). Moreover, people with higher privacy concerns reportedly experience higher Facebook fatigue (Bright, Kleiser, Grau, 2015)
therefore, for further research not only it is essential to consider the decline in Facebook usage in quantity but also the tarnished reputation of Facebook. Nonetheless, the results suggest that Facebook literacy is a predictor of Workplace acceptance.
Moreover, the motivations for Facebook use were clustered on the utilitarian side which can be explained by Facebook’s declining usage statistics as it can be hypothesised that users might only visit Facebook for goal-oriented reasons. The most frequent motivation for Facebook was practicality. Combining this information with messaging being the most common used Facebook feature, this can give the idea that Facebook has become a mere communication tool for majority of the users. Prior research (Cheung, Chiu, Lee, 2011; Grieve, Indian, Witteveen, Tolan, Marrington, 2013) concluding that Facebook was primarily used for social connectedness was furthered by current findings that suggest that in addition to the psychological level, Facebook enables users to be connected also on a practical level as in
19 day-to-day messaging and communication. Young participants in particular scored low on hedonic aspects of Facebook usage and also in Facebook usage frequency. While the findings of this study showed a correlation between Facebook literacy and Workplace acceptance, it is crucial for further research to consider the trends of social media use especially for young employees as they are becoming the ruling majority in the companies (Fry, 2018).
Furthermore, perceived usefulness has shown to be the only significant mediator for Workplace acceptance. Although perceived ease of use also nears significance, it can be argued that in order to implement Workplace successfully, companies should focus on the benefits of the tool to employees’ job related, goal-oriented needs rather than the easiness of operation of the platform. This finding is interesting in particular, as perceived ease of use seems to be the highest scoring variable. This means although participants think Workplace is easy to use, this does not have a significant effect on their levels of acceptance.
In its entirety, the correlation analysis has proven that the model as a whole works as hypothesized even when effect sizes are small or the results are insignificant. This also indicates that Technology Acceptance Model 2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Sun & Zhang, 2006) can explain more variance for technology acceptance as it considers individual
differences. So, for further research, it is crucial to add more variables into the model to better predict the technology acceptance levels. Subjective norm can be added as a variable in future studies concerning technology acceptance as prior research (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) suggests that “subjective norm” directly influences the intentions to use a new platform in the workplace. This can be also elaborated with adding social pressure at workplace along with voluntariness. As assumingly employees with a higher pressure from their employers would likely be more leaned to accept the given technology however the acceptance of the
technology might be mandatory. Therefore, future research can also ask the question of “what” really is technology acceptance. An employee could use a new technology every day
20 because it’s mandatory however the levels of acceptance for the given technology might vary if the technology is obligatory or voluntary.
Adding more variables can enrich the scope of the research however, companies with numerous employees from different cultures, backgrounds, languages and ages cannot
consider the individual differences in literacy levels or new media preferences or skills. While it is important that all employees should have a basic understanding of new media in order to understand the new information technologies, it is more important to explain the benefits of that technology to employees. This explanation can be made by two components:
Effectiveness and Usefulness (Segars & Grover, 1993). In order to increase the levels of acceptance of the new technology, employees should be communicated that the tool will make their job easier and will increase their productivity, effectiveness and job
performance. The study by Segars & Grover (1993) also suggests that while ease of use is a significant item yet having a small effect. Their study underlines that becoming skilful easily is a predictor of accepting new technology. Therefore, in order to increase the levels of acceptance of the new technology at work, companies should focus on explaining how easy it is to become more efficient, skilful and productive by using the given tool, not on how easy it is to use the tool.
Overall, the results of this study indicate that companies should be focused on
practicality when designing their internal communication tools and avoid spending company resources on innovative design. However, the findings do indicate that previous familiarity with a system can positively influence use and gives rise to speculation around the possible beneficial effects of a company implementing a similar tool to Workplace that was based on an, arguably more utilitarian, SNS such as Twitter.
21 Limitations
This study is limited by its choice of sample, as participants were recruited from only one company. While choosing to sample from one, large, multinational company allowed the internal communication system to remain constant throughout, it does limit the
generalisability of the study.
By allowing respondents to categorise their own motivations for using both Workplace and Facebook, there is a possibility that some of the responses, and thus the measurements, could have be influenced by social desirability. This is perhaps most likely to have occurred during the categorisation of motivations for using Workplace. Given that respondents were aware that Workplace is used by their own company for purely job-oriented purposes, it would be understandable for some employees to skew their answers toward the desired on-task functions of Workplace.
Almost half of the initial participants did not complete the survey. This might be because the survey was too long, repetitive or simply not interesting enough. Given the distribution method of the survey, through employee mailboxes and Workplace sharing, there may have also been participants who clicked on the survey out of curiosity. There is no identifiable difference between those who completed the survey and those who dropped out. While this loss caused sacrifices in both validity and reliability, the remaining sample was not clustered in a specific age, or country or function in the company.
The loss in sample size also threatened the validity of moderated mediation analysis, leaving only a small sample size for the analysis. This might be caused mainly for the concerns of privacy. Although it was communicated to all participants that results would be totally anonymous, some employees might have thought it would be risky to answer the survey in the company environment. This might explain the drop-outs as well, as almost half of the participants dropped out of the survey after a certain point. Another reason for this
22 might be the repetition of the questions. To have a reliable scale, Workplace and Facebook literacy questions were constructed same which might have created boredom from the survey. Notably, the motivations scale was not enough to predict the motives that underpin Facebook use as majority of participants scored lowly on the scale. Moreover, the sample distribution was unbalanced between hedonic and utilitarian motivations and this limits the validity of the study as the results were not suitable for interpretation. Further research should narrow down and specify the motivations for using SNS and use a more detailed scale for measurement.
References
Ahn, J. (2013, April). What can we learn from Facebook activity? Using social learning analytics to observe new media literacy skills. In Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 135-144). ACM.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision sciences, 30(2), 361-391.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of consumer research, 20(4), 644-656.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170.
Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P. Y., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use facebook?. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337-1343.
Chung, J. E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2010). Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1674-1684. Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. Digital literacies: Concepts,
23 Bright, L. F., Kleiser, S. B., & Grau, S. L. (2015). Too much Facebook? An exploratory
examination of social media fatigue. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 148-155. Davies, J. (2012). Facework on Facebook as a new literacy practice. Computers & Education,
59(1), 19-29.
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Fry, R. (2018, April 11). Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor force Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/
Gilster, P., & Glister, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Pub..
Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Tolan, G. A., & Marrington, J. (2013). Face-to-face or Facebook: Can social connectedness be derived online?. Computers in human
behavior, 29(3), 604-609.
Hartman, J. B., Shim, S., Barber, B., & O'Brien, M. (2006). Adolescents' utilitarian and hedonic Web consumption behavior: Hierarchical influence of personal values and innovativeness. Psychology & Marketing, 23(10), 813-839.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. The Journal of Marketing, 92-101.
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Mit Press.
24 Joinson, A. N. (2008, April). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: motives and
use of facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1027-1036). ACM.
Jose, P. E. (2013) MedGraph-I: A programme to graphically depict mediation among three variables: The internet version, version 3.0. Victoria University of Wellington,
Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://psychology.victoria.ac.nz/medgraph/ Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet
self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35-50.
Literat, I. (2014). Measuring New Media Literacies: Towards the Development of a
Comprehensive Assessment Tool. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(1), 15-27. Making Work Better, London, 2018, Retrieved from:
https://www.facebook.com/workplace/about?source=topbar)
Mun, Y. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International journal of human-computer studies, 59(4), 431-449.
Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. (2010). 12 Toward a new (er) sociability: uses,
gratifications and social capital on Facebook. Media perspectives for the 21st century, 212.
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 44(2), 175-196.
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 30(3), 227-238.
25 Perrin, A. (2018, September 5). Americans are changing their relationship with Facebook.
Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org
Richter, A., & Riemer, K. (2009, December). Corporate social networking sites–modes of use and appropriation through co-evolution. In 20th Australasian Conference on
Information Systems (pp. 2-4).
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in human behavior, 25(2), 578-586.
Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS quarterly, 517-525.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business. Hoboken.
Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322-2329.
Sun, H., &; Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology Acceptance. International journal of human-computer studies, 64(2), 53-78.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS quarterly, 695-704.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 157-178.
26 Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of marketing research, 40(3), 310-320.
Appendices Appendix A
Factor: FB Literacy (α = .85) (Variance Explained: 52.47%)
I update my status/wall on Facebook often. .78
I share links from other websites on Facebook often .76
I share my friends’ posts on Facebook often. .82
I comment on my friends’ posts often. .83
I tag my friends on comments of others’ posts often. .62
I write wall posts on my friends’ pages often. .70
I use Facebook chat often. .54
I use Facebook Groups often. .66
Appendix B
Factor: Utilitarian Motivations (α = .88) (Variance Explained: 70.32%)
I use Facebook because it is effective .80
I use Facebook because it is helpful .82
I use Facebook because it is efficient .89
27
I use Facebook because it is necessary .55
Factor: Hedonic Motivations (α = .92) (Variance Explained: 76.18%)
I use Facebook because it is fun .80
I use Facebook because it is thrilling .83
I use Facebook because it is delightful .87
I use Facebook because it is exciting .90
I use Facebook because it is enjoyable .77
Appendix C
Factor: Perceived Ease of Use (α = .87) (Variance Explained: 49.28%)
I interact easily with Workplace .47
Workplace is rigid and inflexible to interact with. .57
Interacting with Workplace requires a lot of my mental effort. .74
Interacting with Workplace is often frustrating. .72
I make errors frequently when using Workplace. .63
Workplace often behaves in unexpected ways. .76
I find Workplace unmanageable to use. .86
I often become confused when I use Workplace. .73
I find it easy to get Workplace to do what I want it to do. .65
Overall, I find Workplace easy to use .76
Factor: Perceived Usefulness (α = .97) (Variance Explained: 77.37%)
28
Using Workplace gives me greater control over my work. .88
Using Workplace improves my job performance. .90
Workplace addresses my job-related needs. .84
Using Workplace saves me time. .84
Workplace enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly. .88
Workplace supports critical aspects of my job. .86
Using Workplace makes it easier to do my job. .90
Using Workplace reduces the time I spend on .75
unproductive activities.
Using Workplace enhances my effectiveness on the job. .90
Using Workplace improves the quality of the work I do. .89
Overall, I find Workplace useful in my job. .89
Appendix D
Factor: On-Task Usage (α = .73) (Variance Explained: 49.07%)
I use Workplace to share or look for new information. .57
I use Workplace to build on my network with colleagues .79
I use Workplace to be in contact with colleagues from .77
my office and different parts of the world.
I use Workplace not to miss out on work .46
I use Workplace because it is easier to share my opinions freely. .82
Factor: WP Literacy (α = .86) (Variance Explained: 53.26%)
I share updates on my profile on Workplace often. .53
29
I share my colleagues’ posts on other groups often .81
I comment on my colleagues’ posts often. .73
I tag my colleagues on comments of others’ posts often. .79
I write posts on my colleagues’ pages often. .48
I use Workplace chat often. .57
I set-up groups to work on different projects/events often. .69
Appendix E
Facebook Literacy, Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, Utilitarian Motivations and
Workplace Acceptance: Correlations (N = 81)
Facebook Literacy Perceived Ease of Use Perceived Usefulness Utilitarian Motivations Workplace Acceptance Facebook Literacy - . Perceived Ease of Use .239* - Perceived Usefulness .270* .344** - Utilitarian Motivations .678** .302** .224* - Workplace Acceptance .358** .334** .686** .161
30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level
