Enterprise Social Media: The Impact of Employee Motivations on Knowledge Sharing and Organizational Identification
Master thesis Adela Peskova (10864326)
Graduate School of Communication University of Amsterdam
January 28th, 2016
Thesis supervisor: Dr. Claartje ter Hoeven Study programme: Corporate Communication
Abstract
Enterprise social media is a term used to describe business orientated software widely used in organizations for the purpose of enhancing collaboration and information sharing between its members. This research paper is focused on two levels: individual (employees’ intrinsic motivations) and organizational (organizational norms and employees’ workload). In particular, it explores how these two levels influence knowledge sharing and organizational identification through the use of enterprise social media. To explore employees’ intrinsic motivations, the research is focused on self-determination theory by Ryan and Deci (2000). The author conducted a review of papers from previous studies on the topic of enterprise social networking, with connections to intrinsic motivations, organizational norms, workload, knowledge sharing and organization identification and, based on that, proposed a model to be tested. The study was carried out by means of a survey which collected particular information about the use of the enterprise social software by employees, the employees themselves and how they perceive the organization and management of the organization they work for. The results from a case study (n=101) correlate some of the previous findings. However the suggested model was not confirmed, hence the author proposes directions for future studies.
Keywords: Enterprise social media, self-determination theory, intrinsic motivations,
Table of Contents
Introduction………4
Literature Review………..6
Individual level……….6
Organizational level………. 9
SDT & Managerial autonomy support………10
Research model……….……..11
Methods……….….11
Results……….…...15
Conclusion and Discussion……….…....19
References………..22 Appendices……….28 Attachment A……….28 Attachment B……….29 Attachment C……….30 Attachment D……….31 Attachment E……….32 Attachment F……….34
Enterprise Social Media: The Impact of Employee Motivations on Knowledge Sharing and Organizational Identification
Social media has been gaining more and more attention in the last decade (Treem et al., 2015). This paper deals with one kind of social media and that is enterprise social media (ESM). Organizations increasingly make use of ESM, particularly in order to achieve better communication in the company (Leonardi, Huysman, & Steinfield, 2013). Use of ESM is considered as one of the newest ways to enhance communication within a company and, furthermore, to provide its employees with a tool to encourage the sharing of information without the fear of leakage of information out of the company, as may be the case when using classical social media such as Facebook or Twitter (DiMicco et al., 2008; Leonardi, et al., 2013). In order to describe ESM to the fullest it is proposed to use a definition by Leonardi et al. (2013), who define ESM as: “Web-based platforms that allow workers to (1) communicate
messages with specific coworkers or broadcast messages to everyone in the organization; (2)
explicitly indicate or implicitly reveal particular coworkers as communication partners; (3)
post, edit, and sort text and files linked to themselves or others; and (4) view the messages,
connections, text, and files communicated, posted, edited and sorted by anyone else in the
organization at any time of their choosing”.
Many studies on ESM have been done since its emergence in 2000 and most of these studies have focused on implementation, adoption, use of ESM and its impacts on work-related outcomes (e.g. Engelstätter & Sarbu, 2013; Olivieira & Martins, 2011; Treem & Leonardi, 2012; Trimi & Galanxhi, 2013). Some researchers confirmed that social technologies foster knowledge management and communication between members of an organization (Ellison, Gibbs, & Weber, 2015; Majchrzak et al., 2013; Trimi & Galanxhi, 2013). A number of studies have provided empirical support for the positive benefits of the use of social technologies in knowledge sharing (Back & Koh, 2011; Jarrahi & Sawyer, 2013;
Paroutis & Saleh, 2009,). Therefore, the first objective of this study is to contribute to already existing findings on knowledge sharing by conducting a case study in corporate environment.
It has been proven that a feeling of belonging is one of the most basic needs of people (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Further, it is presumed that if people use ESM they might feel more connected (Leonardi et al., 2013) and thus it is suggested they may also feel more identified with their organization. However, such a suggestion has never been verified and, therefore, the second objective of this study is to explore whether ESM usage may foster employee identification with a company.
This paper proposes to study ESM use through the self-determination theory (SDT), which suggests that people are motivated by their intrinsic motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2000). As stated by Davis et al. (1992), intrinsic motivations influence people to use new technology systems. According to SDT intrinsic motivations are based on the satisfaction of three basic needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. Building on the argument of Davis et al. (1992), it is assumed that if people have their basic needs satisfied they are more inclined to get involved in using new software.
Additionally, this study suggests that in order to investigate ESM use it is necessary to examine the influences at the organizational level, in this case being the organizational norms and the workload of employees. It is assumed that norms which are embedded in every organizational culture can influence whether employees will or will not engage in ESM use. Regarding workload, it is the author’s supposition that if employees are occupied with a large amount of work it might be harder for them to use new software.
The research question was formulated as follows: “How is the use of enterprise social media influenced by employees’ intrinsic motivations (autonomy, competence and
relatedness) and organizational factors (norms and workload) and what is the impact of these on knowledge sharing and organizational identification?”
Literature Review
In this part, different concepts, derived from the available literature and previous research, will be discussed. Moreover, knowledge gaps and hypotheses will be highlighted accordingly.
It is proposed that ESM use and the outcomes of its use can be influenced at two levels: 1) individual, by which is meant the employees intrinsic motivations based on the basic needs and 2) organizational, here organizational norms and the workload of employees. Individual Level
This study investigates how the individual and organizational levels influence ESM use. The individual level is explored through SDT which assumes that peoples’ motivations are very important element in the adoption process.
Need satisfaction, knowledge sharing, and organizational identification. People can be motivated by external or internal sources of motivation. The external motivations are those which lead to some kind of tangible or intangible outcome such as money, grades, praise etc. These are called extrinsic motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The internal ones are recognized as activities which people enjoy doing without any rewards such as gaining new knowledge, arousing interest etc. (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The SDT is one of the theories which is focused on intrinsic motivations. The authors’ idea stems from the assumption that people are naturally motivated to develop themselves (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It is proposed that this tendency to grow is based on three fundamental needs: autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. The need for autonomy is related to the fact that people need to have a feeling of control over their actions which are in line with their interests and values. The need for competency is based on the belief that people are able to perform some activity on a good level. This is related to people’s self-confidence, not to their ability. To fulfil the need for competency, people are searching for challenges which should be adequate for their skills and
potential. Finally, relatedness is a need for people to belong; to develop and maintain relationships with others. Ryan and Deci (2000) suggested that in order to feel motivated people need to satisfy all of these three needs. Furthermore, they proposed that every person aims to satisfy these needs either consciously or unconsciously.
With regards to knowledge sharing, which is described as an activity through which knowledge is exchanged between people (Serban & Luan, 2002), prior studies have
demonstrated that intrinsic motivations are related to one’s tendency to have a positive mind which fosters individuals to share their knowledge with their colleagues (Lin, 2007; Osterloh & Frey, 2000). In line with their findings, it has been argued by Reinholt, Pedersen and Foss (2011) that in order to engage in knowledge sharing employees need to be intrinsically
motivated. In particular, they claim that autonomy is one of the basic needs, the satisfaction of which promotes knowledge sharing (Reinholt et al., 2011). Further, it has been claimed that social media motivates employees to share their knowledge (Back & Koh, 2011; Treem & Leonardi, 2012). By knowledge sharing, employees may explore the expertise of their colleagues with whom they have little or no connection (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). By sharing certain information, individual workers enable the spread of knowledge to others who might have not known this information exists within the company and would have wasted time looking for the information outside the company. DiMicco et al. (2008) stated that employees in their study were willing to share more information on ESM than on public social media such as Facebook or Twitter, because they were not afraid of sharing
confidential information. Another positive finding from DiMicco et al. (2008) indicated that employees were willing to share more due to the fact that 1) they could choose the group of people within the network with whom they wanted to share the information and 2) their privacy was not at risk within ESM. Additionally, a great advantage for employees is that they can post or look for information regardless of time and place (Kane & Fichman, 2009).
Based on these prior assertions with regards to intrinsic motivations, ESM use and knowledge sharing, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H1: Intrinsic needs a) autonomy, b) competence, and c) relatedness have an
indirect positive effect on knowledge sharing through ESM use.
A number of authors have talked about the link between satisfying peoples’ basic needs and organizational identification. It was first found by Hall, Schneider and Nygren (1970) that satisfaction of intrinsic needs is related to organizational identification.
Organizational identification is defined as “the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the organization(s) in which he or she is a member” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). Other research proposed that if an employee feels identified with a company, he or she will behave in a way that will be advantageous for the company (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Fuller, 2006; Riketta, 2005). Moreover, Ashforth et al. (2008) noted that basic needs are closely related to organizational identification. In other words, people identify with a company because they need to have a feeling of belonging and, through that, reduce their fear of uncertainty. More specifically, Hall et al. (1970) stated that if employees satisfy their needs they are more likely to feel identified with an organization. Further, Gagné and Deci (2005) argued that autonomy is one of the three basic needs that is strongly associated with identification. When a person is given a high level of autonomy he or she is more inclined to identify with a group (Williams & Deci, 1996). Lastly, Bartels et al. (2010) have found that horizontal communication in an organization, by which communication between colleagues is strongly related to professional identification, might lead to organizational identification. With all the above in mind, the following hypothesis was formulated:
H2: Intrinsic needs a) autonomy, b) competence, and c) relatedness have an
Organizational Level
Organizational norms. Norms can be defined as products of organizational culture (Schein, 1990). In any organization, norms are usually shared and they tend to describe the organization’s culture but more importantly they reflect the behavior of its employees (Stamper, Liu, Hafkamp, & Ades, 2000). In line with their finding, Cialdini (2003) later proposed that each culture has different norms which are based on what is normal to its members and how they should, and should not, behave. In other words, norms can be seen as an unofficial agreement of behavior in society (Scott & Marshall, 2009). Moreover, Cialdini (1988) further proposed that if most people in a group behave in a certain way, it must motivate the others to perform in the same or at least in a similar way. As he claimed: “If everyone is doing it, it must be a sensible thing to do." (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990, p. 1015). Furthermore, when an organization sets clear norms for knowledge sharing, employees are more likely to engage in such activity since they know what is acceptable (Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, 2003).
Therefore, based on previous research, it is proposed that if it turns out that employees consider information sharing as a norm, they will more likely use the available resources (ESM). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H3: Norms have an indirect positive effect on knowledge sharing, through ESM
use.
Workload. Workload refers to the amount and/or the degree of difficulty of work an employee has to perform. The experiment in IBM, The Netherlands showed that when employees perceived a high level of workload they were unable to share their expertise through their ESM due to the fact they were under too much pressure (Huysman & Wit, 2004). This finding is in line with information the author of this paper received from the interviews with several employees before conducting the survey. They claimed that when
they are engaged with a lot of work they do not use their ESM because it is easier to use old procedures such as asking for information directly in person or by using email. Therefore, it is proposed:
H4: Employee’s workload has an indirect negative effect on knowledge sharing,
through ESM use.
SDT and Managerial Autonomy Support
Leeuvis and Arts (2011) proposed that managers can work as change agents who are able to enhance the adoption of a new technology. They can increase the successful adoption by supporting their employees. Gagné and Deci (2005) describe that previous SDT research in organizations focused on managerial autonomy support. Autonomy support requires
supervisors’ understanding and acknowledgment of the employee’s perspective, providing important and relevant information in a non-manipulative manner, encouraging self-initiation and, lastly, offering opportunities for self-initiation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Previous studies have shown that managerial autonomy support predicts positive work outcomes. It has been proposed that autonomy support from supervisors predicts higher satisfaction of the
psychological need for autonomy, competence and relatedness and thus leads to higher acceptance of organizational change (Baard et al., 2004; Blais & Brière, 1992; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Moreover, Baard et al. (2004) suggested that satisfying all of the three fundamental needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) can provide an organization with a support for organizational adjustments. Hence, it is expected that
management autonomy support will moderate the relationship between employee’s intrinsic motivations and the adoption of ESM.
H5: Perceived managerial autonomy support moderates the relationship between
and ESM usage; when employees perceive a high level of autonomy support they
are more likely to involve in ESM use.
Figure 1. A research model for the ESM use.
Methods Research Site
The research was conducted within an American multinational technology and
consulting organization based in the Czech Republic. The subsidiary employs 509 employees and the study was focused on individuals working in the company between December 2015 and January 2016 when the data collection was undertaken.
The organization introduced their ESM in 2008. The company stated that the software would enable employees to foster innovativeness, productivity, knowledge sharing, and communication. However, they did not train their employees how to use the platform, and, additionally, they did not point out the benefits of this new platform to the employees. They basically introduced their new software as a flexible technology that could be, but did not have to be, utilized. Nevertheless, the management had positive expectations towards the adoption of the software even though, no training in order to learn how to use the software was provided. After implementation, the management assumed that a large proportion of the
employees was not using the software. Moreover, they observed employees asking their more competent colleagues for training.
Data collection and Sample
In 2015, the author conducted interviews with two managers in the organization. The interviews served as a starting point for the survey. An online questionnaire was then sent to all currently employed workers (509). At the beginning of 2016, a total of 101 employees had completed the questionnaire, representing 20 percent of the organization. The age of
participants ranged from 20 to 60 (M = 34.28, SD = 8.33). The sample consisted of 38 percent female and 62 percent male, 86 percent of them were university educated. The total
population of the organization included 25 percent female and 75 percent male therefore, even though the sample was fairly small it did represent the total population. Only 18 percent respondents were managers, from which 83 percent were managing people and the rest were software managers. The average amount of working hours was 34.12 hours (SD = 11.67) with the average of 9.40 hours (SD = 10.05) of overtime and the average amount of years of working for the organization was 5.31 years (SD = 4.48).
Survey Translation
All original items in the survey were created in English. In order to ensure that all participants fully understood the meaning of the text, a translation into the Czech language was required. Hence, a back-translation technique was used to control any translation bias (Yu, Lee & Woo, 2004). Two fluent speakers of both English and Czech language translated the original survey questions into Czech and compared both of their texts to identify
discrepancies. These inconsistencies were corrected after a discussion between those two translators. The translation was considered valid due to the fact that the texts of both translators were highly corresponding.
Measures
Intrinsic need satisfaction. A 21-item questionnaire was used to estimate the extent an employee experiences a satisfaction of his or her intrinsic needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) in their job (Deci at al., 2001). Participants responded on a 5-point, Likert-type scale to questions such as “I feel that my decisions in my job reflect what I really want” (autonomy); “People I know tell me I am good at what I do” (competence); “I really like the
people I interact with” (relatedness). The autonomy scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .77 (M =
3.51, SD = 0.69). The competence scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .72 (M = 4.04, SD = 0.57) and the relatedness scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .77 (M = 3.97, SD = 0.54).
Perceived management autonomy support. The Work Climate Questionnaire (WCQ) was used to assess the extent to which employees consider their "superiors" or the management to be supportive. The participants responded to 6 items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is: “I feel understood
by my manager.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .91 (M = 3.87, SD = 0.83).
Enterprise social media use. This variable was measured on 2 scales. The first scale was used in the study by Sun and Shang (2014). Respondents answered 6 questions on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). An example of items used in the scale is: “I use our company software to post updates on work projects.” The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .78 (M = 2.80, SD = 0.89). The second scale measured the frequency with which employees used components of the platform. The respondents were asked to rate how often they had used each component over the previous week (before filling in the survey). The answer options were “Never”, “Rarely”, “Sometimes”, “Almost every day” and “Every day” (1=Never, 5=Every day). A factor analysis was run using Varimax rotation method (Kaiser, 1958). In total two factors explained 62.90 percent of the variance in seven items. Although only one factor was present on the scree plotand, thus it was decided to use only
one factor to compute an ESM frequency of use scale. Therefore, the scale measuring the frequency of ESM use resulted in total of 5 items (see Table 1, Appendix A). The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .80 (M = 2.44, SD = 0.89).
Knowledge sharing .This variable was measured with a 6-item scale adapted from the study by Van den Hooff and Huysman (2009) and Van den Hooff and Weenen (2004). An example of the items used is: “I share information that I acquired, with my colleagues.” The items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .82 (M = 3.79, SD = 0.70).
Organizational identification.To measure organizational identification, respondents were asked to answer 6 questions. An example of these items is: “When I talk about the
company I work for, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’.” This scale was adapted from
Mael and Ashworth’s study (1992). Responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .75 (M = 3.54, SD = 0.67).
Information sharing norms. This variable was measured with 6 items and was adapted from Van den Hooff and Weenen (2004). The text included items such as: “It's a
normal thing for me to provide my knowledge to other colleagues of my department.”
Participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .89 (M = 4.10, SD = 0.74).
Workload. This variable was measured with 3 items used in the study by Van den Hooff, Vijvers, and Ridder (2003). A sample item is: “I have no time to learn new
competencies.” Answer options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
Control Variables
The following variables were chosen as control ones: age, gender, working experience (in years), managerial position (0 = no, 1= yes) and the actual amount of working hours. It is assumed that these variables could affect the proposed relationships in the suggested model. Analysis
All the data analyses were tested in IBM SPSS Statistics software version 21.0. For the purpose of testing mediation and moderation hypotheses the author used the PROCESS tool by Andrew F. Hayes. Model 1, which tests one single moderator and its effect on the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable, was used for the hypothesis 5a, 5b and 5c. Model 4, which can tests the effect of independent variable on dependent variable trough a mediator, was run in order to test an indirect effect – hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 3 and 4.
Results
Table 1 (Appendix B) shows the means, standard deviations and correlations of all variables.
The variable ESM use was measured on two scales (ESM use and ESM frequency of
use) as mentioned in the methods section. These variables correlate highly (r = 0.61, p <.01).
Whilst all analyses were tested with both variables, the outcomes being identical, for the purpose of clarity, the variable ESM use is the one presented in these results.
The first hypothesis stated that the need for 1a) autonomy, 1b) competence, and 1c) relatedness have an indirect positive effect on knowledge sharing through ESM use. To test these hypotheses, mediation analyses (model 4) via PROCESS software by Hayes were performed. Results from regression analyses showed that there are some positive relationships (see Table 1 in Appendix C). However, no significant mediations were found. The regression analysis showed that, when controlling for age, gender, working experience, managerial
position and actual amount of working hours, “autonomy” (b = 0.00, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.03]), “competence” (b = 0.01, SE = [-0.02, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.06]), and “relatedness” (b = 0.00, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.02]) are not positively related to knowledge sharing through ESM use. Therefore, based on the results, hypotheses 1a, 1b and 1c were not supported by the data. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 1 in Appendix C.
The second hypothesis stated that need for: 2a) autonomy, 2b) competence, and 2c) relatedness have an indirect positive effect on organizational identification through the ESM use. To test these hypotheses, a model 4 by PROCESS software by Hayes was run. Results from the regression analyses showed that no significant relationships were found, thus no significant mediations were present (see Table 2, Appendix C). Specifically, the analysis showed that when controlling for age, gender, working experience, managerial position and actual amount of working hours, “autonomy” (b = -0.00, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.02]), “competence” (b = -0.01, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.02]), and “relatedness” (b = 0.00, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.04]) are not positively related to organizational identification via ESM use. Thus, based on the results, hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c were not supported by the data. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 2 in Appendix C.
The third hypothesis stated that norms have an indirect positive effect on knowledge sharing through ESM use. A model 4 of PROCESS software by Hayes was run to test this hypothesis. The result from the regression (PROCESS) analysis showed a positive direct relationship between information sharing norms and knowledge sharing (b = 0.67, SE = 0.07,
p < .001, 95% CI [0.54, 0.80]) on the basis of age, gender, working experience, managerial
position and actual amount of working hours, however no significant indirect effect was found (see Figure 2). Specifically the analysis showed that, when controlling for age, gender, working experience, managerial position and actual amount of working hours, information sharing norms (b = -0.00, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.02]) are not positively related to
knowledge sharing via ESM use. Therefore, based on the results, hypothesis 3 was not supported by the data.
Figure 2. Model of information sharing norms as a predictor of knowledge sharing, mediated
by ESM use (hypothesis 3).
The fourth hypothesis stated that an employee's workload has an indirect negative effect on knowledge sharing through ESM use. A model 4 of PROCESS software by Hayes was performed to test this hypothesis. The results from PROCESS analysis showed that when controlling for age, gender, working experience, managerial position and actual amount of working hours, employee workload (b = 0.00, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.02]) is not negatively related to knowledge sharing via ESM use. Additionally, the results from the analysis showed that there are no significant relationships between employee workload (independent variable), knowledge sharing (dependent variable) and ESM use (mediator) and, thus, no indirect effect was found (see Figure 3). Therefore, based on the results, the
hypothesis 4 was not supported by the data.
Figure 3. Model of employee workload as a predictor of knowledge sharing, mediated by
The fifth hypothesis stated that managerial autonomy support moderates the relationship between the need for 5a) autonomy, 5b) competence, and 5c) relatedness and ESM use. All 3 hypotheses were tested by performing a mediation analysis via PROCESS software of Hayes (model=1). The moderation analysis was run in order to test whether managerial autonomy support moderates the effect of 5a) autonomy, 5b) competence, and 5c) relatedness as an independent variable on ESM use as a dependent variable, controlling for age, gender, working experience, managerial position and actual amount of working hours. The results of the moderation analysis showed no significant interaction effect for all 3 hypotheses (see Figure 4). Specifically, the moderation analysis revealed that the relationship between ESM use and “autonomy” (b = -0.04, SE = 0.13, t = -0.34, p = .74, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21]), “competence” (b = -0.32, SE = 0.25, t = -1.32, p = .19, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.16]), or “relatedness” (b = -0.26, SE = 0.19, t = -1.34, p = .18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.12]) was not
moderated by managerial autonomy support. Therefore, based on the results, the hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5c were not supported by the data. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 1 in Appendix D.
Figure 4. Model of a) autonomy, b) competence, and c) as a predictor of ESM use as
Discussion and Conclusion
This research was focused on the use of enterprise social software application inside a multinational technology and consulting organization in the Czech Republic. The main purpose of this study was to provide an insight into variables that can influence ESM use and to explore the effects of the usage on work-related outcomes. Specifically, the author
proposed a model where intrinsic motivations (satisfaction of needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness), organizational norms and employees’ workload influence ESM use and, through that, affect knowledge sharing and organizational identification. The model was based on previous literature. Nevertheless, the statistical analyses showed that the model did not fit the data. Therefore, as a result of this, it was found that all the proposed hypotheses were not supported.
Theoretical Implications
However, despite the fact all the hypotheses were rejected, a few significant relationships have been found. The data provided evidence that satisfying basic needs, in particular autonomy and relatedness promotes knowledge sharing. In other words, if employees have their needs satisfied, they are more likely to share their knowledge with others. These findings expand on Gagné and Deci (2005) who argued that satisfaction of basic psychological needs strengthens employees’ intrinsic motivations which, in turn, leads to better work outcomes. Specifically, Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen, and Reinholt (2009) have found that autonomy satisfaction positively contributes to knowledge sharing. With regards to relatedness, the data from this study indicated that the satisfaction of relatedness is associated with knowledge sharing. As already mentioned, the basic idea behind intrinsic motivations is that people enjoy doing various activities without any reward (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In support of this statement, Lin (2007) presented a finding which argued that employees who feel that their knowledge can help others, and also gain enjoyment from helping others, are
more inclined to share their knowledge with their colleagues. Helping others is, in this case, seen as a fulfilment of relatedness.
Following a previous study conducted on knowledge sharing (Ardichvili et. al., 2003), the present study also confirmed that information sharing norms, which are norms perceived by employees towards knowledge sharing, are positively associated with knowledge sharing.
The study has not found any support for the relationship between knowledge sharing and employees’ workload or its indirect effect via ESM use and neither revealed any
connection regarding the organizational identification. Practical Implications
Before conducting the quantitative research, the author of this study received contradicting opinions about the use of ESM from both the managers interviewed. It was obvious, according to the interviewees, that some employees have a very good comprehension of the software and they make use of it on a daily basis. On the other hand, the interviewees also stated that part of the management admitted their concerns that the software is generally not used much. However, there was no statistical data which would confirm or challenge this assumption. Hence, one of the primary reasons why the company was interested in this research was to explore employees’ behavior towards the ESM use. The measurement on the scale of ESM use revealed that employees of the researched organization on average do not make use of their company social platform (ESM). It was found in the survey that employees are, in most cases, dissatisfied with the software or they do not have a full understanding of it and do not know how to use it properly. Almost half of employees (49 percent) stated that they would appreciate training in order to use the software more effectively. Several
employees said that they have not been using the platform because it lacks intuitiveness and simplicity of use and it is significantly slow. Some even stated it is meaningless to keep using it when the majority of the company personnel do not.
It is suggested that an organization should put a lot of effort into marketing their ESM. They should not take it for granted that nowadays to use social media is a trend. If employees do not see the point of it, they will not use it. Additionally, it seems to be very necessary to provide a proper training and support with regards to any new software introduced in a company. Last, but not least, the management should consistently listen to their employees in order to find out whether the software has some issues.
Limitations and Future Research
This study encountered several limitations. Due to the low utilization of the platform, it was not possible to fully test the proposed model. Therefore, it is suggested that future studies should first conduct a survey in the form of a pre-test which will show the level of ESM use in an organization. Secondly, the relatively low response rate could have resulted in insufficient statistical power, and thus bias the results. Nonetheless, given the relatively satisfactory comparison with the total population in the organization (proportion of men and women), this should not be considered as a major limitation. Thirdly, the use of a quantitative study can be seen as a limitation because restricted or even superficial data could have been collected. In particular, in questionnaires people sometimes cannot find a concise answer and therefore they choose the closest matching. It therefore might be useful to conduct a
qualitative study for revealing complexity and deeper understanding of various motivations and of organizational circumstances relevant for ESM use. A final limitation of this research was the fact that it was carried out as a cross-sectional study. The disadvantage of such a study is that it is a snapshot of a situation that it is carried out at one point, and therefore, results from such a study might differ if measured in a different period of time. Very typical for a cross-sectional study is its low response rate and moreover the fact that sometimes it is hard to determine the causality of some variables.
The study was designed as a case study based on data from only one branch, even though the company operates around the world and generally has over 300,000 employees. Future research could consider whether it would be useful to use the results from a branch of the company using ESM extensively as a best case for other branches of the same company. However, this will be of practical use to the organization commissioning the research rather than form the basis of an academic submission.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this research has tried to provide a comprehensive analysis of what influences ESM use and explores some connections to knowledge sharing and organization identification. Despite the fact that the impact of intrinsic motivations on the ESM use was not proven, it is believed that the study contributed to the existing literature by affirming previous studies especially on knowledge sharing. Nevertheless, ESM is still a very young topic and a very new area for research and, thus, it is hoped that some of the proposed connections from this study will be further researched. Numerous studies have explored the advantages of ESM for organizations, however not many have investigated whether the use of ESM is beneficial or not for employees themselves. Additionally, a few studies have also paid attention to how the data from ESM could be used for explaining organizational behavior and it is clear that these areas could provide fruitful directions for future research on ESM.
References
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 7(1), 64-77. doi:10.1108/13673270310463626
Ashforth, B., Harrison, S., & Corley, K. (2008). Identification in organizations: An
examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374. doi:10.1177/0149206308316059
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work Settings. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(10), 2045-2068. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x
Back, A., & Koch, M. (2011). Broadening participation in knowledge management in enterprise 2.0. Information Technology, 53(3), 135-141.
Bartels, J., Peters, O., de Jong, M., Pruyn, A., & van der Molen, M. (2010). Horizontal and vertical communication as determinants of professional and organisational
identification. Personnel Review, 39(2), 210-226. doi:10.1108/00483481011017426 Blais, M. R., & Brière, N. M. (2002). On the meditational role of feelings of
self-determination in the workplace: Further evidence and generalization. Unpublished manuscript, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Cialdini, R. B. (1988). Influence: Science and practice (2nd ed). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
Cialdini,R. D. (2003) Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current
Directions Political Science, 12(4), 105–109. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01242
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization.
Journal of applied psychology, 74(4), 580.
DiMicco, J., Millen, D. R., Geyer, W., Dugan, C., Brownholtz, B., & Muller, M. (2008, November). Motivations for social networking at work. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 711-720. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460674
Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-239. doi:10.2307/2393235 Ellison, N., Gibbs, J., & Weber, M. (2015). The use of enterprise social network sites for
knowledge sharing in distributed organizations: The role of organizational affordances.
American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 103-123. doi:10.1177/0002764214540510
Engelstätter, B., & Sarbu, M. (2013). Why adopt social enterprise software? Impacts and benefits. Information Economics and Policy, 25(3), 204-213.
doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2012.12.001
Foss, N. J., Minbaeva, D. B., Pedersen, T., & Reinholt, M. (2009). Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: How job design matters. Human Resource Management.
48(6), 871-893. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20320
Fuller, J. (2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59(6), 815-846.
doi:10.1177/0018726706067148
Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322
Hall, D., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 176-190. doi:10.2307/2391488
Huysman, M., & Wit, D. (2004). Practices of managing knowledge sharing: Towards a
second wave of knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(2), 81-92. doi:10.1002/kpm.192
Jarrahi, M. H., & Sawyer, S. (2013). Social technologies, informal knowledge practices, and the enterprise. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 23(1-2), 110-137.
Kane, G. C., & Fichman, R. G. (2009). The shoemaker's children: Using wikis for
information systems teaching, research, and publication. MIS Quarterly, 33, 1-22. Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating
space for change in complex systems. Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension, 17(1), 21-36. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2011.536344
Leonardi, P., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1-19. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12029
Lin, H. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135-149.
doi:10.1177/0165551506068174
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103-123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202
Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G., & Azad, B. (2013). The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 38-55. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12030
McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration. IEEE Engineering
Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2011). Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), 110-121.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 538-550. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.5.538.15204
Paroutis, S., & Saleh, A. (2009). Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 52-63.
doi:10.1108/13673270910971824
Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a Central Network Position Isn't Enough: The Role of Motivation and Ability for Knowledge Sharing in Employee Networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1277-1297. doi:
10.5465/amj.2009.0007
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66(2), 358-384. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. Scott, J. & Marshall G. (2009). A dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press Serban, A., & Luan, J. (2002). An overview of knowledge management. New Directions for
Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., & Ades, Y. (2000). Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations-a semiotic approach to information systems design. Behaviour
& Information Technology, 19(1), 15-27.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication
yearbook, 36, 143-189.
Trimi, S., & Galanxhi, H. (2014). The impact of Enterprise 2.0 in organizations. Service
Business, 8(3), 405-424. doi:10.1007/s11628-014-0246-x
Williams, G., & Deci, E. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767-779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767
Yu, D., Lee, D., & Woo, J. (2004). Issues and challenges of instrument translation. Western
Appendix A
Table A1 ESM frequency of use
Rotated component matrix Factor
1 Factor 2
ESM Use - Wiki .834
ESM Use - Communities .833
ESM Use - Files .713
ESM Use - Forums .576
ESM Use - Activities .571
ESM Use - Sending messages .906
ESM Use - Profiles .703
Appendix C
Table C1 Mediation analysis for hypothesis 1a, 1b and 1c (N=101)
path a path b path c path c' Indirect effect of X on Y
b SE t p b SE t p b SE t p b SE t p b SE LLCI ULCI
Model 1 (H1a) -0.02 0.13 -0.13 .90 -0.04 0.07 -0.56 .575 0.25 0.10 2.59 .012 0.25 0.10 2.57 .012 0.00 0.01 -0.02 0.03 Model 2 (H1b) -0.16 0.16 -1.03 .308 -0.04 0.08 -0.47 .643 0.13 0.12 1.11 .271 0.13 0.12 1.05 .297 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.06 Model 3 (H1c) 0.03 0.17 0.15 .884 -0.05 0.08 -0.64 .527 0.33 0.12 2.61 .010 0.33 0.13 2.62 .010 -0.00 0.01 -0.04 0.02
Note:
Model 1: Knowledge sharing (Y), Autonomy (X), ESM use (M), Model 2: Knowledge sharing (Y), Competence (X), ESM use (M) Model 3: Knowledge sharing (Y), Relatedness (X), ESM use (M)
path a: X>M, path b: M>Y, path c: X>Y, path c': X>Y including M (direct effect)
LLCI: Lower limit of 95% confidence interval, ULCI: Upper limit of 95% confidence interval
b = unstandardized coefficient
Table C2 Mediation analysis for hypothesis 2a, 2b and 2c (N=101)
path a path b path c path c' Indirect effect of X on Y
b SE t p b SE t p b SE t p b SE t p b SE LLCI ULCI
Model 1 (H2a) -0.2 0.13 -0.13 .90 0.03 0.08 0.39 .70 0.18 0.10 1.81 .074 0.18 0.10 1.80 .075 -0.00 0.01 -0.03 0.02 Model 2 (H2b) -0.16 0.16 -1.03 .308 0.04 0.08 0.56 .578 0.21 0.12 1.84 .069 0.22 0.12 1.88 .063 -0.01 0.02 -0.08 0.02 Model 3 (H2c) 0.03 0.17 0.15 .884 0.03 0.08 0.34 .735 0.18 0.13 1.38 .170 0.18 0.13 1.37 .173 0.00 0.02 -0.03 0.04
Note:
Model 1: Organizational identification (Y), Autonomy (X), ESM use (M), Model 2: Organizational identification (Y), Competence (X), ESM use (M) Model 3: Organizational identification (Y), Relatedness (X), ESM use (M)
path a: X>M, path b: M>Y, path c: X>Y, path c': X>Y including M (direct effect)
LLCI: Lower limit of 95% confidence interval, ULCI: Upper limit of 95% confidence interval
Appendix D
Table D1 Moderation analysis H5a, 5b, 5c - linear models of predictors of ESM use (N=101)
b SE t p LLCI ULCI Model 1 (H5a) constant 3.42 0.53 6.49 .000 2.37 4.46 MAS 0.13 0.13 0.10 .327 -0.14 0.40 autonomy -0.10 0.17 -0.60 .549 -0.43 0.23 MAS x autonomy -0.04 0.13 -0.34 .736 -0.30 0.21 Model 2 (H5b) constant 3.29 0.51 6.51 .000 2.29 4.29 MAS 0.19 0.12 -1.50 .137 -0.06 0.43 competence -0.32 0.19 -1.72 .089 -0.69 0.05 MAS x competence -0,32 0.25 -1.32 .191 -0.81 0.16 Model 3 (H5c) constant 3.40 0.50 6.78 .000 2.40 4.39 MAS 0.12 0.12 0.97 .333 -0.13 0.38 relatedness -0.11 0.19 -0.61 .540 -0.48 0.26 MAS x relatedness -0.26 0.19 -1.34 .184 -0.64 0.12 Note:
Model 1: R2 = 0.05, autonomy (X), MAS (M), ESM use (Y) Model 2: R2= 0.09, competence (X), MAS (M), ESM use (Y) Model 3: R2= 0.06, relatedness (X), MAS (M), ESM use (Y)
LLCI: Lower limit of 95% confidence interval, ULCI: Upper limit of 95% confidence interval MAS = managerial autonomy support
1
Since the whole study is strictly anonymous, the name of the software used in the organization is replaced by the term “ESM” or "ESM Software" throughout the whole paper (particularly in Appendix E and F).
Appendix E Informed Consent Dear Madam or Sir,
You are invited to participate in a survey to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam.
The title of the study for which I am requesting your cooperation is “Enterprise Social Media:
The Impact of Employee Motivations on Knowledge Sharing and Organizational Identification”. By means of a survey, this study investigates if you are using the ESM
software1 or not and what the reasons and outcomes are of this (non)use. The aim of this study is to get a better understanding of this software and why employees are (not) using it. The study will take 10-15 minutes to complete.
Because ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, is responsible for this research you have the guarantee that:
1. Your anonymity is guaranteed and your answers or information will never be provided to third parties, unless you have given explicit permission in advance.
2. You can withdraw yourself as a study participant at any moment, without giving a reason. Even afterwards (within 24 hours after participation), you can withdraw your
permission to use your responses or information for the study.
3. Participation in this study does not hold significant risk or inconvenience, it does not entail willful deceit, and you will not be confronted with explicit offensive material.
4. You can receive the overall results of the study no later than five months after the end of the study, including a research report.
Please read and respond to the following statement:
Hereby, I declare to be informed clearly about the nature and method of this study. I agree voluntarily to participate. I reserve the right to withdraw this consent without providing a reason. I realize that I can stop participating at any time during the study.
If my research results are used in a scientific paper, or made public in other ways, this will happen completely anonymously. My personal data will not be viewed by third parties without my explicit consent.
If I want more information, now or in the future, I can contact Adela Peskova
(apeskova@me.com). For any complaints about this study, I can turn to the members of the Ethics Committee of ASCoR, per address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
We hope we have informed you adequately and thank you in advance for your participation in this study. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which we greatly appreciate.
Kind regards, Adela Peskova
Appendix F Questionnaire A. Self-determination – basic psychological needs
The following questions concern your feelings about your job. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements given your experiences on this job. Please use the following scale in responding to the items.
Scale: 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree 1. I feel like I can make a lot of inputs to deciding how my job gets done. 2. I really like the people I work with.
3. I do not feel very competent when I am at work. 4. People at work tell me I am good at what I do. 5. I feel pressured at work.
6. I get along with people at work.
7. I pretty much keep to myself when I am at work. 8. I am free to express my ideas and opinions on the job. 9. I consider the people I work with to be my friends. 10. I have been able to learn interesting new skills on my job. 11. When I am at work, I have to do what I am told.
12. Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from working. 13. My feelings are taken into consideration at work.
14. On my job I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am. 15. People at work care about me.
16. There are not many people at work that I am close to. 17. I feel like I can pretty much be myself at work. 18. The people I work with do not seem to like me much. 19. When I am working I often do not feel very capable.
20. There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to go about my work.
21. People at work are pretty friendly towards me.
B. Enterprise social media use
Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements. Please use the following scale in responding to the items.
Scale: 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree “I use the ESM software to …”
post updates on work projects.
arrange meetings with colleagues about work projects (Activity).
share information with colleagues about organizational objectives (blog, wiki). share information about organizational policies and procedures with colleagues. organize my work (Communities, wifi, forums).
C. ESM frequency use
Please estimate the overall frequency with which you have used each of the following component of the ESM software over the previous working week:
Scale: 1 2 3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes/Occasionally Almost every day Every day Activities
Blogs (adding/reading posts) Bookmarks Communities Events Files Forums Sending messages Profiles Status updates Wiki
Other function (please specify)
Please indicate what you would like to have in order to use the ESM software in a more efficient way.
Answers: (multiple) option Training
Video tutorials Guidelines
Other: please specify
D. Perceived Management Support
The following questions concern your feelings about your management/supervisor. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements. Please use the following scale in responding to the items.
Scale: 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree 1. I feel that my manager provides me choices and options.
2. I feel understood by my manager.
3. My manager conveyed confidence in my ability to do well at my job. 4. My manager encouraged me to ask questions.
5. My manager listens to how I would like to do things.
6. My manager tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way to do things.
E. Workload
Please indicate to what extent you agree with following statements. Please use the following scale in responding to the items.
Scale: 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree 1. I feel I have more work to do than I have time for.
2. I have no time to learn new competencies. 3. Work pressure is too high to allow learning.
F. Information sharing norms
Please indicate to what extent you agree with following statements. Please use the following scale in responding to the items.
Scale: 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree
1. When I learn something new, I tell my colleagues of my department about it. 2. I share my skills with other colleagues of my department.
3. It's a normal thing for me to provide my knowledge to other colleagues of my department.
4. I ask other colleagues of my department what they know about job-related matters.
5. I ask other colleagues of my department about their job-related skills.
6. It's a normal thing for me to ask job-related questions from other colleagues of my department.
G. Knowledge Sharing
Please indicate how strongly you (dis)agree with the following statements. Please use the following scale in responding to the items.
Scale: 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree 1. When a colleague is good at something, I ask him/her to teach me.
2. I ask my colleagues about their skills when I want to learn particular skills. 3. When I need certain knowledge, I ask my colleagues about it.
4. When I have learned something new, I make sure my colleagues learn about it too.
5. I share information that I acquired, with my colleagues. 6. I regularly inform my colleagues of what I am working on.
H. Organizational Identification
Please indicate to what extent you agree with following statements. Please use the following scale in responding to the items.
Scale: 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree
1. When someone criticizes the organization I work for, it feels like a personal insult.
2. I am very interested in what others think about the organization I work for. 3. When I talk about the organization I work for, I usually say ‘we’ rather than
‘they’.
4. Successes of the organization I work for are my successes.
5. When someone praises the organization I work forit feels like a personal compliment.
6. If a story in the media criticized the organization I work for, I would feel embarrassed. I. Background Information Department Options: 1. Finance 2. HR 3. Marketing 4. Sales & Delivery 5. STG
6. GBS
7. SW Systems (Analytics / Cloud / Security)
Current Position
Options:
1. Non-supervising employee (technician, sales, pre-sales, assistant…) 2. Team leader
3. Manager 4. Director
Do you manage people? (0=no, 1=yes) Question appears only if an answer to the
previous question is 3 or 4.
How long have you worked for this organization? (in years).
How many hours per week do you work for this organization, according to your contract? Please fill in the number of hours.
How many hours do you actually work per week in your job at this organization?
Please fill in the number of hours. (Count overtime without commuting and holidays)
Please indicate your age (in years).
Please indicate your gender (0=male, 1=female).
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Options: 1. Less than high school 2. High school
3. Higher education 4. Bachelor degree 5. Master degree 6. Doctoral degree
