Exploring the Role of Social Networks in Employee Participation and the Effect of Social Business Software

Exploring the Role of Social Networks in Employee

Participation and the Effect of Social Business Software

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business MSc in Business Administration Strategic Innovation Management

Date: August 2012

Author: Jeroen Elfrink

Student number: 1334220

Abstract

Although studies have pointed out that employee participation can be attributed to job characteristics and managerial support, few studies have examined the influence of social networks. This paper argues that network centrality in the social network has a positive effect on employee participation. Furthermore, in order to gain a more central position in social networks studies have pointed out that sharing of information and knowledge can lead to this effect. Limited attention has been given to the means which can be used for sharing. Therefore this study examines a new phenomenon, social business software. This research finds out that network centrality in both networks have a positive effect on employee participation. Furthermore usage of social business software positively influences the effect that network centrality in the formal network has on employee participation. Contradictory to assumptions the effect of network centrality in the informal network on participation is negatively influenced.

Table of Contents

Abstract ... 2

1. Introduction ... 4

2. Literature Review ... 6

2.1 Participation ... 6

2.2 Social Network Perspective ... 6

2.3 Network Centrality ... 7

2.4 Information and Knowledge Sharing ... 7

1. Introduction

In the past few decades, employee participation has gained attention as companies attempt to gain or maintain a competitive advantage over their competitors and in order to increase performance (Kuipers and Stoker 2009, Riordan et al. 2005). New forms of communication tools have been developed in order to enhance employee participation. Among the most recent ones is enterprise social collaboration software.

In the coming years enterprise social collaboration software and related services are predicted to become a $6.4 billion market in 2016 according to a rapport by Henry Dewing et al. (2011) for Forrester Research. In 2011 the spending on enterprise social collaboration software was about $600 million. This means there is an annual growth predicted of around 61%. No wonder software companies see potential in this social business software market. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that in June 2012 Microsoft acquired Yammer for the price of $1.2 billion. Yammer, which launched in 2008, was one of the first companies to build a comprehensive online social collaboration platform to be used by enterprises. Yammer is designed for company collaboration, file sharing, knowledge exchange and team efficiency, which are the key factors in social business software. This all happens online, making the software accessible from anywhere in the world where one has an internet connection available. Management teams and employees worldwide see a great potential in the usage of this new form of business communication. Yammer clearly filled a gap and more and more users adopted their software solution which can be used for free. Within just three years Yammer exceeded four million users and is used by more than 200,000 companies worldwide. Microsoft saw their potential and acquired Yammer to be part of their new Microsoft Office 365 software package, allowing them to tap into the market of social networking.

But does the promise of this new form of business communication live up to its expectations? Does it indeed enhance participation by offering employees a platform for interaction, sharing knowledge and information and allowing them to collaborate? Studies into this field are scarce as this form of business communication is still rather new. A study by Denyer et al (2011) at a large multinational telecommunications company, which is commonly regarded as one of the leading proponents in social networking, showed that not all expectations regarding the benefits of social business software were met there.

The use of modern social media, such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, are becoming an important way for people to share their knowledge, their interests and their thoughts. Their social participation increases because it is easier to get in contact with friends and they have a way to show their contacts what they are interested in, communicate directly with them and be able to share content. The time people spent on these social media sites is increasing rapidly and has the potential to keep on growing.

Bringing this back to an organizational context, the concept of social business is gaining more and more acceptance as well. In the more traditional way, social media like Facebook and Twitter are used as a tool for marketing and engaging in conversations with customers. It builds upon the relationship companies want to build up with their customers in order to be or to stay top-of-mind. Furthermore there is an interactive learning possibility as well, as companies get a chance to actually interact with their customers in a more direct way than in traditional market research.

The potential of an internal online social network for companies is getting more attention in literature as well. Being able to share knowledge, interests and thoughts in a business context can be beneficial to both the company and the employee. The employee has a chance to find out and be updated more easily about what is happening in the organization, whereas the company, or better said the management, has a clearer view about the issues rising in the organization.

Furthermore there is the potential of online collaboration by institutionalizing work groups around different subjects and or projects. The latter is better known in literature as a virtual team. Being able to communicate, transfer knowledge and share documents in this context makes working together more easily than without this shared online work space. Also it overcomes the difficulties with teams being geographically dispersed, as the team members have to meet face-to-face less often. Virtual collaboration enhances the possibilities for a company and teams to access documents, slides, notes, but also to engage in communication with colleagues. For an employee being able to represent himself/herself as an expert on certain areas allows them to be found more easily by colleagues struggling with issues regarding the expert area at hand.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Participation

It is argued that in order to gain a competitive advantage and a better company performance, employee participation plays an important role (Kuipers and Stoker 2009, Riordan et al. 2005). When employees understand and believe that their opinions are heard and considered in making decisions which involve them, they tend to perform better. This has to do with matters like sense of ownership and feeling that he or she has control over how the company acts. Employee participation in the context of this research is seen as the degree to which employees share information and knowledge and are involved in decision making.

When looking at employee participation it is clear that there are different factors influencing the dissemination of knowledge and information through a company’s social network. With whom employee’s share knowledge and information can be made visible by analyzing the social network of the company (Borgatti and Foster 2003). Management is trying to get their employees to participate more in the transfer of information and knowledge, but should not forget that in order for this to happen they themselves have to participate in the sharing of knowledge and information as well. They are just as much a part of the company’s social network as their employees. There is a distinct role for management in getting their employees to participate in the sharing of information and knowledge (Park and Rainey 2007).

2.2 Social Network Perspective

Analyzing a company from a social network perspective has the advantage over focusing on individual attributes that it emphasizes the relationships among actors. It allows for better understanding the way an actor (e.g. individual, group or company) behaves rather than understanding the actors themselves (Borgatti and Foster 2003, Brass et al. 2004). This focus assumes that employees are interdependent actors whose behaviors, like participation, are largely embedded in social networks which provide opportunities and constraints on the behavior they express (Borgatti and Foster 2003, Brass et al. 2004).

Burkhardt and Brass (1990) studied the effect of technology change on social network structure and power in companies. They concluded that the structure of the social network is affected by the change in technology. This was due to the fact that early adopters of the technology were likely to attain a more central position in the social network and with that a gain in power in the company. Therefore early adoption of the change in technology is considered to affect an employee’s position in the social network of the company and that it influences their rate of participation.

and informal contacts (Ibarra 1993, Gulati and Puranam 2009). The difference between these two is that a formal network consists of organizationally mandated relations, where an informal network consists mainly of emergent relations.

2.3 Network Centrality

When an employee has a more central position the employee has ties to a multitude of coworkers. Therefore the employee has better and more opportunities to access the knowledge of its coworkers, but a central position by itself is not enough (Reinholt et al. 2011). A study by Morrison (2002) suggests that it is likely for an employee to feel a greater sense of belonging to the particular organization, because he or she is attached to many other coworkers due to the higher network centrality. Moreover, a more central position in a company allows an employee to be more socially autonomous and to be less emotionally dependent (Ibarra and Andrews 1993). A research by Suh et al. (2011) indicated that effective use of computer mediated communication, under which social business software can be categorized, has the potential to develop an employee’s position in the social network of the company. This research therefore also considers the mediating role of social business software on an employees’ centrality in the formal and informal social network.

2.4 Information and Knowledge Sharing

Information and knowledge sharing between employees provide opportunities for mutual learning as Huber (1991) found out. Hansen (2002) concluded in his research that this mutual learning in turn might result in better and improved organizational performance. As Podolny (2001) examined in his article on networks as the pipes and prisms of the market there are two ways of looking at information and knowledge sharing in networks. When looking at the network as a pipe, information and knowledge flow from one actor to another and do not get dispersed to others. When seeing information and knowledge transfer as a prism, information and knowledge are available to multiple actors at the same time and are dispersed in a way that facilitates access to this information and knowledge. This view connects with facilitating participation as described previously as it envisions a distribution network.

than having to find the right person who has the information or knowledge required. Suh et al. (2011) found out that usage of computer mediated communication tools have a positive effect on an employee’s social network and with that giving them more ties to coworkers.

It can also be argued that usage of social media like Facebook and Twitter might have a positive moderating effect on using social business software. A research by Denyer et al. (2011) suggests that individual cognition plays an important role in adopting Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Therefore this research also looks for the moderating role of previous knowledge about social tools in using social business software.

2.5 Conceptual Model

In this research the focus is on the influence of an employee’s social network on participation and what effect the usage of social business software has on this relationship. Putting these variables together, the conceptual model is constructed (see Figure 1). The hypotheses that will be tested in this research are:

H1a; Network centrality in the informal network has a positive effect on employee participation. H1b; Network centrality in the formal network has a positive effect on employee participation.

H2a; Actively using social business software has a positive moderating effect on the effect that network centrality in the informal network has on participation.

H2b; Actively using social business software has a positive moderating effect on the effect that network centrality in the formal network has on participation.

H3; Active use of Social Media has a positive moderating effect on the moderating effect that using Social Business Software has on the effect of network centrality on participation.

Central position in social network Usage of Social

Media

Active use of Social Business Software

Participation

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

H3 +

H2ab +

3. Methodology

3.1 Organization

The focus of this research is on the effect of using social business software on the social network of employees at an organization. In the city of Groningen a company is located called Embrace Social Business Software (from here on called Embrace) for which the research was needed to find out the effects of the implementation of the software they build and distribute. They want to find out in which way their software affects the social network of employees and how this correlates to the participation of employees. Embrace consists of ten employees and uses its own social business software as well for internal communication and online collaboration. Formed in 2010, the company has its focus on introducing and implementing its social business software in order to help a company better structure its communication and collaboration between employees. The goal of communication and collaboration is mainly about making use of knowledge and skills already present in companies according to Erik Dokter, managing consultant at Embrace.

Together with Embrace this research was formed and a company using their software was selected to conduct the research. This company was instituted in February 2012 as a result of the merger of two web development organizations. They operate from two different locations as one is based in the city of Groningen and one in the city of Sneek. The two locations are about equally sized in employees. In total the company has 37 employees which are about equally distributed over the two locations. The organization specializes in developing web applications, websites and intranets, mainly based on social intranets, e-participation and Microsoft Sharepoint integration. Their customers are mainly governments, housing corporations and health care institutions. After the merger they started using social business software together in order to share knowledge, enhance collaboration and get a more effective way of communicating. In Groningen they were already using the social business software before the merger. They were one of the first customers and have been involved greatly in its development. After the merger the employees from the location in Sneek were also integrated into this system. Previously they did not communicate with each other with this new form of communication. Over the course of the last five months the social business software of Embrace was used by both companies.

3.2 Data collection

five-point Likert scale to indicate how participative the employees are according to them. Results from these interviews are compared to the results from the e-survey where employees mapped their contacts in their formal and informal network. Furthermore the e-survey collected data about the usage of the social media and social business software, whether users perceive the usage of social business software as an important plus in their work and what they like and dislike about the software. The e-survey was sent to the e-mail addresses of the employees and a link to the e-survey was posted on the general micro blog of the company’s version of Embrace. Those who did not fill in the survey within three days were reminded again with a new e-mail and another post on the general micro blog, specifically addressing the employees in question as this is possible with the software. The employees got two notices in once this way. It was thought that this would pose an extra incentive for employees to fill in the survey as they were exposed as not yet having filled in the survey. In the interviews with the managers it was emphasized that for a valid analysis of the social network it was important for all employees to fill in the form. They were all asked to encourage their employees to fill it in. Unfortunately due to holidays two respondents did not fill in the survey resulting in 35 respondents, which is a 95% response rate. In Table 1 the demographics of the research group are presented, which also serve as the control variables of the research. Gender was selected because a research by Spitzberg in 2006 indicated that males are more likely to adopt social tools used in business settings than females. Age was selected because younger people have grown up with computers and have been known to use them from very early on in their lives. It is therefore more likely that they will have fewer drawbacks against using social tools and sharing of knowledge and information online. Education was selected because people with higher education are more likely to be seen as experts and are therefore they are more likely to participate in knowledge sharing and decision-making. Tenure was selected because employees who have been at the company longer know more about the company and have had time to build up their networks.

Demographic variables Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Gender Male Female 4 31 11.4 88.6 Age (years) 20s 30s 40s 16 16 3 45.7 45.7 8.6 Education (Dutch system) Middelbare school

3.3 Measures

Figure 3: Formal Network

The dependent variable is employee participation. This was measured by asking the three managers to score their employees on participation on a 5-point Likert-scale going from low (1) to below

average (2) to average (3) to above average (4) to high (5). The individual scores per manager of each

employee were then added and divided by three, resulting in a list with the average score per employee which was used in the analysis. For measuring usage of social business software employees and managers were asked about the frequency they use it and when they use it what they are doing. For measuring usage of social media the same questions were asked. After that the employees and managers were divided into three categories. These categories were derived from a research done by Forrester by Bernoff (2010). The selection of three out of seven of the categories was done, because these were the three categories in which the employees could be grouped best regarding social business software.

Category Definition

Spectator Reads blogs, wikis, threads and other posts from other users. Checks new information when it is posted, but rarely updates status or engages in conversation.

Conversationalist Reads blogs, wikis, threads and other posts from other users and reacts to them as well. Updates status frequently and contributes to ongoing discussions or conversations. Creator Creates blogs and wikis and is engaged in contributing knowledge and information to

4. Analysis

For the analysis of the data the statistical program SPSS for Windows was used. SPSS was used to employ linear regression to the collected data and to check for correlations between the data collected. As can be seen in Figure 4, a significant correlation was found between participation on the one hand and usage of social business software, in-degree centrality in the informal social network and the formal social network on the other hand. Also a significant correlation between usage of social business software and usage of social media was found, whereas also the centrality in the informal network was influenced by the usage of social business software. Furthermore there was a significant correlation found between the formal network and the informal network.

For the analysis of hypotheses 1a and 1b linear regression was employed and participation was the dependent variable. Four models were tested this way and the results of these tests are shown in Figure 5. The results from Model 1 indicate that the control variables used have no significant effects on employee participation. This means that gender, age, education and tenure have no significant effect on employee participation. Model 2 indicates that the centrality of the position of an employee in the informal social network has a significant effect on their participation in the company as indicated by their managers. Model 3 suggests the same for the centrality of the position of an employee in the formal social network. That too significantly influences their participation. In Model 4 it can be seen that when the informal and the formal social network are taken together, the centrality of an employee’s position in the informal social network has a significant effect on participation, whereas there is no more significant result from the formal network. This indicates that

Participation SocialBusiness SocialMedia Informal Social Network Formal Social Network Participation Pearson Correlation 1 0.476** 0.275 0.646** 0.596** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.116 0.000 0.000 N 35 35 35 35 35 SocialBusiness Pearson Correlation 0.476** 1 0.462** 0.573** 0.333 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.054 N 35 35 35 35 35 SocialMedia Pearson Correlation 0.275 0.462** 1 0.337 0.095 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.116 0.006 0.051 0.594 N 35 35 35 35 35 InformalSocial Network Pearson Correlation 0.646** 0.573** 0.337 1 0.726** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 N 35 35 35 35 35 FormalSocial Network Pearson Correlation 0.596** 0.333 0.095 0.726** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.054 0.594 0.000 N 35 35 35 35 35

Control var. Gender Age Education Tenure 0.084 (0.455) -0.140 (-0.684) -0.266 (-1.498) 0.266 (1.313) 0.048 (0.316) -0.013 (0.077) -0.113 (-0.754) 0.035 (0.201) -0.020 (-0.124) -0.007 (-0.041) -0.124 (-0.803) -0.140 (-0.679) 0.007 (0.047) 0.013 (0.076) -0.091 (-0.614) -0.095 (-0.480) 0.043 (0.279) 0.040 (0.234) -0.091 (-0.613) -0.078 (-0.393) 0.076 (0.461) 0.031 (0.180) -0.090 (-0.598) -0.079 (-0.397) 0.030 (0.189) 0.030 (0.174) -0.108 (-0.704) -0.081 (-0.406) 0.136 (0.856) -0.065 (-0.379) -0.187 (-1.247) -0.109 (-0.577) 0.138 (0.858) -0.062 (-0.356) -0.203 (-1.323) -0.104 (-0.540) 0.136 (0.826) -0.058 (-0.316) -0.197 (-1.143) 0.108 (-0.532) 0.129 (0.776) -0.054 (-0.303) -0.185 (-1.104) -0.115 (-0.576) 0.114 (0.669) -0.091 (-0.476) -0.212 (-1.201) -0.084 (-0.399) Independent var. Informal network Formal network Social business SB*INF SB*FOR Social media SM*SB*INF SM*SB*FOR - - - - - - - - 0.612*** (3.933) - - - - - - - - 0.645*** (3.559) - - - - - - 0.414* (1.969) 0.325 (1.373) - - - - - - 0.288 (1.206) 0.339 (1.435) 0.195 (1.088) - - - - - 0.532 (1.175) 0.360 (1.492) 0.557 (0.933) -0.557 (-0.636) - - - - 0.287 (1.183) 0.130 (0.289) -0.164 (-0.241) - 0.476 (0.546) - - - 1.555** (2.320) -0.806 (-1.278) -0.068 (-0.106) -2.925* (-2.013) 2.862* (1.984) - - - 1.556** (2.293) -0.805 (-1.262) -0.095 (-0.145) 3.005* (-2.037) 2.916* (1.994) 0.105 (0.658) - - 1.530* (2.014) -0.783 (-1.114) -0.102 (-0.152) -2.908 (-1.533) 2.873* (1.820) 0.132 (0.364) -0.059 (-0.083) - 1.466* (1.956) -0.724 (-1.032) -0.123 (-0.182) -2.793 (-1.690) 2.887* 1.932 0.211 (0.561) - -0.205 (-0.312) 1.532* (1.990) -0.751 (-1.052) -0.118 (-0.172) -3.664 (-1.620) 3.575* (1.849) 0.200 (0.522) 1.161 (0.575) -1.215 (-0.646) N Adj. R2 F 35 -0.007 0.939 35 0.328 4.220*** 35 0.282 3.586*** 35 0.348 3.941*** 35 0.353 3.571*** 35 0.338 3.103** 35 0.335 3.077** 35 0.407 3.520*** 35 0.393 3.136** 35 0.366 2.729** 35 0.368 2.748** 35 0.348 2.470** *p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01

formal social network.

In model 5 the usage of social business software is also added to the regression. In doing so the effects of the informal and formal social network becomes insignificant. Also the effect of using social business software does not significantly influence the participation of an employee. Hypotheses 2a and 2b had to do with finding out the moderating effect of the use of social business software on the effect on participation of centrality in the informal and the formal social network. Therefore three more linear regressions were done to find out whether or not this effect could be found. In order to do find this two new variables were constructed by multiplying the variables

informal and social business (SB*INF in Figure 5) and the variables formal and social business

(SB*FOR in Figure 5). In Models 6 and 7 the separate moderating effects of using social business software on the informal and formal network are shown. These show no significant results. In model 8 these variables are put together and there it shows that the moderating effect of using social business software is positively significant with a p<.10 for the effect that centrality in the formal network has on participation. Also, for the effect of social business software usage on the effect of centrality in the informal network on participation a significant result was found with a p<.10, but this result was negative, which is contrary to expectations.

The third and last hypothesis had to do with the moderating effect of using social media. This indicates that prior knowledge about how to use social tools would have a positive effect on the effect that using social business software has on the effect of network centrality on participation. To find this effect two new variables were constructed. Social media, social business and informal were multiplied (SM*SB*INF in Figure 5) and also social media, social business and formal were multiplied (SM*SB*FOR in Figure 5). In Models 10, 11 and 12 the results of the linear regression are presented. These results indicate that there are no significant effects to be found.

5. Conclusions

network centrality on participation. The following hypotheses focused the research towards this goal:

H1a; Network centrality in the informal network has a positive effect on employee participation. H1b; Network centrality in the formal network has a positive effect on employee participation.

H2a; Actively using social business software has a positive moderating effect on the effect that network centrality in the informal network has on participation.

H2b; Actively using social business software has a positive moderating effect on the effect that network centrality in the formal network has on participation.

H3; Active use of Social Media has a positive moderating effect on the moderating effect that using Social Business Software has on the effect of network centrality on participation.

The results from the research support both hypotheses 1a en 1b. There was a significant positive effect of both the centrality of an employee in the formal and the informal social network on employee participation. This means that when an employee has a more central position in these social networks, they are more likely to participate. The control variables used showed no significant effects on employee participation. When both the centrality in the informal and the formal social network were taken together, the results show that only the centrality in the informal network is significantly positive towards participation. So even though the research supports hypotheses 1a and 1b, the effect of the position in the informal network has a higher positive effect than the position in the formal network.

For hypotheses 2a the results from the research show that using social business software has a slightly significant negative effect on the effect that an employees’ centrality in the informal network has on participation. This is contrary to expectations and shows that the effect of using social business software weakens instead of strengthens the effect that network centrality in the informal network has on participation. This thereby means hypothesis 2a is rejected. Hypothesis 2b suggested that the effect that network centrality in the formal network has on participation would be strengthened by using social business software. The results indicate a slightly significant positive effect, supporting hypothesis 2b. This means that the effect of using social business software strengthens the effect that a central network position in the formal network has on participation.

between these variables. This means that knowing how to use social media tools has no significant effect on the effect that using social business software has on the effect that network centrality has on participation.

In summary, hypotheses 1a, 1b en 2b are supported as opposed to hypotheses 2a and 3 which are rejected. Hypothesis 2a actually had contradicting findings after the data was analyzed, indicating that there was a negative relationship instead of a positive relationship. The analysis has resulted in some important insights. From the academic perspective the research provided insight in the relationship between an employees’ centrality in the social network and employee participation. The effect was significant for both central network position in the formal network and the informal network. With that this research contributes to growing body of literature on social network analysis and gains insight in the effect the social network has on participation. Furthermore a new business phenomenon was introduced, social business software. The research shows that using social business software can significantly affect the effect that network centrality in the formal network has on participation and that it negatively affects the effect that network centrality in the informal network has on participation. Scholars can make use of these findings in future analyses of social networks in companies. It is expected that a growing number of companies will use some form of social business communication (Dewing et al. 2011) in the future and therefore it might very well be an important factor in social network analysis in the future.

Combining the results has managerial implications as well. When managers want their employees to participate more, the research indicates that they need their employees to gain a more central position in the formal network and, more importantly, in the informal network. Introducing social business software as a new means of business communication positively affects the effect that the formal social network has on employee participation. But it must also be noted that it negatively affects the effect that the informal social network has on employee participation.

6. Discussion

needed to confirm that the findings are also supported in industries with a more evenly distributed workforce with respect to age. Also the level of education could also have biased the research to some extent, as a total of 71.5% of the employees had a college degree or higher. As was pointed out previously people with higher education are more likely to be knowledgeable about using social tools. Also, it is more likely that in the near future people are more involved in social media as the number of users is growing rapidly. The knowledge level about how to use social business software would grow that way, which might lead to more extensive and/or different use of the software.

Furthermore it remains unclear why there is a negative relationship on the effect that using social business software has on the effect that network centrality has on employee participation. Future research could focus on this to try and find factors which would explain this.

In future research about the subject it would be advisable to conduct the research at a company where social business software has not been introduced yet, mapping the formal and informal social network and the degree of participation beforehand. After the introduction the formal and informal social network could be mapped again after about six months to see what the effects of the introduction have been. It is acknowledged that this would gain a better insight into the effect of introducing social business software, but due to time constraints this research has not had the possibility of measuring levels of participation and the mapping of the formal and informal social network beforehand. Although this might have gained different insights, it is thought that the research as it is constructed now is valuable in itself, because the results indicate that network centrality in both the formal and informal social network have a positive effect on employee participation. Furthermore, the research also showed that the effect of using social business software strengthens the effect that network centrality in the formal network has on participation.

7. References

Articles

Aalbers R, Dolfsma W and Koppius O. 2012 Rich Ties and Innovative Knowledge Transfer within a Firm. School of Economics and Business, University of Groningen. Working paper

Batagelj V and Mrvar A. 1998. Pajek – Program for Large Network Analysis. Connections 21(2): 47-57 Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR and Tsai W. 2004. Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A

Multilevel Perspective. Academy of Management Journal 47(6): 795-817

Burkhardt ME and Brass DJ. 1990. Changing Patterns or Patterns of Change: The Effects of a Change in Technology on Social Network Structure and Power. Administrative Science Quarterly

35(1): 104-127

Denyer D, Parry E and Flowers P. 2011. “Social”, “Open” and “Participative”? Exploring Personal Experiences and Organisational Effects of Enterprise2.0 Use. Long Range Planning 44(5/6): 375-396

Freeman LC. 1979. Centrality in Social Networks: I. Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks 1: 215-239

Gulati R and Puranam P. 2009. Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization. Organization Science 20(2): 422-440 Hansen MT. 2002. Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit

companies. Organization Science 13(3): 232-248

Huber GP. 1991. Organizational learning: The contribution processes and the literatures.

Organization Science 2(1): 88-115

Ibarra H. 1993. Network Centrality, Power and Innovation Involvement: Determinants of Technical and Administrative Roles. Academy of Management Journal 36(3): 471-501

Ibarra H and Andrews SB. 1993. Power, Social Influence and Sense Making: Effects of Network Centrality and Proximity on Employee Perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(2): 277-303

Kuipers BS and Stoker JI. 2009. Development and performance of self-managing work teams: A theoretical and empirical examination. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management 20(2): 399-419

Mehra A, Kilduff M and Brass DJ. 2001. The social network of high and low self-monitors: implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(1): 121-146

Morrison EW. 2002. Newcomers’ Relationships: The Role of Social Network Ties during Socialization.

Academy of Management Journal 45(6): 1149-1160

Park SM and Rainey HG. 2007. Antecedents, Mediators, and Consequences of Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment: Empirical Tests of Commitment Effects in Public

Organizations. Review of Personnel Administration 27(3): 197-226

Podolny JM. 2001. Networks as the Pipes and Prisms of the Market. American Journal of Sociology

107(1): 33-60

Reinholt M, Pedersen T and Foss NJ. 2011. Why a Central Network Position Isn’t Enough: The Role of Motivation and Ability for Knowledge Sharing in Employee Networks. Academy of

Riordan CM, Vandenberg RJ and Richardson HA. 2005. Employee involvement climate and organizational effectiveness. Human Resource Management 44(4): 471-488 Schulz M. 2003. Pathways of Relevance: Exploring inflows of knowledge into subunits of

multinational corporations. Organization Science 14(4): 440-459

Spitzberg BH. 2006. Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2): 629-666

Suh A, Shin K-S, Ahuja M and Kim MS. 2011. Networks Within and Across Work Groups: A Multilevel Approach. Journal of Management Information Systems 28(1): 351-386

Umphress E, Labianca G, Brass DJ, Kass E, Scholten L. 2003. The Role of Instrumental and Expressive Social Ties in Employees’ Perceptions of Organizational Justice. Organization Science 14(6): 738-753

Online

Bernoff J. 2010. Social Technographics: Conversationlists get onto the ladder. July 28th 2012

http://forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2010/01/conversationalists-get-onto-the-ladder.html Dewing H, McCarthy JC, Mines C, Schadler T and Yamnitsky M. 2011. Social Enterprise Apps Redefine

Collaboration – An Information Workplace Report. July 14th 2012

Appendix 1

Interviewschema VincisAqtion MT

Introductie

Voorstellen

Inleiding over onderzoek Doel van het interview Globale opzet

Benadrukken anonimiteit

Toestemming vragen om gesprek op te nemen VincisAqtion

1. Wat zijn de kernwaarden van VincisAqtion?

2. Hoe ziet u de nabije toekomst van VincisAqtion? Waar worden pijlen op gericht?

3. Als u per direct een verandering door zou kunnen voeren binnen VincisAqtion, wat zou u dan veranderen?

4. Wat voor rol ziet u in de toekomst voor de werknemers van VincisAqtion weggelegd qua participatie? (meer betrokken bij beslissingen, verbinding op sociaal intranet, ruimte voor kennisdeling)

Embrace software, doel en gebruik

1. Wat is voor u het doel van het gebruik van Embrace binnen VincisAqtion?

2. Staan er doelen beschreven in een document waarop gestuurd kan worden? Zo nee, staat dit nog op de planning om te doen?

3. Op welke manier gebruikt u zelf Embrace?

Met welk doeleinde? (betrekken medewerkers, delen managementinformatie, delen kennis)

4. Wat is voor u de beste ervaring die u met Embrace heeft gehad?

Participatie werknemers

1. Hoe schat u persoonlijk de werknemers van VincisAqtion in op mate van participatie binnen VincisAqtion? (Participatie als actieve rol binnen VincisAqtion en leidend in discussies, vraagstukken en oplossingen aanbrengen).

De participatiegraad van werknemer X is ...

Werknemer Laag

Beneden-gemiddeld Gemiddeld Boven-gemiddeld Hoog Weet niet Aafke Spriensma (S) Bauke Jousma (S) Bert Hofstede (S) Erik Drijfhout (G) Frank Rooze (S) Freddy Groen (G) Hilda Boerma (G) Ivar Stok (G) Jacqueline Willems (G) Jan Willem Geertsma (S) Jeroen Scholtens (G) Johan Reitsma (S) Johan Timmer (G) Jonas Hansel (G) Klaas Dijkstra (S) Paul Goedhart (G) Peter Mooibroek (G) Remco Rispens (S) Rinse van Dijk (S) Roberto de Vivo (S) Roelof Nijholt (S) Rowdy van der Veen (S) Ruben Hulzebos (G) Sanne Schuurman-Verkerk (G)

Sjaak van der Heide (S) Vincent Ottens (G) Wieger Jonker (G) Wim Mulder (G) Wouter de Kort (G) Wouter Duteweerd (G) Wouter Nijenhuis (G) Wouter van den Brink (G)

Appendix 2

Vragenlijst online enquête

Ten eerste hartelijk bedankt dat je meedoet aan het onderzoek naar het sociale netwerk binnen VincisAqtion. Jouw inbreng is van belang voor het onderzoek en voor VincisAqtion zelf en wordt enorm gewaardeerd.

Het doel van de enquête is het in kaart brengen van de connecties tussen jou en jouw collega’s waarmee het sociale netwerk van VincisAqtion zichtbaar wordt gemaakt. Verder wordt er gevraagd naar je ervaring met de social business software van Embrace en je ervaring in het persoonlijk gebruik van social media.

De resultaten van het onderzoek zullen vertrouwelijk worden behandeld en jouw anonimiteit wordt gewaarborgd.

Het invullen van deze enquête zal je ongeveer 10 tot 15 minuten van je tijd kosten. Bij vragen of onduidelijkheden kun je me bereiken via telefoon of e-mail.

Vragen;

A; Demografische gegevens

1. Hoe heet je? (open veld)

2. Wat is jouw geboortejaar? (dropdown)

3. Wat is jouw hoogst afgeronde opleiding? (dropdown, MBO/HBO/WO) 4. Wat is jouw functie binnen VincisAqtion? (dropdown)

5. Hoeveel jaar werk je bij VincisAqtion, inclusief de tijd voor de fusie? (dropdown)

B; in kaart brengen sociaal netwerk

De volgende vragen gaan over het formele en het informele netwerk binnen VincisAqtion. Het gaat hierbij om de contacten die je hebt met collega’s wanneer je aan het werk bent. De contacten die je buiten het werk om met collega’s onderhoudt vallen buiten de scope van het onderzoek.

1. Met welke collega(‘s) heb je contact om jouw dagelijkse activiteiten binnen het bedrijf succesvol uit te kunnen voeren? Dit betreft activiteiten die zijn voorgeschreven door VincisAqtion of waarvoor je een opdracht hebt gekregen. Geef in het onderstaande schema aan met wie je contact hebt gehad in de afgelopen twee maanden:

Werknemer Contact Geen

Hilda Boerma (G) Ivar Stok (G)

Jacqueline Willems (G) Jan Willem Geertsma (S) Jeroen Scholtens (G) Johan Reitsma (S) Johan Timmer (G) Jonas Hansel (G) Klaas Dijkstra (S) Martijn Weesjes (G) Paul Goedhart (G) Peter Mooibroek (G) Remco Rispens (S) Rinse van Dijk (S) Roberto de Vivo (S) Roelof Nijholt (S) Rowdy van der Veen (S) Ruben Hulzebos (G)

Sanne Schuurman-Verkerk (G) Sjaak van der Heide (S) Vincent Ottens (G) Wieger Jonker (G) Wim Mulder (G) Wouter de Kort (G) Wouter Duteweerd (G) Wouter Neijenhuis ( Wouter van den Brink (G) Wytze van der Ploeg (S) Ynte de Jager (S)

2. Met welke collega(‘s) praat je over wat er gaande is binnen VincisAqtion om ervoor te zorgen dat je zaken gedaan krijgt die van persoonlijk belang zijn voor jou? Geef in het onderstaande schema aan met wie je contact hebt gehad in de afgelopen twee maanden:

Werknemer Contact Geen

Johan Reitsma (S) Johan Timmer (G) Jonas Hansel (G) Klaas Dijkstra (S) Martijn Weesjes (G) Paul Goedhart (G) Peter Mooibroek (G) Remco Rispens (S) Rinse van Dijk (S) Roberto de Vivo (S) Roelof Nijholt (S) Rowdy van der Veen (S) Ruben Hulzebos (G)

Sanne Schuurman-Verkerk (G) Sjaak van der Heide (S) Vincent Ottens (G) Wieger Jonker (G) Wim Mulder (G) Wouter de Kort (G) Wouter Duteweerd (G) Wouter Neijenhuis ( Wouter van den Brink (G) Wytze van der Ploeg (S) Ynte de Jager (S)

C; Gebruik van social media

De volgende vragen gaan over het gebruik van social media voor persoonlijke doeleinden. 1. Hoe lang maak je inmiddels gebruik van de volgende social media;

Medium 0-6

maanden

6 maanden-1 jaar

1-2 jaar 2-4 jaar Langer dan 4 jaar Geen account (meer) Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Hyves

2. Hoe vaak log je in op de volgende social media;

Medium Dagelijks Wekelijks Maandelijks Zelden tot

3. Wanneer je actief gebruik maakt van één van de hiervoor genoemde social media, in welke mate houd je jezelf bezig met de volgende activiteiten;

Activiteit Dagelijks Wekelijks Maandelijks Zelden Nooit

Statusupdate plaatsen Reageren op statusupdates van anderen

Linken naar externe content van jezelf

Linken naar externe content van anderen

Plaatsen van blogs of wikis Reageren op blogs of wikis Lezen van blogs of wikis

D; Gebruik van Embrace

De laatste vragen van deze enquête gaan over het gebruik van Embrace.

1. Maak je ook buiten je werkuren om gebruik van de Embrace-omgeving van VincisAqtion? (ja, nee)

2. Hoe vaak maak je gebruik van Embrace wanneer je aan het werk bent? (hele dag, meerdere keren per dag, dagelijks, wekelijks, maandelijks, zelden tot nooit)

3. Wanneer je gebruik maakt van Embrace, in welke mate houd je jezelf bezig met de volgende activiteiten;

4. Wanneer je weinig tot geen gebruik maakt van Embrace, kun je aangeven wat daar de achterliggende reden(en) is/zijn voor jou?

Activiteit Dagelijks Wekelijks Maandelijks Zelden Nooit

Statusupdate plaatsen Reageren op statusupdates van anderen

Linken naar externe content van jezelf

Linken naar externe content van anderen

Plaatsen van blogs of wikis Reageren op blogs of wikis Lezen van blogs of wikis Teampagina(‘s) bekijken Statusupdate in