The effects of affordances of enterprise social media on knowledge sharing during remote work

The effects of affordances of enterprise social media

on knowledge sharing during remote work

A qualitative study on how the affordances on enterprise social media influence knowledge sharing during remote work.

Name: Erwin Vos Student number: S3858561 Supervisor RUG: dr. I. Maris-de Bresser

Co-assessor RUG: M. Weck

Word count: 13.192 (excluding references and appendices)

Abstract

In recent years, the use of enterprise social media has increased and one of the goals of these platforms is knowledge sharing. The studies on these topics show that studies often focus on technological features or the social use, which makes generalization difficult. Therefore, this study uses an affordances lens. In the field, a number of studies have investigated the affordances of enterprise social media. However most of these studies are conceptual studies and have not been empirically tested. Nor has this phenomenon been investigated in the context of remote work. Therefore, this study looks at the effects of affordances of enterprise social media on knowledge sharing during remote work.

The study concerns a qualitative study at a Dutch multinational conglomerate company, based on sixteen semi-structured in-depth interviews. The results of this research describe the effects of visibility, persistence, editability and association on knowledge sharing during remote work. In addition, it is examined whether other factors influence knowledge sharing via Yammer during remote working.

The research shows that mainly visibility and association have a positive effect on knowledge sharing. The affordances editability and persistence were perceived, but they had no significant positive effects on knowledge sharing. In addition to the existing theory, which mainly deals with positive influences, the theory is expanded with a number of negative effects of affordances on knowledge sharing. These negative effects are: losing control, fear of making mistakes, accountability, and information overload. In addition, the results show that personality, culture and leadership influence the participation of knowledge sharing on Yammer. Finally, this study shows that in the context of this study there is no effect of remote working on the perceiving or effects of affordances of ESM on knowledge sharing. It also became clear that Yammer is mainly used for general communication and connection. Despite its benefits, the use of Yammer turned out to be low due to lack of time, lack of skills, no added value, culture and poor introduction.

It can be concluded that visibility and association in particular have a positive effect on knowledge sharing via Yammer. In addition, the negative effects of affordances on knowledge sharing via Yammer must be taken into account. Other factors such as personality, culture and leadership also influence knowledge sharing via Yammer. Finally, it appears that remote work has no influence on the effects of affordances on knowledge sharing.

1. Introduction ... 5

2. Literature review ... 7

2.1 Enterprise social media ... 7

2.2 Knowledge sharing ... 8 2.3 Affordances ... 9 2.4 Remote work... 11 3. Methodology ... 12 3.1 Research approach ... 12 3.2 Research setting ... 12 3.3 Data collection ... 13 3.4 Data analysis ... 14

3.5 Research quality criteria ... 15

4. Findings ... 16 4.1 Yammer ... 16 4.2 Visibility ... 17 4.3 Persistence ... 19 4.4 Editability ... 21 4.5 Association ... 22 4.6 Explanatory factors ... 23 4.7 Remote work... 24

5. Discussion and conclusion ... 26

5.1 Discussion ... 26

5.2 Theoretical implications ... 29

5.3 Practical implications... 29

5.4 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 30

Appendices ... 38

Appendix A: Interview protocol (English) ... 38

Appendix B: Interview protocol (Dutch) ... 40

1. Introduction

The use of social media within companies is relatively new and has been on the rise in recent years (Chui et al., 2012; Treem & Leonardi, 2013; Zickuhr, 2009). A few years ago, e-mail and teleconferencing were mainly used as an online communication tool, whereas organizations are nowadays moving towards the use of enterprise social media (ESM), including social networking sites, wiki pages and blogs. Kaplan and Haenlein (2010, p.62) give the following definition of social media: “internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content”. In other words, it allows users to create, edit, and evaluate content and share this with other users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). These enterprise social media are used to support employees in communication, collaboration and knowledge sharing (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). Despite the fact that many companies use enterprise social media (Bughin & Chui, 2010; Overby, 2012), little empirical research has been done on the goals, use and results of these platforms (Andriole, 2010).

One of the most recurring uses of social media is knowledge sharing (Leonardi, Huysman, & Steinfield, 2013; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Treem & Leonardi, 2013). Cabrera and Cabrera (2002, p.688) explain the importance of knowledge sharing: “knowledge can be seen as an intangible asset which is unique, path dependent, causally ambiguous, and hard to imitate or substitute. These characteristics make knowledge a potential source of competitive advantage, and, consequently, the logical target of managerial attention”. As knowledge is important, the question arises how it can be shared. Majchrzak et al. (2013) combine knowledge sharing with ESM and state that knowledge workers are creators of content by uploading photos, videos and blogs, writing their own blogs, responding to other people's content and maintaining their own social profile within the organization. They see effective knowledge sharing as one of the success factors for a successful organization.

Therefore, this research uses an affordances lens. This means that it does not specifically look at the functionalities of a technology, but at the possibilities through the interaction between the technology and its user. The theory of affordances will be further explained in the literature review.

In the field, a number of studies have investigated the affordances of ESM. Huysman et al. (2013) gave an overview of the history and contemporary use of ESM using an affordance lens; Treem and Leonardi (2013) found visibility, editability, persistence and association as affordances of ESM; Leonardi and Vaast (2017) build upon this theory and they created a theoretical framework about the potential implications of social media use for organizing; Majchrzak et al. (2013) identified metavoicing, triggered attending, network-informed associating, and generative role-taking as the four affordances of social media that affect the way people engage in the knowledge sharing process. These studies have all produced relevant results, but they are mainly conceptual studies and have not been empirically tested. In addition, they have not been studied in the context of working from home, which make this research valuable. This study will provide an answer to the following research question: "How do the affordances of enterprise social media influence knowledge sharing during remote work?” Primary data in the form of semi-structured interviews are collected to answer the research question.

The aim of this study is to identify how the affordances of an ESM are experienced when people work from home, and what effects this has on their knowledge sharing. From a theoretical perspective, this research is relevant because the subject is relatively new and little research has been done on it. In addition, the results from the previous studies on affordances of ESM are contradicting. As a result, a strong theory has not yet been developed on this subject. From a management perspective, this research is relevant because the use of enterprise social media has become increasingly important since many employees have started working from home due to the pandemic. As a result, many managers suddenly faced problems that had not been foreseen. The results of this study can help managers to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge sharing on enterprise social networks.

2. Literature review

2.1 Enterprise social media

Treem and Leonardi (2013) describe enterprise social media as an umbrella term consisting of one or more of the following five technologies: wikis, SNSs, blogs, social tagging applications, and microblogs. Leonardi, Huysman and Steinfield (2013, p.2) have extended this definition to: “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”. In their study they describe the role of ESM using the following three metaphors: leaky pipe, echo chamber and social lubricant. These metaphors have both positive and negative effects on social capital formation, boundary work, attention allocation and social analytics (Leonardi et al., 2013).

Enterprise social media is used for various reasons and purposes. Holtzblatt, Drury, Weiss, Damianos and Cuomo (2013) found in their research that ESM supports collaboration, strengthens social connection, fosters situation awareness and facilitates knowledge management, in which the benefits of ESM are perceived as stronger by active users, than passive and inactive users. The results of the study by Steinfield, DiMicco, Ellison and Lampe (2009) show that ESM increases someone's social capital and network, which facilitates the knowledge management process. They also indicated that the positive effects of using ESM were experienced stronger by active users (Steinfield et al., 2009). Treem and Leonardi (2013) claim that ESM helps in the socialization process of employees, stimulates knowledge sharing and strengthens power of an employee within a company.

2.2 Knowledge sharing

In recent years a lot of research has been done into knowledge management and knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing can be defined as: “as a social interaction culture, involving the exchange of employee knowledge, experiences, and skills through the whole department or organization” (Lin, 2007, p.136). This act of knowledge sharing can facilitate collaboration, help employees to achieve organizational and individual goals and enhance organizational learning (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). To delineate the research, it was decided to focus on individual knowledge sharing, which consists of communication from one person to another (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). Looking at the value of knowledge, it can be concluded that knowledge is one of the most important strategic sources within a company and can provide a competitive advantage (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2001; Grover & Davenport, 2001; Ipe, 2003). However, recording and sharing this knowledge is a major challenge for companies (Nonaka, 1994). For this reason, it is interesting to see why employees participate in knowledge sharing. Lin (2007) looked at the motivation for knowledge sharing and found that reciprocal benefits, knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others were motivators for knowledge sharing. She also concluded that organizational rewards do not have an effect on the intention of employees to share knowledge. Yardi, Golder and Brzozowski (2009) add that attention from colleagues to shared knowledge and management support serve as motivators for knowledge sharing.

2.3 Affordances

In order to combine those two elements, an affordance lens will be used to investigate knowledge sharing via enterprise social media. Gibson (1977) was one of the first researchers to investigate the phenomenon of affordances. The essence of his research is that humans do not look at the functionalities of an object, but at what they can do with an object, and that these affordances can be interpreted differently by different people based on their characteristics and goals. Hutchby (2001) was the first researcher who applied the concept of affordances to technology. He claims that the affordances of a technology are not things which impose themselves on humans’ actions, but it does limit the possibilities what humans can do with the particular technology (Hutchby, 2001). Subsequently, he states there is no single way, but multiple ways to perceive these affordances. This means that people can experience different affordances of a technology due to the interaction between human and technology.

Markus and Silver (2008) were among the first researchers to link affordances to information technology. They developed the term ‘functional affordances’ as a relational concept that explains the gap between a technical object and what users do with it. In their research they describe functional affordances as follows: “Functional affordances are a type of relationship between a technical object and a specified user (or user group) that identifies what the user may be able to do with the object, given the user’s capabilities and goals. More formally, functional affordances are defined as the possibilities for goal-oriented action afforded to specified user groups by technical objects” (Markus & Silver, 2008, p.622). By focusing on the relation between the technical object and its usage, the focus can be moved away from features of one particular technology, which makes the results of this study more generalizable.

(2013) argue that persistence leads to the creation of robust forms of communication and this reuse and reanalysis of interactions improves the effectiveness and efficiency of communication on ESM (Farrell, Kellogg, & Thomas, 2008). In addition, persistence ensures that existing information can be provided with feedback and improved in order to increase the quality of information (Holtzblatt, Lester J., Damianos, & Weiss, 2010).

Editability is described as the time people have to generate and shape their information before it is shown to other people, plus the ability people have to modify existing information is added to this description. Editability improves the targeting of content (Treem & Leonardi, 2013), because people can link relevant data to the right audience before sharing the information (Huh et al., 2007). In addition, editability offers the opportunity to check shared information and to adjust errors, which leads to an increase in the quality of information (Danis & Singer, 2008).

Association in social media is explained in two ways: a relationship between two people (social tie) and a relationship between a person and a piece of information. According to Zhang et al. (2010) who studied the use of Yammer, association allows people to connect with people they did not know yet. It also ensures that someone's social capital is expanded, which ultimately has a stimulating effect on knowledge sharing (Steinfield et al., 2009). In addition, research into a social tagging system in a museum gallery shows that experts use ESM more often, because ESM enables them to demonstrate their expertise (Thom-Santelli, Cosley, & Gay, 2010).

In addition to the positive effects of the affordances of ESM, there are also negative effects on knowledge sharing. Gibbs, Rozaidi and Eisenberg (2013) have conducted research at a high-tech hardware and software company. Their research shows that affordances of ESM can lead to an overload of information, which discourages people from participating in knowledge sharing. They also found that concerns about job security and confidentiality of information reduce the amount of knowledge shared. Moreover, the affordances result in people being less likely to share knowledge because they are afraid of making mistakes, which can negatively affect people's reputation (Gibbs et al., 2013).

2.4 Remote work

In recent years, the number of employees who work from home has increased. According to Eurofound and International Labour Office (2017), about 30% of European employees work from home on a daily basis and these numbers have only increased in recent years. Furthermore, the COVID pandemic has caused the number of remote workers to increase even further in recent months (Brynjolfsson, Horton, & Ozimek, 2020). Thanks to the development of communication technologies such as smartphones, laptops and tablets, remote working becomes easier as employees can communicate with their colleagues and do their work through these tools (Messenger & Gschwind, 2016). Normally it is possible for people to share knowledge both online (computer-mediated communication) and offline (face-to-face communication) (Charband & Navimipour, 2016). However, due to the COVID pandemic, everyone is obliged to work from home and it is only possible to share knowledge online.

Despite the increasing popularity of online knowledge sharing platforms, few seem to succeed in motivating participants to share knowledge through these platforms (Lai & Chen, 2014). Cheung, Lee and Lee (2013) have researched the motivation for knowledge sharing through online communities of practice at an educational institution. The results showed that the satisfaction of reciprocity and self-efficacy are motivators for knowledge sharing in an online community of practice. Charband and Navimipour (2016) have studied 251 articles in a systematic literature review of mechanisms for knowledge sharing in an online environment. They concluded that online knowledge sharing has a positive effect on the creativity, quality and efficiency of communication. In addition, they determined that it is not easy to motivate people to share knowledge online. A lack of confidence in a virtual environment and traditional thoughts and opinions can hinder online knowledge sharing.

3. Methodology

In order to answer the research question, a qualitative study is conducted at a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation. This chapter begins with the explanation of the research approach. The goal of this study is to develop theory by means of gathering and analyzing empirical data, because there is not much empirical evidence about the affordance of ESM yet and especially not in the context of remote working. This is followed by the research setting, which elaborates on the company investigated. In the third subsection, the data collection method is explained. The fourth section describes the data analysis. This chapter ends with an explanation of the quality criteria of research.

3.1 Research approach

The aim of the research is to find out how the affordances of ESM are experienced when people work from home, and what effects this has on their knowledge sharing. Because this is still a relatively new subject and little research has been done, a nascent theory research is the appropriate type of research (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). Initially, I wanted to do a case study using the following three research methods: interview, observations, and company documents. As the research progressed, I found that observations within Philips were not possible due to technical obstacles. They also indicated that there were no useful company documents that I could use for the research. That is why I decided to conduct an interview-based study. This type of qualitative research tries to establish links between phenomena by providing preliminary answers to the question 'how?' (Pratt, 2009). The study consists of sixteen semi-structured interviews. I chose this method, because qualitative research helps to understand the meaning of respondents' experiences (Warren, 2002). In addition, it is an open-minded learning method that allowed me to ask follow-up questions. This openness to input from the field has enabled me to identify and research the most important factors (Edmondson & McManus, 2007) and ultimately helped me answer my research question.

3.2 Research setting

geographically spread around the world and this makes a platform like Yammer important as a communication tool. For these reasons, Philips was a suitable company to conduct the research. The research took place from September 2020 to January 2021.

3.3 Data collection

Table 1: overview of the interviewees within Philips

A number of conditions were discussed at the beginning of the interviews. To begin with, the interviewee was asked if he or she agreed with the recording of the interview with Apple iPhone dictaphone. The interviewer then indicated that all information would be treated confidentially and that the interviews were anonymous. After discussing the terms and conditions, the recording and interview began. All interviews were conducted in the native language of the interviewee: Dutch or English. The interviews lasted an average of 50 minutes and took place in November and December.

3.4 Data analysis

To analyze the data, all interviews had to be transcribed verbatim. This means that the recorded interviews are transcribed word for word in Microsoft Word. This has facilitated the data analysis as the researcher became familiar with the data (Halcomb & Davidson, 2006). The transcripts provide a valuable representation of the data, as it allows the researcher to categorize and code the data (Oliver, Serovich, & Mason, 2005). The transcribing process was intertwined with the data collection and started after the first interview was conducted. Subsequently, these two processes ran parallel to each other to test whether the correct data was collected from the interviews and improvements could be made timely (Mortelmans, 2013). The complete transcripts can be found in Appendix D.

from existing literature. These codes are mainly related to the affordances of ESM: visibility, persistence, editability and association (Treem & Leonardi, 2013).

After the deductive process, the open coding process began. In this process, the focus was primarily on the effects of affordances on knowledge sharing during remote work. These effects were subdivided into positive (helping) or negative (hindering) effects, examples of which are: certainty, efficiency, accountability and fear. Then the axial coding process started, in which the separate codes are connected into a whole. The purpose of this process was to categorize the deductive and open codes into specific themes (Mortelmans, 2013). As an example, the open codes: sustaining information, accountability, loss of control and fear are categorized in the theme: persistence. The last step was selective coding. Links are made between the open codes and axial codes and the effect of the affordances on knowledge sharing during remote work is described. During these processes, a codebook has been created that displays the open and axial codes including a definition, an explanation when the code is used and an example. The complete codebook can be found in Appendix C. During coding, a continuous comparison was made between data and the literature studied. This process consists of 'breaking down' data and then 'rebuilding' it with the aim of collecting the most relevant data that helped answer the research question (Mortelmans, 2013).

3.5 Research quality criteria

4. Findings

This chapter shows the findings obtained from the interviews conducted within Philips. The first section focuses on the usage of Yammer, which is followed by the influence of remote working. Sections three to seven describe the influence of the affordances: visibility, persistence, editability and association. The last section describes the explanatory factors of the affordances.

4.1 Yammer

To find out why people use Yammer this section zooms in on the purpose of Yammer, usage of Yammer and type of information shared on Yammer.

Purpose

During the interviews with the employees, two important purposes emerged: communication and connection. Communication is divided in top-down general, and interactive communication. The first one is explained by one of the interviewees: “at Yammer it's mainly, people's presentations, webcast of best practices, lessons learned […], news reports, announcement […]. Really that top-down communication does happen via Yammer" (KWM3). In addition to general communication, Yammer is also used for more specific topics, as part of interactive communication: “in this case with Yammer, I use it when I want to approach the community where I hope for action, but I don't immediately seek individuality. And that can be about news, it can be about inspiration, it’s all about the discussion" (PRM1). Another respondent uses Yammer to help colleagues: "so when I see that someone has a question – and I know someone else could possibly answer it or I can answer it – then I like to answer it" (COM1). In conclusion, Yammer is used for communication in the form of general top-down communication and interactive communication.

Next to communicating, Yammer serves as a purpose for connecting in the form of networking and community building. This first form of connecting is elaborated by one of the interviewees: “so that's how I can get in contact with people. I mean, my focus is definitely on building the contacts on people” (DXR1). Next to networking, Yammer also serves another sort of connection: “I think, because it's interactive, it also gives a sense of inclusion, because you really incorporate more people in your thinking. Right. If you ask a question, for example, in a group, then many people can benefit from the answers. So I think it creates more community and more sense of working together” (CHM2). Therefore, another purpose of Yammer is to connect colleagues in the form of networking and community building.

Usage

reasons. Firstly: "for me, that's a case of time constraints" (PRM1). Secondly: "because there are so many tools, that sometimes you lose track" (MBX1). Thirdly: "because I'm not really proficient with the tool yet and therefore it's not really integrated into my way of working" (MBX1). Fourthly: "there are a lot of Yammer channels and there are actually too many” (KWM2). Fifthly: "I can't get a lot of new things out of Yammer" (KWM2). Sixthly: "because the culture within Philips is not yet focused on Yammer, that there is a lot of sharing" (KWM3). Lastly: “there's not introduction and there's no like mandates, for the usage of Yammer” (KWM7).

Despite the low usage of Yammer, remote work has caused its usage to increase. As an interviewee described: “then you have a tilt in use there at some point. Then you go away from the early adopters and the early birds and then you get momentum. I think working from home has created that momentum" (PRM1). Another respondent gives a possible reason for this change: “I personally use it to the same extend, but we as an organization have started to use it more since we all work from home. You can see that people have the need for inclusion" (COM1). It can be concluded that Yammer is little used due to: lack of time, abundance of tools, lack of skills, abundance of Yammer channels, no added value, culture and poor introduction. However, remote work has ensured that this use has increased.

Type of knowledge

According to the respondents, Yammer is not a sufficient platform for sharing content knowledge: "I see it, as an informal platform where achievements are shared, questions are asked, interactions are posted, livestreams are posted. And sharing real content knowledge or product knowledge is not done through that platform" (KWM1). Things that are shared through Yammer are news, updates and questions: "news, interesting developments. What I said: when the miles are reached [...]. So it's mostly the news feature. Not so much the knowledge function" (RES1). This is because content knowledge is not always intended for a large audience: “I think I would only share stuff that I feel most of that audience would be able to relate to or most of that audience would be able to reply to, or most of the audience would find it useful. If not, then I would go to a smaller group. [...] And then I would use email or I would use my Teams rooms or, you know, or I would just call someone if I knew that that specific person had that knowledge for me or that specific person asks knowledge from me. So, yeah, it's more I think different kind of knowledge that you share because of the broad audience” (CHM2). It can be concluded that Yammer is not used for content knowledge sharing, but rather for news, updates and questions.

4.2 Visibility

Perceiving affordance

The interviews show that visibility is perceived as an important affordance of enterprise social media. This visibility is expressed in a timeline format and is seen as an advantage over traditional communication tools. “so I guess on Yammer, you can similarly to other social networks, you can kind of post stuff on like a timeline. I think one important thing is that this timeline approach where you can see things posted from different people that are tagged with different things you follow. So it's kind of supposed to be this fluid wall of information, whereas an email is more like the title from one person. And it's only if you only receive it if it's directed to you” (KWM6). The following respondent names visibility the added value of Yammer: “you need to have a visibility within the organization. So to bring up that visibility of our business, of our team, of you as an individual. Definitely the visibility will happen and the collaboration will enhance through Yammer, because if you go to Yammer, do a posting and if you try to follow people, people know that there is a colleague who is working on a specific area in India or in Netherlands or in Germany or anywhere across the world” (DXR1).

Helping

Visibility is helping knowledge sharing on Yammer, because the platform gives the opportunity to reach a lot of people across the organization: “I think the range at Yammer is much greater of course. That you also come across things from people you might not know. Because email is very focused on certain groups that you specifically want to reach. Yes it lowers the threshold I guess" (MBX1). This wide reach also makes people think carefully before posting something. This provides more relevant information: “I think I would only share stuff that I feel most of that audience would be able to relate to or most of that audience would be able to reply to, or most of the audience would find it useful” (CHM2). Ultimately, this carefulness leads to a higher quality of information: “But if I know it's visible to a large group, I'd rather think twice: Is this the right thing to do? You have to move into the heads of the audience: what do these people expect? And is this the right group to ask a question or to put the problem down?"(RES1).

Hindering

Visibility is hindering knowledge sharing on Yammer, because it requires vulnerability of people to share information on a platform where the entire company can read it: "if you put something down in your belief that it is true, but it turns out not to be true. It's there and it's also legible for your manager. And also for your future clients and employers within Philips. So it's still a vulnerable thing to expose yourself there" (PRM1). This ensures that there is a higher threshold for sharing something on Yammer: "So ask questions in such a call with Frans van Houten, the CEO, and the rest of Philips. And then anyone can ask a question, but people, myself included, would not ask a question so quickly [...] But you're like: well, let me not do it, someone else will. So there's a kind of threshold fear to ask a question." (KWM2). Another respondent confirmed this threshold and indicates that people are afraid to make mistakes, which can lower the quantity of sharing: "not for me personally, but I do know that for other people that's a threshold. So they're afraid to say anything wrong because it's such a big group. And that it's immediately linked to your personal name, people don't dare to ask or answer things because they're afraid they're making a mistake" (COM1).

Another disadvantage of such a wide range is that everyone can post as much information as they want. This may create an overload of information: "I'm in a couple of those Yammer groups and I get an email with the updates every two days. I don't actually look at it anymore, because yes, at some point there will be so much. So it can become an overload pretty quickly" (MBX1). This overload can eventually lead to lower effectiveness: "look, when a lot of people do it, you get a lot of information and that doesn't work positively. I think it’s a problem too much is shared. And then, in the end, the effectiveness deteriorates" (KWM2). It can be concluded that the wide reach of Yammer requires vulnerability to share information. This is perceived as a threshold and reduces the quantity of sharing. Also, the high use can lead to an overload of information, leading to reduced effectiveness and a lower quality of information.

4.3 Persistence

The following section looks at the influence persistence as an affordance. First, the perception of the affordances is discussed. Then, it is described why persistence is supporting knowledge sharing on Yammer. Finally, it is discussed why persistence hinders knowledge sharing on Yammer.

Perceiving affordance

persistence to be a deciding factor in deciding whether or not to share something: "I'm not so aware of it when I share something. I don't mind if it stays, because otherwise I wouldn't have shared it" (CHM3). It is even considered fruitless by one interviewee: “I think people don't realize. I don't think that has any effect" (COM1). In addition, the ability to delete your shared information reduces the effect of persistence: “I wouldn't think so either, because if you can get rid of that knowledge, right? You can just delete your post. So, I mean, and I assume that most people are aware of that. So then I don't think it has an instance” (CHM2).

Helping

Persistence helps knowledge sharing on Yammer as the fact that information stays available is one of the added values of Yammer. It gives people time to go back and search for information: “I’m a big fan of kind of like saving content on social media because I always don't have the time when I'm browsing it. But I definitely make it a point to go back and read it […]. I didn't want it to lose it” (KWM7). The same applies to live events, where some people may not be present: "Yammer, what I particularly like about it is: they are doing live events and that it is also stored afterwards. So you can also go back and see them" (KWM3). In addition, existing information can also be linked: "you can easily link it to existing conversations, or to other places where the same theme is discussed" (KWM4). Therefore, it can be argued that the availability of information is seen as one of the advantages of Yammer.

Hindering

Persistence is hindering knowledge sharing on Yammer, since it can lead to fear for making permanent mistakes: “And it it's also like written in stone, kind of. So it's like not I mean, you could delete it in theory, but, it is like I don't know if you can delete it actually, but it's tied to your name. So like even in. a year or something, if someone goes on to a conversation you had and just had a wild idea and you just put it there, then maybe it's really stupid. And then a year later someone bumps into it. It's like, well, who is this guy or what is he saying?” (KWM6). This accountability is experienced as a higher threshold to share information: "I think that's a factor, which can stop you from really putting something on Yammer. And indeed it remains available, your own name is there, so everyone can see that you placed it, so, maybe that accountability feels like too high a threshold to participate in it" (KWM1). Another interviewee describes the negative effect of losing control: "well then you basically lose control of the piece of information. So that emotion itself has a negative effect on knowledge sharing [...] because it feeds the fear that you've lost control" (PRM1).

the quantity of knowledge sharing. Shared knowledge can also become obsolete, which has a negative effect on the quality of knowledge.

4.4 Editability

The following section looks at the influence of the affordance: editability. First, the perception of the affordances is discussed. Next, it is described why editability helps knowledge sharing on Yammer. Finally, it is discussed why editability hinders knowledge sharing on Yammer.

Perceiving affordance

Like persistence, editability is perceived as an affordance of Yammer, but it also has little effect on knowledge sharing: "Yes, for me not positive or negative, it's nice that you can remove it. […] But it's not something that's holding me back or giving me extra motivation to share. It's just I'm assuming it's possible, that you can remove or modify something if needed" (CHM3). According to this interviewee, the decision to share knowledge is not influenced by editability: “In any case, it is not restrictive. I do not want to call it stimulating, because the desire to share knowledge comes from another condition. It never comes from a restrictive condition" (PRM1). This may also be because people are now used to social media and the fact that information can be edited: “actually, not because I think you're used to social media, enterprise social media platforms and the ability to draft and adjust your posts. For me, that doesn't make much difference" (KWM1).

Helping

Hindering

Editability can hinder knowledge sharing on Yammer, because this possibility causes people to think too much about their message: “so I think it's a bit of double here. It's comforting because you can edit and you have all the time to think about what you want to post. At the same time. It's a bit frustrating. I would find it frustrating if I felt that I was spending too much time on this little sentence” (CHM2). Therefore, editability can make sharing knowledge on Yammer too time-consuming, which may reduce quantity.

4.5 Association

The following section looks at the influence of the affordance: association. First, the perception of the affordances is discussed. Secondly, it is described why association is helping knowledge sharing on Yammer. Finally, it is discussed why association hinders knowledge sharing on Yammer.

Perceiving affordance

According to the data, association is considered an important affordance. This is because personalized posts or data contribute to expanding a person's network: "That's essential, because at the end of the day, all this is meant to be able to build your network, which used to be much more personal in the office. […] Also the name is important when a dialogue arises […] that you know who says what. Person A says this, person B says that. That's nice if you can attach a person to a statement" (RES1). In addition, association allows people to link value to information and gives the opportunity to follow up on this information: “because the whole idea is to connect the right people to the right information and the right information to the right people. You have to make that web. So, yeah, that's the model I like when I see something good was posted by somebody I don't know. Who was it? The information still stays useful, but I want to know more” (KWM7).

Helping

they want. So I think it also gives a sense of responsibility […]. We should have our name tied to it. And it's nice that we all feel responsible for what we post” (CHM2). It can be concluded that association increases a person’s network, determines the value of information and increases the quality of information as a result of the accountability.

Hindering

On the other hand, association can hinder knowledge sharing on Yammer, because accountability creates a higher barrier to knowledge sharing: “I think that's a factor that can stop you from really putting something on the spot. And certainly if it remains findable, with your own name attached to it. So that everyone can see that you have posted it, maybe that accountability feels like too high a barrier to participate in it” (KWM1). It can also be inconvenient if your name is mentioned in a post when you have changed positions: “it is actually a bit stupid that when you change positions, which will often happen within a large company, you still have your name on certain posts. That can sometimes be a bit inconvenient when people think: oh interesting and contact you, while you actually have nothing to do with it anymore” (MBX1). It can be argued that the accountability can lead to a lower quantity of knowledge sharing and position changes can lead to wrong associations.

4.6 Explanatory factors

In addition to these factors, there are also motivators that determine whether or not a person participates in knowledge sharing. The first motivator for people to share knowledge is adding value: “the sense of adding value to a community. Adding value to the company, so things more or less around the adding value, because I think that shared information can become more, can become better in the sense that if I share something, somebody sees it. Oh, and I can put the cherry on top of it and also want to share something. Somehow it tends to become bigger and better because more people contribute to it” (CHM1). Second, there is the will to demonstrate expertise and thus help others: “I am also active on Yammer to answer questions. Purely because I think that helps the company with that, because then I can show my expertise and help people further” (KWM3). This leads to a sense of pride: “well, first of all, pride, you know, I feel like I have something to share and I want to share it” (CHM1). Thirdly, receiving appreciation is seen as a motivator: "there is also a part in it that I just enjoy being appreciated. You know if you have indeed given good workshops and you are told by a high boss: good work. That is just nice, that appreciation " (KWM3). As a final motivator, someone mentions helping others with learning: “so I would like to get people through the learning curve faster. This is of course possible because they can then take in information from other knowledge from others and thus quickly arrive somewhere. Reinventing the wheel takes time” (PRM2). It can be concluded that in addition to affordances, the above motivators explain why employees participate in knowledge sharing.

4.7 Remote work

Looking at the influence of remote work on knowledge sharing on Yammer, an interviewee concluded there is little to no influence because a lot of employees already worked part-time from home: "at Philips we did quite well, we already had a work from home culture, a lot of people could already do a bit. I never experienced, in those four years I've been here, that I couldn't work from home. […] Not much has changed other than the fact that I'm now obliged to sit at home" (KWM5). Another respondent added technological preparedness: “we were already working from home some days of the week before, so we were already set up for. We have everything we need to be able to do so, at least from a technology point of view” (KWM6). This was confirmed by another participant: "well, because I use the same things I use at home. So it's already largely digital […] so that hasn't changed" (RES1). Another reason for this low influence is the fact that Philips is an international company: "Not really, because also the people with whom I work in terms of sharing this knowledge, they were not from the office. So it is more sharing between people who anyway don't interact with each other. They're from other countries” (CHM1). Therefore, it can be concluded that remote work has little influence on knowledge sharing via Yammer, because Philips is an international company and employees already worked part-time from home.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This chapter begins with the discussion linking the studied theory to the findings of the study. Subsequently, the theoretical implications are described. Third, the practical implications are discussed. This is followed by the limitation of the research and suggestions for future research. The chapter ends with a conclusion.

5.1 Discussion

The first goal of this research was to gain more insight into the purpose and use of enterprise social media (ESM). Previous studies claimed that enterprise social media is used to support collaboration, strengthen social connection, foster situation awareness and facilitate knowledge management (Holtzblatt et al., 2013). The results of this research show that Yammer is used for general, top-down communication (Zhang et al., 2010) and interactive communication (Gibbs et al., 2015). In addition, Yammer is used as a connection tool, for instance to expand networks (Steinfield et al., 2009) and build communities. No evidence has been found that Yammer supports collaboration or is fostering awareness. Subsequently, its use was examined and Alarifi and Sedera (2013) found platform design, management involvement, peer or social pressure and expertise mechanism as motivators for using Yammer. In this empirical study, none of these motivators were mentioned for using Yammer, but mostly reasons why Yammer is rarely used were given. These reasons were: lack of time, lack of skills, no added value, culture and poor introduction. It was also mentioned that an overload of channels and therefore also of information can demotivate employees to use Yammer. This confirms the results of Chen and Wei (2019), who claim that an overload of information has a negative effect on Yammer use. As a final result, the empirical data found that Yammer is not used for sharing content knowledge, but mostly for general types of knowledge such as news (Zhang et al., 2010), updates and questions (Gibbs et al., 2015). This is because content knowledge is often not suitable for a large audience, which means that a switch is made to direct channels such as e-mail or telephone. This explanation supports the leaky pipe theory of Leonardi et al. (2013), which describes that people share more abstract information when they share it with a large unknown audience.

visibility ensures a more efficient search process for knowledge. In addition, it can be added that visibility to a large audience amounts to a person's. On the other hand, this visibility also has negative effects. Gibbs et al. (2013) found in their study that people are less likely to share knowledge because they are afraid of making mistakes, which could damage their reputation. The results of this study confirm these results and cite required vulnerability for sharing to a large public as a possible cause. In addition, everyone can use the platform, which can cause an overload of information, ultimately reducing effectiveness. This is consistent with the results of Chen and Wei's (2019) study.

According to the literature review, persistence is seen as one of the affordances of ESM (Treem & Leonardi, 2013). Although persistence is perceived as an affordance of ESM, this study shows it is an affordance with little effects, as people are not quite aware that the shared information remains available. Despite their small effect, the results of this study show that the availability and retrieval of information is an added value of ESM. These findings confirm the results of the study by Poole and Grudin (2010) who claim that the persistence of information is an advantage over traditional means of communication. The results also show that persistence can have a negative effect on knowledge sharing, because people may be afraid of making mistakes and are held accountable for it (Gibbs et al., 2013). In addition, the feeling of losing control has a negative effect on the quantity of sharing. This can be explained by the leaky pipe metaphor of Leonardi et al. (2013), which describes that persistence can lead to shared knowledge ending up in the wrong audience. It can be added to the literature that the validity of the information can deteriorate if a piece of information is available on Yammer for a longer period of time. In addition, the results show that the persistence of information can also lead to an overload of information, which has a negative effect on knowledge sharing (Chen & Wei, 2019).

Finally, association is perceived as one of the affordances of ESM (Treem & Leonardi, 2013). The results found in this research show that association is perceived as an important affordance, because it contributes to the growth of someone's network. This confirms the results of the study of Zhang et al. (2010), which show that association contributes to meeting new people. In addition, association can be used to assess the value of shared knowledge based on the level of expertise. This is consistent with the findings of the studies by Brzozowski (2009) and Thom-Santelli et al. (2010). It can be added to this theory that association offers people the opportunity to follow up on shared knowledge. However, it also appears that it can be inconvenient if someone's name is linked to a piece of content and this person has switched positions. The results also show that association makes people feel accountable for the knowledge they share through ESM because their name is linked to a piece of information. This ensures a higher quality of shared knowledge. On the other hand, this accountability can also cause a fear of making mistakes, which makes people less likely to share. This confirms the results of the study by Gibbs et al. (2013).

The results of this research show that the decision whether or not to participate in knowledge sharing is influenced by intrinsic motivators such as adding value to the company, showing expertise, sense of pride, getting appreciation and helping colleagues. These results confirm Lin's (2007) motivators for knowledge sharing: reciprocal benefits, knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others. In the recommendation for future research in the study by Majchrzak et al. (2013), a call is made to explore a better understanding of mechanisms related to online knowledge sharing, as most research is mainly focused on the motivation for knowledge sharing or describing forms of governance. The results of this research show that corporate culture influences in the participation on knowledge sharing through Yammer. This is consistent with the findings of Charband and Navimipour (2016). To this theory it can be added that the personality of the person sharing knowledge and the leadership of managers also influence the participation of knowledge sharing through Yammer.

5.2 Theoretical implications

The aim of this research was to fill the gap in the literature of affordances of ESM, knowledge sharing and remote work. The results show that visibility, editability, persistence and association are perceived, but they are not equally important (Treem & Leonardi, 2013). The research shows that visibility has a significant positive effect on knowledge sharing due to its wide reach (Grudin, 2006). It also appears that association has an important positive effect on knowledge sharing through the added value for someone’s network (Zhang et al., 2010) and the assessment of the value of knowledge (Brzozowski, 2009). Editability and persistence, on the other hand, appear to have little or no positive influence on knowledge sharing via Yammer. This is because people are not quite aware of these affordances and because other factors come into play.

In addition to the existing theory of affordances, which mainly deals with positive influences (Treem & Leonardi, 2013), the theory is expanded with a number of negative effects of affordances on knowledge sharing. Losing control (Leonardi et al., 2013), fear of making mistakes (Gibbs et al., 2013), accountability (Leonardi et al., 2013), and information overload (Chen & Wei, 2019) are the negative effects of Yammer's affordances. These factors can discourage people from participating in knowledge sharing or reduce the quality of the shared knowledge. Moreover, empirical research shows that in addition to the affordances of ESM, personality, culture (Charband & Navimipour, 2016) and leadership must also be considered as factors that influence knowledge sharing on ESM.

Finally, this entire research has been placed in the context of working from home. The literature shows that the amount of remote work has increased in recent years and this is confirmed by the results of this study. Furthermore, the empirical data shows that there is no effect of remote work on the perceiving or effects of affordances of ESM on knowledge sharing. This is because many employees already worked part-time from home and because they work in an international context.

5.3 Practical implications

interaction, as people encounter information from colleagues they do not yet know or from colleagues from other departments.

Research shows that platform design, management involvement, peer or social pressure and expertise mechanism as motivators for using Yammer (Alarifi & Sedera, 2013). This empirical research mainly reveals demotivators that are the cause of the low use of Yammer: lack of time, lack of skills, no added value, culture and poor introduction. It is therefore important for a company to solve these problems in order to increase the use of ESM for knowledge sharing. This can be done, for example, by training people in the use of Yammer, involving knowledge sharing in regular activities and creating an open culture that encourages knowledge sharing. The company must also consider monitoring and supervising knowledge sharing on Yammer. Failure to do this can result in an overload of information, which has a negative effect on knowledge sharing (Yardi et al., 2009).

5.4 Limitations and suggestions for future research

A number of limitations are attached to this research. First, the research was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, it was not possible to conduct face-to-face interviews, but the interviews had to be conducted via the online platform Microsoft Teams. This gave the research slightly less control over the interviews and made the participant search process more difficult as people quickly declined an online request. In addition, other research methods such as observations of online behavior and documentation on the use of ESM can be used in order to increase the creditability of the research.

Secondly, the effects of remote work were difficult to measure within Philips, because many of the employees already worked part-time from home. Philips is also operational in an international context. As a result, no differences were seen during remote working and no effects were found on knowledge sharing. The research was also carried out within one company and therefore one sector. To get a more accurate picture of the effects, the research will have to be carried out again within a different company and sector. It is most convenient to do this in a company that does not operate internationally and where the staff does not normally work from home part-time.

role-taking can be tested in empirical research. In addition, it is also interesting to investigate the influence of personality, culture and leadership on the influence of affordances of ESM on knowledge sharing (Majchrzak et al., 2013).

5.5 Conclusion

In recent years, the use of enterprise social media has increased and one of the goals of these platforms is knowledge sharing. Looking at the studies on these topics, mainly literature studies have been done and empirical data to investigate these theories is missing. In order to obtain generalizable findings about ESM, it is useful to use an affordances lens to measure the effects. This research has attempted to answer the following research question: how do the affordances of enterprise social media influence knowledge sharing during remote work?

The research shows that mainly visibility and association have a positive effect on knowledge sharing. The affordances editability and persistence were observed, but they had no significant positive effects on knowledge sharing. In addition to the existing theory, which mainly deals with positive influences, the theory is expanded with a number of negative effects of affordances on knowledge sharing. These negative effects are: losing control, fear of making mistakes, accountability, and information overload. Moreover, empirical research shows that the positive effects of Yammer affordances are reduced by the factors personality, culture and leadership. Finally, empirical data shows that in the context of this study there is no effect of remote working on the perceiving or effects of affordances of ESM on knowledge sharing. It also became clear that Yammer is mainly used for general communication and connection. Despite its benefits, the use of Yammer turned out to be low due to lack of time, lack of skills, no added value, culture and poor introduction.

References

Alarifi, A., & Sedera, D. (2013). Enhancing enterprise social network use: A control theory study. 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems: Transforming the Future. Melbourne. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/65407/1/346.pdf

Ali-Hassan, H., Nevo, D., & Wade, M. (2015). Linking dimensions of social media use to job performance: The role of social capital. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(2), 65-89.

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2001). Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995-1018.

Andriole, S. J. (2010). Business impact of web 2.0 technologies. Communications of the ACM, 53(12), 67-79.

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.

Basil, S. C., Fulk, J., Levitt, B., Rawlings, J., & Steinfield, C. (1990). Organizations and Communication Technology. SAGE Publication.

Brynjolfsson, E., Horton, J., & Ozimek, A. (2020). COVID-19 and remote work: An early look at US data [Unpublished manuscript]. NBER working paper series, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Brzozowski, M. J. (2009). WaterCooler: Exploring an organization through enterprise social media. Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work. https://doi.org/10.1145/1531674.1531706

Bughin, J., & Chui, M. (2010). The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 3-8.

Charband, Y., & Navimipour, N. J. (2016). Online knowledge sharing mechanisms: A systematic review of the state of the art literature and recommendations for future research. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(6), 1131-1151.

Chen, X., & Wei, S. (2019). Enterprise social media use and overload: A curvilinear relationship. Journal of Information Technology, 34(1), 22-38.

Cheung, C. M., Lee, M. K., & Lee, Z. W. (2013). Understanding the continuance intention of knowledge sharing in online communities of practice through the post-knowledge-sharing evaluation processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1357-1374.

Chui, M., Manyika, J., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., Sarrazin, H., et al. (2012). The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies. McKinsey Global Institute, 4, 35-58.

Danis, C., & Singer, D. (2008). A wiki instance in the enterprise: Opportunities, concerns and reality. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460642

Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345-367.

Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246-1264.

Ehrlich, K., & Shami, N. (2010). Microblogging inside and outside the workplace. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.

https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14020/13869

Eurofound and the International Labour Office. (2017). Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of work. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, and the International Labour Office, Geneva.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wendy_Kellogg/publication/228662865_The_Participator y_Web_and_the_Socially_Resilient_Enterprise/links/0deec519fe01ea7e34000000.pdf

Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti (3rd _{edition). SAGE Publications Limited.}

Gibbs, J. L., Eisenberg, J., Rozaidi, N. A., & Gryaznova, A. (2015). The “megapozitiv” role of enterprise social media in enabling cross-boundary communication in a distributed russian organization. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 75-102.

Gibbs, J. L., Rozaidi, N. A., & Eisenberg, J. (2013). Overcoming the “ideology of openness”: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 102-120.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Gieseking, J. J., Mangold, W., Katz, C, Low, S & Saegert, S (Eds.) The People, Place and Space Reader. Routledge.

Grover, V., & Davenport, T. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21.

Grudin, J. (2006). Enterprise knowledge management and emerging technologies. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Kauia.

https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.156

Halcomb, E. J., & Davidson, P. M. (2006). Is verbatim transcription of interview data always necessary? Applied Nursing Research, 19(1), 38-42.

Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? the influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.

Holtzblatt, L. J., Damianos, L. E., & Weiss, D. (2010). Factors impeding wiki use in the enterprise: A case study. CHI'10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1754208

Huh, J., Jones, L., Erickson, T., Kellogg, W. A., Bellamy, R. K., & Thomas, J. C. (2007). BlogCentral: The role of internal blogs at work. CHI'07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240866.1241022

Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441-456.

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.

Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911-945.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

Lai, H., & Chen, T. T. (2014). Knowledge sharing in interest online communities: A comparison of posters and lurkers. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 295-306.

Leonardi, P. M. (2009). Crossing the implementation line: The mutual constitution of technology and organizing across development and use activities. Communication Theory, 19(3), 278-310.

Leonardi, P. M., 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.

Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social media and their affordances for organizing: A review and agenda for research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 150-188.

Lin, H. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135-149.

Markus, M. L., & Silver, M. S. (2008). A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole's concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10), 609-632.

McAfee, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: New collaborative tools for your organization's toughest challenges Harvard Business Press.

Messenger, J. C., & Gschwind, L. (2016). Three generations of telework: New ICT s and the (R) evolution from home office to virtual office. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(3), 195-208.

Mortelmans, D. (2013). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethoden (4de _{editie). Acco: Leuven.}

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Oliver, D. G., Serovich, J. M., & Mason, T. L. (2005). Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces, 84(2), 1273-1289.

Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human–computer Interaction, 15(2-3), 139-178.

Overby, E. (2012). Migrating processes from physical to virtual environments: Process virtualization theory. Information systems theory. (1). Springer.

Pettijohn. (2020). Can we just work from home forever?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanpettijohn/2020/05/20/can-we-just-work-from-home-forever/#3fb9964b3d95

Poole, E. S., & Grudin, J. (2010). A taxonomy of wiki genres in enterprise settings. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration.

ttps://doi.org/10.1145/1832772.1832792

Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856-862.

https://suriweb.com.ar/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/An-empirical-study-of-the-effect-of-enterprise-social-media-usage.pdf

Shami, N. S., Ehrlich, K., Gay, G., & Hancock, J. T. (2009). Making sense of strangers' expertise from signals in digital artifacts. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518713

Steinfield, C., DiMicco, J. M., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2009). Bowling online: Social networking and social capital within the organization. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1145/1556460.1556496

Thom-Santelli, J., Cosley, D., & Gay, G. (2010). What do you know? experts, novices and territoriality in collaborative systems. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753578

Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143-189.

Warren, C. A. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. (Eds). Handbook of Interview Research. SAGE Publications.

Yardi, S., Golder, S. A., & Brzozowski, M. J. (2009). Blogging at work and the corporate attention economy. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1519016

Yin, R. (2012). Applications of case study research. (3rd _{edition) Sage.}

Zhang, J., Qu, Y., Cody, J., & Wu, Y. (2010). A case study of micro-blogging in the enterprise: Use, value, and related issues. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753346