Knowledge sharing through enterprise
social network (ESN) systems:
motivational drivers and their impact on
employees’ productivity
Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged
Mohamed Gamal
Aboelmaged is Associate
Professor at the College of
Business Administration,
University of Sharjah,
Sharjah, United Arab
Emirates.
Received 15 May 2017
Revised 1 December 2017
Accepted 15 December 2017
PAGE 362 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018, pp. 362-383, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to predict the impact of utilitarian and hedonic motivations on using enterprise
social network (ESN) systems for sharing internal and external knowledge, as well as their effects on
employee productivity.
Design/methodology/approach – Responses of 115 ESN system users from a wide spectrum of firms
have been validated and analysed by means of structural equation modelling using partial least squires
(PLS-SEM) method.
Findings – The results indicate that using ESN to share internal and external knowledge has a positive
significant impact on employee productivity. Surprisingly, empirical analysis reveals that using ESN
tends to be significantly influenced by hedonic rather than utilitarian motivations.
Originality/value – The study is an early empirical attempt that examines using ESN for knowledge
sharing, emphasizing its upstream motivational influence and downstream business impact. It also offers
managers and ESN vendors a frame of reference to maximize the use of ESN in the workplace to boost
employees’ productivity within various contexts.
Keywords Employee productivity, Knowledge sharing, Enterprise social network systems,
Hedonic motivations, Utilitarian motivations
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Social media has become the latest buzzword in knowledge-based literature. When firms
enter social media territory, they garner a diverse mix of benefits and challenges. Enterprise
social network (ESN) is one of the enterprise systems that is powered by social media
technology. It is a single platform that uses “Enterprise 2.0” (e.g. wikis, blogs, homepages,
feeds, notifications, groups, forums and directories) to help employees share their activity
streams, experiences and ideas, give feedback and updates and so on (von Krogh, 2012;
Razmerita et al., 2016). Recent research asserts that a wide range of ESN systems are
increasingly adopted by firms for their distinctive characteristics that differentiate them from
earlier forms of knowledge repositories (Majchrzak et al., 2013; Oostervink et al., 2016).
First, ESN is an integrated system that combines communication, collaboration and
document repository systems (e.g. HRM, CRM, Google Drive) into a single platform.
Second, ESN allows users’ actions such as preferences, tagging, contributions, praising
and connections to be visible to other users. Third, content that was published earlier
remains permanently persistent and accessible by users. Fourth, ESN allows users to
collaboratively edit (e.g. revising, adding, removing) published content. Fifth, ESN initiates
DOI 10.1108/JKM-05-2017-0188
strong association among users and between users and their contents. Sixth, ESN can
deliver analytics (e.g. predicting users’ connection and knowledge paths) that add value to
knowledge structure and business performance. Finally, ESN platforms are highly
decentralized in which social interaction is voluntary, self-organized and selective.
Despite the recent progress in understanding how ESN can substantially advance
knowledge management, there is a significant gap between perceived potential of ESN
platforms and their actual use in the business context owing to ineffective participation and
user resistance (Jussil et al., 2014). While past research suggests some insights into usage
of traditional social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter in the
workplace (Aboelmaged et al., 2017; Grant, 2016; Panahi et al., 2016), using professional
ESN platforms (e.g. Yammer, SharePoint, Salesforce) is yet a novel phenomenon and has
been a scarcely studied topic (Choudrie and Zamani, 2016). Moreover, previous research
has focused on adoption rather than the actual implementation of social media platforms in
the workplace (Raeth et al., 2012). Extending this line of work, our study considers the
actual use of both traditional and professional ESN platforms in the workplace. Furthermore,
little is known about motivations that influence employees’ active participation for
knowledge sharing through ESN platforms, as well as their impact on business performance
(Löcker et al., 2014; Mäntymäkia and Riemerb, 2016). Hence, our study is an attempt to
answer this call by examining the effects of hedonic and utilitarian motivations on using ESN
systems for sharing internal and external knowledge, and their influence on employees’
productivity.
Finally, prior ESN studies have relied greatly on qualitative or conceptual analysis to unveil
theoretical foundations of ESN (Ellison et al., 2014; Razmerita et al., 2016). In this paper, we
apply structural equation modelling using partial least squares (PLS-SEM) method to
analyse cross-sectional data that have been collected from a wide spectrum of firms.
Section 2 reviews the bond between knowledge sharing and ESN systems, while Section 3
describes theoretical backgrounds of research hypotheses that guide the research model.
The research methodology is detailed in Section 4. This is followed by a presentation of
data analysis and results in Section 5 which are discussed and reflected upon in Section 6.
Conclusions and implications for theory and practice are delineated in Section 7. Finally, the
paper concludes with the study’s limitations and directions for future research.

2. Background
2.1 ESN and knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing has become a major competitive advantage that guides a firm to be
better poised for strategy execution (Durst and Wilhelm, 2012). Past research holds
that knowledge sharing is a social interaction process that can be facilitated by
information technology (Rode, 2016). This view is reinforced by social theories that
reflect knowledge sharing as a mean of social exchange (Blau, 1964; Chiu et al., 2006)
or as an avenue to reflect social identity (Hsu and Lin, 2008; Tajfel 1978). Therefore,
firms are more inclined to invest in new technologies that allow for effective knowledge
creation and sharing. It has been noted that virtual technology is the second generation
of knowledge systems, following knowledge repositories, that facilitate the formation of
cognitive and conceptual patterns to capture implicit and explicit knowledge transfer
among employees (Chiu et al., 2006). Later, McAfee (2006) and Paroutis and Saleh
(2009) argued that firms can use interactive digital platforms such as “Enterprise 2.0”
applications (e.g. blogs and wikis) to facilitate the visibility of employees’ engagement
in knowledge sharing practices. Therefore, ESN platforms signify a widespread
transformation to decentralized and continuous knowledge sharing that tap the minds
of the crowds while they eliminate temporal, social and spatial collaborative sharing
impediments, particularly in geographically scattered locations (Majchrzak et al.,

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 363

 2013). Von Krogh (2012) added that ESN systems have many additional advantages
over knowledge-sharing repositories (e.g. more efficient, less expensive, ubiquitous,
highly personalized and more cloud-based) that encouraged firms to adopt them as
their preferred knowledge-sharing platforms. According to Ellison et al. (2014), firms
are increasingly implementing ESN platforms as they enable users to “make sense”
about other employees and gives them access to the expertise of virtual employees.
Recently, Mäntymäkia and Riemerb (2016) examined knowledge sharing uses of ESN
including discussing ideas, updating events, managing tasks, conducting informal
talks and solving problems. They demonstrated that ESN platforms are able to add
value to these activities and allow users to simultaneously achieve social and
professional goals. Additionally, ESN shows great potential to support external
knowledge sharing with stakeholders as a result of extending the boundaries of socially
networked enterprise to bond employees with customers, suppliers and other
stakeholders, and positively contribute to business performance (Ellison et al., 2014;
Mettler and Winter, 2016). According to a Microsoft report, 57 per cent of businesses
use ESN to allow customers and partners to either suggest new ideas or participate in
inspecting them (Fidelman, 2015). Analysing findings from various reports, Ellison et al.
(2014) concluded that 79 per cent of Fortune 500 firms had used ESN platforms for
external communication and that a majority of managers believe that ESN platforms are
primarily essential for external communication. In conclusion, ESN platforms are
capable of transforming unstructured and scattered information into collaborative and
innovative internal and external knowledge that support decision-making in ways that
were not feasible in the past (Vuori and Okkonen, 2012).

2.2 Productivity effects of ESN

The productivity of knowledge work has been considered as a key challenge that faces
managers in today’s dynamic and competitive environment. Stam (2007) argued that
competitive advantage of firms does not derive from knowledge itself, but rather from
the ability of the firm to make knowledge productive. In this context, productivity
reflects a fruitful result or desired outcome owing to knowledge sharing. This concern
scrutinizes the value of organizational investment in enterprise systems for knowledge
sharing and utilization, which should be reflected in improved decision-making
processes, better performance and aligning value chain strategies. There is a trivial but
growing work on the link between ESN systems and employees’ productivity or
enterprise performance in general. However, none of these studies empirically
examines the direct impact of knowledge sharing through ESN systems on employees’
productivity. For instance, Trimi and Galanxhi (2014) investigated the effect of
Enterprise 2.0 in organizations using descriptive statistics. The findings showed that
using Enterprise 2.0 systems positively influences employee collaboration and
engagement, community building, and organizational activities. Using mathematical
modelling of social networks, Zhao and Chen (2013) indicated that ESN systems
provide the opportunity to quantify and visually diagnose the knowledge sharing status
in enterprises and record collaboration traces in the form of digital files, which facilitate
productivity assessment. Bologa and Lupu (2014) assessed the impact of
organizational learning networks on the productivity of enterprise resource planning
consultants. They found that participating consultants reported substantial
improvement in their productivity as a result of learning networks. Magnier-Watanabe et
al. (2010) found that higher levels of social capital and innovativeness in firms are
associated with higher internet-based social network productivity defined as the
relationship between interconnectedness and knowledge performance. Applying
structural equation modelling to survey data of 426 employees, Moqbel (2012)

PAGE 364 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

predicted that job satisfaction and innovative behaviour mediates the impact of
enterprise use of social networking sites on employees’ job performance.

2.3 Utilitarian and hedonic motivations of ESN

Knowledge resides mainly in the physical and mental effort of the knowledge holder
and not in physical systems (Rode, 2016). Firms start harvesting knowledge resources
when knowledge holders are willing to share their knowledge, so that knowledge
sharing is mainly influenced by human rather than technology barriers (Lin, 2007; Lam
and Lambermont-Ford, 2010). In line with this argument, motivations are deemed to be
a key driver that controls quality and quantity of knowledge sharing (Lam and
Lambermont-Ford, 2010; Löcker et al., 2014). According to social cognitive theory,
perceptions about motivations associated with particular products, service or
technology can guide individual’s behaviour (Compeau et al., 1999; Sullivan and
Drennan, 2007). One of the well-established motivational categories is utilitarian
and hedonic motivations (van der Heijden, 2004; Kim and Hwang, 2012; Pillai and
Mukherjee, 2011; Wakefield and Whitten, 2006). Utilitarian motivations are derived from
an economic concept to reflect system’s extrinsic, instrumental and task-oriented
motivations such as rewards and benefits. It is suggested that rational work mentality
and goal-oriented behaviours relate to utilitarian motivations (Chu et al., 2015). Hence,
a good ESN system from a utilitarian perspective should reasonably appraise and
reward user’s engagement and performance. Conversely, hedonic motivations reflect
spontaneous affective and intrinsic motivations that relate more to enjoyment, play
mentality, fantasy, entertainment and stimulation (Babin et al., 1994). From this view,
inspiring exploration, curiosity and pleasant engagement experience using sensory
features (e.g. audios, videos, colours, etc.) are essential to using ESN systems.
Utilitarian and hedonic motivations set up important boundary conditions that validate
technology adoption models (van der Heijden, 2004; Xu et al., 2012). Prior research has
examined the effects of hedonic and utilitarian motivations in various information and
communication technology (ICT) settings. For example, van der Heijden (2004) found
that perceived enjoyment is a strong determinant of user’s intention to use hedonic
technology. Wakefield and Whitten (2006) showed that hedonic and utilitarian
orientation of the technology has strong implications for users’ behaviour. In addition,
Rezaei et al. (2016) concluded that hedonic and utilitarian Web browsing positively
influences online users’ behaviour concerning tourism products, and Song et al. (2015)
suggested a positive effect of utilitarian and hedonic expectations on users’ intentions
to adopt 3G mobile technology.
Kim and Hwang (2012) pointed out that utilitarian motivations have a significant
negative impact on internet mobile users’ perception of service quality, whereas
hedonic motivations have a positive impact on quality perceptions. Parker and Wang,
(2016) revealed that utilitarian motivations of mobile commerce applications are the
most important stimuli for user engagement. With regard to social enterprise systems,
Pillai and Mukherjee (2011) extended the technology acceptance model to understand
the utilitarian and hedonic benefits experienced by users of various websites. They
asserted that perceived usefulness emerged as a significant mediator in the case of
utilitarian social websites and perceived enjoyment emerged as a significant mediator
in the case of hedonic social websites. Rode (2016) revealed that utilitarian motivations
such as reputation and reciprocal benefits drive employees to share knowledge in
enterprise social media, while enjoyment in helping others, as a hedonic value, does
not. Löcker et al. (2014) used an exploratory case study to assess motivational factors
that influence user’s engagement in business online community. The findings showed
that intrinsic factors are strong motivators, so that any personalized incentive
system that considers users’ needs is an essential prerequisite to such engagement.

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 365

 Merging these results leads us to contemplate that hedonic and utilitarian motivations
are expected to influence knowledge sharing behaviour in ESN systems as will be
illustrated in the following section.

3. Research hypotheses
3.1 Utilitarian motivations and knowledge sharing through ESN
Innovation and technology adoption literature has distinguished between utilitarian and
hedonic motivations of technology (Valacich et al., 2007; van der Heijden 2002; 2004).
While utilitarian motivations reflect instrumental benefits that are derived from using the
technology such as rewards, performance, promotion and respect, hedonic
motivations, on the other hand, imply emotional experiences that are associated with
using the technology such as joy, pleasure and fun (van der Heijden, 2004; Xu et al.,
2012). Utilitarian motivations have been considered in prior studies as a strong
influencing factor for using ICT to share knowledge in various organizational contexts
(Ardichvili, 2008; Papadopoulos et al., 2013). For instance, Lin (2007) established
reciprocal benefit as a utilitarian value and a significant predictor of knowledge sharing.
Ernst et al. (2013) and Alarco n-del-Amo et al. (2012) suggested that ESN platforms are
utilitarian technologies, as they can provide users with a broad range of functionalities
that trigger benefits for internal operations and workers’ cooperation, as well as external
customers. The understanding of the utilitarian dimension of ESN is consistent with
prior research results that indicate strong impact of perceived usefulness on ESN
adoption (Ernst et al., 2013). In line with this argument, we propose that utilitarian
motivations will positively influence internal (e.g. co-workers, managers and
subordinates) and external (e.g. customers, suppliers and other partners) knowledge
sharing through ESN platforms. Hence, the following hypotheses are suggested:
H1. Utilitarian motivations will have a positive influence on using ESN for internal
knowledge sharing.
H2. Utilitarian motivations will have a positive influence on using ESN for external
knowledge sharing.

3.2 Hedonic motivations and knowledge sharing through ESN

Van der Heijden (2002) asserted that modern technologies are neither purely utilitarian
nor purely hedonic, as they render different types of functions and purposes. For
example, ESN platforms might provide utilitarian benefits (i.e. confirming decisions,
acknowledging a contribution, rewarding a coworker, etc.) and hedonic value (i.e. the
fun and joy of social interaction). Even a single function of an ESN platform such as an
announcement, status update or informal chat may provide utilitarian goal-oriented
motivation and hedonic experiential motivation depending on the user’s intention while
performing the function (Xu et al., 2012). However, many researchers consider ESN
usage for knowledge sharing to be highly motivated by hedonic rather than utilitarian
motivations. Sledgianowski and Kulviwat (2008) suggested that the primary motivation
for using ESN technology is to bring pleasure, fun and joy to its users. Lin (2007) found
that the joy of helping colleagues significantly influences attitude towards knowledge
sharing. Hu et al. (2011) also identified ESN platforms as social hedonic systems that
help users give heed to their emotions. Moreover, Boyd and Ellison (2007) and
Thambusamy et al. (2010) asserted that using ESN platform is a pleasurable activity in
general, and users can experience additional enjoyment from social interactions.
Based on the foregoing argument, we suggest that hedonic motivations will positively
influence internal and external knowledge sharing through ESN platforms. Hence, the
following hypotheses are suggested:

PAGE 366 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

 H3. Hedonic motivations will have a positive influence on using ESN for internal
knowledge sharing.
H4. Hedonic motivations will have a positive influence on using ESN for external
knowledge sharing.

3.3 Knowledge sharing through ESN and employees productivity

Prior research has revealed that internal and external collaboration in knowledge sharing helps
improve employees’ productivity and decision-making capability (Anand, 2012; Kim, 2011;
Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2007). Also, drawing upon theories of knowledge sharing, Denga
and Chib (2015) performed social network analysis of archival data made by 4,568 enterprise
system users. They found that workers’ networking and boundary-spanning knowledge
positively influence productivity. With regard to ESN, many studies have confirmed the positive
impact of knowledge collaboration through ESN platforms on work processes, job
performance, cost and time, customer relationship management (Andriole, 2010; Denyer
et al., 2011; Ali-Hassan et al., 2011). Mäntymäkia and Riemerb (2016) indicated that ESN
platforms can improve employees’ productivity by 20 to 25 per cent. Moreover, a study by the
Forrester Group revealed that a company of 7000 ESN users (i.e. Yammer) confirmed a 365
per cent return on investment over three years (Dodd, 2011). Thom-Santelli et al. (2011) found
that the use of ESN sites is positively associated with higher work productivity, as ESN
platforms provide users with a way to learn more about their firm, share expertise and can be
considered as social capital. Improved employee productivity will in turn enhance task
performance. This result has been further articulated by Kuegler et al. (2015) who confirmed
that that intra- and inter-organizational use of ESN platforms have a significant impact on task
performance. Based on the former argument, we may therefore expect that using ESN
platforms for internal and external knowledge sharing will positively influence employees’
productivity. Hence, the following hypotheses can be delineated:
H5. Internal knowledge sharing through ESN will have a positive influence on employees’
productivity.
H6. External knowledge sharing through ESN will have a positive influence on
employees’ productivity.
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed research model and hypotheses based on the above
elaboration.

Figure 1 Research model

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 367

 4. Research method
4.1 Instrument development
For the present study, we have used well-established scales from prior literature whose
validity has been proven, lending high reliability to the results (see Section 4.1.1).
4.1.1 Research constructs.

1. Utilitarian motivations (Kim and Han, 2011; Li et al., 2015):

n UTI1 – Using ESN makes colleagues perceive me as competent

n UTI2 – Using ESN is rewarding
n UTI3 – Using ESN allows me to obtain an incentive

2. Hedonic motivations (Chang et al., 2014; Ozturk et al., 2016):

n HED1 – ESN is fun to use

n HED2 – Working with ESN is a pleasant experience
n HED3 – Using ESN is enjoyable
n HED4 – I feel happy using ESN*
3. Productivity (Thom-Santelli et al., 2011):

n PRO1 – Using ESN is an important part of performing my job

n PRO2 – Using ESN helps me to be more productive
n PRO3 – Using ESN adds value to my work
n PRO4 – Using ESN helps me to be effective*
n PRO5 – Using ESN advance may job performance
n PRO6 – Using ESN helps me to advance my work projects
4. Knowledge sharing through ESN (Kuegler et al., 2015):

n IKS1 – I use ESN to share knowledge with coworkers

n IKS2 – I use ESN to share knowledge with managers
n IKS3 – I use ESN to share knowledge with subordinates
n EKS1 – I use ESN to share knowledge with customers
n EKS2 – I use ESN to share knowledge with suppliers
n EKS3 – I use ESN to share knowledge with outside partners

* Deleted items as a result of cross loading.

Likert scale with values ranging from 1 to 5 is used to operationalize the constructs,
where (1) represents “strongly disagree” and (5) represents “strongly agree”. Items of
the utilitarian motivations are adapted from Kim and Han (2011) and Li et al. (2015). The
items reflect competency, rewarding and obtaining an upgrade. Hedonic motivations
were assessed by four items that reflect pleasure, fun, happiness and enjoyment. The
items are adapted from Chang et al. (2014) and Ozturk et al. (2016). Items of internal
and external knowledge sharing through ESN are adapted from Kuegler et al. (2015).
Knowledge sharing through ESN is represented internally by three items involving
coworkers, managers and subordinates, and externally by an additional three items

PAGE 368 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

incorporating customers, suppliers and outsider partners. Items measuring productivity
are adapted from Thom-Santelli et al. (2011) to manifest ESN role in boosting job
performance, work assignments, effectiveness, efficiency and value-added. The
second part of the questionnaire is designed to collect demographic information and
ESN user’s activities.

4.2 Instrument validity and reliability

Content validity is maintained according to guidelines by Cooper and Schindler (2014) and
Straub et al. (2004) throughout the survey development process. The survey entails multiple
reflective items that were validated and tested in previous research. The survey instrument
is also validated through three stages:

1. A panel of four specialized academics validated the relevance, clarity and formatting of
the content, as well as length of the questionnaire. The panel suggested that the
measures were appropriate and captured the key factors, but some modifications were
necessary to suit the survey’s content.
2. A pilot test was conducted on 17 MBA students in an e-business course. The pilot
test revealed the need for minor modifications to the formatting and length of the
survey.
3. The survey was finally translated from English to Arabic and then a reverse translation
into English was independently performed. As a result, minor English and Arabic
wording modifications were applied to ensure consistency.

4.3 Data collection and adequacy

Target respondents are ESN users in public and private firms in United Arab Emirates
(UAE). This involves users of traditional (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Googleþ,
etc.) and professional ESN (e.g. Yammer, SharePoint, Salesforce, etc.) software. Data
sets of UAE firms are obtained from local economic directorates in Abu Dhabi, Dubai
and Sharjah emirates. These data sets are supported by a commercial database of
more than 70,000 categorized email addresses of UAE firms. As with other knowledge-
based systems research, there is no single directory of all known ESN system users in
UAE. Therefore, an invitation message with a brief description of the study’s purpose,
and the online survey link are sent via email to 900 potential participants, from a wide
spectrum of UAE firms, who may adequately capture ESN experience and skills. Users
of at least one of social networks for enterprise work (e.g. Yammer, eXo Platform,
SharePoint, Salesforce, Google þ Work, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc.)
are asked to complete the survey questionnaire by a certain time or to forward the email
to the most appropriate ESN users in their firms to respond. The survey is voluntary,
and strict confidentiality is assured, as no identity information is recorded. Email
reminders are also sent to maximize the response rate. In total, 237 questionnaires are
returned with an initial response rate of approximately 26.3 per cent. Of those, 18
questionnaires are incomplete and 104 questionnaires are filled by a non-ESN user,
allowing for 115 valid questionnaires with a net satisfactory response rate of 13.15 per
cent which is higher than the response rate in similar studies (Ram et al., 2013;
Grandon and Pearson, 2004). To help reduce the potential of common-method bias,
Harman one-factor test is conducted while carrying out the data collection for the study
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). The test suggests that research results are not due to common-
method bias, as a single factor does not reflect most of the variance. Moreover, we
seek to examine whether using professional ESN systems such as Yammer, SharePoint
and Salesforce will result in different user experiences compared to using traditional
ESN systems such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp or Googleþ. A one-way analysis of

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 369

 variance (ANOVA) confirms insignificant difference (p > 0.05) in user’s experience of
ESN systems due to their brands. Multicollinearity is also examined using variable
inflation factor (VIF) (Kline, 1988). The results in Table I show that multicollinearity does
not appear to be significant problem in the data set as latent constructs have VIF values
that do not exceed the threshold level of 5.0 (Grewal et al., 2004).

5. Data analysis and results

5.1 Sample profile
Table II shows that respondents represent a wide spectrum of industries with a majority
from service sectors including retail, hotel and travel and governmental services (51.2
per cent). The majority of respondents are male (61.7 per cent) and use traditional ESN
such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp (60.5 per cent). Professional ESN platforms
such as Yammer, eXo Platform, SharePoint and Salesforce are also fairly represented.
The vast majority of respondents have more than three years of work experience and
more than four years of social media experience, making this a good sample, as
respondents are generally known to be familiar with social media platforms. Table III
illustrates the features of ESN platforms and user’s activities while using them. The
results show that the majority of respondents are familiar with key features of ESN
platforms including creating homepages and profiles, feeds, notifications, file sharing,
creating groups, making notes, searching, blogs, tags and chat rooms. Moreover, a
large number of ESN users perform the following activities: idea generation, task
discussion, problem-solving, work approval, sharing a file or photo, sharing tips or
tricks, making announcements, confirming specific actions, updating their status,
asking or searching for specific information, clarifying issues, making a presentation,
conducting informal chats and praising.

5.2 Assessment of the measurement model

Model assessment and measurement is conducted by means of SEM. SEM dominates
research that predicts relationships among variables in hypothesized models because
it considers measurement error in statistical data analysis (Moqbel, 2012). SEM can be
either covariance- or variance-based. Covariance-based SEM techniques have some
limitations such as requiring a sound theory, supporting confirmatory research type,

Table I Means, standard deviation, kurtosis and skewness

Construct Mean SD Excess kurtosis Skewness VIF

IKS1 3.243 0.938 0.143 0.38 1.906

IKS2 3.122 0.925 0.465 0.021 2.247
IKS3 3.339 0.884 0.108 0.036 1.430
EKS1 3.174 1.065 0.548 0.093 2.653
EKS2 3.165 1.021 0.117 0.289 3.666
EKS3 3.148 0.935 0.102 0.301 1.933
PRO1 2.983 0.894 0.268 0.335 1.887
PRO2 3.183 0.83 0.136 0.199 1.536
PRO3 3.096 0.823 0.092 0.181 2.012
PRO4 3.139 0.833 0.164 0.086 1.768
PRO5 3.104 0.838 0.205 0.201 1.887
HED1 3.087 0.764 0.53 0.087 1.320
HED2 2.872 0.819 0.507 0.247 1.449
HED3 3.017 0.894 0.073 0.335 1.590
UTI1 2.730 0.848 0.298 0.057 2.171
UTI2 2.929 0.856 0.078 0.016 1.846
UTI3 2.936 0.805 0.133 0.213 1.606

PAGE 370 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

 Table II Sample profile
Demographics Responses %

Industry
Manufacturing 8 7
Acc. & Finance 7 6.1
ICT 11 9.6
Retail 19 16.5
Hotel/Travel 17 14.7
Gov. services 23 20
Edu/Training 8 7
Construction 6 5.2
Health 11 9.6
Others 5 4.3
Total 115 100
Work Exp.
0–3 22 19.1
3–5 41 35.7
5 – 10 38 33
>10 14 12.2
SM Exp. 5 4.3
0–2 31 27
2–4 61 53
4–6 18 15.7
>6
ESN in Use*
Facebook 26 34.2
Twitter 11 14.5
WhatsApp 9 11.8
LinkedIn 2 2.6
Yammer 7 9.2
eXo Platform 2 2.6
SharePoint 2 2.6
Salesforce 5 6.5
GoogleþWork 6 7.9
Others 6 7.9
Total 76 100
Department
CEO/GM/Directors 15 13
Marketing/Sales 29 25.2
IT/MIS 22 19.1
Operations 15 13
HR 19 16.5
Finance 6 5.2
Others 9 8
Gender
Male 71 61.7
Female 44 38.3
Note: *More than one ESN system may be used by an organization

data should be normally distributed and large sample size (Schumacker and Lomax,
2004). Thus, we adopt a variance-based SEM using PLS method for data analysis. It is
a multivariate analysis method that estimates the parameters of a structural model and
shares many aspects of covariance-based SEM. However, PLS-SEM is preferred over
covariance-based SEM methods, such as those used by Amos and LISREL software for
various reasons. First, PLS-SEM was originally designed for prediction purposes and
can be used with reflective and formative measurement models (Hair et al., 2017).

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 371

 Table III Sample users’ activities using ESN systems
Features Responses (%) Activities Responses (%)

Homepages & profiles 115 100 Idea generation 62 54

Feeds 115 100 Task discussion 115 100
Notifications 115 100 Problem-solving 86 74.8
Blogs 72 62.6 Approval 76 66.1
File sharing 115 100 Sharing a file/photo 115 100
Groups 115 100 Sharing tips and tricks 68 59.1
Tags 84 73 Sharing details/links 45 39.1
Forums 31 27 Voting 33 28.7
Wikis 9 7.8 Announcements 98 85.2
Directories 11 9.56 Confirmations 115 100
Chat Rooms 98 85.2 Status updates 54 47
Searching 115 100 Asking/searching 79 68.7
Making notes 115 100 Clarifying an issue 115 100
Calendars 56 48.7 Presentation 54 4
Crowdsourcing 5 4.3 Informal Chat 115 100
Praising 115 100
Editing 32 27.8

Second, PLS-SEM is a component-based method where multivariate normal sample

data are not strictly necessary (Chin, 1998; Ram et al., 2013). Third, resampling
techniques in PLS-SEM are not restricted to meet parametric assumptions (Rencher,
1998). Fourth, the method is less sensitive to sample size which allows for using small
size samples compared to covariance-based approach (Henseler and Sarstedt, 2013).
Fifth, PLS-SEM can also estimate latent and manifest variables in complex models and
validate exploratory models for theory development. Table I indicates that kurtosis and
skewness values are between 1 and þ1 which indicate no violation of normality
assumptions of the sample data.
The quality of measurement model is assessed by multiple measures. Table IV shows that
the standardized factor loading for each measurement item is significant (p < 0.001) and
exceeds the threshold value of 0.70 (Chin, 1998). Table V demonstrates adequate internal
consistency results as the composite reliability (CR) values for all variables in the model are
higher than 0.84. Also, Cronbach’s alpha and rho_A values are greater than 0.71 which

Table IV Cross loadings

Construct EKS HED IKS PRO UTI

EKS1 0.892 0.480 0.679 0.735 0.079

EKS2 0.941 0.479 0.607 0.705 0.064
EKS3 0.817 0.403 0.423 0.575 0.100
HED1 0.370 0.738 0.399 0.444 0.022
HED2 0.436 0.824 0.521 0.428 0.039
HED3 0.430 0.837 0.444 0.474 0.096
IKS1 0.535 0.520 0.853 0.510 0.185
IKS2 0.619 0.529 0.902 0.545 0.039
IKS3 0.480 0.375 0.751 0.488 0.064
PRO1 0.648 0.513 0.602 0.815 0.107
PRO2 0.551 0.379 0.382 0.714 0.006
PRO3 0.592 0.525 0.508 0.820 0.025
PRO4 0.623 0.403 0.516 0.790 0.116
PRO5 0.582 0.358 0.375 0.785 0.075
UTI1 0.001 0.050 0.037 0.062 0.772
UTI2 0.064 0.085 0.076 0.103 0.799
UTI3 0.100 0.041 0.126 0.059 0.914

PAGE 372 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

 Table V Discriminant validity
Variable Cronbach’s alpha rho_A CR AVE EKS HED IKS PRO UTI

EKS 0.860 0.874 0.915 0.783 0.885

HED 0.720 0.730 0.843 0.642 0.516 0.801
IKS 0.785 0.799 0.875 0.702 0.653 0.572 0.838
PRO 0.845 0.849 0.890 0.618 0.764 0.558 0.614 0.786
UTI 0.811 0.960 0.869 0.690 0.090 0.066 0.116 0.087 0.831
Note: The italic diagonal elements represent the square root of AVE

indicate acceptable internal reliability of all variables (Straub et al., 2004). In addition, the
minimum average variance extracted (AVE) value is 0.618 which demonstrates a
satisfactory level of convergent validity, as it exceeds the required cut-off value of 0.5
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Furthermore, Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion has been
applied to assess discriminant validity of the variables. Table V shows that the inter-
construct correlations are less than the square root of the AVE (as italic diagonal elements).
Henseler et al. (2015) demonstrated another approach (i.e. heterotrait–monotrait
correlations [HTMT]) to measure discriminant validity by means of a Monte Carlo simulation.
According to Henseler et al. (2015), discriminant validity will be established when HTMT
values are less than 0.90. Table VI shows that the greatest HTMT correlation ratio in the
measurement model is 0.809 which reflects satisfactory discriminant validity level. Thus,
quality of the measurement model is well maintained as reliability and validity measures
were all satisfactory.

5.3 Testing the structural model

The quality of the structural model is assessed through the model’s predictive capabilities
as represented by the R2 values of endogenous latent variables and standardized path
coefficient values (Henseler and Sarstedt, 2013). General model fit indices including
SRMR = 0.077, d_ULS = 0.900, d_G = 0.571, chi-square = 322.69, NFI = 0.912; and RMS
theta = 0.219 demonstrate that the model is significantly reliable and adequately reflects the
underlying assumptions (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Bootstrap method with 1,000 resamples
(Chin, 1998) is applied to test the hypothesized path coefficients (e.g. direction, strength,
significance) as estimated by partial leased squares method. Table VII shows the results of
hypotheses testing drawing in path coefficients ( b ), t-statistics and associated significance
levels for all relationships in the model. Figure 2 also shows the structural model with path
coefficients and adjusted R2 values. The results reveal insignificant impact of utilitarian
motivations (UTI) on both IKS-ESN ( b = 0.078; t = 0.860; p = 0.390) and EKS-ESN ( b =
0.056; t = 0.547; p = 0.584). Thus, H1 and H2 are not supported. However, the influence
of hedonic motivations (HED) on both IKS-ESN ( b = 0.567; t = 8.473; p < 0.001) and EKS-
ESN ( b = 0.512; t = 7.412; p < 0.001) is significantly positive, lending support for H3 and
H4. Adjusted R2, in Figure 2, indicates that 25.6 percent of variance in EKS-ESN (t = 3.679,
p < 0.001) and 32.1 percent of variance in IKS-ESN (t = 4.200, p < 0.001) are explained by

Table VI Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT)

Variable EKS HED IKS PRO UTI

EKS
HED 0.651
IKS 0.781 0.749
PRO 0.809 0.714 0.746
UTI 0.101 0.094 0.123 0.116

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 373

 Table VII Results of hypotheses testing
Path Path coefficient ( b ) t-value p-value Results

H1. UTI ! IKS 0.078 0.860 0.390 Not supported

H2. UTI ! EKS 0.056 0.547 0.584 Not supported
H3. HED ! IKS 0.567 8.473 0.000 Supported
H4. HED ! EKS 0.512 7.412 0.000 Supported
H5. IKS ! PRO 0.199 2.812 0.005 Supported
H6. EKS ! PRO 0.634 10.526 0.000 Supported

Figure 2 Structural model with path coefficients and adjusted R 2

HED variable. Moreover, the results indicate that PRO is significantly influenced by both
IKS-ESN ( b = 0.199; t = 2.812; p < 0.001) and EKS-ESN ( b = 0.634; t = 10.526; p < 0.001),
providing support of H5 and H6. Adjusted R2 indicates that 60 per cent of variance in PRO
(t = 8.656, p < 0.001) is explained by two variables: EKS-ESN and IKS-ESN. Adjusted R2
values in the structural model signify a medium to substantial value of variance explained as
recommended by Chin (1998).

6. Discussions
The primary findings of the study are that utilitarian motivations did not significantly
influence either internal or external knowledge sharing through ESN platforms. This
surprising finding is divergent to most findings in knowledge-sharing studies which indicate
that utilitarian motivations (e.g. rewards and incentives) are important motivations in
fostering knowledge sharing in the workplace (Bartol and Locke, 2000; Yeon et al., 2015). It
also contradicts ESN studies that confirmed the influential role of extrinsic motivation,
reputation and reciprocal benefits in particular, in driving employees to use ESN for
knowledge sharing (Alarco n-del-Amo et al., 2012; Ernst et al., 2013; Rode, 2016). Moreover,
the result also contradicts the transaction cost view of knowledge sharing that posits an

PAGE 374 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

extrinsic incentive mechanism to facilitate knowledge sharing among organizational
members (Osterloh and Frey, 2000). Yet, the finding is consistent with Olatokun and Nwafor
(2012) who concluded that rewards and benefits do not significantly influence knowledge
sharing among Nigerian civil service employees. Similarly, Lin (2007) found that
organizational rewards did not significantly influence employee attitudes and intentions
towards knowledge sharing in top firms in Taiwan. With regard to ESN, Engler et al. (2015)
revealed no significant effects of organizational reward and image on initial and continued
knowledge sharing through enterprise social media platforms. They also indicated weak
impact of reciprocity benefits on intention to share knowledge through ESN.
A possible explanation for the insignificant effect of utilitarian motivations in the present
study may be related to low incentives offered to users for using ESN in knowledge sharing.
Similarly, high salaries may urge users to perceive a faded value of usage rewards. Also,
executive or top management users may be motivated by alternate factors than utilitarian
motivations (Lin, 2007).
According to Ellison et al. (2014), firms are increasingly implementing ESN platforms as
they enable users to “make sense” about other employees and gives them access to the
expertise of virtual employees. Moreover, previous research suggested that utilitarian
motivations (e.g. rewards) would be difficult to drive knowledge sharing within informal
interaction settings (Masterson et al., 2000). This observation is evident in the case of ESN
platforms where participation is voluntary and informal knowledge sharing is supported by
many system features. Kohn (1999), on the one hand, proposed that utilitarian rewards and
incentives may harm social interaction and negatively influence knowledge sharing, as
competing for a limited number of rewards may lead a person to perceive a loss when
another person obtains an incentive. Thus, the basic assumption of ESN as a collaborative
platform for knowledge sharing will be challenged when users act as competitors rather
than collaborative colleagues. This view can be supported by social identity theory (Tajfel
and Turner, 1985). The theory argues that employees can be identified with a particular
social interaction system in which they behave as expected by other employees. In the
same vein, the sensemaking perspective (Weick, 1995) contends that employees do not
react directly to specific organizational practices or policies (e.g. rewards) but rather
interpret them within their values, norms and social interaction in the work environment.
Such interpretations can produce a specific frame of mind concerning knowledge sharing
motivation and whether utilization of ESN systems should be supported or rewarded.
Furthermore, ensuring effective utilitarian benefits demands measuring indicators such as
number of ideas, discussions, shared files, etc. which will require tight supervision and
monitoring, and in turn might have the opposite effect from the original motivations for
knowledge sharing (Engler et al., 2015). Furthermore, Lin (2007) and Olatokun and Nwafor
(2012) implied that rewards have a temporary effect and only serve to obtain short-term
results. This view is in harmony with psychological research (Jahan and Aijaz, 2015;
Lyubomirsky et al., 2005) that assumes every individual has a fixed set point to which
positive emotions return shortly after gaining incentives and rewards. Similarly, due to the
high transparency of ESN platforms, feeling competent as a utilitarian value might be prone
to swift deterioration when individually generated knowledge is not up to the users’
expectation or when strong team collaboration does not allow for individual competence to
show over team competence (Raeth et al., 2012).
The present study also found that hedonic motivations have a positive significant influence
on using ESN for knowledge sharing, and it explains an acceptable portion of variance in
internal (25.6 percent) and external (32.1 percent) knowledge sharing. This implies that ESN
is a hedonic technology that is associated with a positive mood as bringing pleasure, fun
and joy to users when they engage in knowledge sharing. This is in line with Liao et al.’s
(2013) study on knowledge sharing in virtual communities where hedonic motivations were
found to be more important than utilitarian motivations in driving employees’ intention to

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 375

 continue sharing professional knowledge. Moreover, the finding is in agreement with Löcker
et al. (2014) and Vuori and Okkonen (2012) who confirmed that users of online communities
in the workplace are more motivated by intrinsic motivational factors including pleasure and
inner satisfaction than extrinsic motivations such as promotion opportunities or financial
rewards. Moreover, this finding is in harmony with Lin and Lu (2011) who indicated that
enjoyment is the most influential factor in people’s continued use of social networking sites.
A plausible explanation for the strong impact of hedonic motivations on using ESN for
knowledge sharing is the assumption that hedonic motivations give rather immediate
satisfaction than utilitarian motivations (Lam and Lambermont-Ford, 2010). In addition,
hedonic motivations tend to facilitate both knowledge donation and seeking behaviours in
which utilitarian motivation fails (Lin, 2007).
The study reveals ESN to be better suited for supporting employee’s productivity, and it
explains a great share (60 percent) of its variance. This result strengthens prior research
that verified the positive impact of ESN on productivity and business performance in
general (Denga and Chib, 2015; Andriole, 2010; Denyer et al., 2011; Ali-Hassan et al., 2011;
Thom-Santelli et al., 2011; Kuegler et al. (2015). It also reflects the dual structure of ESN
technology where it is strongly stimulated by hedonic motivations to achieve such utilitarian
objectives as productivity. It refutes one of the prevalent concerns about ESN platforms
where employees supposedly spend long periods of time using the platform for social
posting and networking rather than enhancing business performance, so that productivity
will be negatively affected (van Zyl, 2009). Consequently, this view is in harmony with
organizational research that considers internal and external workplace socialization to have
a positive impact on employees’ performance (Bauer et al., 2007; Bowler and Brass, 2006).
It is also worth noting that the impact of using ESN for external knowledge sharing (e.g.
customers and suppliers) on productivity is stronger than that of internal use. This finding
confirms the Microsoft report (2015) outcomes concerning business value of ESN where
improved marketing, sales and market share are considered by executives as the top social
engagement areas that had strong business value. It reveals a high proportion of ESN
features as context-dependent where users should be fearless to engage with customers
and suppliers to improve business performance (Mettler and Winter, 2016) and contradicts
Kuegler et al.’s (2015) view that inefficient communication and high coordination costs
impair the business value of using ESN for external knowledge sharing.

7. Conclusions and implications

This study is an early attempt that use PLS-SEM to examine drivers and outcomes of
knowledge sharing through ESN platforms in developing contexts. In comparison to past
research, the study’s findings provide several essential contributions to ESN and
knowledge management research. First, the study will be among the first research efforts to
observe ESN use in a developing economy context, where using ESN platforms for
knowledge sharing is still not well institutionalized. Second, our study examines the actual
use, rather than user intention, of both traditional and professional ESN platforms in the
workplace. Third, the study posits a research model to test the impact of motivations on
using ESN platforms. The results indicate that using ESN for knowledge sharing tends to be
significantly influenced by hedonic rather than utilitarian motivations. This result directs our
attention to the immediate impact of hedonic motivations on knowledge-sharing behaviours
through ESN (e.g. knowledge donation and seeking), and challenges an immovable prior
assumption regarding the impact of utilitarian motivations on using ESN. Fourth, the study
provides powerful evidence concerning the positive impact of using ESN platforms on
employees’ productivity, the link that is quite elusive and paradoxical in information
technology research (Kuegler et al., 2015).
These findings suggest a number of managerial implications for managers and practitioners
for using ESN, thereby enhancing knowledge sharing in firms. First, managers should not

PAGE 376 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

consider financial rewards and promotion incentive for using ESN as the principal
motivational mechanisms due to their short-term and temporary effect on users. Also, these
financial rewards demand measurement and mentoring efforts and stimulate employees’
competition for rewards rather than collaboration. Alternatively, following social exchange
theory (Posey et al., 2010), mangers should encourage social interaction to bring forth
material social rewards such as gratitude, respect and praise. Second, managers need to
emphasize employees’ positive attitude and subjective well-being to facilitate participation
and knowledge-sharing activities through ESN. Encouraging autonomy, enjoyment and
working conditions as well as involving employees when selecting the ESN will positively
influence employees’ response and adoption and will, in turn, encourage knowledge
sharing through ESN. Third, vendors need to improve ESN features that connect employees
with external partners including customers, suppliers and other parties to harvest the strong
impact of external knowledge sharing through ESN on business performance.
Fourth, management should not be certain that positive impact of knowledge sharing
through ESN on productivity is a “natural” process. Managers may be well served when
utilitarian motivation is linked with relevant visualization of ESN performance measures that
have both objective and psychological effect (e.g. number of internal and external contacts,
idea generation, task discussion, problem solving, sharing a file/photo, voting,
confirmations, clarifications, presentation, praising, etc.). Fifth, managers also must benefit
from the buffering effects of non-productive individual users of ESN in knowledge sharing
through facilitating their support or reallocation to productive ESN teams. Furthermore,
managers can look for creative ways based on hedonic motivations to foster the
productivity effect of ESN systems. Jackson et al. (2010) suggested that work-based
games are an innovative vehicle to promote productivity and best practices. These games
can be designed around simulating internal and external knowledge-sharing behaviours
using real-world scenarios. Finally, for a successful improvement in productivity,
management would designate particular statuses to employees’ productivity contribution
via ESN systems highlighting internal, cross-functional or external contribution.

8. Limitations and future research

Although the current cross-sectional study advised notable implications to theory and
practice, the findings must be interpreted with caution. First, data collection focuses on
various traditional (e.g. Facebook) and professional (e.g. Yammer) ESN platforms.
Future studies can extend the scope of the research model by examining one specific
ESN platform. Second, the research sample included only 115 employees of 49 firms
from different sectors. Therefore, verification and generalization of the findings require
future research to consider a larger sample size as far as SEM is concerned. Third, this
study does not focus on various knowledge-sharing behaviours through ESN platforms.
Thus, future research may investigate the differences between knowledge donating
and seeking behaviours while using ESN to better understand knowledge patterns and
their effect on business performance. Fourth, the method by which productivity
variables are operationalized in the study using perceptual measures based on
employees’ experience might constrain the study’s findings. Instead, imminent
research may use actual operational resources and deliverables to measure
productivity of ESN platforms, which may yield different findings. Fifth, looking at the
role of moderating factors such as personal traits, demographics and firm size can add
more value to the results, especially in cross-sectional studies. Sixth, upcoming studies
need to elaborate on the relationship between ESN and the organizational context. This
may allow for emergent research concerning e-leadership style and governance
framework of ESN platforms. Similarly, examining dynamics of knowledge sharing
through ESN systems from the perspective of cross-functional teams while engaging in
a particular project such as new product development (NPD) would extend our

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 377

 understating of key drivers and performance impact. Finally, this study is designed to
capture self-reported users’ data in a particular time by means of a structured online
survey. Accordingly, conducting longitudinal research over various points of time would
augment our findings.

References
Aboelmaged, M., Thomas, S. and Alshikh, S. (2017), “Trends of social media applications in healthcare: a
managerial perspective”, in Wickramasinghe, N. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Healthcare
Administration and Management, IGI Global, pp. 428-447.
 n-Del-Amo, M., Lorenzo-Romero, C. and Go
Alarco mez-Borja, M. (2012), “Analysis of acceptance
of social networking sites”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 29,
pp. 8609-8619.

Ali-Hassan, H., Nevo, D., Kim, H. and Perelgut, S. (2011), “Organizational social computing and
employee job performance - the knowledge access route”, Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-44), Kauai, HI.

Anand, A. (2012), “Understanding knowledge management: a literature review”, International Journal of

Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 926-936.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Andriole, S. (2010), “Business impact of web 2.0 technologies”, Commun. Assoc. Comput. Mach, Vol. 53
No. 12, pp. 67-79.
Ardichvili, A. (2008), “Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: motivators,
barriers, and enablers”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 41-554.
Babin, J., Darden, W. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.

Bartol, K. and Locke, E. (2000), “Incentives and motivation”, in Rynes, S. and Gerhardt, B. (Eds),
Compensation in Organization: Progress and Prospects, Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 1041–47.

Bauer, T., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, d. and Tucker, T. (2007), “Newcomer adjustment during
organizational socialization: a meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 707-721.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley, New York, NY.

Bologa, R. and Lupu, A. (2014), “Organizational learning networks that can increase the productivity of IT
consulting companies: a case study for ERP consultants”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 126-136.

Bowler, W. and Brass, D. (2006), “Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: a social
network perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 70-82.
Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. (2007), “Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship”, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 210-230.
Chang, I., Liu, C. and Chen, K. (2014), “The effects of hedonic/utilitarian expectations and social
influence on continuance intention to play online games”, Internet Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 21
-45.
Chiu, C., Hsu, M. and Wang, E. (2006), “Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an
integration of social Capital and social cognitive theories”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 1872-1888.
Chin, W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in
Marcoulides, G. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336

Choudrie, J. and Zamani, E. (2016), “Understanding individual user resistance and workarounds of
enterprise social networks: the case of service ltd”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 130-151.

PAGE 378 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

Chu, W., Roh, M. and Park, K. (2015), “The effect of the dispersion of review ratings on evaluations of
hedonic versus utilitarian products”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 95-125.
Compeau, C., Higgins, S. and Huff, S. (1999), “Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to
computing technology: a longitudinal study”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 145-158.
Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2014), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Denga, X. and Chib, L. (2015), “Knowledge boundary spanning and productivity in information systems
support community”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 80, pp. 14-26.
Denyer, S., Parry, E. and Flowers, P. (2011), “Social’’, ‘‘open’’ and ‘‘participative’’? Exploring personal
experiences and organisational effects of enterprise 2.0 use”, Long Range Plan, Vol. 44 Nos 5/6,
pp. 375-396.
Dodd, L. (2011), “Study reveals huge ROI when using yammer”, Strategic Communication Management,
Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 7.
Durst, S. and Wilhelm, S. (2012), “Knowledge management and succession planning in SMEs”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 637-649.
Ellison, N., Gibbs, J. and Weber, M. (2014), “The use of enterprise social network sites for knowledge
sharing in distributed organizations”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 103 -123.
Engler, T., Paul, A. and Fayzimurodova, U. (2015), “Initial and continued knowledge contribution”,
Twenty-Third European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Münster.
Ernst, C., Pfeiffer, J. and Rothlauf, F. (2013), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations of social network site
adoption”, Working Paper 01/2013, Working Papers in Information Systems and Business Administration,
Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz.
Fidelman, M. (2015), “The rise of enterprise social networks”, http://news.microsoft.com/download/
presskits/enterprisesocial/docs/riseEnterpriseSocialWP.pdf,2015 (accessed 13 August 2016).
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Grandon, E. and Pearson, J. (2004), “Electronic commerce adoption: an empirical study of small and
medium US businesses”, Information and Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 197-216.
Grant, S. (2016), “Classifying emerging knowledge sharing practices and some insights into antecedents
to social networking: a case in insurance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 898-917.
Grewal, R., Cote, J. and Baumgartner, H. (2004), “Multicollinearity and measurement error instructural
equation models: implications fort theory testing”, Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 519-529.
Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Henseler, J. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling”,
Computational Statistics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 565-580.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hsu, C. and Lin, J. (2008), “Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance, social
influence and knowledge sharing motivation”, Information and Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.

Hu, T., Poston, R. and Kettinger, W. (2011), “Non-adopters of online social network services: is it
easy to have fun yet?”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 441-458.
Jackson, P., Cole, C., Lazar, I. and Morell, L. (2010), “Next generation job title: knowledge productivity
coach - must be able to work virtually”, On the Horizon, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 184-192.

Jahan, F. and Aijaz, A. (2015), “Economic affluence and happiness from psychological perspective”,
Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, Vol. 6 No. 10, pp. 1041-1043.

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 379

 Jussil, J., Kärkkäinen, H. and Aramo-Immonen, H. (2014), “Social media utilization in business-to-
business relationships of technology industry firms”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 30,
pp. 606-613.
Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2007), “The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team
performance over time”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 783-808.
Kim, D. (2011), “The effects of knowledge sharing on program performance: influences on CPS program
performance”, Ph.D. Thesis, Blacksburg, VA.
Kim, B. and Han, I. (2011), “The role of utilitarian and hedonic motivations and their antecedents in
a mobile data service environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 2311-2318.
Kim, D. and Hwang, Y. (2012), “A study of mobile internet user’s service quality perceptions from a user’s
utilitarian and hedonic value tendency perspectives”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 409-421.
Kline, R. (1988), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Kohn, A. (1999), Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and
Other Bribes, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Kuegler, M., Smolnik, S. and Kane, G. (2015), “Hat’s in IT for employees? Understanding the relationship
between use and performance in enterprise social software”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 90-112.
Lam, A. and Lambermont-Ford, J. (2010), “Knowledge sharing in organisational contexts: a motivation-
based perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 51-66.
Li, H., Liu, Y., Xu, X., Heikkilä, J. and van der Heijden, H. (2015), “Modeling hedonic is continuance
through the uses and gratifications theory: an empirical study in online games”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 48, pp. 261-272.
Liao, C., To, P. and Hsu, F. (2013), “Exploring knowledge sharing in virtual communities”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 891-909.
Lin, H. (2007), “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions”,
Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-149.

Lin, K. and Lu, H. (2011), “Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network
externalities and motivation theory”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 1152-1161.
Löcker, A., Eraßme, D., Jakobs, E., Schaar, A., Valdez, A. and Ziefl, M. (2014), “Yet another platform?
Motivational factors for using online communities in business”, Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, AHFE 2014, Krakow,  19-23 July.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. and Schkade, D. (2005), “Pursuing happiness: the architecture of
sustainable change”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 111-131.
McAfee, A. (2006), “Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 21-28.
Magnier-Watanabe, R., Yoshida, M. and Watanabe, T. (2010), “Social network productivity in the use of
SNS”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 910-927.
Majchrzak, A., Faraj, G., Kane, B. and Azad, B. (2013), “The contradictory influence of social media
affordances on online communal knowledge sharing”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 38-55.
Mäntymäkia, M. and Riemerb, K. (2016), “Enterprise social networking: a knowledge management
perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1042-1052.

Masterson, S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. and Taylor, M. (2000), “Integrating justice and social exchange:
the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.

Mettler, T. and Winter, R. (2016), “Are business users social? A design experiment exploring information
sharing in enterprise social systems”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 101-114.
Moqbel, M. (2012), “The effect of the use of social networking sites in the workplace on job performance”,
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M International University, TX.

PAGE 380 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

Olatokun, W. and Nwafor, W. (2012), “The effect of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on knowledge
sharing intentions of civil servants in Ebonyi state, Nigeria”, Information Development,
pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1177/0266666912438567
Oostervink, N., Agterberg, M. and Huysman, M. (2016), “Knowledge sharing on enterprise social media:
practices to cope with institutional complexity”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 156-176.
Osterloh, M. and Frey, B. (2000), “Motivation, knowledge transfer and organizational forms”, Organization
Science, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 538-550.
Ozturk, A., Nusair, K., Okumus, F. and Hua, N. (2016), “The role of utilitarian and hedonic motivations on
users’ continued usage intention in a mobile hotel booking environment”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 57, pp. 106-115.
Panahi, S., Watson, J. and Partridge, H. (2016), “Conceptualising social media support for tacit
knowledge sharing: physicians’ perspectives and experiences”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 344-363.
Papadopoulos, T., Stamati, T. and Nopparuch, P. (2013), “Exploring the determinants of knowledge
sharing via employee weblogs”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 133-146.
Parker, C. and Wang, H. (2016), “Examining hedonic and utilitarian motivations for m-commerce fashion
retail app engagement”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 487-506.
Paroutis, S. and Saleh, A. (2009), “Determinants of knowledge sharing using web 2.0 technologies”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 52 -63.
Pillai, A. and Mukherjee, J. (2011), “User acceptance of hedonic versus utilitarian social networking web
sites”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 180-191.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Posey, C., Lowry, B., Roberts, T. and Ellis, S. (2010), “Proposing the online community self-disclosure
model: the case of working professionals in France and the UK who use online communities”, European
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 181-195, doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.15.

Raeth, P., Urbach, N. and Smolnik, S. (2012), “Corporate adoption of social computing: a process-based
analysis”, Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 3-27.
Ram, J., Corkindale, D. and Wu, M. (2013), “Enterprise resource planning adoption: structural
equation modeling analysis of antecedents”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 54
No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K. and Nielsen, P. (2016), “What factors influence knowledge sharing in
organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 1225-12461.

Rencher, A. (1998), Multivariate Statistical Inference and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Rezaei, S., Faizan, A., Amin, M. and Jayashree, S. (2016), “Online impulse buying of tourism products:
the role of web site personality, utilitarian and hedonic web browsing”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 60 -83.
Rode, H. (2016), “To share or not to share: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on knowledge-
sharing in enterprise social media platforms”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 152-165.
Schumacker, R. and Lomax, R. (2004), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Sledgianowski, D. and Kulviwat, S. (2008), “Social network sites: antecedents of user adoption and
usage”, Proceedings of AMCIS 2008, Paper 83.
Song, J., Sawang, J. and Drennan, L. (2015), “Same but different? Mobile technology adoption in China”,
Information Technology and People, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107 -132.
Stam, C. (2007), “Making sense of knowledge productivity: beta testing the KP- enhancer”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 628-640.

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 381

 Straub, D., Boudreau, M. and Gefen, D. (2004), “Validation guidelines for IS positivist research”,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 380-427.
Sullivan, M. and Drennan, J. (2007), “Mobile communications: a study of factors influencing consumer
use of M-services”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 302-312.
Tajfel, H. (1978), Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations, Academic Publishing, New York, NY.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. and
Austin, W.J. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.

Thambusamy, R., Church, M., Nemati, H. and Barrick, J. (2010), “Socially exchanging privacy for
pleasure: hedonic use of computer-mediated social networks”, ICIS 2010 Proceedings, 2010, Paper 253.
Thom-Santelli, J., Millen, D. and Gergle, D. (2011), “Organizational acculturation and social networking”,
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Hangzhou, 19-23 March, ACM, New York, NY.
Trimi, S. and Galanxhi, H. (2014), “The impact of enterprise 2.0 in organizations”, Service Business, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 405-424.
Valacich, J., Parboteeah, D. and Wells, J. (2007), “The online consumer’s hierarchy of needs”, Comm.
ACM, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 84-90.
van der Heijden, H. (2002), “On the cognitive-affective structure of attitudes toward information systems”,
Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 803-806.

van der Heijden, H. (2004), “User acceptance of hedonic information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28,
pp. 695-704.
van Zyl, A. (2009), “The impact of social networking 2.0 on organisations”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 27
No. 6, pp. 906-918.

Von Krogh, G. (2012), “How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic
research agenda”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 154-164.
Vuori, V. and Okkonen, J. (2012), “Knowledge sharing motivational factors of using an intra-organizational
social media platform”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 592-603.
Wakefield, R. and Whitten, D. (2006), “Mobile computing: a user study on hedonic/utilitarian mobile
device usage”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 292-300.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Xu, K., Lin, J. and Chan, H. (2012), “The moderating effects of utilitarian and hedonic motivations on
information technology continuance”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 12-38.

Yeon, K., Wong, S., Chang, M. and Park, M. (2015), “Knowledge sharing behavior among community
members in professional research information centers”, Information Development, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 655-672.
Zhao, R. and Chen, B. (2013), “Study on enterprise knowledge sharing in ESN perspective: a Chinese
case study”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 416-434.

Further reading
Anderson, C. and Gerbing, D. (2010), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 453-460.
Leonardi, P., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C. (2013), “Enterprise social media: definition, history, and
prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations”, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N. (2016), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of applied psychology,
Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”, Computational Statistics
and Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205.

PAGE 382 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018

About the author
Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged has a PhD in Management Science from Lancaster
University, UK, and MA in Public Policy & Administration from the International Institute of
Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Currently, he is an
Associate Professor of Management at University of Sharjah, UAE. His research interests
include innovation adoption, enterprise systems, sustainability, supply chain and Lean
operations. His work has been published in international journals and conference
proceedings such as Journal of Cleaner Production, International Journal of Information
Management, Production Planning & Control, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Industrial Management and Data Systems, International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, Measuring Business Excellence, Business Process
Management Journal, Online Information Review, International Journal of Social Ecology
and Sustainable Development, International Journal of Enterprise Network Management,
Economic and Business Review Journal, IEEE International Conferences on Management of
Innovation and Technology, Software Engineering and Service Sciences, The World
Congress on Sustainable Technologies, IQ Conference at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), British Academy of Management Annual Conference, The Operational
Research Society Annual Conference and Annual Global IT Management World
Conference. Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged can be contacted at: maboelmaged@sharjah.
ac.ae

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

VOL. 22 NO. 2 2018 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 383