942495

research-article20202020
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244020942495SAGE OpenZhang et al.

Original Research

SAGE Open

The Influence of Social Media on Employee’s

July-September 2020: 1­–17
© The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/2158244020942495
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020942495

Knowledge Sharing Motivation: journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

A Two-Factor Theory Perspective

XiaoJuan Zhang1, Xiang Jinpeng1, and Farhan Khan1

Abstract
This study aims to investigate social media (hygiene factor), motivators (allow employees to share knowledge), and employee’s
knowledge sharing motivation (KSM). For this purpose, the author introduces two-factor theory as its research framework
to propose research hypotheses and construct the theoretical model. Then the model is tested and validated based on
a survey of 278 enterprise employees in China, utilizing structural equation modeling through SPSS statistics and AMOS.
It is found that first, the three states of knowledge sharing (lack of motivation, intermediate state, and with motivation)
constitute two continuums. The satisfaction of motivators and hygiene factors respectively lead to changes in the state of
motivation to share, and second, social media affects the staff’s motivation to share through both a direct and an indirect
pathway. Directly, as the hygiene factor, the absence of social media will weaken the staff’s motivation to share. However, its
usage doesn’t directly increase employees’ sharing motivation. Indirectly, through the mediating effect of self-efficacy social
media can influence knowledge sharing motivation of employees.

Keywords
social media, knowledge sharing motivation, two-factor theory, hygiene factor

Introduction share knowledge. Indeed, such research has reached a rela-

From the knowledge-based enterprise perspective (Grant,
1996; Spender, 1996), knowledge is the basis of enterprise
competitiveness and the origin of power for enterprises cre-
ating values. Knowledge sharing can play significant roles in
knowledge application and innovation. In the end, it will
contribute to enterprise competitiveness going up (Wang
et al., 2014). In practice, all best practice companies invari-
ably consider knowledge sharing as an important route for
solving business problems (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). In
academia, knowledge sharing is also the most studied factor
within the knowledge management process (Al-Emran et al.,
2018). Since staff’s intention for knowledge sharing is the
most important predictive factor of knowledge sharing acts,
many scholars have researched on the factor of knowledge
sharing intention (Bock et al., 2005; Hau et al., 2013; Hwang
et al., 2018; Lin, 2007a).
Motivation is the most important factor affecting the
intention of knowledge sharing of employees (Hau et al.,
2013). If there is no strong personal motivation, knowledge
sharing virtually will not happen in enterprises (Stenmark,
2000). Through employing related theories such as social
exchange theory, self-determination theory, and so on, schol-
ars already obtained rich results regarding the motivation to
tively mature stage (C. A. Chen & Hsieh, 2015). As social
media (SM) develops in zest in recent years, important
changes are also occurring within organizations. SM has
connected organizational members, allowing them to share
information and participate in the various processes of enter-
prise activities. Simultaneously, an increase in business
usage of SM also forces managerial personnel to consider
anew the mode of business operation in organizations (Ngai
et al., 2015). Adoption and utilization of SM brings in new
supports to knowledge sharing within organizations, which
engenders corresponding studies. Although these studies are
abundant, they are mostly limited to these two aspects—the
usage of SM tools and the transition from traditional scenar-
ios to SM scenarios (virtual communities). We still have only
a small amount of literature in this regard to discuss the rela-
tionship between SM and motivation for knowledge sharing
(Aboelmaged, 2018; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Matschke
1
Wuhan University, China
Corresponding Author:
Farhan Khan, School of Information Management, Wuhan University,
Wuhan 430072, China.
Email: farhankhan7727@yahoo.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
et al., 2014; Razmerita et al., 2016; Rode, 2016). After com-
prehensive literature review related to SM and knowledge
management, we found that there is very limited research
focusing on hygiene and motivator factors, and no research
has been conducted to discuss the SM (hygiene factor) and
motivator use for knowledge sharing motivation (KSM).
That is why we propose a model introducing hygiene and
motivator factors influencing individual’s KSM. On such a
footing, the main research purpose of this study is to explore
the effects and modes of action of SM on employee’s KSM.
The answer to this question would furnish new avenues of
thought and perspectives to related research on the motiva-
tion for knowledge sharing. At the same time, SM can also
be situated within the motivation for knowledge sharing,
which would assist the practical developments of organiza-
tions. Furthermore, the study contributes to the literature of
SM, knowledge management, and motivation by introducing
two-factor theory.
In the second part of this paper is theoretical backgrounds
and related literature is reviewed. The third part proposes the
research model and hypotheses. In the fourth and fifth parts,
the paper’s research method and data analysis are described
respectively. The sixth part consists of the discussion.
Following that the study’s research significance and limita-
tions are pointed out. At the end, it is concluded with pros-
pect for further research.
Related Research
KSM: Theory and Factors
Knowledge sharing is the process of individuals mutually
exchanging knowledge (implicit or explicit) and creating new
knowledge together (Van Den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004). The
concept supposes there exist at least two subjects in the
knowledge sharing process, namely “knowledge owners” and
“knowledge demanders” (Hendriks, 1999), also termed “sup-
pliers” and “demanders” (Ardichvili et al., 2003) or “knowl-
edge contributors” and “knowledge collectors” (Van Den
Hooff & De Ridder, 2004). This study emphasizes on the pro-
cess of knowledge transit by an individual and comprehended,
absorbed, and utilized by others. The term “sharing” implies
the conscious behavior of individuals participating in knowl-
edge exchange, not under external compulsion (Ipe, 2003).
Studies have considered knowledge sharing to be a voluntary
behavior (Gagné, 2009), with a nature of self-initiation
(American Psychological Association, 2019b).
In prior research, the motivation for knowledge sharing
could be the main content of research or part of the research,
more commonly the latter. Scholar in different areas have
adopted different theories to build their research frameworks.
With respect to motivation for knowledge sharing, they
include market theory, self-determination theory, and social
exchange theory. Based on theories employed in the studies,
Table 1 summarized research to date.
Through Table 1, it can be seen that under dissimilar theo-
retical backgrounds, the classification of motivations for
knowledge sharing varies. The knowledge market theory
classifies according to economic factors and non-economic
factors. The self-determination theory chiefly commences
from internal motivations and external motivations. The
social exchange theory conversely emphasizes expected per-
sonal benefits (internal benefits and external benefits).
Although there are differences in the classification perspec-
tive of various theories, consistency is found across the
actual influencing factors, for example, self-efficacy of
knowledge, enjoyment in helping others, altruism, promo-
tion, bonus, and reputation. In addition, there are also schol-
ars paying special attention to a single factor, for example,
considering the relationship between reward and knowledge
contribution, in lieu of multiple inconsistencies in existing
research Liu and Li (2017) conducted in-depth research of
the effect of monetary reward to the motivation for contribut-
ing knowledge.
Contents of research on influences on motivations for
knowledge sharing are quite rich. However, there are still
some insufficiencies. Research to date considers the level
of motivation for knowledge sharing to be a single con-
tinuum from lack of motivation to being motivated. Within
this continuum, employees are in the neutral state, with no
motivation to share or not to share. When a single factor
(e.g., sense of recognition after sharing) is satisfied, the
employees will have the motivation to share. Otherwise,
the motivation to share will be lacking. The presence of
this single continuum is the underlying prerequisite most
studies tacitly admit. However, its reasonableness still
awaits further investigation.
SM and KSM
In recent years, SM has extensively altered our modes of pro-
duction and life. Simultaneously, it has received attention
from multiple fields, especially in business production. SM
platforms refer to enterprise SM to develop work practices
and introduce new ways of knowledge sharing within the
organization and increase organizational competitiveness
(Razmerita et al., 2016).
Although SM is widely used and has profound influences,
there is still a certain difficulty distinguishing SM from
previous information communication technologies (Kane,
2017). Based on distinction and exploration of Web 2.0 and
user-created contents, Kaplan & Haenlein defined SM as
application programs permitting the creation and exchange
of user-created contents built on Web 2.0 thinking and tech-
nology, based on the internet (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Kane defined SM on a broader horizon, considering “social
media is not a technology, but it is a set of affordances sup-
ported by a diverse and evolving technological infrastructure
that enable people to communicate and collaborate in novel
ways.” (Kane, 2017) On the other hand, commencing from
Zhang et al. 3

Table 1.  Summary of Studies Related to the Motivation for Knowledge Sharing.

Theoretical
frameworks Author/s (year) Factors in the motivation for knowledge sharing or main conclusions of studies
Knowledge market Wasko and Faraj (2000) Economic factors: individual interests, for example, promotion, remuneration,
theory rewards
Non-economic factors: moral obligation, community interest
Self-determination Lin (2007a) Internal factors: knowledge self-efficacy, enjoyment in helping others
theory External factors: anticipated organization reward, reciprocity
Hau et al. (2013) Internal factors: enjoyment in helping others
External factors: organization reward, reciprocity
Wang et al. (2014) Internal factors: altruism (personal satisfaction, organization interest)
External factors: hard incentives (economic reward, reciprocity) and soft incentives
(reputation, social relations)
Stanius et al., (2016) The autonomous type of extrinsic motivation is the strongest predictive factor
of the best quality for knowledge sharing. Other types of motivation (intrinsic,
introjected, external) have no independent influences on knowledge sharing
Mosala-Bryant and Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations both have propelling effects for communities of
Hoskins (2017) practice of public service. However, the effect of intrinsic motivations is stronger.
Social exchange Kankanhalli et al. (2005) Costs: loss of knowledge power, codification
theory Benefits: external (organization reward, image, reciprocity), internal (self-efficacy of
knowledge, enjoyment in helping others)
Wasko and Faraj (2005) Reputation
Hau et al. (2013) Individual motivations have various effects on knowledge sharing. Expected
intrinsic rewards (sense of accomplishment, pleasure, joy, etc.) positively
influence knowledge sharing. Expected extrinsic rewards (promotion, bonus, etc.)
negatively affect knowledge sharing

the information and communications technology (ICT) con-
cept, Jarrahi considers SM is a form of ICT, a platform for
individuals to establish social interaction (Jarrahi, 2018).
Author of knowledge management argue that social soft-
ware involved in knowledge management by providing open
and inexpensive alternatives to traditional implementations.
Whereas, social softwares raise important questions about
the importance and value of organizational knowledge,
knowledge protection, firm’s boundaries, and the resources
of competitive advantage (Von Krogh, 2012).
Studies about SM and motivations for knowledge sharing
can be divided into two kinds. The first type considers SM as
a tool and explores the motivations of using them for knowl-
edge sharing. This kind of research is fewer. The research of
Aboelmaged (2018), on the motivational factors using enter-
prise social network systems (ESNS) for knowledge sharing
indicates the use of ESNS to be more influenced by hedonis-
tic motivations rather than utilitarian motivations.
The second group of research perceives SM as scenarios
and explores knowledge sharing related contents in virtual
communities or SM platforms. Hsu et al. explores knowl-
edge sharing behaviors in professional virtual communities
and proposed a model based on social cognition theory (Hsu
et al., 2007). Similarly, Chiu et al. combined social cognition
theory and social capital theory to construct the model of
motivations for knowledge sharing in virtual communities
(Chiu et al., 2006). Vuori and Okkonen studied the motiva-
tors of knowledge sharing through the use of SM platforms.
Their results indicate that internal factors (such as the wish to
help the organization achieve its objectives and to assist col-
leagues) are more effective than external factors (like eco-
nomic rewards and job promotion). The research further
believes the motivational factors of knowledge sharing
through SM platforms are the same as those for knowledge
sharing in general (Vuori & Okkonen, 2012). The study of
Matschke et al highlight the barriers of active participation
and motivational factors for information sharing. The authors
argue that internal motivation is the strongest factor support-
ing participation whereas, time and effort requirements are
the factors hindering participation (Matschke et al., 2014).
Rode (2016) studied the internal and external motivations
for knowledge sharing on enterprise SM platforms. The
results show that the expected augmentation of reputation
and reciprocal benefits are the main factors for employees
conducting knowledge sharing through SM platforms. Self-
efficacy of knowledge also has a positive influence while a
sense of joy of the subject has no significant influence.
It can be seen that the first type of research emphasizes
more the motivations for using SM, with less attention to
motivations for knowledge sharing. The second type is not
different in nature from studies on motivations for knowl-
edge sharing, that is (Hau et al., 2013; Lin, 2007a; Wang
et al., 2014; Wasko et al., 2000). The distinction is the previ-
ous group of studies situating motivations for knowledge
sharing in virtual communities or platforms for their investi-
gation. Both types of research have not explored the effects
4 SAGE Open
of SM on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Thus, the
effects of SM and its mode of action still lack interpretation
from related research.
Based on the observation, the first research question of
this study is—Does social media have influences on employ-
ees’ motivation for knowledge sharing and how does it
influence?
Two-Factor Theory and KSM
The two-factor theory was proposed in the book The
Motivation to Work by Herzberg, Mausner, and Synderman,
published in 1959. Their research was based on the frame-
work “factor-attitude-effect,” and it strove to answer the
question: “What do workers want from their jobs?” The
research indicated that factors engendering the sense of sat-
isfaction in workers to be different from those causing dis-
satisfaction. Herzberg termed these as two groups, factors
motivators and hygiene factors (Herzberg et al., 1959).
Motivators refer to aspects that can raise the sense of sat-
isfaction and activeness in work. They include a sense of
accomplishment, recognition, the work itself, responsibility,
and promotion. Hygiene factors refer to company policies
and administration, technical supervision, working condi-
tions, and relations with superiors. When hygiene factors are
lacking, or they can’t be fulfilled, dissatisfaction will result.
However, when they are satisfied, they don’t motivate the
workers to uplift their performance (American Psychological
Association, 2019a; Herzberg, 1968; Herzberg et al., 1959).
Before the two-factor theory, the dominant theory
hypothesis considered the degrees of satisfaction and dis-
satisfaction at work belonged to one single continuum.
Within this continuum, the individual is in a neutral state,
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. When factors such as sal-
ary, supervision, and promotion prospects are improved,
the degree of satisfaction will increase. Otherwise, dissatis-
faction will result. However two-factor theory distinguishes
two continuums—from dissatisfied to not dissatisfied then
further to satisfied. Locations in the continuums are ascer-
tained by whether the various attributes of work (hygiene
factors and motivators) are fulfilled (Bassett-Jones &
Lloyd, 2005; Sanjeev & Surya, 2016).
Studies employing the two-factor theory on motivations
for knowledge sharing are few. The most representative one
is the theoretical research from Hendriks in 1999 (Hendriks,
1999). The study made use of the two-factor theory as the
theoretical framework and proposed the theoretical model
about the relationship between ICT and KSM. The model
delineated ICT’s influence on KSM into two aspects. The
first concern is the direct influences of hygiene factors.
When ICT support is lacking, employees’ KSM will
weaken. But the presence of ICT will not heighten that
motivation. Second indirect affect of ICT on KSM. In his
study, other factors, for example, person, task, context, and
so on influences on motivators.
When a question “Which factors encourage employees to
undertake knowledge sharing?” is pondered, scholars often
focuses on motivators. Whereas, hygiene factors are easily
overlooked in the studies emphasizing on motivation.
Personal satisfaction, enjoyment in helping others, and self-
efficacy of knowledge often found in studies they all belong
to the category of motivators. However, few studies discuss
about the hygiene factors.
It can be seen that the two-factor theory furnishes new
avenues of thought for research on the presence of contin-
uums of employees’ KSM. Namely, there should exist three
states in knowledge sharing: lack of motivation, neutral state,
and having motivation. Indeed these three states constitute
two continuums. On such a basis, this paper proposes the
second and third research questions: State transitions of
employees’ knowledge sharing motivation are affected by
which factors? What kind of roles social media play in
changes in the motivation of knowledge sharing in
employees?
Research Model and Hypotheses
In the two-factor theory of Herzberg, motivators include
achievement, recognition, responsibility, work itself, and
advancement. Hygiene factors include company policies
and administration, technical supervision, working condi-
tions, interpersonal relationship with supervisors, and sal-
ary. Related studies employing two-factor theory would
generally adjust the contents of motivators and hygiene
factors to satisfy concrete requirements. After reviewing
related research, we have discovered that motivators are
commonly connected to events themselves and are mostly
intrinsic factors, for example, responsibility, heterogeneity
in work, recognition, sense of accomplishment, and so on.
Conversely, hygiene factors are often connected to the
external environment. Most of them are extrinsic factors,
for example, working environment, status, interpersonal
relationship, fairness, and so on (Balmer & Baum, 1993;
DeShields et al., 2005; Lundberg et al., 2009; Parsons &
Broadbridge, 2006; Sanjeev & Surya, 2016). This study
attempts to explore the roles of SM in motivation for
knowledge sharing through the two-factor theory. Thus the
authors also need to make suitable adjustments on motiva-
tors and hygiene factors in the theory of Herzberg to sat-
isfy requirements of the research context.
Motivators and KSM
Through a review of the literature to date, motivators point-
ing to the act of knowledge sharing itself and leaning toward
internal motivations include altruistic behavior, enjoyment in
helping others, and self-efficacy of knowledge. Among them,
altruistic behavior means clear cut selfless acts with personal
interest to provide benefits for others. Enjoyment in helping
others is a concept derived from altruistic behavior. Thus,
Zhang et al. 5
motivators in this study mainly include enjoyment in helping
others and knowledge self-efficacy (KSE).
In research on knowledge sharing, a sense of joy in
helping others means the personal internal sense of joy
through practicing relatively selfless knowledge sharing.
By undertaking knowledge sharing, employees can attain
their internal rewards. Existing research indicates (1)
through knowledge exchange to solve issues, it is full of
challenge and fun and (2) being glad to help others,
employees tend to be internally stimulated to contribute
knowledge (Wasko & Faraj, 2000, 2005). Knowledge is
always deeply embedded in inpersonal characteristics and
status. Self-evaluation based on ability and degree of social
acceptance is the important source of internal motivations,
which propels people to participate in activities because
of the activities themselves, not on account of external
rewards (Bandura, 1986). From the perspective of internal
motivation, the need for making one’s own decisions is
engendered when the individual rendezvous with the envi-
ronment which activates the formation of behavior. This
also brings forth another important motivator: self-efficacy
of knowledge, namely the subjective sensation of oneself
possessing knowledge with value. A higher sense of self-
efficacy of knowledge in employees illustrates stronger
consciousness of themselves having abilities to provide
knowledge with value. It would, therefore, be even more
possible for the employees to share their knowledge. Based
on the above discussion, this study proposes the two
research hypotheses below:
Hypothesis 1a: Sense of joy in helping others positively
influence employees’ KSM;
Hypothesis 1b: Self-efficacy of knowledge can posi-
tively influence employees’ KSM.
Hygiene Factors and KSM
Herzberg’s research was based on analyzing interviews. It
proposed the presence of motivators, hygiene factors, and
their elements. Working condition is an important element of
hygiene factors. Being a kind of ICT, SM provided more
convenient conditions for internal exchange within organiza-
tions. Since SM is based on user-generated contents with
Web 2.0 and can better connect various groups and members
within the organization (Obar & Wildman, 2015), as SM is
widely used in organizations, some of them have developed
ESNS, especially in the companies. Considered from its fac-
tor characteristics, as an element of working condition, SM
should be under hygiene factors in the Herzberg two-factor
theory. According to the theory, fulfillment of hygiene fac-
tors is not sufficient to increase employees’ motivation to
work or degree of satisfaction. In addition, the appearance of
the SM is also not enough for staff to elicit motivations for
knowledge sharing. Integrating concrete research scenarios,
this study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: SM has no significant influence on
employee KSM.
After the two-factor theory was proposed, its widely real-
ized that insufficiency lies in both motivators and hygiene
factors, which are not independent, rather, are related and
undergo changes under different concrete scenarios (Sachau,
2007). As a component of ICT, the effects of SM on knowl-
edge sharing mainly include (1) employee’s personal, orga-
nizational, and technical impediments in knowledge sharing;
(2) facilitating employee’s obtaining knowledge on Intranet
and internet; (3) improving the flows of knowledge manage-
ment; and (4) being of help in positioning the related ele-
ments (metaknowledge) of knowledge sharing (Hendriks,
1999). At the same time, sources of personal self-efficacy
mainly include (1) obtaining relevant experiences of success,
(2) alternative learning, and (3) oral persuasion (Margolis &
McCabe, 2006). In the realm of knowledge sharing, personal
self-efficacy is exhibited as oneself has had successful expe-
riences of knowledge sharing, as well as observing and emu-
lating others’ knowledge sharing behaviors, together with
evaluating and internalizing the knowledge sharing tactics of
other organization members through observation.
SM enables organization members to locate knowledge
related elements more easily. Such as, organization members
can know of channels of alternative learning with more ease,
namely able to observe others’ successful experiences of
knowledge sharing. Settings for emulation of knowledge
sharing within the members are provided. At the same time,
SM also facilitates exchange among the members, and it fur-
ther provides wider possibilities of “oral persuasion.” When
organization members engage in a successful act of knowl-
edge sharing, such an experience will further strengthen their
self-efficacy in knowledge sharing, forming a positive cycle.
Based on the above discussion, this study proposes the
hypothesis below:
Hypothesis 3: SM positively influences self-efficacy
from knowledge sharing in employees.
Combining the above research hypotheses, the research
model of this study is as shown in Figure 1.
Methodology
In this study, we did a comprehensive literature review
(Hwang et al., 2018; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Lin, 2007a) to
provide a strong theoretical background and relationship
between proposed variables as shown in Figure 1. The
model indicates that enjoyment of helping others (EN),
KSE, and SM influence KSM. H1a predicts the positive
influence of EN on KSM, H1b predicts the positive influ-
ence of KSE on KSM, H2 predicts no direct influence of SM
on KSM, and H3 predicts the positive influence of SM on
KSE. In this article, the questionnaire survey method is used
6 SAGE Open

Figure 1.  Research model.

for the collection of data and testing the research hypothe-

ses. This method was used to enhance the generalizability of
the results (Dooley, 2001). For this purpose we distribute the
questionnaire in private companies both in manufacturing
and services. We targeted these companies due to higher
usage of SM for different purposes such as, online meeting,
task based groups, and sharing daily information using SM.
In this context, the study applied the idea of the two-factor
theory to investigate KSM by introducing SM as hygiene
factor and motivator, that is, enjoyment in helping others,
and knowledge self efficacy. From current situation, we can
see that SM is not limited to any specific gender, age, or the
period of using SM under any particular situation. Therefore, Figure 2.  Research procedures and phases.
the background information about gender, age, or period is Source. Bordens and Abbott (2018).
not considered in this study. Second, we investigate the role
of SM on empolyee’s motivation, therefore, the demo- is of a high standard, we translated the questionnaire from
graphic information does not play a significant role which English to Chinese with the help of native Chinese speakers
may affect the results in this study. To test the measurement who are professors in information technology area. All ques-
tool and the structural model (Garver & Mentzer, 1999), we tions have to be answered to avoid any missing data. Second,
followed confirmatory techniques as in (Anderson & we chose the target groups by contacting different firms in
Gerbing, 1988). We used Analysis of Moment Structure both services and manufacturing. Third, we sent them the
(AMOS) V24.0 to further validate and support the predicted questionnaire using SM applications (to avoid the paper cost
hypotheses. Figure 2 illustrates the overall research proce- and enable quick response) (Kaplowitz et al., 2004) to be
dures and phases of the current study. distributed and completed in their organizations. For this
purpose, we requested employees in those companies (whom
we sent the questionnaire) to distribute the questionnaire
Process among their colleagues to get higher number of responses.
The process of data collection was conducted in China in Measurements for this study are scaled from 1—strongly
private enterprises of different sectors. In recent years disagree to 7—strongly agree. In total, 278 samples were
Chinese companies are utilizing ICT on a large scale, espe- collected. Being concerned with SM and motivation for
cially SM. Therefore, researchers are stressing on them more knowledge sharing, we included and revised several times
and are encouraged to conduct studies here, to investigate the constructs to get a better view from respondents.
Chinese private firms and collect more information regard-
ing creating value with IT (Y. Chen et al., 2015). We made
Measures
use of a structural questionnaire which was modeled on prior
studies. First, we designed a questionnaire which could dis- We adopted measures from earlier studies and modified them
play a clear picture of the study. To ensure the questionnaire according to the present study’s context. Depending variable:
Zhang et al. 7

Table 2.  Constructs’ Reliability.

Construct Number of questions Cronbach’s α

Enjoyment in helping others 3 .902
Knowledge self-efficacy 4 .826
Social media 3–1(2) .846
Knowledge sharing motivation 3 .903

Source. Authors.

KSM is the dependent variable in the present study. We used

three items to measure the KSM (Lin, 2007a). These three
items describe the motivational level of an employee to share
knowledge in the firm (α = .903)
Independent variables: the present study contains inde-
pendent variables affecting KSM. First, items for enjoy-
ment in helping others and knowledge sharing self-efficacy
were adopted from (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). With α =
.902 and α = .826 respectively, self-motivation to share
knowledge is shown. Second, the items for SM were
adopted from (Lin, 2007b). SM is predicted to have an
insignificant direct effect on KSM, but a positive indirect
effect on KSM is found (α = .846).

Data Analysis
Reliability and Validity
The constructs of the study were measured for reliability
using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Prior studies
have set the benchmark that the value of Cronbach’s
alpha should be at least 0.70 to indicate adequate reli-
ability (Nunnally, 1978a). To improve the reliability of
the corresponding constructs, one question was omitted
from the SM set. All the constructs have adequate reli-
ability (see Table 2).
The questions were tested for validity using factor analy-
sis with principle components analysis and Promax rotation.
Convergent validity was assessed by checking loadings to
see if items within the same construct correlate highly among
themselves. Discriminant validity was measured by examin-
ing the factor loading to see if the questions loaded more
Figure 3.  Amos loading.
highly on their intended constructs than on other constructs
(Cook & Campbell, 1979). Early research has set bench-
marks for construct loadings—loading from 0.25 to 0.54 are represents the loading in AMOS, whereas Table 4 shows the
considered fair, 0.55 to 0.62 are good, 0.63 to 0.70 are very t-values of each measure.
good, and more than 0.71 are considered excellent (Comrey, We performed a multi-collinearity test due to multiple
1973). The factor loadings of the construct in this study are inter-constructs. Table 5 shows the values to be above the
all above 0.71, showing the excellent factor loading. benchmark value of 0.60. The rule of thumb to judge for the
For factor analysis, all the 13 components were above existence of multicollinearity is whether the variance infla-
benchmarks. However, in the reliability test of SM, when tion factor (VIFs) are >10 or <0.10. The results show that
SM3 was included the value was 0.488. To get excellent reli- the lowest VIF is 1.000 and the highest VIF is 1.436. Thus,
ability results, we omitted the question SM3 from the SM multi-collinearity does not seem to be a problem in the cur-
construct, improving the reliability of SM to 0.846. Figure 3 rent study.
8 SAGE Open

Table 3.  Factor Analysis.

Construct Measures 1 2 3 4
Enjoyment in helping others EN1 .842  
EN2 .918  
EN3 .847  
Knowledge self-efficacy KSE1 .827  
KSE2 .814  
KSE3 .899  
KSE4 .726  
Social media SM1 .867  
SM2 .850  
SM3 .736  
Knowledge sharing motivation KSM1 .958
KSM2 .942
KSM3 .793
N 278 278 278 278

Source. Authors.

Table 4.  Factor Loading in AMOS.

Construct Measures Loading t-Value

Enjoyment in helping others EN1 .84 7.850
EN2 .84 7.830
EN3 .82 8.285
Knowledge self-efficacy KSE1 .91 6.890
KSE2 .90 6.999
KSE3 .82 9.734
KSE4 .57 11.305
Social media SM1 .90 2.207
SM2 .88 2.718
Knowledge sharing motivation KSM1 .84 8.459
KSM2 .88 6.871
KSM3 .84 8.370

Note. AMOS = Analysis of Moment Structure.

Source. Authors.

Table 5.  Model Validity Measures.

Variables M SD CR AVE MaxR(H) EN SM KSE KSM

EN 5.0144 1.29974 0.871 0.692 0.871 0.832***  
SM 4.8165 0.94595 0.790 0.583 0.910 0.332*** 0.764***  
KSE 4.8273 1.40681 0.881 0.656 0.920 0.594*** 0.278*** 0.810***  
KSM 5.2650 1.28263 0.888 0.725 0.890 0.585*** 0.366*** 0.596*** 0.85**

Note. CNR = construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; EN = enjoyment in helping others; SM = social media; KSE = knowledge self-
efficacy; KSM = knowledge sharing motivation.
Source. Authors.
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01.

Results values for composite reliability (CR) is above the benchmark

Using AMOS, we assessed construct reliability (CNR) and
average variance extracted (AVE). They represent the inter-
nal consistency of the indicators measured in the given con-
struct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 4 indicates all the
0.70, showing adequate reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994). Furthermore, the AVE values are above the bench-
mark 0.5 (Huang et al., 2013) and maximum reliability
(MaxR [H]) is above 0.70, presenting a significant correla-
tion between the measurements.
Zhang et al. 9
Table 6.  Model Fit Indices.
Index Index value Criteria
χ /Degree of freedom
2
1.688 ≤5
GFI 0.947 ≥0.9
AGFI 0.918 ≥0.8
CFI 0.984 ≥0.9
RMSEA 0.050 ≤0.08
NFI 0.955 ≥0.9
IFI 0.984 ≥0.9
Note. GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index;
CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root means square error of
approximation; NFI = normed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index.
Source. Authors.
Model fitness. Table 6 presents the overall model fitness
between proposed variables SM, motivators and KSM. The
results shows that chi-square normalization by degree of
freedom (χ2/df) is 1.688 which should be less than 5, also
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI),
Normed Fit Index (NFI), and goodness of fit index (GFI)
should be ≥0.9 (Bentler, 1983, 1988; Bollen, 1989; Browne
& Cudeck, 1993). The results indicate that CFI, IFI, NFI, and
GFI are 0.984, 0.984, 0.955, and 0.947, respectively, being
significant values under the criteria. The commonly accepted
values of root means square error of approximation (RMSEA)
should be ≤0.08 (Dudgeon, 2004; Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1993) and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) should be
≥0.8. For the current model, RMSEA is 0.050, and AGFI is
0.918. The values are shown to be significant and supporting
the proposed model.
Common method bias.  In this study, we self-reported the data
by gathering information through questionnaire. Researchers
from the field of business applied four post hoc statistical
methods to check for common method variance (CMV) and/
or common method bias (CMB). In such kind of data, there
is a huge threat of CMB and/or CMV. CMV occurs when
same scaling approach applied on a single data source. CMV
bias occurs when the so-called method, as a causal factor,
significantly distorts causal effects (Fuller et al., 2016). CMV
even if exists, may not change the effect size or significance
level, may change them trivially, or may change them in an
amount that is practically meaningless. Thus, report address-
ing CMV is of limited utility. CMV biases data when it cre-
ates significant and nontrivial divergence between true and
observed relationships (Ostroff et al., 2002). CMV is one of
the errors source that lead to attenuated trustworthiness of
reported results (Babin & Zikmund, 2016).
Method biases are main sources of measurement errors,
as measurement errors threaten the validity of the conclu-
sions while discussing the relationships between mea-
sures. Researchers link these errors with random and
systematic components (Bagozzi & Yi, 1991; Nunnally,
1978b; Spector, 1987). These measurement errors are
problematic, however, measurement errors tend to seem to
be more problematic. The reason is that it provides an
alternative explanation for the observed relationships
between various constructs depending on hypothesis
(Podsakoff et al., 2003).
For this reason, we follow the method suggested by
Podsakoff and Organ (1986) and run the Harmon’s one-fac-
tor test, which is used to ensure that common method vari-
ance in this study. In Table 7, we can see that the percentage
of variance is 42% which is less than 50% and concludes that
there is no threat of CMB. Furthermore, we investigate that
by performing CFA and looking for empirical evidence of
CMB all the items loaded in one single factor. Studies sug-
gested that of the one-factor model has poor model fitness,
then there is no common method variance (Cheng et al.,
2014; Handley & Benton, 2012). The CFA results of one-
factor analysis shows poor model fitness of the data (χ2 =
868.08, df = 54, GFI = .635, AGFI = .473, CFI = .610, NFI
= .596, RMSEA = .233; see Figure 4). Therefore, we con-
clude that CMB in this study does not seems to be a
problem.
Hypothesis testing.  Table 8 presents the testing of the hypoth-
eses. The first hypothesis predicts that enjoyment in helping
others has a positive influence on KSM. As predicted, the
results show that β = .336 and p < .001; therefore, H1a is
supported. Next, the authors predict that knowledge self-
efficacy has a positive influence on KSM. The results reveal
β = .378 and p < .001. The positive relationship between
these two constructs supports H1b.
Furthermore, the authors predict that SM has no direct
relationship with KSM. The results show β = .088 and
p < .093. There is no direct relation between these two con-
structs, and H2 is supported. Finally, the authors predict that
SM influences knowledge self-efficacy. The results β = .223
and p < .001 show a positive relationship between these con-
structs and support H3. All the results hypothesis are sup-
ported as the author predicted earlier in the text. Figure 5
shows the overall relationships of these variables using
AMOS 24.0.
Indirect effects.  Table 5 presents a negative effect of SM on
KSM. Therefore, knowledge self-efficacy (KSE) plays a
fully mediating role between SM and KSM. We followed the
recommendations of Zhao et al. (2010)) and conducted Sobel
tests (Sobel, 1982) as well as the bootstrapping mediation
test (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) to examine the mediating
effect of KSE. The Sobel test results indicate a significant
mediating role of KSE (t-stat = 3.584, p < .001).
Studies of Preacher and Hayes, 2008 and Zhao et al.
(2010) questioned the proposed mediation test of Baron and
Kenny (1986). Instead, they highlighted the superiority of
statistical tests, such as bootstrapping procedures. In this
study, to test the mediation more deeply, we followed
(Preacher & Hayes, 2008) and performed bootstrapping.
10 SAGE Open

Table 7.  Harmon’s One-Factor Test.

Initial Eigen values Extraction sums of squared loadings

Factor Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 5.658 47.149 47.149 5.128 42.730 42.730
2 1.606 13.379 60.528  
3 1.183 9.858 70.386  
4 1.148 9.568 79.954  
5 0.628 5.230 85.185  
6 0.362 3.020 88.205  
7 0.307 2.560 90.765  
8 0.275 2.295 93.060  
9 0.248 2.065 95.125  
10 0.229 1.908 97.033  
11 0.192 1.600 98.633  
12 0.164 1.367 100.000  

Note. Extraction method: Principal axis factoring.

Source. Authors.

Table 8.  Hypothesis Testing.

Hypotheses Estimate t-Value p Label

H1a .336 6.580 .001 Significant
H1b .378 7.220 .001 Significant
H2 .088 1.679 .093 Insignificant
H3 .223 3.803 .001 Significant

Source. Authors.

Figure 4.  One-factor analysis.

Furthermore, using AMOS with 500 bootstrapping samples,
the indirect mediation effect is shown (Spiller, 2011; Zhao
et al., 2010). The indirect path from SM to KSM from KSE
is significant, p = .005, 95% (.089, .245) that does not
include zero.
From the above results, we find that SM is a hygiene fac-
tor for KSM. It may not have a direct effect on KSM, but it
has an effect on KSE. Whereas, enjoyment in helping others
proves a significant impact on KSM. As SM and motivations
are the key factors of the study to investigate KSM absence
of any factor from hygiene and motivators may influence
negatively on the KSM. Thus, the role of two-factor theory in
KSM is very important. If we use one factor “motivation” it
may raise more questions, that is, what may improve motiva-
tion for KSM?, by including the hygiene factor this study
improves our understandings of the two-factor theory in
companies and its role to develop motivational factors of an
employee.
Discussion
The main concept to the contribution is to highlight the role
of SM and the use of SM to share knowledge. This contribu-
tion will enhance the understanding of future researchers to
investigate the significance of SM and motivational factors
for knowledge sharing in the organization.
Zhang et al. 11
Movators
Enjoyment in
helping others ***
.336
Knowledge
self-efficacy Knowledge
*** sharing
.378
movaon
.223
***
NS
.088
Social media Significant
Hygiene factors Not significant
Figure 5.  Results of the structural equation modeling.
Earlier we have discussed that two-factor theory develops
a new awareness about employee KSM and provides three
states:
•• Lack of motivation;
•• Neutral state;
•• Having motivation.
Authors in this study emphasize on personal knowledge
sharing which inlines with prior research of motivation
(Ashford & Black, 1996). However, without motivation it is
difficult to predict human behavior (Hwang et al., 2010).
Therefore, motivation is very important for personal knowl-
edge management. Focusing on prior research in which
authors investigate intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (i.e.,
enjoyment in helping others) and how it influences knowl-
edge sharing behavior both in organization and virtual com-
munities. After an in-depth analysis of the role of motivation
in knowledge sharing behavior on organizational level, we
found that when people lack motivation, they tend not to
share their personal knowledge. This may influence by dif-
ferent factors, that is, fear of misuse of knowledge, trust, and
so on. Thus, lacking of motivation will affect knowledge
sharing among employees.
Herzberg in 1959 proposed two-factor influencing motiva-
tion at work; first, hygiene factor that demotivate when they
are inappropriate, second, motivators that sustain effort. On
the basis of this theory he discussed the job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction and represent it by a continuum in which a per-
son would know that the neutral state is neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied. Adding more factors such as prospects for com-
pensation, supervision, and promotion, would lead to a move-
ment in the opposite direction. In other words, dissatisfaction
is the result of the absence of factors that led to satisfaction.
Keeping this view in mind, the authors focus on the
satisfaction level of an employee and propose a factor
“enjoyment in helping” and “knowledge self-efficacy” as a
Figure 6.  Social media as a hygiene factor.
motivators for knowledge sharing behavior. These motivator
factors enable employees to share their important knowledge
with co-workers to improve the work efficiency.
Modes of Action of SM on Motivation for
Knowledge Sharing
The action of SM on knowledge sharing is of two ways, indi-
rect and direct. We first discuss the indirect effects. Research
hypothesis 2 posits that SM has no direct positive influence
on employee KSM. This hypothesis is supported by the
results of data analysis (see Figure 5), namely usage of SM
doesn’t directly raise the KSM of employees. Research of
Vuori et al. also indicates that the motivational factors of
knowledge sharing through SM are quite the same as those
regarding knowledge sharing in general (Vuori & Okkonen,
2012). Usage of SM has not given extra encouraging effects
on employee knowledge sharing. Hypothesis 3 points out
that SM positively influence the self-efficacy of knowledge.
This hypothesis is supported by data (β = 0.223, p < .001).
Combining H3 with H1b, we can see that SM can make use
of motivators as moderating variables. In this study, self-
efficacy of knowledge acts as the moderating variable, and
indeed, the moderating effect is obvious. So is the indirect
role of SM on KSM.
Next, we move on to the discussion of direct effects. When
combining results about hypothesis 1b, 2 and 3 (Figure 6), we
can see that SM may work as a hygiene factor influencing
employee KSM. First, according to the two-factor theory,
influencing factors on employee work motivation and degree
of satisfaction can be divided into motivators and hygiene
factors. This theory is also applicable to the field of knowl-
edge sharing. Second, SM can influence employee KSM.
Third, SM cannot engender direct influence on employee
knowledge sharing, but rather through the indirect influence
of the mediation of other factors, such as self-efficacy of
knowledge.
As a hygiene factor, usage of SM cannot directly increase
employees’ motivation for knowledge sharing. However,
when SM is absent, its four effects (reduce impediments,
provide knowledge, improve process flow, and locate knowl-
edge) on knowledge sharing will then be voided, and thus
consequentially lower employees’ motivation for knowledge
sharing.
12 SAGE Open
All in all, the influence of SM on employee knowledge
sharing can be through two pathways. The first is the direct
influences. As a hygiene factor, the usage of SM will not
directly affect employees’ KSM. On the other hand, the
absence of SM will result in a drop of motivation for knowl-
edge sharing in the employees. The second is the indirect
influences. Although usage of SM does not directly affect
employee KSM, effects are produced through influencing
the motivators, SM has moderating effect of motivators. This
result is consistent with that of Hendriks’ theoretical research
on ICT’s influence on KSM (Hendriks, 1999). In this study,
through the mediating effect of self-efficacy of knowledge,
SM influences employee KSM.
States of Employee KSM and Influencing Factors
Considered from the two-factor theory and research results
in this study, perceiving employee KSM as a single contin-
uum may not be accurate. There should be two continuums
for the states of employee KSM. The first is from lack of
motivation to the neutral state. The second is from a neutral
state to having motivation. Transitions within these states are
influenced by motivators and hygiene factors, respectively.
On the one hand, when motivators are satisfied, employees
will transit from a neutral state to that of having KSM. On the
other hand, the satisfaction of hygiene factors will not lead to
employees having sharing motivation, but the absence can
cause the employees to enter the state of lacking sharing
motivation from the neutral state.
Motivators in this study include enjoyment in helping oth-
ers and self-efficacy of knowledge. Considered from the
results of data analysis, both have obvious positive influ-
ences on employee KSM. In other words, when employees
are feeling enjoyment while helping others, they tend to
share more knowledge. This process of knowledge sharing
enhance the knowledge capabilities of employees and their
self-efficacy by getting knowledge from co-workers.
Simultaneously, compared to enjoyment in helping others
(β = 0.336, p < .001), self-efficacy of knowledge (β = 0.378,
p < .001) has greater predictive power on employee KSM.
Negative Role of SM in KSM
A number of factors influencing positively and negatively on
KSM, that is, trust social capital, reciprocity, rewards, and
enjoyment elements (Zhang et al., 2019). Several researchers
noted the limited use of information technology that does not
allow users to acquire “soft” information (Mintzberg, 1975),
“rich” information (Daft et al., 1987), or the “meaning” of
information (Weick, 1985). Sarbaugh-Thompson and
Feldman (1998) suggested two negative effects of the elec-
tronic communication. First, the reduction in casual conver-
sation, and second, communication trustworthiness in social
situations. More recently, in the advancement of information
technology more information seekers search and retrieve
information resulting data overload. Risk is also one of the
factors influencing employee’s knowledge sharing behavior
in negative manners (Harden, 2012).
The above studies have investigated the negative role of
information technology. However, there is still a room for
authors to study information technology in terms of SM and
its effect on KSM. In this line, the authors in this study
argued that SM has no direct effect on KSM. Furthermore,
we propose the association of SM (hygiene factor) with
motivator factor and their positive effect on KSM. This argu-
ment is statistically proved in our study as shown in Figure 5.
Keeping two-factor theory as a theoretical background, the
authors suggested that SM may not have the positive influ-
ence on KSM, but the absence of SM will influence in a
negative manner on the individual’s KSM.
Significance and Limitations
Research Implications
Theoretical implications. First of all, on theoretical implica-
tions, this study initially clarified the mode of action of SM
on knowledge sharing. Through the two pathways—direct
and indirect—SM engenders influence on employee knowl-
edge sharing. Combining these two pathways, SM as one of
the influencing factors, its function on employee knowledge
sharing received the support of empirical research, which
enriching studies related to SM and knowledge sharing. At
the same time, this study is also a successful application of
the two-factor theory on motivations for knowledge sharing,
demonstrating the two-factor theory still has quite strong
theoretical guidance. In addition, the study has initially
delineated the various states of employees’ motivations for
knowledge sharing, confirming the presence of three states
and two continuums. The study is also an empirical testing
and expansion of Hendriks’ research in 1999 on ICT and
KSM.
Practical implications.  Findings of our study shows the indi-
rect effect of SM on KSM, which is mediated by self-effi-
cacy. Therefore, practical implications, according to the
research results enterprises need to achieve at least these
two states. First, to create an amicable environment for
using SM. Second, when issues such as employee privacy
are not involved, improve the transparency of knowledge
sharing. Since the action of SM on employee KSM needs
other factors as mediators, enterprises have to reasonably
and/or more efficiently utilize the characteristic of visibility
of SM to a certain degree. Early research discussed knowl-
edge sharing is visible throughout the organization which
shows the visibility of knowledge sharing activities using
ICTs (Rode, 2016). Through various means, that is, interna-
tional motivation (Skudiene & Auruskeviciene, 2012), par-
ticipation in learning communities (Wasko & Faraj, 2000),
individual confidence that increase self-motivational force
Zhang et al. 13
for knowledge to share knowledge (Khankanhalli et al.,
2005), individual’s believe that their knowledge can solve
job related problems and enhance work efficacy (Lin,
2007b; Luthans, 2003); they uplift employees’ self-efficacy
in knowledge sharing, strengthening the motivation, and
streamlining the knowledge flow within the enterprise, thus
raising its competitiveness.
Limitations
Although this study has quite strong theoretical and practical
significance, there are also some limitations, which are
mainly on these two aspects:
First, we have not distinguished employee types. In an
enterprise, there are multiple types of workers. Considering
ranking, there are general staff, middle management per-
sonnel, and senior management personnel. In terms of job
nature, they include finance, human resources, marketing,
products, and so on. Variegated needs or experiences on
the factors of knowledge sharing may exist among employ-
ees of dissimilar types and ranks. Owing to considerations
of the research focus and difficulty in implementation,
this study has not made distinctions as mentioned here.
Herzberg mainly selected two types of employees in the
research, namely engineers and accountants. Although the
results showed a certain difference in various types of
employees, overall speaking, no difference in nature was
found (Herzberg et al., 1959). Hence this study believes
not distinguishing types of employees has no big influence
on the results.
Second, since prior research rarely treats SM as the inde-
pendent variable for measurement, the measures for gauging
SM usage in this paper are modified from which Lin used in
the related research on ICT usage (Lin, 2007a). During data
analysis, to ensure the questionnaire’s reliability, we retained
two measures among three for the related analysis. That indi-
cates the measurement of the SM still has further room for
optimization. However, in the final reliability and validity
tests of the questionnaire, the required standards are reached.
This demonstrates that the two retained questions possess
consistency and reliability for measuring SM, and thus, the
measurement for SM is also valid. Hence although there are
rooms for improvement, the survey questionnaire used in
this study can reliably reflect the research contents of this
study. Data obtained through the questionnaire can also be
employed for the related analysis. There is no actual influ-
ence on the analysis’ results.
Conclusion
This paper aims to explore the influence of SM usage on
employee KSM. After reviewing existing research and
related theories, we introduced the two-factor theory as the
research framework of this study. Through constructing
the theoretical model connecting the research hypotheses,
receiving data via survey questionnaire, and conducting
model testing with data analysis, in the end we gain insights
from our analysis, which validated our research hypothesis.
The main conclusion, as well as also the answer to the
research question in this study, includes the following:
1. The two-factor theory is applicable to studying KSM.
There are three main states of KSM: lack of motiva-
tion, neutral state, and motivated. Indeed, these three
states constitute two continuums. Satisfying hygiene
factors and motivators will lead to changes in the
states of employee KSM respectively.
2. Motivators of employee KSM include at least enjoy-
ment in helping others and self-efficacy of knowl-
edge. The hygiene factors include at least SM.
3. As motivators, enjoyment in helping others and
knowledge self-efficacy of employees can have posi-
tive roles in their knowledge sharing.
4. As a hygiene factor, SM can directly engender influ-
ence on employee KSM. Its usage will not directly
increase the motivation. However, when SM usage is
lacking in the organization, employee KSM will be
weakened.
5. SM can indirectly affect employees’ KSM. Through
affecting parts of the motivators, SM can then influ-
ence the motivation. In this study, knowledge self-
efficacy can play the mediating role between SM and
employee KSM. Usage of SM can impact the knowl-
edge self-efficacy of employees and further act on
their KSM.
Some queries in this research still await further studies
for exposition. They include but are not limited to these
aspects. First, in the realm of KSM, exactly what is included
under motivators and hygiene factors are still not clear
enough. Based on prior research, the authors selected some
of the factors, but obviously we are not exhaustive, espe-
cially on the hygiene factors. Therefore, further empirical
research such as, interviews and surveys are required for
in-depth study. Second, this study expounded the mediating
effect of knowledge self-efficacy between SM and KSM.
However, it is not yet known whether there are also other
factors playing the mediating role. Third, this study mainly
explored the usage of SM on KSM. What we have mea-
sured was the subjective awareness of SM usage in the sub-
jects. While, the influence on KSM from the level of SM
usage has not been considered.
Appendix
Measurement Items
Instruction
1. Please fill in each question, 1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree
14 SAGE Open
2. When answering questions, you may have different
ideas about different colleagues. Please answer the
general situation of yourself.
3. Core features of social media: users can generate
their own content (articles, uploaded files) and inter-
act with others.For example, Twitter, Facebook, blog,
etc., including the system built by your company
with the above functions.
4. Colleagues: including your superiors, peers and
subordinates.
5. Knowledge: derived from experience and informa-
tion to draw useful and accurate conclusions about a
given situation.
6. Ways of knowledge sharing: the knowledge sharing
in the questionnaire does not necessarily take the
form of social media, but also includes other forms,
such as face-to-face sharing.
7. This study is based on the work situation, so if it is
not limited, it refers to work-related knowledge or
communication.
* Enjoyment in helping others
1. I enjoy helping colleagues by sharing my know­ledge.
2. It feels good to help my organizational members
through my knowledge sharing.
3. Sharing my knowledge with colleagues is
pleasurable.
* Knowledge self-efficacy
4. I have the expertise required to provide valuable
knowledge for my organization.
5. I am confident in my ability to provide knowledge
that others in my organization consider valuable.
6. It does not really make any difference whether I share
my knowledge with colleagues.
7. Most other employees can provide more valuable
knowledge than I can.
* Social media
8. Employees make extensive use of social media to
access knowledge.
9. Employees use social media to communicate with
colleagues.
10. My company uses social media that allows employ-
ees to share knowledge with other persons inside the
organization.
* Knowledge sharing motivation
11. I intend to share knowledge with my colleagues more
frequently in the future.
12. I will provide my knowledge at the request of other
organizational members.
13. I will try to share my knowledge with other organiza-
tional members.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the reviewers for their insightful comments
on the paper.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
work is also supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China, grant 71473182, and grant 71420107026.
ORCID iD
Farhan Khan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7719-7727
References
Aboelmaged, M. G. (2018). Knowledge sharing through enterprise
social network (ESN) systems: Motivational drivers and their
impact on employees’ productivity. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 22(2), 362–383.
Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., Kamaludin, A., & Shaalan, K.
(2018). The impact of knowledge management processes
on information systems: A systematic review. International
Journal of Information Management, 43, 173–187.
American Psychological Association. (2019a). Two-factor theory
of work motivation. http://dictionary.apa.org/two-factor-theory-
of-work-motivation
American Psychological Association. (2019b). Voluntary behavior.
American Psychological Association Dictionary. https://
dictionary.apa.org/voluntary-behavior
Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling
in practice: A review and recommended two step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and
barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing commu-
nities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1),
64–77.
Ashford, S., & Black, J. (1996). Proactivity during organiza-
tional entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(2), 199–214.
Babin, B. J., & Zikmund, W. (2016). Exploring marketing research.
Cengage.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait–multimethod matrices
in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 17,
426–439.
Balmer, S., & Baum, T. (1993). Applying Herzberg’s hygiene
factors to the changing accommodation environment. Inter­
national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
5(2), 32–35.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action.
Prentice Hall.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stra-
tegic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Zhang et al. 15
Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg’s moti-
vation theory have staying power? Journal of Management
Development, 24(10), 929–943.
Bentler, P. M. (1983). Some contributions to efficient statistics
in structural models: Specification and estimation of moment
structures. Psychometrika, 48, 493–517.
Bentler, P. M. (1988). Theory and Implementation of EQS: A
structural equations program. Sage.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005).
Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psycholog-
ical factors, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1),
87–111.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general struc-
ture equantion models. Sociological Methods and Research,
17, 303–316.
Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2018). Research design and
methods: A process approach (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assess-
ing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Ling (Eds.), Testing
structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
Chen, C. A., & Hsieh, C. W. (2015). Knowledge sharing motiva-
tion in the public sector: The role of public service motiva-
tion. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(4),
812–832.
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Benitez, J., & Kou, G. (2015).
Improving strategic flexibility with information technolo-
gies: Insights for firm performance in an emerging economy.
Journal of Information Technology, 32, 10–25.
Cheng, J.-H., Chen, M.-C., & Huang, C.-M. (2014). Assessing
inter-organizational innovation performance through rela-
tional governance and dynamic capabilities in supply chains.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(2),
173–186.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding
knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of
social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support
Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888.
Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course on factor analysis. Academic
Press.
Cook, M., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:
Design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure
of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equiv-
ocality, media selection and manger performance: implication
for information systems. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 11, 355–368.
DeShields, O. W., Jr., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants
of business student satisfaction and retention in higher educa-
tion: Applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory. International
Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128–139.
Dooley, D. (2001). Social research methods. Prentice Hall.
Dudgeon, P. (2004). A note on extending Steiger’s (1998) mul-
tiple sample RMSEA adjustment to other noncentrality
parameter-based statistics. Structural Equation Modeling,
11(3), 305–319.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin,
B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business
research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation.
Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation
with the School of Business Administration, The University of
Michigan and in Alliance with the Society of Human Resources
Management, 48(4), 571–589.
Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods:
Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct
validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20, 33–58.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
Handley, S. M., & Benton, W. C. (2012). The influence of exchange
hazards and power on opportunism in outsourcing relation-
ships. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 55–68.
Harden, G. (2012, January). Knowledge sharing in the workplace:
A social networking site assessment. In 2012 45th Hawaii
international conference on system sciences (pp. 3888–3897).
IEEE.
Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y.-G. (2013). The effects
of individual motivations and social capital on employees’
tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International
Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356–366.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT
on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and
Process Management, 6(2), 91–100.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employ-
ees. Harvard Business Review.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motiva-
tion to work (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.-H., & Chang, C.-M. (2007).
Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The
relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expec-
tations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
65(2), 153–169.
Huang, C.-C., Wang, Y.-M., Wu, T.-W., & Wang, P.-A. (2013). An
empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance conse-
quences of using the moodle platform. International Journal of
Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 217–221. https://
doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.267
Hwang, Y., Kettinger, W., & Yi, M. (2010). Understanding infor-
mation behavior and the relationship to job performance.
Communications of the AIS, 27(8), 113–128.
Hwang, Y., Lin, H., & Shin, D. (2018). Knowledge system com-
mitment and knowledge sharing intention: The role of personal
information management motivation. International Journal of
Information Management, 39, 220–227.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A concep-
tual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4),
337–359.
Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Social media, social capital, and knowledge
sharing in enterprise. IT Professional, 20(4), 37–45.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural
equation modeling with the SIMPLISTM command language.
Scientific Software.
Kane, G. C. (2017). The evolutionary implications of social media
for organizational knowledge management. Information and
Organization, 27(1), 37–46.
16 SAGE Open
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing
knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical
investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite!
The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business
Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A com-
parison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101.
Khankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing
knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical
investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143.
Lin, H.-F. (2007a). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motiva-
tion on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of
Information Science, 33(2), 135–149.
Lin, H.-F. (2007b). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capa-
bility: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower,
28(3/4), 315–332.
Liu, H., & Li, G. (2017). To gain or not to lose? The effect of
monetary reward on motivation and knowledge contribution.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 397–415.
Lundberg, C., Gudmundson, A., & Andersson, T. D. (2009).
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of work motivation tested
empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism.
Tourism Management, 30(6), 890–899.
Luthans, F. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: Developing
and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Manage­
ment Executive, 16(1), 57–75.
Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and
motivation: What to do, what to say. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 41(4), 218–227.
Matschke, C., Moskaliuk, J., Bokhorst, F., Schümmer, T., & Cress,
U. (2014). Motivational factors of information exchange in
social information spaces. Computers in Human Behavior, 36,
549–558.
McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barri-
ers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management,
5(1), 76–85.
Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact.
Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 49–61.
Mosala-Bryant, N. N., & Hoskins, R. G. (2017). Motivational the-
ory and knowledge sharing in the public service. South African
Journal of Information Management, 19(1), 1–9.
Ngai, E. W., Tao, S. S., & Moon, K. K. (2015). Social media
research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks.
International Journal of Information Management, 35(1),
33–44.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978a). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978b). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-
Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory.
McGraw-Hill.
Obar, J. A., & Wildman, S. S. (2015). Social media definition and
the governance challenge-an introduction to the special issue.
Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 745–750.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Clark, M. A. (2002). Substantive and
operational issues of response bias across levels of analysis:
An example of climate-satisfaction relationships. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 355–368.
Parsons, E., & Broadbridge, A. (2006). Job motivation and satis-
faction: Unpacking the key factors for charity shop managers.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13(2), 121–131.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organiza-
tional research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management,
12(4), 531–544.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple
mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Nielsen, P. (2016). What fac-
tors influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A social
dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1225–1246.
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,
31(2), 152–165.
Sachau, D. A. (2007). Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory:
Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human
Resource Development Review, 6(4), 377–393.
Sanjeev, M., & Surya, A. (2016). Two factor theory of motivation
and satisfaction: An empirical verification. Annals of Data
Science, 3(2), 155–173.
Sarbaugh-Thompson, M., & Feldman, M. S. (1998). Electronic
mail and organizational communication: Does saying “hi”
really matter? Organization Science, 9(6), 685–698.
Skudiene, V., & Auruskeviciene, V. (2012). The contribution of
corporate social responsibility to internal employee motiva-
tion. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(1), 49–67.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indi-
rect effects in structural equation models. Sociological
Methodology, 13, 290–312.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported
affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438–443.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic the-
ory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 45–62.
Spiller, S. A. (2011). Opportunity cost consideration. Journal of
Consumer Research, 38(4), 595–610.
Stanius, M., Hankonen, N., Ravaja, N., & Haukkala, A. (2016).
Why share expertise? A closer look at the quality of motiva-
tion to share or withhold knowledge. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 20(2), 181–198.
Stenmark, D. (2000). Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 9–24.
Van Den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge shar-
ing in context: The influence of organizational commitment,
communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117–130.
Von Krogh, G. (2012). How does social software change knowledge
management? Toward a strategic research agenda. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 21(2), 154–164.
Vuori, V., & Okkonen, J. (2012). Knowledge sharing motivational
factors of using an intra-organizational social media platform.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 592–603.
Zhang et al. 17
Wang, S., Noe, R. A., & Wang, Z.-M. (2014). Motivating knowl-
edge sharing in knowledge management systems: A quasi-field
experiment. Journal of Management, 40(4), 978–1009.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: Why
people participate and help others in electronic communities of
practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2–3),
155–173.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining
social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic net-
works of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.
Weick, K. E. (1985). Cosmos vs. chaos: Sense and nonsense in
electronic contexts. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 50–64.
Zhang, X., Khan, F., Xiang, J., & Khan, K. U. (2019). Study of
cognitive and affected trust in knowledge sharing evidence
from Chinese firms—A review paper. COLLNET Journal
of Scientometrics and Information Management, 13(1),
147–165.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron
and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal
of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.