The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1469-1930.htm

Social capital, employees’ Does enterprise

social
well-being and knowledge sharing: networks use
matter?
does enterprise social networks
use matter? Case of Tunisian 1153
knowledge-intensive firms Received 21 January 2020
Revised 4 April 2020
Accepted 9 May 2020
Sarra Berraies
College of Business Administration, University of Bahrain, Sakheer, Bahrain and
Laboratory ARBRE, Higher Institute of Management of Tunis,
University of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia
Rym Lajili
Laboratory ARBRE, Higher Institute of Management of Tunis,
University of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia, and
Rached Chtioui
Higher School of Economic and Commercial Sciences, ESSECT,
Research Unit Methods Marketing, University of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia

Abstract
Purpose – The objective of this research is to examine the mediating role of employees’ well-being in the
workplace in the relationship between the dimensions of social capital, namely structural, relational and
cognitive social capital and knowledge sharing, as well as the moderating role of enterprise social networks
between knowledge sharing and employees’ well-being.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative approach was performed within a sample of 168 middle
managers working in knowledge-intensive firms in Tunisia. The Partial Least Squares method was used to
analyze the data collected.
Findings – Results highlight the importance of the dimensions of social capital as a lever for boosting
knowledge sharing. It also reveals that employees’ well-being plays a mediating role in the link between
structural and relational social capital and knowledge sharing. Moreover, findings show that while enterprise
social networks use does not moderate the relationship between employees’ well-being and knowledge sharing,
it has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing.
Originality/value – On the basis of a socio-technical perspective of knowledge management, this research
pioneers the examination of the mediating effect of employees’ well-being in the link between dimensions of
social capital and knowledge sharing and the moderating role of enterprise social networks use within
knowledge-intensive firms. Findings of this study may help managers of knowledge-intensive firms
in boosting knowledge sharing within organizations, in improving knowledge workers’ well-being and thus in
motivating and retaining these talented employees.
Keywords Social capital, Eudaimonic well-being, Hedonic well-being, Knowledge sharing, Enterprise social
networks, Knowledge-intensive firms
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In today’s knowledge and digital economy, firms must develop their agility, innovation
capability and competitive advantage. To achieve these objectives, in the perspective of the Journal of Intellectual Capital
resource-based view and dynamic capability approaches, they must develop non-imitable, Vol. 21 No. 6, 2020
pp. 1153-1183
rare and valuable resources. An effective knowledge management strategy and systems have © Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
become critical to improve firms’ ability to constantly create, transfer and use knowledge. DOI 10.1108/JIC-01-2020-0012
JIC Most scholars agree that knowledge represent a key factor that allows firms to differentiate
21,6 from competitors (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge is socially constructed and its
value rises when it is shared (Kim et al., 2013). Thus, the most successful companies are those
capable to boost knowledge sharing (KS) within organizations and to absorb valuable
knowledge from its environment (Berraies, 2019b). KS refers to a process of collecting and
donating of explicit and tacit knowledge (Al-Husseini and Elbeltagi, 2018). Often, employees
consider that when they share their knowledge, this may make them vulnerable, weaken their
1154 power or corporate position within firms and affect negatively their job security (Riege, 2005).
The challenge for managers is thus to reassure employees regarding the fear of sharing their
knowledge and to shape a collaborative context in which employees can donate and collect
knowledge to make it accessible within the whole organization. Mansour et al. (2014) have
noted that Tunisian managers are resistant to share their knowledge due to their fear of
uncertainty and risk aversion.
From this view, identifying the factors that may increase KS within organizations is a key
issue that has received generous attention. Researchers have investigated several
antecedents of KS such as styles of leadership, organizational structure and employees’
empowerment (Berraies and Zine El Abidine, 2019; Berraies et al., 2020). Specifically, this
research deals with a socio-technical perspective of knowledge management and defends the
idea that social and technological aspects are predictors of KS. As noted by Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995), a suitable organizational context is a critical factor for boosting knowledge
creation and sharing.
Regarding social aspects, prior studies identified social capital (SC) as a central variable
improving KS (Aslam et al., 2013; Allameh, 2018). SC covers structural, relational and
cognitive aspects including strong social relationships, mutual understandings, shared
values and goals, friendship and trust that “act as vehicles of advantage to leverage valuable
resources embedded in relational ties” (Ganguly et al., 2019). It builds a social foundation
fostering collective intelligence and creating a sense of cohesion that nurture the knowledge
base of the firms and help employees to have access to valuable knowledge and execute their
tasks successfully (Allameh, 2018).
Although the relationship between SC and KS is well documented, empirical studies
investigating the effect of the dimensions of SC namely structural, relational and cognitive SC
on KS are scant. The majority of previous studies focused on SC as a second-order construct,
however it is important to examine the contribution of each dimension of SC on KS in order to
grant more valuable information.
In this regard, the few studies that have examined the links between dimensions of SC and
KS have been carried out within Central and East Asian countries. This research aims to fill
the gap in the literature by examining these relationships in the Middle East and North Africa
(MENA) region and in particular in Tunisia, as no studies have been performed within this
context. Tunisian culture is a collectivistic society, which may have a significant effect on
employees’ attitudes towards KS (Ma et al., 2014).
Besides, a fertile area that can be explored is to integrate mediating or moderator variables
to understand in depth these relationships. In particular, this study was designed to highlight
the effect of the dimensions of SC as predictors of KS within organizations, whereby
investigating the mediating role of employees’ well-being in these relationships. Especially,
the effect of employees’ well-being on KS has received limited attention. In the perspective of
the research of Warr (2007), organizational context features and especially SC act as vitamins
nurturing hedonic and eudaimonic employees’ well-being, which in turn may create a
supportive environment in which employees are more willing to share their knowledge with
others. Happy employees “are known to be more satisfied with their work, more creative, less
inclined to quit, and exhibit better in-role and extra-role performance” (Joo et al., 2016). In this
line, the idea outlined in this research is that SC may play a key role in nurturing employees’
well-being and KS in the Tunisian collectivistic society. In addition, Chumg et al. (2016) Does enterprise
emphasized that few studies have investigated the impact of SC tendency and employees’ social
sense of well-being, on KS behavior. These authors stressed the need to explore the mediating
role of employees’ sense of well-being in the link between SC tendency and the employees’ KS
networks use
behavior. To our knowledge, this mediating effect lack empirical support. matter?
In addition, in the perspective of a technical approach of knowledge management, this
research examines the moderating role of Enterprise social networks (ESN) use, as a new
generation of collaborative technologies, in the link between employees’ well-being and KS. 1155
Instead of the importance of the ESN and the fact that companies are implementing these ICT
tools more and more, studies are scarce about the impact of ESN use on employees and firms
(Berraies, 2019a, b). To adapt to this digitalized economy, firms have integrated ESN to deal
with the phenomenon of social media that has changed the habits of individuals and the way
they interact with other people (Berraies, 2019a). These collaborative technologies boost
formal and informal employees’ interaction and transversal knowledge flows and may
improve the quality of work-life and employees’ well-being (M€antym€akia and Riemer, 2016).
On the basis of a theoretical research, Martin-Salerno et al. (2019) stressed that eudaimonic
well-being may promote employees’ KS through the ESN. While these researchers examined
the eudaimonic aspect of well-being, we rather in this research measured well-being on the
basis of the scale of measurement of Bietry and Crozier (2013) that conceptualized employees’
well-being as a two-dimensional concept integrating both eudaimonic and hedonic aspects.
This study also pioneers the examination of the moderating effect of ESN on the link between
employees’ well-being and KS.
Recognizing this gap in previous research, this study focuses on knowledge-intensive
firms (KIFs) that are facing the challenge of retaining their talented knowledge workers and
encouraging them to share their knowledge (Kim, 2019). Those workers may experience
stress and burnout due to the amount of tasks and responsibilities and high level of pressure
they have to deal with. Well-being is thus of a paramount of importance for retaining
knowledge workers and preventing their turnover (Joo et al., 2016). Improving well-being of
knowledge workers and encouraging them to share their knowledge are critical issues for
Tunisian KIFs that face brain drain of their talented employees in a context of “war for talent”
and skills shortage. Also, these workers are known to be intrinsically motivated and to
valorize in this sense well-being in the workplace. Within KIFs, ESN may enhance the ability
of employees to communicate with each other and collaborate on knowledge-intensive
projects. These ICT tools may foster the employees’ sense of belonging to projects’ teams and
to the organization and promote their willingness to share their knowledge (Berraies, 2019a).
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 offers an overview of the existing
literature, resulting in the development of research model and the formulation of
hypotheses. Section 3 highlights the research methodology. Section 4 and 5 report the
results generated by the data analysis and present the discussion of these findings. Finally,
in section 6 and 7, we identify the managerial implications as well as the limitations and
future perspectives of this research.

2. Literature review
2.1 Social capital
In today’s knowledge economy, companies have become aware of the importance of
intellectual capital integrating human capital, SC and organizational capital to improve their
innovation and performance (Berraies, 2019a; Kamukama et al., 2011; Bontis et al., 2018). In
particular, SC is a key resource that contributes to firms’ success and competitive advantage
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Bueno et al., 2004; Asiaei et al., 2018). It is defined as the different
resources that individuals or a group possess and have acquired from solid relational
JIC networks (Donate et al., 2019; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). It represents the norms and the
21,6 networks that shape collective action.
In order to evaluate the quality and nature of SC, some researchers like Hawkins and
Maurer (2009) distinguish three types of SC: bridging, bonding and linking. Bonding SC
concerns the links between individuals who resemble each other or are members of a
homogeneous group, while bridging SC regards the links between individuals who are
dissimilar in some aspects like age, culture, race, education and socio-economic status
1156 (Hawkins and Maurer, 2009). Linking SC refers to the fact that individuals develop links with
other individuals who possess a kind of power over them to have access to social positions
and opportunities (Hawkins and Maurer, 2009).
Moreover, several authors like Hawkins and Maurer (2009) emphasized that SC must be
apprehended as a multidimensional concept to improve the understanding of social links.
In this line, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) conceptualized SC as a triptych formed by
structural, relational and cognitive aspects. As such, this concept integrates aspects of
social context counting elements such as formal and informal trust-based relationships,
social ties and value systems that shape the employees’ actions within that context (Tsai
and Ghoshal, 1998). Structural SC refers to the characteristics of social system and the
structure of social networks as a whole that provide opportunities for people to interact
with each other (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). It embodies the strength of social
relationships and the frequency and intensity of communication with other individuals
(Chiu et al., 2006; Martın de Castro and Lopez Saez, 2008). This dimension of SC builds on
the familiarity between individuals, the solid formal and informal relationships and the
organization of networks. Relational SC regards the nature of the relationships between
individuals and encompasses respect, friendship, trust, engagement, reciprocity, norm
regulations, identification, cooperation and obligations (Chang and Chuang, 2011; Chiu
et al., 2006; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). It concerns the resources gained via interpersonal
relationships and represents the quality of these links and how they are built over time
(Polyviou et al., 2019). Cognitive SC embodies shared goals, vision and culture, common
knowledge and codes that can help to develop and strengthen mutual understanding and
exchange of ideas between employees (Chiu et al., 2006; Inken and Tsang, 2005; Nahapiet
and Ghoshal, 1998). It allows people to build common perspective, understanding and
interpretation (Zhang et al., 2017).
In this research, we aim to explore the impact of SC on KS within firms.

2.2 The effect of social capital on knowledge sharing

Knowledge represents the most valuable resource that helps firms to innovate, achieve
superior performance and to differentiate from competitors (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995;
Berraies, 2019a; Hussinki et al., 2017). KS enhances individual and organizational skills and
nurtures the organization’s intellectual capital (Allameh, 2018; Ramadan et al., 2017). Thus,
managers have to motivate employees to share their knowledge, as they “may feel deprived of
some power when they share their knowledge that is unique” (Berraies, 2019b).
KS refers to individuals’ behaviors concerning the sharing of their knowledge with other
individuals (Berraies et al., 2020). It is defined by Jackson et al. (2006) as a set of activities
designed to transmit knowledge to other people. For Al-Husseini and Elbeltagi (2018), it is a
process integrating two dimensions, namely the collecting and the donating of tacit and
explicit knowledge. The knowledge donating embodies the process by which employees
share their knowledge with others (Al-Husseini and Elbeltagi, 2018). As for knowledge
collecting, it is defined as the process through which individuals ask for and absorb new
knowledge from other people (Al-Husseini and Elbeltagi, 2018). Allameh (2018) purports that
knowledge is greatly individualistic and is entrenched in specific social contexts.
 The literature suggests that SC has a strong influence on interpersonal KS (Chiu et al., Does enterprise
2006). Polyviou et al. (2019) stressed that internal SC improves knowledge creation and social
accumulation within companies. Hoffman et al. (2005) reported that SC allows firms to
develop a collective intellectual capital by building the infrastructure and networks needed
networks use
for KS and combination. It fosters cooperative behavior and facilitates the access and the matter?
exchange of resources via network ties (Hoffman et al., 2005). In the perspective of the
resource-based view, SC is a key resource as it fosters the employees’ interactions which are
essential for collective action (Kim et al., 2013). Knowledge is constructed and shared through 1157
social interactions (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
Allameh (2018) found that structural, relational and cognitive SC are positively associated
with KS. Kim et al. (2013) explained that SC boosts knowledge donating and collecting by
permitting employees to access to appropriate knowledge, by offering an atmosphere of
reciprocal trust and mutual interest, and by allowing mutual understanding between
employees, so they can comprehend and appreciate each other’s knowledge. Kim et al. (2013)
suggested also that these three dimensions foster tacit knowledge transfer within
organizations. Aslam et al. (2013) show that the cognitive dimension of SC that comprises
shared vision and language is a lever for KS. They found also that trust as part of relational
SC is associated with KS, which in turn is not linked to structural SC. Chow and Chan (2008)
pointed out that social networks and trust and shared vision are key issue for improving KS.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) suggested that structural SC is positively linked to KS.
Employees’ interactions build a solid SC and promote KS. However, Ganguly et al. (2019) did
not found a significant link between structural SC and tacit KS. Networks enable valuable
knowledge exchange and absorption. Nonaka and Konno (1998) highlighted the importance
of social networks like the communities of practice, the virtual or the epistemic communities
or the meetings in fructifying KS and creation. They argued that within shared spaces,
individuals can have access to new knowledge and better exploit it by interacting with other
people in order to execute their tasks. These shared spaces pave the way for cooperation and
KS. In particular, the sharing of tacit knowledge requires intense and frequent interactions
that build strong ties. The quality of knowledge created and shared is also improved, thanks
to social interactions (Chua, 2002). Cross and Cummings (2004) focused on KIFs, where
employees perform intellectual tasks and found that informal networks are key issues for KS.
Todo et al. (2016) stressed the importance of the networks’ diversity. They reported that the
networks’ density and the strength of ties, i.e. how densely and closely individuals are
connected to each other, may reinforce or inhibit effective KS. Strong ties and dense networks
may reinforce KS as it may boost shared norms, explicit knowledge-sharing from different
individuals and trust (Aslam et al., 2013; Todo et al., 2016). Nevertheless, it may generate
redundant knowledge (Todo et al., 2016), as when individuals interact only with individuals
they already know, they cannot absorb enough new knowledge from them.
Relational SC is also an important determinant of KS (Ganguly et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2013).
The close links between individuals in social networks optimize KS and conduct to important
individual and collective actions (Ganguly et al., 2019). In particular, for Ganguly et al. (2019),
trust and trustworthiness are vital for effective and dense social networks and thus for KS.
Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) stressed that interpersonal trust as a relational aspect of SC
influences knowledge combination and sharing. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have identified
trust as a cornerstone of KS. Berraies et al. (2015) emphasized the role of interpersonal trust in
boosting knowledge management practices, namely knowledge acquisition, dissemination
and use. It is a key element that builds the social links, the stability of these links and the
individuals’ willingness to share knowledge with others. Sankowska (2013) reported that
interpersonal trust has a positive impact on the intensity of knowledge management
practices. As knowledge is seen as a form of power for each individual, trustful relationships
are of a paramount of importance. Employees may feel deprived of some power when they
JIC share their knowledge with their colleagues. They must feel that there are no negative
21,6 consequences and that there is no risk that their colleagues or managers will have
opportunistic behaviors that are against their interests. Trust is thus the foundation of a
motivating environment in which individuals can share their knowledge and is a key element
of cooperation (Blomqvist and St ahle, 2000). A high degree of trust and mutual care in a
workplace generates collaborative climate that fosters KS. In such a climate, employees tend
to accept to share what they know and absorb knowledge from other organizational members
1158 they trust. Jain et al. (2015) argued also that strong trust-based relationships, workplace
friendship and employees’ commitment are drivers of effective KS. The quality of
relationships between individuals defines their willingness to collaborate and cooperate
with other individuals. Levin and Cross (2004) found that competence as a cognitive
dimension of trust boosts tacit knowledge exchange, whereas benevolence, as an affect
dimension of trust fosters tacit and explicit KS.
Concerning cognitive SC, Bonfim et al. (2018) purport that shared languages and vision
generate common understandings and are predictors of KS within organizations. Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995) stressed that shared experience and vision are among the conditions of the
process of knowledge conversion. This process involves mutual understanding and shared
cognitive schemas and goals (Ganguly et al., 2019; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Chang and
Chuang (2011) reported that shared language and codes generate mutual knowledge that
may improve the probability of understanding between individuals. They added that the
cognitive SC allows them to effectively communicate their knowledge in a manner that the
other people can understand it on the basis of what they know. These authors found that
shared language in a social network influences positively the quantity and the quality of KS
behavior in virtual communities. Wasko and Faraj (2005) argued also that it may boost
complex KS. Shared language contributes to the efficiency of communication and
assimilation of knowledge by individuals. Cognitive SC builds solid bonds through shared
language, vision, values goals and experience that facilitate KS between different actors
within companies (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005). The extant literature, thus, highlights that SC
and in particular structural SC, relational SC and cognitive SC are key predictors of the KS
within firms. We hypothesize that:
H1. SC has a positive effect on KS.
H1a. Structural SC has a positive effect on KS.
H1b. Relational SC has a positive effect on KS.
H1c. Cognitive SC has a positive effect on KS.

2.3 Effect of social capital on employees’ well-being

Within workplace, employees’ well-being encompasses employees’ satisfaction, quality-of-
work life and positive emotion (Huang et al., 2016). Ryan and Deci (2001) presented well-being
as a complex phenomenon comprising two main perspectives namely hedonic and
eudaimonic. The hedonic approach refers to subjective well-being, is associated with
happiness and includes two dimensions, which results from a cognitive and an affective
evaluation of employees’ work life (Diener et al., 1995). The first dimension regards the
predominance of positive effects and pleasure over the negative effects and pain (Bietry and
Creusier, 2013; Diener et al., 1995). The second dimension, psychological in nature, reflects the
satisfaction with work life which is related to employees’ aspirations (Bietry and Creusier,
2013). The eudaimonic approach is psychological in nature and refers to the personal
expressiveness and fulfillment (Wiklund et al., 2019). In this perspective, Ryff (1989)
conceptualized well-being as a multidimensional concept including six dimensions namely
self-acceptance -having positive attitudes regarding the one’s strengths and weaknesses-, Does enterprise
autonomy- self-determination, challenge and independence, personal growth, self-realization, social
skills and talents development and achievement of one’s potential, environmental mastery,
control of a suitable environment that responds to personal values and needs, positive
networks use
relations with others and purpose in life perceiving one’s life as having meaning, goals and matter?
direction (Bietry and Creusier, 2013). In this research, we refer to Bietry and Creusier (2013)
who defined well-being at the workplace on the basis of a mixed approach combining between
hedonic and eudaimonic aspects as “a psychological state resulting from a positive 1159
relationship with others, with oneself, with time and physical working environment” (p. 34)
and as also “the manager’s response to aspirations personal development” (p. 35). Thus,
employees’ well-being at workplace covers emotional and cognitive aspects and is based on
their relationships with their colleagues, the pleasant environment in which they work, the
possibilities offered to employees to develop their skills and to achieve their goals and the
managers’ recognition of their efforts.
Some studies have examined the link between SC and employees’ well-being at the
workplace (Requena, 2003). Read (2014) suggested that SC characterizes healthy work
environments. Requena (2003) indicated that the level of employees’ well-being is high for
those who work in firms or teams characterized by good social relationships and higher level
of trust. SC influences employees’ success at work by improving their well-being and
satisfaction. Ehsan et al. (2019) stressed that SC and in particular social resources influence
subjective well-being. Agneessens and Wittek (2008) explained that social links influence
employees’ well-being given that they provide access to social support, advice and
cooperation. Chang and Hsu (2016) found that all dimensions of SC are associated with
subjective well-being.
Structural SC is also a foundation for employees’ well-being. It reflects in enjoyment and in
reducing conflicts into the workplace. Indeed, good social ties represent important resources
for psychological support that in turn leads to greater level of satisfaction and well-being.
Structural SC encompasses proximity, secure attachment to others and close interpersonal
ties that contribute to the fulfillment of basic needs such as relatedness and are key predictors
of well-being (Agneessens and Wittek, 2008). Lin (2016) postulated in this line that the
perceived quality of online and offline communication with other individuals and the
frequency of communication are associated with greater well-being. This author studied in
particular how the users of social media like Facebook can achieve their needs of relatedness
and social connectedness, which in turn affect positively their psychological well-being.
Ko and Kuo (2009) highlighted that SC and in particular social integration and social bonding
and bridging are related to subjective well-being. Within a workplace, employees need strong
ties to have emotional support and psychological safety and to fulfill their intrinsic need of
affiliation, which in turn affect their well-being.
Relational SC is also an important element that positively influences well-being. The
relational attachment and friendship links are considered as perquisites for employees’ well-
being (Agneessens and Wittek, 2008). These authors predicted that the existence of a high
level of interpersonal trust in such relationships allows employees to access to key resources
and is a channel for good emotions and moods and thus for flourishing employees’ well-being
and comfort at work (Agneessens and Wittek, 2008). Ashleigh et al. (2012) emphasized that
individual’s propensity to trust is linked to individual’s well-being, while highlighting that
this link between these variables is not well documented in the literature. Downey et al. (2015)
revealed also that the existence of trust-based relationships within workplaces through
which actors experience less uncertainty and vulnerability are key ingredients for better
cooperation and employees’ well-being. With respect to these links, they found that the
integrity and the reliability are critical factors. Chumg et al. (2016) revealed that social
network links and mutual trust between individuals have positive impacts on individual’s
JIC sense of well-being and psychological health. The same idea was highlighted by Helliwell and
21,6 Wang (2011). Trust improves the work life quality and the employees’ feeling of well-being.
Hudson (2006) claimed that perceptions of trust are associated with perceptions of happiness.
Cognitive SC may also be a predictor of employees’ well-being. Agneessens and Wittek
(2008) explained that within social networks, individuals develop larger similarity of job-
related affect that facilitates the coordination of their behaviors and thoughts and improve
their cohesion and mutual understanding. This in turn may breed their psychological comfort
1160 and well-being at workplace. Kinjerski and Skrypnek (2006) purport that when common goals
are shared between employees, this in turn will develop strong connection and cooperation
between them and a sense of community and foster spirit at work that embodies employees’
well-being. They added that shared vision, values and goals developed within organization
may increase spirit at work. Zineldin and Hytter (2012) suggested that transformational
leadership and in particular inspirational motivation that refers to shared goals and mutual
understanding articulated by leaders are relevant with respect to psychological well-being.
That is to say, employees’ well-being is dependent on the employees’ positive emotions and
their achievement of long-term purposes. Those elements can be nourished by mutual
understanding, meaningful work and shared goals and responsibilities that generate a sense
of belonging. Chang and Hsu (2016) revealed that among the dimensions of SC, cognitive SC
has the strongest impact on subjective well-being, signifying that employees’ perception of
well-being may be triggered thanks to mutual understanding and shared vision within a
network. Chumg et al. (2016) explained that a great level of shared goals is positively linked to
employees’ well-being in virtual organizations. Read (2014) highlighted that shared
understandings are key indicators of employees’ well-being and health.
On the basis of the above analysis, we hypothesize that:
H2. SC has a positive effect on employees’ well-being.
H2a. Structural SC has a positive effect on employees’ well-being.
H2b. Relational SC has a positive effect on employees’ well-being.
H2c. Cognitive SC has a positive effect on employees’ well-being.

2.4 Effect of employees’ well-being on knowledge sharing

Many researchers have sought to highlight the factors that encourage employees to share
their knowledge. Among those factors, employees’ well-being stands out as a lever that
boosts KS within organizations (Henttonen et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017). Indeed, happy
employees tend to be more motivated, successful and engaged at work (Huang et al., 2016).
Well-being is particularly interesting for our research as we focus on KIFs, which integrate
knowledge workers who are motivated by intrinsic motivation elements. Joo et al. (2016)
indicated that the well-being is a key issue for attracting and retaining this kind of workers.
Ben Yahia et al. (2019) stressed that the employees’ well-being must be incorporated as part of
HR Marketing strategy to attract knowledge workers.
Wang et al. (2017) purport that employees’ positive emotions and subjective well-being
push employees to share their tacit and explicit knowledge. They explained that when
employees are happy, enjoy working within an organization and experience positive
emotions, they tend to help their colleagues even by sharing their knowledge with them.
Chumg et al. (2016) revealed also that the employees’ well-being boosts their tacit and explicit
KS behavior. They stated that employees who have good relationships with their colleagues
which are part of eudaimonic aspect of well-being, are more likely to help them to share what
they know. The same idea was highlighted by Chumg et al. (2016) and Wasko and Faraj (2005)
who emphasized that the positive emotions and the positive psychological traits of employees
have a positive effect on their KS behavior. In the same vein, George and Brief (1992) reported Does enterprise
that employees who are characterized by positive psychological traits and exude positive social
emotions like pleasure and enjoyment tend to be cooperative, spread helpful and benevolence
and care about the need of others and improve their potential. Happy and satisfied employees
networks use
are more inclined to share their knowledge with others (Cavaliere et al., 2015). Salas-Vallina matter?
et al. (2018) found that happiness of knowledge workers at workplace is a key factor of KS. In
sum, the hedonic dimension of well-being namely the positive affect and pleasure is thus
fundamental to KS. Also, the satisfaction with work life, the second hedonic dimension of 1161
well-being, concerns the physical work environment is also highlighted as a factor that
stimulates KS within firms. To illustrate this, Nonaka and Konno (1998) stressed the
importance of shared contexts in boosting KS.
In addition, the eudaimonic aspects of well-being related to personal growth, purpose in
life and managers’ recognition and care are also fundamental to encourage employees to
share their knowledge. Berraies et al. (2020) highlighted that when managers show
recognition to knowledge workers’ work, empower them and valorize their efforts, this in turn
motivates those workers to exhibit more KS behavior. Employees who are more autonomous
tend to feel more responsible for their tasks and to be more motivated and involved in sharing
their knowledge and acquiring new ones (Naghavi et al., 2019). They feel safe to share their
knowledge (Berraies et al., 2020). Employees’ autonomy in workplace as a feature of
well-being fosters their involvement and initiatives. Employees that perceive that are
recognized are more motivated to learn from their colleagues and share their knowledge.
When managers give latitude to knowledge workers, the latter perceive the meaningfulness
of their tasks, that their managers valorize their skills and that their intrinsic needs are
fulfilled which in turn push them to be active in knowledge collecting and donating (Chumg
et al., 2016). Accordingly, we expect a positive link between employees’ well-being and KS.
Thus, we hypothesize that:
H3. Employees’ well-being has a positive effect on KS.

2.5 Moderating role of ESN use

To cope with nowadays digital economy, firms exploit collaborative technologies in order to
foster interaction and collaboration. In particular, companies use social media like social
networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn to interact with external
stakeholders like customers, suppliers and distributors. Also, they implemented internal
social media platforms to foster communication between employees within organizations
(Leonardi et al., 2013). In this research, we focus on these internal social networks in which
every user has his own profile (Berraies, 2019a). Leonardi et al. (2013) defined ESN as “Web-
based platforms that allow employees to (1) communicate specific information with particular
employees or transmit other information to all organizational members; (2) choose the
information receivers and form networks of communication partners; (3) post and update
status, and classify messages, documents, images and videos and (4) view the messages and
files shared and posted by other social media users that are available at any time.
Traditionally, firms use collaborative technologies such as e-mails, micro blogging and
Intranet. But, ESN are different from traditional ICT as it allows people to do all the activities
performed by traditional ICT in one integrated platform (Leonardi et al., 2013). For Chin et al.
(2015), ESN offer compared to commonly used ICT, communication transparency,
multi-communications, autonomy in content generation and in sharing messages and
access to information in terms of who knows what (information holder) and who knows whom
(communication partners) and expand social relationships. They are important tools for
improving social learning as all information and documents shared are capitalized and
JIC accessible to everyone at any time and because the users may expand their networks
21,6 and learn from others (Leonardi et al., 2013). Soto-Acosta and Cegarra-Navarro (2016) and
Berraies (2019a) purport that the ICT, integrating in particular collaborative technologies 2.0,
groupware, internal blogging and ESN, are key ingredients for improving knowledge
creation, sharing and capitalization. These technologies facilitate access to diverse knowledge
of organizational members and build social links necessary for KS (Chin et al., 2015).
In this paper, we defend that ESN may moderate the link between employees’ well-being
1162 and KS within organizations. Indeed, many authors stressed the importance of ESN for
fostering KS. Through these social media platforms that have initiated a new collaborative
way of working, employees socialize relevant knowledge and best practices with their
colleagues (Berraies, 2019a; Patroni et al., 2016). Aboelmajed (2018) stressed that ESN fit with
second generation of knowledge management systems that are capable to capture and
facilitate sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge among organizational members. This
researcher added that “ESN platforms signify a widespread transformation to decentralized
and continuous KS that tap the minds of the crowds while they eliminate temporal, social and
spatial collaborative sharing impediments gives them access to the expertise of virtual
employees” (Aboedlmajid, 2018, p. 2).
ESN boost KS through status updates, share of ideas, managing tasks, work discussion,
events’ notifications, collective problem solving and informal talk (M€antym€akia and Riemer,
2016). According to these authors, ESN increase KS by fostering informal and formal
interactions, continuous conversations and offering a shared space for insights and
crowdsourcing ideas. These new technological tools allow employees to access to employees’
expertise and to nurture their abilities (Delgado-Verde et al., 2015). Indeed, employees can
localize experts by using search engine within ESN, texting them through instantaneous
messages or post status to ask them for help, which in turn facilitates knowledge collecting
(Berraies, 2019a). They can also respond to the status posted by other users that in turn
improves knowledge donation. In the same vein, Leonardi (2014) suggest that ESN permit
identifying who knows what and whom and make communication visible for other users.
Patroni et al. (2016) purport that ESN nurture brainstorming and build virtual communities
and in particular communities of practice that are considered as key factors of KS. Rode (2016)
claimed that ESN build shared cognitive patterns among employees that facilitate tacit KS in
terms of “know how” and “know why.” Berraies (2019a) explained also that through ESN,
employees can absorb knowledge regarding best practices through the posts and knowledge
shared by other users. Archer-Brown and Kietzmann (2018) highlighted that ESN boost
voluntary exchange and collecting of knowledge and externalization of tacit knowledge.
Moreover, Aboalmaged (2018) suggested that through ESN, managers can improve
positive attitudes and subjective employees’ well-being in order to boost KS activities. Burke
et al. (2010) stressed the importance of social networking sites use for social well-being.
Castellacci and Vi~nas-Bardoletont (2018) have shown that communication platforms improve
job satisfaction by making task execution more independent and flexible, and by creating a
greater sense of participation and organizational commitment. Seo et al. (2015) indicated that
ICT influences employees’ well-being, because they permit greater communicating among
employees and maintaining of friendship at work (Sias et al., 2012).
Day et al. (2010) noted that ICT influence work efficiency and the quality of the work-life
which may result in greater employees’ well-being and better engagement in particular
regarding KS. The use of these technologies develops employees’ ability to solve problems
and the interactions between employees, managers and subordinates (Day et al., 2010). It may
improve employees’ psychological functioning at workplace, decrease conflicts and increase
employees’ health and well-being. Batenburg (2017) pointed out that employees who share
their knowledge on an online platform may have feelings of autonomy, competence and
belonging to their job. When employees feel competent using the platforms, they tend to be
more satisfied and to share their knowledge online more actively, especially when they feel Does enterprise
that these platforms make them more competent by doing their tasks. Ulmer and Pallud social
(2014) recommended also for human resource managers to rethink work practices by
implementing ESN to expand well-being in the workplace. Burke et al. (2010) have established
networks use
a positive link between use of the social networking sites and greater well-being. This can also matter?
be the case at workplace in which employees who use ESN develop meaningful social
connections that are key ingredient for their happiness and well-being. Wehner et al. (2017)
stressed that ESN improve social ties and represent a foundation for networked organization 1163
in which are built respect and trust-based relationships. They added that these technologies
support integration of new recruits and create communities of users where organizational
members may work, collaborate together and assist each other, which may create an
atmosphere of well-being (Wehner et al., 2017). Yingjie et al. (2019) highlighted that the ESN
use improves employees’ social reputation, sense of attachment to the firms, and social
support and as a matter of fact generates greater psychological well-being. It granted for
more enjoyment at workplace and enhance self-esteem and well-being of low-level employees
(Yingjie et al., 2019).
ESN represent shared spaces of interactions allowing employees to get to know each
other, to better collaborate and coordinate, to absorb the information they need, to ovoid
misunderstanding, facilitate problem resolution and facilitate the execution of their tasks.
This in turn may affect their feeling of well-being and encourage them to absorb knowledge
and share knowledge with the members of their communities. According to these arguments,
the greater the employees use the ESN, the better the link between employees’ well-being and
KS will be. So, the fourth hypothesis is the following:
H4. ESN use moderates the link between employees’ well-being and KS.

2.6 Mediating role of employees’ well-being

In the light of the literature analysis, our study suggests that SC and in particular structural,
relational and cognitive SC increase employees’ well-being (Agneessens and Wittek, 2008;
Chang and Hsu, 2016), which in turn leads to better KS within organizations (Chumg et al.,
2016; Wang et al., 2017). Thus, employees’ well-being may mediate the link between the
dimensions of SC and KS. Indeed, SC encompasses good social ties that constitute a source of
valuable knowledge, frequency and intensity of communication, trust-based relationships
shared values and goals and allows mutual understandings between employees, which in
turn may create an environment likely to lead to employees’ well-being (Requena, 2003; Kim
et al., 2013). The strong social ties and the frequency and the intensity of the interactions
between employees that define structural SC pave the way for strong cooperation and allow
employees to better execute their tasks. This may result in greater employees’ psychological
comfort and well-being at workplace (Agneessens and Wittek, 2008) and in turn positively
affect their attitudes at work regarding KS (Chumg et al., 2016). Relational SC is also a source
of friendship, psychological support, secure attachment, mutual care and trust-based
relationships that result in better satisfaction and well-being (Agneessens and Wittek, 2008),
that constitute a foundation for KS (Lei et al., 2019). Finally, cognitive SC encompasses shared
goals, vision and languages that improve common understandings, connection and
cooperation between employees and a sense of community and generates spirit at work
and employees’ well-being (Kinjerski and Skrypnek, 2006), which is a predictor of KS
development. Hence, on the basis of the above literature analysis, we hypothesize that:
H5. Employees’ well-being mediates the link between SC and KS.
H5a. Employees’ well-being mediates the link between structural SC and KS.
JIC H5b. Employees’ well-being mediates the link between relational SC and KS.
21,6 H5c. Employees’ well-being mediates the link between cognitive SC and KS.

3. Methodology
1164 3.1 Data collection and sample
We choose to test the model depicted in Figure 1 and especially the hypotheses formulated via
a quantitative study. As such, we targeted ICT Tunisian firms for multiples reasons. As we
focus on the moderating role of the ESN, we decided to survey ICT Tunisian companies as
according to the research of Berraies (2019a), these firms use the most ESN compared to other
sectors. Also, the ICT companies are KIFs in which there are in majority knowledge workers
who perform intellectual work (Berraies, 2019a). Compared to manual workers, these
knowledge workers are intrinsically motivated and thus firms should take care of their
well-being. The ICT sector is dynamic and plays an important role in the creating value
and in the economic growth of Tunisia.
In this line, a draft questionnaire was prepared and pretested among two practitioners and
two researchers in management. According to their suggestions, this questionnaire was
improved to ensure more clarity and content validity. The improved version was sent online
to 292 middle managers of Tunisian ICT firms. The study targeted middle managers as they
tend to be at the interface of vertical and horizontal communication, communicate with
external stakeholders and nurture knowledge creation process (Berraies, 2019b). As a matter
of fact, these “knowledge engineers” (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) plays a key role in
supporting KS within firms. In this sense, we targeted knowledge workers working in ICT
firms and especially middle managers. As such, we used a convenience sampling method on
the basis of a reasoned choice to collect data. This method permits to save time and cost. A
total of 183 questionnaires was received, comprising 168 useable questionnaires related to 89
firms, yielding a recovery rate of 57.53%.
Table 1 illustrates the sample demographics. The respondents are mostly men (102)
(60.11%) and are highly educated. All of them have an experience of more than three years.
Concerning the respondents’ age, they belong to three generations. The first generation –
generation X- comprises the respondents that are in the age range of 40–55 years
representing a percentage of 47.02%. The second generation- the generation Y- integrates the
respondents that are in the age range of 25–39 years (45.24%), whereas the third generation of
baby-boomers includes the respondents that are over 55 years (7.74%). As for firms surveyed,
the majority are small and medium companies. 50.57% have between 51 and 250 employees,
16.85% have between 10 and 50 employees and 32.58% have more than 250 employees.
Concerning the firms’ age, 83.93% of the companies had been established for more than 10

Enterprise social
Social Capital networks use

H4
Structural SC H2.1 to H2.3
Employees’ Knowledge
well-being sharing
H3
Relational SC

H1.1. to H1.3
Cognitive SC

Control variables
Figure 1.
Research model Employees’ age
Employees’ gender
 Frequency (N 5 168) %
Does enterprise
social
Respondents’ characteristics networks use
Respondent’s gender matter?
Men 102 60.11
Women 66 39.88
Respondent’s age 1165
< 40 (Generation Y) 76 45.24
40–55 (Generation X) 79 47.02
>55 (Baby-boomers) 13 7.74
Respondent’s education
University 168 100

Firms’ characteristics
Firms’ size
10–50 employees 15 16.85
51–250 employees 45 50.57
>250 employees 29 32.58
Firms’ age
3–5 years 9 5.36
6–10 years 18 10.71
>10 years 141 83.93
Firms’ sector of activities
ICT Business consultancy 54 60.67 Table 1.
Telecommunications 35 39.33 Sample demographics

years. The majority of the firms surveyed belong to the telecommunication branch of activity
whereas the rest of the firms are specialized in business consultancy related to the industrial
software and artificial intelligence solutions.

3.2 Measurement model

Each variable in our model is conceptualized with multiple items. All items measuring the
research variables were selected from the existing literature to ensure content validity and are
measured on the basis of a five-point Likert scale ranging from completely disagree (1) to
completely agree (5). We conceptualized the SC as a triptych comprising structural SC,
relational SC and cognitive SC. In the perspective of Li et al. (2014), we used four items
developed by Chiu et al. (2006) and Chen (2007) to measure structural SC, five items developed
by Chiu et al. (2006) and Wasko and Faraj (2005) to measure relational SC and three items to
conceptualize cognitive SC developed by Tsai and Ghoshal (1998). Employees’ well-being at
workplace was measured via a twelve-item scale adapted from Bietry and Creusier (2013).
This scale of measurement takes into account the hedonic (six items) and the eudaimonic
nature of well-being (six items). It integrates hedonic aspects which are related to the physical
work environment and the job carry-over and eudaimonic aspects which concerns good
relationships with colleagues, the personal growth and purpose in life and managers’
recognition of the employees’ efforts.
KS was measured by seven-item scale adapted from Lin (2007). This variable
integrates according to Lin (2007) two dimensions which are knowledge donating (three
items) and knowledge collecting (four items). As for ESN, we used a five dimensions-
scale developed by M€antym€akia and Riemer (2016) which are ideas and work discussion
JIC (five items), problem solving (three items), task management (three items), informal talk
21,6 (three items) and events and updates (four items). This scale measures the ESN use
from a knowledge management perspective and refers to the employees’ engagement
and constant knowledge contributions in the platforms of sharing ideas (Berraies,
2019a; M€antym€akia and Riemer, 2016). The scales of measurement of all variables are
presented in Appendix.
Before the test of the hypotheses, the psychometric properties of the scales of
1166 measurement used were checked using two software, namely SPSS 21.0 and SMART PLS
3. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis as
recommended by Hair et al. (2010). In this line, we performed first a principal component
analysis (PCA) via a Varimax rotation method. Bryant and Yarnold (1995) recommended a
sample size of a minimum of five questionnaires per item. Our sample satisfies this rule. The
PCA resulted in eliminating items with communalities less than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). The
retained constructs after the factorial analysis are measured by three items at least (Costello
and Osborne, 2005). All the scales of measurement integrating the retained items have a
percentage of explained variance greater than 50% (Hair et al., 2010).
This analysis reveals that SC includes three dimensions namely structural, cognitive and
relational SC (three items each). It shows also a four-dimensional measurement scale for ESN
use integrating ideas and work discussion (four items), task management (three items),
problem solving (three items) and events and updates (three items). As for KS, a two-
dimensional scale was generated including three items each and representing knowledge
donating and collecting. The analysis highlights a two-dimensional scale of employees’ well-
being. The first dimension includes six items (eudaimonic approach) while the second
comprises four items (hedonic approach).
In addition, the output generated by the SMART PLS 3 shows that the Cronbach’s alpha is
greater than 0.7 for all constructs (Hair et al., 2014), signifying that our measures were reliable
(Table 2). We checked also for the items’ reliability by ensuring that that the factor loading of
each item is greater than 0.7 and is statistically significant (<5%) (Hair et al., 2010). We assessed
than the constructs’ convergent validity by verifying that the average variance extracted
(AVE) indicator is greater than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The AVE of constructs ranges
from 0.547 to 0.897, providing support for good convergent validity (Table 2).
Constructs’ discriminant validity was assessed by ensuring that the square root of the
AVE of each construct (in the diagonal in Table 3) is higher than the off-diagonal correlations

Construct Mean S.D. Number of items Range of loadings α C.R. AVE

SSC 3.468 1.227 3 0.926–0.966 0.943 0.963 0.897

RSC 3.639 1.148 3 0.871–0.914 0.865 0.917 0.787
CSC 3.744 0.895 3 0.843–0.917 0.866 0.916 0.785
EWB 3.766 0.820 6 0.701–0.857 0.855 0.893 0.584
HWB 4.277 0.621 4 0.703–0.791 0.725 0.828 0.547
DKS 3.855 0.987 3 0.916–0.946 0.924 0.952 0.868
CKS 3.680 0.851 3 0.832–0.884 0.815 0.890 0.730
TM 3.804 0.685 4 0.706–0.866 0.735 0.850 0.656
EVU 4.001 0.888 3 0.869–0.896 0.853 0.911 0.772
WD 3.472 1.102 3 0.711–0.948 0.884 0.924 0.757
PS 3.888 0.680 3 0.758–0.872 0.742 0.854 0.661
Age 44.32 9.789 – – – – –
Note(s): SSC: structural social capital, RSC: relational social capital, CSC: cognitive social capital, EWB;
Table 2. eudaimonic well-being, HWB: hedonic well-being, CKS: knowledge collecting, DKS: knowledge donating, TM:
Descriptive statistics task management, EVU: events and updates, WD: work discussion, PS: problem solving
Construct SSC RSC CSC EWB HWB CKS DKS TM EVU WD PS Gender Age

SSC 0.947
RSC 0.253 0.886
CSC 0.202 0.252 0.870
EWB 0.445 0.407 0.099 0.764
HWB 0.239 0.285 0.186 0.454 0.739
CKS 0.280 0.281 0.118 0.495 0.018 0.855
DKS 0.394 0.547 0.135 0.673 0.257 0.530 0.932
TM 0.120 0.231 0.230 0.056 0.027 0.025 0.039 0.810
EVU 0.031 0.282 0.030 0.169 0.012 0.157 0.241 0.123 0.879
WD 0.280 0.025 0.009 0.087 0.146 0.195 0.074 0.119 0.274 0.870
PS 0.146 0.065 0.150 0.050 0.085 0.090 0.075 0.129 0.050 0.361 0.813
Gender 0.250 0.199 0.147 0.169 0.450 0.006 0.176 0.015 0.137 0.142 0.131 1
Age 0.047 0.180 0.169 0.034 0.085 0.022 0.097 0.001 0.072 0.046 0.013 0.305 1
Note(s): SSC: structural social capital, RSC: relational social capital, CSC: cognitive social capital, EWB; eudaimonic well-being, HWB: hedonic well-being, CKS:
knowledge collecting, DKS: knowledge donating, TM: task management, EVU: events and updates, WD: work discussion, PS: problem solving
The diagonal values are the square roots of the AVE. The off-diagonal values are the correlations between the constructs
Does enterprise

matter?

1167
networks use
social

Discriminant validity
Table 3.
JIC between constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The discriminant validity of constructs is
21,6 thus confirmed.
Finally, we checked for the common method bias (CMB) by analyzing the Harman’s single
factor index. Findings reveal that this index is equal to 0.39 and thus is under the cut-off of 0.5
(Podsakoff et al., 2012).

1168 4. Results
The study draws on partial least squares method (PLS) to test the hypotheses. Smart PLS 3.0
was used to perform the data analysis. We selected this approach for multiple reasons. First,
this method allows testing a model that includes several variables with multiple
measurement items (Hair et al., 2014). Second, this approach permits assessing both
measurement and structural models simultaneously. Third, it allows transcending problems
of normality and multicolinearity (Chin et al., 2003). Finally, it is founded on a variance-based
method that compared to covariance-based method complies with reduced sample size. In this
line, our sample size (186 questionnaires) is adequate regarding the number of items and
variables included in the questionnaire. Indeed, Hair et al. (2014) recommended a sample size
of ten questionnaires for each independent variable. Also, Kline (2011) suggested a sample
size of no smaller than five or ten times per constructs.
Once we made sure of the psychometric quality of scales of measurement, we estimated
the structural model to test the research hypotheses that we have formulated. The hypothesis
is confirmed if the p-value is less than 0.05 or if the critical ratio is greater than 1.96.
To assess the quality of the structural model, we verified that values of R square for KS
(0.559) and employees’ well-being (0.305) are superior to 0.1 as suggested by Hair et al. (2014).
Findings report that the standardized root mean squared residual is equal to 0.076 and,
therefore, is less than the cut-off value of 0.08 recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). Also,
the value of the goodness of fit is 0.562 and is greater than the cut-off of 0.3, assessing thus the
quality of the structural model and the importance of the dependent variables (Tenenehaus
et al., 2005). Table 4 and Figure 2 report the results of the data analysis.
H1a, H1b and H1c predict positive effects of dimensions of SC on KS, which the findings
confirm. Indeed, results highlight a positive link between structural SC (β 5 0.269, p < 0.001),
relational SC (β 5 0.308, p < 0.01) and cognitive SC (β 5 0.167, p 5 0.047) on KS. In the
perspective of Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2000), the effect of relational SC on KS is strong
as the path coefficient is above 0.3, while the effects of structural SC and cognitive SC on KS
can be qualified as moderate. Moreover, hypotheses H2a and H2b are confirmed as the

Hypotheses Independent variable Dependent variable β CR P Results

H1.1 Structural SC KS (R 5 0.559)

2
0.269 2.740 0.000 Confirmed
H1.2 Relational SC 0.308 3.249 0.001 Confirmed
H1.3 Cognitive SC 0.167 3.127 0.047 Confirmed
H3 Employees’ well-being 0.431 5.390 0.000 Confirmed
– ESN 0.179 2.118 0.035 –
– Respondents’ age 0.254 3.127 0.002 –
– Respondents’ gender 0.011 0.242 0.809 –
H2.1 Structural SC Employees’ well-being 0.360 3.738 0.000 Confirmed
H2.2 Relational SC (R 5 0.305)
2
0.344 3.518 0.006 Confirmed
H2.3 Cognitive SC 0.016 0.141 0.888 Infirmed
Table 4. H4 Moderating effect of KS 0.068 0.745 0.457 Infirmed
Results of ESN use
structural model Note(s): β: Standardized regression coefficient. CR: Critical ratio, p: significance level
 Employees’ Enterprise social Does enterprise
well-being networks use social
0.360***
networks use
-0.016 ns 0.431*** matter?
0.344** 0.179*
Structural SC
0.269*** 1169
0.308** Knowledge
Relational SC sharing
0.167*
Cognitive SC -0.254 ** -0.011 ns

Employees’ Employees’
age gender

Note(s): *** : P < 0.001, ** : P < 0.01, * : P < 0.05, ns : non significant Figure 2.
Structural model tested

structural SC (β 5 0.360, p < 0.01) and relational SC (β 5 0.344, p < 0.001) are according to the
results strong predictors of employees’ well-being. However, cognitive SC is not significantly
linked to KS (p > 0.05). H2c is thus rejected. Employees’ well-being is also revealed as a strong
predictor of KS (β 5 0.431, p < 0.001), which lead us to confirm hypothesis H3. Results show
that employees’ gender does not affect KS. Also, employees’ age is associated negatively to
KS (β 5 0.254, p < 0.01).
As for mediation, we used a non-parametric bootstrapping approach recommended by
Hair et al. (2014). In this perspective, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent
variable without taking into account the mediating variable must be significant, which is the
case for our model as structural SC (β 5 0.418, p < 0.001), relational SC (β 5 0.445, p < 0.001)
and cognitive SC (β 5 0.156, p < 0.05) are associated positively and significantly to KS. In
addition, the mediating variable which is the employees’ being, must absorb some of the
direct impact or the entire direct impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable
(Hair et al., 2014). In the case of the indirect impact is not significant, the mediation is also not
significant (Hair et al., 2014). In this perspective, findings reveal that the indirect links
between the structural SC (β 5 0.152, p < 0.01), relational SC (β 5 0.150, p < 0.01), and KS
(β 5 0.150, p < 0.01) in the presence of the employees’ well-being are significant. Therefore, the
mediation is significant and the H5a and H5b are confirmed. To assess if there is a partial of a
total mediation, we calculated as recommended by Hair et al. (2014) the variance accounted for
(VAF) which is equal to the value of the indirect effect in relation to the total effect. The VAF
for the mediating effect of employees’ well-being is equal to 36.36% in the link between
structural SC and KS and to 33.70% in the link between relational SC and KS. Hence, the two
mediations are partial. Also, the effect of cognitive SC on KS is not significant in the presence
of the employees’ well-being (p > 0.05). Thus, employees’ well-being does not mediate the link
between cognitive SC and KS and H5c is rejected.
The moderating effect in the research model was tested via the PLS path modeling. In this
line, a two-stage approach proposed by the software was used. This approach calculates the
latent variable scores of the latent moderating variable and the latent independent variable
from the key model (Hair et al., 2014). These scores are calculated via the software SMART
PLS 3 to estimate the product indicator that highlights the interaction between the
JIC moderating variable and the independent variable. In this line, we included ESN as a
21,6 moderator variable between employees’ well-being and KS. Findings reveal that the
moderator variable, which is the ESN use is linked positively and significantly to KS
(β 5 0.179, p < 0.05) and that the product indicator that measures the interaction between the
independent variable (employees’ well-being) and the moderator variable (ESN use) is not
significant. Therefore, H4 is rejected.
1170
5. Discussion and conclusion
This research investigates the link between structural, relational and cognitive SC and KS.
Unlike there are some studies like Aslam et al. (2013), Allameh (2018) and Kim et al. (2013) that
studied the links between these three dimensions and KS, to analyze clearly these effects,
moderator and mediating variables are particularly absents. This paper addresses the gap in
the literature and extends these studies by understanding in depth these complex
relationships and pioneers the investigation of the mediating role of employees’ well-being
and the moderating role of ESN use. Also, few studies investigated the impact of each of the
three dimensions of SC on KS, the majority of research has conceptualized SC as a
second-order construct. Nevertheless, it is essential to study the effect of each dimension so as
to guarantee more valuable information. While some researchers focused on the hedonic or on
the eudaimonic aspect of well-being, we rather measured well-being on the basis of the scale
of measurement developed by Bietry and Creusier (2013) that take into account these two
aspects. In this line, very little studies have been done to explore the links between the three
dimensions of SC and employees’ well-being. An exception is the study of Chang and Hsu
(2016) that have examined the links between these variables in the context of social
networking sites. These researchers focused only on the subjective well-being and thus of the
hedonic aspect of well-being. Also, we examined the effect of the ESN within organizations, as
a new generation of collaborative technologies that fosters collective intelligence and KS.
This study focuses on the KIFs and particularly ICT firms in which intellectually and
challenging tasks are made by teams of knowledge workers and integrate problem solving
discussions. Those workers must absorb the knowledge of their teams’ members and share
their personal knowledge within a continuing process of mutual adjustment in order to
achieve the objectives of the projects. In addition, our research was performed in Tunisia,
where few studies on the topics of SC, ESN and employees’ well-being are available.
According to the results, better KS is a consequence of better employees’ well-being that in
turn is nurtured by structural and relational SC. Indeed, our findings show that SC is a key
factor for improving KS within organizations. These findings converge with those of Kim et al.
(2013) who found that structural, relational and cognitive SC affect positively knowledge
donating and collecting and infirm the results of Aslam et al. (2013) who revealed that
cognitive SC is not linked to KS. Employees are thus more willing to share their knowledge due
to social ties they develop with organizational members that underpin strong and frequent
interactions. Strong social ties may act as predictors of successful collaboration and fruitful
cooperation. Shared spaces boost communication and build direct contacts with employees
that allow them to share and access to new knowledge thanks to the fruitful interpersonal
interactions (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Employees tend to have more predisposition about
sharing their skills and knowledge with those with whom they had established a strong work
relationship. In particular, knowledge-intensive workers need social ties to collaborate,
exchange and brainstorm with their colleagues (Salas-Vallina et al., 2018).
This research highlights that the shared values and goals are essential for establishing
strong relationships between organizational actors as it assure a mutual understanding. The
knowledge transmitted is communicated effectively and is understood and interpreted
appropriately. This result is in the same vein of the research of Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) who
reported that employees who share a vision tend to turn to exchange their knowledge within Does enterprise
organizations. As such, cognitive SC is a lever for improvement of the quality of knowledge social
shared.
This research provides empirical evidence that the relational dimension of SC stands out
networks use
as the most important variable that boosts KS. Results corroborate the work of Ganguly et al. matter?
(2019) who stressed that trust and trustworthiness are key factors for KS. Employees are
more predisposed to share their knowledge with those who are trustworthy. In particular,
knowledge workers may usually do not accept to share their knowledge, especially in the case 1171
this knowledge is precious because they may feel deprived of potential benefits and some
power. In this line, trust-based-relationships may decrease knowledge protection and are
prerequisite for KS. A context characterized by sociability, mutual respect and friendship
offers psychological support to employees, improves their intrinsic motivation and thus
facilitates also open communication and KS. This idea is particularly important for
knowledge workers that are known to seek for social networking and intrinsic motivation
within workplace. Also, our sample is composed in majority of knowledge workers belonging
to the generation X (47.02%) and the generation Y (45.24%). These two generations and
particularly the generation Y are known to valorize social value in workplace, establishing
social ties, workgroup and hedonic experiences (Ben Yahia et al., 2019). The negative effect of
employees’ age on KS generated by the data analysis comforts this idea. This result is
consistent with the research of Brcic and Mihelic (2015) who emphasized that Baby-boomers
generation are considered more self-centered and individualistic, while generation X and
generation Y are socially active, team oriented and are more willing to share their knowledge.
Moreover, some studies such as those of Lin (2008) and Gara Bach Ouerdian et al. (2017)
emphasized that employee’s gender may influence KS within organizations and that in this
sense compared to men, women tend to more act communally, help others and are more
willing to share knowledge within organizations. Other researchers like Lin (2006) stressed
that women are more disposed to share knowledge in order to overcome the glace ceiling
regarding their carrier and occupational advancement. However, this research revealed that
there is no positive link between the employee’s gender and KS. Indeed, this result may be
explained by the specificities of the Tunisian context which is characterized by the growing
place of women in the business world, policies on gender equality and the government’s
commitment to encourage women’s involvement in decision-making positions (Ben Rejeb
et al., 2020). Therefore, within Tunisian firms, women are empowered and involved in the
decision making as are men. Within workplace, employees are more willing to share their
knowledge if they are motivated. Thus, in a Tunisian context of gender equality that gives
almost equal rights to women and men within workplace, women are encouraged and
motivated to share their knowledge. This context may explain why no significant gender
differences exist regarding the extent of KS. In this line, our research establishes the need for
further study aiming to explore the effect of gender diversity rather than employee’s gender
on KS.
Moreover, the positive effect of the three dimensions of SC can be also explained by the
specificities of the Tunisian culture. Indeed, SC is a key factor in the employees’ decision to
share knowledge within firms in a collectivistic culture like Tunisia. In this sense, many
authors stressed that national culture has a greater influence on the willingness of employees
to share knowledge within organizations (Ma et al., 2014). Ben Rejeb et al. (2020) claimed that
the Tunisian business culture is strongly characterized by the importance of personal
relationships which are considered as key social and relational assets that managers and
employees use to share and to get access to the knowledge and resources they require. In a
collectivistic culture such as Tunisia, the SC is of a paramount of importance in facilitating KS
and intellectual development. Our results are also consistent with the research of Berraies
et al. (2020) that emphasized that in Arab culture like Tunisia, trust-based relationships are
JIC determinant of KS. On the basis of an empirical research within high-tech firms in Tunisia,
21,6 Mansour et al. (2014) concluded that managers of these firms are characterized by risk
aversion and tend to preserve their precious knowledge. In this line, these authors stressed
that organizational climate of trust fosters KS in workplace.
In addition, our research reveals that employees’ well-being is a lever for KS. This result is
in accordance with the research of some authors like George and Brief (1992) and Wang et al.
(2017) who emphasized that hedonic aspects of well-being such as happiness, pleasure,
1172 enjoyment and satisfaction regarding physical work environment spread help to others,
cooperation and benevolence and motivate employees to share their knowledge with their
colleagues. Also, the eudaimonic aspects of well-being that concern purpose in life, personal
growth and managers’ recognition and care foster KS behaviors. Knowledge workers who
seek for autonomy, work challenge and personal growth may perceive that their managers
valorize their skills and take into account their intrinsic needs, which motivate them to share
their knowledge and help others (Chumg et al., 2016).
This paper also examined the relationships between the dimensions of SC and employees’
well-being, which have been little studied in the literature (Chang and Hsu, 2016). Findings
highlight that structural and relational SC are associated with KS, which is not the case for
cognitive SC. Results are partially in accordance with Chang and Hsu (2016) who revealed
that the three dimensions of SC are linked to subjective well-being in social networking sites.
Findings also corroborate the study of Salas-Vallina et al. (2018) who claimed that within
KIFs, happiness at workplace which is a hedonic aspect of well-being is associated mostly
with social interactions. Strong social ties and high-quality links foster knowledge workers’
happiness within organizations (Salas-Vallina et al., 2018). In the perspective of Warr (2007),
structural and relational SC represent vitamins improving employees’ well-being. Indeed,
Employees’ well-being is triggered thanks to strong social ties, effective communication,
relatedness, psychological safety and social support that allow fulfilling the intrinsic need of
affiliation of employees (Agneessens and Wittek, 2008). Employees may feel enjoyed in a
healthy work environment in which they develop proximity friendship and secure
attachment to other organizational members. Also, trust-based-relationships provide
employees with comfort at work, allow them to access the resources they needed, reduce
their vulnerability at workplace, improve their good emotions, achieve their personal growth
and thus nurture their hedonic and eudaimostic well-being (Agneessens and Wittek, 2008).
However, our study reveals that cognitive SC is not associated significantly to employees’
well-being. This result is surprising as shared values and goals represent bonding
mechanisms that is reflected according to some authors like Chumg et al. (2016) in improving
mutual understandings, in forging fertile relationships and in better well-being. It is
interesting in this line to make a comparison between the three generations of workers
namely generation Y, X and baby-boomers because they hold different work values, goals
and sense of belonging to the organization. Also, future researchers could address the role of
the leadership style as predictor of shared values and goals and employees’ well-being or
examine the effect of cognitive SC on each dimension of employees’ well-being.
In the Tunisian collectivistic society, SC is a valuable resource that must be nurtured to
enhance individuals’ well-being. In such collectivistic culture, SC is a community resource
that can be improved to provide a strong foundation upon which employees may feel more
comfortable in the workplace. The promotion of trust-based relationships and social
interactions between employees elevate employees’ welfare in Tunisian firms. In particular,
in the context of KIFs, knowledge workers do prefer work environment characterized by the
promotion of autonomy and team-oriented work (Ben Yahia et al., 2019). Social capital can be
perceived as a protective factor for employees in Tunisian KIFs who desire to control
uncertainty, that may limit their perceived risk and encourage them to share their knowledge
(Mansour et al., 2014).
 Finally, the results of this study indicate that the ESN use does not moderate the link Does enterprise
between employees’ well-being and KS. However, the data analysis generated a positive social
association between ESN use and KS. This result corroborates the research of Patroni et al.
(2016), Aboelmajed (2018) and Berraies (2019a) who stressed that these platforms induce a
networks use
real transformation in workplace that embeds tools that can be used to effectively share and matter?
capture explicit and tacit knowledge, to foster fertile collaboration and to transfer best
practices to all organizational members. It allow employees to extend their networks, identify
the possessors of specific knowledge, access to experts’ knowledge, ask for help by posting 1173
status or respond to status of other persons which in turn boost knowledge donating and
collecting. ESN represent thus shared spaces for communication, collaboration, problem
resolution, brainstorming and crowdsourcing ideas. The results of our study are consistent
with the research of Berraies (2019a) who emphasized that in Tunisian ICT firms, ESN have a
positive effect on KS. ESN have enormous potential in improving social connections within
Tunisian KIFs and in motivating employees to share their knowledge. This result may also
correlate with our sample which is mainly composed by knowledge workers belonging to
generations X and Y. Indeed, Berraies (2019a) highlighted on the basis of a study performed
within Tunisian ICT firms that ESN represent for the younger employees an opportunity to
share their ideas and collaborate with organizational members. According to this author,
younger individuals are emotionally involved to ESN as they valorize fun, pleasure and social
value of these ICT tools (Berraies, 2019a). ESN may help these employees to fulfill their need
of belonging to social groups and foster their connections and KS with other people (Berraies
et al., 2017).

6. Practical implications
This research has several practical implications. It highlights the importance of SC for
employees’ well-being and effective KS within organizations. Thus, managers need to boost
the formation of social networks as vitamins improving employees’ well-being and KS. In
particular, they should build structural, relational and cognitive SC to improve employees’
willingness to collect and donate knowledge. Managers in Tunisian KIFs are reluctant to
share their knowledge due to risk aversion, their desire to control uncertainty and to protect
their precious knowledge (Mansour et al., 2014). They should in particular cultivate a
collaborative and trust-based work environment and use incentives to imbue employees with
sharing values.
This study could be of value to managers of KIFs as it offers a reading grid helping them
to better motivate their knowledge workers, reinforce their intrinsic motivation and reduce
their turnover intentions in a Tunisian context characterized by brain drain and uncertainty.
They should shape an atmosphere of well-being in which knowledge workers may exude
positive emotions like pleasure and enjoyment and that allows them to improve their creative
abilities and encourage them to search for new opportunities and personal growth. These
workers face often a high amount of work that could affect their well-being. Also, managers
should invest in developing clear mission, values and goals that employees can understand
and follow, which in turn may foster KS. They can also develop the creation of communities to
boost formal and informal interactions and develop trust-based relationships.
For managers, the results of this research highlight the importance of ESN use as a
communication channel for improving KS. They should encourage employees to use these
collaborative platforms and do not hesitate to fruitfully communicate with other
organizational members to collect and donate their knowledge. ESN must be implemented
in KIFs as tools that subside silos between organizational members and departments and to
develop meaningful social interactions which are key ingredients for employees’ happiness
and well-being at workplace.
JIC 7. Limits and research perspectives
21,6 Some limitations of this research need to be highlighted. First, since the sampling technique
used in this study is a convenience method that could alter the generalizability of the findings,
it is recommended that future research use probabilistic sampling method. Second, as this
study is cross-sectional, future researchers could address the topic studied by using a
longitudinal research design to better address the dynamic associations between variables.
Third, it would be wise to be cautious regarding the interpretation of the data analysis
1174 because of the risk of common method bias although the assessment of the Harman’s single
factor score in the line of Podsakoff et al. (2012). Fourth, this study may benefit from
integrating qualitative approach that may provide more clarifications about the links
between variables. Furthermore, future researchers could enrich the conceptual model by
other interesting variables. They could examine the role of the style of leadership that may
moderate the link between employees’ well-being and KS. Also, they could test the role of KS
in boosting innovation performance or integrate in the model the other dimensions of
intellectual capital, namely organizational and human capital. Also, our study focused on
employees’ well-being and KS as constructs of second order in the research model.
Nevertheless, it may be necessary to better analyze the links between variable in the model by
taking into consideration the dimensions of employees’ well-being and KS, so as to obtain
more interesting results. Future researchers could also investigate the predictors of KS by
differentiating between tacit and explicit knowledge. Moreover, the negative effect of
employees’ age, considered in this research as a control variable, on KS addresses the call for a
comparative study between the generation Y, generation X and baby-boomers regarding the
impact of SC on KS. Also, the results highlighted a non-significant effect of gender on KS.
With this respect, future studies can also investigate the effect of gender diversity within
KIFs on KS. Finally, our model was tested within the particular context of Tunisian KIFs.
Thus, the managerial implications of this research may be limited to these firms or those that
have comparable structural and managerial features. Also, the cultural specificities of
Tunisia such as norms and beliefs may also hinder the generalizability of the results of this
research to other countries. The findings of this study may be restricted to similar emerging
countries and in particular countries characterized by a collectivistic culture. The topic
addressed in this research can thus be investigated in other emerging or developing countries
or other sectors of activities. Future studies may address the topic of this research by making
a comparison between Tunisia and other similar economies or between individualistic and
collectivistic countries.

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, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 362-383.
Agneessens, F. and Wittek, R. (2008), “Social capital and employee well-being: disentangling
intrapersonal and interpersonal selection and influence mechanisms”, Revue Française de
Sociologie, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 613-637.
Al-Husseini, S. and Elbeltagi, I. (2018), “The role of knowledge sharing in enhancing innovation: a
comparative study of public and private higher education institutions in Iraq”, Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Allameh, S.M. (2018), “Antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 858-874.
Archer-Brown, C. and Kietzmann, J. (2018), “Strategic knowledge management and enterprise social
media”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1288-1309.
Ashleigh, M.J., Higgs, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2012), “A new propensity to trust scale and its relationship Does enterprise
with individual well-being: implications for HRM policies and practices”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 360-376. social
Asiaei, K., Jusoh, R. and Bontis, N. (2018), “Intellectual capital and performance measurement systems
networks use
in Iran”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 294-320. matter?
Aslam, M.H., Shahzad, K., Syed, A.R. and Ramish, A. (2013), “Social capital and knowledge sharing as
determinants of academic performance”, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-41. 1175
Batenburg, A. (2017), “Healthcare workers sharing knowledge online: intrinsic motivations and well-
Being: consequences of participating in social technologies at work”, Communication
Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 104-124.
Ben Rejeb, W., Berraies, S. and Talbi, D. (2020), “The contribution of board of directors’ roles to
ambidextrous innovation: do board’s gender diversity and independence matter?”, European
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 40-66.
Ben Yahia, K., Chtioui, R., Berraies, S. and Mejri, T. (2019), “Seduis-moi si tu peux ! Integration de la
Responsabilite sociale des entreprises dans le marketing RH : La generation Y a l’ere du
digital”, Proceedings of the Propedia Conference "La Responsabilite", IGS, 12 december, Paris.
Berraies, S. and Zine El Abidine, S. (2019), “Do leadership styles promote ambidextrous innovation?
Case of knowledge-intensive firms”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 836-859.
Berraies, S., Achour, M. and Chaher, M. (2015), “Focusing the mediating role of knowledge
management practices: how does institutional and interpersonal trust support exploitative and
exploratory innovation?”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1479-1492.
Berraies, S., Ben Yahia, K. and Hannachi, M. (2017), “Identifying the effects of perceived values of
Mobile banking applications on customers: comparative study between baby boomers,
generation X and generation Y”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 1018-1038.
Berraies, S., Bchini, B. and Houaneb, A. (2020), “Employees’ empowerment and ambidextrous
innovation: the knowledge sharing as mediator and the organizational trust as moderator”,
European Journal of International Management, In Press.
Berraies, S. (2019a), “The effect of enterprise social networks use on exploitative and exploratory
innovations: mediating effect of sub-dimensions of intellectual capital”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 426-452.
Berraies, S. (2019b), “Effect of middle managers’ cultural intelligence on firms’ innovation
performance”, Personnel Review, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1015-1038.
Bietry, F. and Creusier, J. (2013), “Proposition d’une echelle de mesure positive du bien-^etre au travail
(EPBET)”, Revue de gestion des ressources humaines, Vol. 2013 No. 1, pp. 23-41.
ahle, P. (2000), “Building organizational trust”, 16th Annual IMP Conference,
Blomqvist, K. and St
Bath, September, pp. 7-9.
Bonfim, L.R.C., Segatto, A.P. and Takahashi, A.R.W. (2018), “Social capital dimensions, innovation,
and technology in Europe: a case-studies meta-synthesis”, International Journal of Innovation:
IJI Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 232-255.
Bontis, N., Ciambotti, M., Palazzi, F. and Sgro, F. (2018), “Intellectual capital and financial performance
in social cooperative enterprises”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 712-731.
 and Mihelic, K.K. (2015), “Knowledge sharing between different generations of employees:
Brcic, Z.J.
an example from Slovenia”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 853-867.
Bryant, F.B. and Yarnold, P.R. (1995), “Principal-components analysis and exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis”, in Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds), Reading and
JIC Understanding Multivariate Statistics, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 99-136.
21,6  (2004), “The role of social capital in today’s economy:
Bueno, E., Paz Salmador, M. and Rodrıguez, O.
empirical evidence and proposal of a new model of intellectual capital”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 556-574.
Burke, M., Marlow, C. and Lento, T. (2010), “Social network activity and social well-being”,
Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI
1176 2010, New York, pp. 1909-1912.
nas-Bardolet, C. (2019), “Internet use and job satisfaction”, Computers in Human
Castellacci, F. and Vi~
Behavior, Vol. 90, No. 2019, pp. 141-152.
Cavaliere, V., Lombardi, S. and Giustiniano, L. (2015), “Knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive
manufacturing firms. An empirical study of its enablers”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1124-1145.
Chang, H.H. and Chuang, S.S. (2011), “Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge
sharing: participant involvement as a moderator”, Information and management, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 9-18.
Chang, C.M. and Hsu, M.H. (2016), “Understanding the determinants of users’ subjective well-being in
social networking sites: an integration of social capital theory and social presence theory”,
Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 720-729.
Chen, I.Y. (2007), “The factors influencing members’ continuance intentions in professional virtual
communities—a longitudinal study”, Journal of Information science, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 451-467.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an
electronic-mail emotion/adoption study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 189-217.
Chin, C.P.Y., Evans, N., Choo, R.K.K. and Tan, F.B. (2015), “What influences employees to use
enterprise social networks? A socio-technical perspective”, PACIS Conferences, Proceedings,
Singapore, July, pp. 5–9.
Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H. and Wang, E.T. (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.
Chow, W.S. and Chan, L.S. (2008), “Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational
knowledge sharing”, Information and management, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 458-465.
Chua, A. (2002), “The influence of social interaction on knowledge creation”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 375-392.
Chumg, H.F., Seaton, J., Cooke, L. and Ding, W.Y. (2016), “Factors affecting employees’ knowledge-
sharing behaviour in the virtual organisation from the perspectives of well-being and
organisational behavior”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 64, No. 2016, pp. 432-448.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment”, Research and
Evaluation, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9.
Cross, R. and Cummings, J.N. (2004), “Tie and network correlates of individual performance in
knowledge-intensive work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 928-937.
Day, A., Scott, N. and Kelloway, E.K. (2010), “Information and communication technology:
implications for job stress and employee well-being”, in Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D.C.
(Eds), New Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress, Research
in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, Vol. 8,
pp. 317-350.
Delgado-Verde, M., Amores-Salvado, J., Martın-de Castro, G. and Navas-Lopez, J.E. (2015), “Green Does enterprise
intellectual capital and environmental product innovation: the mediating role of green social
capital”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 261-275. social
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL, Sage Publications, London.
networks use
Diener, E., Suh, E.M., Smith, H. and Shao, L. (1995), “National differences in reported subjective well-
matter?
being: why do they occur?”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
na, I. (2019), “Total quality management and
Donate, M.J., Ruiz-Monterrubio, E., de Pablo, J.D.S. and Pe~ 1177
high-performance work systems for social capital development”, Journal of Intellectual Capital.
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 87-114.
Downey, S.N., van der Werff, L., Thomas, K.M. and Plaut, V.C. (2015), “The role of diversity practices
and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35- 44.
Ehsan, A., Klaas, H.S., Bastianen, A. and Spini, D. (2019), “Social capital and health: a systematic
review of systematic reviews”, SSM-Population Health, Vol. 8 No. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.
2019.100425.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Ganguly, A., Talukdar, A. and Chatterjee, D. (2019), “Evaluating the role of social capital, tacit
knowledge sharing, knowledge quality and reciprocity in determining innovation capability of
an organization”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1105-1135.
Gara Bach Ouerdian, E., Mansour, N., Al-Zahrani, A. and Chaari, A. (2017), “Promoting knowledge
sharing in Tunisian KIFs through HRM Practices. The mediating role of human capital and
learning climate”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 16,
pp. 2321-2359.
George, J.M. and Brief, A.P. (1992), “Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at
work-organizational spontaneity relationship”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 2,
pp. 310-329.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson
Education International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hawkins, R.L. and Maurer, K. (2009), “Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital operated in
New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina”, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 1777-1793.
Helliwell, J.F. and Wang, S. (2011), “Trust and wellbeing”, International Journal of Wellbeing, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 42-78.
Henttonen, K., Kianto, A. and Ritala, P. (2016), “Knowledge sharing and individual work performance:
an empirical study of a public sector organization”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 749-768.
Hoffman, J.J., Hoelscher, M.L. and Sherif, K. (2005), “Social capital, knowledge management, and
sustained superior performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 93-100.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huang, L.C., Ahlstrom, D., Lee, A.Y.P., Chen, S.Y. and Hsieh, M.J. (2016), “High performance work
systems, employee well-being, and job involvement: an empirical study”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 296-314.
Hudson, J. (2006), “Institutional trust and subjective well-being across the EU”, Kyklos, Vol. 59 No. 1,
pp. 43-62.
JIC Hussinki, H., Ritala, P., Vanhala, M. and Kianto, A. (2017), “Intellectual capital, knowledge
management practices and firm performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 4,
21,6 pp. 904-922.
Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W. (2005), “Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-165.
Jackson, S., Chuang, C., Harden, E. and Jiang, Y. (2006), “Toward developing human resource
management systems for knowledge-intensive teamwork”, Research in Personnel and Human
1178 Resources Management, Vol. 25, pp. 27-70.
Jain, K.K., Sandhu, M.S. and Goh, S.K. (2015), “Organizational climate, trust and knowledge sharing:
insights from Malaysia”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 54-77.
Joo, B.K., Park, J.G. and Lim, T. (2016), “Structural determinants of psychological well-being for
knowledge workers in South Korea”, Personnel Review, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1069-1086.
Kamukama, N., Ahiauzu, A. and Ntayi, J.M. (2011), “Competitive advantage: mediator of intellectual
capital and performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 152-164.
Kim, T., Lee, G., Paek, S. and Lee, S. (2013), “Social capital, knowledge sharing and organizational
performance: what structural relationship do they have in hotels?”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 683-704.
Kim, S.L. (2019), “Enticing high performers to stay and share their knowledge: the importance of trust
in leader”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 341-351.
Kinjerski, V. and Skrypnek, B.J. (2006), “Creating organizational conditions that foster employee spirit
at work”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 280-295.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press,
New York.
Ko, H.C. and Kuo, F.Y. (2009), “Can blogging enhance subjective well-being through self-disclosure?”,
CyberPsychology and Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 75-79.
Lei, H., Phouvong, S. and Le, P.B. (2019), “How to foster innovative culture and capable champions
for Chinese firms: an empirical research”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 51-69.
Leonardi, P.M., 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.
Leonardi, P.M. (2014), “Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: toward a theory of
communication visibility”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 796-816.
Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004), “The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in
effective knowledge transfer”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1477-1490.
Li, G., Yang, X. and Huang, S.S. (2014), “Effects of social capital and community support on intention
to create user-generated content”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 190-199.
Lin, C.P. (2006), “Gender differs: modelling knowledge sharing from a perspective of social network
ties”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 236-241.
Lin, H.F. (2007), “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 315-332.
Lin, C.-P. (2008), “Clarifying the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors, gender,
and knowledge sharing in workplace organizations in Taiwan”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 241-250.
Lin, J.H. (2016), “Need for relatedness: a self-determination approach to examining attachment styles,
Facebook use, and psychological well-being”, Asian Journal of Communication, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 153-173.
Ma, Z., Huang, Y., Wu, J., Dong, W. and Qi, L. (2014), “What matters for knowledge sharing in Does enterprise
collectivistic cultures? Empirical evidence from China”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 1004-1019. social
Mansour, N., Saidani, C., Saihi, M. and Laaroussi, S. (2014), “Reseaux sociaux au travail, confiance
networks use
interpersonnelle et comportement de partage des connaissances”, Relations industrielles/ matter?
Industrial relations, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 316-343.
M€antym€akia, M. and Riemer, K. (2016), “Enterprise social networking: a knowledge management
perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 2016, 1179
pp. 1042-1052.
Martın de Castro, G. and Lopez Saez, P. (2008), “Intellectual capital in high-tech firms: the case of
Spain”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
Martin-Salerno, A., Micheaux, A.L. and Stan, V. (2019), “Knowledge sharing through enterprise social
network: the key roles of servant leader virtues and eudaimonic well-being”, in Conference of
British Academy of Management), Sep 2019, Birmingham.
Naghavi, M.S., Jofreh, M.G., Vaezi, R. and Ghorbanizadeh, V. (2019), “Empowerment of the
professional ageing workforce: a review and development of a model”, European Journal of
International Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 269-286.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), “The concept of “Ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation”,
California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.
Patroni, J., von Briel, F. and Recker, J.C. (2016), “How enterprise social media can facilitate innovation”,
IT Professional, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 34-41.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 539-569.
Polyviou, M., Croxton, K.L. and Knemeyer, A.M. (2019), “Resilience of medium-sized firms to supply
chain disruptions: the role of internal social capital”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 68-91.
Ramadan, B.M., Dahiyat, S.E., Bontis, N. and Al-Dalahmeh, M.A. (2017), “Intellectual capital,
knowledge management and social capital within the ICT sector in Jordan”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 437-462.
Read, E.A. (2014), “Workplace social capital in nursing: an evolutionary concept analysis”, Journal of
Advanced Nursing, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 997-1007.
Requena, F. (2003), “Social capital, satisfaction and quality of life in the workplace”, Social Indicators
Research, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 331-360.
Riege, A. (2005), “Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.
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.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2001), “On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 141-166.
Ryff, C.D. (1989), “Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological
well-being”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 1069-1081.
JIC Salas-Vallina, A., Alegre, J. and Guerrero, R.F. (2018), “Happiness at work in knowledge-intensive
contexts: opening the research agenda”, European Research on Management and Business
21,6 Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 149-159.
Sankowska, A. (2013), “Relationships between organizational trust, knowledge transfer, knowledge
creation, and firm’s innovativeness”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 85-100.
Seo, Y.W., Chae, S.W. and Lee, K.C. (2015), “The impact of absorptive capacity, exploration, and
exploitation on individual creativity: moderating effect of subjective well-being”, Computers in
1180 Human Behavior, Vol. 42 No. 2015, pp. 68-82.
Sias, P.M., Pedersen, H., Gallagher, E.B. and Kopaneva, I. (2012), “Workplace friendship in the
electronically connected organization”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 253-279.
Soto-Acosta, P. and Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G. (2016), “New ICTs for knowledge management in
organizations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 417-422.
Tenenehaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modelling, computational
statistics and data analysis”, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 159-205.
Todo, Y., Matous, P. and Inoue, H. (2016), “The strength of long ties and the weakness of strong ties:
knowledge diffusion through supply chain networks”, Research Policy, Vol. 45 No. 9,
pp. 1890-1906.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-476.
Ulmer, G. and Pallud, J. (2014), “Understanding usages and affordances of enterprise social networks:
a sociomaterial perspective”, Proceedings of the Twentieth Americas Conference on Information
Systems, Savannah, Georgia.
Wang, J., Yang, J. and Xue, Y. (2017), “Subjective well-being, knowledge sharing and individual
innovation behavior: the moderating role of absorptive capacity”, The Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1110-1127.
Warr, P. (2007), Work, Happiness, and Unhappiness, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practice”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Wehner, B., Falk, T. and Leist, S. (2017), “What Benefits do they bring? a case study analysis on
Enterprise Social Networks”, Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information
Systems, Guimar~aes, Portugal, June 5-10, pp. 2069-2085.
Wiklund, J., Nikolaev, B., Shir, N., Foo, M.-D. and Bradley, S. (2019), “Entrepreneurship and well-being:
past, present, and future”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 579-588.
Yingjie, L., Deng, S. and Pan, T. (2019), “Does usage of enterprise social media affect employee
turnover? Empirical evidence from Chinese companies”, Internet Research, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 970-992.
Zineldin, M. and Hytter, A. (2012), “Leaders’ negative emotions and leadership styles influencing
subordinates’ well-being”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 748-758.
Zhang, X., Liu, S., Deng, Z. and Chen, X. (2017), “Knowledge sharing motivations in online health
communities: a comparative study of health professionals and normal users”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 75, pp. 797-810.

Further reading
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Appendix Does enterprise
Scales of measurement
social
networks use
1. Social capital matter?
Structural Social Capital
I maintain close social relationships with my colleagues. 1181
I know some of the members of my organizations.
I have frequent communication with my colleagues.
I spend a great deal of time interacting with my colleagues.

Relational Social capital

My colleagues will not take advantage of others even when the opportunity arises.
My colleagues will always keep their promises to one another.
My colleagues would not knowingly do anything to disrupt a conversation.
My colleagues behave in a consistent manner.
My colleagues are truthful in dealing with one another.

Cognitive Social Capital

My colleagues share the vision of helping others to solve their professional problems.
My colleagues share the same goal of learning from each other.
My colleagues share the same value that helping others is pleasant.

2. Employees’ well-being at workplace

Eudaimonic well-being
I have good relations with my colleagues
I feel like I am integrated among my colleagues
My colleagues are in solidarity with me
I have possibilities of evolution if I wish
My needs and expectations are taken into account
My boss shows me recognition for my work

Hedonic well-being
My hours are stable
My professional life does not overflow into my private life
The time I spend at work seems reasonable
I can personalize my workspace
My workplace is suitable for my needs
The Environment in which I work is pleasant

3. Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge donating
When I have learned something new, I tell my colleagues about it
When they have learned something new, my colleagues tell me about it
Knowledge sharing among colleagues is considered normal in my company

Knowledge collecting
I share information I have with colleagues when they ask for it
I share my skills with colleagues when they ask for it
Colleagues in my company share knowledge with me when I ask them to
Colleagues in my company share their skills with me when I ask them to
JIC
4. Enterprise social networks’ use
21,6
Ideas and work discussion
I use enterprise social networks to discuss matters related to the company.
I use enterprise social networks to express my opinions on topical work-related matters.
I read my colleagues’ postings in enterprise social networks to find pieces of information useful for
1182 my work.
I read the information posted on enterprise social networks to get new ideas for my work.
I use enterprise social networks to see my colleagues’ opinions on topical work-related matters.
Problem solving
I use enterprise social networks to ask my colleagues to suggest ideas for the tasks I am involved in.
When I encounter a problem in my work, I use enterprise social networks to ask for help from my
colleagues.
When I encounter a problem in my work, I use enterprise social networks to outline my problem.
Task management
I use enterprise social networks to ask my colleagues about the tasks they are working on.
I use enterprise social networks to be informed about the progress of my colleagues’ tasks.
I use enterprise social networks to inform my colleagues when I have finished a task.
Informal talk
I use enterprise social networks to post things I found funny or entertaining.
I use enterprise social networks to discuss matters of general interest such as politics, economy,
society or sports.
I use enterprise social networks to read amusing things posted by my colleagues.
Events and updates
I use enterprise social networks to inform my colleagues about forthcoming events, such as training,
workshops, etc.
I use enterprise social networks to inform my colleagues about forthcoming events I intend to
participate in.
I use enterprise social networks to notify my colleagues about what is happening in my work
environment.
I use enterprise social networks to receive information about forthcoming events, such as training,
workshops, etc.

About the authors

Sarra Berraies is a PhD in Management. She is an Associate Professor and teaches management and
human resources in the College of Business Administration, University of Bahrain. She was an associate
professor in Management at the Higher Institute of Management, University of Tunis. She is also a
member of the research Laboratory “Applied Research in Business, relationships and Economics”, at the
University of Tunis and the Tunisian Association for strategic intelligence. Her research interests
include knowledge management, learning, innovation, organizational behavior, learning, corporate
governance, management control and digital marketing. She published extensively in indexed academic
journals (Clarivate analytics, Scopus and CNRS) and participated in several international conferences.
Sarra Berraies is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: sarraberraies610@yahoo.fr
Lajili Rym is a Doctoral Student at the Higher Institute of Management, University of Tunis, Tunisia.
His current research interests include intellectual capital, employees’ well-being and innovation. She is
also a member of the research Laboratory “Applied Research in Business, relationships and Economics”
and the Tunisian Association for strategic intelligence.
 Chtioui Rached is a PhD in Marketing Sciences and is an Associate Professor at the University of Does enterprise
Tunis, at the Higher School of Economics and Commercial Sciences (ESSEC) of Tunis, Tunisia. He is also
a member of the research Unit “Methodes Marketing” and Author and co-author of many publications social
and participated in several international conferences. His research interests include knowledge networks use
management, corporate social responsibility, distribution marketing and digital marketing. matter?

1183

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