analysis of the development of internet and social media organisational policies and practices –...
TRANSCRIPT
Analysis of the Development of Internet and Social Media Organisational Policies and
Practices – Are Policies and Practices Hindering or Enhancing the Acquisition and Use
of Employees’ Virtual Social Capital?
A dissertation submitted to the
Department of Management, King‘s College London
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Master of Science Degree in Human Resources Management &
Organisational Analysis
By
Ana L Carboni-Brito
Student number: 0967151
Dr Elisabeth Kelan
Supervisor
September 2011
Word count: 12,725
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Elisabeth Kelan,
who has supported me throughout the development of my research, insightfully steering me
towards references, providing excellent knowledgeable guidance and new perspectives,
whilst allowing me to work in my own way. I would also like to say a big thank you to my
family, without their support I would not have been able finish this dissertation, to my
husband, Romero, whose continuous encouragement has been fundamental in achieving my
goals, and my sons, Rudy and Tomás. I thank them for their patience during the course of this
project, for putting up with a much stressed wife and mother. Special thanks to Rudy with
whom I shared insightful discussions and to Tomás that without knowing gave me the
inspiration to start researching this subject when he told me, at the age of 13, that ―emails
were obsolete‖. I am indebted to many of my friends and colleagues who have also supported
me and understood my absences from major occasions. Additionally, I must thank my
employers, which gave me the opportunity to study, allowing me to have flexible working
hours enabling me to embark in this especially important venture. Lastly, I am truly
grateful to the participants of this study, who had taken the time to help collect data so that I
could obtain tenable results.
iii
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the development of Internet and social media
organisational policies and practices; their relationship with the acquisition and use of the
individual‘s social capital, taking into consideration the adoption of new communication
technologies; their uptake by companies and individuals; the concept of social capital and the
benefits of its use; and the different perspectives brought by different generations. In recent
years many employers have introduced policies and guidelines indicating appropriate Internet
conduct as the medium grew. Nowadays knowledge exchange and collaboration have grown
in importance, as the expansion of new technologies has stimulated and facilitated this type
of behaviour. A networked society means that individuals are using telecommunication
technologies for personal and business purposes at any time. It has been suggested that this
would be particularly true as a younger generation of employees come into employment. Due
to the lack of research and information on social capital and social media outside
organisations boundaries, and the increasing number of employees and organisations that are
using social media tools, the subject has been investigated through in-depth semi-structured
interviews conducted with employees that use social media. The effect of more liberal or
controlling policies in the attitudes and behaviours of employees has been considered; also
the way people conduct themselves in social media realms; and the peculiarities of social
media. Findings suggest that having more tolerant and open policies and practices facilitates
collaboration and knowledge sharing, enabling the employment of the individual social
capital. Restrictions on the access and use of the Internet and social media in workplaces do
not prevent the acquisition of social capital. However, they create feelings of mistrust and
unease, and also the emulation of an organisational culture of fear and suspicion regarding
social media, preventing the effective use of social capital.
iv
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Literature Review................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Technological Development and the Importance of Networks ................................... 6
2.1.1 Research Question 1: Would employees be more inclined in using
organisation-wide online platforms or openly available social media tools in order
to share knowledge and exchange information? ........................................................ 9
2.2 Social Capital and the Workplace .............................................................................. 10
2.2.1 Research Question 2: Are organisational Internet and/or social media policies
and practices hindering or enhancing the acquisition and use of employees‘ virtual
social capital? ........................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Generational Diversity ............................................................................................... 14
2.3.1 Research Question 3: Is the adoption and use of social media by older
employees different compared to younger employees? ........................................... 17
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 18
4. Findings................................................................................................................................ 23
4.1 Answering the research questions .............................................................................. 26
4.1.1 Answering Question 1…....………………………………………………….26
4.1.2 Answering Question 2……………………………………………………….32
4.1.3 Answering Question 3……………………………………………………….37
4.2 Other issues raised ..................................................................................................... 40
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 42
6. Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 46
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 48
8. References ............................................................................................................................ 50
9. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 57
10. Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 62
10.1 Appendix 1 – Glossary of terms and definitions ..................................................... 62
10.2 Appendix 2 – Pre-interview Questionnaire.............................................................. 65
10.3 Appendix 3 – Interview Guide ................................................................................. 67
10.4 Appendix 4 – Social Media List .............................................................................. 68
10.5 Appendix 5 – Information Sheet .............................................................................. 69
10.6 Appendix 6 – Consent Form .................................................................................... 71
Lists of Charts and Tables
Table I. Study participants ............................................................................................... 20
Chart I. Social Media Activities ....................................................................................... 23
Chart II. Membership to Social Networking Sites ........................................................... 24
Chart III. Social Media Use ............................................................................................. 25
1
1. Introduction
Studies in the fields of sociology, psychology, law, economy, management and information
and communication technologies were used in assessing the literature in order to study the
implications of Internet and social media policies and practices on employees‘ attitudes and
behaviours. To enable the investigation of some of the dimensions of the development of new
technologies, their uptake and the consequences for individuals and organisations, this study
has been segmented into three parts: Technologies and the Importance of Networks; Social
Capital and the Workplace and Generational Diversity. Results contribute to the analysis of
the development of Internet and social media organisational policies and practices, including
a human resources management perspective.
Technological developments in the last two centuries, including the telegraph, the telephone,
and the Internet, have reduced the physical barriers to communication and allowed interaction
on a global scale (Nayyar, 2006). The Internet has spread exceptionally fast, enabling and
accelerating innovative forms of digital interactions through electronic mail, instant
messaging (Howard et al., 2001), forums, online social networking (Boyd and Ellison, 2007),
amongst others means. The remarkably fast technological progress enabled cheap and
improved access and exchange of a wealth of knowledge and information (Lallana and Uy,
2003). Modern societies are increasingly based on this exchange (Castells, 2000); as a result,
the way people interact and collaborate is becoming key to organisations (Bartol and
Srivastava, 2002), transforming the way organisations operate (Wajcman, 2002).
In this context information and communication technologies (ICT) tools have been integrated
into individuals‘ personal and work life extremely quickly, especially regarding the adoption
of the Internet (Lallana and Uy, 2003). While the radio reached 50 million people worldwide
2
in 38 years, the Internet took only four years to reach the same milestone. In comparison
television took 13 years and computers16 years to accumulate the same number of users
(Lallana and Uy, 2003). At the end of the 1990s and beginning of 2000s social networking
sites (SNSs) and other forms of social media started to expand (Boyd and Ellison, 2007).
Since then the use of the Internet and online social networking has grown considerably in the
UK (Office of National Statistics, 2010), with millions of users embracing SNSs as a part of
their daily routines (Ofcom, 2008).
Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) define social media as ―a group of Internet-based applications
that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, which allows the
creation and exchange of user-generated content‖ (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010: 61). Mayfield
(2008) suggests that social media tools should be classified as: blogs; content communities;
microblogging; forums; podcasts; social networking sites; and wikis. The rapid expansion,
adoption and use of all forms of social media indicate that individuals are building online-
networks, eliminating boundaries and expanding their connections as a result (Nielsen
Report, 2009), this means that individuals are becoming more familiar with the same tools
that helped college and high-school students to get to know other members of their
communities better (Gratton, 2007).
In organisations the human resources function was an early adopter of new information
technologies, primarily as an administrative tool, used for tasks, such as payroll processing,
but later also with more strategic applications, such as performance management or
compensation management (Bondarouk and Ruël, 2009). This phenomenon has been recently
called Electronic Human Resources Management or e-HRM. Administrative tasks, such as
staff personal data and payroll are regarded as Operational e-HRM, whilst business processes,
3
such as recruitment, training and performance management are considered Relational e-
HRM. Transformational e-HRM involves strategic HR activities as, for example, knowledge
management and talent management (Ruël et al., 2004).
It is undisputable that organisations need financial capital and human capital to develop and
succeed (Cooper et al., 1994), yet, networks and relationships, as assets, have not received as
much attention as others forms of capital (Rash and McCoy, 2001). This means employing
the notion that group memberships and social networks may be equated to tangible capital,
such as economic capital, that have real value and can be used to achieve goals (Rash and
McCoy, 2001). There has been growing interest and consideration of the concept of social
capital as more evidence suggests its links with a number of positive outcomes (Rash and
McCoy, 2001). In spite of that the importance of networks and relationships has often been
undervalued as necessary to organisational growth and prosperity (Cohen and Prusak, 2001).
Even when the value of networks is not underestimated there is limited knowledge as to how
to explore the new technologies to produce strategic advantages (Jue et al., 2009). At the
same time that organisations have embraced telecommunication developments, including
social media tools (Gyro: HSR, 2009), many are still only focusing on internal networks. The
relationships and collaboration within the firm (Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 2003) that
have been demonstrated to be important for organisational processes and outcomes (Nahapiet
and Ghoshal, 1998), however, do not enable organisations to take full advantage of the
possible knowledge exchange outside organisational boundaries (Cohen and Prusak, 2001).
Human Resources Management (HRM) is used to dealing with relationships within
organisations (Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 2003; Krebs, 2008). Yet, with greater
individual access to knowledge and content, which has been facilitated by the development of
4
new technologies and a networked business environment (Castells, 2000), the importance of
investing attention on the relationships available to employees within the organisation and
outside has increased (Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 2003). This need may be addressed
by examining the concept of social capital, which is ―the ability to find, utilize and combine
the skills, knowledge and experience of others, inside and outside of the organization‖
(Krebs, 2008: 38).
The notion that an individual‘s social capital might be a source of knowledge leverage is
starting to emerge as an important aspect of human resource management (Lengnick-Hall and
Lengnick-Hall, 2003; Gubbins and Garavan, 2009). It has been suggested that social capital is
not the sole answer to success; nevertheless, the necessity to recognise and engage with it is
increasing (Cohen and Prusak, 2001). The social capital of organisations and relationships
within organisations has been investigated (Leana and Van Buren III, 1999; Cohen and
Prusak, 2001, Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 2003). There is a lack of studies that focus
on individual social capital and the relationships not only within firms, but also with wider
digital networks and the impact of Internet and social media policies. Lengnick-Hall and
Lengnick-Hall (2003) argue that investing in human capital is no longer the answer to
competitive advantage, the rising complexity of organisations, globalisation, external and
internal instability, and the challenges of new technologies all contribute to the need to
investigate the effects of growth/erosion and use of social capital outside organisational
boundaries.
This is particularly true as the younger generation enters the workforce. It has been argued
that this cohort is technologically savvy, leading the substantial embrace of new technologies
seen today and, as a result, a change in behaviours and attitudes (Gasser, U, 2010). Young
5
people are driving transformation on society and in workplaces; consequently organisations
would need to adapt HR programmes and management approaches respectively (Palfrey and
Gasser, 2008).
This subject has been explored in a way that would offer HR professionals a glance at the
current situation of Internet/social media policies in the UK, their impact on the enhancement
or hindrance of social capital acquisition and employment. This would assist the revision of
Internet policies in place and/or support the development of future social media policies and
practices. There is a lack of studies and information on the specific subject of social capital
and social media outside organisations, thus the aim of this study has been to assess
employees‘ social media use, their social capital and its utilization, adding also a generational
perspective, in order to enable the evaluation of the influence of social media and Internet
policies and practices on the behaviours and attitudes of individuals.
6
2. Literature Review
2.1 Technological Development and the Importance of Networks
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution a number of areas of study address the
development of new technologies and its impact on society and, consequently, on
organisations (Heath et al., 2000). Researchers agree that globalisation, the transformation in
the nature of the market and the surfacing of new communication technologies are generating
new types of organisation and behaviour (Heath et al., 2000). Therefore, there is an
increasing need for organisations to be responsive to a constant shift in technical and social
developments (Porras and Silvers, 1991).
In a similar way that mechanization transformed society during the Industrial Revolution
many perceive technology and scientific innovations as the drive of modern growth (Castells,
2000). Castells (2000) sees technological innovations as part of the systematic process of
contemporary development. Still, only after the Internet became broadly accessible in the
1990s (Castells, 2001) and a large proportion of the populations became ―connected‖ was that
the World Wide Web started to link a great number of individuals, making knowledge and
information easy to reach (Kanter et al., 2010), transforming the Industrial Age into what has
been coined the Information Age (Castells, 2000).
Castells (2000) argues that the shift to the ―new‖ Information Age express the shift towards a
world where digital information technology provides a networked society, where
electronically processed information networks are used to systematically organise key social
activities and systems, enclosing all societal structure. Van Dijk (2006) defines the networked
society as gradually establishing its relationships using media networks, substituting or
incrementing in person communications, for him, though, networks are not the whole content
7
of society, as Castells suggests. Even though different authors approach the ―networked
society‖ concept distinctively, the common denominator is that networks, enabled by digital
information and communications technologies, are nowadays at the centre of social, political,
economic and cultural configuration of society. Wellman (2001a) stresses the importance of
individualized networks, arguing that with the technological progress seen recently
individuals‘ interactions have expanded, creating diversified communities.
The expansion of the Internet has generated a social condition in which everyone, globally, is
actually or potentially connected to everyone else without boundaries or intermediaries
(Moglen, 1999). This has led to an increase on the social framework, people making and
renewing relationships using social media tools that allow fast, collective activity (Moglen,
1999). Technologies, such as the mobile phone and the Internet, produce new types of social
relationships, congregating new activities and practices (Wajcman, 2002). People are
engaging in social interaction online (Nardi et al., 2002), this change in behaviour has had an
impact in how individuals relate and, consequently, in how organisations operate (Castells,
2000).
This new connectivity has had broad implication for boundary delimitations, the nature of
work, interactions among organisational members, and employment relationships; and, in
responses to that, many employers have implemented policies outlining the acceptable
boundaries of Internet use (Lichtenstein and Swatman, 1997). However, organisations and
individuals have been embracing other forms of new technologies in growing numbers
(Castells and Cardoso, 2005). The increasing employment of social media for personal and
business purposes is a reality (Boyd, 2009), becoming important to rethink in an
8
organisational context what would be the appropriate or inappropriate use of the Internet and
other emerging new trends.
A fairly recent phenomenon, made possible by Web 2.0, is that workers are now capable of
reaching resources using their personal relationships, instead of being absorbed by
organisational communities without the possibility of drawing on their own contacts (Nardi et
al., 2002). Nardi et al. (2002) suggest that key elements in organisations today are the social
networks of employees, which have been progressively becoming more important. Social
networking sites and other forms of social media are recent developments; still, the
advantages of social networking and social capital for companies are not new (Ancona and
Caldwell, 1988; Pickering and King, 1995). Today the difference is that sharing information,
communicating and collaborating online is easy and quick, the recent popularity of SNSs
have demonstrated the importance of investing in the virtual social capital of individuals
(Nardi et al., 2002) in order to achieve organisational benefits (Boyd and Ellison, 2007).
For Castells (2009) communication in society today is characterised by large-scale self-
communication, as the capability of reaching worldwide audiences exist, content is self
produced, the choices of possible receivers and distribution of content is self-organised.
However, Wajcman (2006) argues ―for all the hype about the network society, the internet
does not automatically transform every user into an active producer and every worker into a
creative subject‖ (Wajcman, 2006: 783). People ―with technical knowledge who understand
the workings of the machine‖ (Wajcman, 2006: 783) would be able to attain the possible
benefits of ICT tools, being necessary to foster attitudes and behaviours, encouraging
learning of new technologies, collaboration, and the development and sharing of knowledge
9
online, which would promote and facilitate the use of social media as to attain the benefits of
such a medium.
With the objective of facilitating the use of social media in workplaces some authors
advocate the creation of internal organisational-wide online platforms, as a way to use
potential networks more effectively. Williamson (2009) argues that organisations should
establish a communal online space, including ―pictures and profiles of team members, a
discussion board, a team calendar, or a chat room‖ (Williamson, 2009: online). These internal
networks would make online conversations easier; encourage information-sharing and
collaborative problem solving; have the potential to enhance morale and collective
knowledge, a more focused strategy, better innovation; and an outcome of increased profits
(Fraser and Dutta, 2008). Still, the importance of external online networks cannot be
underestimated and should also be addressed (Wasko and Faraj, 2005).
In response to the growing number of social media users, some organisations have adopted
features of social networking, with very positive results (Bennett et al., 2010). However,
apprehension and opposition are the views that still dominate many organisations (Bennett et
al., 2010). Achieving the potential business value of social media will depend on the fine-
tuning of power and strategic management, employers should identify and understand the
possible benefits of digital technologies and make an effort to develop them strategically
(Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 2003), as ―having e-mail and a company intranet is no
longer sufficient for a twenty first century workplace‖ (Bennett et al, 2010: 70).
2.1.1 Research Question 1: Would employees be more inclined in using
organisation-wide online platforms or openly available social media tools in
order to share knowledge and exchange information?
10
2.2 Social Capital and the Workplace
In the past twenty years the term ‗social capital‘ has been employed as a conceptual tool in a
range of fields (Haynes, 2009). These different concepts revolve around connections within
and between social networks and their positive outcomes yet, there is not a shared definition
(Portes, 1998). Robison et al. (2002) argue that choice of definition would be contingent upon
the degree of the investigation and the area of study. Two conceptualisations of social capital
have been considered in order to define the most suitable when exploring ‗virtual social
capital‘.
Bourdieu defined social capital as:
―the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of
a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual
acquaintance and recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group – which
provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a
‗credential‘ which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the
word‖ (Bourdieu, 1986: 249).
Social capital is then a resource that is connected to social networks and group memberships,
a collective phenomenon reflecting individual interests. On the other hand Putnam (2000)
believes that:
―Social capital is closely related to what some have called ―civic virtue.‖ The
difference is that ―social capital‖ calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most
powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society
of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital‖
(Putnam 2000: 19).
Putnam considers the importance of association and civic community more than
individualism. Critics argue that Putnam ignores the development of new types of organising
and the Internet, focusing, instead, on organisational forms of social capital, being less
interested in the individual social capital (Fischer, 2005). Research demonstrates that people
still socialize, but know fewer neighbours and that communities have moved from local
participation to geographically spread interactions due to the development of communication
11
technologies and transport, becoming more individualised (Wellman, 2001b). Therefore,
Putnam approach would not be suited to the investigation of virtual networks and online
social capital as it focuses on communities rather than individuals.
The increase use of the Internet and social media suggest that people are creating virtual-
networks, and these networks help individuals build, maintain and use their social capital
(Ellison et al., 2007). Taken into account the current uptake of new communication
technologies Bourdieu‘s conceptualisation of social capital is particularly suited to the study
of online social capital as it sets out group memberships and social networks as generators of
social capital for individuals and argues that the volume of capital would be dependent on the
size of the networks. As the Internet and social media enable the build up of large networks
of contacts (Nielsen Report, 2009) and the utilization of the individual‘s social capital
(Ellison et al., 2007) his theoretical framework may be utilized.
Bourdieu identifies three types of capital: economic capital ―is immediately and directly
convertible into money and may be institutionalized in the forms of property rights‖
(Bourdieu, 1986: 242); cultural capital, ―is convertible, on certain conditions, into economic
capital and may be institutionalized in the forms of educational qualifications‖ (Bourdieu,
1986: 242); and social capital, is ―made up of social obligations (‗connections‘), which is
convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the
forms of a title of nobility‖ (Bourdieu, 1986: 242). Social media requires no financial
investment by individuals and may be used to attain cultural and social capital, which, might
be utilized to gain economic capital. The Internet and social media provide access to a broad
range of sources, allowing people to gain knowledge and increase their cultural capital, even
if not based on formal education (Brady, 2005). The sharing and contributing characteristics
12
of such mediums enable the build up of social capital, as social media tools provide large
number of ‗followers‘, ‗friends‘ and ‗fans‘ (Brady, 2005). Some people may become well
known within their communities or to the wider online network (Roëll, 2004), which may be
equivalent to a modern title of nobility, as described by Bourdieu. The cultural and social
capital gained may be transformed into economic capital by, for example, increased
productivity supported by increased collaboration and knowledge sharing (Fraser and Dutta,
2008). Adler and Kwon (2000) suggest that there are three advantages of social capital: (1)
the lower cost of having access to a much greater volume of information; (2) greater power
and influence; and (3) that it facilitates solidarity, as networks, without the need of a set of
formal regulations, encourage the following of rules and conventions.
Even though the social capital concept may not be a palpable resource held by individuals or
groups, the processes of social interaction leading to positive outcomes can symbolically
represent the notion of social capital (Bankston and Zhou, 2002). By reading a blog, for
example, readers get to know the author well; bloggers who read each other‘s journals and
use their blogs to communicate are increasing trust, as a result, they collaborate more and
form stronger networks (Roëll, 2004).
Burt (2007) argues that social networks generate advantages, as people that are better-
connected experience better results. He adds to the conceptual framework proposed by
Bourdieu the idea that it is beneficial to establish relationships outside an individual‘s social
circle, as the more diverse and dispersed a person‘s social network, the greater access to new
ideas, which may result in the brokerage of information between two or more groups. The
significance of an individual's social capital is in having a network of connections that reach a
large number of people (Burt, 2007) and the Internet is being used for social-capital-building,
13
as network users interact with ―online community‖ members (Kavanaugh and Patterson,
2001).
In an organisational context, the social capital concept permits the examination of aspects of
social relationships that might assist the exchange of knowledge (Sherif et al, 2006) and the
benefit of social support, integration and cohesion (Requena, 2003), as organisations work
better if people have a good amount of social capital (Lin et al., 2001; Halpern 2009).
Research has shown that if there is a sense of community within a group, people are more
comfortable reaching out to others and more likely to share knowledge and collaborate
(Graffon and Erickson, 2007). As organisational policies and practices have the potential to
emphasize cultural norms and routines that are able to shape individuals behaviours and
attitudes to the use of new technologies (Roehling et al., 2005) it would be important to
investigate the relationship between policies and practices and employees‘ behaviours.
2.2.1 Research Question 2: Are organisational Internet and/or social media
policies and practices hindering or enhancing the acquisition and use of
employees‘ virtual social capital?
14
2.3 Generational Diversity
The workforce of today is made up of individuals from four generational cohorts, they have
been classified as follows: ―the Silent Generation (born 1925-1945), the Baby Boomers
(Boomers; born 1946-1964), Generation X (GenX; born 1965-1981), and Generation Me
(GenMe, also known as GenY, Millennials, nGen, and iGen; born 1982-1999)‖ (Twenge et
al, 2010: 1118). Although there is no agreement of categorization regarding generational
cohorts, recent studies demonstrate that generational differences can be observed and that
people that have shared common life experiences, such as historical events and social
conditions, have similar traits, attitudes, and behaviours (Twenge et al, 2010).
As social networking sites become the communication tool of choice for young people,
adolescents have been playing a key role in the growth of social media (Peluchette and Karl,
2008). There are a great number of adults joining online networking, becoming clear that
different age groups use the same social media tools quite differently (Palfrey and Gasser,
2008). For youngsters social network sites turned out to be a place for socialising, a place to
meet friends from school when face-to-face encounters were not possible; they are not
networking, but socialising in pre-existing groups (Boyd, 2009), as well as developing their
identities (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008).
Social media continues to be labelled by age (Boyd, 2009). At the moment the ―new‖ trend is
Twitter, but young people are not using this particular medium as the older generation is
(Smith and Rainie, 2010). The issue is not creating or sharing content, teens are actively
using Facebook, MySpace, Instant Messaging and so on to communicate. The reason is that
Twitter is about sharing in a vast platform, as a member of a broader dialog, and teenagers
15
are more motivated to talk to their world (Boyd, 2009). This highlights the distinct ways in
which the new generation approaches the digital era.
Palfrey and Gasser (2008) have suggested distinguishing between digital natives, digital
settlers and digital immigrants. They have identified the digital natives as individuals that
have been born after 1980, when early forms of online networks were starting to appear.
Individuals of this generation have access to networked digital technologies and have the
ability to use them, behaving in a less constricted way. Digital settlers are older individuals,
born before the 1980s, who helped to shape the digital era, even though they are not native to
the digital environment having grown up on an analogue-only world. Digital settlers have
learnt to speak the digital language being able to use new technologies well, but also relying
on analogue forms of interaction (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008). Digital Immigrants are
individuals that are less familiar with the digital environment, they have learnt how to email
and use social networks later in life, but do not speak the language well. Prensky (2001)
refers to digital immigrants‘ accents, such as printing documents in order to edit it. They are
said to have a "thick accent" when working in the digital world in distinctly pre-digital ways
(Prensky, 2001).
Other authors make a distinction between Generation Z, those born in early 1990s and early
2000s, and Generation Y, those born in early 1980s and early 1990s (Grail Research
Analysis, 2010). Generation Z is highly connected, having been using communications
technologies such as the Internet, instant messaging, text messaging, mobile
phones and YouTube for their whole lives. An important distinction between these two
generations is that older members of Generation Y recall life before the spread of digital
communication technologies, whereas Generation Z has been born immersed in it (Schmidt
16
and Hawkins, 2008). Regardless of the definition and birth dates of digital natives it is a
consensus that the younger generation of employees has a very different perspective of the
digital world.
Privacy is an important aspect to determine generational differences regarding the way
content is shared and also virtual behaviours and attitudes. In the fast changing digital
environment the expectation of privacy of digital natives is shifting (Palfrey, 2007; Peluchette
and Karl 2008). People that grew up in digital settings share information that other generation
may find inappropriate and private without much concern (Palfrey, 2007; Peluchette and Karl
2008). Abril (2007) defines the digital natives' notion of privacy as based in their perception
of entitled anonymity in a public sphere such as social networking sites, whereas the notion
of privacy of digital immigrants' is based in control. Cohen and Prusak (2001) argue that
initiatives should let go of control, taking into account the social realities of the organisation.
For them leaders should have a hand on approach to social capital, they need to promote,
develop and enhance social capital enabling organisations to benefit from social networks and
the use of social media tools. The majority of managerial decisions affect social capital and
are opportunities for social capital investment (Cohen and Prusak, 2001).
Palfrey (2007) suggests that, because of the different approaches of the generational cohorts,
recruitment and selection processes, for example, will need to adapt, or it will become
impossible to hire talent. This is a complex issue for senior executives and HR managers to
comprehend, as the majority of them are digital immigrants that are not deeply engaged in the
electronic culture. Even for younger executives it may be complex to understand the younger
generation behaviour of revealing negative information about themselves on the Internet.
Digital immigrants struggle against their own instinct, which is ―to pull the trigger on the
17
digital natives‖ (Palfrey, 2007: 42). Until digital natives become chief executives and senior
managers the generation gap will keep widening (Palfrey, 2007). The older generation must
also be open to learn from the younger generation, enabling learning and sharing of
experiences that go beyond their differences (Gasser, 2010).
―Social network sites may end up being a fad from the first decade of the 21st century, but
new forms of technology will continue to leverage social network as we go forward‖ (Boyd,
2009: online). Learning to adapt to this change in dynamics is the main challenge, as we are
all caught up in it. This emphasises the need to explore the different approaches of the
generations in the workplace today in order to better develop policies and practices that
would allow for the effective use of the Internet and social media in near the future.
2.3.1 Research Question 3: Is the adoption and use of social media by older
employees different compared to younger employees?
18
3. Methodology
Aim and Motivation
The aim of this study is to investigate the use of the Internet and social media by employees
and the impact of organisational policies and practices in their behaviours and attitudes.
Assessing the way people employ the Internet and engage in social media, including adoption
of the different social media tools and their personal and business use of these tools. Three
main research questions were then formulated using existing theories on the development of
new technologies and its impact on society and on organisations; social capital theories and
the increasing importance of social capital on contemporary organisations; and generational
theories. The questions are: 1) Would employees be more inclined in using organisation-wide
online platforms or openly available social media tools in order to share knowledge and
exchange information? 2) Are organisational social media policies hindering or enhancing the
acquisition and use of employees‘ virtual social capital? 3) Is the adoption and use of social
media by older employees different compared to younger employees? Further issues
regarding the organisation approach to team work and networking, as well as, the
distinctiveness of bloggers‘ approach to social networking were raised during the
interviewing process and have also been addressed.
The study started from three motivations: to study the adoption and everyday use of the
Internet and social media by organisations and individuals after a period of intense
technological change, observing different behaviours on perceived personal and business
online domains; to examine the actual and intended social networking promoted by
organisations and its utilization by individuals; and assess the suggested generational distinct
approach to the Internet and social media.
19
Data Sample
Participants were recruited through the researcher contacts and criterion was based on their
employment status and use of social media, regardless of intensity of use. Interviews were
conducted with individuals that work in various organisations, corresponding to a small
representative sample (Bryman and Bell, 2007). All of the people interviewed have some
experience in using a range of social media tools with varying degrees of usage.
Twenty workers in 19 organisations were interviewed. In one organisation, two workers were
studied, the rest were individuals from a range of organisations (see Table I). People in the
sample have a diverse educational and cultural background and included a managing director
at a social media agency, a regional director of an online company, senior executives in
different fields, small business managing directors, human resources professionals, middle
managers, support staff and others. Some work for the private sector and others for the public
sector, one person works for the third sector. Organisations include large and medium sized
multinationals and non-multinationals, and also small organisations with fewer than 10
employees. Some participants were in their 20s, the majority was in their 30s or 40s, with two
in their 50s. Most participants worked in London; some in Essex and one in West Sussex.
Four did not have a degree. Nationalities included: Brazilian, British, Canadian, Italian and
North American. Half of participants were female and half male.
20
Table I. Study participants. All names are pseudonyms. Names in bold and underlined are study
participants quoted in the paper
21
Data collection
Due to the lack of research on the subject of social media adoption and use and the impact of
the organisations‘ policies and practices on its take up and employment, the research
questions addressed in this study have been investigated using qualitative analysis that enable
themes to surface from study participants, instead of testing relationships between variables
identified in the literature (Bryman and Bell, 2007). A pre-interview questionnaire followed
by an in-depth semi structured interviews was the qualitative method employed. The online
pre-interview questionnaire has been used to gather basic data from participants, saving
valuable interviewing time. This basic information included: details about the organisation,
individuals‘ adoption and use of the Internet and social media and demographic information
(see Appendix 2). The social media specific questions of the questionnaire were based on
recent surveys on the most popular online activities and social networking sites (Ofcom,
2008; Nielsen Report, 2009).
In semi-structured interviews questions revolved around the organisation‘s approach to the
Internet and social media, how people communicated online and off line and the importance
of social networking in their lives (see Appendix 2). The interviews gave an insight into how
people are communicating, collaborating and using the Internet and the various social media
to perform different tasks. The conversations were audio-recorded at the informants‘
workplaces. In one occasion the interview was conducted via video call, using Skype.
Social networking site posts and blogs were observed and information gathered and
annotations made for frequency of use, content and ―fans‖, ―followers‖, ―friends‖ and
―connections‖ comments, feedback and reactions. All participants, agreed to the observation
22
of their social networking and blog content. Actual posts and comments have not been
included in this study to maintain confidentiality and anonymity.
Data Analysis
The data gathered using the pre-interview questionnaire was organised and clustered using a
worksheet so that charts and tables could be created. The organising of information gathered
with the observation of social networking sites posts and blogs has also been inserted into a
worksheet to facilitate analysis. All pre-interview questionnaires and transcripts were only
identified in the database by codes and pseudonyms. The names of all participants included in
this study are pseudonyms to afford for anonymity. Approximately 600 minutes of interviews
culminated in over 120 transcript pages that were coded and content analysed. Data has been
coded by categorising it according to the three main research questions; a spreadsheet has
been used in order to break down large segments of information into more manageable
pieces, these categories were then scrutinized, evaluated for similarities and differences
(Bryman and Bell, 2007). Sequences of recurring patterns relating to the dimensions of the
research framework were observed, especially regarding social media and Internet activities
and its use and employment and the impact of organisational policies.
23
4. Findings
The analysis of pre-interview questionnaires has demonstrated that the most adopted and used
social media tools are instant messaging (available in social networking sites), video viewing
and peer-to-peer networking (see Chart I). Bloggers represented twenty per cent of the
sample.
One hundred per cent of respondents have profiles in one or more social networking
websites, the most popular being Facebook (see Chart II). Whilst gender has not been
observed to be a significant determining factor, age plays an important part in defining the
way individuals use social media, as the majority of active users of LinkedIn – the
professional networking site – are over 31.
Chart I. Social Media Activities
24
Another noteworthy point would be that it has been observed a poor level of knowledge of
what constitutes social media. Participants, on their pre-interview questionnaires, were asked
to inform their use of Internet and social media. The vast majority have informed on the
questionnaire that they use less social media tools that they actually do, as during interviews a
social media list (see Appendix 4) was presented and participants realised that they adopt and
employ more than first thought. People do not, usually, know what social media is and that a
great deal of Internet activities nowadays is in a way or another, social media related, as more
and more content is shared by individuals (Nielsen Wire, 2010). Comment from Bill, senior
negotiator at an estate agent that declared on his online pre-interview questionnaire that he
rarely used social media:
Chart II – Membership to Social Networking Sites
25
―I access [an online specialised community] everyday…I go into that to get data, I
do get special access […] and get information that are shared by other estate agents,
not available to the public. […] I have looked at forums to find out about computer
problems, and found exactly the answer that we wanted.‖
After receiving the list of what constitutes social media he declared:
―I probably do [use more social media], it becomes automatic, you don‘t realize how
often…‖
This was a common response to the explanation of what constitutes social media available.
Forty five percent of participants have declared on their online questionnaires that they access
social media for 1-3 hours per day (see Chart III). However, because of the lack of familiarity
with the concept, the data is not an accurate reflection of the amount of time spent on social
media.
Chart III. Social media use
26
4.1 Answering the research questions
4.1.1 Answering Question 1
Building networks
As studies have demonstrated the adoption of social media by individuals and companies is
widespread (Ofcom 2008, Gyro: HSR, 2009 and Nielsen Report, 2009). All participants of
this research have created Facebook profiles in order to be part of the Facebook community
(Steinfield et al., 2009). SNSs are seen as a cheap, easy and quick way to keep in touch, and
have greater engagement with family and friends. The entire sample – apart from bloggers –
only accepts as ―friends‖, on their Facebook pages, people that they have met face-to-face.
Results have demonstrated to be in conformity with Vitak et al. (2011) finds, as they argue
that ―SNSs serve a supplemental role by providing another channel through which individuals
can maintain their relationships‖ (Vitak et al., 2011: 9) and that Facebook ―provide a low-cost
mechanism through which individuals can connect with members of their social network‖
(Vitak et al., 2011: 9), specially with family and friends (Vitak et al., 2011). Donna, 31,
managing director at a social media agency said:
―Connectivity within friends and social circles etc. has increased, because you can
be in touch with people, find out what people are doing.‖
Another aspect of social networking is the possibility to follow life events via ―news feeds‖
and photographs. People feel closer together, as they are able to ―participate‖, making
comments, being involved and also sharing personal information and easily communicating,
therefore supporting relationship maintenance and feelings of proximity. Tom, 43, senior
manager at a small law firm stated:
―…I have been working very hard. So it‘s the one time I am able to connect, say
―how are you doing, hear about my family, etc.‖ My daughter and I speak more on
Facebook than on the telephone. I get to see family members. My parents are not on
Facebook, but I see their pictures when my sisters put it up. It plays a very important
part [in my life].‖
27
The same sense of community applies to LinkedIn pages. The difference is that the website
has a professional focus and is designed for professional networking. Contacts are added, not
―friends‖. The inclusion of people in participants‘ circle of contacts is not necessarily linked
to whom they have met personally. In this more professional environment individuals are
increasing their professional social capital in a very distinct way. It has been used to start
relationships that would evolve to become face-to-face or remain virtual relationships, in
which professional expertise may be exchanged. Some of the comments:
―Facebook is for people that I know. Linkedin and twitter is professional‖ Tom, 43,
Senior Manager.
―You communicate differently in different environments, as we do offline, I‘ll be
different in a pub than a business meeting. If we think of Linkedin as our business
meeting, and Facebook as our pub...‖ Donna, 31, Managing Director.
―I know everybody on my network, especially Facebook. On Linkedin there might
be someone that I don‘t know, but I need to see that they would be valuable […]. So,
for example, a competitor, someone working in the same industry, I‘d invite them, or
accept their request. But on my personal network its only people I know‖ Luke, 41,
Regional Director.
Organisation-wide online platforms
It has been suggested that internal social media platforms are the way forward in relation to
the use of social media to foster knowledge sharing, collaboration and promote a community
feeling (Williamson, 2009). One of the nineteen organisations researched had an online
platform were employees could build a profile and share personal and business content. Some
companies were using LinkedIn and Facebook, however, this was not organisation-only types
of groups, clients and customers would often be part of these networks. Employees did not
see the employment of freely available platforms as an effective use of social media that
would enable knowledge sharing and the exchange of experiences. Luke, 41, regional
director at an online gaming company said:
28
―I think social networking is between friends, I don‘t see it in a company
environment. It does suit me, but I don‘t know if others in the company would use
it.‖
Some respondents voiced their frustration with the lack of opportunities to share work related
content that may be useful to others within the organisation. George, 37, senior marketing
executive at a large multinational remarked:
―…I have a lot of knowledge and it is just in my head. There is nowhere to put
it…For instance I went to a location and the postmaster said something to me, this
can become an e-mail. But this e-mail is the end of the line […] I think [an online
platform] it's something we need as a company.‖
Possible adoption of Organisation-wide online platforms
Participants were very open to the possibility of having an online organisation-wide platform
where they would be able to built profiles and share personal and professional content, as
suggested by Williamson (2009). This was seen as a more professional way of dealing with
social media at work, as many see social networking sites as a very personal space and social
media as being only social networking sites. Tom, the senior manager at a small law firm,
responsible for the implementation and maintenance of social media tools stated:
―I wanted to do something where I would create a platform that was obviously
internal, but also as fancy as if it was an external website. And then everyone as soon
as they sign in it would come up. They would see articles and discussions that within
ourselves we want to have. […] On the other side of the map, we were looking at a
program that is all online. It‘s a task manager. The way it works is your email
address is your user ID, you report to someone. Whoever you report to, that person
will constantly see you talking about your task. And you are able to communicate
with each other. It‘s very integrated. We are looking at implementing it in 2012. It
will completely change the way we do things.‖
His view reinforces that organisations, even small companies, are starting to perceive social
media as an important collaboration and knowledge exchange tool that needs to be looked at
(Boyd and Ellison, 2007 and Nardi et al., 2002).
29
Current Approach to Internet and Social Media Access
Private sector companies are trying to have a more relaxed approach to the use of the Internet
and social media, albeit a mixed message is still the norm. Peter, 29, senior manager at a
large traditional multinational company observed:
―We have a very open policy. Obviously people know there can be control and there
is, but I don‘t have anyone limiting how much I can use it or what I can access and
cannot.‖
He states later in the interview that:
―I have a company owned mobile phone and I cannot download any apps to it, even
Google maps!‖
Peter feels that the organisation he works for has a fair and open policy, being very
enthusiastic when emphasizing that characteristic. However, the limitation on the
downloading of any application to the company owned mobile phone demonstrates that the
relaxed approach is not as relaxed as Peter feels. Nevertheless, in this case, the employee has
a very positive outlook of the organisation‘s approach to the Internet and social media and
feels respected.
Other companies are still trying to establish their approach in relation to the use of the
Internet and social media. George, senior marketing executive noted:
―…you could access anything you wanted…Then suddenly we came in one day…
everything was blocked, Facebook blocked, Orkut blocked, pages that we need for
work, like pages we checked our competitors were blocked. We do advertise in
Facebook, so we got to this ridiculous point where I couldn‘t check even my own
ads as I didn't have access, and then you needed to fill a form for IT, to ask them to
release the site, a very time-consuming [process]. And then suddenly one day out of
nothing, they removed it, without telling anyone.‖
He added:
―…they [IT] need to have some discretion and understand that we use Facebook for
work. And it got blocked the same way…I check my competitors fees online and
this [their websites] was blocked.‖
Donna, the managing director at a social media agency, said:
30
―Well obviously [because of the nature of business] we have full access [to the
Internet and social media] all the time. We have noticed with clients, they are
opening the firewalls a little bit to social media. […] I think [having controlling
policies] its just lack of understanding, which causes fear. The biggest hurdle by far
to anyone entering the social space is fear.‖
On the other hand, the trend in the public sector is almost reversed, as more controls have
been imposed in recent years, causing feeling of mistrust, as Mark, 42, HR Manager at a large
public sector organisation remarked:
[Related to Internet and social media access] ―It actually became more draconian
over the years. When we first introduced internet to the desktop, there wasn‘t really
a coherent policy, […] [Currently Internet access is] very restrictive, very untrusting
of people, so everything is locked down, and if you need to get access to a site that
you can‘t get access to, you have to apply, with good reason, to have the block on
that site lifted […].‖
He added:
―…you‘ve got to trust people, […] you give people access to the internet, someone
could spend all day on the internet, but you can‘t go on things like Facebook, if you
check Facebook, you end up wasting your time on the internet, but you can go on the
internet. I think there‘s always going to be a fear around viruses, because of the
nature of the departments business, and what they deliver is based on IT, you‘ve got
to be aware of that, but I think [the control] is not based on that…‖
Some organisations allow unlimited access to the Internet and social media, some allow
access for business purposes only and others allow limited personal access during downtime.
Feelings of mistrust and unease when access is restricted or if access was to be restricted
were a common denominator. Luke, regional director of an online gaming company
remarked:
[talking about the reduction on Internet/social media access] ―I would not feel good
about it. If they want to cut the access for social networking, then they would have to
do the same for mobile, so they would have to take my mobile away, because for me
the way I use social networking today is if somebody is calling me, or texting.‖
George added:
―I think when you block things you just create antagonism and a feeling of mistrust.‖
31
Addressing Question 1
- Would employees be more inclined in using organisation-wide online platforms or
openly available social media tools in order to share knowledge and exchange
information?
Employees do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes social media and its
possible uses. This has been found to be true in all levels of organisations in the public and
private sectors. For the majority of people that do not work with social media, the medium is
viewed as a way of socialising and not relevant for work, or that they could benefit the
organisation. Even when adding connections to their professional networks. In this context
employees believe that well-structured organisation-wide online platforms would be an
acceptable form of using social media in order to foster the knowledge sharing and
collaboration that have been enabled by the development of digital technologies. Therefore,
organisation-wide platforms are seen by employees as a more appropriate way to use social
media at work in order to foster the knowledge exchange and collaboration, leading to
positive outcome as suggested by Fraser and Dutta (2008).
32
4.1.2 Answering Question 2
Internet and Social Media Policies
With the introduction of the Internet in the workplace, organisations have developed policies
outlining ―both acceptable and unacceptable Internet usages, with the aim of controlling those
employee behaviours and actions that contribute to the organisation‘s Internet risks, while
maximizing the benefits to be gained by the organization through Internet usage‖
(Lichtenstein and Swatman, 1997: 182). Yet, the majority of organisations rely on the
workforce common sense rather than on policy and/or guidelines. Even when employees are
aware that there are policies and guidelines in place they are not well communicated and
seem only to be there as a controlling mechanism rather than to set codes of conduct. Peter,
senior manager at a large private company stated:
―I know that I wouldn‘t access inappropriate sites or anything like that, and I think
some sites are blocked...I can access most websites. […] there are guidelines,
although they are not overly published. It‘s not constantly communicated. Though if
you do get to a website which is blocked, it does talk about the policy. There is the
odd communication here and there, the odd ―you need to make sure you‘re aware of
the policy‖.‖
Julie, 41, admin officer at a secondary school said:
―It‘s just common sense; you wouldn‘t look at anything you shouldn‘t be looking at.
[…] You wouldn‘t do online shopping while at work etc.‖
Amy, 36, press officer at a large government department remarked:
―I never received [Internet/social media policies or guidelines]. I'm sure its
somewhere but I've never looked at it. I know I have access to them [social media
tools], but I shouldn't be there all day. […] If you put something on twitter or
Facebook, you are risking it being found, but I haven't seen written guidelines.‖
The IT or communication departments usually owns Internet and social media policies with
HRM being responsible for enforcement policies, possible grievances and/or disciplinary
procedures linked with the inappropriate use of the Internet and/or social media. This is
particularly the case of public service organisations. Mark, 42, HR manager at a large public
sector organisation stated:
33
―They [Internet and social media policies] fall into different areas...so it‘s like
different people hold different parts, for example, you breach the electronic media
policy, which is communications-owned, it then falls to the HR policy team […]
well it falls to the line manager to use the policy that is owned by HR to discipline
you. It‘s quite complex.‖
Acquisition and Maintenance of Social capital
The findings suggest that individuals are building social capital online and using social media
tools to build virtual informal communities and networks (Ellison et al., 2007). Individuals
felt that social networking sites were an important way to sustain and revive relationships,
enabling the acquisition and maintenance of social capital through the closer contact with
people that individuals had or would have lost touch otherwise (Ellison et al., 2007). Tom, a
senior manager at a small law firm remarked:
―I have found lots of friends using Facebook. There were a lot of people there I
wouldn‘t have seen at all….‖
Amy, press officer at a large public sector organisation, said:
―I think it‘s easier to keep in touch [with friends and family], know what they're
doing. It‘s easier to talk to your friends. On my Facebook, I accept as ―friends‖
people that I have met face-to-face, I have received requests from work colleagues
on Facebook and I have denied, because they are not friends, they are co-workers.‖
All interviewees said that they felt they were building an online network and growing the
number of contacts online.
Amy added:
―…I do have other people [that I have not met face-to-face] on Linkedin, I have
received requests from people who wanted to add me to their network, they seem to
do things that are relevant to my work, so I have added them.‖
Creating capital
Although the vast majority of participants had a poor understanding of what constitutes social
media some had a very clear outlook. Donna, the managing director at a social media agency,
for example, had a necessary professional awareness of what social media is and its
34
possibilities, so taking advantage of the knowledge exchange as proposed by Cohen and
Prusak (2001) was an obvious action, as she stated:
―I‘m a member of the UK business forums, and I posted a question on corporation
tax in there, and had about 50 responses within about an hour, it was really helpful.‖
However, for the majority of individuals there was a lack of awareness, even if using social
media and their social capital to accomplish a task. Ella, 58, senior operations manager at an
elderly care company said:
―I use [forums] to search information about holidays; I also use it for work when we
put in for tenders. I think I use it more than I realize.‖
People are able to access a large amount of information at low cost and in some situations
using less effort, as suggested by Adler and Kwon (2000). Individuals are able to access
information about friends, family and colleagues without having to call or a visit them, as
well as being able to gain access to work related information. Michael, 34, HR Manager at a
large public sector organisation commented:
―We definitely use [social media]...we always go on blogs or forums for HR things,
so if you‘ve got an employment law question or a situation where you would need to
phone the lawyers, which costs lots of money…we always say check it out online
first, there you can get it for free. So in that sense it‘s useful, and I would imagine
same exists in other professional groups, either via unions or societies.‖
Olivia, 20, support clerk at a police force, added:
―I‘ve got friends in America and South Africa and...It‘s good being able to contact
them because it‘s still free, whereas obviously phoning them would cost a lot.‖
In relation to the extended power and influence as proposed by Adler and Kwon (2000),
people with higher social capital get the benefit of more information, but may also become
"opinion leaders" that a number of people count on. Mark, 42, HR manager at another large
public sector organisation stated:
[Regarding the CIPD website] ―I‘ve never actually posted anything on there; I‘ve
generally found what I‘ve needed to know by what someone else has posted. I‘ve
used the forum. There‘s a couple of guys who crop up quite regularly who seem to
know what they really are talking about, so it‘s quite useful, so I‘ve used that at
work…‖
35
The conformity with regulations and customs without the need for formal supervision (Adler
and Kwon, 2000) have been found to be present, as social networking sites seem to have their
own unwritten rules in terms of what is reasonable and what is not. If people post irrelevant
messages on social networking sites their ―friends‖ can now block these, being able to control
their own ―wall‖ or leave discussions groups that do not add to knowledge. Some of the
comments:
―Some people use [LinkedIn] for discussion groups, I tried but didn‘t like it, and I
left, as there were lots of irrelevant comments and topics‖ Luke, 41, Regional
Director.
―I got a bit fed up with the whole update thing, and then people say that ―I'm going
on holiday.‖ My Facebook was very blocked, nobody had access to photos, because
at the beginning you didn't have this capability [to block certain people or a group];
it was all very open. And then Facebook started giving you tools to limit access‖
George, 37, Marketing Senior Executive.
Use of Social Capital
Individuals use their online social networks and social capital, as defined by Bourdieu (1986),
by asking ―friends‖ and/or ―contacts‖ for advice or by consulting online reviews or searching
and/or posting questions in forums in order to sort out a problem or to perform a task. Bill,
senior negotiator at estate agent remarked:
―My wife‘s car broke down, she explained the problem to me, and I looked at
forums, found exactly the answer that we wanted, 10 minutes later we fixed it. A lot
of the time that‘s why I go on the Internet at home…. Fixing your own problems
saves a lot of money.‖
Mark, HR manager at a large public sector organisation commented:
―I‘ve used a dental forum to ask questions about implants and so on. I‘ve used
Facebook [to post questions] and received answers. Yeah, I do [use social media], on
a regular basis. I will do that sort of thing at work. It‘s not the norm, and it‘s not
something that is said: ―this is a good idea, let‘s try, as an organisational directive‖,
it‘s just something that, because I use these things at home, I will do at work. I‘ll
take my home practices to work, and use them wherever I can; obviously I have
limits to access.‖
36
Rob, 36, admin clerk at a foreign public sector organisation noted:
―Two or three years ago we had a printer problem here at work, I had tried a lot of
things. I went to a lot of forums and I discovered that what I needed was to clean the
tray…the printer is still working and we still use it, so save us buying another
printer.‖
Online access to and use of social capital to gain information about a diverse array of subjects
have been found to be prevalent.
Addressing Question 2
- Are organisational Internet and/or social media policies and practices hindering or
enhancing the acquisition and use of employees‘ virtual social capital?
Whistle policies and practices have not hindered the virtual social capital acquisition, the
impact of a restricted access policy would reflect on the use of social capital, hindering
collaboration and knowledge acquisition and exchange. Participants felt that their online
personal and professional social networks were growing despite restrictions and limitations
imposed in workplaces, the impact of a restricted access to the Internet and social media
could, however, be closely linked to the prevention of employment of such capital.
37
4.1.3 Answering Question 3
Differences in Approach
Young people are using social networking sites as their communication tool of choice
(Peluchette and Karl, 2008); however, older generations are catching up (Zickuh, 2010). In
this study thirty per cent of participants were younger employees – digital natives bellow the
age of 31, as defined by Palfrey and Gasser (2008). The remaining participants were from
Generation X and Baby Boomers (Twenge et al., 2010) or digital immigrants and digital
settlers (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008). Findings demonstrate that, although, younger employees
are more fluent in the digital language their adoption of social media tools has not been
greater than older employees. Anna, 29 trader at a medium size commodity trading company
said:
―I was quite resistant [to Facebook] but then suddenly everyone had it here in the
UK and I end up joining; I think there is a tendency of people using more and more
the social networks, sometimes not even using the phone anymore which to me
personally I prefer to speak rather than to write down things on Blackberry
messenger or things like that.‖
At the same time Joe, 59, director of memberships at a large charity remarked:
―I tend to get up in the morning and I log on to twitter and I see what I'm getting
coming in on Twitter. I also log onto Facebook and Linked in. […] I certainly feel
part of an online network.‖
Adoption of Different Mediums
Participation of older generations in social networking site has seen the most dramatic
increase between 2008 and 2010 (Zickuh, 2010); ―social network sites allow users to
reconnect with people from the past, […] or connect with younger generations—all of which
may drive social network site use among older generations‖ (Zickuh, 2010: 16). A common
response given by younger employees was that they could not see the benefit of having a
LinkedIn page, even people with strong career paths. Peter, 29 year-old senior manager at a
large multinational firm said:
38
―We are now using Linkedin to connect with clients and even to share some
institutional [information]... I‘ve been told by management that I should join
Linkedin and try to connect with clients and people I knew before, again, building
relationships. Its encouraged,... if you have a client you have a relationship with, and
he moves to another company, it‘s good for you to know and for you to reconnect
with them.‖
Adding:
―I don‘t use Linkedin to communicate with anyone. It‘s more ―yeah I‘m connected
so I can track them‖, but I don‘t exchange many messages…. [The company] does
have a page on it, and they send communications to people that are in that group. I
mean there is a specific suggestion... there might be ways to use it more
effectively…‖
Although Peter understands the possible business use of his LinkedIn profile is something
that he would not have chosen to have if it was not a company directive. Digital natives that
have LinkedIn pages had similar responses. Vicky, 30 year-old admin assistant at a foreign
public sector organisation noted:
―I have an effective online network to be close to friends and my family, but not
professionally.‖
Donna, 31 year-old managing director at a social media agency remarked:
―I wouldn't say it [online contact] is as effective [as offline contact]. Despite
supposedly being an ambassador for it, there is absolutely nothing like meeting a
person in the flesh.‖
Privacy Issues
Palfrey (2007) and Peluchette and Karl (2008) argue that digital natives have a different
notion of privacy, being less concerned with what has been found by digital immigrants to be
inappropriate content. In this study younger participants voiced their concerns with possible
repercussions of inappropriate photos and comments on their profiles. Olivia, 20 year-old
clerk said:
―I have mine set to private. [Work] it‘s not the only reason I have it set to private, but
it is something to take into consideration. I think I‘ve had Facebook since 2007, I
had it public for about 2 years, and then someone told me about the dangers.‖
39
Addressing Question 3
- Is the adoption and use of social media by older employees different compared to
younger employees?
In recent years the characteristics of a new generation of employees has been studied, and
differences to previous generations highlighted. They are said to be more in tune with
technologies and use them with more fluidity (Palfrey and Gasser; 2008 Peluchette and Karl,
2008; Boyd, 2009; Twenge et al., 2010). The younger generation in employment today has
the web as a source of information and social interaction, in this study there was a frequent
response regarding the use of professional networking sites. Even though young employees
are members of LinkedIn, they have not embraced it as they have done with sites focused on
the socialising aspect of social media, as Boyd (2009) suggests. This is a clear distinction in
the way different generations approach social media. Another peculiarity was that the young
generation in employment have demonstrated greater concern regarding privacy issues,
stating that they now use more the privacy settings of their online profiles than before.
40
4.2 Other issues raised
Team Work and Networking
The majority of participants have stated that their organisations promote teamwork and
networking, these have been described as having cross-departmental teams, the organising of
cultural days/away days, learning network communities, regular staff meetings, open offices
and so on. Olivia, clerk at a police force stated:
―The way that the offices were divided up you was very much in a team, and also
they always had like, group outings and team building exercises. Also regular staff
meetings.‖
Michael, HR Business Partner at a large public sector organisation added:
―We do organized social things inside and outside of work, so once a quarter we
have team-building things. The last one we had it was like a version of speed dating
– a bell would ring, people would move to the next person... you would ask them
questions for 3 minutes and you‘d swap. It was just a way of getting to know each
other. Or, we‘ve done things where you have to talk to someone you‘ve never talked
to before and things, so it was enforced networking, team-building.‖
All organisations in the study promote teamwork and networking. This has also been stated
by all participants as very important to the performance of their duties.
Blogging and Social Networking
Bloggers corresponded to twenty per cent of the sample; half had online professional
journals, the other half maintain blogs to write about other interests. Although not a
significant percentage of the sample, bloggers share some characteristics in the way they
approach social networking and social media in general. They, usually, accept as ―friends‖ on
Facebook and Twitter people that have only met via online journal, becoming ―virtual‖
friends. Rob, ―owner‖ of a non-professional blog, observed:
―[Using social media…] I can get in contact with old friends, make new friends. I
can have friends that would just be on the social networks and I never met them.‖
41
Based on the observation of posting and comments it can be said that all of the bloggers are
seen as opinion makers, receiving comments and giving advice on their blogs to specific
issues related to the main topic of their online journals. Vicky, another non-professional
blogger said:
―[being on Facebook and Twitter] Makes a lot of difference…[the sites] are the
greatest help you can get, you can access so many people and they tell their friends
about you. I add strangers as ―friends‖ on Facebook. I do that because people are
curious and want to know who you are and what you do. People who follow me
want to talk to me, to know my opinion.‖
42
5. Discussion
It is undisputable that, as communication technologies spreads, people are increasingly
socially connected through the Internet (Nardi et al., 2002). The challenge for organisations is
to develop the ability to provide an open and safe online environment in order reap the
benefits of this enlarged and diverse digital world.
Even though interviewees stated that employers have put into effect policies indicating the
acceptable limitations of Internet use (Lichtenstein and Swatman, 1997), these are not well
communicated. This has left employees to decide what would be the acceptable boundaries of
Internet and social media use. At the same time organisational fear and resistance in adopting
and having a more open view of social media are still prevailing, as argued by Bennett et al
(2010) and are reproduced in the attitudes and behaviours of the workforce regarding openly
available platforms. This may create difficulties in the implementation of online social media
initiatives that would possibly have positive outcomes.
Wajcman (2006) views on the need of actors to have knowledge in order to take advantage of
new communication technologies have been found to be partially true, as individuals, even
without having an understanding of the mechanisms of the digital world, are able to gather
information and experiences from social media tools. However, if social media is to become
the great knowledge sharing and collaborating medium (Nardi et al., 2002 and Boyd and
Ellison, 2007), people need to be more familiar with it, being less afraid and cautious. While
individuals have resources to reach their online networks, using their personal relationships
(Nardi et al., 2002), and that organisations promote and value teamwork and networking, this
research has found that the process is hindered by organisational culture and the controlling
nature of Internet and social media policies and practices in place.
43
Organisation-wide platforms may be a possible solution to the constraint demonstrated by
participants and their uncertainties about the use of social media at work. An example of the
potential positive outcomes of internal social media would be IBM‘s Beehive. Using the
Beehive IBM‘s employees publicize their ideas and projects to others, have the opportunity to
get better acquainted with co-workers, and also connect with strangers (DiMicco et al., 2009).
As corroborated by this study on a freely accessible site, such as Facebook, people connect
with "friends" they have met face-to-face (Lampe et al., 2006). The behaviour of
inviting/accepting ―strangers‖ to become contacts may be attributed to the safe environment
provided by the organisation‘s intranet (DiMicco et al., 2009). Organisation-wide types of
networks ―can play an important role in helping employees maintain and develop connections
within the company, support networking and career goals, and potentially increase employee
social capital‖ (DiMicco et al., 2009: 3). Therefore, online organisation-wide platforms
might be an ideal way of exploring social media. Internal networks may assist employees and
organisations in recognizing and using social networks and individuals‘ social capital from
outside organisational boundaries, as they may support and promote a cultural shift.
Lin (2001) proposes that the access and employment of social capital resources are dependent
on the awareness of the presence of these resources, if individuals do not acknowledge ties
and relationships between people, these resources cannot be employed (Lin, 2001). Being
able to recognise key actors and networks would, potentially, create the possibility to
discover social capital where people are unaware of its existence (Lin, 2001). While,
individuals have a poor knowledge and understanding of what social media is and their
potential benefits, they are using social media and their social capital, being aware of their
increased personal and professional network of contacts. In view of that, identifying networks
44
and key players may assist organisations in discovering new avenues for knowledge
acquisition and collaboration, facilitating the use of social media tools.
A possible way of identifying key players might be in recognizing bloggers. Roëll (2004)
argues that blogs support work as they provide a place to obtain information, comment and
debate. Offering also the possibility to attain experiences and the opportunity to share them
(Roëll, 2004). In this study it has been observed that bloggers behave in a very distinct way.
They would accept as ―friends‖ on Facebook and Twitter people that had never met face-to-
face, this is in stark contrast with non-bloggers that would only accept as ―friends‖ people
that they have already met. Additionally bloggers may be seen as opinion leaders, which have
been defined as peers that are able to influence opinion, even if not seen as experts (Song et
al., 2007). Research suggests that credibility has been found to be greater if ―followers‖ know
the owners of blogs better (Rak, 2005). The acceptance of strangers into Facebook might be a
way of increasing this proximity and, consequently, credibility. In organisations, identifying
opinion leaders might be a way to facilitate and ensure the uptake of social media initiatives,
as blog ―owners‖ may become champions of such initiatives.
Palfrey (2007) suggests that older individuals are not as engaged in the digital culture as the
younger generation. Despite digital natives being more fluent in the digital language, using
less formal communication, they are more interested in the social aspects of social media.
Digital immigrants have been found to be embracing digital technologies in growing numbers
(Zickuh, 2010), and are interested in the social and professional aspects of social media, even
if not comfortable in using social media at work. Contrary to Cohen and Prusak (2001) idea
that letting go of social media controls would be essential to the future of organisation, less
controlling polices and practices may benefit not only the younger generation in employment
45
but also the digital immigrants that are catching up to the digital culture. Furthermore,
younger employees seem to be more concerned with the content of their social media
profiles. They still post content deemed inappropriate, but are using more privacy settings to
protect themselves.
46
6. Limitations
The possible generalisation of results and longitudinal effects of policies and practices on the
adoption and use of social capital are two noteworthy limitations of this study. The potential
to generalise findings are limited as they were generated in a probing qualitative examination.
The research design was not focused in finding results that would explain or predict the
behaviours of a wider population. However, this investigation produced hypotheses, which
may be tested by future theory-testing studies that would enable generalisation to a larger
population.
Secondly, due to funding and time constrains it was unfeasible to consider how the use of
social media and the organisation approach to the Internet and social media might have
influenced participants‘ long-term behaviour and attitudes. Gathering such data was beyond
the reach of the present study. Future studies may consider the assessment of behaviours and
attitudes that follow the introduction of digital initiatives, including longitudinal assessments
to find out the long-term impact of policies and practices in social capital acquisition and use.
Another important issue was the difficulty in gaining access to a single organisation, which
made it impossible to explore and compare the impact of organisational Internet and social
media policies and practices on the social capital of adopters/users and non-adopters/non-
users of social media that share the same environment. As organisations implement policies
and guidelines regarding social media, further organisation-wide research is needed in order
to explore this facet.
The results of this research can serve as the beginning of a discussion of the impact of
policies and practices on the acquisition and use of an individual‘s social capital. Yet, a more
47
robust research design would be required in order to explore in more depth different contexts,
as the internal structures of organisations and their links with the environment have an
influence on communication styles and relationships in a distinctive way. Exploring such
relationships would give clues as how to better approach social media in order to produce
positive outcomes.
48
7. Conclusion
The literature regarding the use of SNSs, its benefits, security and legal issues is relatively
extensive (Fayle, 2007; Collins, 2008; Boyle, 2009). There are also studies and surveys
concerning the positive and negative influence of social media on business (Baker and James,
2007; DiMauro, 2009; Buckley, 2010) with mixed results. There is a lack, however, of studies
regarding the impact of specific policies and practices in the expansion/erosion and use/non-
use of the individual virtual social capital within the business context, but outside
organisations‘ boundaries. Previous research suggests that the Internet and, more specifically,
social media, enhance the individual social capital (Ellison et al., 2007), which, in turn,
benefits organisations, facilitating the exchange of resources, product innovation and team
effectiveness (Helminen et al., 2009).
Larger companies are starting to understand the possible strategic benefits of adopting social
media within organisations. The IBM successful experience with its Beehive (DiMicco et al.,
2009), and, more recently, Cable & Wireless Worldwide‘s (CWW) adoption of an internal
social media platform (Syedain, 2011) demonstrate the viability of organisation-wide
platforms as strategic tools. They can facilitate, for example, peer-to-peer communication,
knowledge sharing, internal recruitment, individual recognition, and also bring people
together. At CWW ―staff can post questions or experiences, or it can be used for consultation
if the company is thinking of changing its policy. It might even replace the traditional staff
survey‖ (Syedain, 2011: 31).
The findings of this study indicate that individuals are rapidly building virtual networks of
connections. However, employees see these networks as purely for social interaction, with
little perceived valuable use in an organisational context. This may be attributed to an
49
organisational culture that is wary of new communication technologies and that without clear
policies and practices leave employees cautious and unable to use their social capital
effectively. In view of that, the adoption of organisation-wide platforms might be a way to
enable the utilisation of the social capital of individuals in order to share knowledge and
collaborate within and a way of demonstrating the benefits of social media and social capital
outside organisations. Social media initiatives should take into account the organisational
environment and its needs in order to take advantage of the benefits of the use of social media
freely available. Assessing and understanding what technologies can do for organisations
would enable the consideration of digital technologies, leading to well formulated,
implemented and communicated social media policies that would outline acceptable online
behaviours and allow and encourage the use of the individual social capital.
Despite the fact that Internet and social media policies and practices do not prevent
employees from acquiring social capital, its utilization might be hindered by excessive
control. This research highlights that social media has the potential of enhancing
communication and collaboration, which has been proven to aid knowledge transfer, making
organisations more agile and competitive (Glenn, 2009). There are many possible ways in
which social media tools may be used to assist HR processes, not only operational and
relational, but also transformational processes. HR transformational processes may benefit
from the facilitated communication and exchange of knowledge, taking advantage of the
individual social capital, increasing efficiency. Moreover, a more open approach to the access
of the Internet and social media can enhance feelings of trust that may improve employee‘s
satisfaction, which has been linked to greater productivity (Cho and Park, 2011).
50
8. References
Abril, P. S. (2007). A (My)Space of One's Own: On Privacy and Online Social Networks.
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 6(1): 73-88.
Adler, P. S. and Kwon, S.-W. (2000). Social Capital: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. In
Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications. Editor: E. L. Lesser.
Boston, MA, Butterworth-Heinemann: 89-115.
Ancona, D. and Caldwell, D. (1988). Beyond task and maintenance: defining external
functions in groups. Group and Organizational Studies 13(4): 476-494.
Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education.
JISC Technology and Standards Watch [online] February 2007. Retrieved 26 January
2011 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf.
Baker, J. and James, C. (2007). Out of site, out of mind. People Management 13(17): 18.
Bankston, C. L. and Zhou, M. (2002). Social Capital as Process: The Meanings and
Problems of a Theoretical Metaphor. Sociological Inquiry 72(2): 285–317.
Bartol, K. M. and Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
9(1): 64-76.
Bennett, J., Owers, M., Pitt, M. and Tucker, M. (2010). Workplace impact of social
networking. Property Management 28(3): 138-148.
Bondarouk, T. V. and Ruël, H. J. M. (2009). Electronic Human Resource Management:
challenges in the digital era. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 20(3): 505 - 514.
Boswell, W. (2011). Facebook News Feed. About.com Guide [online]. Available at
http://websearch.about.com/od/f/g/Facebook-News-Feed.htm. Accesse 30 July 2011.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of Capital. New York, Greenwood Press.
Boyd, D. (2009). Social Media is Here to Stay... Now What? Microsoft Research Tech Fest
[online], Redmond, Washington, 26 February 2009. Retrieved 26 January 2011 from
http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/MSRTechFest2009.html.
Boyd, D. M. and Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: definition, history and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1): 210-230.
Brady, M. (2005). Blogging, personal participation in public knowledge-building on the
web. Chimera Working Paper [online] February 2005. Colchester: University of
Essex. Retrieved 03 August 2011 from
http://www.essex.ac.uk/chimera/content/pubs/wps/CWP-2005-02-blogging-in-the-
Knowledge-Society-MB.pdf.
51
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods. Oxford, UK, Oxford
University Press.
Buckley, R. (2009). Networking can cause problems in the workplace, but there are
solutions. SC Magazine UK [online] December 2009. Retrieved 30 June 2011 from
http://www.scmagazineuk.com/social-networking-can-cause-problems-in-the-
workplace-but-there-are-solutions/article/159551/.
Burt, R. S. (2007). Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. European
Sociological Review 23(5): 666-667.
Cardoso, G. (2006). The Media in the Network Society: Browsing, News, Filters and
Citizenship. CIES – Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology. Lisboa, Portugal.
Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford, UK, Wiley-Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2001). Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society.
Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. and Cardoso, G. eds. (2005). The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy.
Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2005.
Cho, Y. J. and Park, H. (2011). Exploring the Relationships Among Trust, Employee
Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. Public Management Review 13(4):
551-573.
Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001). In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes
Organizations Work. Harvard Business School Press.
Collins, B. (2008). Privacy and Security Issues in Social Networking. Fast Company [online]
October 2008. Retrieved 28 June 2011 from
http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2008/10/social-networking-security.html.
Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J. and Woo, C. A. (1994). Initial human and financial
capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing
9(5): 371-395.
DiMauro, V. (2009). The New Symbiosis of Professional Networks: Social Media‟s Impact
on Business and Decision –Making. Building Online Communities for Businesses
[blog] 17 November. Available at http://blog.leadernetworks.com/2009/11/new-
symbiosis-of-professional-networks.html. Accessed 28 June 2011.
DiMicco, J., Geyer, W. and Dugan, C. (2009). Understanding the Benefits of Social
Networking within the Workplace. IBM Watson Research Center [online] Available
at http://domino.watson.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/58bac2a2a6b05a1285256b3
0005b3953/2f2ce64270ab0d6385257720006e133b/$FILE/TR2009.13%20Understan
ding%20the%20Benefits%20of%20social%20Networking%20within%20the%20wor
kplace.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2011.
52
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook „„friends:‟‟
Social capital and college students‟ use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 12(4): 1143–1168.
Encyclopædia Britannica (2011). Encyclopædia Britannica 2011. Encyclopædia Britannica
Online. Available at http://www.britannica.com/. Accessed 10 August 2011.
Fayle, K. (2007). Understanding the Legal Issues for Social Networking Sites and Their
Users. FindLaw [online] January 2007. Retrieved 28 June 2011 from
http://articles.technology.findlaw.com/2007/Sep/18/10966.html
Fischer, C. S. (2005). Bowling Alone. What‟s the Score? Social Networks 27(2): 155-167.
Fraser, M. and Dutta, S. (2008). Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom: How Online Social
Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work and World. Chichester, UK. John Wiley
& Sons Ltd.
Gasser, U. (2010). Generation Internet. They‟re young, they‟re networked and they were
born into a world of computers. What we can learn from Digital Natives. BMW
Magazine: 64-68 [online]. Retrieved 30 June 2011 from
http://www.bmw.co.uk/files/bmwuk/owner/magazine/BMWUK_Digitalnatives_v4.p
df.
Glenn, M. (2009). Organisational agility: How business can survive and thrive in turbulent
times. Economist Intelligence Unit. Editor: G. Stahl. Retrieved 20 August 2011 from
http://www.emc.com/collateral/leadership/organisational-agility-230309.pdf.
Grail Research (2010). Consumers of Tomorrow: Insights and Observations About
Generation Z. Grail Research LLP [online]. Available at
http://grailresearch.com/pdf/ContenPodsPdf/Consumers_of_Tomorrow_Insights_and
_Observations_About_Generation_Z.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2011.
Gratton, L. (2007). Working Together...When Apart. The Wall Street Journal [online] 16
June 2007. Available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118165895540732559-
search.html?KEYWORDS=lynda+gratton&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month#articleTa
bs%3Darticle. Accessed 24 July 2011.
Gratton, L. and Erickson, T. J. (2007). Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams. Harvard
Business Review, November 2007:1-11 [online]. Retrieved 30 June 2011 from
http://www.internetgroup.ca/clientnet_new/docs/8%20Ways%20to%20Build%20olla
borative%20Teams%202007.pdf.
Gubbins, C. and Garavan, T. N. (2009). Understanding the HRD Role in MNC‟s: The
Imperatives of Social Capital and Networking. Human Resource Development
Review 8(2): 245-275.
Gyro: HSR (2009). Beyond the hype: Uncovering the real opportunities in Social Media.
Gyro: HSR [blog] 2009. Available at http://174.143.146.33/blog/page/3/. Accessed
10 July 2011.
53
Halpern, D. (2009). The Hidden Wealth of Nations. Cambridge. Polity Press.
Heath, C., Knoblauch, H. and Luff, P. (2000). Technology and social interaction: the
emergence of „workplace studies‟. British Journal of Sociology 51(2): 299–320.
Helminen, J.-P., Cabrerizo, J. and Dean, S. (2009). Closer to You, A study on the Impact of
Social Networking on Customer Relationships. Social Networking for Businesses
[online]. Retrieved 30 June 2011 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/20009535/Social-
Networking-for-Business.
Howard, P. E. N., Rainie, L. and Jones, S. (2001). Days and Nights on the Internet: The
Impact of a Diffusing Technology. American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 383-404.
Jue, A. L., Marr, J. A. and Kassotakis, M. E. (2009). Social Media at Work: How Networking
Tools Propel Organizational Performance. Jossey-Bass.
Kanter, B., Fine, A. and Zuckerberg, R. (2010). The Networked Nonprofit: Connecting with
Social Media to Drive Change. Jossey-Bass.
Kaplan, A. M. and Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons 53(1): 59–68.
Kavanaugh, A. L. and Patterson, C. J. (2001). The impact of community computer networks
on social capital and community involvement. American Behavioral Scientist 45(3):
496–509.
Kennedy, G., Chang, R., Churchward, A., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., et al. (2007). The
net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings.
Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007: 517-525.
Krebs, V. (2008). Social Capital: the Key to Success for the 21st Century Organization.
IHRIM Journal 12(5): 38-42.
Lallana, E. C. and Uy, M. N. (2003). The Information Age. UNDP Asia-Pacific Development
Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) [online] May 2003. Retrieved 10 July 2011
from http://www.apdip.net/publications/iespprimers/eprimer-infoage.pdf.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N. and Steinfield, C., (2006). A face(book) in the crowd: social
searching vs. social browsing. in CSCW '06: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work: 167-170.
Leana, C. R. and van Buren III, H. J. (1999). Organizational Social Capital and Employment
Practices. The Academy of Management Review 24(3): 538-555.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L. and Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (2003). HR's Role in Building Relationships
Networks. The Academy of Management Executive 17(4): 53-63.
Lichtenstein, S. and Swatman, P. M. C. (1997). Internet acceptable usage policy for
organizations. Information Management & Computer Security 5(5): 182 – 190.
54
Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action.. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lin, N., Cook, K. and Burt, R. (2001). Preface, Social Capital, Theory and Research. New
York. Aldine Transaction.
Mayfield, A. (2008). What is Social media? iCrossing [online] 1 August 2008. Available at
http://www.icrossing.co.uk/fileadmin/uploads/eBooks/What_is_Social_Media_iCross
ing_ebook.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2011.
Moglen, E. (1999). Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright. First
Monday 4(8) [online] 2 August 1999. Retrieved 7 July 2011 from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/684/594.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the
Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242-266.
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S. and Schwarz, H. (2002). NetWORKers and their activity in
intentional networks. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11(1-2): 205-242.
Nayyar, D. (2006). Globalisation, history and development: a tale of two
centuries. Cambridge Journal of Economics 30(1): 137–159.
Nielsen Report (2009). Global Faces and Networked Places - A Nielsen report on Social
Networking‟s New Global Footprint. Nielsen Wire [blog] March 2009. Available at
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-
content/uploads/2009/03/nielsen_globalfaces_mar09.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2011.
Nielsen Wire (2010). What Americans Do Online: Social Media And Games Dominate
Activity. Nielsen Wire [blog] August 2010. Available at
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/what-americans-do-online-
social-media-and-games-dominate-activity/. Accessed 1 August 2011.
Ofcom (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviours and
use of Social Network websites. Ofcom Research Document [online] 2 April 2008.
Retrieved 28 June 2011 from
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/report1.pdf.
Office of National Statistics (2010). Internet Access Opinions Survey. Office of National
Statistics [online] 27 August 2010. Retrieved 28 June 2011
from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=8.
Palfrey, J. and U. Gasser (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of
Digital Natives. New York. Basic Books.
Palfrey, J. G. (2007). Should Fred hire Mimi despite her online history? In: We Googled
You by Diane Coutu. Harvard Business Review. HBR Case Study and Commentary.
June 2007: 5.
55
Peluchette, J. V. and Karl, K. A. (2008). Social networking profiles: An examination of
student aptitudes regarding use and appropriateness of content. Cyberpsychology
and Behavior 11: 95 – 97.
Pickering, J. M. and King, J. L. (1995). Hardwiring weak ties: interorganizational computer-
mediated communication, occupational communities and organizational
change. Organization Science 6(4): 479-486.
Porras, J. I. and Silvers, R. C. (1991). Organization Development and Transformation.
Annual Review of Psychology 42: 51-78.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon 9(5): 1-6.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York. Simon and Schuster.
Rak, J. (2005). The Digital Queer: Weblogs and Internet Identity. Biography 28(1): 166-182.
Rash, B., and McCoy, B. (2001). The Social Capital Benchmark Survey for the Charlotte
Region. Foundation For The Carolinas [online]. Retrieved 10 July 2011 from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/communitysurvey/docs/carolinas_sh.pdf.
Requena, F. (2003). Social capital, satisfaction and quality of life in the workplace. Social
Indicator Research 61(3): 331-360.
Roehling, M.V., Boswell, W.R., Caligiuri, P., Feldman, D., Graham, M.E., Guthrie, J.P.,
Morishima, M., and Tansky, J.W. (2005). The future of HR management: research
needs and directions. Human Resource Management 44(2), 207 – 212.
Ruël, H.J.M., Bondarouk, T.V., Looise, J.C. (2004). E-HRM: innovation or irritation? An
exploration of web-based human resource management in five large companies.
Utrecht, The Netherlands. Lemma Publishers.
Schmidt, L. and Hawkins, P. (2008). Children of the tech revolution. Sydney Morning
Herald [online] 15 July 2008. Available at
http://www.smh.com.au/news/parenting/children-of-the-tech-
revolution/2008/07/15/1215887601694.html. Accessed 11 July 2011.
Scott, P. R. and Jacka, J. M. (2011). Auditing Social Media: A Governance and Risk Guide,
John Wiley & Sons.
Sherif, K., Hoffman, J. and Thomas, B. (2006). Can technology build organizational social
capital? The case of a global IT consulting firm. Information and Management 43(7):
795-804.
Smith, A. and Rainie, L. (2010). 8% of online Americans use Twitter. Pew Research Center‘s
Internet & American Life Project [online] 9 December 2010. Retrieved 30 June 2011
from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Twitter-Update-2010.aspx.
56
Song, X., Chi, Y., Hino, K. and Tseng, B. L. (2007). Identifying Opinion Leaders in the
Blogosphere. Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM Conference on Conference on
Information and Knowledge Management: 971-974.
Steinfield, C., DiMicco, J. M., Ellison, N. B. and Lampe, C. (2009). Bowling Online: Social
Networking and Social Capital within the Organization. Fourth International
Conference on Communities and Technologies [online] June 2009. The Pennsylvania
State University, New York. Retrieved 2 February 2011 from
https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/SteinfieldDiMiccoEllisonLampe2009.pdf.
Syedain, H. (2011). Interview with Debbie Meech, Cable & Wireless Worldwide. People
Management. July 2011: 29-31.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J. and Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational
Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and
Intrinsic Values Decreasing. Journal of Management 36(5): 1117-1142.
Van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society: Social aspects of new media. 2nd edition. London:
Sage.
Vitak, J., Ellison, N., and Steinfield, C. (2011). The ties that bond: Re-examining the
relationship between Facebook use and bonding social capital. Proceedings of the
44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Computer Society
Press.
Wajcman, J. (2002). Addressing Technological Change: The Challenge to Social Theory.
Current Sociology. May 2002 50(3): 347–363.
Wellman, B. (2001a). Physical Place and Cyber Place: The Rise of Personalized Networking.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25(2): 227-252.
Wellman, B. (2001b). The Persistence and Transformation of Community: From
Neighbourhood Groups to Social Networks. Report to the Law Commission of
Canada. October 2001: 1-96.
Williamson, B. (2009). Managing at a Distance. Business Week [online] 24 July 2009.
Retrieved 25 June 2011 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ MANAGING AT A
DISTANCE-a01611946236.
Zickuhr, K. (2010). Generations 2010. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 16 Dec 2010.
Retrieved 31 July 2011 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Generations_and_Tech1
0.pdf.
57
9. Bibliography
Adler, P. S. and Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The
Academy of Management Review 27(1): 17-40.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000). Measuring Social Capital: current collections and
future directions [online] November 2000. Available at
http://www.abs.gov.au/852563C30080E02A/0/6CD8B1F3F270566ACA25699F0015
A02A?Open. Accessed 27 July 2011.
Baker, J. R. and S. M. Moore (2008). Blogging as a Social Tool: A Psychosocial
Examination of the Effects of Blogging. Cyberpsychology and Behavior 11: 747-749.
Barabási, A.-L. (2003). Linked. How Everything is Connected to Everything else and What it
means for Business, Science and Everyday Life. New York. Plume Books.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A. and Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can You See the Real Me?
Activation and Expression of the “True Self” on the Internet. Journal of Social
Issues 58(1): 33–48.
Becker, C. (2010). IBM‟s Beehive: Internal Social Networking. The Social Employee [blog]
10 October 2010. Available at http://beckercv.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/ibm/.
Accessed 12 July 2011.
Bennis, W. G. (1966). Changing Organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2
(3): 247-263
Berry, D. M. (2004). Internet research: privacy, ethics and alienation: an open source
approach. Internet Research 14(4): 323-332.
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago.
University of Chicago Press.
Burt, R. S. (1999). The Social Capital of Opinion Leaders. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 566(1): 37-54.
Castells, M. (2000). Toward a Sociology of the Network Society. Contemporary
Sociology 29(5): 693-699.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press Cambridge.
Cummings, J., Butler, B. and Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social
relationships. Communication of the ACM 45: 103-108.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E. W., Neuman, R. and Robinson, J.P. (2001). Social Implications
of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 307-336.
58
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C. and Shafer, S. (2004). From Unequal Access to
Differentiated Use: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research on Digital
Inequality. In Social Inequality. Edited by Kathryn Neckerman. New York, Russell
Sage Foundation: 355-400.
Donath, J. and Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology
Journal 22(4): 71-82.
Drentea, P. and Moren-Cross, J. L. (2005). Social capital and social support on the web: the
case of an internet mother site. Sociology of Health & Illness 27(7): 920–943.
Fulk, J. and DeSanctis, G. (1995). Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational
Forms. Organization Science 6(4): 337-349.
Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T. and Swanberg, J. E. (1997). The 1997 National Study of the
Changing Workforce, Families and Work Institute publications.
Greve, A., Benassi, M. and Sti, A. D. (2010). Exploring the contributions of human and
social capital to productivity. International Review of Sociology: Revue
Internationale de Sociologie 20(1): 35-58.
Hall, P. A. (1999). Social Capital in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 29(3): 417-
461.
Healy, T. and Côté, S. (2001). The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social
Capital, OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation [online]. Retrieved 3
July 2011 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/40/33703702.pdf.
Hendrickson, A. R. (2003). Human Resource Information Systems: Backbone Technology of
Contemporary Human Resources. Journal of Labor Research 24(3): 382- 394.
Hickson, D. J., Pugh, D. S. and Pheysey, D. C. (1969). Operations Technology and
Organization Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal. Administrative Science
Quarterly 14(3): 378-397.
Hiltz, S. R. and Turoff, M. (1993). Network Nation - Revised Edition: Human
Communication via Computer. The MIT Press.
Jones, S. (2002). The Internet Goes to College. Washington, DC, Pew Internet &
American Life Project [online]. Available at
http://www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=71. Accessed 1 July 2011.
Katz, J. and Aspden, P. (1997). A nation of strangers? Communications of the ACM 40(12):
81-88.
Kelan, E. K. (2010). Boundary-Work: Conceptualizing the Virtual and the Real in Young
Professional‟s Talk. 26th EGOS Colloquium, Lisbon, 1- 3 July 2010, Sub-theme 06:
Assembling Global and Local – Practice-Based Studies of Globalization in
Organization.
59
Kelan, E. K. (2008). Learning from Generation X‟s Mistakes - Generational and Gender
Transformations. Personnel Today [online]. 14 September 2008. Retrieved 31 July
2011 from
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/article.aspx?liarticleid=47302&printerfriendl
y=true.
Knack, S. and P. Keefer (1997). Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-
Country Investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4): 1251-1288.
Kraut, R. E., Fish, R. S. Root, R. W. and Chalfonte, B. L. (2002). Informal Communication
in Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology. in Human reactions to
technology: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Editors: S. Oskamp
and S. Spacapan. Beverly Hills, CA. Sage Publications: 145-199.
Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T. Szczypula, J. Kiesler, S. and Scherlis, B. (1999).
Communication and information: Alternative uses of the Internet in
households. Information Systems Research 10(4): 287–303.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22(1): 28-51.
Liukkonen, V., Virtanen, P., Kivima, P., Pentti, J. and Vahtera, J. (2004). Social capital in
working life and the health of employees. Social Science & Medicine 59(12): 2447-
2458.
Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic Mail As the Medium of Managerial Choice. Organization
Science 5(4): 502-527.
McKenna, K. Y. A. and Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 From Cyberspace: The Implications of
the Internet for Personality and Social Psychology. Personality and Social
Psychology Review 4(1): 57-75.
Mehnert, R. and Cravedi, K.. (2001). From the Telegraph to the Internet and Beyond, "The
Once and Future Web" Takes a Byte Out of Communications History. National
Institute of Health [online]. Available at http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2001/nlm-
21.htm. Accessed 28 June 2011.
Onyx, J. and P. Bullen (2000). Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 36(1): 23-42.
Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for
Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science 11(4): 404–428.
Park, N., K. F. Kee and Valenzuela S. (2009). Being Immersed in Social Networking
Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior 12(6): 729-733.
Robinson, L.J., Schmid, A.A., Siles, M.E. (2002). Is social capital really capital? Review of
Social Economy 60 (1): 1 – 21.
60
Rosenbloom, R. S. (1964). Men and Machines: Some 19th-Century Analyses of
Mechanization. Technology and Culture 5(4): 489-511.
Standage, T. (1999). The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the
Nineteenth Century's Online Pioneers. New York. Berkley Trade.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L. and Liden, R. C. (2001). A Social Capital Theory of Career
Success. The Academy of Management Journal 44(2): 219-237.
Siisiäinen, M. (2000). Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam. Paper
presented at ISTR Fourth International Conference "The Third Sector: For What and
for Whom?" Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved 3 July 2011 from
http://www.istr.org/conferences/dublin/workingpapers/siisiainen.pdf.
Simon, H. A. (1973). Applying Information Technology to Organization Design. Public
Administration Review 33(3): 268-278.
Sobel, J. (2002). Can We Trust Social Capital? Journal of Economic Literature 40(1): 139-
154.
Svendsen, G. L. H. and Svendsen, G. T. (2003). On the Wealth of Nations:
Bourdieuconomics and Social Capital. Theory and Society - Special Issue on The
Sociology of Symbolic. A Special Issue in Memory of Pierre Bourdieu 32(5/6): 607-
631.
Sylva, H. and Mol, S. T. (2009). E-Recruitment: A study into applicant perceptions of an
online application system. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 17(3):
311-323.
TUC (2007). Briefing on online social networking and Human Resources. Trade Union
Congress [online] Retrieved 3 July 2011
from http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/facinguptoFacebook.pdf.
Wajcman, J. (2010). Further reflections on the sociology of technology and time: a response
to Hassan. The British Journal of Sociology 61(2): 375–381.
Wajcman, J., Bittman, M. and Brown, J. E. (2009). Intimate connections: the impact of the
mobile phone on work/life boundaries. in Mobile technologies: from
telecommunications to media. Editors: G. Goggin and L. Hjorth. London, UK.
Routledge: 9-22.
Wajcman, J., Rose, E., Brown, J. E. and Bittman, M. (2010). Enacting virtual connections
between work and home. Journal of Sociology 46(3): 257-275.
Weaver, A. C. and Morrison, B. B. (2008). Social Networking. Computer 41(2): 97-100.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. and Roos, D. (2007). The Machine That Changed the World.
London. Simon & Schuster Ltd.
61
Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. (2000). Social Capital: Implications for Development
Theory, Research, and Policy. The World Bank Research Observer 15(2): 225-249.
Young, K. (2010). Policies and procedures to manage employee Internet abuse. Computers
in Human Behavior 26(6): 1467–1471.
62
10. Appendices
10.1 Appendix 1 – Glossary of terms and definitions
Applications – ―Pieces of software usually created by third party developers that interact
with the core features of a social networking site. Examples include mini-games, film trivia
quizzes and online travel maps‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 64).
Avatar – ―A computer user‘s graphical representation of him or herself. An avatar can be
two or three-dimensional‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 64).
Bebo – ―One of the three most popular social networking sites in the UK, founded in 2005‖
(Ofcom, 2008: 64).
Blog – ―customisable personal websites that allow the user to contribute regular or irregular
entries that are displayed on the site in reverse chronological order. Depending on the
blogging software or service used, entries may include video and other rich media. Visitors to
a personal blog can typically post comments to specific entries and can also elect to be
automatically notified whenever a new entry has been posted by subscribing to a blog‘s feed.
Blogs may be used in isolation or integrated with other Web 2.0 technologies and services
(e.g. most social networking sites include blogging tools). A wide range of commercial,
community and open source blogging sites and tools is available.‖ (Kennedy et al, 2007:
518).
Content communities - Communities which organise and share certain specific content, such
as videos in video sharing sites (e.g. Youtube), bookmarked links (e.g. CiteULike) and photos
on photo sharing sites (e.g. Picasa) (Mayfield, 2008).
Cyberbullying – ―Term used to describe bullying committed on the internet‖ (Ofcom, 2008:
64).
Early adopter – ―Someone who embraces new technologies before the majority of the rest of
the population do‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 64).
Facebook – ―One of the three most popular social networking sites in the UK, founded in
2004‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 64).
Flickr – ―A social networking site based around photo sharing‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 64).
Forums - areas for online debate about particular topics and interests - they were a popular
element of online communities before the term social media and social networking site
started to be used (Mayfield, 2008).
Friend – ―Anyone who either accepts an invitation from another social networking site user
to be friends, or who accepts an invitation from another user. When a user adds someone as a
friend, their connection is displayed on the user‘s friend list. On social networking sites a
friend can be an offline friend, a family member, an acquaintance, a friend of a friend, or
someone who you have never met before‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 64).
ICT – ―Information and communications technology‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 64).
63
LinkedIn – ―A social networking site based around business networking‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 64).
Member community – ―A category of website used by Nielsen Online. Examples include
Bebo, Facebook, MySpace and Blogger‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 65).
Microblogging - social networking with ―bite-sized‖ blogging, individuals share updates that
can be accessed via mobile or computer (Mayfield, 2008).
MSN groups – ―An online community site created by Microsoft in 1995‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 65).
Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) - ―An online computer game which
is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. Examples include
Second Life, Runescape and World of Warcraft‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 64).
MySpace – ―One of the three most popular social networking sites in the UK, founded in
2003‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 65).
News feeds – ―A Facebook news feed appears on individual Facebook uders‘home pages.
The Facebook News Feed displays a variety of different content streams, including: post from
friends, colleagues and groups; photos and videos; most recent news and highlighted items;
updates from games and software applications‖ (Boswell: online).
Nielsen Online – ―Internet media and market research firm that provides online audience
figures‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 65).
Podcasts - Digital audio and video files that are available online and can be downloaded into
an MP3 player or computer (Mayfield, 2008).
Profile – ―The personal homepage on a social networking site, usually including information
about a user, photos, and their friend list. Profiles form the basis of social networking sites‖
(Ofcom, 2008: 65).
Second Life – ―A Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game based around a virtual
world. Users create an avatar and meet others, socialise and create and trade items. Launched
in 2003‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 65).
Skype – ―A software programme that allows users to make telephone and video calls over the
internet‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 65).
Social media - Social media, as the name suggests, is media for social interaction, the use of
web-based and mobile technologies to turn communication into an interactive dialogue,
democratizing content, giving users the capacity to become content originators (Scott and
Jacka, 2011).
Social Networking Site (SNS) – ―A site which allows users to create a personal page or
profile and construct and display a social network of their online contacts‖ (Ofcom, 2008:
65).
64
User-Generated Content (UGC) – ―Online content that is produced by the users or
consumers of the site. Examples of UGC include blogs, and photos and videos that users
upload‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 65).
Virtual game worlds - e.g. WeeWorld – see Virtual worlds
Virtual social worlds - e.g. Second Life see Virtual worlds
Virtual worlds - have been created for its users to inhabit and interact, a virtual space where
users are represented by avatars that are graphically visible to others, these are ‗Massively
multiplayer online role-playing game‘ (MMORPG) - a genre of role-playing video game in
which a very large quantity of players interact within a virtual game world. MMORPG can
also be virtual social worlds that do not have set objectives or conventional game rules, they
are a wide-ranging world that can be explored and interacted with (Kaplan and Haenlein,
2010).
Web 2.0 – In 2004 the term ‗Web 2.0‘ was officially coined by Dale Dougherty, vice-
president of O‘Reilly Media Inc. (O‘Reilly, 2005). It is a concept defined differently by a
variety of fields of study and popularly associated with blogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds etc.
These tools assist a more socially connected Web, as it is possible to add to and edit the
information space. ―The longer answer is rather more complicated and pulls in economics,
technology and new ideas about the connected society. To some, though, it is simply a time
to invest in technology again—a time of renewed exuberance after the dot-com bust‖
(Anderson, 2007: online). Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, creation, and
dissemination capabilities that were impossible in the Web 1.0 environment.
Wikis – ―World Wide Web (WWW) site that can be modified or contributed to by
users. Wikis can be dated to 1995, when American computer programmer Ward Cunningham
created a new collaborative technology for organizing information on Web sites‖
(Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011: online).
YouTube – ―A popular video sharing site founded in 2005‖ (Ofcom, 2008: 65).
65
10.2 Appendix 2 – Pre-interview Questionnaire
1. Please enter your unique code to continue:
The Organisation
2. About the Organisation you work for
Nature of Business:
Number of employees in the UK:
Multi-national Y/N:
Internet Access/Social Media Use
3. Do you access the Internet
Every day [ ]
3-5 times a week [ ]
2-3 times a week [ ]
Once a week [ ]
Less often [ ]
4. On Average, how much time do you spend on social media?
More than 5 hours a day [ ]
3-5 hours a day [ ]
1-3 hours a day [ ]
Less than 1 hour a day [ ]
Several hours a week [ ]
A few hours a week [ ]
Rarely [ ]
5. Roughly, how long have you been using social media? (the one used more often)
Less than one year: ____ 1- 3years: ____ 3- 5 years: ____5- 9 years: ___
6. Which of these social networking sites are you a member of? Please tick all that apply.
Bebo [ ]
Facebook [ ]
LinkedIn [ ]
My Space [ ]
Orkut [ ]
Twitter [ ]
Other (Please specify)
_____________________________
66
7. Do you have a blog? Y/N:
8. Do you engage in one or more of the following activities on a regular basis:
Instant messaging [ ]
Video viewing [ ]
Online communities [ ]
Peer-to-peer networking [ ]
Ratings/reviews [ ]
Forums [ ]
Other (please specify):_______________
Personal information:
9. Employment details
Main activity:
Position in the Company:
Tenure:
10. Personal data
What are your qualifications?
[ ] GCSEs grades A*-C (or equivalent)
[ ] A levels (or equivalent)
[ ] Certificates of Higher Education (or equivalent)
[ ] Degree qualification
[ ] Post Graduate qualification
Age:
67
10.3 Appendix 3 – Interview Guide
Introductory Question
Do you have a social media routine? Today/yesterday, for example, when and how
did you access your Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter pages? Do you have mobile access
to the Internet?
Teamwork and networking
Do you believe that your organisation invest in team work and networking?
Do you believe that your goals are more achievable if you work as a group? Can you
achieve your goals regardless of how well your group performs?
Does your organization provide an online network platform (with the possibility of
having a profile, share photos and videos, a blog app, etc)? Do you participate/would
you participate?
Organisation approach
How would you describe your organisation approach to the use of the Internet? And
social media? Has the approach changed? Has this change been a reflection of a
particular event?
Are there clear Internet and social media policies in place? To what extent do you feel
they are well communicated? Do you know who (which department) owns the
policies?
How do you feel about the Internet/social media policies at work?
How would you feel if you had more/less access to the internet/social media at work?
Social Capital
The Internet and online social networking has been taken up extremely quickly. To
what extend do you feel that you are building online-networks an expanding your
contacts digitally?
How important is social networking in your life? Can you imagine living without the
internet? And online social networking? To what extent do you consider yourself
active in the digital world?
Could you give an example of a situation where you asked and received help from
online friends in order to resolve a problem? Or could you describe a particular event
that you have used your online contacts for help?
Concluding question
Do you have anything else to add?
68
10.4 Appendix 4 – Social Media List
Social media can take on many different forms, including Internet forums, weblogs, social
blogs, microblogging, wikis, podcasts, photographs or pictures, video, rating and social
bookmarking.
Communication
Blogs
Microblogging: Twitter, Qaiku, Google Buzz, Identi.ca
Location-based social networks: Facebook places, The Hotlist, Google Latitude
Social networking: Bebo, Facebook, Hi5, LinkedIn, MySpace, Orkut
Collaboration/authority building
Wikis: PBworks, Wetpaint, Wikia, Wikimedia, Wikispaces
Social bookmarking: CiteULike, Google Reader, StumbleUpon, folkd
Multimedia
Photography and art sharing: Flickr, Photobucket, Picasa, SmugMug, Zooomr
Video sharing: sevenload, Viddler, Vimeo, YouTube, Dailymotion, Metacafe
Music and audio sharing: ccMixter, Pandora Radio, Spotify, Last.fm, Groove Shark,
Presentation sharing: scribd, SlideShare, Prezi
Reviews and opinions
Product reviews: epinions.com, MouthShut.com
Business reviews: Customer Lobby, Yelp, Inc.
Community Q&A: EHow, Stack Exchange, WikiAnswers, Yahoo! Answers, ask.com
Entertainment
Virtual worlds: Second Life, The Sims Online, World of Warcraft, RuneScape
Game sharing: Kongregate, Miniclip, Newgrounds, Armor Games
69
10.5 Appendix 5 – Information Sheet
INFORMATION SHEET FOR PARTICIPANTS
REC Protocol Number: KCL/10-11_1473
YOU WILL BE GIVEN A COPY OF THIS INFORMATION SHEET
―Analysis of the Development of Internet and Social Media HR Policies – Are Policies
Hindering or Enhancing the Acquisition and Use of Employees‘ Virtual Social Capital?‖
We would like to invite you to participate in this original postgraduate research project. You
should only participate if you want to; choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in
any way. Before you decide whether you want to take part, it is important for you to
understand why the research is being done and what your participation will involve. Please
take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish.
Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information.
The aim of this study is to examine the development of social media human resource policies
associated with the increased use of online social media by individuals and organizations.
Recent surveys have demonstrated that the use of social networking sites (SNSs) has grown
considerably in the UK in recent years and are widely used by both employees and
employers. Within this context this research study seeks to shed light on the nature and
incidence of human resource policies and practices governing the use of online social media
in workplaces in the UK.
The research is in the form of an interview and should take approximately 30-40 minutes to
be conducted should you wish to participate in the study. Before the interview participants
will be asked to answer a short online questionnaire in order to gather basic information. The
study may also require following tweets and/or post in micro-blogs, blogs and social
networking sites.
You may withdraw your data from the project at any time up until it is transcribed for
use in the final report on 29th
July 2011.
Interviews will be recorded, subject to your permission. Recordings of interviews
will be deleted upon transcription.
Returning the pre-interview questionnaire does not imply consent to participate.
Consent to participate will be sought on the day of the interview and will only be used
if the interview takes place.
Participation is anonymous and only the interviewer can access interviews transcripts
and pre-interview questionnaires; anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained,
pseudonyms will be allocated to all participants and organisations will only be
referred by their nature of business;
Interviews would take place on-site, at the participant's workplace;
Research data will not be used for any other purpose than for the masters‘
dissertation; All data will be held confidentially in accordance with the Data
Protection Act 1998;
If you do decide to take part you will be given this information sheet to keep and be
asked to sign a consent form.
70
It is up to you to decide whether to take part or not.
If this study has harmed you in any way you can contact King's College London using the
details below for further advice and information:
Researcher: Ana Carboni-Brito, [email protected]
Supervisor: Dr Elisabeth Kelan, [email protected]
Many thanks in advance for any help you may be able to offer regarding participation in this
study.
Ana Carboni-Brito
Postgraduate Student - MSc Human Resources Management and Organisational Analysis
71
10.6 Appendix 6 – Consent Form
CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH STUDIES
Please complete this form after you have read the Information Sheet and/or listened to an
explanation about the research.
Title of Study: ―Analysis of the Development of Internet and Social Media HR Policies – Are
Policies Hindering or Enhancing the Acquisition and Use of Employees‘ Virtual Social
Capital?‖
King‘s College Research Ethics Committee Ref: KCL/10-11_1473
Thank you for considering taking part in this research. The person organizing the research
must explain the project to you before you agree to take part. If you have any questions
arising from the Information Sheet or explanation already given to you, please ask the
researcher before you decide whether to join in. You will be given a copy of this Consent
Form to keep and refer to at any time.
The information you have submitted will be published as a report. Please note that
confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained and it will not be possible to identify you
from any publications. Pseudonyms will be allocated to all participants and organisations
will only be referred by their nature of business.
I understand that if I decide at any time during the research that I no longer wish to
participate in this project, I can notify the researchers involved and withdraw from it
immediately without giving any reason. Furthermore, I understand that I will be able
to withdraw my data up to 29th
July 2011.
I consent to my interview being recorded.
I consent to the following of my tweets and/or posts in micro-blogs, blogs and social
networking sites.
I consent to the processing of my personal information for the purposes explained to
me. I understand that such information will be treated in accordance with the terms of
the Data Protection Act 1998.
Participant‘s Statement:
I _____________________________________________________________________
agree that the research project named above has been explained to me to my satisfaction and I
agree to take part in the study. I have read both the notes written above and the Information
Sheet about the project, and understand what the research study involves.
Signed Date
Please tick or initial