A New Technology: The Online Social Networks
The technology that applied to this study was social networks. The interest towards this technology rose from its increased usage in the last few years. The usage has not only increased in the average person but it has also influenced some business models and how people interact with each other in the workplace.
These online communities have helped people to interact with each other and build online communities of people that share the same interests (Kluemper & Rosen, 2009;
Smith & Kidder, 2010).
There are various activities that can be performed in a social networking site, e.g.
people can upload pictures and videos, share status updates, share location updates, being tagged in others’ pictures and videos, share links and information, etc. All the content in the social networking sites is user driven, which means that all the content uploaded in a person’s profile has been provided by this user or friends of the user.
Grubbs and Milne (2010) note that social networks give the users a platform which serves as a means of self-expression, and this websites also helps people create a social sphere. Some researchers claim that for young users Facebook plays the role of an anchor, and young users tend to create identities that are their desired selves; they misrepresent themselves with the hope that they will soon become that person presented in their online profiles (Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008).
Social networking sites help people connect to people they already know as well as to make connections through friends of friends (Kluemper & Rosen, 2009). People connect to each other through the social networks by inviting others to become their
10
friends as by receiving friend requests’ by others. People need to approve these requests for the profile information of this user to become available to the other party (Boyd, 2007).
Online social networks have been the center of many discussions and debates, issues such as privacy and ethics have been raised in such discussions.
Social Networks and HR
According to the current information, Facebook is the most popular social network site. There are over two hundred social networking sites, that differ in their focus and their audience. There are sites for specific countries such as China, South Korea and Norway to mention some. There are also sites that focus on traveling, cooking, sports, and others. However, the final purpose of all is to facilitate users socialize and share common interests.
According to Hachman (2012), “Facebook number of users’ has reached 901 million worldwide by April 2012, up 32.5 percent from the same period in year 2011.
The company's daily active users, meanwhile, increased to 526 million, up 41.4 percent”
(para. 3).
Facebook was created in 2004 by a Harvard student for intra-campus socialization;
Facebook quickly spread to other university campuses and soon became the most popular social networking site among college students in the US (Cassidy, 2006).
There are many other social network sites, such as LinkedIn. According to the
“About Us” section in the website as of August, 2012, LinkedIn operates the world’s largest professional network on the Internet with more than 175 million members in over 200 countries and territories. LinkedIn was officially launched on May 5, 2003. At
11
the end of the first month in operation, LinkedIn had a total of 4,500 members in the network and as time has passed their members have increased (LinkedIn.com, 2012).
This website has a lot of the same features of Facebook; however it tries to create professional connections and is more business oriented; this website also offers the advantage to users that they can create professionally-oriented searches.
According to Alexa.com, a webpage information company, Facebook is the number one ranked webpage, even in front of the renowned search engine Google.
LinkedIn is ranked number 12; this website presents us with clear evidence of the importance of these websites in people’s day to day lives (Alexa.com, 2009).
Social networking sites have become extremely popular among human resource practitioners; Careerbuilder.com (2012) conducted a survey in which companies acknowledged of their use of social networking sites to research their job candidates.
Of the companies that reported not to use these sites many of them reported a willingness to use them in the near future; some others reported that their companies already prohibit the practice of researching candidates through these social sites.
Many Human Resource practitioners have decided to employ the new practice of researching their candidates through these social networks in order to get a clearer and broader perspective on their job applicants. Some companies claim to research a candidate before they are called for an interview and others after the interview to corroborate information provided by the candidates.
Social networks have proven to be a valuable tool to get a better perspective on the job applicants, and Human Resource practitioners claim that the information gathered
12
on the social networks has helped them improve their hiring decisions. (Athavaley, 2007; Matejkovic & Matejkovic, 2006; Murphy, 2007)
Besides utilizing the social networks to research candidates, they are also being utilized by HR practitioners to reach potential candidates and communicate with them.
Sometimes candidates decide to reach a company they believe is desirable to work for through their company’s social network profile; these profiles serve as a platform for candidates to communicate with potential employers and for employers to communicate with potential candidates.
Daniel (2005) and Doherty (2010) have claimed in their studies that the use of social networking sites also helps employers to reach those passive job seekers (those who are currently employed and not looking for a job, highly qualified, without updated CV). This is why many employers rely on information on the social networks because this is the information that is mostly up to date and most accurate because it has been provided by the owner of the profile.
The use of social networks has also been validated; Kluemper & Rosen (2009) conducted a study on evaluating the effectiveness of using social networks for screening candidates. In their study they trained people to read profiles and then these people were asked to make staffing decisions based on the social profile. People were able to accurately predict most of the profiles and to distinguish between high and low performers. This study provides a lot of value to the use of social networks in staffing organizations, since it shows that as long as people is provided with the right training they are able to use the social network to make more adequate decisions on the profile owners.
13
Even though many HR practitioners are utilizing the social networks to conduct staffing activities for their organizations, the issue of ethics should also be raised, as people invade their candidates’ privacy in order to learn information from them. They are arriving at an existing gray area, where right and wrong is unclear. Studies have stated that “Employers may claim that it is fair to use Facebook to screen applicants, but they should be careful. Some believe that in the future the legal system will say the employer must show that such use of Facebook did not enter into its hiring decisions”
(Lory, B. 2010, p. 40).
The Technology Acceptance Model
There is a vast body of research in the Information Systems field to understand user acceptance of a new technology, it is said that it is one of the most mature areas of research in the IS literature (Hu, Chau, Sheng & Tan, 1999).
Srite and Karahanna (2006) argue that of the various models used in IS to study acceptance of technology—the theory of reasoned action (TRA), the theory of planned behavior (TPB), and the technology acceptance model (TAM)—TAM is arguably the most widely accepted. Besides, Venkatesh (1999) argues that TAM compares favorably with alternative models such as the TRA and the TPB.
The Technology Acceptance Model was developed by Davis (1985) as an attempt to improve our understanding of user acceptance process of a new technology and to provide theoretical basis for a practical methodology for testing user acceptance. This model incorporates factors such as perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, from here on referred to PU and PEOU respectively, to explain both the attitudes toward a new technology and the actual usage of the technology.
14
“According to the model a potential user’s overall attitude toward using a given system is hypothesized to be a major determinant of whether or not he actually uses it. Attitude toward using, in turn, is a function of two major beliefs: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived ease of use has a casual effect on perceived usefulness” (Davis, 1985 p. 24).
The importance of this model is based on the fact that performance gains are often lost to the unwillingness of users to accept available systems that could help enhance their performance on the job (Bowen, 1986; Young, 1984).
The model is based on two main beliefs. First, the belief that a system will help people to improve their job performance will increase their intention to use the system and actual use of the system. Second, the belief that a system is easy to use will increase their intention to use the system and actual use of the system.
Davis (1985) defines these two beliefs as Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. PU is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance”. PEOU on the other hand is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort”.
Besides, the model was based on the existing measurements of MIS success, such as actual system usage, user attitudes, and performance impacts. These measurements are the most accepted criteria for system success. (Alavy & Henderson, 1981; Bailey &
Person, 1983; Ginzberg, 1981).
TAM was extended to include both social influence processes (subjective norm, voluntariness, and image) and cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output
15
quality, results demonstrability and perceived ease of use). This new model is now referred to as TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
The present study uses both the original TAM and one of the new constructs of the extended model TAM2, subjective norm. This construct has been chosen since online social networks are believed to possess a social aspect that could create an effect in the acceptance of this new technology.
Subjective Norm, later referred to as SN, is defined as “a person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behavior in question” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 302). In the case of online social networks, the consideration of other people thinking that the use of these networks will enhance the results of the staffing activities within the organization might increase the usage of the technology.
The Behavioral Intention dimension is based on the Theory of Reasoned Action, it states that intentions lead to action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). It is assumed that people who intend to use a system will later perform a behavior of usage.
TAM has been widely applied to a diverse set of technologies and users; for a summary on these studies refer to King and He (2006), who conducted a meta-analysis on TAM. Besides, there are studies that have been conducted to understand the moderating effects of factors such as age, gender, experience, voluntariness and culture in the technology acceptance sphere. Table 1 presents a summary of the variables that have been proposed and tested as moderators of immediate antecedents of behavioral intention.
16 Table 2.1.
TAM Moderators
Moderator Relationship Moderated Study
Experience Experience found not to moderate Davis et al., 1989 Attitude- Bl
Affect-Utilization
Karahanna et al., 1999; Taylor and Todd 1995; Thompson et al., 1994 SN-BI
Social Factors-Utilization
Karahanna et al. 1999; Morris and Venkatesh 2000; Taylor and Todd 1995;
Thompson et al. 1994; Venkatesh, Morris & Ackerman, 2000
Perceived Usefulness – Bl Taylor and Todd 1995 Ease of Use- Bl
Complexity Utilization
Davis et al. 1989;
Szajna 1996;
Thompson et al. 1994 Behavioral Beliefs-Attitude Karahanna et al. 1999 Long-term consequences-Utilization Thompson et al. 1994 PBC- Bl
Facilitating Conditions-Utilization
Taylor and Todd 1995;Thompson et al.
1994
Voluntariness SN-BI Hartwick and Barki 1994; Venkatesh and
Davis 2000; Venkatesh, Morris a n d A c k e r m a n , 2000.
Gender SN-BI Venkatesh, Morris and Ackerman 2000;
Venkatesh et al., 2003
Attitude – Bl Venkatesh et al. 2003
PBC- Bl Venkatesh et al. 2003
Perceived Usefulness- Bl Venkatesh, Morris a n d A c k e r m a n , 2000 Age x Experience Facilitating Conditions - Use
Behavior
*SN =Subjective Norms; Bl =Behavioral Intention; PBC =Perceived Behavioral Control
Note. Taken from “The Role of Espoused National Cultural Values in Technology Acceptance,”
by Srite, M. and Karahanna, E. 2006, MIS Quarterly, 30(3), p. 684.
17
The Cultural Construct What is Culture?
The most common definition of culture is that of Hofstede. To him, culture is “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 260). It is like saying that people are computers, every computer has different programs or software that will allow them to function in certain way, so culture is like those programs in people’s minds.
These programs will make us react one way or another. Some cultures will be more conflict oriented while some others will be all about saving face. According to Hofstede (1980) culture exists in the second level of the human mental programming, which is the collective level. In this level we belong to some groups or categories, and this will make us act or behave like those in our group. He argues that at the collective level, we learned most of our mental programming, so this makes us behave like those around us.
Even though Hofstede’s definition of culture is the most widely used, others have studied culture and have increased our understanding of the different aspects of culture.
Geertz, a famous anthropologist, defined culture as “a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which [individuals] communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz, 1973, p. 89).
Clearly there are concepts shared in both definitions, Geertz referred to the inherited side of culture, which means that we learn a culture from our parents and these in turn learned it from their parents, and so on. This inherited concept of culture is very important and relevant.
18
Schein defined culture as “the sum total of all the shared, taken-for-granted assumptions that a group has learned throughout its history” (Schein, 1986, p. 29).
Schein on the other hand raised the issue of taken-for-granted, as many others who have studied culture, he raised the issue of invisibility. Culture is difficult to see with our eyes and culture is something you experience and learn, since we learn culture in our day to day. We don’t see it and it is also difficult to define it or create delimitations to cultures.
Schein (1994) further developed on the concept of taken-for-granted when he said that you can only understand a group’s culture when you immerse yourself in the culture for an extended period of time. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to understand a culture and you could even draw false conclusions about the culture, its’ beliefs and behaviors.
Even though there are many definitions of culture, in this study we will focus on Hofstede’s definition of culture and his five cultural dimensions. Many would argue that this approach is not the best approach. It is of the authors knowledge that Hofstede’s research received a lot of criticism from studies such as Erez and Earley, (1993), Myers and Tan, (2002), Tayeb, (1994). However Hofstede’s influence on management research has been extensive (Sondergaard, 1994), and his cultural dimensions are the backbone of many of the existing cross-cultural management and information systems research (Ford, Connelly & Meister, 2003).
Hofstede (1980) surveyed 116,000 employees at IBM. He analyzed these data and developed four cultural dimensions that created differences among employees of the different IBM offices. Later, Hofstede and Bond (1988) created a fifth dimension; the five dimensions are discussed below.
19
Individualism/Collectivism: this dimension discusses how different societies handle their relationship between the individual and the collectivity. It defines the relationships and the importance placed on the individual versus the group. One way of looking at this dimension is looking at families. Some families live with their nuclear family (father, mother, and children), while others live closer to their extended families (grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins); this shows the importance that is placed on the individual or the collectivity (Hofstede, 1980).
Uncertainty Avoidance: this dimension discusses how different societies handle uncertainty about the future; it includes the discomfort with the unknown and the desire to reduce ambiguity. Hofstede claims that “ways of coping with uncertainty belong to the cultural heritages of societies, and they are transferred and reinforced through basic institutions such as family, schools and the state” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 146).
Power Distance: this dimension discusses how different societies handle inequality; Hofstede claims that inequality can occur in areas such as prestige, wealth, and power. Even though all humans show a dominance behavior, it varies from one society to the other; some societies embrace inequality and some others try to diminish it. Overall, it is important to understand that the stratification systems are culturally dependent (Hofstede, 1980).
Masculinity/Femininity: this dimension discusses how different societies are encouraged to be more goal-oriented or more socially oriented. It discusses both sides of the continuum where in some societies power, achievement and success are more important than caring, consensus and relationships. It doesn’t refer to the literal meaning of the words masculine and feminine but to the figurative meaning of them, and how societies place importance to either side of the continuum (Hofstede, 1980).
20
Long-term/Short-term Orientation: this dimension is based on items of the Confucius teachings, it discusses how different societies value persistence, and thrift to personal stability and respect for tradition. Hofstede states "Long Term Orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift. It’s opposite pole, Short Term Orientation, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present, in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of ‘face’ and fulfilling social obligations” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 359).
Technology Acceptance and Culture
Globalization of businesses has increased the importance of the research on technology acceptance and culture; it has become clear to most of researchers that culture is a critical issue in the acceptance and usage of a new technology, especially because technology facilitates collaborative work across locations and cultures.
Many of the existing research on Information Systems have turned their focus to issues of national, societal or ethnic culture (Gallivan & Srite, 2005). The interest of this research has been to increase their knowledge on the influence of national culture on IT adoption and use (Aladwani, 2003; Davison & Martinsons, 2003).
According to Pliskin, Romm, Lee and Weber (1993), of the different types of technologies, the communication technologies are the ones instilled with a greater cultural content. This is why the recent studies on communication technologies have added the cultural aspect on them. They also claimed that the technologies used to support collaborative work have greater culture content. Different terms have been used to describe these technologies, Sproull and Faraj (1997) called them social technologies.
Becoming culturally aware is critical to the adoption and use of technology, especially to the designers of the newer technologies. The greater their level of cultural