Đề tài nêu lên phương tiện truyền thông xã hội đã phát triển đáng kể trong thời đại của điện thoại thông minh và internet. Các công cụ giao tiếp trên mạng xã hội đã thay đổi sâu sắc toàn bộ cuộc sống và cách mọi người tương tác với người khác và thế giới xung quanh. Dần dần, mạng xã hội bắt đầu có vai trò thiết yếu hơn trong việc xây dựng các cộng đồng, khuyến khích mọi người tham gia vào các nhóm, trao đổi thông tin hoặc kiến thức. Mời các bạn cùng tham khảo!
Trang 1SOCIAL MEDIA USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TEAM CREATIVITY:
THE PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY
AND TEAM CLIMATE FOR INNOVATION THEORY
SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG TIỆN TRUYỀN THÔNG MẠNG XÃ HỘI TRONG MỤC ĐÍCH SÁNG TẠO NHÓM: GÓC NHÌN TỪ THUYẾT HỌC VẤN XÃ HỘI VÀ ĐỔI MỚI TRONG MÔI TRƯỜNG NHÓM
MA, Chu My Giang - MA, Nguyen Minh Tam - MA, Nguyen Cao Lien Phuoc
University of Economic - The University of DaNang
giangcm@due.edu.vn
Abstract
Social media has developed significantly during the era of smartphone and the internet Social media communication tools have profoundly changed the whole life and the way people interact with another and the world around Gradually, social media are beginning to have more essential role in building communities, encourage people to get involved in groups, exchange information or knowledge Because of its advantages, recently, there is a tendency of using social media with educational purpose in which social media usage support to enrich team creativity The use of social media in education provides students with the ability to get more useful information, to connect with learning groups and other educational systems that make education convenient By conceptualizing the social media usage which can promote trust, knowledge creation, absorptive capability, value orientation; the study aims to investigate the impact and relationship of social media usage on team creativity.
Keywords: Social Capital Theory, Social Media Usage, Team Climate For Innovation
Theory, Team Creativity
Tóm tắt
Phương tiện truyền thông xã hội đã phát triển đáng kể trong thời đại của điện thoại thông minh và internet Các công cụ giao tiếp trên mạng xã hội đã thay đổi sâu sắc toàn bộ cuộc sống
và cách mọi người tương tác với người khác và thế giới xung quanh Dần dần, mạng xã hội bắt đầu có vai trò thiết yếu hơn trong việc xây dựng các cộng đồng, khuyến khích mọi người tham gia vào các nhóm, trao đổi thông tin hoặc kiến thức Vì những ưu điểm của nó, gần đây có xu hướng sử dụng mạng xã hội với mục đích giáo dục, trong đó việc sử dụng mạng xã hội hỗ trợ để làm phong phú thêm khả năng sáng tạo của đội nhóm Việc sử dụng phương tiện truyền thông xã hội trong giáo dục cung cấp cho học sinh khả năng nhận được nhiều thông tin hữu ích hơn, kết nối với các nhóm học tập và các hệ thống giáo dục khác giúp giáo dục trở nên thuận tiện Bằng cách khái niệm hóa việc sử dụng phương tiện truyền thông xã hội có thể thúc đẩy sự tin tưởng, sáng tạo kiến thức, khả năng hấp thụ, định hướng giá trị; nghiên cứu nhằm mục đích điều tra tác động và mối quan hệ của việc sử dụng mạng xã hội đối với sự sáng tạo của nhóm.
Trang 2Từ khóa: Thuyết học vốn xã hội, Sử dụng phương tiện truyền thông xã hội, Môi trường
nhóm trong thuyết học đổi mới, Sáng tạo nhóm
1 Introduction
Social media was defined as web-service that allows people to construct a profile either public or semi-public within a bounded system, then that web-service allows people to share a connection between each other and enables them to view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (Boyd & Ellison, 2007) Among social media, Facebook is considered as the most popular and useful one Founded in 2004, Facebook is currently the biggest social networking service based on global reach and total active users It is worth noticing that recently, Facebook has become a useful tool supporting interaction, connection, and working of teams Almost all teachers, students, or even workers take these advantages of social media to enhance team working Therefore, researchers and practitioners must understand how social media usage develops effectiveness and creativity in a team by finding out the relationship among related factors Previous studies discovered that social media usage had influences in team creativity through building trust and sharing knowledge The research recently developed a theoretical framework to explain how social media usage influenced team creativity through cognitive trust and affective trust (Xiling Cui, Xuan Yang, Libo Liu, Xi Cun & Daning Hu, 2018) This study can contribute to Facebook literature in several ways First
of all, from the perspective of social capital theory, this study indicates the role of social media usage in enhancing trust, creating knowledge, and absorptive capability in the team Moreover, based on the theory of team climate for innovation, value orientation has been implicitly recognized, which enable to positively relating to team creativity Secondly, the study describes the relationship among trust, collaborative culture, and team creativity In addition, this study shows that creativity is obtained from building trust, gaining knowledge, and collecting collectivistic value orientation in a team Thirdly, the research provides a complete understanding
of how team working on Facebook can enrich innovative ideas, which in turn lead to team creativity
2 Conceptual background
2.1 Social capital theory
The term “social capital” originally appeared in community studies, emphasizing the im-portance of interpersonal relationships in a collective throughout the process of working based
on trust, collaboration, and collective action (Jacobs, 1965) The role of social capital is considered
as an aid for adaptive efficiency, creativity, and learning In particular, researchers have found that social capital encourages cooperative behavior, thereby facilitates the development of new forms of association and innovative organization (Fukuyama, 1995; Jacobs, 1965; Putnam, 1993) Therefore, the concept is central to the understanding of institutional dynamics, innovation, and value creation
2.2 Team climate for innovation theory
In team climate for innovation theory, West (1990) proposed a four-factor model of
Trang 3work-group innovation, including vision, participative safety, task orientation, and support for innova-tion Particularly, the vision was an idea of a valued outcome that represented a higher order goal and a motivating force at work Workgroup with clearly defined objectives was more likely to develop new goal-appropriate methods of working since their efforts have focus and direction The time climate for innovation theory of West (1990) proved that task orientation played an im-portant role and impacted on team innovation or team creativity Hence, task orientation describes
a task performance coupled with a climate which supports general commitment to be excellent
in the improvement and innovation
2.3 Social media usage
According to Boyd and Ellison (2007), social media was defined as web-service that allows people to construct a profile either public or semi-public within a bounded system, then that web-service allow people to share connections between each other and enable them to view and tra-verse their list of connections and those made by others within the system It provides a platform for sharing, discussing, and co-creating knowledge and information (Sigala & Chalkiti, 2015),
as well as enhancing team creativity (Cao & Ali, 2018)
3 Model and research method
3.1 Proposed research model
Figure 1: Proposed research model
There are many previous studies have also focused on social networking, but most studies focus on only a few factors that affect team creativity Specifically, the Research model of Yeh Yu-Mei1, Li Feng-Chia, Lin Hung-Yuan (1996) only mentioned the impact of CV, team profi-ciency team and team vitality to the team creativity Research of Xiling Cui, Xuan Yang, Libo Liu, Xi Cun, Daning Hu (2018) studied the impact of social media use on team creativity through trust, or the most recent study of Xiongfei Cao & Ahsan Ali (2017) studied the impact of social media use on the team creativity through absorptive capability and the knowledge creation capa-bility Based on previous researches, in addition, the research on this field in Vietnam is still not much, therefore, this research model proposes factors that affect the team creativity that have been explored by previous studies
Trang 4Social media usage and collectivistic value orientation: Shamir (1990) found that
collec-tivism reflected a preference for a social and workplace framework in which people expected co-operation, cooperation and interdependence from each other and other people in their group According to Zhang et al (2015), social media was a combination of social interaction tools that helped facilitate knowledge sharing, communication, and creativity in a virtual environment Through open discussion forums, user generated content, reviews and recommendations and var-ious forms of participation in information exchange and user coordination, the platform can also facilitate the creation value (Laing & Khattab, 2016)
Social media usage and absorptive capability: social media is defined as a combination of
social interaction tools that help facilitate knowledge sharing, communication, and creativity in
a virtual environment (Zhang et al, 2015) Social media also promotes absorptive capability by enhancing learning, discovery (Hu & Schlagwein, 2013) Nevertheless, to share knowledge, dividuals need effective interaction, knowledge, intelligence, and persuasion to ensure that in-formation is effectively communicated and this will help the members work effectively
Social media usage and knowledge creation capability, trust: Social media provides
es-sential technology, which makes it easy for team members to interact, communicate and exchange knowledge with each other, thereby enhancing team knowledge creation Previous studies have shown that using social media is important in building trust in the organization (Scott 2000) The use of social media not only affects cognitive trust but also affectives (Huang et al (2017) In such an environment, the use of social media helps the closer members form the affective trust within the group
Collectivistic value orientation and team creativity: creativity is generally divided into
in-dividual, team and organizational levels, but according to Sonnenburg (2004), most creative acts occurred in a collaborative context Team creativity was viewed as the integration of individual expertise and creativity (Taggar 2002) Team creativity was defined as the generation of novel and appropriate ideas, solutions, or processes in the context of team objectives (Amabile, 1996) Teams with members collaborating closely to achieve common goals are more creative than groups without such members The collectivistic values of a team greatly benefit team creativity and group performance (Bechtoldt, M N., Choi, H S., & Nijstad, B A ,2012)
Absorptive capability and team creativity: most previous studies have found that having a
better-absorbing workgroup tends to improve the ability to learn, enabling them to more effec-tively use the knowledge gained from outside Lane et al (2001) found that absorptive capabilities are important for inter-organizational learning and performance Furthermore, absorptive capa-bility created a linkage between ideas and knowledge held by individual members and enhances team creativity performance (Seo, Chae, & Lee, 2015; Tiwana & Mclean, 2005)
Knowledge creation capability and team creativity: knowledge creation capability
(knowl-edge creation capability) was defined as the ability of team members to create new knowl(knowl-edge that they can combine information and knowledge into new knowledge, aware of the new value from that process (Smith et al., 2005) In 1998, Nahapiet and Ghoshal found knowledge creation capability as the ability to exchange and combine knowledge to create new knowledge, playing
an important role in the competitive advantage Smith et al (2005) stated that in the teams and
Trang 5organization, knowledge is distributed among all members and It truly requires existing knowl-edge resources to create new knowlknowl-edge Additionally, according to Hargadon & Fanelli (2002), sharing current resources of knowledge to the team enhanced the overall team’s ability to under-stand, combine, and create new knowledge, and at the same time, knowledge creation capability can tune creative outcomes
Cognitive trust and team creativity: the trust among the members helped the team to build
a good personal network and inspirational sources (Perry-Smith and Shalley 2003) If the level
of trust among the members in a high group was high with the members’ appreciation of their expertise, they would also be willing to work on their ideas and ideas (McAllister 1995) Gloria Barczak, Felicia Lassk and Jay Mulki (2010) have shown that cognitive trust influenced the cre-ativity of the group positively, besides it showed that the perception of members, colleagues
Affective trust and collaborative culture: collaborative culture, according to Barczak, Lassk
& Mulki (2010), was defined as team’s shared values and beliefs about the organizations’ support for adaptability, open communication, and encouragement of respect, teamwork, risk-taking, and diversity It is proposed that, in order to create and share knowledge, the team members must trust each other in the group in which they work (Adler, 2001) Trust played a supporting role and promoted relationships among members to help them find and help each other create a col-laborative culture (Russ et al., 1998; Abrams et al Middel, Boer & Fisscher, 2006)
Collaborative culture and team creativity: recent research of Skilton & Dooley (2010)
found that repeated collaboration may negatively affect a team’s creativity Guimera, Uzzi, Spiro, and Nunes Amaral (2005) reported that research teams in the social and natural sciences that high levels of repeat collaboration produce publications that receive fewer citations However, many previous researches have indicated that a collaborative culture enables better communication, in-formation sharing, focus and greater cooperation (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Strutton, Pelton & Lumpkin, 1993; Calton & Lad, 1995; Littler, Leverick & Bruce, 1995; Whitener et al., 1998), thereby leading to greater creative efforts In addition, collaboration itself has been found to lead
to creative outcomes (DeCusatis, 2008) There is evidence that such an effect existed because collaboration between team members would generate more task-related information that would
be possessed by the average member of the team (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2015)
Affective trust and absorptive capability: Yang et al (2009) supposed that affective trust
emphasizes empathy and affiliation on the of personal bonds and feelings for the other person Their research indicated the leader and other team members had to make emotional investments
in the working relationship to create high levels of affective trust When members frequently in-teract with each other, this can create a feeling of safety and results that individuals can freely talk together and express themselves with no fear In this research, according to Cohen & Levinthal (1990), the absorptive capability was defined as the ability of an organization to identify, assimilate, and utilize external knowledge
Cognitive trust and absorptive capability: The term ‘absorptive capability’ is similar to the
concept of ‘social capability’ used by Abramovitz (1986) Attitude theory researchers have long argued that the relationship between cognitive trust and absorptive capability in attitude formation
is bidirectional Countries with cognitive trust high linkages would be thought of as having the
Trang 6prerequisites for technological catch-up The ability to learn and understand new technology de-pends on a wide range of factors Goodfriend and McDermott (1998)
Absorptive capacity and collaborative culture: The absorption capacity of an organization
depends on the absorption capacity of each member (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) But it also de-pends on the transfer of knowledge on and within the business units of the organization (Vera et al., 2011) making it an organizational process (Zahra & George, 2002) Therefore, individuals need to interact with groups in the process of assimilation or knowledge conversion is necessary Furthermore, absorption is a dynamic, continuous process that needs to create new knowledge to adapt to organizational culture changes (Todorova & Durisin, 2007) Therefore, this attribute de-pends on a well-organized cultural environment
Knowledge creation capability and collaborative culture: The process of creating
knowl-edge through collaborative actions is very encouraging because collaboration developed as a learning platform and knowledge management tool, enabling building team members innovative and knowledge well The knowledge creation capability improve organizational culture helps to innovate, make decisions and study individually and collectively (King 2009)
Affective trust and knowledge creation capability: Trust in team member demonstrate to
bring positive impact in all phases of the process is a combination of knowledge, socialization, exchange goods and internalized (He, et al., 2009) Trusting colleagues is really important when sharing, discussing and exchanging Many studies have suggested that trust can facilitate the ac-quisition and transfer of knowledge and create new knowledge of members (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Lui, 2009; Mooradian, Renzl, & Matzler, 2006; Nahapiet & Goshal, 1998; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998)
Absorptive capability and knowledge creation capability: According to Chou (2005), at
the organizational level, knowledge can be achieved more effectively through the absorptive ca-pability of all members of the team He indicated that organizations with higher absorptive capa-bility created more knowledge Knowledge creation capacapa-bility was defined as the acapa-bility of team members to create new knowledge that they can combine information and knowledge into new knowledge, aware of the new value from that process (Smith et al., 2005) Furthermore, the po-sitioning of knowledge creation was considered as an output of companies’ absorptive capability (Lane et al, 2006)
Cognitive trust and affective trust: Newman et al (2014) pointed out that before deciding
whether people are willing to make efforts to exchange knowledge with members, they will tend
to understand the credibility of the other party, meaning that the person believes in awareness More specifically, Zur et al (2012) point out that affective trust is more subjective and developed through social exchange, including mutual sympathy and understanding (Scott 2000), while trust
is perceived evolved from observable evidence
3.2 Sampling
The study carried out a survey with 432 questionnaires and collected 330 valid ones from ungraduate students at Danang city
Trang 73.3 Measure
Measurement items were adapted from the literature The questionnaire was originally de-veloped in English and then translated into Vietnamese All scale items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (“strongly disagree”) to five (“strongly agree”) Accord-ing to Boyd and Ellison (2007) social media was defined as web-service that allows people to construct a profile either public or semi-public within a bounded system, then that web-service allow people to share connection between each other and enable them to view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system The social capital theory (SCT), which is labeled the “cognitive dimension,” refers to those resources providing shared represen-tations, interprerepresen-tations, and systems of meaning among parties (Cicourel, 1973) In particular, researchers have found social capital encourages cooperative behavior, thereby facilitates the de-velopment of new forms of association and innovative organization (Fukuyama, 1995; Jacobs, 1965; Putnam, 1993) The scale items of SCT, including thirty-three items, emphasizes specific benefits that flow from the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social networks (Rego et al (2007); Scott and Bruce, 1994; Cook & Wall, 1980; Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Rempel et al., 1985; Rotter, 1971; Smith et al., 2005) Team climate for innovation theory is used to describe an innovation as the intentional introduction and application within a role, group, or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit
of adoption, designed to significantly benefit role performance, the group, the organization or the wider society (West & Farr, 1989) The scale items are developed by West’s (1990) were adopted in measuring the concept of absorptive capability The samples for Absorptive Capability (Pavlou and El Sawy, 2006) were “Our team is able to identify and acquire internal and external knowledge” Collectivistic value orientation measured with five scale items were developed by Bechtoldt et al, 2010; Barry and Stewart (1997) The scale items of collaborative culture were
“My team considers a change to be natural and necessary”, “My team considers individuals as
an asset and tries to appreciate them continuously”, “Everybody’s opinions and contributions are respected”
3.4 Method of Data Analysis
To perform the data collection and analysis, the research team used Microsoft Excel and SPSS 20.0 software (Statistical Package for Social Science) and Smart PLS 3.0
4 Analysis
4.1 Demographic
In total, 450 questionnaires have been released and 423 questionnaires have been returned (the response rate is 94%) A total of 380 questionnaires are required and selected for the following data analysis As shown in Table 1, most (92.1%) of respondents are aged 15-22, 61.1% of re-spondents are women Table 2 shows the user’s user experience on Facebook The average daily time for Facebook is> 3 hours (29.7%), but there are not too many differences compared to other options 44.7% of respondents logged into Facebook regularly during the day, but only for a short time Mostly they have 501-1000 friends on Facebook (31.3%), 78.7% have more than 3 years
of user experience
Trang 84.2 Testing the measurement model
Construct reliability was assessed by examining the degree to which items are free random error and yield consistent results The reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha and com-posite reliability (CR) are > 0.7 (Nannally, 1978) Cronbach’s alphas of all constructs in the re-search framework with full samples was greater than or equal 0.7 except Social Media Usage, for which it is 0.544 and CRs range from 0.703 to 0.884
Convergent validity measures the consistency across multiple operationalizations It’s as-sessed using two criteria: (1) each item had a statistically significant factor loading on its specified construct significant and exceeded 0.7 (Fornell & L Archker, 1981; Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000), and (2) averaged variance extracted (AVE) for each construct should exceed 0.5 (Fornell & Lar-cker, 1981) After analysis, the results are three items of Absorptive Capability (AC1, AC2, AC5), two items of Collaborative Culture (CC1, CC7), three items of Cognitive Trust (CT1, CT2, CT3), five items of Knowledge Creation Capability (KC1, KC6, KC7, KC8, KC10, KC11) were dropped due to their values of factor loading lower than 0.7 All factor loadings of all items range from 0.70 to 0.96, and hence all of them exceeded the recommended level of 0.5 Therefore, the presence of convergent validity is supported
Discriminant validity assesses the extent to which different constructs are a district, which
is measured using the square roots of the AVE by a construct from its indicators should exceed that construct’s correlation with other constructs (Chin, 1998; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) The di-agonal elements presented the square root of AVE are larger than off-didi-agonal elements presented the square root of AVE are larger than off-diagonal elements in the same row and column, sug-gesting good discriminant validity From the discussion above, both reliability and validity were confirmed, thus making the measuring model acceptable
Testing the structural model
Figure 2: Results of the model after verification
Note: **p<0.01; *p<0.05
Trang 9Hypothesis Original
Samples T-Statistics P- Value Conclude H1: Social media usage positively influenced
the relational intimacy with Collectivistic
Value Orientation
0.153 3.005 0.003 Supported
H2: Social media usage positively influenced
the relational intimacy with Absorptive
Capa-bility
0.204 4.043 0.000 Supported
H3: Social media usage positively influenced
the relational intimacy with Knowledge
Cre-ation Capability
0.095 2.569 0.01 Supported
H4 Social media usage positively influenced
the relational intimacy with Trust 0.5310.284 5,73013,416 0.000 Supported H5: Collectivistic Value Orientation has not a
positive impact on intimacy with Team
Cre-ativity
-0.005 0.286 0.775 Not
sup-ported
H6: Absorptive Capability has not a positive
impact on intimacy with Team Creativity -0.011 0.543 0.609 Not sup-ported H7: Knowledge Creation Capability
posi-tively influenced the relational intimacy with
Team Creativity
0.760 22.931 0.000 Supported
H8: Cognitive Trust positively influenced the
relational intimacy with Team Creativity 0.319 9.578 0.000 Supported H9: Affect Trust positively influenced the
re-lational intimacy with Collaborative Culture 0.093 1.581 0.117 Not sup-ported H10: Collaborative Culture positively
influ-enced the relational intimacy with Team
Cre-ativity
-0.068 2.778 0.004 Supported
H11: Absorptive Capability positively
influ-enced the relational intimacy with
Knowl-edge Creation Capability
0.173 4.518 0.000 Supported
H12: Absorptive Capability positively
influ-enced the relational intimacy with
Collabora-tive Culture
0.235 4.413 0.000 Supported
H13: Cognitive Trust positively influenced
the relational intimacy with Absorptive
Capa-bility
0.223 3.411 0.000 Supported
H14: Affective Trust positively influenced the
relational intimacy with Absorptive
Capabil-ity
0.288 5.186 0.000 Supported
Trang 10Testing models and hypotheses through path factor testing (Path Coefficient) and the sig-nificance levels of each factor In addition, according to Henseler (2014) to avoid parameter de-viation in the SRMR model is the goodness of fit index of the PLS-SEM model Assessing the suitability of the model with the sample, SRMR (Standarized Root Mean Square Residual) should
be considered <0.08 or 0.1 (Hu and Bentler, 1999) In this paper, SRMR = 0.096 <0.1, so the model meets the requirement
Summarize the results of the hypotheses
H15: Knowledge Creation Capability
posi-tively influenced the relational intimacy with
Collaborative Culture
0.470 6.647 0.000 Supported
H16: Affective Trust positively influenced the
relational intimacy with Knowledge Creation
Capability
0.482 12.270 0.000 Supported
H17: Cognitive Trust positively influenced the
relational intimacy with Affective Trust 0.464 9.604 0.000 Supported H18: Cognitive Trust positively influenced the
realational intimacy with knowledge creation
capability
0.270 6.122 0.000 Supported
Hypothesis Original Samples T-Statistics P- Value Conclude H1: Social media usage positively
influ-enced the relational intimacy with
Collec-tivistic Value Orientation
H2: Social media usage positively
influ-enced the relational intimacy with
Ab-sorptive Capability
0.204 4.043 0.000 Supported
H3: Social media usage positively
influ-enced the relational intimacy with
Knowledge Creation Capability
H4 Social media usage positively
influ-enced the relational intimacy with Trust 0.2840.531 5,73013,416 0.000 Supported H5: Collectivistic Value Orientation has
not a positive impact on intimacy with
Team Creativity
-0.005 0.286 0.775 Not
sup-ported
H6: Absorptive Capability has not a
posi-tive impact on intimacy with Team
Cre-ativity
-0.011 0.543 0.609 Not
sup-ported