5 76 Haziran 2014

hareketle;

Anahtar Kelimeler: Sosyal

THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING ATTITUDE: A RESEARCH ON THE ROLE OF

MOTIVATION IN THIS EFFECT

ABSTRACT It has been many studies on social capital, knowledge sharing attitude and motivation in the literature, which is illustrated the importance of the concepts for organization. Hence, this study aims to research into the mediating role of motivation in the effect of social capital on knowledge sharing attitude. This study also aims whether there is a difference in social capital, knowledge sharing attitude and motivation, in terms of

-collar employee of the firms in Telecommunication sector in Turkey, altruism, one of the internal motivation factor, is a partial mediator factor in the effect of social capital on knowledge sharing attitude. Reciprocity, an external motivation factor, is also partial mediator factor in the effect of social capital on knowledge sharing attitude.Keywords: social capital, knowledge sharing attitude, motivation, reciprocity, altruism

irlikte bireylerin ve

(Nahapiet ve Ghoshal, 1998)

(Burt, 1992; Burt 1997; Constant, Sproull ve Kiesler, 1996; Granovetter, 1973), hem de sanal olarak bireylerin birbirleri ile

(Chiu Hsu ve Wang, 2006; Payne, Moore, Griffis ve Autry, 2011; Wasko ve Faraj, 2005)

(Loury, 1992)

hem de bireylerin sahip ol(Coleman, 1988; Burt, 1992)

(Hau., Kim, Lee ve Kim, 2012; Chang ve Chuang, 2011; Wasko ve Faraj, 2005)

sosya,

etkilenmesidir.

1

1.1. Sosyal Sermaye

Sosyal sermaye 20.

, ve (Adler ve Kwon, 2002, ss. 19-21).

perspektifte; sosyal sermaye makta ve olarak d lmektedir. Bu

Coleman (1988), birni belirtmektedir.

deki sosyal sermaye edir (Brehm ve Rahn, 1997; Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 1995; Iglehart, 1997, Leana ve Van Burren, 1999; Portes ve Sensenbrenner, 1993; Putnam, 1995). incelenmektedir. Bu fikrin temellerini atan Burt (1992) sosyal sermayeyi, Gronovetter

(1973) z b k (weak ties theory) temelinde ve bir bireyin mektedir.

savunanlar, iddia etmektedir (Baker 1990; Bourdieu, 1985; Burt, 1992; Burt 1997;

Knoke, 1999).(Constant, Sproull ve

Kiesler, 1996; Granovetter, 1973; Hansen, 1999; Levin ve Cross, 2004).

savunul (Bagozzi ve Dholakia, 2002; Chang ve Chuang; 2011; Chiu Hsu ve Wang, 2006; Grootaert, 2002; Loury, 1992; Nahapiet ve Ghoshal, 1998; Payne, Moore, Griffis ve Autry, 2011; Renko, Autio ve Sapienza, 2001; Tsai ve Ghoshal, 1998; Wasko ve Faraj, 2005; Woolcock, 1998).

Nahapiet ve Ghoshal (1998)boyutta da belirterek,

sosyal sermayeyi 3 boyut ve 9 alt boyut ile sosyal sermaye

asyonu ve uyarlanabilir organizasyon alt alt ve

alt ede

getirmesi, Nahapiet ve Ghoshal (1998)

boyuosyal

sermaye Nahapiet ve Ghoshal (1998)ve 3 boyu 6 alt boyut

ile (Chiu vd., 2006; Chang ve Chuang, 2011). Bu , Nahapiet ve Ghoshal (1998) teorik olarak

sosyal sermaye ,alt

sosyal sermaye (Chang ve Chuang, 2011; Chiu vd., 2006; Tsai ve Ghoshal, 1998). Sda, lar olarak

(Tsai ve Ghoshal, 1998).

kavramlar da sosyal etkil (Mcpodolny ve Baron, 1997, s. 673).

,

719). Bu

Sosya bireylerin etkile(Nahapiet ve Ghoshal, 1998, s. 254)

ve i alt (Chang ve Chuang, 2011; Chiu vd., 2006; Nahapiet ve

Ghoshal, 1998).

(Mcallister, 1995; Mistzal,1996).

(Mistzal, 1996, s. 1131).nitelikte, g

(Fukuyama 1995; Putnam 1993; Ring ve Van der Ven 1994).

Normlar bir organizasyondaki

(Polanyi, 1944). Putnam (1995).

osyal sermaye alt sosyal kimlik teorisi (social identity the bir sosyal gruba ya da

(Tajfel, 1982, s. 2).

(Scott, Corman ve Cheney, 1998; Tajfel, 1982).(Sethi ve Compeau, 2002, s.

242).

Nahapiet ile Ghoshal (1998, s. 253), ;olarak lar ve bu

yi(Chang ve Chuang, 2011; Chiu vd., 2006; Nahapiet ve

Ghoshal, 1998; Wasko ve Faraj, 2005).

(Boland ve Tenkasi, 1995; Nahapiet ve Ghoshal, 1998; , 2010). Burada bireyin

Org

(Chiu vd., 2006, s. 1878; Nahapiet ve Ghoshal, 1998, s. 254). uda, bir

(Tsai ve Ghoshal, 1998, s.467).

1

organizasyonlar ; hem bu

hem de organizas niki rmaya

(Lee ve Yang, 2000, s. 785; Davenpott ve Prusak, 2001, s. 131; Bock ve Kim, 2002, s.

- (Ajzen, Fishbein, 1980; Connely ve Kelloway, 2003).

550). Bilgi

Y n,

. (2004) bdikleri bu

beklentisi, , ntisi

B olumsuz etkileyecektir (Mayer ve Davis, 1999). a

Bilgi

aha olumlu bir tutum sergileyebilir (Chow ve Chan, 2008, s. 459; Mayer ve Davis, 1999, s. 125).olarak

i boyutu ise sosyal d im teorisi (social exchange theory) (Bock ve Kim, 2002; Yu vd..,2004). Bu teorinin temelinde

- (Blau, 1967)., b birbirleriyle

sergilemeleri beklenebilir (Bock ve Kim, 2002).

Sosyal b teoriye dayanan k da bulunma beklentisi boyutu ise, ilk kez Bandura(1982) erlilik (Bock ve Kim, 2002; Yu vd. 2004). - inde

1982; Bandura1986; Bandura 2001).

ssetmeleri ile ilgilidir.

elik faaliyetlerinden ibarettir (Morgan ve Hunt, 1994). Parkhe (1993)

1.3. Motivasyon

(Eren, 2001, s.

incelenmektedir (Holt, 1993; Hung, Durcikova, Lai ve Wan, 2011; Lin, 2007; Luthans, 1973).

etmektedir (Eren, 2001, s. 251). ,

ve motivasyon; fayda bekleme, itibar

,

(Constant vd., 1996; Lin, 2007; Hung vd., 2011).Gachter, 2000). Sosyal

(Jones, Hesterly ve Borgatti, 1997).

(Chang ve Chuang, 2011; Constant vd., 1996; Hung, 2011).

or, ikramiye gibi finansal finansal olmayan

ilir (Davenport, Prusak, 2001; Hargadon, 1998). Her ne

(temdir (Constant vd., 1996).

(Hung, 2011; Lin, 2007).

temeli, sosyal psikoloj(Constant vd., 1996). Prososyal

ve Lutterman, 1968; Brief ve Motowidlo, 1986)., bireylerin

tmeleri (Davenport ve Prusak, 2001; Waskove Faraj, 2000).memnuniyet duyar (Kollock, 1999).

2 M

2.1 , Modeli ve

nin bilgi

B ; nintutum

Bu 1

Modeli

sosyal sermayenin uetkisinde motivasyonun genel olarak sonra motivasyon

. ana hipotezi 1.H1

kurgulanan 2.H1,3.H1 ile 4.H1 hipotezleri

1.H1: Sosyal sermayenin etkisinde

2.H1

3.H1

4.H1

ncak beyaz

memesi nedeniyle

Ancak, b ,

2.2. ve

Anket formu; 23

toplam anket formunda, da

(2011) ve Chiu vd.d. (2004), Bock ile Kim (2002) ve Parkhe

(1993)

leriniBu k

urulan anket

2

6 alt vizyon) ve sosyal serma madde toplam korelasyon

adde toplam korelasyon , s. 244) nedeniyle bu sorunun analizden

olarak , bu deki S rlik analizi

uy olarak

TABLO 1:

1 2 3 4 5 6

yapmaz. ,813

,800,761,696

,681

,877,869,839,839

,866daha ,860

,816

,731

,776

biliyorum.,730

,693

,795

ek onlara keyif verir. ,737

,653

,811

,716

,636

14,932 29,773 42,464 51,632 60,693 69,373

69,393

0,886

. Daha sonra bilgi

ifadeler orijinal destekler

TABLO 2

1 2 3 4

r. ,804

,798

,782

,732,665

,824,822,816

meyillidir. ,797

,675

onlara destek ,846

,842

,840

,817

,813

,803

,752

a aramdaki ,692

19,186 36,885 54,440 70,732

70,732

0,890

motivasyon tutulm

.i destekler

Molarak tespit

TABLO 3:

1 2 3 4

,909,904

kendimi mutlu hissediyorum. ,893

,724

,890

,824

,780. ,646

,803,751,725

. ,661beklentilerini

birilerinin de ,827

,818

,739

20,689 39,374 56,481 69,845

69,845

0,815

2.4. Bulgular

2.4.1.

t

Daha sonraara ve korelasyon eri Tablo 4 te . Tablodaki

TABL

O 4

:

(1.H1) Baron ve KennyH1 hipotezi testinin ilk

da; sosyal sermayeninnin motivasyon

tutumu analizler sonucunda elde edilen Tablo 5 te

TABLO 5: H11. Basamak Regresyon Analizi (Model 1)

Sosyal sermaye Beta0,607 14,068 0,000

R=0,607 R2=0,367 198,420 0,000

MotivasyonSosyal Sermaye Beta

0,462 9,759 0,000R=0,462; R2=-0,211 95,231; 0,000

BetaSosyal Sermaye 0,625 12,911 0,000Motivasyon -0,006 -0,121 0,904R=0,623; R2=0,384; ; 0,000Tablo 5 Modelanalizinde e rinin

Yine

1 nebilir. Tablo 5e e

2tutumu

etkisine . Tablo 5 Model

tumu genel olarak . Ancak motivasyon

motivasyonu

n tek tek

Sosyal sermayenin etkisinde

KennyTablo

TABLO 6:1. Basamak Regresyon Analizi (Model 1)

Sosyal sermaye Beta0,607 14,068 0,000

R=0,607 R2=0,367 198,420 0,0002.

BetaSosyal sermaye 0,358 7,263 0,000R=0,358; R2= 0,125; 52,756; 0,0003.

BetaSosyal sermaye 0,551 12,056 0,000

0,145 3,180 0,002R=0,618; R2=0,678; 103,959; 0,000

Tablo 6 al sermayeninetkisi ur. (p=0,000<0,05)tutumunun

1) kadar art Tablo 6

e

sosyal sermayeleri 6 a

2

fayda bekleme o 6 Model

fayda istatistiki

* beklemenin nin

*

Daha sonra sosyal sermayeninmotivasyon boyutu olan ,yine Baron ve Kenny

Tablo 7

TABLO 7:1. Basamak Regresyon Analizi (Model 1)

en: Sosyal sermaye Beta0,607 14,068 0,000

R=0,607 R2=0,367 198,420 0,0002. Basamak Regresyon Analizi (Model 2)

BetaSosyal sermaye 0,434 9,157 0,000R=0,434; R2=0,188; 83,851; 0,0003. Basamak Regresyon Analizi (Model 3)

BetaSosyal sermaye 0,470 10,495 0,000

0,316 7,074 0,000R=0,671; R2=0,450; 138,536; 0,000

Tablo 7 Model 1, H1 nin bilgi ektedir. Tablo 7 Model ,

elde edilen nin

2 ylenebilir.

7 uistatistiki olarak anl

dur. Bu durumda, sosyal sermayenin bilgi kisinde

ve motivasyonun tek tek

arac Dnin bilgi

(1.H1

2

gibi demografik inin, olan sosyal sermaye, bilgi pay ve boyutl

Bu

Daha sonra fark -(ANOVA) on olarak

Y

,02<0,05)

(Tablo 8)Tukey Testi ve ortalama , ninlisans mezunu olan nu; 32-

, 48- nu; 32-, 22- nu -

nin, 1- kimlik 1 hipotezi

.

TABLO 8:

CinsiyetDurumu

Var Yok Var Yok Var Yok Var Yok

SOSYAL SERMAYE X X X X

X X X

X X X X

Kar.Normu X X X

Kimlik X X

X X X X

X X X X

Tablo 9 a ;, ancak n(p=0,04<0,05)

(p=0,03<0,05)Tukey testi -

-

lisans mezunu olan ,3H1

TABLO 9Fark

CinsiyetDurumu

VAR YOK VAR YOK VAR YOK VAR YOK

TUTUMU X X X X

X X

Beklentisi X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

Tablo 10 a (p=0,00<0,05)durumuna (p=0,00<0,05)

boyutundan

itibar (p=0,00<0,05) (p=0,00<0,05) Bununla birlikte, boyutlardan

(p=0,006<0,05) ile

(p=0,001<0,05) ve itibar

erkeklerin genel genel erinin

lisans mezunu olanlardan,

inden

olanlardan22-

- -

- dakilerden ve son olarak 48-- u

4H1

TABLO 10

CinsiyetDurumu

VAR YOK VAR YOK VAR YOK VAR YOK

X X

X X X

X

X X X

X X X X

konusudur.

bir

Lmezunu olanlardan ;fazla veya fark normunda

a ise,

nda da demo

izah edilebilir. ntisi

da,

un

rkeklerin ve lisanslisans mezun genel olarak

bekve

.beklenen

toplumun genel

tespit edilmesinin nedeni

daha

bulunan

yorumlanabilir.

ser

r.

de rol

n

beklentisi olarak sosyal sermayenin

ADLER, P. S., KWON, S. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.

AJZEN, I., FISHBEIN, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.

BAGOZZI, R. P., DHOLAKIA, U. M. (2002). Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(12), 1-20.

BAKER, W. (1990). Market Networks and Corporate Behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 589-625.

BANDURA, A. (1982). Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.

BANDURA, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.

BANDURA, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory, An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

BARON, R. M., KENNY , D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

BERKOWITZ, L., LUTTERMAN, K. G. (1968). The Traditional Socially Responsible Personality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32(2), 169-185.

BLAU, P. M. (1967). Exchange and Power in Social Life.Devletleri: Willey.

BOCK, G., KIM, Y. (2002). Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes about Knowledge Sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 1112-1125.

BOCK, G. W., ZMUD, R. W., KIM, Y. G., LEE, J. (2005). Behavioral Intention Formation in Knoweldge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators,SocialPsychological Forces and Organizational Climate. MISQuarterly, 24(1), 87-111.

BOLAND, R. J., TENKASI, R. V. (1995). Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350-372.

BOURDIEU, P. (1985). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education.The

Forms of Capital (p. 240-287).

BREHM, J., RAHN, W. (1997). Individual-Level of Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023.

BRIEF, A. P., MOTOWIDLO, S. J. (1986). Prosocial Organizational Behaviors. TheAcademy of Management Review, 11(4), 710-725.

BURT, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard, Amerik

BURT, R. S. (1997). The Contingent Value of Social Capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-365.

CHANG, H. H., CHUANG, S. S. (2011). Social Capital and Individual Motivations on Knowledge Sharing: Participant Involvement as a Moderator. Information & Management, 48(1), 9-18.

CHIU, C. M., HSU, M. H., WANG , E. T. (2006). Understanding Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities: An integration of Social Capital and Social Cognitive Theories.Decision Support System, 42(1), 1872-1888.

CHOW W. S., CHAN L. S. (2008) Social Network, Social Trust and Shared Goals in Organizational Knowledge Sharing, Information & Management, 40 (1),.458-465.

COLEMAN, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology , 94, 95-120.

COLEMAN, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory.Devletleri: Harvard University Press.

CONNELLY, C. E., KELLOWAY, K. E. (2003). Knowledge Sharing Cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 294-301.

CONSTANT, D., SPROULL, L., KIESLER, S. (1996). The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.

DAVENPORT, T. H., PRUSAK, L. (2001). [Working Knowledge]

., 20(235), 36-41.

(2007).

EREN, E. (2001).

FEHR, E., GACHTER, S. (2000). Fairness and Retaliation:The Economics of Reciprocity.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159-181.

FUKUYAMA, F. (1995). The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New

). , 65(

4), 87-109.

GRANOVETTER, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

GROOTAERT, C. (2002). Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners.World Bank Publications.

HANSEN, M. T. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.

HARGADON, A. B. (1998). Firms as Knowledge Brokers: Lesson in Pursuing Continuous Innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 209-227.

HAU Y.S., KIM B., LEE H., KIM Y.G., The Effects of Individual Motivations and Social Capital on Emplo International Journal of Information Management, 33 (2), 2012, s. 243-418.

HODSON, R. (1996). Dignity in the Workplace Under Participative Management: Alienation and Freedom Revisited. American Sociological Review, 60, 719-738.

HOLT, D. H. (1993). Productivity through People, Management Principles and Practices -Hall.

HUNG, S., DURCIKOVA, A., LAI, H., LIN, W. (2011). The Influence of Intrinsic and. International Journal

of Human-Computer Studies, 69(1), 415-427.

IGLEHART, R. (1997). Modernization and Post-Modernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. PrinceUniversity Press.

JONES, C., HESTERLY, W. S., BORGATTI, S. P. (1997). A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions and Social Mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911-945.

KNOKE, D. (1999). Corporate Social Capital and LiabilityDevletleri: Kluwer Academic Publisher.In Leenders , R. T., & Gabbay, S. M. (Eds.), Organizational Networks and Corporate Social Capital (p. 17-42).

KOLLOCK, P. (1999). Communities in CyberspaceDevletleri: Routledge.In Kollock, P., & Smith, M. (Eds.), The Economies of Online Cooperation:Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace (p. 3-25).

LEANA, C. R., VAN BURREAN, H. J. (1999). Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538-555.

LEE, C. C., YANG, J. (2000). Knowledge Value Chain. Journal of Management Development, 19(9), 783-793.

LEVIN, D. Z., CROSS, R. (2004). The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.

LIN, H. (2007). Effects of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation on Employee Knowledge Sharing Intentions. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 135-149.

LOURY, G. C. (1992). The Economics of Discrimination: Getting to the Core of the Problem. Harvard Journal for American Public Policy, 1, 91-110.

LUTHANS, F. (1973). Organizational Behavior (4.Devletleri: McGraw Hill.

MAYER, R. C., DAVIS, J. H. (1999). The Effect of the Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A Field Quasi-Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123-136.

MCPODOLNY, J., BARON, J. (1997). Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and Mobility in the Workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(1), 673--693.

MCALLISTER D. J. (1995) Affect and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundatitions for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-60.

MISZTAL, B. A. (1996). Trust in Modern Societies.Devletleri: Polity Press.

MORGAN, R. M., HUNT, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.

NAHAPIET, J., GHOSHAL, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-286.

PARKHE, A. (1993). Strategic Alliance Structuring: A Game Theoretic and Transaction Cost Examination of Interfirm Cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 794-829.

PAYNE, T. G., MOORE, C. B., GRIFFIS, S. E., AUTRY , C. W. (2011). Multilevel Challenges and Opportunities in Social Capital Research. Journal of Management, 37(2), 491-520.

POLANYI, K. (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Boston: Beacon Press.

PORTES, A., SENSENBRENNER, J. (1993). Embeddednes and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1320-1350.

PUTNAM, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.

PUTNAM, R. D. (1995). . Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-.78.

RENKO, Y. H., AUTIO, E., SAPIENZA, H. (2001). Social Capital, Knowledge Acquisition, And Knowledge Exploitation in Young Technology Based Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6), 587-613.

RING, P. S., VAN DE VEN, A. H. (1994). Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90-118.

SCOTT, C. R., CORMAN, S. R., CHENEY, G. (2014). Development of a Structurational Model of Identification in The Organization. Communication Theory, 8(3), 298-336.

SETHI, R., COMPEAU, L. D., (2002). Social Construction Organizational Identity and Market Orientation of the Firm. American Marketing Association Proceeding, 13, 183-184.

TAJFEL, H. (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.

TSAI, W., GHOSHAL, S. (1998). Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-478.

WASKO, M. FARAJ, S. (2000) It Is What One Does: Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3), 155-173.

WASKO, M. M., FARAJ, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.

WOOLCOCK, M. (1998). Social Capital and Economic Development:Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework. Theory and Society, 27(3), 151-208.

YU, Y., WILKINS, L. C., MA, W. W. K. (2004). Innovation Through Information Technology(Eds.), Developing an Instrument for Measuring Knowledge Sharing Attitudes (p. 272-276).