AMO Influence on Attitude

Building upon a knowledge worker’s four role-specific factors shaping one’s attitude towards informal knowledge sharing using an ESSP’s tools; an individual’s attitude was found to also be strongly shaped by a second category containing the three AMO factors related to one’s personal: 1) motivation, 2) opportunity, and 3) ability. First, a knowledge worker was found to require personal motivation to pursue the activity (e.g.

acquire needed knowledge); then they would assess the mechanisms affording the

opportunity to achieve their desired outcome (e.g. the ESSP’s tools); and finally, they would reflect on their ability to achieve their desired outcome using the chosen mechanism (e.g. self-efficacy). Combined, one’s AMO factors shaped their attitudinal disposition towards knowledge sharing positively or negatively which influenced the technological factors related to intention to use an ESSP’s tools.

Motivation

As a knowledge worker’s role was associated with the need to acquire and share knowledge; their attitude was influenced by their motivation to achieve a specific desired knowledge outcome. For example, improving work performance through ease of finding “needed” knowledge to accomplish a work task. As such, a knowledge seeking individual was found to first identify a need to acquire information that they did not already possess within themselves. Common needs were related to knowledge required to: solve a problem, generate innovative ideas, or identify an expert.

“I need to get data and information from them [colleagues] and I need to stimulate them to generate ideas and different way of approaching problems.” (Operations-level, Voluntary user)

It is important to note that there would be no perceived valued outcomes associated with any social software tool if it were not for an underlying need that motivated a knowledge worker to form a positive attitude towards knowledge sharing and then search for a mechanism with which to fulfil that need. As such, the attitudinal role of motivation is central to the identification of perceived valued outcomes.

Opportunity

Once a knowledge worker’s initial attitude towards knowledge sharing was motivated by a need; they then evaluated the alternative mechanisms offering the opportunity to satisfy that need (e.g. acquire knowledge). This is a particular challenge associated with large geographically dispersed MNCs compared to smaller firms as building metaknowledge (re: knowledge regarding ‘what’ and ‘whom’ other employees know) is

crucial to completing work tasks for knowledge workers wherein knowledge sources can be located globally.

“The challenge is to identify knowledge and decision people. So in a complex and unknown organization, that’s always the first challenge to connect the right people together to be able to do some actions.” (Manager-level, Voluntary user)

When one does not have the required knowledge, the employee often will turn to their network to find an expert with the know-how to assist them. Nearly all interviewees (n=8) discussed the importance of building and using one’s network of colleagues and friends for the purpose of informal knowledge sharing. Where in the event that one doesn’t have a large network, they will then develop a more positive attitude towards using social software tools as they cannot as readily rely on their network to contain all of the knowledge connections required to carry out their work tasks.

“We [colleagues] ask each other advice whenever we have a problem or whenever we need to know something about another business or if we are solving a problem. And I think that’s a big part of our job, to have a network, to ask.” (Operations-level, Mandatory user)

“...you get a network of people, and you get to know them. What kind of know-how they have. Know-how expertise skills.” (Manager-level, Voluntary user)

“...if you're a new employee who doesn’t have the network, if you don’t know who knows the things you need to know” (Operations-level, Mandatory user, describing when an open enterprise social approach is required)

If the required knowledge is not within one’s network, then their attitude towards using the tools for knowledge sharing will be positively influenced as they will provide the opportunity to satisfy this need. However, this is only the case if the tools have a high degree of knowledge-holder interactivity and are understood by the knowledge worker to afford this opportunity. Regardless if the opportunity to share exists within one’s network or is provided by the tools, the final factor influencing attitude towards sharing relates to one’s own ability to share their knowledge.

Ability

The last individual factor influencing attitude is one’s perceived ability to actually share their useful knowledge with others regardless of the mechanism. Their ability to do so is influenced by: 1) feeling like they have useful knowledge to share, 2) feeling connected to those with whom they share, 3) that the mechanism is capable of sharing the desired complexity of knowledge, and 4) that the individual has the technical skills required to operate the tools without issues. As such, one’s attitude was found to be negatively shaped when they didn’t know the other party, were required to rely on a lower bandwidth channel, and didn’t have self-efficacy in the ESSP’s tools.

Related to one’s ability to informally share knowledge across borders, the importance of knowing colleagues personally (re: their backgrounds and goals) cannot be understated as all nine interviewees mentioned this point. Personally knowing those with whom one communicates was found to positively influence one’s attitudes towards sharing knowledge with others by: helping in building trusting relationships, developing shared cognitive ground, and assisting with knowing where expertise lies within the company.

As such, the interviewees were found to have a more positive attitude towards the ESSP’s tools if they understood that the tools afford the ability to get to know their colleagues more personally (e.g. acquiring background information from the tool).

"I would say also this informal way of communicating involves some level of trust as well. So it’s not only finding the experts and in the certain topics or subjects, but you also have this social relation in the background that makes it kind of easier to reach out to certain people, than to others." (Manager-level, Voluntary user)

Furthermore, related to the mechanism most positively associated with knowledge sharing, most interviewees (N=6) mentioned that face-to-face communications was the ideal method for informally sharing knowledge as there are limitations on one’s ability to do this with social software tools which often have distractions, lack an informal discussion aspect, and are unsuited to sharing complex tacit knowledge.

“I think that is a big challenge because you’re not going to book a virtual meeting as quickly as you meet someone during a lunch or in a corridor or at a coffee machine.

And you’re not going to book just informal meetings in a virtual meeting.” (Manager-level, Mandatory user)

"In some cases we do virtual or online meetings and that always works ok. And when it’s needed, we do face-to-face which usually works the best." (Operations-level, Mandatory user)

Overall, a knowledge worker’s personal motivation was found to influence the perceived valued outcomes that they most readily associate with each social software tool. While their opportunity requiring use of the tools was influenced by their personal network and was related to the social factors of perceived social influence and perceived support. Finally, one’s ability influenced the strength of the positive attitude towards using tools with which they were most comfortable as indicated by their self-efficacy;

influencing their perceived effort. Hence, an employee’s motivation, opportunity, and ability shaped their attitude positively or negatively towards knowledge sharing and using social software tools. Therefore, the AMO factors were found to build off of the role-specific factors in shaping a knowledge worker’s attitude towards the knowledge sharing activity which influenced how they perceived the technological factors associated with behavioural intention resulting in behavioural usage.