Organizations are increasingly adopting social technology platforms in an effort to support increased knowledge sharing among workers. Although scholarship has indicated that the use of social technologies can increase multiple forms of communication visibility within organizations, little is known about the nature of these relationships and how the benefits of that visibility may differ based on the use of different functionalities of platforms. This study examines how various uses of a social technology platform in a global organization relate to communication visibility and increased metaknowledge among workers. In addition, our analysis investigates how communication visibility relates to workers’ knowledge-sharing intentions and engagement. Findings extend theory by indicating that metaknowledge from communication visibility does indeed differ based on whether employees use functionalities that connect communication partners, or interact with communal communication available to third parties.
AndersonCRobeyD (2017) Affordance potency: explaining the actualization of technology affordances. Information and Organization27(2): 100–115.
2.
AzarovaMHazoglouMAronoff-SpencerE (2020) Just Slack it: a study of multidisciplinary teamwork based on ethnography and data from online collaborative software. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 11 December. DOI: 10.1177/1461444820975723.
3.
BakkerABDemeroutiEten BrummelhuisLL (2012) Work engagement, performance, and active learning: the role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior80(2): 555–564.
4.
BockGWZmudRWKimYG, et al. (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly29(1): 87–111.
5.
boyddEllisonNB (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 210–230.
6.
BrandonDPHollingsheadAB (2004) Transactive memory systems in organizations: matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science15(6): 633–644.
7.
BrighentiA (2007) Visibility: a category for the social sciences. Current Sociology55(3): 323–342.
8.
BunceMWrightKScottM (2017) “Our newsroom in the cloud”: slack, virtual newsrooms and journalistic practice. New Media & Society20(9): 3381–3399.
ChristensenLTCheneyG (2014) Peering into transparency: challenging ideals, proxies, and organizational practices. Communication Theory25(1): 70–90.
11.
CraigRT (1999) Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory9(2): 119–161.
12.
CressUBarqueroBSchwanS, et al. (2007) Improving quality and quantity of contributions: two models for promoting knowledge exchange with shared databases. Computers & Education49(2): 423–440.
13.
DavisonRMOuCXMartinsonsMG, et al. (2014) The communicative ecology of Web 2.0 at work: social networking in the workspace. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology65(10): 2035–2047.
14.
EngelbrechtAGerlachJPBenlianA, et al. (2019) How employees gain meta-knowledge using enterprise social networks: a validation and extension of communication visibility theory. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems28(3): 292–309.
15.
EnglerTHAlparP (2018) Contribution and consumption of content in enterprise social media. Information Systems Management35(1): 2–14.
EvansSKPearceKEVitakJ, et al. (2017) Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(1): 35–52.
18.
FlyverbomM (2019) The Digital Prism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
FulkJFlanaginAJKalmanME, et al. (1996) Connective and communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory6(1): 60–87.
20.
FulkJHeinoRFlanaginAJ, et al. (2004) A test of the individual action model for organizational information commons. Organization Science15(5): 569–585.
21.
GibbsJLRozaidiNAEisenbergJ (2013) Overcoming the “ideology of openness”: probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(1): 102–120.
22.
GogginsSPetakovicE (2014) Connecting theory to social technology platforms: a framework for measuring influence in context. American Behavioral Scientist58(10): 1376–1392.
23.
HyvönenKFeldtTSalmela-AroK, et al. (2009) Young managers’ drive to thrive: a personal work goal approach to burnout and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior75(2): 183–196.
24.
JianGJeffresLW (2006) Understanding employees’ willingness to contribute to shared electronic databases: a three-dimensional framework. Communication Research33(4): 242–261.
25.
KwonKKimT (2020) An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: revisiting the JD-R model. Human Resource Management Review30(2): 100704.
26.
LeonardiPM (2014) Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: toward a theory of communication visibility. Information Systems Research25(4): 796–816.
27.
LeonardiPM (2015) Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: using social media to learn “who knows what” and “who knows whom.”MIS Quarterly39(4): 747–762.
28.
LeonardiPM (2017) The social media revolution: sharing and learning in the age of leaky knowledge. Information and Organization27(1): 47–59.
29.
LeonardiPMMeyerSR (2015) Social media as social lubricant: how ambient awareness eases knowledge transfer. American Behavioral Scientist59(1): 10–34.
30.
LeonardiPMHuysmanMSteinfieldC (2013) Enterprise social media: definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(1): 1–19.
MenLRO’NeilJEwingM (2020) Examining the effects of internal social media usage on employee engagement. Public Relations Review46(2): 101880.
33.
MullerMShamiNSMillenDR, et al. (2010) We are all lurkers: consuming behaviors among authors and readers in an enterprise file-sharing service. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on supporting group work, Sanibel Island, FL, 7–10 November.
34.
OostervinkNAgterbergMHuysmanM (2016) Knowledge sharing on enterprise social media: practices to cope with institutional complexity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21(2): 156–176.
35.
RiceREEvansSKPearceKE, et al. (2017) Organizational media affordances: operationalization and associations with media use. Journal of Communication67(1): 106–130.
36.
SaksAM (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology21(7): 600–619.
37.
SchaufeliWBBakkerAB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior25(3): 293–315.
38.
SchaufeliWBBakkerASalanovaM (2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement66(4): 701–716.
39.
SharmaABhatnagarJ (2016) Enterprise social media at work: web-based solutions for employee engagement. Human Resource Management International Digest24(7): 16–19.
40.
StohlCStohlMLeonardiPM (2016) Digital age—managing opacity: information visibility and the paradox of transparency in the digital age. International Journal of Communication10: 123–137.
41.
StrongDMVolkoffOJohnsonSA, et al. (2014) A theory of organization-EHR affordance actualization. Journal of the Association for Information Systems15(2): 53–85.
42.
TreemJW (2015) Social media as technologies of accountability: explaining resistance to implementation within organizations. American Behavioral Scientist59(1): 53–74.
43.
TreemJWLeonardiPM (2013) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association36(1): 143–189.
44.
TreemJWLeonardiPVan den HooffB (2020) Computer-mediated communication in the age of communication visibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(1): 44–59.
45.
Van OschWSteinfieldCW (2018) Strategic visibility in enterprise social media: implications for network formation and boundary spanning. Journal of Management Information Systems35(2): 647–682.
46.
Van ZoonenWBanghartS (2018) Talking engagement into being: a three-wave panel study linking boundary management preferences, work communication on social media, and employee engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23(5): 278–293.
47.
Van ZoonenWSivunenA (2020) Knowledge brokering in an era of communication visibility. International Journal of Business Communication. Epub ahead of print 1 July. DOI: 10.1177/2329488420937348.
48.
van ZoonenWSivunenATreemJW (2021) Why people engage in supplemental work: The role of technology, response expectations, and communication persistence. Journal of Organizational Behavior42(7): 867–884. DOI: 10.1002/job.2538.
49.
van ZoonenWSivunenARiceRE, et al. (2021) Organizational information and communication technologies and their influence on communication visibility and perceived proximity. International Journal of Business Communication. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/23294884211050068.
50.
YangXYeHJWangX (2021) Social media use and work efficiency: insights from the theory of communication visibility. Information & Management58(4): 103462.
51.
ZhangXVogelDRZhouZ (2012) Effects of information technologies, department characteristics and individual roles on improving knowledge sharing visibility: a qualitative case study. Behaviour & Information Technology31(11): 1117–1131.
