The effect of SM on virtual team and social capital

Empirical research confirm that SM brings a phenomenal shift in the way virtual teams operate (Saafein & Shaykhian, 2014; Verburg et al., 2013) and can improve social capital of project teams (Hofer & Aubert, 2013; Jin, 2013; Brecht et al., 2012; Cao et al., 2012). Reports on social network sites (SNS) have suggested that social capital has been positively affected as a result of using SNS, which indicates the value of SNS to group dynamics (Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008). In addition to this, Sun and Shang (2014) argue that intra-organisational SNS provide the potential for interaction and communication among employees, thereby facilitating the establishment of social interaction ties and the nurturance of a shared vision and trust in the organisation. The social-related use of SM may enable the creation of an organisation with high social capital.

In an experiment performed by Paul et al. (2016), researchers concluded that higher coordination led to higher trust and team cohesion. Coordination implies the sharing of goals and can play a positive moderating role in conflict management and team performance (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). Coordination also indicates the degree of unity among team members (Piccoli, Powell, & Ives, 2004) and for this to be effective, a shared vision of objective, goals and tasks is a prerequisite (Yuan, Zhang, Chen, Vogel, & Chu, 2009).

Hofer and Aubert (2013) analysed the effect of Twitter for social capital construct, bonding and bridging. They tried to link followers and followees of Twitter to online bridging and bonding social constructs (Amichai-Hamburger, Kingsbury, & Schneider, 2013; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011; Zhong, 2011). The findings analysed weak and strong social ties of 264 Twitter users and concluded that bonding social construct can be attributed to “followers” while bridging social construct can be mapped to “followees”, indicating the correlation of strong and weak social ties. In identifying the dependent variables for SM use, Scheepers, Scheepers, Stockdale, and Nurdin (2014) found that the sense of belonging to a community includes factors such as information-seeking behaviour for entertainment, professional and personal use; hedonic behaviour (self-fulfilling for personal

entertainment); maintaining and sustaining strong social ties; and extending weak ties. These factors are primary variables that encourage the use of SM. In a separate development Cao et al. (2012)

61 looked at the effect of relational social capital or ‘trust’. The researchers confirmed that trust was enhanced by the use of SM.

Relationship maturity can be identified using the ‘tie strength’ of the work team, and the potential for a knowledge-seeker to request knowledge is directly related to social capital (Leonardi and Meyer (2015). In the absence of traditional monitoring and control mechanisms, trust becomes a prime factor for building relationships in virtual teams (Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006). Empirical findings suggest that trust is a critical factor in measuring virtual team performance (Pinjani & Palvia, 2013; Sarker, Ahuja, Sarker, & Kirkeby, 2011; Casey, 2010). However, by contrast, some other studies have confirmed that for socially oriented systems to be implemented successfully, a prerequisite is the existence of an environment with high social capital (Chang & Zhu, 2012; Wang & Chiang, 2009; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). In the online auction community, for example, Wang and Chiang (2009) used the model developed by Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) to prove that the continuance of the online auction system is highly influenced by social capital constructs, and that social capital is actually an outcome of SM use. Social capital building can be enhanced by the continuous use of SNS (Jin, 2013). Steinfield, DiMicco, Ellison, and Lampe (2009) conducted research to analyse the use of social networking sites and the effect on an organisation’s social capital. They found that the intensity of SNS usage positively affected the organisational social capital. In a separate survey, Steinfield et al. (2008) found that the level of Facebook usage for first-year university students predicted the outcomes of bridging social capital in second year. They also found that while usage of the internet alone did not increase social capital, the use of SNS contributed significantly to the development of social capital. It is important to understand the demarcation of SM use between work and social communication. From the research conducted by Jin (2013), it was confirmed that a user’s intention to use an SM tool (specifically, Facebook) directly increases the social capital of the group. Similar findings were published by Steinfield et al. (2008). Both the above studies suggest that the social- related use of SM strengthens the group’s social capital. So far, the above discussion has pointed out that SM has a positive influence in increasing the social capital of individuals, groups and

organisations. The following section explores what constitutes project team performance.

Many studies support the idea that social capital in teams can account for achieving high levels of team performance and cooperation among team members (Karahanna & Preston, 2013; Lee, Park & Lee, 2013; Di Vincenzo & Mascia, 2012; Chow & Chan, 2008). Social capital correlates positively with team effectiveness, performance and satisfaction as shown by research conducted by van Emmrick and Brenninkmeijer (2009) in their study of secondary public schools in the Netherlands, where they proved that high performance was achieved in teaching teams with high group social capital. Similarly, in the context of development projects for information systems, social capital is

62 proven to influence and maintain a significant impact on project performance (Lee et al., 2013). Due to frequent, close and collaborative interaction among team members, shared vision enhances knowledge sharing within the group. A cognitive dimension of social capital (i.e. shared vision) can promote collaborative knowledge sharing among members (Li, 2005) and thus increase the possibility of project success. Studies have also confirmed that shared vision is positively related to the

successful performance of development projects for information systems (Lee, Park, & Lee, 2014; Pee, Kankanhalli, & Kim, 2010). Expanding into the areas of transformational leadership research, a leader’s sharing of vision has a strong and positive influence on the performance of the team (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004).

Team diversity is an aspect of social capital that is a positive influencer for project team performance. Research conducted by Bercovitz and Feldman (2011) into cross-institutional scientific teams

indicated that project team performance improved as a result of diversity in the team members’ experience. On the other hand, another form of social capital — network density — was also found to increase productivity (Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001) while at the same time decreasing the creative performance of the team (Kratzer, Leenders, & Van Engelen, 2004). Many researchers have also identified that structural components of social capital, mainly cohesion and diversity, play an important role in determining project team performance (Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001; Coleman, 1988). They argue that cohesion is critical to knowledge sharing within the group. The group can only exist as a ‘cohesive unit’ when the team members are bonded by strong social ties. When strong social ties exist, coordination and trust among team members increases, thus facilitating a rapid diffusion of information and knowledge. Such a group produces high team performance (Augusto Felício, Couto, & Caiado, 2014; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Krackhardt, 1999; Coleman, 1988). Bonding also encourages cohesiveness and thereby facilitates the pursuit of collective goals (Williams, 2006; Adler & Kwon, 2002).

The following section looks into the effect of SM on project team performance.