See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286949182

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate

Environments

Book · January 2014

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6182-0.ch009

CITATIONS READS
0 3,849

1 author:

Imed Boughzala
Institut Mines-Télécom Business School
113 PUBLICATIONS   514 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Knowledge Management View project

Social Media View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Imed Boughzala on 17 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Integrating Social
Media into Business
Practice, Applications,
Management, and Models

In Lee
Western Illinois University, USA

A volume in the Advances in E-Business Research

(AEBR) Book Series
 163

Chapter 9
How Generation Y Perceives
Social Networking Applications
in Corporate Environments
Imed Boughzala
Telecom Ecole de Management, France

ABSTRACT
Organizations increasingly rely on corporate social networks and online communities to enhance so-
cialization and knowledge sharing, collaboration, and value creation among coworkers. This chapter
presents and analyzes results from a qualitative exploratory study conducted recently with a group of
24 graduate management students from a French business school. It contributes to a better understand-
ing of how generation Y perceives the use of Social Networking (SN) applications inside businesses by
drawing up a list of dos and don’ts. This study provides an ordered list of important adoption issues to
consider when implementing and using CSN applications in businesses. It provides expectations and
precautions for stakeholders to take into account for best use, compared to users (coworkers), managers,
and the enterprise as a whole. A first list of guidelines, to favor the best adoption of these applications
and to make their usage effective, is formulated.

INTRODUCTION Indeed, this magazine used to devote coverage to

In 2005, the social aspect of the Web was empha-
sized by Tim O’Reilly (2005) to highlight the value
of socialization related to people connections,
content sharing and co-creation through social
networks. Internet user is no longer considered as
an information consumer but more as a content
producer. To the point that in 2006 Time magazine
titled its coverage “You.” (Yes, you. You control
the Information Age. Welcome to your world).
the person of the year since the late 1920s.
The idea was to highlight that internet users
from that year (2006) will have the control over
the information thanks to the Social Web (2.0),
by expressing freely themselves on the web and
interacting directly with others. This marks in
somewhat a break with the traditional web.
Today, integrating Web 2.0 applications (i.e.
social media) in businesses provides many op-
portunities to improve interaction, knowledge

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6182-0.ch009

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
sharing and collaboration among employees, also
with customers and partners. These applications
are becoming a popular medium for people in-
teraction, content sharing (Constant et al., 1994;
Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Cramton, 2001) and
open collaboration (Coleman & Levine, 2008).
Currently, to take profit from their potential,
companies increasingly rely on corporate social
networking (CSN) applications (in the continuum
of Intranet efforts) to enhance the communica-
tion and increase the density of connections and
sharing among coworkers to drive business value
and innovation (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007;
Sena & Sena, 2008).
According to many authors (Dudezert et al.,
2009; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Boughzala,
2007-2012a; Deal et al., 2010; Gorman et al.,
2004), the new generation of hypermodern em-
ployees (i.e. Generation Y) has developed new
habits and behaviors at work. They use, on a daily
basis, Web 2.0 applications (blogs, wikis, Really
Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds, SN applica-
tions/services, folksonomy, podcasting, tagging,
mashups, etc) in the private arena and, therefore,
consider that such applications for self-organizing,
sharing and collaboration are the best tools to
work. Social networks and online communities
are for them the best resources to solve problems
collectively, to get connections and partnerships
and thus to take advantage of the collective in-
telligence (Smith & Duin, 1994; Malone et al.,
2009). This generation wants to choose by it-self
the tools and devices it deems fit to use (notion
of self-care, Bitner et al., 2002). This is part of
larger organizational issues, called BYOD (Bring
Your Own Device), BYOA (Bring Your Own Ap-
plication, Ballagas et al., 2004) or more BYOB
(Bring Your Own Behavior, Gunnarsson, 2012).
Researchers and practitioners to date have
mostly assumed that people from this generation
Y (Dudezert et al., 2009; Hershatter & Epstein,
2010), because of their massive use of social media
in the private arena, would be willing to accept
and use them more easily and quickly in corporate
164

environment under what we call Enterprise 2.0
(Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Deal et al.,
2010). However, to the best of our knowledge,
there is no empirical work which has been reported
on this issue confirming this assumption on the
ground. Nobody can affirm today that generation
Y would be the driver of this technology adop-
tion in corporate environment considering their
technology readiness (Parasuraman, 2000).
This chapter tries to address this gap by answer-
ing the following research questions: how the use
of CSN applications is perceived by the generation
Y? To what extent people from this generation are
willing to adopt and use them within a corporate
environment? And, what should be the best and
worst use according to them?
The method adopted for this study is based
on a qualitative exploratory study through an
enriched Delphi method (Briggs et al., 2003).
Twenty four graduate management students from a
French business school were invited to participate
voluntarily to a directed brainstorming session,
using a Group Support System (GSS), in order to
gather their statements and opinions. This study
provided an ordered list of important adoption
issues to consider when implementing and using
CSN applications in businesses.
The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to
a better understanding of the perception of genera-
tion Y with regard to CSN applications by drawing
up a list of dos and don’ts. It provides important
expectations and precautions to take into account
by stakeholders for a best use, compared to users
(coworkers), managers and the enterprise at whole.
The rest of this chapter is structured as follows:
Section 2 briefly describes research background in
terms of concepts (Web 2.0, generation Y and SN
applications) and some related works and theories.
Section 3 describes the research method that has
been used in this exploratory study. Results are
presented in section 4. Based on our findings,
we discuss in section 5 their accordance with the
technology acceptance and adoption models and
theories; and present some guidelines associated

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
with best CSN applications deployment and usage.
The conclusion discusses contributions, limita-
tions and future research directions.
BACKGROUND
Web 2.0 and Knowledge Sharing
Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005) is one major change that
is being transforming work practices and more
widely the organization at whole. In fact, new
usages for information and knowledge sharing
have emerged with the advent of Web 2.0 appli-
cations, giving rise to the Enterprise 2.0 concept
(Anderson, 2007). Enterprise 2.0 - a new culture
of technology usage here - refers to “the use of
Web 2.0, emergent social software platforms
within companies, or between companies and
their partners or customers” as defined initially
by McAfee (2006).
Web 2.0 is a combination of applications
(Blog, Wiki, Podcast, RSS feeds, Tagging, Social
networks…); new values related to the use of
these applications (user as producer, collective
intelligence, perpetual beta, extreme ease if use)
and standardized technology behind these appli-
cations (Ajax, XML, Open API, Microformats,
Flash/Flex) (O’Reilly, 2005; Anderson, 2007).
Web 2.0 applications, also called social me-
dia, are intuitive, user-friendly, social centered,
flexible and less formal than traditional informa-
tion systems (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Latter
researchers have classified social media into six
categories including collaborative projects (e.g.
Wikipedia), blogs and microblogs (e.g. Twitter),
content communities (e.g. Youtube), social net-
working sites/systems (SNSs) (e.g. Facebook),
virtual game worlds (e.g. World of Warecraft)
and virtual social worlds (e.g. Second Life). Used
initially in the private arena, they are increasingly
disseminated within professional spheres, regard-
less of organization type or field of activities
(Boughzala, 2010a-2011). They are very useful
for self-expression, social networking and inter-
action, and skills and talents identification. They
are a good opportunity for companies to improve
best practices’ sharing, and to encourage open
collaboration, crowdsourcing and co-creation
(AIIM, 2009; Gorman et al., 2004).
Indeed, knowledge sharing among cowork-
ers through web 2.0 applications remains the
primary objective to reach for companies before
hoping their collaboration and value co creation.
Knowledge sharing is a volitional action by which
knowledge is made known to other people (Dav-
enport and Prusak, 1998; Cramton, 2001). This
can be seen from two angles – a) the knowledge
one considers sharing; and b) the person or people
with whom one contemplates sharing it. Thus, an
individual may deem a given body of knowledge
to be highly sharable with someone, but not shar-
able with another (Bock et al., 2005; Boughzala
and Briggs, 2012b). Social networks and online
communities are very important for knowledge
sharing and creation (Rheingold, 1993). Cum-
mings (2003) posits that knowledge sharing is the
means by which an organization obtains access
to its own and other organizations’ knowledge.
Bresman et al. (1999) argued that individuals will
only participate willingly in knowledge sharing
once they share a sense of identity (or belonging)
with others.
Social Networking Applications
One of the most interesting, rich and extremely
popular web 2.0 applications is SN applications
(mobile apps, sites, services or platforms) for
developing and supporting online social network
communities, and share user-created contents
(Kim et al., 2010). Boyd and Ellison (2007) define
them “as web-based services that allow individu-
als to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile
within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of
other users with whom they share a connection,
and (3) view and traverse their list of connections
and those made by others within the system.” For
165
 
How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments

Figure 1. The honeycomb framework of social media (Kietzmann et al., 2011)

Richter and Koch (2008 p. 87), social networking
services/sites (SNSs) “are application systems
that offer users functionalities for identity man-
agement and enable furthermore to keep in touch
with other users.”
Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) categorize SNS
by four different terms: (1) self-presentation, (2)
self-disclosure, (3) social presence, and (4) media
richness in terms of the amount of information to
be transmitted at time intervals. Later, Kietzmann
et al. (2011) describe a categorization, called the
honeycomb framework of social media, which
is able to categorize SNS using seven functional
building blocks (i.e. functionalities): Identity,
Presence, Sharing, Relationships, Conversations,
Reputation, Groups (Figure 1).
Generation Y
Another change related to the transformation of the
organization is social that came with the arrival on
the job market of the new generation of employees
– the Generation Y (Anonymous editorial, 1993)
(“Why” – i.e., eager of sense-making), Gen Y,
Yers, Net Generation, Digital Natives or Milen-
nials (Gorman et al., 2004; Forrester Consulting,
2006; Dudezert et al., 2009). A new generation
of younger, college- and university-educated

166

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
workers born between 1978 and 1995 and grown
up with the Internet. This generation succeeds to
the generation X (anonymous) which came after
and is less known than, the baby boomers. Ac-
cording to Forrester Consulting (2006) and others
(Broadbridge et al., 2009, Hershatter & Epstein,
2010), these employees are looking continuously
for new technology and are eager to simply and
quickly find good information/knowledge, any-
time and anywhere and from any device; and are
very autonomous and intuitive, not intimidated
by knowledge complexity and organizational
hierarchy (Boughzala, 2010b – 2012a). This new
generation already upsets the traditional organi-
zation and sometimes confuses the professional
sphere with the private one (Kowske et al., 2010).
It is also a good opportunity for her to integrate
enthusiastic and creative employees. The genera-
tion Y is characterized by a new culture – Culture
2.0 – of awareness, technology usage, knowledge
sharing, mass collaboration and open innovation
(Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007).
CSN Applications and Generation Y
As young people from the generation Y are ac-
customed nowadays to meet and converse on
Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and other similar SN
applications, companies have realized the impor-
tance of social networking and started deploying
and using their own SN platforms (Sena & Sena,
2008). Social networking within a corporate
environment is an efficient way to link remotely
located people with specific competency domains
in large organizations (e.g. IBM, Disney, Accen-
ture, Redbull), to create a sustainable relationship
and maintain them. This social aspect makes the
CSN applications an attractive opportunity for
knowledge-intensive organizations (Richter &
Riemer, 2009).
Sena and Sena (2008) argue that CSN ap-
plications “are primarily used to build trust and
share knowledge on a peer to peer basis rather
than through documents subject to information
obsolescence.” A study led by SelectMinds (2008)
revealed that private and secure CSNs provide
substantial savings for the company. “This study
examined the financial contributions of CSN so-
lutions in 60 leading, global organizations. The
report revealed that a better connected workforce
through CSN technology can yield significant
financial contributions to organizations” (Sena
& Sena, 2008). Key findings of the study include:
• 10.3% increase in productivity
contributions;
• 8.8% increase in retention contributions;
and
• 11.7% increase in new business.
Therefore, for many companies the adoption
of CSN applications by workers and their incor-
poration into their daily workspace are becoming
big challenges (Grady, 2008). They count on the
contribution of generation Y, with relation to its
alleged readiness, to lead this change and be the
driver of this technology adoption.
The Technology Adoption Research
Technology is evolving and with this a big chal-
lenge for designers and managers to understand
how and why people adopt or do not adopt new
technology. The technology acceptance/adoption
is one of the most important issues in the manage-
ment information systems (MIS) area. The Theory
of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)
and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991)
have been used successfully to assess technology
adoption. TRA states that there are four constructs
that a user has in actual behavior since the behav-
ioral intention is positively influenced by beliefs,
attitude, normative beliefs and subjective norm.
TPB states that the attitude toward the behavior,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control
determine behavior intention and in consequence
behavior.
167

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
Many studies have been carried out and many
theories and models were provided to explain
this social phenomenon, such as Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM, Davis, 1989), Technol-
ogy Readiness and Acceptance Model (TRAM,
Parasuraman 2000), TAM 2 (Venkatesh & Davis,
2000), TAM 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT, Venkatesh et al., 2003) and UTAUT 2
(Venkatesh et al., 2012). These cognitive-based
models try to explain the behavioral intention to
use a technology according to main two variables:
the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness;
and other external variables such as social influ-
ence, performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
voluntariness of use, experience, age, subjective
norm, image, job relevance, output quality, com-
puter self-efficacy, computer playfulness, hedonic
motivation, habit, etc.
TAM is an adaptation of TRA and proposes that
the acceptance of a technology in the workplace is
influenced by the perceived usefulness and ease of
use for the technology use (Davis 1989). TRAM
includes individual beliefs to understand how
people embrace and use new technologies for home
and work measured by optimism, innovativeness,
discomfort and insecurity (Parasuraman 2000).
UTAUT provides a model to assess the likelihood
of adoption for a new technology; it emerged from
eight different technology acceptance models
(Venkatesh et al. 2003). (Figures 2 & 3)
Furthermore according to DeLone and McLean
(1992-2003), the success of an information system
(IS) deployment is conditioned by the intention to
use, the use and satisfaction of its users, which are
conditioned by the quality of information, system
and service. (Figure 4)
This chapter does not detail these models
that are sources of inspiration to interpret the
results of this exploratory study for explaining
the acceptance and adoption of SN applications
within a corporate environment by generation Y.
This study comes as a prior step before a future
quantitative confirmatory research.
168

RESEARCH METHOD
In order to address the aforementioned research
gap, we carried out a qualitative exploratory study
based on a Delphi approach, enriched by the use
of the think Lets-based modeling (Briggs et al.,
2003). Twenty four graduate management students
(from the generation Y) from a French business
school participated an electronic brainstorming
around one main question: what do you think
about Enterprise 2.0 through the use of SN ap-
plications within a corporate environment?, and
five sub-questions:
• To what extent could CSN applications be
used?
• What are benefits in the use of CSN appli-
cations compared to businesses and com-
pared to you?
• What are the dos and don’ts to make their
deployment successful?
• How you should use them (dos and don’ts)?
• How managers should use them (dos and
don’ts)?
Delphi studies are regularly used in Informa-
tion Systems studies when a consensus needs to
be achieved among domain experts on a topic
where idea generation is required (Keil et al.,
2002). While Delphi studies are normally survey-
based (Schmidt et al., 2001), we used a GSS and
a well-structured facilitation process based on the
use of thinkLets (Briggs et al., 2003). GSS is a
suite of software tools designed to support collec-
tive problem solving, including the generation of
ideas, reducing, organizing, and evaluating idea
sets (Fjermestad and Hiltz, 1999). ThinkLets
are pre-packaged thinking activities (facilitation
techniques) that create predictable, repeatable
patterns of collaboration among people working
toward a goal. They facilitate information emer-
gence and sharing among participants and assist
the facilitators in controlling the reflection process
to converge on relevant proposals. They are used

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments

Figure 2. Technology acceptance models (TAM, TAM 2 vs. TAM 3)

to streamline collaboration during brainstorm-
ing sessions, rapid decision-making, creativity
… (Vreede et al., 2009). Each participant in a
GSS session uses a computer to submit ideas and
votes to the group, to make selections, to orga-
nize ideas, or to write draft texts. Using GSS, all
participants can contribute simultaneously, and
may generate and evaluate ideas anonymously,
while participating in well-structured deliberation
processes (Briggs et al., 2003). The use of a GSS

169
 
How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments

Figure 3. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT 2 vs. UTAUT)

allowed us to collect extensive and well-organized The participants

group collaboration results. It also served for the
development of a synthesis report summarizing
the results of the process.
In June 2012, students of a GSS course (the objec-
tive of the course is to learn how to use a GSS (a
technology for supporting group work) in order
to run electronic brainstorming and solve problem
collectively) were invited to participate in a study
at the author’s business school. In order to motivate

Figure 4. Model of Information Systems Success (DeLone and McLean, 2003)

170

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
Table 1. Delphi study participant demographic data
Study data
     • Total of participants: 24
     • Nationality: 19 French, 3 Tunisian, 1 Senegalese, 1 Chinese
     • Educational background: all participants are Management Graduate students
     • Youngest participant in Age: 20
     • Oldest participant in Age: 23
     • Age average: 21
     • Males: 13
     • Females: 11
     • Business experience: at least a 6 months internship
them, students who volunteered to participate
in the study received an extra credit. They were
asked to answer the above questions through an
electronic brainstorming. Demographics of the
study participants are provided in Table 1.
The Brainstorming process
The brainstorming process consisted of several
activities in which the participants were asked to
engage during a 180 minute period followed by
90 minute open discussion. A summarized agenda
and research process follows:
• After an introductory presentation by the
facilitator on Enterprise 2.0 and CSN ap-
plications in particular, and the scope of
the brainstorming, participants were asked
to anonymously generate ideas around the
main question and five sub questions (40
minutes).
• Participants were then assigned to six sub-
groups and asked to reduce, clarify and
organize collectively generated ideas into
unique statements around one of the six
questions (40 minutes). The goal was to
converge on similar ideas, remove non-
related ones, and reword those insuffi-
ciently clear. For the main general question
and first sub question, statements have to
be ordered in one list. For the second sub
question, statements have to be classified
around two themes: benefits compared to
businesses and benefits compared to the
generation Y. For the three other sub ques-
tions, statements have to be classified in
terms of dos and don’ts.
• Participants then rejoined as a single group.
Each subgroup presented and explained to
the group which statements were selected
for their respective question (40 minutes).
• Participants were then asked to individu-
ally and anonymously rate the relevance
of each statement on a 5-point Likert-type
scale, with ‘5’ representing a very relevant
statement and ‘1’ a least relevant state-
ment relating to each of the questions (20
minutes).
• The voting scores were then presented to
all participants in a raw format to stimulate
a discussion of the results (statement by
statement), and to allow the reformulation
of statements when necessary, to clarify
ratings’ standard deviations and so to build
a collective consensus (40 minutes).
To end the brainstorming, we conducted af-
ter a 15 minute break an open discussion for 90
minutes with participants about the brainstorming
results. We aimed to deepen understanding on
how to make the deployment of CSN applications
successful according to them. A list of guidelines
171

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
was generated to favor the best adoption of these
applications and make their usage effective.
Moreover, a research assistant audio recorded
all the session and made field notes about oral state-
ments during the meeting. In addition, participants
recorded their key contributions on Post-it notes,
and gave them to the research team at the end of
the session. The facilitator made also field notes
immediately following each step of the process.
RESULTS
To the main question, “what do you think about
Enterprise 2.0 through the use of SN applications
within a corporate environment?”, participants
made several statements. Here, in a decreasing
order, quotes which had the higher votes (greater
Mean and smaller Standard Deviation):
• “I don’t want to have my colleagues among
my friends’ contacts.” This confirms that
they are aware of the need to separate
between business and private spheres,
contrary to the preconceived schemes ad-
vanced in the literature.
• “I’m afraid to speak freely thorny issues
within a corporate environment, unless it
is anonymous.” This means that they are
afraid about what they could say on a net-
work or blog informally be used against
them later by the enterprise. To ensure the
freedom of expression, they suggest that
the communication would be anonymous
on critical subjects. It would be here a form
of self-censorship that is contrary to their
supposed culture 2.0.
• “My private social network is sufficient for
me.” This is similar to say that the CSN
applications would not necessarily be of a
great contribution to their professional ac-
tivities. An assertion contrary to an almost
obviousness for managers.
172

• “I’m afraid of opinion-based discrimina-
tion.” There is here distrust toward the
enterprise and managers expressed by this
generation. They think that spontaneity
sometimes could be a disadvantage.
• “I want to be trained first and know the
usage charter.” Here, this generation does
not feel well prepared/trained to use these
applications in a professional setting. She
therefore requires training and to know the
terms of the usage charter. She believes
that this latter should exist to frame well
this professional use.
• “I want to use my personal PC / mobile
device and own tools.” Here, the interest
in the BYOD and BYOA are confirmed.
We can interpret that by its practical side
(keeping the same device and application
for both business and private uses) and/or
the mistrust in enterprise side (tracking/
control that the enterprise could do).
• “I use them [CSN applications] if I see a
benefit or personal value.” This statement
shows the pragmatism (realism) of this
generation in its continuous search for
sense-making and recognition.
To the sub question 1, “To what extent could
CSN applications be used?” participants made
several statements. 8 statements in an ordered
list have been elicited and consolidated. Table 2
summarizes the statements deemed most relevant
by participants.
The Cronbach’s alpha (α) for this question
equals 0.88 (> 0.7), indicating a certain homo-
geneity in the participants’ responses relative to
the understanding of these statements – this is the
same for all the other questions.
To the sub question 2, “What are the benefits
in the use of CSN applications compared to busi-
nesses and compared to you?”, participants made
several statements. 8 statements for each theme
have been elicited and consolidated. Table 3 sum-
marizes the statements deemed most relevant by

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
Table 2. Main usage of CSN applications (α=0.88)
     9. Connection
     10. Social awareness
     11. Information and knowledge sharing
     12. Forming or participating (to) groups
     13. Reputation and self-advertising
     14. Recruitment
     15. Daily spontaneous reporting
     16. Crowdsourcing: collaboration and problem solving
participants. These statements generally show that
this generation is very well aware of the benefit
of using CSN applications. Some statements are
personal benefit oriented beyond their usefulness
for performing the professional activity.
To the sub question 3, “What are the dos and
don’ts to make their deployment successful?”,
participants made several statements. 7 statements
for each theme have been elicited and consolidated.
Table 4 summarizes the statements considered as
the most relevant according to the participants.
These statements show to which extent this genera-
tion gives importance for a good management of
these applications. For them, they should remain
informal social spaces rather than controlled ones.
To the sub question 4, “How you should use
them (dos and don’ts)?”, participants made several
statements. 5 statements for each theme have been
elicited and consolidated. Table 5 summarizes the
statements considered as the most relevant accord-
ing to the participants. These statements show at
somewhat a lack of spontaneity (for not saying
a simulation) and a lot of prudence in their use.
To the sub question 5, “How managers should
use them (dos and don’ts)?”, participants made
several statements. 6 statements for each theme
have been elicited and consolidated. Table 6
summarizes the statements considered as the
most relevant according to the participants. These
statements show a strong need for recognition
and rewarding expressed by this generation. She
is also very aware of the limitations of the usage
of CSN applications.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The findings of this exploratory study go up a gap
between what they declared during the brainstorm-
ing and stereotypes commonly relayed on their
technology usage in the academic and manage-
rial literature (self-care, confusion of private and
professional spheres, easy technology adoption,
strong technical skills and less need for training
being instinctive). These findings cast doubt
compared to their adoption and waited potential
in the diffusion of Enterprise 2.0 (particularly here
CSN applications) within businesses.
In summary, key findings of this study show
that:
• People from the generation Y are prudent
with regard to their CSN use in a corporate
environment, and suspicious about the real
managerial intentions.
• They consider that socialization between
coworkers must remain out of the hierar-
chical control.
• Private data protection is becoming a big
priority for them.
• Security is briefly mentioned without in-
sistence. It seems obvious for them to trust
businesses with regard to their IS.
• The quality of the used technologies should
be enough good for motivating their usage.
• They are not specially prepared for the
CSN use, and their private use of social
media is not a guarantee for an optimized
173
 
How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments

Table 3. Benefits from the CSN applications’ usage (α=0.94)

Benefits compared to businesses

     9. Give a better outside image
     10. Surf on a new fashion: advertising and display
     11. Communicate better on its objectives, products and services
     12. Disseminate internally information content
     13. Distribute job offers and recruit
     14. Provoke Buzz around activities
     15. Stimulate open innovation among coworkers
     16. Promote cohesion between coworkers and integrate better new employees
Benefits compared to generation Y
     9. Give a better self-image and valorize his/her skills
     10. Find a job or new mission internally
     11. Increase his/her employability and mobility
     12. Get help to solve problems faster
     13. Be well informed about what happen inside the enterprise in Pull mode (through a wall of activity monitoring)
     14. Build a own professional network
     15. Know more about coworkers (skills, activities, etc)
     16. Co-create value

professional use. They hope that others • Their interest in CSN is individualistic and
stop thinking that all of them are geeks. mostly opportunistic: building their profes-
sional network, taking care of their repu-

Table 4. Business usage (α=0.89)

Dos
     8. Ensure data security and compliance with privacy
     9. Allow creating extra-professional groups and keep them informal
     10. Create an internal reputation index (e.g. R-index) and an endorsement system
     11. Make of CSNs instruments for a participative management (debates, referenda, contests, voting…)
     12. Create a mentoring system for new employees
     13. Provide multi devices applications with the same quality as those used in the private sphere (e.g. Facebook, MySpace)
     14. Associate a skills search engine
Don’ts
     8. Control abusively their usage with deep statistics
     9. Emerge a false spontaneity (self censorship, continuous picture control, fear to open up, fear to be judged)
     10. Information overload (too much shared information)
     11. Provide less interesting content
     12. No animation of communities (no community management)
     13. Keep tracking usage and analyze it without the knowledge of workers
     14. Do not provide a rewarding system

174

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments

Table 5. Generation Y usage (α=0.93)

Dos
     6. Do not associate the professional profile to the private one
     7. Fill well his/her professional profile (skills, experience, interests…)
     8. Get noticed by the hierarchy and other employees: having followers
     9. Choose the right interest groups and communities
     10. Remain always professional in his/her communication (talk)
Don’ts
     6. Talk about confidential things and customers
     7. Disparage the enterprise, his/her manager/business unit, colleagues, client or future internal employer
     8. Use the same SN application than in private arena
     9. Share compromising content (photos, videos…)
     10. Confuse the professional space with the private one

tation, being recognized, increasing their
employability, finding new opportunities
of mobility, etc.
Through all results of this study, we find
almost all the functional building blocks of the
honeycomb framework of social media cited above
(see Figure 1).
When we consider the technology acceptance
and adoption research models (cited above i.e.
TAM, UTAUT…) in this study, several variables
explaining the intention of the generation Y to use
CSN applications are addressed such as:
1. The perceived ease of use is cited when this
generation claims for a prior training and a
clear usage charter;

Table 6. Manager usage (α=0.85)

Dos
     7. Shorten the hierarchical distance (direct access, more trust, more empowerment, more democracy)
     8. Encourage and reward collaborators
     9. Provide a transversal competence
     10. Animate without imposing the participation
     11. Know how to interest others
     12. Lead by the example
Don’ts
     7. Think only of profitability and amortization (the yield)
     8. Control abusively the participation of collaborators
     9. Use it to assess their skills
     10. Observe without participating
     11. Compel people to use it
     12. Do not predict time for collaborators for that use

175

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
2. The perceived usefulness seems more related
to the personal benefit rather than the execu-
tion of the professional activity;
3. The motivation and habit are mentioned when
they insist on the quality of the technology
since they are already very familiar with
good quality technology in terms of HCI
and features (e.g. authoring, tagging, shar-
ing, connecting, voting, rating, commenting,
etc);
4. The voluntariness of use is suggested by not
to compel people to use these applications;
5. The effort expectancy is mentioned through
the time prediction for collaborators to use
these applications;
6. The experience seems essential since this
generation ask for creating a mentoring
system for new employees;
7. The image is mentioned several times
through statements both for business and
for users. For generation Y, that use could
help for a better self-image and valorizing
his/her skills;
8. The computer self-efficacy refers to a person
judgment about his/her ability to use technol-
ogy. Here generation Y assumes a need of a
prior training since its private use of social
media is not a guarantee for an optimized
professional use.
However, if we consider the DeLone and
McLean’ model of IS success (DeLone & McLean,
1992-2003) (here the CSN applications deploy-
ment and use) only the open discussion was
useful to get more statements and correlates to
explain the intention to use the CSN applications
and the satisfaction of the generation Y related
to the quality of information (participants cited
e.g. availability, accuracy, reliability, relevance,
updatedness…), quality of system (i.e. the CSN
applications should of a good quality in terms of
HCI and features, participants cited e.g. compli-
ance with standards, customization, user friendly,
awareness, VoIP availability…) and quality of
176

service (participants cited e.g. speed, bugs free, ac-
cessibility, interoperability with other applications
and devices (mobile ones), technical support…).
In addition, a list of five guidelines, to favor the
best adoption of these applications and make their
usage effective, was formulated from this open
discussion through the participants’ statements:
1. Making users aware of benefits of these
applications by using good internal
communication.
2. Forecasting an action plan for change man-
agement including training of users and using
companionship techniques.
3. Establishing a charter regulating the use of
these applications.
4. Identifying champions to manage “formally”
and sustain the use of these applications.
5. Creating a system of rewarding and rec-
ognition to motivate participation and
contribution.
CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES
In this chapter, we report on an exploratory study
to understand how generation Y perceives CSN
applications usage. It was based on qualitative
approach and discussed important adoption issues
to consider when implementing and using CSN
applications within a corporate environment.
Despite being exploratory, the results of this
study brought important insights toward answering
the addressed research questions. They enabled us
to provide important expectations and precautions
to take into account by stakeholders for a best use,
compared to users, managers and the enterprise
at whole according to a set of young people from
the generation Y.
Our contribution is both theoretical and practi-
cal as we propose an empirical evidence to explain
the acceptance and adoption of CSN applications.
The results should be of interest to academic
researchers in the MIS area, and practitioners

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
interested in CSN applications deployment and
usage. The research contributes to collaboration
processes and technology, social networks and
online communities’ literature, theory and prac-
tice through the development of first guidelines
to favor the best adoption of these applications
and make their usage effective. From a practical
viewpoint, these findings suggested by this study
may be useful to predict and explain variations in
the attitudes and actions of people from the genera-
tion Y toward using CSN applications in terms of
motivation, engagement, quality and continuance
use. From a research viewpoint, this could justify
the application of one of the adoption models or
the building of a new research model related to
that specific issue to provide evidence of proof
of value and proof of use in the field.
Practitioners and researchers, however, should
interpret these findings with caution, and regard
this study as preliminary, rather than definitive.
In fact, there are some limitations related to this
work. First, the study is limited by the amount of
knowledge the author has access to in terms of
managerial literature. There are possibly other
initiatives and case studies that can be related
to issues discussed in this chapter. The second
limitation concerns possible bias in the sampling
method. Our analysis is based on a set of statements
considered as relevant by a small – although sig-
nificant – sample of students but not practitioners.
The composition of this sample, in terms of users’
knowledge and usage of SN applications, depends
directly on the group of participants. Furthermore,
the elicited statements resulted from only one
group of students in a particular cultural context
(participants have the same educational back-
ground and are mostly French by birth [79.16%]).
Further field studies and explorations are
required in other settings and cultural contexts
to validate and expand the findings. In the near
future, a quantitative research using structural
equation modeling (SEM) will be launched to
analyze this social phenomenon by the theory and
validate the correlation between some acceptance
variables. The research model will be based on the
previous technology acceptance/adoption models
and theories.
In conclusion, this study could inspire other
researchers in assessing new initiatives in the
social web era such as through open sourcing or
crowdsourcing online (open) communities.
REFERENCES
AIIM. (2009). Collaboration and enterprise
2.0 - Work-meets-play or the future of business?
Retrieved from http://www.aiim.org/research/
collaboration-enterprise20-research.aspx
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T
Anderson, P. (2007). What is web 2.0? Ideas,
technologies and implications for education. JISC
Technology and Standards Watch, 60(1), 64.
Ballagas, R., Rohs, M., Sheridan, J. G., & Borch-
ers, J. (2004). BYOD: Bring Your Own Device.
Paper presented at the UbiComp 2004 Workshop,
Sixth International Conference on Ubiquitous
Computing. Nottingham, UK.
Bitner, M., Ostrom, A., Meuter, M., & Clancy,
A. (2002). Implementing successful self-service
technologies. Academy of Management Journal,
16(4).
Bock, G.-O., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee,
J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrin-
sic motivators, social-psychological factors and
organizational climate. Management Information
Systems (MIS). Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.
Boughzala, I. (2007). Ingénierie de la collabora-
tion: Théories, technologies et pratiques. Paris,
France: Hermès - Lavoisier.
177

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
Boughzala, I. (2010). Mise en perspective de
l’e-collaboration comme outil de transformation
de l’organisation. HDR Sciences de Gestion,
Université de Nantes.
Boughzala, I. (2011). Collaboration 2.0 through
the new organization transformation. In Knowl-
edge Management 2.0: Organizational Models and
Enterprise Strategies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-195-5.ch001
Boughzala, I. (2012). Collaboration engineering:
A contribution to its foundations through the 2.0
era. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic
Publishing.
Boughzala, I., & Briggs, R. O. (2012). A value
frequency model of knowledge sharing: An ex-
ploratory study on knowledge sharability in cross-
organizational collaboration. Electronic Markets,
22(1), 9–19. doi:10.1007/s12525-011-0080-0
Boughzala, I., & Limayem, M. (2010). The
new generation of Knowledge Management for
the Web 2.0 Age: KM 2.0. In Encyclopedia of
E-Business Development and Management in
the Digital Economy. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-611-7.ch122
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network
sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1),
210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Bresman, H., Birkenshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999).
Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions.
Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3),
439–462. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490078
Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, G. J., & Nunamaker,
J. F. Jr. (2003). Collaboration Engineering with
ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with
Group Support Systems. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 19(4), 31–64.
178

Broadbridge, A., Maxwell, G., & Ogden, S.
(2009). Selling Retailing to Generation Y Gradu-
ates: Recruitment Challenges and Opportuni-
ties. International Review of Retail, Distribu-
tion and Consumer Research, 19(4), 405–420.
doi:10.1080/09593960903331394
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007).
Open innovation and strategy. California Manage-
ment Review, 50(1), 57–77. doi:10.2307/41166416
Coleman, D., & Levine, S. (2008). Collaboration
2.0: Technology and best practices for successful
collaboration in a web 2.0 world. Happy About.
Constant, D., Keisler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994).
What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes
about information sharing. Information Systems
Research (Informs), 5(4), 400–421. doi:10.1287/
isre.5.4.400
Consulting, F. (2006). Is Europe Ready for the
Millennials? Innovate to meet the needs of the
emerging generation. Retrieved from http://www.
ffpress.net/Kunden/XER/Downloads/XER87000/
XER87000.pdf
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge
problem and its consequences for dispersed col-
laboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.
doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098
Crumpacker, M., & Crumpacker, J. (2007). Suc-
cession planning and generational stereotypes:
Should HR consider age-based values and attitudes
a relevant factor or a passing fad? Public Person-
nel Management, 36(4), 349–369.
Cummings, J. (2003). Knowledge sharing: A
review of the literature. Washington, DC: World
Bank Operations Evaluation Department. Re-
trieved from http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/Data/
reports/knowledge_eval_literature_review.pdf
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working
knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Harvard Business School Press.

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived
ease of use and user acceptance of information
technology. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 13(3), 318–340. doi:10.2307/249008
de Vreede, G. J., Briggs, R., & Massey, A. (2009).
Collaboration Engineering: Foundations and
Opportunities. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 10(3), 121–137.
Deal, J., Altman, J., David, G., & Rogelberg,
S. (2010). Millennials at work: What we know
and what we need to do (if anything). Journal
of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 191–199.
doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9177-2
DeLone, W. H., & MacLean, E. R. (1992). Informa-
tion systems success: The quest for the dependent
variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1),
60–95. doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The
DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
Dudezert, A., Boughzala, I., & Mounoud, E.
(2009). Comment intégrer la génération Millen-
nials à l’entreprise? Management: Enjeux de
demain (pp. 323–334). Paris: Vuibert.
Editorial, A. (1993). Adverting Age. Midwest
Region, 64(36), 16.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude,
intention and behavior: An introduction to theory
and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). An assess-
ment of group support systems experimental
research: Methodology and results. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 15(3), 7–150.
Gorman, P., Nelson, T., & Glassman, A. (2004).
The millenial generation: A strategic opportunity.
Organizational Analysis, 12(3), 255–270.
Grady, B. (2008). Corporate America embraces
social networking. Information and Learning
Company.
Gunnarsson, M. (2012). BYOB (Bring Your Own
Behavior) is a Driving Factor in the Adoption
of Enterprise Mobility Applications. Retrieved
from http://blogs.ifsworld.com/2012/10/byob-
bring-your-own-behavior-is-a-driving-factor-in-
the-adoption-of-enterprise-mobility-applications/
Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millenni-
als and the world of work: An organization and
management perspective. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 25(2), 211–223. doi:10.1007/
s10869-010-9160-y
Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing: A
definition. Wired, 14.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of
the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities
of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Keil, M., Tiwana, A., & Bush, A. (2002). Recon-
ciling user and project manager perceptions of IT
project risk: A Delphi study. Information Systems
Journal, 12(2), 103–119. doi:10.1046/j.1365-
2575.2002.00121.x
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.
P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social Media? Get
Serious! Understanding the functional building
blocks of Social Media. Business Horizons, 54(3),
241–251. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005
Kim, W., Jeong, O.-R., & Lee, S.-W. (2010). On
social websites. Information Systems Journal,
35(2), 215–236. doi:10.1016/j.is.2009.08.003
Kowske, B., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Mil-
lennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: An empiri-
cal examination of generational effects on work
attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology,
25(2), 265–279. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9171-8
179

How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments
Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Dellarocas, C.
(2009). Harnessing crowds: Mapping the genome
of collective intelligence (Working Paper No.
2009-001). MIT Center for Collective Intelligence.
McAfee, A. P. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn
of Emergent Collaboration. Sloan Management
Review, 47(3), 21–28.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0 Design Pat-
terns and Business Models for the Next Generation
of Software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/
web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readi-
ness Index (TRI), a multiple-item scale to mea-
sure readiness to embrace new technologies.
Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320.
doi:10.1177/109467050024001
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community:
Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Richter, A., & Koch, M. (2008). Functions on
Social Networking Services. In Proceedings of
8th International Conference on the Design of
Cooperative Systems. Academic Press.
Richter, A., & Riemer, K. (2009). Corporate Social
Networking Sites – Modes of Use and Appropria-
tion through Co-Evolution. Paper presented at
the 20th Australasian Conference on Information
Systems. Melbourne, Australia.
Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P.
(2001). Identifying software project risks: An
international delphi study. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 17(4), 5–36.
SelectMinds. (2008). Corporate Social Network-
ing: SelectMinds Benchmarking Study. Retrieved
from www.selectminds.com
Sena, J., & Sena, M. (2008). Corporate social
networking. Issues in Information Systems, 9(2),
227–231.
180

Smith, J., & Duin, A. (1994). Collective intel-
ligence in computer-based collaboration. L.
Erlbaum Asso. Publishers.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology
Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on
Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theo-
retical Extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Man-
agement Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/
mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Da-
vis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information
Technology: Toward a unified view. Management
Information Systems (MIS). Quarterly, 27(3),
425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012).
Consumer acceptance and use of information tech-
nology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology. Management Information
Systems (MIS). Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Collective Intelligence: Refers to knowledge
created from human interactions and interpersonal
networking.
Corporate Social Networking: The use of so-
cial networking applications at the corporate level.
Enterprise 2.0 or Enterprise Social Soft-
ware: The use of Web 2.0, emergent social
software platforms within companies, or between
companies and their partners or customers.
Generation Y: A new generation of younger,
college- and university-educated workers born
between 1980 and 2000 and grown up with the
Internet, also known as Gen Y, Yers, Digital Na-
tives, Net Generation or Millennials.
 
How Generation Y Perceives Social Networking Applications in Corporate Environments

Online Community: A virtual community

that exists online and whose members enable its
existence through taking part in membership ritual.
Social Network: A social structure made up
of a set of social actors (such as individuals or
organizations) and a complex set of the dyadic
ties between these actors.
Technology Adoption: To which extent an
organization adopts a new technology and to
which extent users are willing to accept using a
new technology.
Web 2.0: The second generation of web de-
velopment and design based on social software
– also called Social Media.

181

View publication stats