Murad Moqbel


Studies on social networking sites (SNSs) rarely touched on the acceptance of SNS use in theworkplace. This study, in turn, attempts to fill this gap by explaining the acceptance of SNSuse in the workplace by proposing a research model for the acceptance of SNS use, based onthe technology acceptance model (TAM) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB), in orderto explain the intention of employers to adopt SNS use in the workplace. Structural equationmodeling (SEM) was used to examine the extent to which the perception of employers on thebenefits/usefulness, subjective norm, risks, and the ease of use of SNSs affect the intention toadopt the use of SNSs in the workplace. Data was collected from 81 employers in the U.S.The findings show that both perceived usefulness and perceived subjective norm are the maindeterminants of the intention to adopt social networking site use in the workplace.


Metrics Loading ...



Social networking
business benefits
technology acceptance model
perceived risk

• Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time Flies When You’re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665-694.
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
• Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. Paper presented at the 43rd Conference of the American Marketing Association, Chicago.
• Bennett, J., Owers, M., Pitt, M., & Tucker, M. (2010). Workplace impact of social networking. Property Management, 28(3), 138 - 148.
• Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
• Bughin, J. (2009). How companies are benefiting from Web 2.0: Selected McKinsey Global Survey Results. McKinsey Quarterly(4), 84-85.
• Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
• Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307-341): Thousand Oaks. Calif: Sage Publications.
• Chiquoine, B., & Hjalmarsson, E. (2009). Jackknifing stock return predictions. Journal of Empirical Finance, 16(5), 793-803.
• Clark, L., & Roberts, S. (2010). Employer’s use of social networking sites: A socially irresponsible practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 507-525.
• Davis, F. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
• Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22(14), 1111-1132.
• Diaconis, P., & Efron, B. (1983). Computer-intensive methods in statistics. Scientific American, 248(5), 116-130.
• Facebook. (2012). Statistics. Retrieved June 7, 2012, from
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Fulk, J., Steinfield, C. W., Schmitz, J., & Power, G. (1987). A Social Information Processing Model of Media Use in Organizations.Communication Research 14(5), 529-552.
• Gebauer, J., Kline, D. M., & He, L. (2011). Password security risk versus effort: An exploratory study on user-perceived risk and the intention to use online applications
• Journal of Information Systems Applied Research, 4(2), 52-62
• Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice.Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1-70.
• Glass, R., & Li, S. (2010). Social Influence and Instant Messaging Adoption. Journal of Computer Information Systems.
• Grandon, E. E., Alshare, K., & Kwun, O. (2005). Factors influencing student intention to adopt online classes: a cross-cultural study. J. Comput. Small Coll., 20(4), 46-56.
• Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, N.J.; London: Pearson.
• Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use. Management Science, 40(4), 440-465.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sinkovics, R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 8(20), 277-319.
• Kock, N. (2010). Using WarpPLS in e-collaboration studies: An overview of five main analysis steps. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 6(4), 1-11.
• Kock, N. (2011). WarpPLS 2.0 user manual. Laredo, TX: ScriptWarp Systems.
• Kock, N. (2012). WarpPLS 3.0 User Manual. Laredo, TX: ScriptWarp Systems.
• Leader-Chivée, L., & Cowan, E. (2008). Networking the way to success: Online social networks for workplace and competitive advantage.People & Strategy, 31, 40-46.
• Leidner, D., Koch, H., & Gonzalez, E. (2010). Assimilating generation Y IT new hires into USAA’s workforce: The role of an enterprise 2.0 system. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4), 229-242.
• Lohmoller, J.-B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg, Germany: Physical-Verlag.
• Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior.Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
• Moqbel, M. (2012). Explaining user acceptance of social networking: Employees’ Perspective. Proceedings of the Southwest Decision Science Institute Forty Third Annual Conference, February 29 – March 3, 110-118.
• Nielsen. (2009). Global faces and networked places: A Nielsen report on social networking’s new global footprint. New York, NY: The Nielsen Company.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
• O’Murchu, I., Breslin, J. G., & Decker, S. (2004). Online social and business networking communities. Galway, Ireland: Digital Enterprise Research Institute.
• Parameswaran, M., & Whinston, A. B. (2007). Social computing: An overview. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(1), 762-780.
• Pinho, J., & Soares, A. (2011). Examining the technology acceptance model in the adoption of social networks. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 5(2/3), 116-129.
• Rencher, A. C. (1998). Multivariate statistical inference and applications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
• Rooksby, J., Baxter, G., Cliff, D., Greenwood, D., Harvey, N., Kahn, A., Keen, J., &
• Sommerville, I. (2009). Social networking and the workplace. St Andrews, UK: The UK Large Scale Complex IT Systems Initiative.
• Shepherd, C. (2011). Does social media have a place in workplace learning? Strategic Direction, 27(2), 3-4.
• Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J., Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) New York, NY, England: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
• Sujan, H., Barton, A. W., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. The Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 39-52.
• Taylor, J. W. (1974). The role of risk in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 54-60.
• Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 561-570.
• Teo, T. S. H., Lim, V. K. G., & Lai, R. Y. C. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. Omega, 27(1), 25-37.
• Thomas, S. (2011). Addiction in Internet chatting: An empirical study using modified Technology Acceptance Model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(4), 287-298.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
• Van der Heijden, H. (2004). USER ACCEPTANCE OF HEDONIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704.
• Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342.
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Gordon, B. D., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View.MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
• Wilson, J. (2009). Social networking: the business case. Engineering & Technology, 4(10), 54-56.
• Wu, J.-H., & Wang, S.-C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model.Information & Management, 42(5), 719-729.
How to Cite
Moqbel, Murad. 2012. “Understanding Workplace Adoption of Social Networking Sites: Employers’ Perspective”. Studies in Business and Economics 16 (2).