RITA YI MAN LI
Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Rm 533 Knowles Building, The Unversity of HongKong, Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China
E-mail:ritarec@hotmail.com/ h0339637@hkusua.hku.hk
DON HENRY AH PAK
Business, Economics and Management Department, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, 111 Ren’ai Road, Dushu Lake Higher Education Town, Suzhou Industrial Park, Jiangsu Province, China
†E-mail: donald.pak@xjtlu.edu
The concept of sustainable development – development which meets the needs of present generation without depriving the needs of future generation has been in the lips of many political leaders, educators, NGOs and green groups. Living in the age of knowledge explosion, we all want to receive the most updated information and knowledge. Web 2.0 revolution provides the best solution to all those hungry knowledge seekers. This paper sheds light on the major resistance and motivations on sustainable knowledge sharing.
1. Introduction
Global warming has drawn the attention of politicians, educators and conservancy groups in the world. The concept “sustainable development” is getting more and more important. Never in doubt that the birth of internet has empowered sustainable development knowledge seekers and holders to take more control of our lives (Fraser & Dutta, 2009). The rising tide of internet usage stimulates web designers to develop better online resources (Myhill, et. al., 2009). Web 2.0 revolution represents an eruption in conventional forms of social organization, symbolize that we are entering an era of self-awareness and self-reliance liberation (Fraser & Dutta, 2009). Overturning the conventional tools of publishing, control of content in our World Wide Web no longer lies in the hands of professional web owners but all the internet users online (Tredinnick, 2006). Under the Web 2.0 umbrella, namely, Really Simple Syndication (RSS), Wikis and blogs etc (Barsky, 2006), the notion of “any time, any place” in Web 2.0 tolls stimulate the reflection and construction of knowledge (McLean, et. al., 2007).
2. Literature Review
2.1 Sustainable development
The concept of sustainable development first received attention in 1972 at the UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm. The term was not referred to explicitly. Nevertheless, the international community agreed to the notion that both development and the environment could be managed in a mutually beneficial way. The same issue was addressed later on in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro 1992.
The most widely cited definition of sustainable development, however, appeared in United Nation's Brundtland Commission in 1987 (Brundtland, 1987). Discussions among participants from various sectors such as divergent economic theorists (e.g. E.F. Schumaker of Britain), environmentalists (e.g. Barry Commoner and Lester R. Brown), population analysts (e.g. Paul Ehrlich), politicians (e.g. Willy Brandt) and a number of environmental organizations from all over the world identified a number of "common challenges" facing the earth, namely, population and human resources, food security, species and ecosystems, energy, industrial development, and urbanization.
The Commission has outlined a series of "strategic imperatives," or "critical objectives," inherent in their concept of sustainable development which includes:
1) Reviving growth;
2) Changing the quality of growth;
3) Meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water, and sanitation;
4) Ensuring a sustainable level of population;
5) Conserving and enhancing the resource base;
6) Reorienting technology and managing risk; and
7) Merging environment and economics in decision making (United Nations, 2005).
In the process of identifying these challenges and proposing potential policy directions, the Commission presented and defined a key term, sustainable development. "Sustainable development requires meeting the major needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life." And "living standards that go beyond the basic minimum are sustainable only if consumption standards everywhere have regard for long-term sustainability" (United Nations, 2005).
Such concept, however, is difficult to be achieved in reality. Human activity is having severe and negative impacts on the planet, and that patterns of growth and development would be unsustainable if they continued unchecked (Carson, 1962; Hardin, 1968; Meadows & Meadows, 1972). Thus, sustainable development envelops two major ideas which appear to be contradictory: economic development and the consumption of the world's natural resources in a sustainable way. Resources are finite; part of our job is to preserve the human future on this planet into a limitless future. Nevertheless, “the enforcement of common interest often suffers because areas of political jurisdiction and areas of impact do not coincide"(United Nations, 2005). In addition, with an inequitable distribution in resource consumption observed there are usually winners and losers. 'Losers' in the environmental/development conflicts include those who suffer more than their fair share of the health, property, and ecosystem damage costs of pollution. Such inequitable distribution has increase global concern "as a system approaches ecological limits, inequalities sharpen," and "hence, our inability to promote the common interest in sustainable development is often a product of the relative neglect of economic and social justice within and amongst nations". In other words the winners in the battle who consume earth's many commons create a dilemma for those who recognize the need for sustainable use: efforts have to be spent on preserving the commons' various assets, increases both economic and social injustice "within and amongst nations" (United Nations, 2005). In spite of all these difficulties, world leaders from all over the world are implementing new policies to achieve the goal of sustainable development (Table 1). Rapid knowledge sharing by web 2.0 across different continents in different time zone has become important in view of this.
Table 1 Building policies in different parts of the world (Council for Sustainable Development, 2009)
City Sustainable development policies
Beijing, Chengdu and Guangzhou Mandatory requirements on maximum length of closely packed building top prevent “wall effect” and mitigate “heat island effect”.
Shanghai Buildings with height less than or equal to 24 metres and with the length of building façade of 80 metres or more have to be separated by a minimum of 6 metres.
Tokyo It is mandatory to provide at least 20% of its rooftop green if the building sits on a site larger than 0.1ha.
New York New public buildings have to plant at least one trees on the site for approximate 1000 square metres.
Singapore Floor area of sky terrace is exempted from GFA calculation.
2.2 Knowledge and knowledge sharing
Knowledge refers to a mixture of values within social context (Lin & Lee, 2004), the construction of new experiences based on past experience elaboration in memory (Waitt & Head, 2002). Lin and Lee (2004) classify knowledge into explicit and tacit. Tacit knowledge is generally by copying and explicit knowledge is acquired through codifying rules and guidelines (Lin & Lee, 2004). To realize the knowledge sharing process, there must be knowledge owner and receiver. Nevertheless, it does not require the knowledge owner to be known that he or she is sharing knowledge. Knowledge receiver can receive the knowledge by observing the act of knowledge owner (Li & Poon, 2009, forthcoming). Usually, they share knowledge because part of their backgrounds overlap (Soneryd, 2004). To realize effective knowledge sharing, “people” and “technology” are the necessary elements (Li & Poon, 2009, forthcoming). Traditionally, this can only be done by face-to-face synchronous communication only (Tredinnick, 2006). Technological breakthrough on web not only makes asynchronously knowledge sharing possible, but also offers a faster means to share knowledge across the board (Li & Poon, 2009, forthcoming).
3. Objectives
In view of global warming, many people from all over the world are finding ways to achieve sustainable development. Rapid knowledge sharing between individuals by Web 2.0 has also become more and more important. There are major objectives in this paper.
1. To find out the major Web 2.0 tools in knowledge sharing, their merits and shortcomings.
2. To investigate the resistances on knowledge sharing by using Web 2.0 tools.
3. To explore the people’s motivations on knowledge sharing.
4. Web 2.0
The term ‘Web 2.0’ has been widely used (Tredinnick, 2006) every since O’Reilly coined the term in 2004 (Myhill, et al., 2009). Although Web 2.0 is not a new concept (Myhill, et al., 2009), limited or even no paper has been written on Web 2.0 in sustainable development. O’Reilly (2005) suggests that the Web 2.0 tools have to demonstrate some or at least some of the following characteristics: 1) online users are co-authors of the websites, 2) data sources get richer when there are more people use them, 3) software used beyond the level of single device, 4) cost-effective scalability services are used instead of packaged software (Myhill, et al., 2009). The kind of trust build between website owners and other internet users creates a new pool of knowledge (Tredinnick, 2006), authority decentralization provides freedom to share and re-use web content. While some people are concerned about the information provided by Web, Lee & Kim (2005) have provided a criteria on it.
Table 2 Criteria for determination of web quality (Lee & Kim, 2005)
Dimensions Definition Source/ Reference
Ease of use The degree to which a user believes that using the Internet would be free of effort Donthu (2001), Jeong and Lambert (2001), Madu and Madu (2002)
Usefulness The degree to which a user believes that using the Internet would be better than using the other competing ways Jeong and Lambert (2001)
Information content The degree to which a user believes that contents of the websites are reliable Jeong and Lambert (2001), Kaynama and Black (2002)
Security The degree to which a user believes that using the Internet would be safe when processing sensitive personal information Kaynama and Black (2000), Madu and Madu (2002)
Responsiveness The degree to which a user believes that the promised service would be performed accurately and in a timely manner Kaynam and Black (2000), Madu and Madu (2002)
Personalization The degree to which a user believes that the individualized attention to user concerns and request would be provided Kaynam and Black (2000), Madu and Madu (2002)
4.1 Blog
Blog first appeared in 80’s, it is one of the Web 2.0 tools with the longest history (Tredinnick, 2006). Blogs make rapid production and consumption of publications possible (Maness, 2006). Blog software usually contains built-in templates, writers do not need to have any knowledge on Hypertext Text Markup Language to create their own web pages. They do not need to type for making a blue front page,
for making a new paragraph etc. Finally, they also save the time of applying a free space in GeoCities etc. The original usage of blogs mainly lies in writing diary. Online writer can not only share their view on the internet but also subscribe and comment the others’ diary. Because of such interactive feature, it has gradually become a good channel for rapid academic publishing, where lecturers and professors write blog to share their knowledge to students and people of similar research interests. Blog writers can also provide a profile of biography which shows the users’ interests etc. By making use of this bloggers can easily locate somebody with similar interests. All these lead to fast growing population of blog writers (Barsky, 2006). The most obvious shortcoming of the blogs, however, lie in the lack of editorial governance and security (Maness, 2006). Many people who are interested in sustainable development have started to write their blogs on the internet. Some of the vivid examples can be found in Blog Top List (http://www.blogtoplist.com/rss/sustainable-development.html), Sustainable development (http://sustainable-development-forecast.com/blog)
4.2 Wiki
Similar to blog, Wiki is a simplified means of collaborative publishing. It does, however, emphases more on users’ participation (Tredinnick, 2006). Anyone registered with the wiki server can publish, amend and change the content of the web pages (Maness, 2006). (Tredinnick, 2006). Because any online users can edit or write their own content, Wiki is susceptible to ‘virtual vandalism’ where membership system does not exist (Myhill, et al., 2009). Some web owners provide free and handy wiki website, e.g. wetpaint (www.wetpaint.com) (Myhill, et al., 2009). Similar to blogs, the problem of the reliability as traditional resources has become one of issues in credibility of knowledge (Maness, 2006). Essentially, wiki provides an excellent platform for social interaction among online users, moving the study group room online. As users share information, ask and answer questions, a record of valuable knowledge provide by these members is archived. Whereas blogs provide a brand new alternative route of publication, wikis are virtual study rooms online (Maness, 2006). The success of Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) is a good illustration on how the benefit of Wiki in stable and credible knowledge sharing and management (Tredinnick, 2006). Interest group on sustainable development has set up their own wiki pages to ease the process of knowledge sharing, e.g. Sustainable Community Action in Bristol has set up their wikis in http://sca21.wikia.com/wiki/Bristol
4.3 Really Simple Syndication (RSS)
RSS is an effective and efficient means of spreading news (Myhill, et al., 2009) syndicating and republishing web content (Maness, 2006). RSS consists of Extensible Markup Language marked-up files. Whether it is the lead paragraph, or a summary of an article published on the web, hyperlink link all these information and content back to the original source (Tredinnick, 2006). With an increase in the number of journals with RSS feeds, readers can perform “persistent search” by cyberspace to send an alert when new information of an interesting topic is published (McLean, et al., 2007). In view of its rapid information sharing, RSS is highly useful in updating researchers on research funding opportunities, e.g. the UK Research Funding Councils (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk) has used this as one of the major knowledge sharing method (Myhill, et al., 2009). Many journals in the field of sustainable development have also provide the section of RSS in their websites, e.g. Sustainable Development
(http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/journal/5346/home/custom_copy.htm).
4.4 Podcast and vodcast
Podcasting and its visual equivalent, vodcasting, allow audio and video downloads from websites to MP3 and MP4 players (including iPods). Yahoo has a specific podcast search engine (http://podcasts.yahoo.com). Academically, Podcasting has been used in university curricula for chapters from text books and student lectures. Some professors in universities have also realized the benefits brought by Podcasting and podcast their idea, ways of thoughts and knowledge in web,
e.g. Blogtalkradio (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/search/sustainable-development),
Green Cities (http://greencitiesmedia.com/gc-podcasts).
4.5 Folksonomy
Folksonomy generally refers to collaborative categorization of content by assigning “tags” to specific items (McLean, et al., 2007). Social bookmarking sites, e.g. CiteULike (http://www.citeulike.org) and Connotea (http://www.connotea.org) facilitate the sharing of academic papers from online users with common interests (McLean, et al., 2007). Tagging eases the process of lateral searching (Maness, 2006). Tagging allows users to add and change the data in the web. People use tags for many purposes, for example tag pictures in Flickr, books in Library 2.0 (Maness, 2006).
4.6 Online Social Networking
People often hold the views that online social networking is merely a social communication method. In fact, there is something more than that (Fraser & Dutta, 2009). Social online networks such as MySpace, FaceBook, Likedln, and Twitter embrace many of the aforementioned technologies (see table XX). If used appropriately and sensibly, it can bring the best to our society's knowledge sharing and creations. Online social network provides an excellent channel in amassing individual pieces of knowledge. Members provide share their knowledge by means of forum, instant chating messager, uploading services, blogging etc. By asking and answering questions, members within the group have more choices on problem solving. They can also meet more new faces with similar interests in different parts of the globe (Li & Poon, 2009, forthcoming), one of the very good example is Facebook (http://www.facebook.com) applications. Other social networks such as LibraryThing allows users to catalog their books and share those books with others and recommend books to one another or even communicate asynchronously.
Table 3 Web 2.0 tools
Social Network Communities Be2camp MyNetResearch 2 Collab Twitter MySpace LinkedIn Facebook
Blog X X X X X
Bookmark Journal Articles X
Chatroom X X
Instant messager X X X
Create User Group X X X X X
Meet ppl u don’t know? X X X X X X X
Email X X X X X X
Forum X X X X X
Files upload X X
Free X X X X X X X
Profile of Users X X X X X X
Tag X
RSS X X
Vodcast X
Wiki X
Grant information X
Website http://be2camp.ning.com/ http://www.mynetresearch.com/Default.aspx http://www.2collab.com http://www.connotea.org/wiki http://www.myspace.com/ http://www.linkedin.com http://www.facebook.com
5. Resistance to use Web 2.0 in knowledge sharing
Although there are more and more people know how to use computers nowadays, pool of users who utilize Web 2.0 for sustainable development knowledge sharing is still limited. Face-to-face or non-sustainable paper work knowledge sharing method is far more common than e-method, not to mention Web 2.0. It undeniable that human beings resist change (Li & Poon, 2009, forthcoming) and this is especially true in times of uncertainty. Kubler-Ross’s response cycle displays the five stages of change which includes ‘denial’, ‘anger’, ‘bargaining’, ‘depression’ and ‘acceptance’. The response cycle clearly indicates the traumatic and stressful emotions during a period of disruption. Some individuals may display some or all of the characteristics during a period of change (Price & Chahal, 2006). Similar to Price and Chahal (2006), Watson (1971) concurs that the road to revolutionary change involves a couple of stages. When the “change” movement begins to grow, voices of pros and cons become noticeable. During the early state of change, massive and undifferentiated resistances against the change appear despite the very few pioneer thinkers who take the reform seriously. When everyone knows better, crackpots and visionaries proponents support the change. Direct conflict then mark the third stage, resistance might crush the upstart proposal. It is usual to observe enthusiastic supporters of a new idea underestimate the strength of their opponents. This third stage is a decisive battle for any proposal of change for it often means life or death of the proposal. The fourth stage finds a shift in power from the camps of opponents to supporters. In the fifth stage, the old adversary groups become minorities and are as few as those advocators of the change in the first stage of change. Any resistance forces persist are seen as stubborn nuisance only (Watson, 1971).
In terms of readiness to accept change, it varies from person to person. Previous research has indicated that cosmopolitan individuals or people at a younger age are more open-minded to change. Learning theorists are of the view that unless situation changes greatly, people continue to do according to their customary way (Watson, 1971). Others suggest that education a discussion are necessary to persuade people to follow the change (Li & Poon, 2009, forthcoming). A much more detail resolution on resistance to change are identified in Table 5.
Table 4 Three “Wh” question in reducing resistance to change (Lawrence, 1968; Li & Poon, 2007; Price & Chahal, 2006; Watson, 1971)
“Wh” question Resistance will be less if the Web 2.0 tools
Who brings changes? 1. Belongs to theirs and is supported by top managerial people.
What kind of change? 1. They are in line with participants’ values and ideals.
2. They offer a new interesting experience.
3. The participants’ self-governance and security are not in jeopardy.
4. The participants foresee the change will not bring extra work
How is the changes bought about? 1. Participants are given the chance to join in diagnostic problem solving process during change which increases their sense of importance.
2. The results of decision made by the participants.
3. Advocators of change are able to understand the opponent group of participants.
4. Feedback system is allowed for participants to clarify their misunderstanding and misinterpretations on the changes.
5. The change can boost acceptance and confidence between participants.
6. Discussion and education are given during the process of change.
7. Real participation is based on respect, not just mechanical act of called in to take part in discussions nor asked by a series of careful designed questions.
6. Motivations to share knowledge by Web 2.0
Despite all the convenience and advantages brought by Web 2.0, it is often not at ease to motivate knowledge owners to share their own knowledge due to various reasons (Li & Poon, 2009, forthcoming). Similarly, not many people share their knowledge by this means method. Referring to the processes which direct people’s behavior toward a particular objective (Cesare & Sadri, 2003), motivation affects people’s performance on knowledge sharing. (Erez & Isen, 2002)’s opine that, P=f(A,M) where A is ability and M is motivation. Psycho-biologically speaking, positive or negative perceptions alter people’s response and behavior (Moody & Pesut, 2006).
6.1 Theory X and Y
McGregor is well-known for his Theory X and Theory Y dichotomy describing people’s behaviours. McGregor’s descriptions bear striking resemblance to Hobbes and Rousseau’s understandings on human beings (Lawson & Wooliscroft, 2004). Under Theory X, McGregor concedes that people are inherently lazy (Lawson & Wooliscroft, 2004), cannot be self-motivated, they must be controlled by external forces to ensure that they work towards organisational goals (Lawson & Wooliscroft, 2004), e.g. disciplinary actions (Li & Poon, 2007), outside incentives (Lawson & Wooliscroft, 2004). Hobbes’ view of the self-serving and oppositional nature of human behaviour that demands the Leviathan in order to maintain control and prevent anarchy (Lawson & Wooliscroft, 2004). Others argue that penalty are ineffective because of possible delay or its mild in nature (Li & Poon, 2007). Following the step of theorists X, the major motivation in using Web 2.0 for sustainable development knowledge sharing comes from the “penalty” of information and knowledge delay or even obsolete.
Close to Rousseau’s view of self direction (Lawson & Wooliscroft, 2004), theorists Y believe that men are responsible (Li & Poon, 2009, forthcoming), can be trusted and self motivated (Cooper & Phillips, 1997; Lawson & Wooliscroft, 2004; Morden, 1995). Work is as natural as rest. Punishment are not the only ways to achieve any objectives (Li, 2009, forthcoming; Li & Poon, 2007; Stroh, 2005). As humans enjoy being treated as a valuable member in our society, a climate of trust is essential in stimulating knowledge sharing behavior (Dulaimi, 2007) which is also true in the world of Web 2.0.
Skeptics, however, usually challenges theory X and Y represent two extreme cases which cannot reflect truly about our real world. It is often suggested that a combination of the two offer better solutions (Li, 2009, forthcoming; Li & Poon, 2007).
6.2 Need’s theory
Maslow suggests people try to satisfy their needs step by step. According to Maslow, the first four needs are:
1) Physiological: bodily comforts, thirst, hunger etc;
2) Safety/security: out of danger;
3) Belongings and Love: affiliation with the others
4) Esteem: to gain recognition (Huitt, 2004).
After fulfilling the most basic fundamental needs e.g. food and water, they need self-fulfillment (Li & Poon, 2007). Maslow believes that when people become more self-actualized, they are more intelligent and knows what to do in different situations.
Self-actualized people refer to those who are able to: 1) appreciate life; 3) concern about personal growth; 2) be problem-focused; and 4) have peak experiences. Maslow later split the need of self-actualization into four levels (Huitt, 2004), namely:
5) Cognitive: to recognize, understand and investigate;
6) Aesthetic: to balance, categorize, and become attractive;
7) Self-actualization: to find ways to be self-fulfilled and realize individual's potential; and
8) Self-transcendence: to help others find in realizing their potential (Huitt, 2004).
Figure 2 Needs theory pyramid (Huitt, 2004).
Despite its widely acceptance, Critics on Maslow’s theories mainly due to its lack of evidence to support the hierarchy (Huitt, 2004). Cole (2004) even comments the needs ladder as such seldom realizes in reality. Nevertheless, it provides a good idea that knowledge sharing motivation comes from the highest hierarchical needs, i.e. to attain self-actualization (Li & Poon, 2009, forthcoming). To motivate someone to share their knowledge, they have to satisfy their basic needs first, that explains why some of the web tools, e.g. MyNetResearch provides job information for their members on top of all the knowledge sharing toolboxes.
6.3 Alderfer’s ERG Theory
Alderfer developed a comparable hierarchy with his Existence, Relatedness, and Growth theory. This theory is a modification of Maslow's theory based on the work of Gordon Allport who has incorporated systems theory into his work on personality. To motivate somebody, they have to be satisfied three kinds of needs: Growth, Relatedness and Existence. Unlike the Hierarchy of Needs Theories, the order of importance can be varied among all the individuals; they are not stepped in anyways, for example, satisfying the self-actualization needs (Growth) does not need to be attained before the others first. To motivate somebody to share what their sustainable knowledge, a good relationship with the others has to be built (Relatedness). Therefore, a lot of Web 2.0 tools include grouping tools for members to join their group. Sometimes, scholarship or grant opportunities are provided (Existence), other prices are also provided for encouragement of any creative activities organized by members (Growth).
Figure 3 Alderfer’s Needs Theory (Huitt, 2004)
6.4 Vroom’s Expectancy theory
Vroom visualizes the likelihood of one particular behavior is determined by the perceived relationship between an action and outcome the outcome of an action (Li & Poon, 2007). Expectation theorists suggests that force is a function of expectancy, instrumentality and valence (Chiang & Jang, 2007; Cole, 2004).
1. Expectancy: the belief that a rise in attempts will lead to better performance
2. Instrumentality: the belief that the better performance, the better outcome will be.
3. Valence: the better the expected outcome, the more motivated an individual will be (Cole, 2004).
To increase people’s motivation on sharing knowledge by Web 2.0, some of the website owners have establish a rule on sharing knowledge: their ability to receive data files from the others depend on the 1) number of times that they have shared their files with the others (expectancy), 2) the quality of the files (e.g. longer series of data) (instrumentality). The more frequent they have shared their files and/or the quality of files, the better quality and quantity of the files they can get. All these rules are usually specified clearly before they become a member, i.e. their expected outcome have been notified before they join (valence).
Perceived as one of the most important motivation theories, criticism concerns the construct validity in this theory (Chiang & Jang, 2007). Yet, it does provide some valuable insights on people’s motivation on using Web 2.0. Put this theory into our current research agenda, the aforesaid criteria have to be observed to drive people to ride the current wave of Web 2.0.
7. Conclusion
Web 2.0 has overturned the traditional concept of web information providing and editing. Sustainable knowledge sharing no longer lies in the hand of web page owners, but in the hands of World Wide Web users. All the internet users can become the writers on sustainable development. Such rapid knowledge sharing method, however, have not yet been accepted by all. Resistance to change can be explained by human’s stubborn nature. And people’s readiness to accept change varies from person to person. To motivate individuals in adopting web 2.0 for sharing sustainable development knowledge, web owners are advised to observe the traditional motivation theories.
Motivation theory People are motivated to share sustainable development knowledge if…
Theory X Following the step of Theory X supporters, possible information and knowledge delay or obsolete is the major source of motivation.
Theory Y A climate of trust has to be created.
Hierarchy Needs Theory Motivation comes from the highest hierarchical needs, i.e. to attain self-actualization.
Alderfer’s ERG Theory The members have a good relationship. Some sort of material or psychological desires also helps.
Expectancy theory Web owners need to convey the idea to the members a belief that a rise in attempts will lead to better performance, the better performance, the better outcome will be and the better the expected outcome, the more motivated an individual will be.
References
Alakesson, V., Aldrich, T., Goodman, J. & Jorgensen, B (2003) Making the Net Work. Sustainable Development in a Digital Society.
Barsky, E. (2006). Introducing Web 2.0: weblogs and podcasting for health librarians. Journal of Canadian Health Libraries Association, 27, 33-34.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Cesare, J. D., & Sadri, G. (2003). Do All Carrots Look The Same? Examining the Impact of Culture on Employee Motivation. Management Research News, 26(1), 29-40.
Chiang, C. F., & Jang, S. C. (2007). An expectancy theory model for hotel employee motivation International Journal of Hospitality Management 26, 1-10.
Cole, G. A. (2004). Management: theory and practice. London: Thomson Learning.
Cooper, M. D., & Phillips, R. A. (1997). Killing two birds with one stone: achieving quality via total safety management Facilities, 15(1/2), 34-41.
Council for Sustainable Development (2009). Building Design to Foster a Quality and Sustainable Built Environment. Hong Kong: HKSAR Government Printer.
Dulaimi, M. F. (2007). Case studies on knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(6).
Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The Influence of Positive Affect on the Components of Expectancy Motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(6), 1055–1067.
Fraser, M., & Dutta, S. (2009). Social E-Ruption-- 7 Ways Social Networking Is Changing the Way We Live Retrieved 12 June 2009, from http://newsblaze.com/story/20090319172544zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 280(5364), 1243-1248.
Huitt, W. (2004). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology Interactive. Retrieved 8th June 2009, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
Lawrence, P. R. (1968). How to Deal with Resistance to Change Harvard Business Review, 32(3), 49-57
Lawson, R., & Wooliscroft, B. (2004). Human nature and the marketing concept. marketing theory, 4(4), Volume 4(4): 311–326.
Lee, H. Y., & Kim, W. G. (2005). Comparison of Web Service Quality Between Online Travel Agencies and Online Travel Suppliers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(2), 105-116.
Li, R. Y. M. (2009, forthcoming). Achieving Compliance With Environmental Health-Related Land Use Planning Conditions in Hong Kong: Perspectives From Traditional Motivation Theories. Journal of Environmental Health, 71.
Li, R. Y. M., & Poon, S. W. (2007). A critical review of construction safety motivation in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the Management Science and Engineering Academic Conference, Tianjin.
Li, R. Y. M., & Poon, S. W. (2009, forthcoming). Future motivation in construction safety knowledge sharing by means of Information Technology in Hong Kong. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences.
Lin, H. F., & Lee, G. G. (2004). Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behaviour. Management Decision, 42(1), 108-125.
Maness, J. M. (2006). Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries Webology, 3(2).
McLean, R., Richards, B. H., & Wardman, J. (2007). The effect of Web 2.0 on the future of medical practice and education: Darwikinian evolution or folksonomic revolution? Medical Journal of Australia, 187(3), 174-177.
Meadows, D., & Meadows, D. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.
Moody, R. C., & Pesut, D. J. (2006). The motivation to care: Application and extension of motivation theory to professional nursing work. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 20(1), 15-48.
Morden, T. (1995). International culture and management Management Decision, 33(2), 16-21.
Myhill, M. R., Shoebridge, M., & Snook, L. (2009). Virtual Research Environments - a Web 2.0 cookbook? Library High Tech, 27(2).
Price, A. D. F., & Chahal, K. (2006). A Strategic Framework for Change Management. Construction Management and Economics, 24, 237-251.
Soneryd, L. (2004). Hearing as a way of dwelling: the active sense-making of environmental risk and nuisance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22(737-753).
Stroh, L. K. (2005). International Assignments: An Integration of Strategy, Research, and Practice Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and Business: A pointer to the intranets of the future? Business Information Review 23(4), 228-234.
United Nations (2005). World Commission on Environment and Development Retrieved 20 July 2009, from World Commission on Environment and Development
Waitt, G., & Head, L. (2002). Postcards and frontier mythologies: sustaining views of the Kimberley as timeless. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(3), 319 - 344.
Watson, G. (1971). Resistance to Change. American Behavioral Scientist, 14, 745-766.
沒有留言:
張貼留言