Examining the Effects of Digital Leadership, Artificial Intelligence Attitudes, and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour on Hybrid Employees’ Performance: The Moderating Role of Organisational Culture

Öz

This study examines digital leadership, attitudes towards artificial intelligence, and information-sharing behaviour within a comprehensive model to explain employee performance in a hybrid work arrangement while also investigating the moderating role of organisational culture in these relationships. The study population consists of white-collar employees working in companies implementing hybrid work arrangements in Türkiye. Sectors where hybrid work is intensively implemented, such as technology, finance, telecommunications, consulting, and education, are included in the study population. Due to the broad and heterogeneous structure of the population, the sample was determined using convenience sampling. 350 employees were included in the study. Data were collected through an online survey consisting of validated scales. A multi-stage statistical procedure was followed to analyse the data collected in the study. The results show that the effect of digital leadership on performance is positive and significant. While the perceived benefit of AI increases performance, the perceived risk decreases performance. Information sharing behaviour is also a strong predictor of performance. Furthermore, the regulatory effect of organisational culture becomes more pronounced with the strengthening of relationships, particularly in clan and adhocracy cultures. In conclusion, sustainable hybrid performance appears more achievable when digital leadership, trust-based attitudes towards artificial intelligence, information sharing, and the cultural context supporting these processes are managed together.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hybrid Employee Performance
• Digital Leadership
• Corporate Sustainability

Kaynakça

1. Abbu, H., Mugge, P., & Gudergan, S. (2022). Successful digital leadership requires building trust. Research-Technology Management, 65(5), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2022.2095168
2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Springer.
3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
4. Aktay, S., Gök, S., & Yıldırım, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence attitude scale. International Technology and Education Journal, 8(2), 14-24.
5. Alakurt, T., & Keser, H. (2016). Bilgi paylaşma davranışları ölçeği: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(3), 1033-1054. https://izlik.org/JA75NJ64HC
6. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
7. Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
8. Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00062-X

9. Babin, B. J., & Boles J. S. (1996). On the front lines: stress, conflict, and the customer service provider. Journal of Business Research, 37(1), 41-50.
10. Bankins, S., Ocampo, A.C., Marrone, M., Restubog, S.L.D., & Woo, S.E. (2024). A multilevel review of artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for organizational behavior research and practice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(2), 159-182. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2735
11. Bıyıklı, F., Bozdoğan, T., & Çetin, Ö. O. (2024). Kişilik özelliklerinin yapay zekâ tutumuna etkisinde statü kaygısının ılımlaştırıcı rolü: Muhasebe meslek mensupları üzerine ampirik bir çalışma. KOCATEPEİİBFD, 26(Özel Sayı), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1462678
12. Byrne, Z. S., & LeMay, E. (2006). Different media for organizational communication: Perceptions of quality and satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(2), 149-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9023-8
13. Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Base on the competing values framework. Addison-Wesley.
14. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2015). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
15. Contreras, F., Baykal, E., & Abid, G. (2020). E-leadership and teleworking in times of COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 590271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590271
16. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Addison-Wesley.
17. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204-223.
18. Fisk, P. (2002). The digital leader: What it takes to survive and thrive in the digital age. Kogan Page.
19. Göksel, A., Aydıntan, B., & Bingöl, D. (2010). Örgütlerde bilgi paylaşım davranışı: Sosyal sermaye boyutundan bir bakış. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 65(4), 87-109. https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000002185
20. Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote e‐worker’s job effectiveness. Employee Relations, 35(5), 527-546. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2012-0059
21. Güleryüz, İ., Sürücü, L., & Yıkılmaz, İ. (2023). Dijital liderliğin iç girişimciliğe etkisinde dijital örgüt kültürünün rolü. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(3), 1852-1867.
22. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
23. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
24. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1-26.
25. Hopkins, K. D., & Weeks, D. L. (1990). Tests for normality and measures of skewness and kurtosis: Their place in research reporting. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(4), 717-729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164490504001
26. Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303257985
27. Jose, D., Palma-Moreira, A., & Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2025). Organizational culture and perceived performance: Mediation of perceived organizational support and moderation of motivation. Administrative Sciences, 15(8), Article 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15080307
28. Keppler, S. M., & Leonardi, P. M. (2023). Building relational confidence in remote and hybrid work arrangements: Novel ways to use digital technologies to foster knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad020
29. Kılıç, H.A., Oktar, Ö., & Özkan, A.M. (2021). Bilgi paylaşma niyetinin planlanmış davranış teorisi ile bilgi paylaşma davranışı arasındaki aracı rolü. International Journal of Management and Administration, 5(9), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.29064/ijma.809382
30. Klein, M. (2020). Leadership characteristics in the era of digital transformation. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(1), 883-902. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1441
31. Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., et al. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications for research and practice. American Psychologist, 76(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
32. KONDA. (2024). İstanbullunun yüzde kaçı çalışmak için ilçe değiştiriyor? Marketing Türkiye. https://www.marketingturkiye.com.tr/haberler/konda-acikladi-istanbullunun-yuzde-kaci-calismak-icin-ilce-degistiriyor-il-degistiren-bile-var/
33. Maity, R., & Lee, K. (2025). The impact of remote and hybrid work models on small and Medium-sized enterprises productivity: a systematic literature review. SN Business & Economics, 5, 158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-025-00931-7
34. Mutebi, N., & Hobbs, A. (2022). The impact of remote and hybrid working on workers and organisations. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. http://doi.org/10.58248/PB49
35. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
36. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
37. Nurhidayah, R., & Muliansyah, D. (2024). Digital leadership and employee engagement in hybrid work environments: The role of trust and communication. Riggs: Research in Information Governance, Intelligence & Global Society, 3(2), 23-33. https://doi.org/10.31004/riggs.v3i2.1067
38. Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye Strategy and Budget Office. (2025). Aralık 2025 istihdam verileri. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/aralik-2025-istihdam-verileri/
39. Rupcic, N. (2024). Working and learning in a hybrid workplace: challenges and opportunities. The Learning Organization: An International Journal, 31(2), 276-283. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2024-303
40. Sari, A.P., & Wening, N. (2025). The impact of hybrid work system implementation on employee performance in the digital era. Journal of Social Work and Science Education, 6(2), 773-788. https://doi.org/10.52690/jswse.v6i2.1217
41. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass
42. Türkcan Alaca, S. (2025). Dijital liderlik ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi.
43. Tutar, H., & Güler, S. (2022). Digital leadership as a requirement for the new business ecosystem: A conceptual review. Cankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), 323-349. https://doi.org/10.18074/ckuiibfd.1162792
44. Varol, N. (2023). Dijital dönüşüm ve yapay zekâ: Muhasebenin ve denetimin geleceği. Denetim Ve Güvence Hizmetleri Dergisi, 3(2), 162-184. https://izlik.org/JA78BS83UX
45. Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during COVID‐19. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
46. Wang, S. N., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
47. Yardımcıoğlu, M., & Şıtak, B. (2020). Yapay zekâ teknolojisinin muhasebe alanına yansımaları: Literatür incelemesi. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 342-353. https://doi.org/10.33905/bseusbed.809795
48. Yeboah, A. (2023). Knowledge sharing in organization: A systematic review. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), Article 2195027. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2195027
49. Yörük Karakılıç, N. (2019). Cameron ve Quinn örgüt kültürü ölçeğinin güvenirlik ve geçerliğinin test edilmesi. KOCATEPE İİBF Dergisi, 21(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.509126
50. Zhu, P. (2015). Digital Master: Debunk the Myths of Enterprise Digital Maturity. Lulu Publishing Services.