SANAL İLETİŞİM, SANAL İŞ BİRLİĞİ VE ÖRGÜTSEL SOSYALLEŞME ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİLERİN BELİRLENMESİ

Öz

Hızla gelişen elektronik iletişim araçlarıyla birlikte örgütlerdeki işgörenler arasında iş birliği sanal hale gelmiştir. Geleneksel elektronik etkileşim, beraberinde örgütsel sosyalleşmenin de sanal dönüşümünü ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Örgütsel sosyalleşme, işgörenin iş arkadaşlarına, iş ortamına ve işine uyum sağlamasıyla açıklanan, sürekli değişen ve gelişen, dinamik bir süreçtir. Bu dinamik sürecin, sanal iletişim yoluyla nasıl sağlandığı veya sanal iletişim ve sanal iş birliğinden ne derece etkilendiğinin anlaşılmasının ve sanal iletişim yoluyla sanal iş birliği ve örgütsel sosyalleşmenin, işgörene sağladığı katkının, önümüzdeki süreçte birçok araştırmaya konu edilebilecek nitelikte olduğu değerlendirilmektedir. Sanal iletişim yoluyla gerçekleşecek sanal iş birliği ve/veya örgütsel sosyalleşme sürecinin olumlu bir şekilde gelişmesi, işgören ve kurum açısından yeni fırsatlar yaratacaktır. Olumsuz şekillenmesinde ise işgören ve kurum, karşı karşıya olduğu tehditler ile baş etmek zorunda kalacaktır. Bu nedenle sanal iletişimin sanal iş birliği ve örgütsel sosyalleşmeye etkilerinin anlaşılması; işgörenin iş tatmini ekseninde, kurumsal verimliliğin ve kalitenin yükseltilmesinin analizi yönüyle önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, sanal iletişim araçlarının örgüt üyeleri arasında sanal iş birliğini ve örgütsel sosyalizasyonu nasıl etkilediğini göstermektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sanal iletişim
• Sanal iş birliği
• Örgütsel sosyalleşme
• Sanal sosyalleşme

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIRTUAL COMMUNICATION, VIRTUAL COLLABORATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION

Abstract

With the rapidly developing electronic communication tools, collaboration between employees in organizations has become virtual. Traditional electronic interaction leads to a virtual transformation of organizational socialization. Organizational socialization which is explained by an employee's adaptation to their co-workers, work environment and job is a dynamic process that is constantly changing and developing. It is evaluated that understanding how this dynamic process is provided through virtual communication, the extent to which virtual communication and virtual collaboration affect it, and the contribution of virtual collaboration and organizational socialization to employees through virtual communication could be the subject of many studies in the upcoming period. Positive improvement of virtual collaboration and/or organizational socialization process through virtual communication will create opportunities for the employee and the institution. In its negative form, the employee and the institution will have to cope with the threats they face. Because of this reason understanding the effects of virtual communication on virtual collaboration and organizational socialization is important in terms of analyzing employee job satisfaction and improving corporate efficiency and quality. The aim of this study is to show how virtual communication tools affect virtual collaboration and organizational socialization among organization members.

Keywords

• Virtual communication
• Virtual collaboration
• Organizational socialization
• Virtual socialization

Kaynakça

1. Adams, E.J. (2023). Social media communication and national integration. Synergy: Cross-Disciplinary Journal of Digital Investigation, 1(1), 70-77.
2. Agarwal, S. (2024). The profound impact of virtual communication technologies on team collaboration in the contemporary work environment. International Journal of Embedded Systems & Emerging Technologies, 10(1), 45-60.
3. Ajzen, M., Taskin, L. (2021). The re-regulation of working communities and relationships in the context of flexwork: a spacing identity approach. Information and Organization. 31(4), 100364.
4. Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 159-174. Al-Khateeb, B.A.A. (2024). E-collaboration and academic performance of lecturers: evidence from a Jordanian University. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 20(1), 1-15.
5. Anandarajan, A. ve Anandarajan, M. (2010). An overview of e-research collaboration. In Anandarajan, M., ve Anandarajan, A. (Eds.), E-Research collaboration (pp. 3-13), Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3- 642-12257-6_1
6. Anandarajan, M. ve Arinze, B. (2010). Creation of social capital in a web based virtual research environment. In Anandarajan, M., ve Anandarajan, A. (Eds.), E-Research collaboration (pp. 303-314). Berlin, Germany: Springer- Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12257-6_19
7. Anderson, J. (2017). The impact of virtual communication tools on team collaboration. Journal of Communication Technology, 23(4), 567-589.
8. Arinze, B. (2012). E-Research collaboration in academia and industry. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 8(2), 1-13.

9. Asatiani, A., Hämäläinen, J., Penttinen, E. ve Rossi, M. (2021). Constructing continuity across the organizational culture boundary in a highly virtual work environment. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 62-93. https://doi. org/10.1111/isj.12293
10. Ashforth, B.E. Sluss, D.M. ve Saks, A.M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 447-462.
11. Bakken, R. (2019). Harvard University. https://professional.dce.harvard.edu/blog/challenges-to-managing-virtual-teams-and-how-to-overcome-them/ (Erişim Tarihi: 08.09.2024)
12. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs. N.J. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
13. Bandura, A. ve Wood, R.E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.
14. Berry, G.R. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why traditional team skills are insufficient. Journal of Business Communication, 48(2), 186-206. doi:10.1177/0021943610397270
15. Blöndal, S.V. (2021). Becoming an Insider in a virtual environment: key elements of successful remote onboarding. Master’s Thesis, Jyväskylä University, School of Business and Economics, Finland.
16. Bozeman, B. ve Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393-1402. doi:10.1016/j. respol.2011.07.002
17. Bresciani, S., Huarng, K.H., Malhotra, A. ve Ferraris, A. (2021). Digital transformation as a springboard for product, process and business model innovation. Journal of Business Research, 128, 204-210.
18. Brown, S.A., Dennis, A.R. ve Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collaboration technology use: Integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 9-54.
19. Çalık, T. (2003). İşgörenlerin örgüte uyumu (örgütsel sosyalleşme). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 163-177. Carlson, J.R. ve Zmud, R.W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 42(2), 153-170.
20. Casarez, V., Cripe, B., Sini, J. ve Weckerle, P. (2008). Reshaping your business with Web 2.0: Using new social technologies to lead business transformation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.
21. Cassivi, L., Lefebvre, E., Lefebvre, L. ve Léger, P. (2004). Supply chain planning and execution tools: E-collaboration and organizational performance. International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(1), 91-110. doi:10.1108/09574090410700257
22. Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J. ve Gardner, P.D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730-743.
23. Cheek, J. (2008). Researching collaboratively: Implications for qualitative research and researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 18(11), 1599-1603. doi:10.1177/1049732308324865
24. Cimperman, S. (2023). Informal socialization in virtual work environments: Creating a digital culture of connectivity. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22197
25. Craig, K.M. (1996). Are all newcomers judged similarly? Distinctiveness and time of entry in task-oriented groups. Small Group Research, 27(3), 383-397.
26. Cramton, C.D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-71.
27. Daft, R.L. ve Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-71. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
28. Davison, R.M. (2017). Facilitating social harmony through ICTs. Information and Communication Technologies for Development: 14th IFIP WG 9.4 International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, ICT4D 2017, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, May 22-24, 2017, Proceedings 14(3-9). Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-59111-7_1
29. Deans, P.C. (2008). Social software and Web 2.0 technology trends. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-122-3
30. Dąbrowska, J., Almpanopoulou, A., Brem, A., Chesbrough, H., Cucino, V., Di Minin, A., Giones, F., Hakala, H., Marullo, C., Mention, A.-L., Mortara, L., Nørskov, S., Nylund, P.A., Oddo, C.M., Radziwon, A. ve Ritala, P. (2022). Digital transformation, for better or worse: a critical multi-level research agenda. R&D Management, 52, 930-954. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12531
31. Daim, T., Ha, A., Reutiman, S., Hughes, B., Pathak, U., Bynum, W. ve Bhatla, A. (2102). Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 199-212.
32. Deeter-Schmelz, D.R. ve Ramsey, R. (2003). An investigation of team information process in service teams: Exploring the link between teams and customers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 409-424. doi:10.1177/0092070303255382
33. Denison, D.R. (1997). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
34. DeSanctis, G. ve Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
35. DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S., Dickson, G.W. ve Jackson, B.M. (1993). Interpretive analysis of team use of group technologies. Journal of Organizational Computing, 3(1), 1-29.
36. Dev, M.D., Rusli, K.D., McKenna, L., Lau, S.T. ve Liaw, S.Y. (2020). Academic‐practice collaboration in clinical education: A qualitative study of academic educator and clinical preceptor views. Nursing & Health Sciences, 22(4), 1131-1138. doi:10.1111/nhs.12782 PMID:33006238
37. De Lucas Ancillo, A., del Val Nú˜nez, M.T., Gavrila Gavrila, S. (2020). Workplace change within the COVID-19 context: a grounded theory approach. Economic Research- Ekonomska Istraˇzivanja 1-20. https://doi. org/10.1080/1331677x.2020.1862689.
38. DiRenzo, M.S., Linnehan, F., Shao, P. ve Rosenberg, W.L. (2010). A moderated mediation model of e-mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 292-305.
39. Dulebohn, J. H. ve Hoch, J. E. (2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 569-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.004
40. Fedorowicz, J., Laso-Ballesteros1, I. ve Meléndez A.P. (2008). Creativity, innovation, and e-collaboration International Journal of e-Collaboration, 4(4), 1-10.
41. Fisher, C.D. (1986). Organizational socialization: an integrative review. In Rowland, K.M. ve Ferris, G.R. (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 101-45), Vol. 4, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
42. Flanagin, A.J. ve Waldeck, J.H. (2004). Technology use and organizational newcomer socialization. Journal of Business Communication, 41, 137-165.
43. Foth, M. (2006). Network action research. Action Research, 4(2), 205-226.
44. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J. ve Steinfield, C.W. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In Fulk, J. and Steinfield, C. (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology (pp. 117-140), CA, Newbury Park: Sage.
45. Geoghegan, W. (1994). Stuck at the barricades: Can information technology really enter the mainstream of teaching and learning? Change, 27(2), 13-16.
46. Gilchrist, A. (2004). The well-connected community: A networking approach to community development. Bristol: The Policy Press.
47. Gruman, J.A. ve Saks, A.M. (2018). E-socialization: The problems and the promise of socializing newcomers in the digital age. In J. H. Dulebohn & D. L. Stone, The brave new world of eHRM 2.0 (pp. 111-139). IAP Information Age Publishing.
48. Haski-Leventhal, D. ve Bargal, D. (2008). The volunteer stages and transitions model: Organizational socialization of volunteers. Human Relations, 61(1), 67-102.
49. Heimbürger, A. ve Kiyoki, Y. (2018). On temporal aspects in cross-cultural e-collaboration between Finland and Japan research teams. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 14(2), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2018040103
50. Hemerling, J., Kilmann, J., Danoesastro, M., Stutts, L. ve Ahern, C. (2018). It’s not a digital transformation without a digital culture. Boston Consulting Group, 1-11. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/not-digital-transformation- without-digital-culture
51. Hendler, J.A. ve Golbeck, J. (2008). Metcalfe’s Law, Web 2.0, and the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 6(1), 14-20. doi:10.1016/j.websem. 2007.11.008
52. Holton, E.F.I. ve Russell, C.J. (1997). The relationship of anticipation to newcomer socialization processes and outcomes: A pilot study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 163-172.
53. Huang, J. ve Xiong, K. (2023). Knowledge production of university-industry collaboration in academic capitalism: An analysis based on Hoffman’s framework. Asian Journal of Social Science, 51(4), 227–236. doi:10.1016/j.ajss.2023.06.002
54. Ireson N. ve Burrel G. (2010). Knowledge sharing in e-collaboration. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing (pp. 351-362), University of Sheffield.
55. Jarvenpaa, S.L. ve Leidner, D.E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.791
56. Johnson, N.F. ve Keane, H. (2017). Internet addiction? Temporality and life online in the networked society. Time & Society, 26(3), 267-285. doi:10.1177/0961463X15577279
57. King, R.C., Xia, W., Quick, J.C. ve Sethi, V. (2005). Socialization and organizational outcomes of information technology professionals. Career Development International, 10(1), 26-51.
58. King, V. ve Deepwell, F. (2009) E-research collaboration, conflict and compromise. In Kock, N., E-Collaboration: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 676-690), IGI Global.
59. Klein, H.J. ve Weaver, N.A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation training program in the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 47-66.
60. Ko, I., Olfman, L. ve Choi, S. (2009). The impacts of electronic collaboration and information exploitation capability on firm performance: Focusing on suppliers using buyer-dominated interorganizational information systems. International Journal of e- Collaboration, 5(2), 1-17. doi:10.4018/jec.2009040101
61. Kock, N. (2005). What is e-collaboration. International Journal of E-collaboration, 1(1), 1-7.
62. Kock, N. ve Nosek, J. (2005). Expanding the boundaries of e-collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 1–9. doi:10.1109/ TPC.2004.843272
63. Kock, N., Davison, R., Wazlawick, R. ve Ocker, R. (2001). E-collaboration: A look at past research and future challenges. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 5(1), 1-8. doi.org/10.1108/13287260180001059
64. Kodama, M. (2020). Digitally transforming work styles in an era of infectious disease. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102172. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102172
65. Kozlowski, S.W.J. ve Bell, B.F. (2001). Work groups and teams in organizations. Cornell University, ILR School. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/ articles/389/
66. Kramer, M.W. ve Sias, P.M. (2014). Interpersonal relationships and organizational communication. In C. R. Berger (Ed.), Interpersonal communication (pp. 467-491). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
67. Kramer, M.W., Lee, S.K. ve Guo, Y. (2019). Using communication technology to Manage uncertainty during organizational assimilation: Information-seeking and information-giving. Western Journal of Communication, 83(3), 304-325.
68. Kraus, S., Durst, S., Ferreira, J. J., Veiga, P., Kailer, N. ve Weinmann, A. (2022). Digital transformation in business and management research: An overview of the current status quo. International journal of information management, 63, 102466.
69. Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N. ve Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Digital transformation: An overview of the current state of the art of research. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211047576.
70. Kudyba, S., Fjermestad, J. ve Davenport, T. (2020). A research model for identifying factors that drive effective decision-making and the future of work. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 835-851.
71. Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J., Cousins, P.D. ve Handfield, R.B. (2009). Knowledge sharing in interorganizational product development teams: The effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 156-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00343.x
72. Layng, J.M. (2016). The virtual communication aspect: a critical review of virtual studies over the last 15 years. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 17(3), 172-218.
73. Le Clair, C., Andrews, C. ve Schoeller, A. (2016). The forrester WaveTM: Enterprise collaboration. The forrester WaveTM: Enterprise collaboration.
74. Lee, J., Oh, S. ve Burnett, G. (2016). Organizational socialization of academic librarians in the United States. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(4), 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.04.011
75. Lee, S. ve Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673–702. doi:10.1177/0306312705052359
76. Lesser, E.L. ve Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 831-841.
77. Lozi, L., Harvey, J. ve Michaud, P. (2022). The triumphs and challenges of adapting journey through the universe to a virtual setting. In: American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 54(6), presentation #315-04. https://baas. aas.org/pub/2022n6i315p04/release/1
78. Maicana, C.I., Cazanb, A.M., Lixandroiua R.C. ve Dovleaca L. (2019). A study on academic staff personality and technology acceptance: The case of communication and collaboration applications. Computers & Education, 128, 113-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.010
79. Makarius, E., ve Larson, B. (2017). Changing the perspective of virtual work: Building virtual intelligence at the individual level. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(2), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0120.A
80. Markus, M.L. (1990). Toward a critical mass theory of interactive media. In Fulk, J. ve Steinfield, C. (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology (pp. 194-218), CA, Newbury Park: Sage.
81. Martinez-Cerda, J.-F., Torrent-Sellens, J. ve Gonzalez-Gonzalez, I. (2020). Socio-technical e-learning innovation and ways of learning in the ICT-space- time continuum to improve the employability skills of adults. Computers in Human Behavior. 107, 105753.
82. Meyer, J.P. ve Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
83. Mignerey, J.T., Rubin, R. B. ve Gorden, W.I. (1995). Organizational entry: An investigation of newcomer communication behavior and uncertainty. Communication Research, 22(1), 54-85.
84. Morrison, E.W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 173-183.
85. Morrison, E.W. (1995). Information usefulness and acquisition during organizational encounter. Management Communication Quarterly, 9(2), 131-155.
86. Myers, P. (2007). Sexed up intelligence or irresponsible reporting? The interplay of virtual communication and emotion in dispute sensemaking. Human Relations, 60(4), 609-636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707078352
87. Nicolás-Agustín, Á., Jiménez-Jiménez, D. ve Maeso-Fernandez, F. (2022). The role of human resource practices in the implementation of digital transformation. International Journal of Manpower, 43(2), 395-410.
88. Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R. ve George, J.F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of ACM, 34(7), 40-61.
89. O’Leary, M.B. ve Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con) figure: subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 21(1), 115-131.
90. Oliveira, I., Tinoca, L. ve Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: How to promote a successful collaboration. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1348-1357. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.017
91. Orero-Blat, M., Jordán, H.D.J. ve Palacios-Marqués, D. (2022). A literature review of causal relationships in 21st century skills and digital leadership. International Journal of Services Operations and Informatics, 12(1), 1-12.
92. Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., Okamura, K. ve Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication: the metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6(4), 423-444.
93. Ostroff, C. ve Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: the role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849-874.
94. Qureshi, S., Liu, M., ve Vogel, D. (2006). The Effects of electronic collaboration in distributed project management. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 55-75.
95. Razmerita, L. ve Kirchner, K. (2014). Social media collaboration in the classroom: A study of group collaboration. at the Collaboration and Technology: 20th International Conference, CRIWG 2014, Santiago, Chile. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10166-8_25
96. Reyhanoğlu, M. ve Habiboğlu, M. (2023). Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremin Antakya’daki KOBİ’lerin toparlanmaları ve yeni olanaklar sağlamalarına etkisi. İçinde V. Eren (Ed.), İnterdisipliner Yaklaşımla Hatay’da Afet Deneyimi: 6 Şubat 2023 Depremini Tarihe Not Düşmek içinde (ss. 243-270), Ankara, Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
97. Rogers, M.E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (Fifth edition). New York: Free Press.
98. Romano, N.C. Jr., ve Fjermestad, J. (2006). Collaborative project management. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2(3), i-ix.
99. Rosenzweig, E.D. (2009). A contingent view of e-collaboration and performance in manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management, 27(6), 462-478. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.03.001
100. Ross, T.L. ve Cornell, R.D. (2010). Towards an experimental methodology of virtual world research, 2010 Second International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, Braga, Portugal, pp. 143-150, doi: 10.1109/VS-GAMES.2010.16.
101. Saks. A.M. ve Gruman J.A. (2021). How do you socialize newcomers during a pandemic? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, 217-220. DOI:10.1017/iop.2021.44
102. Schäfer, B., Koloch, L., Storai, D., Gunkel, M. ve Kraus, S. (2023). Alternative workplace arrangements: Tearing down the walls of a conceptual labyrinth. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(2), 100352.
103. Schroeder, R. (2007). E-research infrastructures and open science: Towards a new system of knowledge. Prometheus, 25(1), 1-17.
104. Shah, C. (2010). Collaborative information seeking: A literature review. Advances in librarianship, 32, 3-33. https:// doi.org/10.1108/S0065-2830(2010)0000032004
105. Shannak, R.O. (2013). The impact of using e-collaboration tools on company performance. European Scientific Journal, 9(10), 119-135.
106. Smith, R. (2019). Real-time Communication in Virtual Teams. International Journal of Virtual Collaboration, 15(2), 87-104.
107. Srivastava, P. R. (2020). Communication, Collaboration & Trust: Interpersonal Challenges in Virtual Collaboration Team. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(4), 1273-1278.
108. Tansal, Ş. (2007). Sanal iletişim. Elektrik Mühendisliği Dergisi, 2007(432). 47-49.
109. Thatcher, S.M., & Brown, S.A. (2010). Individual creativity in teams: The importance of communication media mix. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 290-300. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.004
110. Thomas, H.D.C. ve Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts during organizational socialization: A study of recruits entering the British army. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 745-767.
111. Thomas, H.D.C., Paterson, N.L., Stadler, M.J. ve Saks, A.M. (2014). The relative importance of proactive behaviors and outcomes for predicting newcomer learning, well-being, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 318-331.
112. Tijunaitis, K., Jeske, D. ve Shultz, K.S (2019). Virtuality at work and social media use among dispersed workers. Employee Relations, 41(3), 358-373. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2018-0093
113. Turban, E., Liang, T.P. ve Wu, S.P.J. (2011). A framework for adopting Collaboration 2.0 tools for virtual group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(2), 137-154. doi:10.1007/s10726- 010-9215-5
114. Vienne, D., (2020). Workplace changes after COVID-19. Fast company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90496811/5-changes-to-expect-in-the-workplace-after-covid-19.
115. Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414-426. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00952.x.
116. Watanabe, T. (2017). The story-presenting method: A method for constructing multiple viewpoints to understand different cultures. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 51(3), 403-418. doi: 10.1007/s12124-017- 9391- 9 PMID:28534104
117. Wesson, M.J. ve Gogus, C.I. (2005). Shaking hands with a computer: An examination of two methods of organizational newcomer orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1018-1026.
118. Wharton, R., Potter, P. ve Parry, L.E. (2004). Keeping the faculty: Issues of socialization, justice, and commitment to the workplace. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 6(1), 4-20.
119. Yela Ar´anega, A., Del Val Nú˜nez, M.T. ve Casta˜no S´anchez, R. (2020). Mindfulness as an intrapreneurship tool for improving the working environment and self-awareness.Journal of Business Research, 115, 186-193. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.022
120. Zigurs, I. ve Buckland, B.K. (1998). A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 22(3), 313-316.