Leadership and Culture in Turkey: A
Multifaceted Phenomenon
The Turkish Republic is situated mainly in Western Asia and partly in Southeastern Europe. Its geographical location over two continents serves as a bridge between East and West culturally, economically, and politically. The country is bordered in the east by Georgia, Armenia, and Iran, in the south by Iraq and Syria, and in the west by Greece and Bulgaria. Inland Turkey is 297,000 square miles and is surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea in the south, the Aegean in the west, and the Black Sea in the north.
Population is estimated to be approximately 68 million. Nearly 64.7% of the Turkish population lives in urban areas where the major cities are Istanbul, Ankara (the capital), Izmir, Adana, Antalya, Bursa, and Konya. Life expectancy is 69.5 years of age, and infant mortality per 1000 is reported as 39 for the second quarter of 2001 (http://www.dpt.gov.tr).
The official language is Turkish, spoken by 90% of the population; followed by 7% Kurdish, which is spoken mainly in the southeast. Though Islam is the religion of 99% of the population, the Turkish Republic is a secular state (Appendix: Statistical Profile of the GLOBE Society Sample). It was estimated that in 1986 there were approximately 100,000 Christians and in 1996 there were approximately 25,000 Jews in Turkey (The Europa World Year Book, 1996).
At the threshold of the 21st century, in view of the recent developments in Central and North Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East, Turkey is faced with the challenges of sustaining a Western economic and political ideology. With continuing economic liberalization, industrialization take-off, and a highly favorable geographical location, Turkey is a promising country for foreign investments and international trade prospects.
Turkey is a democratic and secular state formed in 1923 upon the demise of the Ottoman Empire and after a war of liberation against foreign powers, which occupied the country at the end of World War I. The early years of the Republic were characterized by vast economic and social reforms. With the decline of the Empire, many Muslim groups living in former Turkish territories in Southeastern Europe and around the Northern Black Sea migrated to the home country. At that time these migrations created a subculture that had a Western orientation, which still prevails today. Currently, Turkish culture may be characterized as having elements of modernity, tradition, and Islam. With the worldwide globalization trends, new lifestyles are being created, especially among the younger population. On the other hand, the rise of the Islamist movement in the country is leading to a new subculture. The subculture that identifies itself with Islamism includes not only the aspiring middle class of the towns, but also some university students and young professionals of the middle class, owners of small-to medium-size firms, and the lower socioeconomic groups of the metropolises.
Turkey has been moving closer to Europe by entering into a Custom Union with European Union (EU) countries with the intention of becoming a full member in the near future. At the Helsinki meeting held in 1999, Turkey was officially recognized as a candidate state on equal footing with the other candidate states. According to the Accession Partnership, Turkey participated in meetings with the EU states in 2004 and was accepted to start the accession process in the later part of 2005 (cf. EU enlargement, 2005). On the other hand, the recent restructuring of the former Soviet states (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Krgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan) is also offering many opportunities economically and culturally. In addition, the proponents of the Islamist movement claim that Turkey should initiate closer ties with the Islamic countries. Thus, a multiplicity of ideologies is seen that is leading to a culture that has a mixture of traditional, modern, and Islamic values, and an Eastern and Western orientation at all layers of society and organizations.
This chapter describes the unique aspects of society, organizations, and leaders in Turkish culture with the objective of providing insights and drawing implications for culture specific leadership and organizational practices. After an overview of the Turkish history, politics, economy, and society, the chapter proceeds with a description of the methodology used for generating the qualitative and quantitative GLOBE data, followed by presentation and discussion of GLOBE dimension findings at societal, organizational, and leader levels.
1. AN OVERVIEW OF TURKEY: HISTORICAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVES
A Historical Perspective and the Legal System
The Turkish legal structure is organized along Western lines. Westernization of the laws can be traced back to the latter periods of the Ottoman Empire, specifically to the period after the proclamation of the Edict of Reorganization (Tanzimat Fermani) in 1839. In the period from 1839 until the establishment of the Republic, the old Islamic laws and institutions were basically maintained, although some Western statutes were adopted from Europe (Güriz, 1987).
With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the Ottoman government in Istanbul collapsed and armies of the Allies occupied the country. A parallel government was developed in Anatolia by the nationalists who had resisted the armed forces of the Allies; the leader of the nationalists was Mustafa Kemal. The Independence War ended with the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923. The 1924 constitution proposed a “majoritarian” system, rather than a system of checks and balances (Özbudun, 1987). In both the single-party (1924–1946) and the multiparty (1946–1960) years of the constitution, the “executive” dominated the Assembly. During this period, the Turkish political system witnessed the authoritarian leadership of party leaders and the obedience of the parliamentarians to party decisions.
The authoritarian measures taken by the government in the 1950s created unrest in society, and on May 27, 1960, Turkish armed forces overthrew the Menderes government. In 1961, a new Constitution was prepared that represented a reaction to the 1924 Constitution. This new Constitution proposed a pluralistic, rather than a majoritarian system of democracy. After a decade of stability, the second military takeover took place in 1972. The second half of the 1970s was characterized by considerable political instability. With the succession of weak coalition governments, terrorism and political polarization became widespread. Turkish armed forces intervened in the political system for the third time on September 12, 1980. In 1982, a new constitution was prepared that was a reaction to the earlier one in 1961. The political crisis of the 1970s was attributed to the “excessive permissiveness” of the 1961 Constitution and to the weaknesses of the executive branch. The underlying objective of the 1982 Constitution was to establish both a strong state and a strong execution.
The Turkish legal system was Westernized by some radical reforms after the proclamation of the Republic in 1923. The radical reforms in legal matters paralleled other social reforms in all facets of life. Both in the field of private law and in the sphere of public law, Western codes were adopted. Though societal requirements for order and consistency are spelled out by rules and laws, in many cases, some of them are overridden by religious laws and traditions. Written laws prepared under the influence of Western laws, mainly in the early years of the Republic, represent a need for Westernization of the country and breaking the ties with the past, which represent the religious state. However, we often see a dual structure and mixed applications in society. Some parts of society that aspire for Westernization adhere to the rules and laws of the formal ideology and state (named as Kemalist ideology to represent the ideals and vision of Kemal Atatürk), whereas other subcultures in society, mainly the rural and lower socioeconomic groups in the urban areas, prefer to rely on the traditions.
Economic Environment and Business Structure
At the macro level, the Turkish economic environment, strengthened by the government's neo-liberalization measures since the early 1980s, demonstrates a commitment for growth. The Turkish economy grew at a rate of 4.2% in the period 1990–1998 (Appendix: Statistical Profile of the GLOBE Society Sample). However the neo-liberalization process has intensified the income inequalities (Önis, 1997) and as can be seen from the Statistical Profile of the GLOBE Society Sample, Turkey with a Gini Index of 41.5 stands among the countries with a highly unequal distribution of income. Nearly 65% of the GLOBE sample countries have a more equal income distribution than Turkey.
In 2001, Turkey's gross national product (GNP) was estimated to be U.S.$ 147,062 million, equivalent to $2,143 per person. Agriculture (including forestry and fishing) contributed 12.9% to GDP and industry (including mining, manufacturing, construction, and power) contributed 30.4% to GDP (http://www.dpt.gov.tr/dptweb/esg/esg-i.html). According to 2002 second-quarter figures, about 35% of the employed population worked in agriculture, and 18.7% in industry (http://www.die.gov.tr). Turkey was experiencing high inflation rates, over 30% per year and political instability between the mid-1980s and early 2000s (http://www.tcmb.gov.tr), yet in the 2000s inflation rates have been taken under control to around 10 per cent and political stability was achieved to a significant degree with a single-party government. Economic and political stability together with high economic growth rates have created a favorable economic environment for business. On the other hand, there exist large differences in economic development between western and eastern Turkey. The eastern part of the country is rural and much more traditional whereas the western region is industrialized, more urban, and Westernized.
State (Inter)dependence of Business. Business life in Turkey is dominated by private business groups and state economic enterprises. Since the inception of multiparty rule in 1946, a period of economic liberalization followed leading to a mixed economy, yet the state has been an important institution in shaping the business structure in Turkey. Historically, there was no capitalist class at the end of the Ottoman Empire. When the Republic of Turkey was founded, there was virtually no industry and a weak infrastructure. Due to the economic concessions made to foreign powers during the last years of the Ottoman Empire and the war of liberation, there was suspicion of foreign investment; this coupled with the prevailing economic ideology of the time led to the state becoming the main actor.
Turkish private companies remain highly dependent on the state for financial incentives and the state often intervenes with frequent and unpredictable policy changes, which introduce uncertainties in business life (Bugra, 1990). Although there has been significant liberalization in many areas, such as the finance sector, international trade, and some privatization of state economic enterprises, the state still remains the key actor in the economy, as well as the distributor of resources in the second half of the 1990s and early 2000s. In their study of Danish investments in Turkey, Bodur and Madsen (1993) conclude that personal contacts with influential government officials become important in finalizing decisions.
The Political System and Religious Ideology
The Turkish Republic was founded in 1923 after which several reforms in social, political, economic, and legal systems were undertaken. The first president of the Republic was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, whose principles for reform, such as nationalism, secularism, and statism, have come to be called Kemalism. The basis of the Kemalist ideology was to transform the society into a Western and secular structure.
In the Turkish political system, the legislative power is vested in the Turkish Grand National Assembly, whose members are elected for a 5-year term. The party leader with the highest number of parliamentarians is assigned by the president as the prime minister. The president is elected by the parliament for a 7-year term.
Political life has been frequently interrupted by military coups or interventions whenever political crises developed. The military has played a unique role in Turkey over the last 40 years. Though Turkey has had three military coups, each time the military has relinquished power fairly quickly and on its own accord. After a short period of restructuring, the military typically hands over the system to the political parties and restarts democracy. Furthermore, the military remains the most trustworthy institution according to the public polls (Ergüder, Y. Esmer, & Kalaycioglu, 1991; Esmer, 1999) and the Turkish people seem to be most satisfied with the services of the military (Adaman, Çarkoglu, & Senatalar, 2001).
The 1990s and early 2000s were an era of coalition governments with very short life spans. Elections conducted in 2002 yielded a single-party government, which provided political stability after a long period of instability. In parallel, Turkish society has been experiencing the simultaneous influence of secularism and Islamism. The rise of Islamism can be perceived as a product of the frustration of the promises of Western modernization and represents a critique of modernism (Gülalp, 1995). In this respect, Islamism can be interpreted more as an opposition to modernism, rather than as traditionalism. On the other hand, a majority of
Turkish society has fragmented political ideologies, ranging from strong commitment to Kemalism to moderate rightist traditional manifestations.
Perspectives on the Social System
Education. There has been a great increase in the literacy rates during the Republican era, though room for improvement remains. The 1990 statistics for the population aged 6 years and above indicate that 46.1% were primary school graduates, 7.6% junior high school, 7.8% high school, and 3.0% were university graduates, adding to 64.5% (State Planning Organization, 1995, p.12). In 1999, the literacy rates for males and females were 93.2% and 75.9%, respectively (Human Development Report 2001: Turkey, 2001).
Primary school is legally mandatory, which in 1996 increased to 8 years. The average rate of adult literacy was 84% in 1999. In Turkey, public education is essentially free at all levels including the universities.
Human Development. Turkey's human development practices continuously improved during the 1990–1998 period. Based on the Human Development Index (HDI) Rank of 82 with a value of 0.735 for 1999, Turkey stands among the medium human development countries (Human Development Report: Turkey, 2001). A majority of Turkey's population (51%) live in provinces that have high human development indices, 47.1% in those with medium, and 1.9% in those with low (Human Development Report 1996: Turkey, 1996).
2. METHODOLOGY
Qualitative and Quantitative Data
The country analysis is based on both qualitative and quantitative data. The following data sources were used.
Focus-Groups and In-Depth Interviews. Two focus group interviews were conducted; one consisted of five individuals and the other of seven. All participants had full-time work experience as middle-level managers, supervisory-level managers, or office workers. In-depth interviews were carried out with six middle-level managers from the financial and food-processing sectors. We conducted the focus groups and in-depth interviews in autumn 1994. After a preliminary analysis of the interviews and survey results, two more in-depth interviews were conducted to validate the findings. All interviews were recorded on tape and later transcribed verbatim. The transcribed data served as the basis for ethnographic analysis.
Media Analysis. This analysis had the purpose of analyzing news published in the printed media for identifying leadership patterns in the Turkish context. We collected the data during April 4–19, 1996. Five separately printed media, which consisted of three daily newspapers (Milliyet, Türkiye, and Dünya) and two weekly periodicals (Nokta and Ekonomist), were used as the database.
A Survey of Middle-Level Managers. Two types of self-administered questionnaires were conducted with 323 middle-level managers employed in 23 firms, 150 employed in the financial sector and 173 in the food-processing sector. The data were collected in autumn 1995. The mean age of the sample was 35.2 years, they averaged 14 years of formal education, 71.5% were male, and the remaining 28.5% were female. On average they had 14.4 years of work experience, 11.2 years of managerial experience, and 6.7 years of tenure with their present organization.
Organizational Demography Questionnaires. A total of six companies were selected out of the 23 companies covered in the survey. Those six companies with the highest representations in the survey were selected for the organizational demography study. Three of these companies were from the financial and three were from the food-processing sectors.
Participant Observation and Unobtrusive Measurement Questions. The participant observation questionnaire included 101 questions, and the unobtrusive measurement questionnaire had 38 questions about the societal dimensions of culture. These questionnaires were completed by the researchers and were based on their own knowledge and expert opinion about the values, structures, and institutions prevalent in society.
Industry Analysis. Industry analysis included a review and ethnographic analysis of routinely printed media, in-house newsletters or magazines that cater to managers in that industry, trade association newsletters, publications on industry structure, and sector-based reports.
Ethnogenic Analysis of Major Political and Industry Leaders. Leader autobiographies, biographies, historical diaries, and news published upon their death were reviewed with the purpose of evaluating leadership patterns, the position attributed to business and political leaders throughout history within a societal and institutional context.
Further methodological parameters of the GLOBE study are set out in House et al. (1999, 2004).
3. TURKISH SOCIETY AND GLOBE DIMENSIONS
In this section, the results of the survey conducted with 323 middle-level managers from the financial and food-processing sectors are presented. This section of the questionnaire probed about the beliefs of the respondents with respect to “how are” the current norms, values, and practices and “how they should be” in their society. In both sections of the questionnaire, a series of 7-point Likert scale statements were given to the respondents. The items were categorized into nine dimensions. Table 23.1 portrays the societal “As Is” and “Should Be” scores.
“As Is” scores reveal that Turkish society is viewed as having practices that are high in In-group Collectivism (M = 5.88, Rank 5), Power Distance (M = 5.57, Rank 10), and Assertiveness (M = 4.53, Rank 12). All three of these dimensions have high absolute scores and belong to Band A. In terms of societal practices regarding Uncertainty Avoidance (M = 3.63, Rank 49), Humane Orientation (M = 3.94, Rank 37), and Future Orientation (M = 3.74, Rank 36), Turkey has low absolute and relative scores. All three of these dimensions belong to Band C. Turkey's Gender Egalitarianism “As Is” score is low in absolute scale (M = 2.89) and it Ranks 56th; however it stands in Band B, implying that most cultures in the GLOBE sample have practices representing gender inequality. In Performance Orientation (M = 3.83, Rank 45), Turkey has a low absolute score, yet it has a moderate relative standing, falling into Band B. In terms of Institutional Collectivism (M = 4.03, Rank 41), Turkish society is moderate both in absolute and relative scale scores, with a standing in Band B.
TABLE 23.1
Country Means for Societal Culture Dimensions
aCountry mean score on a 7-point Likert-type scale. bBand letters A–D indicating meaningful country bands for the scales A > B > C (>D); see Hanges, Dickson, & Sipe (2004). cThe ranking for Turkey relative to the 61 GLOBE countries. dDifference: “As Is” score minus “Should Be” score.
Looking at the societal values (“Should Be” scores), it can be seen that Turkey has high absolute and relative scale scores in Future Orientation (M = 5.83, Rank 16) and Institutional Collectivism (M = 5.26, Rank 10). In these two dimensions, Turkish society stands in Band A. In terms of Power Distance (M = 2.41, Rank 51) and Assertiveness (M = 2.66, Rank 61), Turkey has low scores in both absolute and relative terms. In Power Distance, Turkish society has a standing in Band D and in Assertiveness it is in Band C. In the rest of the societal values, Turkish society has high absolute scores, yet in terms of relative standing with respect to GLOBE countries, it has a moderate or a low standing. In In-Group Collectivism (M = 5.77, Rank 24), Humane Orientation (M = 5.52, Rank 25), Uncertainty Avoidance (M = 4.67, Rank 32), and Gender Egalitarianism (M = 4.50, Rank 37), Turkey has high absolute and moderate relative scores. In Performance Orientation (M = 5.39, Rank 58), though Turkey has a high absolute score, its low Ranking and standing in Band D places it in a low relative place.
The last column of Table 23.1 shows the differences between societal values and practices. The highest absolute difference between “Should Be” and “As Is” scores is in Power Distance (–3.16), followed by Future Orientation (2.09), which suggest that Turkish society desires substantially lower levels of Power Distance and higher levels of Future Orientation. In addition, Turkish society aspires for moderately more Gender Egalitarianism (1.61), Humane Orientation (1.58), Performance Orientation (1.56), Institutional Collectivism (1.23), and Uncertainty Avoidance (1.04). On the other hand, society desires a moderately lower level of
Assertiveness (–1.87). In terms of In-Group Collectivism, the difference between societal values and practices is negligible (-0.11), indicating that societal practices match aspirations.
In light of findings on societal GLOBE dimensions, the next sections focus on each dimension separately, integrating it with the society's historical, social, and economic characteristics. These discussions lead to interpretations of findings on organizational culture and leadership dimensions.
Performance Orientation
Performance Orientation describes the degree to which society encourages people to continuously improve performance and rewards performance effectiveness and achievements. Turkey's “As Is” score in Performance Orientation is low in absolute terms (M = 3.83). It Ranks 45th among GLOBE countries and it stands in Band B, placing it in a moderate relative standing. In absolute terms, the “Should Be” score in Performance Orientation (M = 5.39) is higher than the “As Is” score, yet its ranking (58th) and standing in Band D puts it in a low relative place among GLOBE societies. This finding suggests that cultures around the world aspire for very high levels of Performance Orientation and Turkey's high score in absolute terms stands to be relatively low compared to other societies.
In general, “As Is” and “Should Be” scores in Performance Orientation point to the fact that Turkish society is not characterized by high performance orientation. The general indicators point to rather low levels of economic productivity, foreign direct investments, and competitive strength in the global arena (Uluslararasi Dogrudan Yatirimlar ve Türkiye, 2002). Beginning with the 1990s, the Turkish public sector increasingly borrowed money from internal and external sources to compensate for the budget deficit, instead of creating resources by increased productivity and better allocation of expenses. Parallel with low Performance Orientation scores, Turkey's investment in research and development is rather low. Only 0.45% of gross domestic product (GDP) is allocated to research and development, whereas this figure is 2.7% to 3.9% in most developed nations of the world. A comparative study shows that Turkey ranks 39th in research and development investments and 40th in size of research and development personnel among 47 nations (Institute for Management Development, 1999).
In general, there is a moderate level of emphasis on education in Turkish society. Primary school education is mandatory and it was increased from 5 to 8 years in 1996. Students at universities are encouraged to study at a moderate level, yet at graduation, universities honor students with the highest grades by awarding plaques. Public education is free at all levels, including the university education. The emphasis on education has created a sizable group of well-educated professionals in the labor market. The existence of a skilled and highly educated workforce was found to be one of the major strengths of Turkey in attracting foreign direct investments (Uluslararasi Dogrudan Yatirimlar ve Türkiye, 2002).
Compared with the public sector, the private sector has a higher Performance Orientation. Most private organizations take performance-oriented measures and invest in training and development. In a study conducted with 307 private Turkish companies, it was found that 81% conducted performance appraisals and 82% had training and development programs (Arthur Andersen, 2000). On the other hand, the percentage of companies that applied career planning dropped to 42% and the organizations were quite reluctant to tie performance appraisal results to pay, salary decisions, or career planning. This finding indicates that variables other than performance are taken into account as rewarding mechanisms, which supports Turkey's mediocre GLOBE Performance Orientation scores.
Future Orientation measures the extent to which society values and practices planning and investment, as opposed to focusing on current problems and the present. The “As Is” Future Orientation score shows that Turkish society is characterized by a low absolute (M = 3.74) and relative standing (Rank 36, Band C) in terms of future-oriented practices. On the other hand, compared to the “As Is” score, the “Should Be” Future Orientation score (M = 5.83, Rank 16, Band A) is substantially higher both in terms of absolute and relative values.
The low level of “As Is” Future Orientation score in both absolute and relative scale reflect the fact that people accept status quo and take life events as they occur rather than planning for the future. Societal practices that encourage and reward accepting the status quo can at least partly be explained by the Islam religion (H. Kabasakal & Bodur, 2002; H. Kabasakal & Dastmalchian, 2001). Turkish society is 99% Muslim, which is one of the highest population ratios in the world, in terms of religious homogeneity. The concept of “fate” in Islam can be considered to be a factor that is associated with accepting life events and the status quo. According to amentu in studies of Islam, believing in fate is among the basic principles of faith in God (Ilmihal I, 1999). Many verses of the Koran openly indicate that all deeds that happened in the past and that will occur in the future are prearranged and within God's preordaining. Although the concept of fate in Islam is very complicated and there are some verses in Koran that focus on the importance of individual responsibility and choice of action in people's lives, interpretations of Islam mostly create a passive attitude toward the future because all conduct is perceived to come from God.
Low levels of future-oriented practices are currently perceived as lack of effective plans for the cities on the part of municipalities, as most cities grow in an unplanned and haphazard manner. Though most of Turkey is in a high-risk area in terms of earthquakes, public offices and individuals in the high-risk areas are found to avoid mitigation and planning activities (Iseri, Inelmen, Kabasakal, & Akarun, 2002). Part of the reason for avoiding mitigation and planning is attributed to fatalism because one third of the participants that responded to in-depth interviews indicated that they do not feel they can do anything to prepare themselves for a future earthquake and close to two thirds expected fate or luck to play a role in their future survival (Fisek, Müderrisoglu, Yeniçeri, & Özkarar, 2001).
As opposed to the low level of Future Orientation in societal practices, Turkish society is characterized by high aspirations for planning. People believe that activities should be planned and they should live for the future. As an indication of the high value attributed to planning, both the 1961 and 1982 Constitutions have articles on “planning.” According to the Constitutions, the planning of economic, social, and cultural development and the efficient use of national resources on the basis of detailed analysis and the establishment of the necessary organization for this purpose is the duty of the state. The State Planning Organization, as established by the 1961 Constitution, is the highest body responsible for planning and directly reports to the prime minister. Although the importance attributed to planning is evident in the Turkish Constitution, in recent years the plans that are formulated by the State Planning Organization are mostly bypassed by the governments.
Similarly, many large organizations have planning departments and staff responsible for planning. They formulate vision and mission statements and conduct strategic planning. On the other hand, most of the time plans are not applied in practice and companies focus mainly on solving current problems. One of the reasons that can be cited for focusing on the present is the fact that Turkey has been experiencing political and economic instability and high inflation rates in the last two decades. Economic instability and high levels of inflation, coupled with political instability make planning very difficult for companies. Unavoidably, the decision makers focus on the short term; sometimes even yearly plans become difficult. Because predicting the future is almost impossible, speculative activities decided by the company owners gain importance, which reflects the relatively low levels of Future Orientation “As Is” scores that were obtained by the quantitative findings of the GLOBE scales. Furthermore, given the fact that there is high dependence on the state, owners of large companies and conglomerates decide on the direction of the companies based on advice and guidance of politicians and top state officials. In a study of Danish investments in Turkey, Danish investors pointed to the contributions of Turkish partners in establishing relationships with government officials and the importance of such contacts on company decisions (Bodur & Madsen, 1993).
Assertiveness
Assertiveness describes the extent to which people in society are dominant and tough, as opposed to soft and tender. The “As Is” Mean score for Turkish society is high in both absolute and relative scale (M = 4.53, Rank 12, Band A). On the other hand, the “Should Be” Assertiveness score of Turkish society is low in terms of its absolute value and relative place; indeed it has the lowest score among other GLOBE societies in this cultural dimension (M = 2.66, Rank 61, Band C). Whereas Turkish society is characterized by high levels of dominance and toughness, people in society aspire for tender and nonassertive relationships.
The “Masculinity/Femininity” dimension in Hofstede's (1980, 2001) research has some overlaps with the GLOBE Assertiveness dimension. According to Hofstede, in masculine cultures, men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focus on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest and tender. In feminine societies, both men and women are supposed to be modest and tender. In Hofstede's work (1980), Turkey was found to be in the middle of the Masculinity/Femininity scale, tilting toward the femininity side, and when the values were controlled for the percentage of women among the respondents, Turkey was placed more on the masculinity side (Hofstede, 2001). Compared with Hofstede's study, GLOBE findings point to the fact that Turkish society has become a substantially more assertive society in the last two decades.
Starting in the late 1970s, high levels of political instability, high inflation and unemployment rates, and massive migration to urban areas have created an uncertain environment and made survival difficult for members of society. Given the difficulties and uncertainties in the socioeconomic environment, relationships turned out to be tough and assertive in many facets of life.
In general, at all education levels, student–teacher relations are based on teacher assertiveness. The relation is characterized by assertiveness and dominance of the teachers rather than tenderness and students are usually afraid of being scolded by their teachers. There is also strong assertiveness in the family, mainly on the part of the men, who are mostly dominant and authoritarian toward their wives and children. In addition, mothers-in-law practice dominance over their daughters-in-law after their sons get married.
The assertive and authoritarian practices in society can be observed in task-related contexts as well. Government officials usually act in a very authoritarian and assertive manner toward the citizens in public work, including the police stations, courts, and other bureaucratic processes. Private-sector organizations are also characterized by authoritarian relationships between supervisors and subordinates, with supervisors typically having a dominant style in their work relationships.
Members of Turkish society seem to be very dissatisfied with the aggressive and assertive practices they face in everyday life. They aspire for a society where relationships are tender and soft. Turkish society desires one of the least assertive cultures compared to other GLOBE societies.
Institutional Collectivism
Institutional Collectivism measures the extent to which society encourages and rewards collective work and group solidarity in societal and institutional settings. Turkish society is found to have a moderate “As Is” score in Institutional Collectivism in both absolute and relative standing (M = 4.03, Rank 41, Band B). The Institutional Collectivism “Should Be” score (M = 5.26, Rank 10, Band A) points to the fact that Turkish people desire for high levels of societal and Institutional Collectivism.
Previous studies revealed somewhat similar findings about the level of collectivism in Turkish society. In Hofstede's (1980) study, Turkey was found to be more on the collectivist side of the individualism–collectivism index, however not among the most collectivist societies included in the sample. In Hofstede's work, individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose and collectivism stands for a society in which people are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups. Similarly, Göregenli (1997) found Turkey to exhibit collectivist patterns in some areas, but not display all of the characteristics of a collectivist orientation. According to Göregenli's study, when institutional settings are considered, relationships with coworkers were found to be individualistic in consideration of implications of one's own decisions and actions for others, sharing of material resources, susceptibility to social influence, and feeling of involvement in others’ lives. However, collectivist tendencies in institutional settings prevailed in the areas of self-presentation and face work, and sharing of outcomes with coworkers.
Although in general the Turkish society has moderate scores on GLOBE Institutional Collectivism, Turkish society has a strong sense of nationalism and national pride, which can be seen historically as well as in current times. The Turkish Independence War (1919–1923) that was won after the World War I against a coalition of nations that invaded the country is a dramatic example of national unity and solidarity that was portrayed among members of society. Turkish people show great respect for the Turkish flag and national anthem in ceremonies. Winning as a nation in international sports activities has become a very important event, one that is nationally celebrated.
On the other hand, Turkish society seems to exhibit relatively lower levels of collectivism in terms of joining institutions that are formed for different purposes. In general, members of society refrain from joining NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) and CBOs (communitybased organizations) (Kabasakal, Akarun, Iseri, & Inelmen, 2001). The general low level of trust in society may be a factor in people's refraining from joining institutions and forming solidarity in institutional frameworks. Data collected from Turkey for the World Values Survey in 1990 and 1997 point to the fact that Turkish people in general have very low levels of trust in other people (Ergüder et al., 1991; Y. Esmer, 1999). In 1990 and 1997, 10% and 6.5% of the respondents, respectively, indicated that in general most people are trustable. In relative standing among the 43 countries that participated in the World Values Survey, Turkey has one of the lowest scores in trusting others. The finding that Turkish people generally have low levels of trust in others may be a significant factor in reducing the level of group solidarity and association with others in teamwork in institutional settings. Fukuyama (1995) ties trust levels in society to forming associations and in this sense low levels of trust in Turkish society may be considered to be a variable that hinders forming partnerships in the private sector as well. The Turkish private sector is dominated by family firms and even the large business groups are owned by families, rather than partnerships with others who may bring different expertise and resources to an organization. Despite this, Turkish people strongly believe in the value of Institutional Collectivism as reflected in the high GLOBE “Should Be” score for Institutional Collectivism.
In-Group Collectivism
In-Group Collectivism describes the degree of collectivism and solidarity among in-group members, particularly in families or organizations. Turkish society is characterized by high levels of In-Group Collectivism in societal practices and has one of the highest “As Is” scores among the GLOBE societies (M = 5.88, Rank 5, Band A). Aspirations of people match societal practices, given the finding that the “Should Be” score (M = 5.77, Rank 22, Band B) is very close to the “As Is” score.
Family stands at the center of life in Turkish society and people have a high trust of family members (Ergüder et al., 1991; Kagitçibasi, 1982b). The verses of the Koran and interpretations of the Islam religion reinforce the importance of family. Mutual trust within the family is the rule in both rural and urban families. In their socialization, children are taught to support and help their family members rather than to be self-reliant or fending for oneself. In Turkish society there is commonly an interdependent relationship between the children and the family. As a part of this interdependence, the family is always available to support the children when needed. In turn, children, particularly the male children, are expected to provide material and social support to their parents in old age (Kagitçibasi, 1982b). Older brothers are expected to finance the younger siblings’ education and costs incurred at marriage. It is common practice that the older members of families arrange marriages for the younger family members and important personal problems are solved by seeking help from the family.
In addition to the family, other in-group relationships also bear a great significance and carry a highly collectivist nature. Among the network of interdependent relationships, belonging to the same school or region plays an important role (Kiray, 1997). For example, when people migrate to urban areas, they usually find employment and housing by the help of their associates who migrated from the same region to the cities before themselves.
Göregenli (1997) found strongly collectivist tendencies in Turkish society in relationships with in-groups, including spouse, mother, siblings, and friends in many categories, such as self-presentation and face work, sharing of outcomes, sharing of nonmaterial resources, consideration of implications of one's own decision and actions for other people, and sharing of material resources. More individualistic tendencies were apparent in relationships with in-groups in the area of susceptibility to social influence.
Most organizations in the Turkish economy are family-owned enterprises. Family members, rather than professionals, constitute the top management of many large business groups. Although the domination of family members, rather than professionals, in management can partly be explained by state–business relationships, it can also be explained by high In-Group
Collectivism that is prevalent in Turkish society. In addition to kinship and family ties, belonging to the same school or region also plays a role in employment decisions. For example, it is common practice in Turkish organizations that people who attended the same school are frequently employed in the same management and professional groups. In summary, Turkish people have a strong commitment to their relationships in a network of close interdependent relationships.
Gender Egalitarianism
Gender Egalitarianism measures the extent to which gender differences and discrimination against females in society is minimized. The Gender Egalitarianism “As Is” score for Turkish society is low in absolute terms (M= 2.89) and its relative standing among GLOBE societies is also not high (Rank 56, Band B). When one looks at the “Should Be” score, it can be seen that there is a desire for more Gender Egalitarianism (M = 4.50, Rank 37, Band B), placing Turkish society in a moderate place in comparative terms.
When the Republic of Turkey was established in 1923, a series of reforms were undertaken that aimed at incorporating Westernization and modernization into society. Women were assigned an important part in this modernization project and their progress was perceived as a measure of reaching modernity (Arat, 1999). Although these reforms achieved a significant amount of success in areas such as legal rights, increasing the level of literacy, and education, the patriarchal Middle Eastern practices still exist in society.
In general, the social differences between women and men lie primarily in the area of what they are expected to “do.” More specifically, women are expected to engage in activities that are inside the house or the organization, basically in support roles. Alternatively, men engage in activities that require relationships with the outside. In another perspective, women are more in support activities, whereas men are more in positions of power and decision making. Beyond the differences in what they are expected to do, few sex role stereotypes exist. In a study of sex role stereotypes, high school students of both sexes judged the desirability of personality characteristics for women and men (Gürbüz, 1988). Accordingly, the six socially desirable characteristics, “ambitious,” “analytical,” “forceful,” “rash,” “insists on one's rights,” “enterprising,” and three socially undesirable characteristics, “dominant,” “jealous,” and “autonomous” were all identified as masculine traits. Four socially desirable characteristics, “loves children,” “dependent,” “elegant,” and “thrifty,” and five socially undesirable characteristics, “submissive,” “cowardly,” “weak,” “insecure,” and “naive” were identified as feminine. It can be seen from the results of this study that femininity is associated with more negative and passive attributes than masculinity, which is in line with low Gender Egalitarianism that is obtained by the GLOBE scales.
Parallel with the low Gender Egalitarianism scores of the GLOBE study, the HDI score of men is 0.824, whereas women have a much lower HDI value, that is, 0.648. In 1998, Turkey's Gender Development Index (GDI) was 0.726, standing in the last one third of the GLOBE societies in terms of gender development (Appendix: Statistical Profile of the GLOBE Society Sample). Hofstede's (1980, 2001) study placed Turkey in the middle of the Masculinity–Femininity index. On the other hand, results of a cross-cultural study shows that there is a huge variation between the intrafamily status of Turkish women in rural settings and urban women in professional/managerial occupations (Kagitçibasi, 1982a). Such wide variation was not found in the other eight countries where the same study was conducted.
Dual structure of women in Turkish society is also observed in the employment and labor market. Women with rural and lower socioeconomic origins are employed mainly in the agricultural sector as unpaid family workers and their representation in the paid urban force is quite low, with a concentration in low-paying and low-status jobs (H. Kabasakal, Aycan, & Karakas, 2004; Özar, 1994; Özbay, 1994). In 1999, only 15.8% of the urban workforce was female (State Institute of Statistics, 1999). On the other hand, women with middle or upper socioeconomic backgrounds have very high percentages in highly prestigious professions. In the 1990s and early 2000s Turkish women constituted 35% of academics, 60% of pharmacists, 19% of physicians, 30% of dentists, and 34 % of lawyers (Acar, 1991; Gürüz, 2001; Koray, 1991). Despite the high ratios of women in many prestigious professions, women's representation in managerial and executive positions ranges between 3% and 4% in the private sector (H. Kabasakal, 1998; H. Kabasakal, Boyacigiller, & Erden, 1994) and only 4% of the Turkish parliament was composed of women in 1999 (General Directorate, 2001). These statistics show that women's representation in positions that require the use of executive and political power is very restricted, although in general they may have high ratios in highly professional and technical jobs.
A nationwide study conducted in 1987 points to a large wage gap between men and women, where women received as much as 60% of men's wages (Tan, Ecevit, & Üsür, 2000). It is interesting to note that the wage gap decreased as the education levels of employees increased. Women directors, entrepreneurs, and managers earned as much (95.6%) as their male colleagues in the public sector. Although comparably lower, female managers’ wages are 84% of male managers in the private sector (State Planning Organization, 2000). These statistics support the interpretation that there is a dual structure in the status of women, based on their socioeconomic backgrounds.
Despite the significant attempts at improving the status of women in the Republic of Turkey, the reforms have achieved limited success among rural and lower socioeconomic groups within society. Significant, success was achieved in legal, education, and employment-related areas for women in urban, middle, and upper socioeconomic groups, yet some conflicting and traditional roles are simultaneously present in Turkish society as part of the Middle Eastern culture and Islamic ideology (Topaloglu, 1983). These traditional roles promote segregation of gender roles, the role of women as mothers and wives, and some passive traits that are considered to be feminine.
Humane Orientation
Humane Orientation refers to the degree to which people in society are concerned, sensitive, and generous to each other. Turkey has low absolute and relative “As Is” Humane Orientation scores (M = 3.94, Rank 37, Band C). On the other hand, as reflected in “Should Be” scores, aspirations of Turkish respondents for a humane-oriented society are high in absolute terms and moderate in comparative terms (M = 5.52, Rank 25, Band B).
In Turkey, the family and in-groups take care of many problems of individuals. Given the prevailing social structure where individuals are surrounded by an interdependent network of close relationships, individuals get help and assistance from their close circle. People receive both material and psychological support, even without asking for it. The family, neighbors, and school friends offer help and arrange the conditions for those individuals who are in need of it in both rural and urban areas and, among all classes (Duben, 1982). Contrary to this, the general tendency to help and act in a generous, friendly manner to others who are outside the close network is relatively low.
Mead (1994) argues that patronage relationships foster in environments where welfare services are weak or nonexistent. In Turkey, there is not a well-developed social security and welfare system and many institutions that would serve the well-being of individuals are quite weak. Instead, informal relationships, including patronage relationships take care of the welfare of individuals. Although in patronage relationships, resources are offered to members of the network and nonmembers are denied (Mead, 1994). In line with this proposition, in Turkey, help and assistance is offered selectively in an informal network, rather than as a general commodity.
As part of the patronage relationships, paternalistic leaders in Turkish organizations look after the well-being of their employees in many personal matters (Aycan et al., 2000; Dilber, 1967). In addition, many parliamentarians spend a significant amount of their time resolving the personal problems of their voters, such as finding jobs and hospital places and solving their bureaucratic problems. Thus, paternalistic leaders in Turkish society provide help and assistance to their followers in many facets of life, like a father would.
Power Distance
Power Distance measures the extent to which members of society expect power and influence to be distributed equally in that society. Turkey has high “As Is” Power Distance scores in both absolute and relative scale (M = 5.57, Rank 10, Band A). As opposed to the high Power Distance practices, the “Should Be” scores indicate that people aspire for a low Power Distance society in absolute and relative terms (M = 2.41, Rank 51, Band D).
GLOBE's finding that practices in Turkish society represent hierarchical relationships are in line with previous cross-cultural studies (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Schwartz, 1994; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Hofstede's study indicated that in high–Power Distance societies like Turkey, employees are afraid to express disagreement with their managers. Parallel with Hofstede's definition of high–Power Distance cultures, Turkish managers in general expect obedience from their employees and employees are quite reluctant to declare their disagreements with their managers. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner's study showed that Turkish companies have the steepest hierarchy among companies of 38 nations. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner indicated that the familial cultures like the Turkish society have steep hierarchies in their organizations. In such societies, leaders get their power and confidence from their followers and from the obedience of followers to the leaders, like in father–child relationships. In a cross-cultural study conducted by Schwartz (1994), Turkey was found to be among the most hierarchical societies, ranking 6th among 38 cultures in terms of preferring high Power Distance, influence, and authority.
Previous studies together with GLOBE's findings show that Turkish society is characterized by the centralization of authority and influence. Power and resource allocation is based on hierarchy rather than an egalitarian distribution. There is a large social distance among groups that belong to different strata in society and organizations. Vast differences in socioeconomic status of classes are manifested at both societal and organizational levels.
In most business organizations, the amount of office space is generally allocated according to the status of the employees/managers, rather than the requirements of the work to be done. Usually at places of work, titles are listed on the doors of the offices. Titles are generally used when addressing others who are not intimate friends. In business organizations, some eating places and parking spaces are separated according to the status of the employees. In addition, privileges such as health insurance, housing, and cars are all allocated on a hierarchical basis.
The way people address each other in society reflects status differences. Individuals are addressed differently: (a) with different pronouns, and (b) with their first names or the use of sir/madam beforehand, based on status differences. Lower-status people are addressed by their first name, whereas for higher-status people madam or sir is added. Wealthy families generally have three or more domestic servants. Even middle-income groups would have a domestic servant in their houses.
Wealthy people generally have more political influence in the country. The Turkish Businessmen's and Industrialists’ Association includes only very wealthy owners and few professional managers; this association frequently prepares reports on social, political, and economic affairs. In addition, in the eastern and southeastern regions of Turkey, the wealthy individuals who are also the patrons are usually elected as parliamentarians and have political power in the sense that they influence their followers’ votes.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which society emphasizes orderliness, structure, and rules in order to reduce unpredictability and uncertainty. Turkish society has low absolute and relative “As Is” scores in GLOBE's Uncertainty Avoidance scale (M = 3.63, Rank 49, Band C). It seems like society can tolerate unpredictability and uncertainty to a significant extent. On the other hand, the respondents aspired for more predictability as reflected in moderate “Should Be” scores in absolute and relative terms (M = 4.67; Rank 32, Band B).
Hofstede (1980, 2001) classified Turkey as being a high–Uncertainty Avoidance culture, yet it seems like society has become more tolerant of uncertainty over time. Hofstede (2001) reported significant correlations between rule orientation and employment stability, indicating that both factors serve as uncertainty reduction mechanisms. Turkey experienced extensive political and economic instability during 1980s and 1990s. Turkey was governed by coalitions that have had short durations and experienced significant economic instability, as reflected in high inflation and unemployment rates. A study conducted with 216 Turkish manufacturing companies showed that more than half of the companies in the sample reduced their production capacity and 30% laid off workers during the period 1998–1999 (Eren, Bildirici, & Firat, 2000). Furthermore, employees who were laid off were from all levels, covering a range of unskilled workers to top management. The period of instability has reduced rule orientation in organizations and society at large in an effort to produce more organic and flexible survival techniques in the highly uncertain environment.
Political instability, high levels of inflation and unemployment rates, existence of a large informal sector, and frequent lay-offs in the Turkish business world and economy created flexible forms of coping mechanisms with the turbulent and uncertain conditions on the part of individuals and organizations. The Adaman et al. (2001) study conducted among 3,021 individuals shows that people in Turkish society frequently consider giving money or presents to public officers to receive service even for some cases that may be their legal right. It can be argued that Turkish people have developed crude survival techniques in order to survive in the unfavorable and uncertain conditions that were experienced in the last few decades, rather than focusing on orderliness and rules as reflected in GLOBE's low Uncertainty Avoidance “As Is” scores. On the other hand, Turkish people aspire for a more orderly and predictable environment.
4. LEADERSHIP IN TURKEY
Kemal Atatürk is the most effective leader that has emerged in Turkish society. He was the leader in the Independence War, the establishment of the Republic, and many reforms that aimed at the development, modernization, and Westernization of society. He is known for his action and change orientation, decisiveness in the vision he provided to society, inspiration, and belief in Turkish people. He consistently pointed to the need for Westernization and modernization, took radical actions in this direction, and continuously increased the morale of society and inspired the public. He had injected self-confidence and hope into individuals and constantly repeated his belief in the capabilities of the Turkish people.
Apart from Atatürk, Turkey has produced very few well-known leaders. Although they are still not completely accepted as effective leaders by the entire public, those political leaders who have had large groups of loyal followers are Inónü, Menderes, Demirel, Ecevit, Özal, and Erbakan. Though all of them are known for providing vision to society, these political leaders have two distinct approaches. One type such as, Menderes, Özal, and Erbakan, are the more action- and change-oriented leaders, whereas the second type, Inónü, Demirel, and Ecevit, can be identified more as pro status quo, yet administratively skilled. Change oriented leaders are often criticized for going against the status quo, but at the same time praised for initiating change.
Koç, Sabanci, and Eczacibasi are among the few industrial leaders who are well known by the public at large and particularly acknowledged for their contributions to the national economy by creating employment opportunities. They are not known to be high risk takers, but created their wealth and business groups through intensive relations with the state (Bugra, 1987). They also engaged in a variety of cultural activities that are targeted toward contributing to the welfare of society, such as sponsoring festivals, building schools, universities, hospitals, and providing scholarships to a large number of students. In their speeches, they often emphasized their motivation to contribute to the welfare of society, rather than to their business success. Thus, focus of industrial leadership revolves around input in to the national economy and well-being of society, rather than market success, innovation, and managerial effectiveness.
Leaders in Turkish society are on the one hand viewed with skepticism, their integrity is often questioned, and their source of power is discussed by the common public; whereas on the other hand, they are appraised by their fellow followers as supreme idols. In general, attitudes toward political leaders are more negative compared to business, sports, and arts leaders.
Political and industrial leaders portray a combination of an autocratic, paternalistic, and consultative leadership style. In a study conducted by T. Esmer (1997) among 4,824 individuals residing in a variety of geographic locations in Turkey, working respondents were asked to evaluate the styles of managers with whom they were familiar, together with their preferred management styles. Responses show that the most dominant management style was authoritarian (53%), followed by paternalistic (25%), consultative (13.6%), and democratic (8.5%). The most preferred style was consultative (35.2%), followed by paternalistic (28.9%), democratic (25.6%), and authoritarian (10.3%).
Paternalistic leaders tend to emerge in cultures that do not restrict the manager's status in the workplace. They flourish in societies where managers are provided with status in other areas of life (Laurent, 1983). Turkey can be characterized as a society that does not restrict the status of its managers and leaders only to the workplace but also provides them with a large area of freedom and responsibility.
Qualitative Studies on Leadership in Turkey
Semantic Interpretations of Leadership Concept. This section includes semantic interpretation of the concept of leadership in Turkish culture. For this purpose, managers who participated in the focus groups and in-depth interviews were asked to describe the concept of leadership, the concept of management, and behavior/traits of ideal leaders. Narrative texts from interviews and focus groups have been transcribed verbatim from recorded tapes and were subjected to ethnographic analysis.
An ethnographic analysis of focus group and in-depth interviews revealed that leadership as a concept is viewed as superior to management. Respondents indicated that whereas management is learned through education and experience, leadership is innate and inborn. Leadership is perceived to be about sensing the opportunities that come with change, involving innovation and creativity, having vision, and keeping the group together around a common task or goal. On the other hand, management is perceived to be a less ambitious task, routine, technical, and adhering to rules and regulations. Leadership incorporates emotions and subjectivity, whereas management is thought to be rational and objective. In general, management is portrayed as somewhat inferior to leadership and expectations from a manager are less demanding than those from a leader. Respondents indicated that a manager needs to be consistent in behavior and thinking and needs to take the same actions under similar conditions, whereas, a leader's behavior can be less predictable. Both managers and leaders have to motivate; but in management motivation is attained through rewards and punishment whereas in leadership, the leader finds innovative rewards to motivate.
Turkish respondents indicated that they do not know any leader in their own organization, sector, or in society who fits their definition of an ideal leader. Their image of an ideal leader carries the attributes that have come out to be important in the quantitative analysis of GLOBE leadership attributes, such as decisive, visionary, team integrator, collaborative, team oriented, inspirational, of integrity, diplomatic, and administratively competent. In addition, actionoriented/assertive leadership came out as an important dimension in the perceptions of respondents. Though paternalistic leadership is frequently described as a desired style, there were also autocratic, consultative, and even democratic descriptions of outstanding leaders. The most frequently mentioned behaviors and traits of an ideal leader are categorized as follows:
- Decisive: does not give in about own ideas in case of conflict, decides fast without hesitation, implements decisions with confidence, pursues own objectives and goals even if they are contradictory, and asks for opinions but makes the decisions themselves.
- Visionary: recognizes that the world is changing and senses the opportunities that come with change; is imaginative, anticipating, and creative; has vision; encourages innovations and new ideas; balances rationality with emotions in the decision process; is not too scientific or rational; is after a dream that may never come true; is flexible-minded; evaluates from multiple perspectives; gives importance to the subjective and qualitative side of the decisions; does not like to work with detailed and routine things; likes to deal with more general conceptual overviews; interprets rules and regulations with a flexible mind; behaves and thinks in extremes; is ahead of others in recognizing what should be the goals and how to achieve them; his or her objectives have repercussions on society; and is curious.
- Team Integrator: communicates and shares information; creates an environment where people can tell their ideas to each other openly; is able to share, is accessible to followers, is empathetic, and is good in human relations; listens to people and asks people's opinions to make them feel part of the group.
- Collaborative Team-Oriented: puts forward his or her own ambitions, ideas, and benefits, but would not go against the benefit of the group; encourages participation; instills corporate/team culture to followers; seeks acceptance and tries to increase acceptance of decisions; listens and really takes into account the ideas of people who do not carry the legitimacy/formal position/status to speak out publicly; seriously takes into account all spoken ideas or at least seems to do so; and has to keep people in extremes equally happy in a manipulative way. Inspirational: tolerates failure and gets people to overcome their fear of it; gives room for people to fail and learn from mistakes; gives as much independence to people as possible by delegating; develops people, increases their commitment and development; makes people feel secure under conditions of change and uncertainty; gives credit to followers; empowers followers by viewing them as colleagues, not as subordinates, seeing them as a resource, letting them decide, showing respect, providing recognition, and recognizing their potential; and is dynamic.
- Paternalistic: is able to say “no” in the right place if the task requires it even if people are hurt; shows/directs people about what needs to be done; is concerned with the private problems of followers; would take the initiative in deciding for the employees with regard to their problems; attends social events such as wedding ceremonies of employees’ children; would act like one of the employees at social events; creates a family-like atmosphere in the organization.
- Action oriented and assertive: is assertive and ambitious; has an aggressive approach to life; is aggressive in a controlled way; is not necessarily well-educated; is intelligent, dynamic, and ambitious; speaks well; likes to take challenges; uses body language and nonverbal communication; shakes hands frequently and has direct eye contact; when they die, common cause may fade away; are recalled by their names rather than ideas; has a hands-on approach to solving problems; is a go-getter.
- Integrity: is a person whom people can trust; tells the truth; is trustworthy and is believable; always meets promises; and is fair.
- Nonprocedural: avoids bureaucracy, challenges status quo, and is a risk taker.
- Diplomatic: is skillful in convincing others; rewards and punishes by nonmonetary means.
- Equanimity: is mentally and emotionally mature, does not compete with anyone, is not afraid of working with people better than themselves, is sensitive and has cultural awareness, does not criticize publicly.
- Administratively competent: in delegating tasks does not interfere until there is a mistake; knows what is going on around them, what is taking place; does not learn it from others.
- Self-confident and development oriented: is open to self-development, is open to criticism, receives feedback, is self-confident, and accepts own mistakes.
- Outlier: need not be always ethical, is lonely, has few good friends, and lacks an established family.
Leadership Types. Data obtained from focus groups and in-depth interviews maybe interpreted and summarized in terms of various leadership styles. Three types of leadership styles are dominantly observed in Turkish society: autocratic, paternalistic, and consultative leadership.
Autocratic Leaders: Respondents indicated that autocratic leadership is frequently observed in Turkish society. Autocratic leaders try to make all the decisions, execute important tasks themselves, and only let others apply the decisions. They may override the defined area of freedom of individuals and impose their own preferences. An autocratic leader says “no” for all things that do not pass such approval. They are afraid of working with people better than themselves. These leaders most often do not take into account the ideas of people who are in lower positions—not as a punishment for a particular mistake but as a common practice. For punishment in a particular case, they scold, criticize publicly, and downplay the individual—this is very frequently used. Respondents in general had negative feelings toward autocratic leaders and perceived them as having adverse effects on the motivation of their followers.
Paternalistic Leaders: Paternalistic leadership is often practiced in Turkish society. This type of leadership is fairly similar to autocratic leadership, except that in paternalism, the leader is like a father and takes care of the followers like a parent would. In the paternalistic exchange between the leader and the followers, the leader provides a holistic concern for the followers and their families in return for unquestioned obedience and loyalty on the part of the followers. For example, a respondent indicated that the general manager of the company accompanied a worker's child who was receiving cancer treatment in England because the family did not speak English. As part of being a parent, the leader may sometimes make decisions for the employees in place of asking them their own decisions and preferences.
In the paternalistic relationship, employees may be punished by the leader if they act independently. Employees who work for paternalistic leaders would be expected to be totally committed and loyal to their leaders. Respondents indicated that most people who work for paternalistic leaders would not leave their organizations for better payment or promotion opportunities. Also as part of the paternalistic role, the leader would fulfill social roles, such as attending the wedding ceremonies of the employees and their children, sharing the same table with them at department dinners, dancing with the employees of the department at a celebration party, being a team member at the company tournaments, or having a vacation with the families of the whole staff for a week. While fulfilling such social roles, the leaders in a way diminish the social distance between themselves and the followers and act like a father. At work, the social distance would creep up.
Paternalistic leaders are often looked on positively because of their fatherly concern for the followers and their attempt to create a family-like atmosphere. The dark side of paternalistic leadership is cited as its possibility to turn into nepotism and providing resources to only a loyal group of followers, while excluding others.
Consultative Leaders: Respondents indicated that among Turkish leaders consultative behavior is observed to some extent. Consultative leaders tend to make decisions after they listen to their followers. They create an environment where people can speak about their ideas openly, within a framework, and avoid an environment where people only try to apply the instructions given to them. Respondents did not indicate that consultative leaders use consensual decision making, but they would ask for people's ideas and then make the decision themselves.
In the Turkish context, listening to subordinates’ ideas was not used mainly to increase quality of the decisions, but rather as a strategy for making people feel good. Leaders used consultation either to make people feel they had an input to the decisions or to create a team spirit where people felt as part of the group. Leaders often had a small circle of close colleagues, a nucleus, in which a real contribution to decisions was possible. Often the nucleus included people who were similar to the leader in terms of their socioeconomic background. The rest would be consulted mainly to create positive feelings, such as to create a feeling of team spirit or to make them feel valued. In general there are positive reactions to consultative leaders who ask people's ideas to make them feel good or to create a team spirit. Given the large Power Distance and social differences in society, employees do not negatively react to the fact that the leader makes the decisions alone or in a small group of close colleagues. On the other hand, those people who perceive themselves as equals to the nucleus, in terms of their socioeconomic background or skills, would react negatively if they were omitted from the nucleus.
Leadership as Reflected in the Media. An ethnographic analysis of leadership patterns as reflected in the Turkish printed media revealed that a great majority (95%) of the news about leadership focused on political leaders. A smaller percentage was about managers/owners in large organizations, followed by women leaders, sports leaders, and arts leaders. This finding portrays high Power Distance prevalent in society as well as the centrality of the state in people's lives.
Almost all of the articles included news about the interaction of the leader with a situation, with the focus being on the intersection or interrelationship, rather than on the leader. Very little news focused on attributes of the leaders. Thus, it was not possible to identify verbs and adjectives relevant to leadership. It was possible to describe leadership within a context, in relation to other people or issues. This picture clearly demonstrates the high In-Group Collectivism in Turkish society where the focus is not on individual attributes/actions of the leader but on interdependencies and interrelationships between leaders and other people.
A striking finding of the media analysis about leaders was that success stories or accomplishments of leaders were almost nonexistent. This finding is in line with the relatively low levels of Performance Orientation as well as the highly collectivist nature of society. It also reflects skepticism and negative experiences with leaders.
Skepticism and negative experiences were most apparent in the case of political leaders. The media was full of news about criticisms for nepotism, transgressions, and questions about whether the leaders would be able to pursue the interests of the general public. There were many pressures on the leaders, including complaints and protests or personality-based accusations from other leaders. There was also an enormous demand on the leaders to supply resources to organized groups. Such expectations of a leader being a supplier of resources are in line with the paternalistic leader model that is prevalent in society. The role of paternalistic leadership includes supplying the demands of the followers and groups. Although the leader is expected to find the needed resources, there is great skepticism toward the leaders who have the power to supply these resources and they are widely criticized for nepotism.
Whereas skepticism and negative reactions toward political leaders are common among the opponents and the disenchanted public, the followers and the close circle of the leaders demonstrate unquestioned loyalty to their leaders. Such interaction is part of a paternalistic leadership model where the followers are expected to be devoted to their leaders in exchange for the resources and holistic concern that the leader provides. There is frequent news about the loyalty of the followers to their leaders. If the leaders ignored their paternalistic duties to their close circle, the followers would criticize or leave them. In other words, when paternalism transforms into autocratic leadership, the leaders would be criticized for lack of concern for their followers and lose their loyalty.
Paternalistic leadership and loyalty to the elderly is often praised in the case of arts leaders as well. More established and famous artists are praised for helping the young artists, whereas the young ones seem to be devoted to their mentors. In addition, there was frequent news that praised the artists who visited and helped out elderly artists. This behavior on the part of artists is in line with the strong In-Group Collectivism in Turkish society.
As with the lack of success stories, there was very little news about the vision of political leaders. This finding reflects the relatively low level of Future Orientation that prevails in society. Only in the instances of relationships with other nations was there news about a leader's vision. Leaders were also frequently criticized for making exaggerated promises and having an unrealistic vision. It seems that only in the case of a proposed national policy of foreign relations that the leaders were not criticized severely. Not criticizing national policies regarding foreign relations is in line with the strong nationalism that resides in Turkish society. Though it is acceptable to criticize the leaders in terms of internal affairs, when it comes to relations concerning other nations, the issue becomes very sensitive in society.
Although there was not much news about the successes or visions of the political leaders, they were frequently seen in symbolic roles. They were portrayed mostly receiving or giving plaques and making speeches at ceremonies or commemorations. It seems as if an important aspect of leadership in Turkish society is to fulfill a symbolic role. Political leaders are criticized for almost everything, except for their symbolic roles.
A symbolic role seems to be an important aspect of leadership for managers/owners of large corporations, including women leaders. Leaders are frequently shown as chairing conferences. Almost all the news about women leaders involved their symbolic role, chairing international conferences on the one hand and wearing headscarves on religious occasions on the other. Much of the ideological debates between the Westernization and Islamization of society focuses on the role of women in society. Thus, a woman leader's image has an ideological connotation. For this purpose, news about women leaders concentrates on their images rather than their performance or other roles. Chairing international conferences would have the connotation of Westernization, whereas a focus on wearing a headscarf would indicate that traditions or Islamization in society are not ignored. Finally, a role of sister or mother is frequently emphasized by women leaders and takes place in the media because these roles are commonly accepted for women.
Managers/owners of large corporations often contact representatives of the state to demand resources or incentives for their sectors. There was more news in the media about state orientation of private enterprises than their market orientation, which is a reflection of the low level of Performance Orientation. Such news is also an indicator of the centrality of the state in the lives of private companies. The state is commonly referred to as the “father,” indicating its role as supplier of incentives and resources. One way to approach the government and the state is to be elected to the boards of chambers and unions. Therefore managers and owners of private companies seek representations on the boards of such institutions and there was frequent news about board members visiting political leaders.
Compared to political leaders, managers/owners of large organizations are portrayed more often as having vision. Some of this vision includes plans about their market orientation, such as plans for new investments or exports. In addition, future plans of managers/owners frequently included professionalization of the corporation given that most organizations, including the large business groups, are run by family members in Turkey.
A common criticism of political, sports, and arts leaders is the flamboyant style of either themselves or their family members. It would appear that leaders are expected to have more modest private lives and not to engage in extravagant lifestyles, such as driving expensive cars or going to flashy restaurants and bars.
Private-sector leaders as well as arts leaders are frequently shown as engaging in socially responsible acts, such as helping charity organizations or sponsoring cultural activities. These leaders and politicians frequently mention that they are conducting such activities for the good of society and the nation. Leaders of the private sector often indicate that the incentives they get or their investments are all for the benefit of the nation, such as increasing employment opportunities and export potential. They are careful not to mention to outsiders about the profitability of the company as their target. In the Turkish context, it looks better for a leader to prioritize national benefits in the speeches made to the public.
Leaders as Reflected From Company Newsletters. Newsletters of companies that were included in the sample were analyzed in order to understand how leadership is portrayed in the financial services and food-processing companies in Turkey. In general, the opinion of leaders from company newsletters was found to be similar to media reflections. In the newsletters of companies in the finance and food-processing sectors, there were no individual success stories and no project, change, or achievement was attributed to any one person.
Analysis of company newsletters portrayed a strong collectivist orientation with the emphasis on “the company being like a family” and the nonexistence of individual accomplishments. Furthermore, the collectivist orientation is manifested with the need for achieving the “nation's” well-being. The speech by the owner of a large food-processing company on the anniversary of its establishment reflected such collectivist achievement orientation: “The root of our success lies in disciplined work, integrity, love of the nation and its people. We are a family. We will never be similar to those who only want for themselves. We will always put the benefit of the national economy and the society in the forefront; we will grow with Turkey.” He also announced how much tax was paid as an indication of focus on societal contribution.
The leaders of the companies were basically presented in a symbolic role, such as cutting a cake, making an opening speech for a commemoration, or giving a plaque. They are also presented while making speeches on some concepts from the Western literature, such as professionalization, total quality management, and importance of human resources management, which reflected the importance of Westernization, knowledge, and administrative skills for leadership.
Leaders As Reflected in Leader Autobiographies, Biographies, and News About Them. Autobiographies, biographies, and news about political and industrial leaders were analyzed with the purpose of finding out how leadership is presented in the Turkish context. Based on these analyses, several themes about leadership emerged: Leadership involved a collective-achievement orientation, state-oriented vision, being of integrity, good administrator, emotionality, one-man show, and a symbolic role.
Collective-Achievement Orientation: Similar to the findings in media and newsletter analyses, leaders were not presented with personal success stories. Business leaders were portrayed as if they have not achieved anything through their own ability. Koç, a prominent industrial leader, mentioned in his autobiography that he owes his success to God, the country, the cooperation of work friends, and his own love of working (Koç, 1973).
The need for collective achievement, which is embodied in serving one's community and nation, emerges frequently. The ideas of industrial leaders about the country, state ideology, and political and economic problems are in the forefront, rather than their business accomplishments. Eczacibasi, who is another prominent industrial leader, wrote in his autobiography that an industrial institution's main aim is to contribute to the economic and social development of the nation. (Eczacibasi, 1982). The writings in the media about Koç and Eczacibasi upon their death also focused on their contributions toward society and the nation rather than their entrepreneurial or managerial success. A newspaper article written about Koç on the first anniversary of his death indicated that his value was derived from predominantly two factors (Güngör, 1997): (a) He had lived through many of the significant stages of the Turkish Republic, such as the military coups and the years where it passed to a liberal market economy, and (b) he loved his country to the extent that he was interested in major issues about it, for example, the traffic problem.
State-Oriented Vision: When we analyzed the entrepreneurial activities of leading businesspeople, we observed the combination of a state-oriented vision with a Western, international focus (Eczacibasi, 1982, 1994; Koç, 1973; Sabanci, 1985). State-oriented vision parallels and even requires an autocratic leadership approach. Many of the entrepreneurial and trade accomplishments are achieved through personal contacts with the state, which is not a function that is delegated to professionals.
In the case of the networks of small and medium-size enterprises, which has an Islamic orientation, initial market-oriented vision is transformed into a state-oriented and partially dependent structure. Through such structures, these networks also attempt to get resources from the central and local governments.
Integrity: Another theme that emerged in the news about leaders and in the autobiographies or biographies was the integrity of leaders. The same attribute was frequently mentioned in the focus groups and in-depth interviews. Industrial leaders in their speeches often cite integrity at work as an important personality trait and advise their followers to be honest and trustworthy.
One of the means of earning integrity seems to be by showing a preference for a modest lifestyle. Some industrial as well as political leaders advise and live a modest lifestyle, which is reflected by economizing such as driving nonluxurious cars, avoiding unnecessary expenditures and flamboyant lifestyles, and presenting a socially responsible image. They invest in social-welfare activities, such as charity organizations that involve the poor and disabled.
Good Administrator: In the review of autobiographies, biographies, and news about leaders, an important trait seems to be their administrative skills and having a comprehensive knowledge in their field. In the organizational culture context, this attribute of a leader is reported as a requisite for an outstanding leader. Furthermore, the leader has to have a thorough comprehension and knowledge of the legal system, which is mostly adapted from Western codes and statutes. Thus a leader who knows the procedures and practices them is also perceived as a professional administrator with a Western outlook.
Emotionality: Similar to the findings of the focus groups and in-depth interviews, leaders are often reflected as freely displaying their emotions. In the biographies of Atatürk and autobiography of Inónü, who were the two most influential political leaders during the establishment and early years of the Republic, we frequently observe the emotional sides of the two leaders (Atay, 1980; Inönü, 1985, 1987).
It is quite common to observe emotional attributes among contemporary leaders in Turkish society. Political, religious, military, and arts leaders were often seen in the printed media and on television crying because they were full of emotion in situations such as watching a national play at the military school or listening to the national anthem. This observation parallels semantic interpretation of leadership in focus groups and in-depth interviews where respondents differentiated leaders as emotional and managers as rational.
One-Man Show and Leader as a Symbol: Analysis of writings on leadership portrayed the prevalence of strong leadership historically, as well as in contemporary Turkey. Leadership in political, industrial, and other areas are exhibited as a one-man show, where the leader as the single person has immense power and takes on the role of representing the whole institution.
The roots of strong leadership in Turkish society go back to the early Republican era (1923–1946) when there was in existence a single-party rule (Atay, 1980; M. Kabasakal, 1991). Analyses of leadership as portrayed in these books showed that all the power was concentrated in the hands of the party leader. The leader was the natural head of all major party institutions.
Turkish society historically provided its leaders with huge power and expected them to exhibit strong leadership. Strong leadership goes hand in hand with the symbolic role of leaders, who are heads of most activities and publicly are the sole representatives of their institutions.
A similar picture prevails in the case of founders of private-sector companies, such as Koç and Eczacibasi, who stayed as the leader of large business groups until they died. It can be stated that industrial leaders also fulfill a symbolic role and represent their institutions in public appearance and chair many organizations. When the founder of a company dies, often a close family member, a son or son-in-law, comes to power.
The Quantitative Study of Leadership in Turkey
Findings. In order to induce a profile of preferred leadership attributes and behaviors, Turkish managers were asked to rate a set of 112 behaviors and characteristics, on a scale ranging from 1 = greatly inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader to 7 = contributes greatly to a person being an outstanding leader. Based on these items, 21 leadership subdimensions were formed, which were further reduced to 6 dimensions (House et al., 1999, 2004). Table 23.2 presents the absolute scores and relative ratings for leader behaviors and attributes.
When outstanding leader attributes in the six dimensions are analyzed, the highest absolute score and relative standing among GLOBE countries is achieved in the Team Oriented dimension (M = 6.01, Rank 7, Band A). Charismatic attributes were rated highly in absolute scale, yet its relative standing is rather low (M = 5.95, Rank 23, Band C). Participative leadership is perceived to be contributing to outstanding leadership at a mediocre level, and it has a low relative standing (M = 5.09, Rank 42, Band D). Humane-oriented leadership has mediocre absolute and relative scores (M = 4.90, Rank 29, Band B). Autonomous (M = 3.83, Rank 34, Band B) and Self-Protective (M = 3.57, Rank 26, Band E) attributes are perceived to slightly inhibit outstanding leadership, and their relative ranking is medium and low, respectively.
When the subdimensions that form the six dimensions are analyzed in terms of relative ratings, the highest ranking leadership characteristics for Turkey were Decisive (2nd), Team Integrator (6th), Autocratic (8th), Diplomatic (10th), Administratively Competent (10th), Visionary (13th), Status-Conscious (14th), and Collaborative Team Oriented (15th); all dimensions fell within the first quartile among 61 cultures. Relative standings show that the lowest ranking leadership attributes for the Turkish sample are Performance Orientation (46th) and Self-Centered (48th), both rankings being in the last quartile.
Although the high relative and absolute ratings for outstanding leadership attributes were fairly similar to each other, there were some differences between the two analyses. According to the absolute scores, leadership attributes that were rated as contributing most to outstanding leadership were Decisive (6.29), Team Integrator (6.28), Visionary (6.25), Integrity (6.16), Administratively Competent (6.13), and Inspirational (6.08), all having mean values above 6. The lowest absolute scores were obtained for Malevolent (1.76) and Self-Centered (1.93), both perceived as greatly hindering a person from becoming an outstanding leader.
An analysis of leadership characteristics that had the highest ratings in both the relative and absolute scores indicated that Decisive, Team Integrator, Administratively Competent, and Visionary come out to be common in both ratings. These attributes indicate a culturally endorsed theory of leadership where the leaders are expected to be competent in decision-making and executive functions, and carry these attributes with integrity. In terms of decision-making abilities, outstanding leaders are perceived as decisive and visionary. Most important, they are perceived as decisive, rational, persistent, quick, with no hesitation, and intuitive. They are also expected to provide a strong vision to their followers, plan ahead, have foresight, have goals and ideas for the future, make plans and take action related to their vision, be ready for future events, make realistic forecasts, and inspire the values, beliefs, and behaviors of followers.
TABLE 23.2
Country Mean Scores for Leadership Dimensions and Subdimensions
Dimensions Subdimensions |
Mean |
Band |
Rank |
Charismatic |
5.95 |
C |
23 |
Performance Orientation |
5.91 |
46 |
|
Visionary |
6.25 |
13 |
|
Inspirational |
6.08 |
38 |
|
Integrity |
6.16 |
27 |
|
Self-Sacrificial |
5.03 |
29 |
|
Decisive |
6.29 |
2 |
|
Team Oriented |
6.01 |
A |
7 |
Team Integrator |
6.28 |
6 |
|
Collaborative Team Oriented |
5.70 |
15 |
|
Administratively Competent |
6.13 |
10 |
|
Diplomatic |
5.74 |
10 |
|
Malevolent |
1.76 |
31 |
|
Self-Protective |
3.57 |
E |
26 |
Self-Centered |
1.93 |
48 |
|
Status-Conscious |
4.91 |
14 |
|
Conflict Inducer |
4.17 |
23 |
|
Face Saver |
2.99 |
27 |
|
Procedural |
4.02 |
25 |
|
Participative |
5.09 |
D |
42 |
Autocratic (reverse coded) |
3.22 |
8 |
|
Nonparticipative (reverse coded) |
2.62 |
31 |
|
Humane |
4.90 |
B |
29 |
Humane |
5.02 |
22 |
|
Modesty |
4.82 |
40 |
|
Autonomous |
|||
Autonomous |
3.83 |
B |
34 |
In terms of their executive abilities, outstanding leaders are perceived as team integrators and competent administrators. As a team integrator, they are open to communication, are clearly understood by the followers, are informed about issues, create an environment where the team members work together, integrate the activities and people together, unify the efforts of people in the team, and create a team spirit. As part of administrative skills, most important they are perceived as being able to coordinate and control the activities of a large number of people and manage complex office activities and systems. Furthermore, they are expected to be trustworthy, honest, and just.
An analysis of both relative and absolute scores shows that self-centered behaviors greatly hinder outstanding leadership. This finding is in line with the high In-Group Collectivism that is prevalent in Turkish society.
5. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND FOOD-PROCESSING SECTORS
As mentioned in the section on methodology, the data on organizational culture dimensions were collected from middle managers working in 9 financial services and 14 food-processing companies. Presentation of the findings on organizational culture dimensions is preceded by a short description of the two sectors.
The Turkish Financial Services Sector
Banking Sector. The banking sector in Turkey is characterized by an oligopolistic structure. The largest five banks in the sector hold more than 50% of the market. The dominant form is “state-owned” and “business group” banks, which are owned by diversified large corporations. Although this oligopolistic structure continues in the 2000s, the banking sector in Turkey experienced a radical change in the early 1980s. The pre-1980 period was characterized by a tightly administered system with extensive state intervention (Öncü & Gökçe, 1991). With the deregulation policies, the post-1980 period was identified by a significant shift toward liberalization. The changes that were realized in the post-1980 period led to increased competitive uncertainty in the banking sector. As a result of these changes, the sector has become dynamic and open to innovative applications. During the last decade, the number of local firms decreased from 49 in 1992 to 39 in 2002 and foreign banks decreased from 20 to 18 in the same period (Bankalarimiz 1992, 1993; http://www.tbb.org.tr). Starting with the late 1990s, the smaller banks in the sector either were acquired by larger foreign and local banks or those with performance problems were forced to be under the custody of a semiformal auditing council, which led to a gradual decrease in the number of banks operating in Turkey.
Insurance Sector. The oligopolistic structure of the insurance sector was changed in 1987 via modifications in the laws. New company start-ups have become possible with these changes. Furthermore, in 1990, there were further moves toward liberalization of the sector by deregulation of the premiums. In 1994, there were 37 local and 15 foreign firms in this sector, and in 2000 the number of local firms increased to 59, with foreign firms decreasing to five (Ergenekon, 1995; http://www.treasury.gov.tr). Whereas the number of foreign firms was larger than the number of local firms before the 1960s, the trend has been reversed since the 1970s. Although the number of local companies has been increasing at a very fast rate since 1987, insurance premiums per person are still quite small, ranking 53rd in the world in 1992. The low rate of insurance premiums in Turkey may be related to the relatively low levels of Future Orientation that is prevalent in Turkish society, which may be shaped by Islamic values. In 1979, the state official responsible for Islamic Affairs declared that according to the laws of Islam, contracts that are based on hypothetical arrangements or assumptions would not be valid, and thus insurance contracts are not accepted in Islam. On the other hand, beginning in the 1990s, a general increase in awareness about the opportunities brought about by insurance is reflected by the increase in insurance purchases made by the public.
TABLE 23.3
Country Mean Scores for Organizational Culture Dimensions
aCountry mean score on a 7-point Likert scale. bDifference: “As Is” score minus “Should Be” score.
The Turkish Food-Processing Sector
Food processing is one of the major industries in the country, dominated by local firms. The basic categories in the industry are: frozen vegetables and fruit, meat and dairy products, sugar and sweet products, vegetable oil, canned products, and fruit juice. Turkey is a major exporter of processed food. The sector includes a large variety of firms, ranging from small and technologically less advanced firms to those much larger and more technologically advanced. In some categories, such as sugar and dairy products, there are large state-owned institutions.
Organizational Culture in the Two Sectors
Findings. The survey administered to Turkish managers probed about the beliefs of the respondents with respect to “how are” the current practices and “how they should be” in their work organizations. The same nine culture dimensions that were used in measuring societal culture were used in assessing organizational culture. The GLOBE study proposes that organizational culture has a strong impact on leader behaviors. Thus, it is important to study organizational culture as it is shaped by the immediate task environment and is more proximate to managers and employees. Table 23.3 illustrates the culture dimensions on “As Is” and “Should Be” for the food-processing and finance sectors.
On average, the beliefs of Turkish middle-level managers regarding “how their organizations are” do not show a strong tendency for the organizational culture dimensions. Whereas the intensity of measures on “As Is” dimensions lie near the midpoint of the scale, the highest mean response is attributed to In-Group Collectivism in both the finance and food-processing sectors. The lowest “As Is” score is achieved in Gender Egalitarianism in the food-processing sector, whereas this dimension has a moderate absolute score in the finance sector. In-Group Collectivism dimension also received high absolute “Should Be” scores in both sectors, indicating that In-Group Collectivism is a distinctive characteristic of Turkish organizations in line with high In-Group Collectivism that is prevalent in societal culture at large. Compared to other culture dimensions, Gender Egalitarianism and Power Distance have relatively lower “Should Be” scores in both sectors, although they are moderate scores in absolute scale.
When “As Is” and “Should Be” scores of organizational culture dimensions are compared, it is seen that middle managers have higher “Should Be” scores in most dimensions. The highest difference is achieved in Performance Orientation (1.91 finance; 1.89 food processing), followed by Future Orientation (1.73 finance; 1.79 food processing) and In-Group Collectivism (1.39 finance; 1.36 food processing). Turkish managers in both sectors aspired for substantially higher levels of achievement, planning, and in-group loyalty in their organizations. Turkish managers also aspired for more Humane Orientation (1.01 finance; 0.76 food processing), Institutional Collectivism (0.97 finance; 0.89 food processing), Assertiveness (0.97 in finance; 0.55 in food processing), Uncertainty Avoidance (0.74 finance and 0.67 food processing), and Gender Egalitarianism (0.48 finance; 1.47 food processing). On the other hand, managers indicated that they would prefer slightly lower levels of Power Distance (–0.25 finance; –0.53 food processing).
In-Group Collectivism, which reflects in-group interdependence and organizational loyalty, received relatively high scores in both “As Is” and As “Should Be” scales for the two sectors, when compared with the scores in other culture dimensions (financial services “As Is” M = 4.62, “Should Be” M = 6.01; food processing “As Is” M = 4.82, “Should Be” M = 6.18). Whereas organizational practices reflected medium absolute scores in the In-Group Collectivism dimension, preferences of middle managers were high in absolute terms. This finding is in line with the qualitative findings of a previously conducted study, where respondents were asked to list the dominant practices and norms in their organizations (Pasa, Kabasakal, & Bodur, 2001). An analysis of the listed items by referees indicated that the most frequently mentioned practices and norms reflected the dominance of In-Group Collectivism and the importance of loyalty between leader and followers in Turkish organizations. The importance of loyalty in leader–follower relations is in line with the paternalistic culture that is prevalent in Turkish organizations (Aycan et al., 2000). Both the financial services and food-processing companies have medium Institutional Collectivism “As Is” scores and the scores in “Should Be” are high in absolute terms (financial services “As Is” M = 4.16, “Should Be” M = 5.13; food processing “As Is” M = 4.27, “Should Be” M = 5.16).
Organizational culture in both sectors is characterized by practices that represent medium levels of cohesiveness and use of collective rewards. Turkish middle managers indicated that they would prefer their organizations to be more cohesive and use collective rewards in motivating their employees as reflected in the high “Should Be” Institutional Collectivism scores.
When Performance Orientation scores of the finance and food-processing sectors are compared, it is seen that the financial services sector has higher “As Is” and “Should Be” scores (finance “As Is” M = 4.15, “Should Be” M = 6.06; food processing “As Is” M = 3.91, “Should Be” M = 5.80). The same pattern is observed for the Future Orientation dimension (financial services “As Is” M = 4.25, “Should Be” M = 5.98; food processing “As Is” M = 3.98, “Should Be” M = 5.77), whereas the financial services sector has higher scores in “As Is” and “Should Be,” compared to the food-processing sector. These findings show that the financial services sector in Turkey has moderate absolute “As Is” scores in the Performance Orientation and Future Orientation dimensions and managers in this sector aspire for substantially higher levels of achievement and planning in their organizations. The food-processing sector has lower absolute scores in practices and values achievement and Future Orientation compared to the financial services sector.
The relatively lower levels of Performance and Future Orientations in the food-processing sector could be due to the high competitive advantage of the sector deriving from low costs of input. The food-processing sector in Turkey employs unskilled labor with lower wages compared to most developed nations. Furthermore, due to the large arable land in the country and the favorable climatic conditions, the food-processing sector enjoys a large variety of high-quality agricultural inputs at low costs. These low costs of input make the Turkish food-processing companies competitive in the international markets and Turkey has become a major exporter of processed food. Thus, it can be proposed that the food-processing companies in the country are competitive despite their mediocre Performance and Future Orientation practices. However, middle managers in the sector are aware that in order to continue with their position in the world markets, they should be more excellence oriented and make plans and investment into the future.
The financial services sector lacks many of the advantages of the food-processing companies and they focus more on Performance and Future Orientation. Financial services organizations use more skilled employees and are more dependent on their human resources in order to stay competitive. The input and ideas of employees at lower levels of the hierarchy are more important for the financial services organizations compared to the food-processing sector. The importance of participation and input of lower levels is reflected in the relatively lower levels of Power Distance in the financial services sector compared to food processing (financial services “As Is” M = 4.17, “Should Be” M = 3.92; food processing “As Is” M = 4.70, “Should Be” M = 4.17). These figures show that the financial services organizations have lower Power Distance scores and their managers furthermore aspire for less hierarchy compared to managers in the food-processing organizations. Despite this, managers in both sectors aspire for lower Power Distance, indicating their desire for less hierarchy and more egalitarian distribution of power and authority in their organizations. Decentralization and less hierarchical structures are perceived as mechanisms of competing in the more dynamic and competitive environments that organizations are currently facing.
Gender Egalitarianism scores in the two sectors show that the financial services organizations are more egalitarian than their food-processing counterparts (financial services “As Is” M = 3.92, “Should Be” M = 4.40; food processing “As Is” M = 2.63, “Should Be” M = 4.10). Turkish food-processing organizations have low absolute “As Is” Gender Egalitarianism scores, whereas the financial services sector has more mediocre scores. In both sectors, middle managers aspire for more Gender Egalitarianism, although managers in the finance sector perceive a greater need for it.
The Turkish financial services sector is characterized by employing a high percentage of women. A study conducted in 64 financial services companies indicated that women constituted 43% of all employees (H. Kabasakal et al., 1994). On the other hand, several studies show that the manufacturing sector in general employs substantially lower levels of women labor (Özbasar & Aksan, 1976; Tabak, 1989). Furthermore, these studies pointed to the fact that representation of women in managerial positions dropped significantly as one moved to managerial positions in all sectors. In general, women constituted only 3% to 4% of executive positions in the Turkish context (H. Kabasakal, Aycan, & Karakas, 2004). That is why the middle managers in both the financial services and food-processing companies indicated that their organizations need to become more Gender Egalitarian places. The need for greater Gender Egalitarianism is more evident in the financial services organizations given their higher dependence on their human resources for keeping their competitive position in the market.
Organizations in both sectors have medium levels of Assertiveness and managers aspire for more than what is apparent at present (financial services “As Is” M = 4.07, “Should Be” M = 5.04; food processing “As Is” M = 4.27, “Should Be” M = 4.82). The food-processing companies have slightly more assertive and dominant practices compared to the financial services companies, yet their aspirations regarding Assertiveness is lower than the aspirations in the finance sector.
Managers in both financial services and food-processing organizations aspire for higher levels of Humane Orientation (financial services “As Is” M = 3.79, “Should Be” M = 4.80; food processing “As Is” M = 4.15, “Should Be” M = 4.91.) In general, the food-processing organizations are more humane compared to the financial services sector. Managers in both sectors think that their organizational culture needs to become more nurturing and generous.
Organizations in both sectors have low absolute “As Is” Uncertainty Avoidance scores and aspire for medium levels of this cultural dimension (financial services “As Is” M = 3.76, “Should Be” M = 4.50; food processing “As Is” M = 3.63, “Should Be” M = 4.30). Organizational cultures in both sectors display rather low levels of rule orientation, orderliness, and consistency. Managers would like their organizations to have medium levels of Uncertainty Avoidance and be somewhat more rule oriented and orderly in their operations.
In summary, there are more differences between the “As Is” scores of the two sectors, although they are similar in terms of desired cultural attributes, indicating that the “task performed” influences organizational cultures. In general, managers prefer to work in similar types of organizational cultures. However, when it comes to comparing their existing organizational practices, the managers in the two sectors indicate dissimilarities. Organizational demographic analysis that is based on responses obtained from top managers of six companies in both sectors might indicate the sources of differences in the cultures of the two industries.
Results of the organizational demography questionnaires show that the food sector is at a steady growth stage whereas the finance sector is accelerating. Consequently, the companies in the finance sector experience a greater amount of change in terms of their markets (4.2 vs. 3.4), financial structures (4.3 vs. 3.3), internal organizational processes (4.3 vs. 3.4), executive personnel (4.0 vs. 3.2), divestments (3.0 vs. 2.4), acquisitions (4.0 vs.3.7), and products (4.5 vs. 3.2) (1 = very little change; 2 = changed somewhat; 3 = changed a moderate amount; 4 = substantial change, 5 = changed a great deal). The greater amount of change also necessitates more planning on the part of personnel in finance organizations. Whereas the perceptions of managers in the two sectors regarding the intensity of marketing competition was very similar (M = 5.4 in both sectors; 1 = virtually no competition, 7 = extremely intense competition), finance managers indicated that the market for their organizations was more unpredictable (M = 4.8) compared to the market for food-processing organizations (M = 4.4) (1 = very predictable and very easy to forecast, 7 = very unpredictable and very hard to anticipate).
In terms of changes in government regulations and political environments, although managers in both sectors evaluated the external environment as very unpredictable, finance managers indicated greater unpredictability. In addition, finance managers indicated that competition for purchases or inputs (raw materials, parts, or equipment in the case of manufacturers, cash with respect to financial service firms) and for technical manpower such as engineers, accountants, or programmers were extremely intense, whereas managers in food-processing organizations perceived the intensity of competition as moderate.
The accelerated growth stage of the sector, the greater amount of change in the operations of the organizations, the unpredictability of the market, and the unpredictability of the likely changes in regulations and political environment all necessitate more planning and future focus on the part of personnel in the finance sector, compared to those in the food-processing industry. Furthermore, the greater amount of organizational change and unpredictability in the external environment of the finance sector seems to create high stress and thus less friendly, less sensitive, and less concerned relationships among the employees, resulting in less Humane Orientation in the organizational culture. In addition, the fact that the food-processing companies are producing tangible products, which are directly related to the health of people, might create a more humane organizational culture.
TABLE 23.4
Comparison of the Organizational Mean Scores for Leadership Attributes in the Financial Services and Food-Processing Sectors: Turkey
Leadership in the Two Sectors. In order to analyze organizational leadership, Turkish middle managers employed in the financial services and food-processing sectors rated 112 leadership attributes in terms of their contribution to outstanding leadership on a 7-point Likert scale. Based on these items, 21 leadership subdimensions were formed. Table 23.4 reports the perceptions of Turkish managers in the two sectors regarding the contribution of these attributes to outstanding leadership.
Analysis of leadership attributes based on the two sectors indicates that the Charismatic/Value Based dimension of leadership is endorsed in both. Most subdimensions of charismatic/value-based leadership, including decisive, visionary, integrity, and inspirational, were perceived to be important contributors to outstanding leadership in both sectors.
Among the charismatic/value-based characteristics, the highest mean is attributed to integrity (M = 6.40) in the food-processing sector, whereas the mean of this attribute is slightly lower in the financial services sector (M = 6.15). Given the fact that the food-processing organizations are producing outputs that are directly related to the health of people and that the press has been providing large space and attention to the relationship between food products and health in the recent years, integrity is attributed the utmost importance in the food-processing sector. Leadership in the food-processing sector is particularly expected to include honesty, sincerity, justice, and trustworthiness.
In the financial services sector, the highest mean is attributed to decisive leadership qualities (M = 6.33) and this characteristic also received very high in importance in the food-processing sector (M = 6.34). Other characteristics of charismatic/value-based leadership, including visionary (financial services M = 6.22, food processing M = 6.30) and inspirational (financial services M = 6.09, food processing M = 6.12), are attributed high importance in both sectors, followed by a slightly lower importance attributed to performance orientation (financial services M = 5.88, food processing M = 5.76). In both sectors, managers perceived the importance of performance orientation to be slightly lower compared to other characteristics of charismatic/value-based leadership. It can be proposed that the importance of performance orientation as a leadership attribute would increase as competition in the sectors increased in the future. The self-sacrificial aspect of the charismatic/value-based leadership was not perceived to carry high significance in both sectors and the managers attributed slightly more importance to self-sacrifice in the food-processing organizations (M = 5.20) compared to the finance organizations (M = 4.90), with an important ranking of 10th and 11th, respectively. It seems like managers in both sectors do not perceive self-sacrifice by risk-taking and convincing behavior to be among the most important characteristics contributing to outstanding leadership.
The Team Orientation dimension is attributed as being of high importance as a leadership quality by Turkish managers working in the two sectors. The team integrator subdimension received the second-highest importance in both the financial services (M = 6.31) and food-processing (M = 6.36) organizations. It can be proposed that team integrator qualities of team builder, integrator, coordinator, informed, and clear are in line with the In-Group Collectivism that is dominant in Turkish culture and organizations. An outstanding leader in the Turkish context is expected to keep the team together by serving as an integrator and coordinator, providing the required information, and communicating in a clear way with the followers. In addition, the administratively competent characteristic (financial services M = 6.10 and food processing M = 6.27) received the ranking of 5th most important in both sectors, with very high absolute values. Outstanding leaders in both sectors are expected to be orderly, administratively skilled, and organized. The diplomatic (financial services M = 5.84 and food processing M = 5.83) and Collaborative Team Oriented (financial services M = 5.65 and food processing M = 5.98) dimensions were attributed slightly lower importance compared to the other characteristics of the Team Orientation dimension.
Humane-oriented characteristics are perceived to contribute slightly toward outstanding leadership in both the financial services and food-processing sectors. Managers in both value generous and compassionate qualities, as well as modest, calm, and patient behaviors—all of which contribute to outstanding leadership. These leadership qualities received medium importance as they were in Ranks 10 to 13 in the two sectors.
The Self-Protective dimension of leadership was perceived to impede outstanding leadership in the Turkish organizations in both sectors. Among the self-protective characteristics, procedural, face-saver, and self-centered attributes were particularly perceived as negative leadership qualities. Leaders are not expected to be procedural and they need to eliminate bureaucratic, ritualistic, formal, habitual, and cautious behavior. Furthermore, face-saving qualities are perceived negatively and leaders are expected to eliminate indirect and evasive behavior. In addition, self-centered behaviors, including serving self-interest, asocial, and loner attributes are perceived negatively.
Turkish managers in the financial services and food-processing industries perceived nonparticipative and autonomous characteristics as impeding outstanding leadership to a great extent. Leaders are expected to evade domineering, bossy, autocratic, and elitist behaviors for effective leadership. Furthermore, they need to eliminate micromanagement and non-delegation attributes. Finally, autonomous leadership, including individualistic, independent, and unique behaviors are perceived to impede outstanding leadership in the financial services and food-processing sectors.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Given its geographic location as a bridge between Europe and Asia, its state ideology that aims at modernization and Westernization, predominance of Islam among most members of society, and its historical roots in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, Turkish society is characterized by the contrasts and combinations of East and West, having elements of modernity, traditionalism, and Islamism. The GLOBE study conducted in Turkey attempts to describe, explore, and explain the interrelationships between the contextual elements of Turkish society and its societal and organizational culture. Furthermore, it attempts to analyze the impact of contextual and cultural elements on existing leadership patterns and behaviors in Turkish society. For this purpose, various methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative studies, were employed to understand cultural and leadership patterns.
Limitations
A limitation of the study is that the data were collected from companies with specific demographics and may not be considered to be representative of all types of firms in Turkey. The sample included private companies in food-processing and financial services sectors, which are the major large/medium-size firms in these sectors and situated in the western part of the country. Given that economic activity is significantly focused in the western, more developed regions of Turkey, researchers chose to collect data from firms that are densely populated in this region. All 23 companies that are included in the sample are located in western Turkey and thus may reflect specific regional values and practices. Furthermore, the sample is not representative of other types of companies, like small and publicly owned firms.
Future Research
In order to overcome the methodological limitations, future research can focus on collecting data from firms carrying a wider array of demographic characteristics. A more representative sample would include companies of a variety of sizes and ownership, and located in eastern and less developed parts of the country.
The qualitative part of the study has revealed some culture specific leadership attributes, including paternalism, emotional, consulting, or collective-achievement orientation. These are worth investigating further. Future research can test the prevalence of these culture-specific attributes in terms of their contribution to outstanding leadership in a large sample of Turkish respondents and in other cultural contexts.
In terms of the GLOBE societal “As Is” dimensions, Turkey has absolute and relative high scores in terms of In-Group Collectivism, Power Distance, and Assertiveness, whereas it has lower scores in Gender Egalitarianism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Performance Orientation, Humane Orientation, and Future Orientation. In terms of the societal “Should Be” scales, Turkey is found to have high absolute and relative scores in Future Orientation, Institutional and In-Group Collectivism, Humane Orientation, and Uncertainty Avoidance, and has lower scores in Performance Orientation, Assertiveness, Power Distance, and Gender Egalitarianism.
A comparison of the societal “As Is” with the “Should Be” dimensions indicate that the respondents prefer to have higher levels of Future Orientation, Performance Orientation, Gender Egalitarianism, Humane Orientation, Institutional Collectivism, and Uncertainty Avoidance, whereas they would like to have lower levels of Power Distance and Assertiveness. The preferred level of In-Group Collectivism is as high as the actual level in Turkish society.
GLOBE societal dimension findings strongly match the major characteristics of Turkish society. Turkish society is indeed high in In-Group Collectivism, where group solidarity among members is both valued and practiced. Part of this solidarity stems from the role family plays in people's lives. Strong ties among the family members create a nurturing and trustworthy environment for the individuals. Islamic ideology and verses of the Koran reinforce the importance of family and patriarchal relationships inside. Family is always available to give support, advice, and direction whenever members face important personal problems. Another manifestation of In-Group Collectivism is observed when people migrate from rural to urban areas. Coming from the same region or kinship ties create a strong interdependent network of relationships, where migrants are drawn into a nucleus of close ties and are given a hand in finding jobs and dwellings.
The strong network of interdependent relationships in Turkish society reduces the importance attributed to Future Orientation as individuals feel secure about their futures because the network would always provide the assistance and help that may be needed in the future. The low scores in GLOBE's Future Orientation dimension in Turkish society can also be explained by interpretations of Islam that promote fatalism.
In the context of GLOBE societal dimensions, Turkey is characterized as an assertive and high–power distance society. In the Turkish context, assertive and dominant relationships prevail in the education system, family, and public at large. In these contexts, assertive and authoritarian practices are common in teacher–student, husband–wife, mother in-law–daughter in-law, and government official–citizen relationships. As GLOBE findings reveal, Turkish people are unsatisfied with the level of assertiveness in society and aspire for more tender relations. In addition, Turkish society's high–power distance characteristics go hand in hand with the centralization of authority and influence. Power and resource allocation is based on hierarchy and there is a large social distance among different socioeconomic groups in society. The way people address each other also reflects the social status of individuals. On the contrary, Turkish people desire a culture that is substantially less hierarchical.
Turkish organizations, similar to society, are workplaces where in-group ties and network of interdependent relationships are both practiced and valued. Although at the organizational setting Turkish managers aspire for more performance orientation and planning, collectivism at institutional and in-group dimensions receive higher standings. As a manifestation of in-group collectivism, family members usually constitute the top-management team and board of directors in companies. Family members are trusted more than professionals in running the business and with the relations with state officials in the state-interdependent context of Turkey. In addition to family members, other in-groups, including the same school or region, serve as a basis of trust in organizations and business relationships.
An emerging profile of leadership in Turkey based on the absolute and relative scores of the GLOBE leadership attributes show that outstanding leaders are perceived to be decisive, team integrators, diplomatic, administratively competent, visionary, of integrity, and collaborative team oriented. These attributes and behaviors reflect that charismatic and team-oriented leadership is highly valued by Turkish managers, whereas self-protective, autonomous, and nonparticipative leadership attributes are perceived to inhibit outstanding leadership.
A series of qualitative analyses were conducted in order to explore the culture-specific leadership attributes and patterns in the Turkish context. The qualities of paternalistic, consultative, collective achievement-oriented, hands-on, and action-oriented types of leadership are regarded as positive characteristics in Turkish society.
Paternalistic leadership in Turkey (Aycan et al., 2000; Dilber, 1967) is associated with the prevailing patronage relationships and high in-group collectivism, where the leaders are expected to take a holistic concern for their followers and their families. A paternalistic leader acts in an authoritarian manner like a father would, even making decisions for their followers when necessary, which goes hand in hand with dominant and assertive practices in Turkish society. Furthermore, there is a high societal distance between the leaders and followers in the paternalistic relationship. The highly valued leadership attribute of hands-on, action orientation coincides with the assertive and high–power distance practices that are prevalent in Turkish society. In addition, qualitative data show that consultative leaders are perceived positively because consultation is used as a mechanism to make people feel important and valued in making decisions, make them feel part of the group, and increase their commitment, rather than for obtaining consensus. Leaders often make decisions by taking the input of a small nucleus of close associates, whereas consulting people in general is used more for the purpose of creating group loyalty. Thus, consultation in the Turkish context goes hand in hand with high in-group collectivism.
Practical Implications
Given the importance of acquaintances and close personal relationships in societal and organizational contexts, managers in Turkey should spend time on developing personal trust before going into business. This becomes paramount in both international and local contexts. Implications of this business setting for international companies planning to enter into Turkish markets are various. A joint venture type of entry mode would require a great deal of time for relationship development. In the negotiation process of international business, potential foreign partners need to demonstrate their capabilities and competencies in building trust by spending time on socialization and activities that even include their families.
Altogether, when the universal and culture-specific manifestations of outstanding leadership attributes are taken into consideration, leaders and managers in the Turkish context should act without hesitation, be knowledgeable about the topics and what is going on around them, be a go-getter, keep things under control, yet be concerned about the private and organizational problems of followers, and make them feel important and part of the group by consultation and integrating them into activities. An outstanding leader has integrity and, together with their family members, should pursue a modest lifestyle by avoiding luxurious consumption and flamboyant practices. Additionally, an outstanding leader should not be self-centered or autonomous, and thus present achievements as collective accomplishments or as contributions to the nation and well-being of society.
Leadership in Turkish society is a multifaceted phenomenon. A societal culture that is characterized with high In-Group Collectivism, Power Distance, and Assertiveness expects its leaders to enhance team integration and inspire togetherness in unique ways. Kozan and Ergin (1998) point to the importance of the mediation role that leaders and managers play in Turkish society, where leaders are expected to intrude into conflict resolutions in order to preserve peace and group solidarity. Thus, effective Turkish leaders develop mediation skills that “give face” to both parties and keep the group together at peace. The integrity of the leaders enables them to exercise power, which further builds on their symbolic and supreme roles. Assertiveness as a cultural trait implies that leaders who are decisive and hands-on, who can offer solutions to problems with new ideas, and who satisfy their followers’ needs in a paternalistic way are the ones who can maintain their status.
Leadership in Turkish society is a paradoxical concept. Leaders on the one hand are granted with supreme status and power, and on the other, there is great skepticism and suspicion about them. This duality about the position of leaders stems from the competing values and practices that are simultaneously present in Turkish society. Turkey carries Eastern and Western values, traditional and modern practices, religious and secular ideologies at the same time, which create conflicting expectations from leaders. Leaders are expected to maintain in-group solidarity and behave in a paternalistic style, yet at the same time encourage performance and improvement in their organizations. There is a push in Turkey away from paternalism with the criticism of leading to nepotism and inefficiencies. Leaders in Turkish society and organizations face the dilemma of managing this duality between expectations of efficiency and performance and the more traditional hierarchical, assertive, and paternalistic values. Because Turkish society values performance, planning, and more egalitarian distribution of authority and resources, together with collectivistic tendencies, the ideal leader will be a person who is able to initiate change and provide vision and performance excellence by keeping group solidarity and at the same time avoiding nepotism.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Hakan Özçelik, Tolga Akçura, and Çigdem Arsiray for their assistance in data collection phase of the study.
REFERENCES
Acar, F. (1991). Women in academic science careers in Turkey. In V. Stolte-Heiskanen, F. Acar, N. Ananiveva, D. Guadart, & and R. Fürst-Dilic (Eds.), Women in science: Token women or gender equality (pp. 147–171). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Adaman, F., Çarkoglu, A., & Senatalar, B. (2001). Hanehalki gózünden Türkiye'de yolsuzlugun nedenleri ve ónlenmesine iliskin óneriler [The reasons for unethical conduct and propositions for eliminating them: Perspectives of the households]. TESEV Publications 24. Istanbul, Turkey: Acar Matbaacilik.
Arat, Z. (1999). Deconstructing images of the Turkish women. New York: Palgrave.
Arthur Andersen. (2000). Human resources research while approaching 2001. Istanbul, Turkey: Sabah Yayincilik.
Atay, F. R. (1980). Çankaya. Istanbul, Turkey: Sean Matbaasi.
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G. et al. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 192–221.
Bankalarimiz 1992. (1993). Ankara, Turkey: Rekmay Ltd. St.
Bodur, M., & Madsen, T. K. (1993). Danish foreign direct investments in Turkey. European Business Review, 93(5), 28–44.
Bugra, A. (1987). The late coming tycoons of Turkey. Journal of Economics and Administrative Studies, 1(1), 143–155.
Bugra, A. (1990). The Turkish holding company as a social institution. Journal of Economics and Administrative Studies, 4(1), 35–51.
Dilber, M. (1967). Management in the Turkish private sector industry. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms Inc.
Duben, A. (1982). The significance of family and kinship in urban Turkey. In Ç. Kagitçibasi (Ed.), Sex roles, family and community in Turkey (pp. 73–100). Bloomington: Indiana University Turksih Studies.
Eczacibasi, N. F (1982). Kusaktan kusaga [From generation to generation]. Istanbul, Turkey: Agaoglu Yayinevi.
Eczacibasi, N. F. (1994). Izlenimler, umutlar [Observations, hopes]. Istanbul, Turkey: Tur Matbaacilik.
Eren, E., Bildirici, M. E., & Firat, U. (2000). Türkiye'de 1998–1999 krizinde yónetici davranislari [Managerial behavior during the 1998–1999 crisis]. Istanbul Chamber of Industry Publications. Istanbul, Turkey: Avciol Basin Yayin.
Ergenekon, C. (1995). Sigorta sektórü [The insurance sector]. Report Prepared for the Istanbul Securities Exchange Market, Sectorial Research Series, No. 5, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ergüder, Ü., Esmer, Y., & Kalaycioglu, E. (1991). Türk toplumunun degerleri [Values of Turkish society]. Report Prepared for TÜSIAD, No. TÜSIAD-T/91, 6145, Istanbul, Turkey.
Esmer, T. (1997, July 27). Türk kültürünün ózellikleri (Characteristics of Turkish culture). Radikal, p. 5.
Esmer, Y. (1999). Devrim, evrim, statüko: Türkiye'de sosyal, siyasal, ekonomik degerler [Revolution, evolution, status quo: Social, political, and economic values in Turkey]. Report Prepared for TESEV. Istanbul, Turkey: Acar Matbaacilik.
EU enlargement. (2005). Retrieved August 2005, from http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/turkey/eurelations.htm
Fisek, G. O., Müderrisoglu, S., Yeniçeri, N., & Özkarar, G. (2001). Integrated decision support system for disaster management in Turkey: Pilot study results of the psychological module. CENDIM (Center for Disaster Management) Report, Bogaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. London: Penguin.
General Directorate of Women's Status and Problems. (2001). Türkiye'de kadin [Women in Turkey]. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
Göregenli, M. (1997). Individualist-collectivist tendencies in a Turkish sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 787–794.
Gülalp, H. 1995. The crisis of westernization in Turkey: Islamism versus nationalism. Innovation, 8(2), 175–182.
Güngör, Z. (1997, February 25). O bir üniversiteydi [He was a university]. Milliyet, p. 6.
Gürbüz, E. (1988). A measurement of sex-trait stereotypes. Unpublished master's thesis, Bogaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Güriz, A. (1987). Sources of Turkish law. In T. Ansay & D. Wallace, Jr. (Eds.), Introduction to Turkish law (pp. 1–22). Deventer, Netherlands: Kluwer Law & Taxation
Gürüz, K. (2001). Dünyada ve Türkiye'de yüksekógretim: Tarihçe ve bugünkü sevk ve idare sistemleri [Higher education in Turkey and the world: History and administration systems]. Ankara, Turkey: ÖSYM.
Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Sipe, M. T. (2004). Rationale for GLOBE statistical analyses: Societal rankings and test of hypotheses. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 219–234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V., & GLOBE Associates. (2004). Cultures, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Human Development Report 1996: Turkey. (1996). Report prepared for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Ankara, Turkey.
Human Development Report 2001: Turkey. (2001). Report prepared for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Ankara, Turkey.
Ilmihal I. (1999). Ilmihal I: Iman ve ibadetler [Faith and worship]. Istanbul, Turkey: Divantas.
Inönü, I. (1985). Hatiralar 1 [Memories 1]. Ankara, Turkey: Bilgi Yayinlari.
Inönü, I. (1987). Hatiralar 2 [Memories 2]. Ankara, Turkey: Bilgi Yayinlari.
Institute for Management Developments. (1999). The world competitiveness yearbook. Lausanne, Switzerland: Author.
Iseri, A., Inelmen, K., Kabasakal, H., & Akarun, L. (2002). An investigation of low levels of participation in CBOs and NGOs for disaster preparedness and mitigation: The case of Mimarsinan-Istanbul. Report prepared for CENDIM (Center for Disaster Management), Bogaziçi University, Instanbul, Turkey.
Kabasakal, H. (1998). A profile of top women managers in Turkey. In Z. Arat (Ed.), Deconstructing images of the Turkish women (pp. 271–290). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Kabasakal, H., Akarun, L., Iseri, A., & Inelmen, K. (2001). Community involvement in disaster management: Gayrettepe field research. Paper presented at the Workshop on Urban Risk Management for Natural Disasters, Istanbul, Turkey.
Kabasakal, H., Aycan, Z., & Karakas, F. (2004). Women in management in Turkey. In M. Davidson& R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women in management worldwide (pp. 273–293).
Aldershot, England : Ashgate. Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2002). Arabic cluster: A bridge between east and west. Journal of World Business, 37, 40–54.
Kabasakal, H., Boyacigiller, N., & Erden, D. (1994). Organizational characteristics as correlates of women in middle and top management. Bogaziçi Journal: Review of Social, Economic, and Administrative Studies, 8(1–2), 45–62.
Kabasakal, H., & Dastmalchian, A. (2001). Introduction to the symposium on leadership and culture in the Middle East. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 479–488.
Kabasakal, M. (1991). Türkiye'de siyasal parti órgütlenmesi: 1908–1960 (The organization of political parties in Turkey: 1908–1960). Istanbul, Turkey: Tekin Yayinevi.
Kagitçibasi, Ç. (1982a). The changing value of children in Turkey. Papers of the East-West Population Institute, No. 60, East-West Center, Honolulu, HI.
Kagitçibasi, Ç. (1982b). Sex roles, value of children, and fertility. In Ç, Kagitçibasi (Ed.), Sex roles, family and community in Turkey (pp. 251–180). Bloomington: Indiana University TurkishStudies.
Kiray, M. (1997). Abandonment of land and transformation to urban life. Human Development Report. Ankara, Turkey: United Nations Development Programme.
Koç, V. (1973). Hayat hikayem [The story of my life]. Istanbul, Turkey: Apa Ofset Basimevi.
Koray, M. (1991). Günümüzdeki yaklasimlar isiginda kadin ve siyaset [Women and politics in the light of current approaches]. Türkiye Sosyal Ekonomik Arastirmalar Vakfi.
Kozan, K. M., & Ergin, C. (1998). Preference for third party help in conflict management in the United States and Turkey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 525–539.
Laurent, A. (1983). The cultural diversity of western conceptions of management. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13(1–2), 75–96.
Mead, R. (1994). International management: Cross cultural dimensions. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Öncü, A., & Gókçe, D. (1991). Macro-politics of de-regulation and micro-politics of banks. In M. Heper (Ed.), Strong state and economic interest groups: The post-1980 Turkish experience (pp. 99–117). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Önis, Z. (1997, July). The political economy of Islamic resurgence in Turkey: The rise of the Welfare Party in perspective. Paper presented at the BRISMES International Conference on Middle Eastern Studies, Oxford, England.
Özar, S. (1994). Some observations on the position of women in the labour market in the development process of Turkey. Bogaziçi Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, 8(1–2), 21–43.
Özbasar, S., & Aksan, Z. (1976). Isletmelerimizde beseri kaynaklarin ózellikleri ve yónetimi [Characteristics and management of human resources in organizations]. Yónetim, 2, 97–116.
Özbay, F. (1994). Women's labor in rural and urban settings. Bogaziçi Journal: Review of Social, Economic, and Administrative Studies, 8(1–2), 5–19.
Özbudun, E. (1987). Constitutional law. In T. Ansay & D. Wallace, Jr. (Eds.), Introduction to Turkish law (pp. 23–60). Deventer, Netherlands: Kluwer Law & Taxation.
Pasa, S. F., Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 559–589.
Sabanci, S. (1985). Iste hayatim [This is my life]. Istanbul, Turkey: Aksoy Matbaacilik.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In
U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Ç. Kagitçibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
State Institute of Statistics. (1999). Household labor force survey 1989–1999. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
State Institute of Statistics. (2001). Statistical yearbook of Turkey, 2001. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
State Planning Organization. (1995). Seventh five-year development plan, 1996–2000. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
State Planning Organization. (2000). Eighth five-year development plan, 2000–2005. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
Tabak, F. (1989). Women top managers in different types and sizes of industry in Turkey. Unpublished master's thesis, Bogaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Tan, M. G., Ecevit, Y., & Üsür, S. S. (2000). Kadin-erkek esitligine dogru yürüyüs: Egitim, çalisma yasami ve siyaset [Approaching gender equality: Education, work life, and politics]. Istanbul, Turkey: TÜSIAD.
The Europa World Year Book 1996 (Vol. 2). (1996). London: Europa Publications Limited.
Topaloglu, B. (1983). Women in Islam. Istanbul, Turkey: Yagmur Yayinevi.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Uluslararasi dogrudan yatirimlar ve Türkiye. (2002). [Foreign direct investments and Turkey]. Istanbul Chamber of Industry Publication. Istanbul, Turkey: Boyut Matbaacilik.
http://www.dpt.gov.tr/dptweb/esg/esg.i.html. Retrieved May 2004.
http://www.die.gov.tr. Retrieved April 2004.
http://www.dpt.gov.tr. Retrieved April 2004.
http://www.tcmb.gov.tr. Retrieved April 2004.
http://www.tbb.gov.tr. Retrieved April 2004.
http://www.treasury.gov.tr. Retrieved April 2004.