TURKISH WORK MENTALITY AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

M. CEYHAN ALDEMIR ceyhan.aldemir@deu.edu.tr M R N.T. ZMEN omur.ozmen@deu.edu.tr YASEMIN ARBAK yasemin.arbak@deu.edu.tr ULA AKAR ulas.cakar@deu.edu.tr Dokuz Eyll niversitesi letme Fakltesi Kaynaklar Yerlekesi 36160 Buca zmir

ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to determine the Turkish Work Mentality values at the organizational level by using the Turkish Work Mentality Profile (TWMP). TWMP profile depends on the historical dilemma of the Turkish work mentality between western and local values. Results of the factor analysis shows that Turkish work mentality consists of a mixture of western values and local values (status-oriented, mystic and hypocrite). This result confirms the main assumption of dilemmatic structure of Turkish work mentality and is consistent with the previous study of TWMP at the regional level (Aldemir et al.,2003).

Work mentality is an attitude that emerges by the effect of values and knowledge that individuals, groups and institutions attain as the result of personal experience and cultural inheritance within a dynamic interaction and determines and explains the behaviors, interpersonal relations, tools, processes, structures, and systems used by these actors in order to reach their goals and changes depending on time and place. This definition was formed by Aldemir, Arbak and zmen (2003) as a result of series of studies since 1997, conducted with an emic approach to determine Turkish workers and organizations work mentality. According to authors there are two primal processes that form work mentality. First process consists of individuals, groups and institutions learning from both individual and interactive experiences. The second process is the generational inheritance of the knowledge and values of work mentality as a reflection of the culture. As these processes are in a dynamic interaction between each other, it is very hard to determine the more effective one and to pinpoint the intersections and distinctions between these processes. However, societies inherited knowledge and values have a greater effect on the modern work mentality because they are accumulated over the centuries in order to answer the needs of variable factors like time & place and passed over from one generation to the others.

According to this frame, in order to understand Turkish peoples work mentality, we have to examine their historical heritage as well as we examine their present culture. Of the wide historical heritage of Turkish people, Ottoman period has the greatest affect on today. In that period, faith was at the core of Ottoman philosophy and doubt wasnt allowed. This philosophy was similar to the scholastic philosophy that has dominated the European tradition till the 15th century (Timur, 1998). lgener (1981a) identified this concept as medieval mentality and defined its core factors as land-based and immobile wealth mentality (just the opposite of the todays mobile wealth and dynamic work mentality) and traditional guild ethics that has the similar fixed state of mind. The immaterialization caused by this mentality caused all the actions and activities of individuals to stay away from economic mentality. Fatalism, traditionalism and obedience are the most dominant and striking elements of this medieval mentality ( lgener, 1951). This mentality that completely ignores the rationality and individuals own will continued its existence until the mid 18th century. By the end of 18th century, realization of the recession of the Ottoman state compared to Western World caused Ottoman Empire to export the institutions that symbolized the Western philosophy and its rationality. After this time Ottoman Empire began facing a dilemma because of the contradicting philosophies of traditional scholastic mentality and modern rationality (Bozdoan & Kasaba, 1998). In a way, this was a period of extreme examples of traditional ignorance and modern sciences (Ortayl, 2000). According to Timur (1998), the real dilemma began in the first years of the Turkish Republic when Atatrk abolished all the traditional and scholastic Ottoman institutions and formed schools and universities depending on the rational philosophy of the Western civilization. Societies can adapt to structures and frames rapidly but these changes affect on the mentality takes time. The old mentality effects the new one before the completion of transition period ( lgener, 1981b).The rational Turkish philosophy has a 150 years long past. Contemporary Turkish society seems to have a philosophy of universal Western values, but in reality has inherited a generational collective subconscious philosophy of the medieval mentality.

Turkish work mentality is greatly affected by society-wide cultural conflict. Even though individual-liberal work mentality seems the dominant mentality, we cant say that it cant escape all of the narrow and harsh frames of scholastic mentality.

This study mainly assumes that Turkish work mentality is affected by these two philosophies. Depending on these assumptions studies have been made since 1997 in order to define and explain the Turkish work mentality with an emic approach. For this purpose, researchers decided to develop a value profile named Turkish Work Mentality Profile (TWMP) and test its structural validity on the basis of region, organization and individual. The study named Turkish Work Mentality: Definition and Its Dimensions showed the regional validity of the dilemma. This paper as a continuation of this process aims to test the same assumption at the organizational level. We expect a similarity in the dimensions of the regional study and this study. In order to test this, a summary of regional work mentality (Aldemir, et al. 2003) is given below.

WORK MENTALITY DIMENSIONS AT REGIONAL LEVEL Regional work mentality is the individuals perception of a regions work mentality according to their close interactions people and institutions. The factor analysis of the subjects study showed five main dimensions of regional work mentality. The dimension named professional and rational work mentality is the modern liberal work mentality dimensions. The other three dimensions; status-oriented, mystic and hypocrite work mentality show the inherent characteristics of the collective subconsciousness of the traditional Turkish society.

Status-oriented work mentality is based on values such as centralism, rank and position, dependence, continuity, obedience, oppression. This dimension is the reflection of status-quo orientation, workers obedience and dependence mentality caused by the centralist values that dates back to Middle Asia, perfected in Ottoman Empire period and still continues. The positive relation between this dimension and professional and rational work mentality dimensions shows that this mentality is an embedded value.

Mystic work mentality is a product of the scholastic philosophy and consists of religion, traditionalism, emotionality, fatalism and family ties. At the root of mystic work mentality lies a strong oriental fatalism and religion that dictates strong informal relations in a closed system. This structure results in a philosophy of divine fate that excludes the individuals will and desire.

Hypocrite work mentality derives from both the past collective subconsciousness and the todays economic development level. This dimension consists of materialism, hypocrisy, skepticism, extravagance, waste, unfaithfulness, opportunism, favoritism, factionalism and negative loaded factors such as integrity, conformism and tolerance.

METHOD

TWMP (TURKISH WORK MENTALITY PROFILE)

The value profile used in this study is the TWMP whose aim is to measure the work mentality at regional, organizational and individual levels. This value profile has three sources; 1) Studies of the researchers between 1997-2000 in order to define Turkish managers and organizations characteristics. 2) A broad historical analysis of 110 books (Aldemir vd., 2002) in order to define the Turkish societys work mentality between the Ottoman Period (1300-1900). 3) Western values that was expressed in the studies of OReilly, Chatman and Caldwell (1991).

TWMP values and their dictionary meanings can be seen in Tables 1 & 2. When the table is examined, it can clearly be seen that of the total 58 values, 32 (%55) values are local and 26 (%45) values are western values. Even though there can be values that fall in to both groups, the distinction on such cases is based on the references.

SAMPLE Sample of the study consists of 326 people that lives in zmir and surroundings and has been working for at least 1 year. Even though convenience sampling method was used, two criteria as sectoral difference and private/public sector distinction were also taken into consideration while choosing samples.

TABLE-1 LOCAL VALUES THAT FORM THE VALUE PROFILE AND THEIR SOURCES (Historical Analysis, Arbak vd. 1997, Aldemir vd., 2000)
VALUE Integrity Rigidity Centralism Loyalty Emotionality Fatalism Favoritism Opressiveness Modesty Traditionalist Daily Horizon Knowing Ones Limitations Contented Continuity Working in the best possible way Trust DESCRIPTION Being true in ones own words and actions at work Working rule oriented and having no tolerance to conditions that violate rules Supporting the centralization of work and authority Having a personal loyalty to certain people, groups and institutions at work Having strong feelings that can even affect the work behavior Believing in fate at work and acting according to this Favoring and obtaining privileges for certain people, groups and institutions and sacrificing the others at work Dominating and ruling other at work Being modest at work Working according to the cultural habits,customs and knowledge that comes from the past and approved and valued by the society Concentrating at daily matter and not considering the future Not exaggerating ones own position, values, knowledge and skills at work Being able to work with few and not wanting more Believing the superiority of the present work order and being in an effort to protect it Working in a way that fulfills the jobs requirements Working with people, groups and institutions without fear, timidity or doubt VALUE Unfaithfulness Hypocrisy Selfishness Dependance Family Ties Nationalism Factionalism Friendship Laziness Religion Protectionism Extravagance Obedience Waste Rank and position Skepticism DESCRIPTION Working with people, groups and institutions without a real and continuous loyalty Being inconsistent in words and actions, acting in hypocrite way at work Only thinking about ones own interests at work Working dependendently upon the power of the people, groups and institutions, being unable to act by his/herself Prioritizing the family needs and wants at work Considering the nations and countrys material and moral interests with utmost importance Joining groups whose faith and opinions differ from the general public and threatens the unity of the work environment Taking friendship into consideration while working Disliking working and spending effort Working according to the rules of ones own belief system and prioritizing them Protecting and looking after certain people, groups and institutions Valuing artificial behaviors and arrangements in order to impress others at work Obeying orders Spending unnecessary money, time and etc., acting in a prodigal way Giving importance to attain rank and position at the work and respecting people that has rank and position Being suspicious of other peoples goals and intentions at work

TABLE-2 Western Values of the Value Profile (OReilly vd., 1991 ;Arbak vd. 1997, Aldemir vd., 2000)
Tanm Deer Tanm

Respectability Tolerance A Willingness to Experiment Consensus Enterprising

Being in an effort to be a respectable and trustable person at work. Being tolerant to everything at work. Having a willingness to try new and untried ideas at work Sacrificing own interests and ides and following a consensus policy at work Beginning a work and establishing relations with people easily

Conformism Hardworking Risk Taking Competitiveness Working in Collaboration with Others Rationality Respect for Individuals Rights Far Sighted Success-Oriented Entrepreneurship Discipline Inquisitiveness Intutitiveness

Obeying the written and unwritten rules of the work Working hard and loving it Being able to face the danger of losses in work Being in a competition with people, group and instutions that have similar work objectives Collaborating with people, group and instutions that have similar work objectives Believing the facts of the work that can be proved by rational processes and not acting in any way contradicts rationality Being careful to prevent any harm individuals rights because of the work Being able to see the future outcomes while working Desiring to reach the works goals and objectives A willingness to begin new enterprises while working Working according to a program in a systematic and timely manner Not avoiding to question the people, institutions and authorities while working Paying attention to intuitions while working

Fairness Responsiblity Sharing Information Paying Attention to Detail Scientific Methods Will Power Materialism Competency

Respecting the righst, obeying the law and acting in truth at work Accepting the results of his/her own actions and events within his/her authority while working Sharing and not witholding the information at work While working paying attention to the secondary factors of a whole Giving a priority to scientific methods and rules at work. Having the power to decide the things at work Giving importance to money, material and similar things at work Giving importance to knowledge, skill and ability at work

Sectoral Difference: Different sectoral characteristics cause different environmental adaptation needs in people & institutions and as a result sectors have a great affect on the work mentality of the people. When the sectoral distribution (Table 3) is examined, it can be seen that majority of the sample comes form service (hospital, education, consultancy, military institutions, computer firms, etc.), production sector follows this, and the remaining groups are domestic and international trade and sectors other than these 4 main sectors(such as artistic activities).

Public/private Sector Distinction: Previous studies shows that there is a significant difference between cultural characteristics of the public and private sector organizations, and in public organizations local values are more dominant(Arbak, vd. 1997, Aldemir, vd., 2000). As a result of this second criterion of the sample selection is public-private sector distinction. More than half of the people (55.5 %) in the sample comes from the public sector, the remaining half consists of private organizations (37.1 %) and foreign partner-private organizations (7.3 %). 40.4% of the sample comes from the large-scaled companies that have 500 or more than 500 workers.

TABLE 3: SAMPLE CRITERIA and THEIR DISTRIBUTIONS

CRITERIA SECTOR Production Service Trade Other TYPE OF ORGANIZATION Public Private Foreign Partner NUMBER OF WORKERS 1-10 11-50 51-200 201-500 501 and above n 60 219 30 17 181 121 24 29 50 50 26 105 % 18.4 67.7 9.2 5.2 55,5 37.1 7.3 11.2 19.2 19.2 10.0 40.4

Demographic characteristics of the sample of the study can be seen in Table 4. When we look at the gender of the participants we see that 52.1 % of the sample are men, 46.9 % of the sample are women. When the age groups are examined, 46.6% of the study comes from 26-35 group and 28.2% comes from the 36-45 group. Majority of the sample consists of people having at least university education (79.7 %) and the 44.2% of the sample has education in social branches and 21.8 % has education in scientific branches. 54.6 % of the study sees themselves in the middle social class, 29.8 % in the upper-middle social class and 6.4. % in the lower-middle class. Majority of the sample consists of people that has lived their first 15 years in the city centrum(73.3%). About the half of the sample (48.8 %) lived their first 15 years in zmir, the other half of the sample (51.2 %) spend their first 15 years in different regions of Turkey(32 different cities).

TABLE 4- Demographic Characteristics of the Sample*

Demographic Characteristics Gender Man Woman Age 25 and below 26-35 36-45 46 and above Education Level Elementary School Primary School High School University Postgraduate Education Branch Social Science Health Other Perceived Social Class Low Lower-middle Middle Upper-middle High Type of Settlement for First 15 Years City Centrum County Village Name of Settlement for First 15 Years zmir Other
* The answers with no respondent percentages arent given in the table.

n 170 153 47 152 92 32 2 2 61 225 35 144 71 17 9 4 21 178 97 18 239 256 23 159 167

% 52.1 46.9 14.4 46.6 28,2 9.8 6.0 6.0 18.7 69.0 10.7 44.2 21.8 5.2 2.7 1.2 6.4 54.6 29.8 5.5 73.3 17.2 7.0 48.8 51.2

QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaire consists of two main parts. In the first part, questions for defining demographic characteristics and institution characteristics are asked, in the second part 58 valued TWMP. Under each TWMP value there is a dictionary definition of the value. People are asked the representativeness of work mentality value on the regional level, organizational level and individual level. 5-Item Likert scale is uses in the study and value 1 shows a value that doesnt represent work mentality and value 5 shows a value that is exact representation of the work mentality.

ANALYSIS

In order to test the structural validity of the value profile, factor analysis, one of the most common methods of the similar studies, was used (Ford, MacCallum and Tai, 1986). The main assumption at this point is according to the historical dilemma local and western values forms different dimensions. In the studies, variable to observation ratio is 1:6. This ratio is a sufficient ratio for factor analysis validity (Gorsuch, 1974-1:5, Cattel,1978, observations being more than 250, 1:3-1:6). In the study, main components analysis was used as the factor model and oblique rotation model was used in order to clarify the factor dimensions distinctions. In determining factor amounts scree plot was used and also after trying some variations (lowest to highest) the factor amount which supports the theoretical structure the most was decided (Hakstian, Rogers and Catell, 1982). While evaluating factor analysis, factors having .40 and more were taken into consideration and in making this analysis SPSS 11 was used.

In the correlational analysis, the relations between the western and local value dimensions were examined. According to the assumptions of the study, local and western values dimensions shall be positively loaded among their own value groups and negatively loaded in comparison with other value group.

FINDINGS

The findings of the factor analysis can be seen in Table 5. According to KMO(.911) and BTS (7343.5-p=.0001) values sample and correlation matrix has the appropriate characteristics for factor analysis.

As a result of the factor analysis according to the criteria above the appropriate factor number is 4. These 4 factors explain the 40.4 % of the total variance.

Factor I consists of 22 values. All the values in this group except one (working in the best possible way) are western values. This factor dimension explains the 25.6 % of the total variance, the internal consistency coefficient of the 13 values is high (.93).

Factor II that explains the 6.7 % of the total variance consists of 7 values. All of these values except one (rules oriented) are local values. The internal consistency for the dimension is .63. Even though this internal consistency value isnt high, it is within the acceptable limits.

Factor III that consists of 8 values explain the 4.4 % of the total variance. All of the dimensions in this group except two lowest factor values (consensus, intuititiveness) are local values. The internal consistency coefficient for the factor dimension is .67.

Factor IV consists of 9 values that are all but one (materialism) western values. The factor dimension explains the 3.6 % of the total variance and the internal consistency coefficient is .85.

As a result of the factor analysis organizational level work mentality is defined by 46 out of 58 TWMP values. 25 of these values are western and 21 are local. 21 of the western values are in the factor I that consists of western values and the other 3 four values are seen in the factors consisting local values (factor dimensions/factor II-III-IV). As a result factor I describes the western work mentality and factors II-III and IV describes the 3 local work mentality values dimensions; status oriented, mystic and hypocrite.

TABLE 5-RESULTS of FACTOR ANALYSIS

DEER Scientific Methods A Willingness to Experiment Competency Enterprising Hardworking Sharing Information Rationality Success-Orientation Paying Attention to Detail Inquisitiveness Farsightedness Will Power Responsibility Competitiveness Working in Collaboration with Others Discipline Entrepreneurship Risk Taking Individual Rights Working in the Best Possible Way Fairness Respectability Centralism Rank and Position Rule Oriented Loyalty Continuity Obedience Dependence Family Ties Emotionality Friendship Traditionalism Religion Fatalism Consensus Intuititiveness Materialism Hypocrisy Skepticisim Selfishness Extragavance Favoritism Rigidity Integrity Oppressiveness KAYNAK* W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W L W W L L W L L L L L L L L L L W W W L L L L L L L L FACTOR I .71 .68 .68 .67 .67 .66 .66 .66 .63 .62 .58 .58 .56 .56 .56 .56 .54 .52 .52 .49 .43 .41 FACTOR II FACTOR III FACTOR IV

.60 .51 .51 .48 .45 .45 .42 -.62 -.58 -.56 -.54 -.52 -.49 -.49 -.44

.73 .66 .63 .62 .57 .54 .53 -.46 .43 3.6 .85

Variance 25.6 6.7 Alpha .91 .63 KMO = .911 BTS = 7343.5 sd=1653 p= .0001 * Source classification according to Table 1 and Table 2 . L= local , W= western

4.5 .67

CONCLUSION

In order to examine the relations between factor dimensions, we made a correlation analysis whose results can be seen on Table 6. Examination of the correlation analysis results studys only western values dimension, factor I is in relation with local values dimensions as factor II and factor IV. When directions of these relations are examined a positive relation between western values factor I and centralist values factors II and a negative factor between factor I and factor IV. The presence of a positive relation between western and local values proves the continuing existence of dual cultural structure of Turkish work mentality. TABLE 6. CORRELATION ANALYSIS RESULTSa
Factor Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV
a

Source W L L L

X 3.57 3.65 2.78 2.79

S .68 .58 .62 .84

.34*** .02 - .62*** .14* -.04 .17**

Partial correlation coefficients obtained by controlling for the length of persons work life, N=231

p <.05 p <.01 *** p <.0001

**

The presence of a positive relation within the western and local work mentality dimensions own groups shows us the continuing existence of dual cultural structure of Turkish work mentality. Meanwhile the negative relation between western values and hypocrite and mystic work values shows the contradictory of this dual structure. The positive relation of western values and the local value centralist work mentality dimension is an exception to this dilemmatic structure. This positive relation indicates a harmony between the status-oriented work mentality and western values. The causes of this relation need further attention in future studies.

This study furthered the examination of the TWMP to the organizational level. The findings are parallel to the previous study at the regional level (Aldemir vd., 2003) and shows

the role of cultural subconsciousness in the Turkish culture and dilemmatic structure of Turkish work mentality. The structural validity of TWMP, which was derived as a result of emic approach and studies, remains the main constraint of the study. The further usage of this profile will overcome this matter. As it is mentioned at the beginning, this study is a part of a series of studies which will be followed by the individual level study of TWMP which will complete the big picture of Turkish work mentalitys today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldemir, C., Arbak, Y., zmen, .(2000) Impact of Western Management Values upon Turkish Organizations. 16th Egos Colloquium. Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland. Aldemir, C., Arbak, Y., zmen, .(2002) Trk Ynetim Deerlerinin Tarihsel Kkenleri. Yaynlanmam alma, Dokuz Eyll niversitesi, letme Fakltesi:zmir. Aldemir, C., Arbak, Y., zmen, . (2003) Trkiyede grme Anlay: Tanm ve Boyutlar Ynetim Aratrmalar Dergisi, 3(1). 5-28. Arbak Y., Aldemir C. , zmen ., Katrinli A., Kesken J., & shakolu G.(1997) Perceptual Study of Turkish Managers and Organizations Characteristics: Contrast and

Contradictions In Cultural Complexity in Organizations , Sonja A. Sackman ed. , Sage Publications , 87-103. Bahadr, O. (1996) Osmanllarda Bilim, Sarmal Yaynevi: stanbul. Bozdoan, S. and Kasaba,R.(1998) Trkiyede Modernleme ve Ulusal Kimlik . Tarih Vakf Yaynlar: stanbul. Brom,L. and Selznick,P. (1963) Sociology: A Text with Adapted Readings.Harper and Row Pub.: New York. Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999) Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Addison-Wesley Pub.: New York. Cattell R. (1958)Extracting The Correct Number of Factors in Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 18: 791-837. Ford K.J., MacCallum R.C. & Tait M.(1986) An Application of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology : A Critical Review and Analysis . Personel Psychology , 39: 291-314. Freedman ,J.L., Sears, D.O. and Carlsmith,J.M. (1993) Sosyal Psikoloji. mge Kitabevi: Ankara.

Gorsuch R.L. (1974) Factor Analysis.,W:B: Saunders: Philadelphia Hakstian A.R., Rogers W.T. & Catell R.B. (1982) The Behavior of Number of Factors Rules With Simulated Data. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 17 : 193-219. Katba ,. (1988) nsan ve nsanlar. Cem Basmevi: stanbul. Nunnaly J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill:New York. OReilly CA., Chatman J., Caldwell DF. (1991). People and organizational culture : A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit , Academy of Management Journal , 34 , 3, 487-516. Ortayl, I. (2000) Osmanl Toplumunda Aile, Pan Yaynclk:stanbul. Ortayl, . (2001) Gelenekten Gelecee, Ufuk Kitaplar: stanbul. Robbins, S.P. (2000) Organizational Behavior. Prentice-Hall,Inc. Page:62. Sargut, A.S. (2001) Kltrler Aras Farkllama ve Ynetim, mge Kitabevi: stanbul. Timur, T. (1998) Osmanl Kimlii, Hil Yaynlar: stanbul. lgener, S.F. (1951) ktisadi ntihat Tarihimizin Ahlak ve Zihniyet Meseleleri. smail Akgn Matbaas: stanbul. lgener, S.F. (1981a) ktisadi zlmenin Ahlak Ve Zihniyet Dnyas, Der Yaynlar: stanbul. lgener, S.F. (1981b) slam, Tasavvuf ve zlme Devri ktisat Ahlak, stanbul sdiken, B. (1999) Importers of Managerial Ideas: Turkish Academia Before and After the Second World War Paper at the Sixth Academy of Management Annual Meeting: Chicago. Xenikou A., ve Furnham A. 1996. A Correlational and Factor Analytic Study of Four Questionnaire Measures of Organizational Culture. Human Relations, 49 (3): 349-371. Der Yaynlar: