This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
M. CEYHAN ALDEMIR firstname.lastname@example.org Ö MÜ R N.T. Ö ZMEN email@example.com YASEMIN ARBAK firstname.lastname@example.org ULAŞ ÇAKAR email@example.com Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Kaynaklar Yerleşkesi 36160 Buca İzmir
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 Ö 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.
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.According to this frame. This philosophy was similar to the scholastic philosophy that has dominated the European tradition till the 15th century (Timur.The rational Turkish philosophy has a 150 years long past. Fatalism. 1951). Societies can adapt to structures and frames rapidly but these changes affect on the mentality takes time. faith was at the core of Ottoman philosophy and doubt wasn’t allowed. 1998). 1998). 2000). we can’t say that it can’t escape all of the narrow and harsh frames of scholastic mentality. Contemporary Turkish society seems to have a philosophy of universal Western values. This mentality that completely ignores the rationality and individual’s own will continued its existence until the mid 18th century. the real dilemma began in the first years of the Turkish Republic when Atatürk abolished all the traditional and scholastic Ottoman institutions and formed schools and universities depending on the rational philosophy of the Western civilization. Turkish work mentality is greatly affected by society-wide cultural conflict. After this time Ottoman Empire began facing a dilemma because of the contradicting philosophies of traditional scholastic mentality and modern rationality (Bozdoğan & Kasaba. By the end of 18th century. Of the wide historical heritage of Turkish people. In that period. The old mentality effects the new one before the completion of transition period (Ü lgener. According to Timur (1998). The immaterialization caused by this mentality caused all the actions and activities of individuals to stay away from economic mentality. . traditionalism and obedience are the most dominant and striking elements of this medieval mentality (Ü lgener. Even though individual-liberal work mentality seems the dominant mentality. but in reality has inherited a generational collective subconscious philosophy of the medieval mentality. 1981b). Ottoman period has the greatest affect on today. Ü 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 today’s mobile wealth and dynamic work mentality) and traditional guild ethics that has the similar fixed state of mind. this was a period of extreme examples of traditional ignorance and modern sciences (Ortaylı. in order to understand Turkish people’s work mentality. In a way. we have to examine their historical heritage as well as we examine their present culture.
status-oriented. researchers decided to develop a value profile named Turkish Work Mentality Profile (TWMP) and test its structural validity on the basis of region. fatalism and family ties. continuity. The positive relation between this dimension and professional and rational work mentality dimensions shows that this mentality is an embedded value. This structure results in a philosophy of divine fate that excludes the individual’s will and desire. dependence. The dimension named professional and rational work mentality is the modern liberal work mentality dimensions. In order to test this. We expect a similarity in the dimensions of the regional study and this study. Depending on these assumptions studies have been made since 1997 in order to define and explain the Turkish work mentality with an emic approach. At the root of mystic work mentality lies a strong oriental fatalism and religion that dictates strong informal relations in a closed system. traditionalism. . oppression. Mystic work mentality is a product of the scholastic philosophy and consists of religion. The other three dimensions. organization and individual. The factor analysis of the subject’s study showed five main dimensions of regional work mentality. rank and position. The study named “Turkish Work Mentality: Definition and Its Dimensions” showed the regional validity of the dilemma. This dimension is the reflection of status-quo orientation. et al. a summary of regional work mentality (Aldemir. WORK MENTALITY DIMENSIONS AT REGIONAL LEVEL Regional work mentality is the individuals’ perception of a region’s work mentality according to their close interactions people and institutions. obedience. Status-oriented work mentality is based on values such as centralism. 2003) is given below. For this purpose. This paper as a continuation of this process aims to test the same assumption at the organizational level.This study mainly assumes that Turkish work mentality is affected by these two philosophies. mystic and hypocrite work mentality show the inherent characteristics of the collective subconsciousness of the traditional Turkish society. perfected in Ottoman Empire period and still continues. worker’s obedience and dependence mentality caused by the centralist values that dates back to Middle Asia. emotionality.
skepticism. opportunism. 32 (%55) values are local and 26 (%45) values are western values. favoritism. waste. Even though convenience sampling method was used. conformism and tolerance. the distinction on such cases is based on the references. unfaithfulness. 1) Studies of the researchers between 1997-2000 in order to define Turkish managers’ and organizations’ characteristics. . Chatman and Caldwell (1991). hypocrisy. it can clearly be seen that of the total 58 values. TWMP values and their dictionary meanings can be seen in Tables 1 & 2.Hypocrite work mentality derives from both the past collective subconsciousness and the today’s economic development level. 3) Western values that was expressed in the studies of O’Reilly. two criteria as sectoral difference and private/public sector distinction were also taken into consideration while choosing samples. SAMPLE Sample of the study consists of 326 people that lives in İzmir and surroundings and has been working for at least 1 year. When the table is examined. extravagance. factionalism and negative loaded factors such as integrity. 2002) in order to define the Turkish society’s work mentality between the Ottoman Period (1300-1900). 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. Even though there can be values that fall in to both groups.. 2) A broad historical analysis of 110 books (Aldemir vd. This value profile has three sources. organizational and individual levels. This dimension consists of materialism.
groups and institutions without a real and continuous loyalty Being inconsistent in words and actions. groups and institutions without fear. acting in hypocrite way at work Only thinking about one’s own interests at work Working dependendently upon the power of the people. being unable to act by his/herself Prioritizing the family needs and wants at work Considering the nation’s and country’s 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 one’s own belief system and prioritizing them Protecting and looking after certain people. groups and institutions. 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 Valuing artificial behaviors and arrangements in order to impress others at work Obeying orders Spending unnecessary money.TABLE-1 LOCAL VALUES THAT FORM THE VALUE PROFILE AND THEIR SOURCES (Historical Analysis. 2000) VALUE Integrity Rigidity Centralism Loyalty Emotionality Fatalism Favoritism Opressiveness Modesty Traditionalist Daily Horizon Knowing One’s Limitations Contented Continuity Working in the best possible way Trust DESCRIPTION Being true in one’s 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 and sacrificing the others at work Dominating and ruling other at work Being modest at work Working according to the cultural habits. 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 job’s requirements Working with 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. 1997. 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 people’s goals and intentions at work .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 one’s own position. time and etc. values.. Aldemir vd.. Arbak vd.
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. skill and ability at work . material and similar things at work Giving importance to knowledge. Aldemir vd. group and instutions that have similar work objectives Collaborating with people. Being tolerant to everything at work. 1991 . 2000) Tanımı Değer Tanımı Respectability Tolerance A Willingness to Experiment Consensus Enterprising Being in an effort to be a respectable and trustable person at work..TABLE-2 Western Values of the Value Profile (O’Reilly vd.Arbak vd. Having the power to decide the things at work Giving importance to money. 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 individual’s rights because of the work Being able to see the future outcomes while working Desiring to reach the work’s 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. 1997. 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 Individual’s 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.
When the sectoral distribution (Table 3) is examined.3 11. vd.5 %) in the sample comes from the public sector. education.. Public/private Sector Distinction: Previous studies shows that there is a significant difference between cultural characteristics of the public and private sector organizations. computer firms.).1 %) and foreign partner-private organizations (7.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.5 37.4 .7 9.2 19. As a result of this second criterion of the sample selection is public-private sector distinction.1 7. 2000).3 %).4% of the sample comes from the large-scaled companies that have 500 or more than 500 workers.2 10. production sector follows this. consultancy. vd.0 40. it can be seen that majority of the sample comes form service (hospital.2 55. 1997. Aldemir.2 19. and in public organizations local values are more dominant(Arbak. 40. the remaining half consists of private organizations (37.2 5. and the remaining groups are domestic and international trade and sectors other than these 4 main sectors(such as artistic activities). military institutions. More than half of the people (55.4 67. etc. 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.
6 29.2 %) spend their first 15 years in different regions of Turkey(32 different cities).6 % of the study sees themselves in the middle social class.0 18.2 21.2% of the sample has education in social branches and 21.0 6.2 6. When the age groups are examined. Majority of the sample consists of people having at least university education (79.8 % in the upper-middle social class and 6. 46.8 6.7 44.2 7.4 54.4 46.7 69. 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 % 52.2 .2 2.0 10.7 %) and the 44.0 48.7 1. % in the lower-middle class.8 51.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 İzmir Other * The answers with no respondent percentages aren’t given in the table.2 9.8 %) lived their first 15 years in İzmir.9 % of the sample are women.3 17. Majority of the sample consists of people that has lived their first 15 years in the city centrum(73. 29. the other half of the sample (51.9 14.3%).8 5. 46. About the half of the sample (48.1 % of the sample are men. TABLE 4.8 % has education in scientific branches. 54.1 46.4.6% of the study comes from 26-35 group and 28.8 5.Demographic characteristics of the sample of the study can be seen in Table 4.2% comes from the 36-45 group. When we look at the gender of the participants we see that 52.6 28.5 73.
in the second part 58 valued TWMP. the relations between the western and local value dimensions were examined. . organizational level and individual level.1978. The main assumption at this point is according to the historical dilemma local and western values forms different dimensions. 5-Item Likert scale is uses in the study and value 1 shows a value that doesn’t represent work mentality and value 5 shows a value that is exact representation of the work mentality. questions for defining demographic characteristics and institution characteristics are asked. ANALYSIS In order to test the structural validity of the value profile. According to the assumptions of the study. MacCallum and Tai.QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire consists of two main parts. observations being more than 250. 1986). one of the most common methods of the similar studies. 1:3-1:6). 1974-1:5. Cattel. In the correlational analysis. People are asked the representativeness of work mentality value on the regional level. variable to observation ratio is 1:6. main components analysis was used as the factor model and oblique rotation model was used in order to clarify the factor dimensions distinctions. was used (Ford. In the first part. This ratio is a sufficient ratio for factor analysis validity (Gorsuch. factor analysis. While evaluating factor analysis.40 and more were taken into consideration and in making this analysis SPSS 11 was used. Rogers and Catell. 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. Under each TWMP value there is a dictionary definition of the value. factors having . 1982). local and western values dimensions shall be positively loaded among their own value groups and negatively loaded in comparison with other value group. In the study. In the studies.
The internal consistency coefficient for the factor dimension is .0001) values sample and correlation matrix has the appropriate characteristics for factor analysis.63.85. Factor IV consists of 9 values that are all but one (materialism) western values.4 % of the total variance. These 4 factors explain the 40. status oriented. Factor III that consists of 8 values explain the 4. All of the dimensions in this group except two lowest factor values (consensus. Factor I consists of 22 values. As a result of the factor analysis according to the criteria above the appropriate factor number is 4. mystic and hypocrite.6 % of the total variance and the internal consistency coefficient is . it is within the acceptable limits.67. Even though this internal consistency value isn’t high. the internal consistency coefficient of the 13 values is high (. All of these values except one (rules oriented) are local values. Factor II that explains the 6.6 % of the total variance.93).4 % of the total variance. This factor dimension explains the 25. The factor dimension explains the 3. As a result of the factor analysis organizational level work mentality is defined by 46 out of 58 TWMP values. As a result factor I describes the western work mentality and factors II-III and IV describes the 3 local work mentality values dimensions. 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).7 % of the total variance consists of 7 values. All the values in this group except one (working in the best possible way) are western values.911) and BTS (7343. . 25 of these values are western and 21 are local. According to KMO(. The internal consistency for the dimension is . intuititiveness) are local values.5-p=.FINDINGS The findings of the factor analysis can be seen in Table 5.
66 .66 .57 .67 .52 .44 .5 .56 .42 -.51 .56 .62 .49 -.911 BTS = 7343.56 .46 .56 .60 .67 .53 -.48 .73 .45 .5 sd=1653 p= .68 .58 -.56 -.85 Variance 25.49 .54 .6 .62 -.45 .6 6.68 .7 Alpha .52 .54 .51 .66 . W= western 4.58 .0001 * Source classification according to Table 1 and Table 2 .71 .43 3. L= local .54 -.43 .63 .52 -.91 .63 KMO = .63 .49 -.41 FACTOR II FACTOR III FACTOR IV .58 .67 .TABLE 5-RESULTS of FACTOR ANALYSIS DEĞER 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 .66 .62 .
CONCLUSION In order to examine the relations between factor dimensions. TABLE 6. The positive relation of western values and the local value centralist work mentality dimension is an exception to this dilemmatic structure.68 . The findings are parallel to the previous study at the regional level (Aldemir vd.01 *** p <. Examination of the correlation analysis results study’s only western values dimension.17** Partial correlation coefficients obtained by controlling for the length of person’s work life.. N=231 p <. we made a correlation analysis whose results can be seen on Table 6.65 2.. The causes of this relation need further attention in future studies.79 S . 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. CORRELATION ANALYSIS RESULTSa Factor Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV a Source W L L L X 3.05 p <. This study furthered the examination of the TWMP to the organizational level.62*** .34*** . 2003) and shows .58 . Meanwhile the negative relation between western values and hypocrite and mystic work values shows the contradictory of this dual structure.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.78 2. This positive relation indicates a harmony between the status-oriented work mentality and western values. factor I is in relation with local values dimensions as factor II and factor IV.02 .04 .62 .57 3.14* -.84 1 2 3 .
which was derived as a result of emic approach and studies. The further usage of this profile will overcome this matter.the role of cultural subconsciousness in the Turkish culture and dilemmatic structure of Turkish work mentality. remains the main constraint of the study. The structural validity of TWMP. 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 mentality’s today. . As it is mentioned at the beginning.
C. MacCallum R. Ö zmen. 18: 791-837. Katrinli A. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. 5-28. Arbak. Educational and Psychological Measurement.. S. & Tait M. (1958)Extracting The Correct Number of Factors in Factor Analysis. İmge Kitabevi: Ankara..M. 39: 291-314. Ö zmen Ö . Aldemir C. Brom. Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration. Tarih Vakfı Yayınları: İstanbul.. Y. and Quinn.J. Addison-Wesley Pub. 3(1).L. Ö zmen.E..J. Ö .. Bozdoğan. K. (2003) Türkiye’de İşgörme Anlayışı: Tanımı ve Boyutları Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi. Sarmal Yayınevi: İstanbul. Y. Kesken J. Sackman ed.. Ö .BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldemir. Yayınlanmamış Çalışma. Bahadır.(2000) Impact of Western Management Values upon Turkish Organizations.J..P. O.R.: New York. Personel Psychology . İşletme Fakültesi:İzmir. (1999) Diagnosing and changing organizational culture.... Finland. (1993) Sosyal Psikoloji.(2002) Türk Yönetim Değerlerinin Tarihsel Kökenleri.L. Y. Cameron. 87-103. 16th Egos Colloquium.(1998) Türkiye’de Modernleşme ve Ulusal Kimlik . Freedman . and Carlsmith. (1963) Sociology: A Text with Adapted Readings. Cattell R.O. Sonja A..(1986) An Application of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology : A Critical Review and Analysis . C. . C. . Arbak Y. Ö zmen. Ford K. C.: New York.(1997) Perceptual Study of Turkish Managers’ and Organizations’ Characteristics: Contrast and Contradictions” In Cultural Complexity in Organizations . and Selznick.Harper and Row Pub. and Kasaba. . R. Arbak. Ö . Sears. & İshakoğlu G. Aldemir.S. Arbak. (1996) Osmanlılar’da Bilim.. D. Aldemir. Sage Publications .
Page:62. Multivariate Behavioral Research .. (2001) Gelenekten Geleceğe. Der Yayınları: . S.B. Sargut. Nunnaly J. 1996. İstanbul Ü sdiken. Chatman J. Hil Yayınları: İstanbul. Robbins. (2001) Kültürler Arası Farklılaşma ve Yönetim. (1999) “Importers of Managerial Ideas: Turkish Academia Before and After the Second World War” Paper at the Sixth Academy of Management Annual Meeting: Chicago.P. İ. & Catell R..W:B: Saunders: Philadelphia Hakstian A. Caldwell DF. Academy of Management Journal . (1978) Psychometric Theory. (2000) Organizational Behavior. Human Relations.L. (1981a) İktisadi Çözülmenin Ahlak Ve Zihniyet Dünyası.S. 17 : 193-219. ve Furnham A. S.. McGraw-Hill:New York. A Correlational and Factor Analytic Study of Four Questionnaire Measures of Organizational Culture. Ufuk Kitapları: İstanbul. T. S.F. Cem Basımevi: İstanbul. (1981b) İslam. (1982) The Behavior of Number of Factors Rules With Simulated Data.T. Xenikou A. Timur. İmge Kitabevi: İstanbul. Pan Yayıncılık:İstanbul. Ortaylı. O’Reilly CA. Rogers W.R. Kağıtçıbaşı .F. (2000) Osmanlı Toplumunda Aile. 487-516. Ülgener. A.Gorsuch R. 34 . (1988) İnsan ve İnsanlar. (1991). B. Prentice-Hall. 3. (1998) Osmanlı Kimliği. “People and organizational culture : A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit ”.C. Ü lgener. Ortaylı. (1951) İktisadi İntihat Tarihimizin Ahlak ve Zihniyet Meseleleri. Der Yayınları: İstanbul.. S. (1974) Factor Analysis. Tasavvuf ve Çözülme Devri İktisat Ahlakı.Ç.F. Ü lgener. İsmail Akgün Matbaası: İstanbul. I..Inc. 49 (3): 349-371.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.