Introduction

With the Western world becoming more and more

multicultural and globalization is showing its effects on the

corporate world, while the companies transitioning from

national to international, and further to global identities,

one major concern appeared to be working within the company

together with people from different cultural origins. The

challenge here is that for a company to understand and adapt

solutions for the new multicultural environment. The first

step to understand people from different cultures is to

understand their world view, and the mostly dominant Euro-

American culture needed at some point to create tools to

create this understanding.

Corporate and economic motivation is of course one of the

parameters, but this point is no different in the way it needs

to be thoroughly investigated by the anthropologists. In

brief, cross-culture methods help understanding the core

assumptions of a different culture, and by this guides us to

visualize how other cultures are different from the each

other. Using these cross-culture methods I aim to release the

most suitable management style for societies in this essay.

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation Theory

The journey to explore the fundamental values of different

cultures started on 1940’s with two anthropologists Florence &

Clyde Kluckhohn and Frederick Strodtbeck. The theoretical

approach of human values created by Clyde Kluckhohn are put

into action by his wife Florence Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck and

this operationalization of the concept has been one of the

most influential of all times.

The hypothesis was "...there are a limited number of

common human problems for which all societies at all times

must find some solution...How a group is predisposed to

understand, give meaning to, and solve these common problems

is an outward manifestation of its innermost values, its

window on the world: its value orientation." (1). It proposes

that from the limited number of universal problems, there is a

limited number of value based solutions that are universally

known; what makes the difference among different cultures is

their preferences and the rank order of the these preferences

gives to that specific culture its character.

The team proposes that the way different cultures respond

to “5 common human concerns” (to be explained below), will

distinguish it from the others. Although these concerns are

not the only ones, they are the essentials to put light to

cultural differences. For these fundamental questions, there

are at least 3 ways that each culture would respond and all

cultures would have all 3 responses; what makes the difference

is the rank order of the responses. What is called as “value

orientations” are the responses to 5 concerns?

5 different types of problem to be questioned by each

society can be summarized as below:

“On what aspect of time should we primarily focus –

past, present or future?

What is the relationship between Humanity and its

natural environment – mastery, submission or harmony?

How should individuals relate with others –

hierarchically (which they called "Lineal"), as

equals ("Collateral"), or according to their

individual merit?

What is the prime motivation for behavior – to

express one's self ("Being"), to grow ("Being-in-

becoming"), or to achieve?

What is the nature of human nature – good, bad

("Evil") or a mixture?” (2)

The sixth value dimension proposed by Kluckhohn and

Strodtbeck was Space and the responses were “Here, There

and Far Away” but this discussion was limited and was not

further discovered.

Table below shows the five questions and orientations

with descriptions

Table 1. Four basic questions and the value orientations

reflected in their answers. (2)

Question Orientation DescriptionTime Past We focus on the past (the time before

now), and on preserving and maintaining

traditional teachings and beliefs. Present We focus on the present (what is now),

and on accommodating changes in beliefs

and traditions.Future We focus on the future (the time to

come), planning ahead, and seeking new

ways to replace the old.Humanity

and

Natural

Environmen

t

Mastery We can and should exercise total control

over the forces of, and in, nature and

the super-natural

Harmonious We can and should exercise partial but

not total control by living in a balance

with the natural forces Submissive We cannot and should not exercise

control over natural forces but, rather,

are subject to the higher power of these

forces. Relating Hierarchical Emphasis on hierarchical principles and

to other

people

(“Lineal”) deferring to higher authority or

authorities within the group As equals

(“Collateral”

)

Emphasis on consensus within the

extended group of equals

Individualist

ic

Emphasis on the individual or individual

families within the group who make

decisions independently from others Motive for

behaving

Being Our motivation is internal, emphasizing

activity valued by our self but not

necessarily by others in the group Being-in-

becoming

Motivation is to develop and grow in

abilities which are valued by us,

although not necessarily by othersAchievement

(“Doing”)

Our motivation is external to us,

emphasizing activity that is both valued

by ourselves and is approved by others

in our group.

Table 2. Orientations possible in answering the question on

the Nature of Human Nature. (2)

Question Orientation DescriptionNature of Human

Nature

evil/mutable Born evil, but can learn to be

good. However danger of

regression always present.

evil/immutable Born evil and incapable of

being changed. Therefore

requires salvation by an

external force.mixture/

mutable

Has both good and bad traits,

but can learn to be either

better or worse.mixture/

immutable

Has both good and bad traits,

and their profile cannot be

changedneutral/

mutable

Born neither good nor bad, but

can learn both good and bad

traitsneutral/

immutable

Born neither good nor bad, and

this profile cannot be changedgood/mutable Basically good, but subject to

corruptiongood/immutable Basically good, and will

always remain so.

Concluding the responses to each question, Kluckhohn and

Strodtbeck argued that the preferred answer in the society

reflects its orientation and differentiates it from others.

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theory is proved successful in

many cases where it helped societies understand key cultural

characteristics of other societies or groups they are

interacting with. Understanding of traditions, basic motives

beneath behaviors, accepted modes of decision making

processes, intra-cultural dynamics affecting the process, i.e.

understanding the world view of the counterpart helped taking

right strategic & economic decisions and improving

relationships.

Another practical application of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck

theory also made it possible to understand the change of the

cultural mores through a period of time due to major external

factors acting on the society.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

From Hofstede’s point of view, culture is the total of

hidden rules that tells us how to be a good member of the

group we are part of, and these unwritten rules differ from

one group to another. The success for each group, individually

or together, lies on the good cooperation across the cultures.

Just like the human being, human culture has been undergoing

evolution for thousands of years. Culture is acquired through

familial and social interactions, on top of it built brick by

brick in interaction with our surroundings and developed step

by step. It is affected by object and people around, and

affects them throughout the process. It is what enables a

group to function smoothly.

Hofstede define its values as "broad preferences for one

state of affairs over others" and claim them to be

unconscious. His work first concentrated on four first

dimensions, i.e. Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance,

Individualism and Masculinity.

Power Distance: this value is the extent of unequal power

distribution among the society defined by the less powerful.

Uncertainty Avoidance: this defines how the society copes

with the ambiguous, new and unexpected situations. Those

avoiding uncertainty tend to set more strict rules to keep

things going in the known direction, while the opposite type

societies are more open to parallel opinions and try to keep

few rules.

Individualism vs. collectivism: this defines the strength

of bonds between members of the society. Societies close to

individualism expect the members to take of themselves whereas

those close to collectivism expect other members’ support in

self-reliance.

Masculinity vs Femininity: while the masculinity imposes

competition in the society, femininity empowers consensus by

cooperation

Later on, 2 more values added to 4 fundamental values as

follows:

Pragmatic vs. Normative: the pragmatic oriented societies

do not try to understand all the aspects of the life,

believing that there is a necessity of adaptation to the

circumstances. In contrast, normative oriented are in search

of an absolute truth trying to explain as much as possible

Indulgence vs Restraint: “Indulgence stands for a society

that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural

human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. 

Restraint stands for a society that suppresses gratification

of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms.”

(3).

Above mentioned 6 dimensions let us compare societies to

societies and hence country scores are relative to each other.

They also let us understand common civilization roots of

different societies of our days. Latin nations share the

dimensional scores from Roman roots, whereas eastern Asian

countries from Chinese ones, although in some cases it may

remain speculative.

Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner’s Dilemma Theory

Trompenaars defines culture as the way a human group acts

to solve problems they face. Starting from 3 basics that are

relationships among members of the society, time and

environment, taking Hofstede’s work as reference and modifying

it together with Hampden-Turner, he defines 7 dimensions of

culture using questions that answer the dilemmas of daily life

as below:

- Universalism vs. Particularism: which one are more

important, standards & rules or human relationships?

- Individualism vs. Communitarianism: is the society

functioning as individuals or as a group

- Affective vs. Neutral: should the emotions be shown or

hidden?

- Specific vs. Diffuse: shall we tackle things starting

from smallest details, or try to see it as a whole?

- Achievement vs. Ascription: do we earn status by

performance, or is it given to us?

- Sequential vs. Synchronic: do we proceed on things one

at a time or manage to handle many at once?

- Internal vs. External Control: do we control our

environment or does it control us?

GLOBE Project

The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior

Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program was initiated by Robert

J House of University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of

Business in 1991. The objective of this study focuses on

understanding the question of how cultures are similar

to/different from each other in terms of their values and how

this similarities/differences affects the leadership

effectiveness. GLOBE concentrates on societies instead of

nations, for example in a country where there is a separation

of societies speaking different languages or there is a

specific separation of racial origin (White culture or Black

culture) or a separation on the traditional governance style,

GLOBE focuses on sub groups with the specific traits.

To understand above mentioned question, House builds his

system on the findings of his precedents and creates 9

cultural dimensions to visualize the similarities and

differences of societies’ values. While doing this, House uses

the data collected from more than 17k managers across almost

one thousand societies from 58 countries dispersed in a wide

range of activities. He does not limit himself to societal

values, but also grasps the cultural characteristics that

define the most effective leaders.

“Power Distance: The degree to which members of a

collective expect power to be distributed equally.

Uncertainty Avoidance: The extent to which a society,

organization, or group relies on social norms, rules, and

procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events.

Humane Orientation: The degree to which a collective

encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic,

generous, caring, and kind to others.

Collectivism I: (Institutional) The degree to which

organizational and societal institutional practices encourage

and reward collective distribution of resources and collective

action.

Collectivism II: (In-Group) The degree to which

individuals expresses pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in

their organizations or families.

Assertiveness: The degree to which individuals are

assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their

relationships with others.

Gender Egalitarianism: The degree to which a collective

minimizes gender inequality.

Future Orientation: The extent to which individuals engage

in future-oriented behaviors such as delaying gratification,

planning, and investing in the future.

Performance Orientation: The degree to which a collective

encourages and rewards group members for performance

improvement and excellence.” (4)

Above list of cultural dimensions allows GLOBE to group

countries in a circular classification as seen in the figure

below.

Figure 1: Country Clusters According to GLOBE Source (4)

Countries in the same chart pie share the highest

similarities, and further a group of countries is further from

the compared one, their differences increases. For example

while Middle East group countries of Morocco, Turkey, Kuwait,

Egypt and Qatar share the most similarities, the group they

are the most different from is Anglo countries such as USA,

Canada etc.

Another finding of the GLOBE project is how the

“Outstanding Leader” is differentiated among different

cultures. The idea behind is that from the early societal

interactions and experiences from previous leaders, the

characteristics defining the effective (or outstanding) leader

are coded in values of the culture. GLOBE than ranks the 21

leadership scales on a scale of 7 from the most contributing

(Integrity 6.07) to the most inhibiting (Malevolent 1.80)

globally. Later these 21 scales are reduced to six styles that

are pointed with the same scale for each country and a

detailed list was created. Although the first 2 being

Charismatic and Team Oriented contributes the most for being

an outstanding leader, difference in cultures comes from

remaining four styles being Self Protective, Participative,

Humane Oriented and Autonomous.

Comparison & Contrasts

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation Theory can

be considered as the scientific basis of cross- cultural

studies following it and other models are developed on this

theory by modifying dimensions as necessary to understand the

cultural aspects of nations or societies.

While above three studies may share similar content on

some aspects, there are also differences and different aspects

of research methodologies that separates them. One of the

first striking points that differentiate the work from the 3

groups is the questioned target audience: while Hofstede

mostly questions employees whom turn out to be giving results

that allow seeing the followers’ point, GLOBE targets middle

management class that enables to see both aspects of

hierarchy. Hofstede’s effort is also a 1 person research based

on an employee interview style from 1 company among many

countries, whereas 2 others are using a more global approach

questioning management level in a variety of sectors from a

range of companies wider than that Hofstede’s, supported by a

team of researchers adding theoretical and methodological

advancements. On the contrary to Hofstede’s model, GLOBE

project uses the culture cluster and in-countries instead of

just country. Despite they use different ways to classify

cultures; some of cultural dimensions have similarity.

Hofstede and Trompenaars differences appear first on the

focus orientation of 2 models. While Hofstede is trying to

explain the cultural background of the societies so that we

can forecast their behavior based on the deep insights of the

cultures, Trompenaars puts emphasis on the surface explaining

and showing the choice.

GLOBE project corresponds to contemporary needs adding the

behavior of leadership and management people ideas to the

cross- culture model.

Using Hofstede’s Model

While we are talking about cultural dimension of

Hofstede’s, we should remember that: “statements about just one

culture on the level of “values” do not describe

“reality”; such statements are generalizations and they ought

to be relative” (5). We can have experience some differences

between society and individuals. Despite differences between

an individual and large part of society, the score of

generality is used as the dimension of country in Hofstede’s

cultural dimension model.

Power Distance, one of the cultural dimensions, is related

to accept the power and hierarchical structure. People in

societies exhibiting a large degree of power distance accept a

hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which

needs no further justification.” (6). In society with high

power distance, people do not make a big effort to balance the

inequalities of power and tend to be accepting the

inequalities without a reason. Additionally people are not

concerned about the distribution of power.

Turkey’s score of 66 is a high score on power distance

dimension which gives an idea about the hierarchical

characteristic of Turkish society. Additionally from

hierarchical characteristic, we can observe the dependent

feature. Women are often legally and economically dependent on

men in the Turkish society. In families, a father is patriarch

of family who is respected and obeyed as a powerful figure.

Related to unattainability of superiors, military was

also powerful in the country. However, military has lost power

in changing with political balances in recent years. Despite

this changing in political environment, for someone to do

military service maintains its importance in society.

Instead of direct communication, the indirect

communication is prevalent. Centralized management approach

preponderates in working life and the power is not separated.

Father figure is also found acceptable as an ideal boss. In

order to work correctly and succeed, managers follow the rules

of boss and depend on their boss. To be said what to do is a

usual and anticipated situation for employees.

Despite social- economic changes in Turkey, values are

protected in working life. “The main question is whether

political and social change in a country leads to a change in

power distance relationships at work or whether underlying

values such as power distance prevail over time. The present

study shows that, despite the fact that the countries involved

have made enormous efforts to adapt to the Western market

economy, local cultural values still play an important role.

This is equally true for countries that changed their

political orientation relatively recently (within the past two

decades: Belarus and Uzbekistan), and for a country that had

already changed its political system more than 80 years ago

(Turkey)” (7).

Individualism dimension is related to a degree of

depending on each other. A society's position on this

dimension is reflected in whether people’s self-image is

defined in terms of “I” or “we.” (6). If a society has low

score on this dimension, it will be called collectivist

society. In a collectivist society people do not assume that

to take care of themselves and their direct family only. In

the meantime, they are tied to in groups.

Hofstede’s results show that Turkey’s score is 37 on this

dimension and Turkish society is called a collectivistic

society. People attach importance to “We” and take care of

themselves who are in the groups (families, organizations)

with a loyalty in Turkey. To sustain the rapport of group,

people abstain from overt conflict. Besides this, indirect

communication is preferred and the feedback is always given

indirectly. The rapport of group is more important than

individual ideas of a group member. We can also observe the

nepotism in business environment and family ties are

also powerful.

Regarding third dimension masculinity, high score on this

dimension is referred to masculine and low score on this

dimension is referred to feminine. We should remember that

“The fundamental issue here is what motivates people, wanting

to be the best (masculine) or liking what you do (feminine).”

(6).

Turkey with 45 score is indicated a feminine part of the

scale. Taking care of other people and quality of life are

important and distinct values for Turkish society. At the same

time cooperation, consensus, fellowship, and caring for the

weak have a place in the society. Elderly care is usually done

by families and people respect the other adults who are taking

care of their own parents.

On the contrary of family life, we can have some

experience about the people who are more ambitious and result

oriented than other people in business life. Nowadays, with

the effects of globalization the results of Hofstede’s model

changes for business life, we cannot observe the feminine

dimension because Turkish society becomes more competitive in

business life. Still leisure time is valuable for Turkish

people; people like to come together with their family and

relatives. Turkish people spend quality time together with

their family and friends and enjoy life.

Uncertainty avoidance cultural dimension explains what a

society does against uncertainty and ambiguity. Ambiguity and

uncertainty cause the anxiety in society and different

cultures have different solutions. “The extent to which the

members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown

situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try

to avoid these is reflected in the Uncertainty Avoidances

Index score.” (6).

The score of 85 is a high score which means that if the

society faces an ambiguous situation, it causes a chaos in

society. In Turkish society, people with high uncertainty

avoidance have the tendency to be more sensitive and

stressful. To avoid the anxiety, laws and rules are required

extensively. People also have different rituals to ease and to

relax. Although the source of these rituals might seem to be

religious, they are in fact social and cultural.

The family life is also affected by uncertainty avoidance.

Besides a lot of rules; tendency of rigid gender roles are

observed in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance.

Pragmatism, one of the cultural dimensions, represents

“how people in the past as well as today relate to the fact

that so much that happens around us cannot be explained.” (6).

Score of 46 is a middle level on the scale, so Turkey’s score

is not allowed to estimate that the society is in normative

orientation or pragmatic orientation. Because of intermediate

score, cultural predilection cannot judge effectively.

Indulgence, the last dimension, is described as the

degree to which people strive to manage their strong wishes

and passions. We can define the indulgence as a poor control

and comparatively strong control is defined restraint.

Cultures can be explained as indulgent or restrained according

to degree of control. Turkey's middle level score of 49 is not

adequate to make a decision for Turkey

While starting to explain my home culture with GLOBE

model, I would like to remind some information about the GLOBE

project. In GLOBE project, the clusters are used to separate

and classify the inter-countries. “Cultural similarity is

greatest among societies that constitute a cluster; cultural

difference increases the farther clusters are apart”(4).

Using GLOBE Model

According to GLOBE project, Turkey is in Middle Eastern

cluster with Kuwait, Egypt, Morocco and Qatar. As mentioned

in Table 1, Turkey is above average on power distance with 10th

rank. Morocco also is the highest inter-country which is in

Middle Eastern cluster like Turkey. Secondly, Turkey is also

above average on in-group collectivism. However, in terms of

societal collectivism ranking is different from in-group

collectivism and lower than the world mean. According to GLOBE

study, they are definitely different cultural dimensions.

Performance orientation, future orientation, gender

egalitarianism, humane orientation, uncertainty avoidance

cultural dimensions are lower than world average for Turkey.

Related with GLOBE project, it is indicated that in-group

collectivism and power distance are characteristic cultural

dimensions for Turkish society. Turkey is also below on

assertiveness average which gives an idea about conflicts and

confrontational attitudes in Turkey.

Regarding to gender egalitarianism cultural dimension,

Turkey has also a lower ranking as 56th inter-country among

the all of societies. By the way, South Korea is the lowest

inter-country on gender egalitarianism which is in Confucian

cluster. Confucian is the one of the closer cluster for Middle

Eastern and they are also shown similarities like the ranking

of gender egalitarianism dimension.

Table 3. Societal Culture "Is Now" Values for Turkey and

Inter-Country Rankings (8)

 

Turkey

(Rank)

Highest

(country)

Lowest

(country

)

World

Mean

Performance Orientation3,83

(45)

4,94

(Switzerl

and)

3,20

(Greece)4,07

Future Orientation3,74

(36)

5,07

(Singapor

e)

2,88

(Russia)3,83

Assertiveness4,53

(12)

4,80

(Albania)

3,38

(Sweden)4,13

Collectivism I: Societal

Emphasis

4,03

(42)

5,22

(Sweden)

3,25

(Greece)4,23

Gender Egalitarianism2,89

(56)

4,08

(Hungary)

2,50

(South

Korea)

3,38

Humane Orientation3,94

(37)

5,23

(Zambia)

3,18

(Germany

-W)

4,07

Power Distance5,57

(10)

5,80

(Morocco)

3,89

(Denmark

)

5,1

Collectivism II: In-Group Coll.5,88

(4)

6,36

(Philippi

nes)

3,53

(Denmark

)

5,08

Uncertainty Avoidance3,63

(49)

5,37

(Switzerl

and)

2,88

(Russia)4,16

Means range from 1 to 7 where 1=low

7=High

Gender egalitarianism ranking is related to Turkish

culture’s patriarchal characteristic. Despites non-

governmental organizations are working on woman rights and

awareness of gender egalitarianism in recent years, gender

egalitarianism is still low because of the family and

population policies of current government causing not to give

enough opportunity to woman in business life in Turkey.

Related to future orientation, Turkey is below average

with 36th ranking. It is showed that the society is not good at

making long- term plans and forecasts and having a long-term

viewpoint. Believing in fate and destiny which are observed in

Islamic countries as cultural aspect affects the society and

the effect of the cultural belief shows up the low future

orientation in Turkey like other Middle Eastern nations. As a

distinct from other Middle Eastern nations, Turkey’s state is

based on principles of Kemalism which offers to separate the

religious and state; and the Turkish Republic is governed by

secular rules which are adapted from West. In other words, the

religious rules are not applied in the running of state.

Considering GLOBE project, in Turkish society, the ideal

leader behaviors are being relationship orientated, task

orientated, participative, charismatic and paternalistic.

“Hierarchical- autocratic leadership behavior is found to be

the most frequently observed leadership behavior, followed by

paternalistic-considerate, transactional-team oriented, and

laissez-faire leadership behavior in Turkey.” (8).

Comparison & Contrasts

Power distance and uncertainty avoidance cultural dimensions

are used in both of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and GLOBE

project; and Turkey’s score is high as 66 (Hofstede’s) and 10th

ranking (GLOBE). Turkish society shows the characteristic

feature of a society which has higher score on power distance

dimension as I mentioned above. Contrarily to Hofstede’s

cultural dimensions, the GLOBE project explain the

collectivism with two different parts like Collectivism I:

Societal Emphasis and Collectivisms II: In-Group Collectivism.

In my opinion, the Hofstede’s Individualism cultural dimension

is not enough to explain the Turkish society’s cultural

attitudes. Although it is a very collectivist society, while

we are talking about “collective distribution of resources and

collective action”(9) institutions could not make common cause

with each other. Considering GLOBE project, Turkey’s most

characteristic features is to be a collectivist society.

However, Turkey is below average on Collectivism I: Societal

Emphasis dimension as the 42th ranking. GLOBE project have some

similarities such as some cultural dimensions. Additionally,

GLOBE project helps to understand and compare the cultures

giving more details and using nine cultural dimensions.

Conclusion

After observing Turkish culture by using the Hofstede’s

model and GLOBE model, I have an idea about how I prefer to be

managed. Because of high power distance and low uncertainty

avoidance, the management styles should include rules and

directions. Additionally, the most dominant feature of the

Turkish societal culture is in-group collectivism which offers

loyalty and harmony in organizations or families. At the same

time an ideal leader should be paternalistic, relationship

oriented and charismatic according to GLOBE project.

Considering all these points, Paternalistic Management

style is preferred for Turkish society. The Paternalistic

Management style is similar with Autocratic Management style

in the aspect of having a strong leader figure that makes the

decisions for his subordinates and expects them to obey these

decisions. Different than the Autocratic style, Paternalistic

leader takes into account his employees’ needs, takes the

decisions accordingly and creates the feeling of belonging

among them.

Finally, researching and making critics about four

different culture models I have a good understanding about the

culture and cross- culture models. Using this knowledge in the

light of Hofstede’s model and GLOBE’s model I conclude that

for my home culture, Turkish culture, the most appropriate

management style is the Paternalistic Management style.

REFERENCES

(1) Gallagher, Tom. 2001. Understanding Other Cultures :

The Value Orientations Method. Presented at the

Association of Leadership Educators Conference,

Minneapolis, MN

(2) D. Hills, Michael. 2002. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's

Values Orientation Theory. In: Online Readings in

Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 3:

The Berkeley Electronic Press

(3) http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html

(4) H. Hoppe, Michael. 2007. Culture and Leader

Effectiveness: The GLOBE Study

http://www.inspireimagineinnovate.com/PDF/GLOBEsummary-

by-Michael-H-Hoppe.pdf

(5) http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html

(6) http://geert-hofstede.com/turkey.html

(7) Daller, Helmut and Yildiz, Cemal. 2006. Power

distance at work: The cases of Turkey, successor states

of the former Soviet Union and Western Europe.  Journal

of Politeness Research Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 35-53

(8) Pasa, Fikret S., Kabasakal, Hayat and Bodur, Hayat.

2001. Society, Organisations, and Leadership in Turkey.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 (4),

Pages 559-589

(9) Kabasakal, Hayat, and Dastmalchian, Ali. 2001.

Introduction to the Special Issue on Leadership and

Culture in the Middle East. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 50 (4), Pages 479-488