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
Top Related