Organizational culture of Turkish contracting firms

Ela Oney-Yazıcı
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey (email: oneyel@itu.edu.tr)
Heyecan Giritli
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey (email: giritli@itu.edu.tr)
Gulfer Topcu-Oraz
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey (email: oraz@itu.edu.tr)
Emrah Acar
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey (email: acare@itu.edu.tr)

Abstract

Construction is an important part of global economy affected by and affecting all parts of
the globe. However, little is known about the specific characteristics of the construction
industry’s culture and how it differs between countries. Such comparisons are critical
because there is considerable evidence of increasing internationalization and globalization
in construction business. It is a well known fact that international contracting firms have
faced many problems due to conflicts, confrontations, and the differences in ways of doing
business with other cultures. Thus, the study of cultural issues appears warranted.

This paper reports part of the study performed within a major research project which has
been carried out in collaboration with CIB TG-23 “Culture in Construction”. One of the
aims of this exploratory study is to measure the organizational cultures of contracting firms
within the context of the Turkish Construction Industry. In the study, Cameron and Quinn’s
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) was used to diagnose organizational
culture of the contracting firms. A total of 723 professional from 107 firms rated their own
organization’s culture. The results provide empirical evidence of organizational culture of
the contracting firms in Turkish Construction Industry.

Keywords: organizational culture, OCAI, Turkey, contracting firms

1. Introduction

The number of research studies focusing on the organizational culture in the Construction
Management (CM) field is increasing steadily, however, Ankrah and Langford [1] mentions
that the concept of organizational culture is only now beginning to attract interest. The main

1
reasons for the growing concern can be explained by the internationalization of the
construction markets [2], and the fragmented nature of the industry [3]. It is a well known
fact that international construction firms have faced many problems due to conflicts,
confrontations, misunderstandings, and the differences in ways of doing business with other
cultures [4]. On the other hand, the adversarial relations between different project
participants are assumed to be influenced by the cultural orientations of the stakeholders
[5]. Thus, the study of cultural issues appears warranted.

Despite the substantial amount of research demonstrating the importance of cultural issues
in the construction industry [1] [6] [7] [8] [9], this young and relatively immature literature,
where the level of theoretical abstraction is yet very low [10], is far from addressing all
dimensions of the issue.

This paper reports part of the study performed within a major research project which has
been carried out in collaboration with CIB TG-23 “Culture in Construction”. The main
stimulus of this exploratory study is to measure the organizational cultures of contracting
firms within the context of the Turkish Construction Industry.

2. Nature of Organizational Culture

The concept of culture, originated in the field of anthropology with more than 160 different
definitions [11], is one of the most elusive terms in the organizational studies [12]. In the
literature, almost every paper in this subject struggles with a sort of definition.

Focusing on the relationship between the organizational culture and performance, Barney
[13] defines the term as “a complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that
define the way in which a firm conducts its business”. On the other hand, Hampden-Turner
[14] defines it as “a pattern of basic assumptions invented, discovered or developed by a
given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration that has worked well enough to be valid and to be taught to new members as
the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to these problems”.

A number of researchers investigated the relationship between culture and various

organizational aspects; such as company success [15] [16], performance and
competitiveness [13] [17], effectiveness [18], and strategy [19]. However, there still is a

2
need for more empirical research for a complete understanding of organizational culture;
which constitutes the main purpose of this study.

3. Research Design

Measurement of culture represents difficulties, particularly in respect of the identification

of cultural groups and boundaries. This is further complicated by the nature of the
construction industry in which projects are temporary and participants are subject to the
values and beliefs of their employing organization, professional groups and project
organizations. There is currently a debate concerning the study of culture among
construction management scholars. However, it is not the scope of this paper to explore the
methodology for the study of culture in the construction industry.

In order to be compatible with the studies conducted in other countries participating in the
CIB TG23 research, Cameron and Quinn’s [20] “Competing Values Framework” (CVF) as
well as their measurement tool named “Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument”
(OCAI) are adopted as the conceptual paradigm for analysis in this study.

3.1. The Competing Values Framework

The CVF was originally proposed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh [21] to understand
organizational effectiveness, and was later applied to explore different issues relative to
organizations [22] [20].

The CVF is based on two major dimensions and four main clusters (see figure 1). The first
dimension emphasizes the organizational focus (internal versus external), while the second
one distinguishes between the stability and control and the flexibility and discretion.
Cameron and Quinn [19] note that these four core values represent opposite or competing
assumptions. (see Cameron and Quinn, [19] for detailed information about the framework).

3
 INTERNAL FOCUS and INTEGRATION

FLEXIBILITY and DISCRETION

CLAN ADHOCRACY

EXTERNAL FOCUS and DIFFERENTIATION

family-type organizations Dynamic and
commitment to enterpreneur
employees organizations
participation and Cutting-edge output
teamwork innovation

HIERARCHY MARKET

Formalized and Competitive

structured organizations organizations
Smooth functioning Increasing market share
stability productivity

STABILITY and CONTROL

Figure 1. The Competing Values Framework (Cameron and Quinn, [20] )

Cameron and Quinn [20], identifies four quadrants, each representing a different set of
organizational culture orientation: (i) clan, (ii) adhocracy, (iii) market, and (iv) hierarchy.
Theoretically these all four cultural types exist simultaneously in all organizations;
therefore archetypes may be used to describe the pattern of the organizational culture [23].

In order to diagnose the dominant orientation of an organization, Cameron and Quinn [20]
developed an instrument known as “Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument”
(OCAI), which consists of six different questions which are relevant to the key dimensions
of organizational culture such as: (i) dominant characteristics, (ii) organizational leadership,
(iii) management of employees, (iv) organizational glue, (v) strategic emphases, and (vi)
criteria for success. Each question has four alternatives representing different cultural
orientations making a total of 24 questions [20]. Each dimension is measured by the scores
assigned by the respondents from a total of 100 points divided to four different statements.

4
This scoring system, which is also known as “ipsative scale”, is preferred for the reason
that distinguishes the cultural uniqueness that actually exists in organizations [20]. The
overall cultural profile of an organization is then derived by calculating the average score of
all statements representing the same cultural orientation.

Cameron and Quinn [20] underline that with the help of this questionnaire; it is possible to
determine the overall culture of an organization, the strength of the existing culture, and the
cultural congruence between the dimensions of the organizational culture proposed in the
CVF and the overall culture.

3.2. Sampling and Data Collection

Unit of analysis was for this study is the contracting firms in the Turkish Construction
Industry. A number of 265 firms were contacted, and only 107 of them- including the 12
largest contracting companies in the industry- participated in the study, giving a response
rate of 40.38. From 107 firms a total of 723 individuals involved in the study representing
different managerial and non-managerial levels: 112 (15,5%) executives, 226 (31,3%)
middle-level managers, 316 (43,7%) first-line managers and 69 (9,5%) non-managers. Size,
age, client type and internationalization distributions of the firms comprising the sample are
given in table 1.

Table 1. Sample Characteristics

Number of Firms
Firm Age (years)
 15 31
16 – 25 35
> 25 37
Missing 4
Firm Size (total number of full-time employees)
Small (< 50) 35
Medium (51- 150) 38
Large (> 150) 34
Client Type
Public 38
Private 14
Both 55
Market
Domestic 69
Both Domestic and International 38

5
Data were collected through a questionnaire survey divided into two main groups. Section
A consisted of questions identifying ecological factors such as firm age, firm size, client
type, etc. This part of the questionnaire was directed only to the executive managers of the
firms participated in the study. Based on the OCAI, section B focused on the organizational
culture of the firms. In this section, instead of ipsative scale, all respondents were asked to
rate their organizations’ culture on a 5 point-Likert scale ranging from 5: completely true to
1: not true, for ease and uniformity of response. Overall culture of each organization is
calculated by finding the average score of all the respondents from the organization.

For reliability analysis, Cronbach alpha coefficients were computed for each of the culture
type. The alpha values show that the reliability for clan is 0,89, for adhocracy 0,90, for
market 0,85, and for hierarchy 0,90, which all indicate the fairness of the culture types.

The results of the survey have been analyzed through Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) computer program.

4. Analysis of the Results

Main stimulus of this paper is to determine the organizational culture of Turkish contracting
firms. Table 2 shows the distribution of organizational cultures of all firms participated in
the study.

Table 2. Organizational Culture of Turkish Construction Firms

Culture Frequency Percent

Clan 38 35,5
Adhocracy 8 7,5
Market 12 11,2
Hierarchy 46 43,0
No dominant culture 3 2,8
Total 107 100

As is seen in table 2, “hierarchy” is the most frequent (43 %) culture type in the sample,
while the other internally-focused culture type in the framework, clan
culture, is the second (35,5%) appearing one. The least emerging culture
type is the “adhocracy culture” (7,5%), which represents innovative and pioneering
organizations. Three firms had two cultures equally dominant (eg. both clan and
adhocracy), which are reported as “firms with no dominant culture” in table 2.

Hierarchy culture is characterized as a formalized and structured place to work,

where success is defined in terms of smooth scheduling, and low cost [20]. From this

6
point, the findings of this study supports Ankrah and Langford [1], who underline that
contracting firms in construction industry are quite formal organizations working under
formal procedures, where tasks are generally standardized.

The finding is also in line with Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner [24] , who found Turkey
to have the steepest hierarchy in its organizations. Turkish organizations are distinguished
by centralized decision making, highly personalized, strong leadership and limited
delegation [25].

It is possible to explain this finding in light of the high power distance characterizing the
Turkey culture. Power distance indicates the extent to which a society accepts the fact that
power in institutions is distributed unequally.

The results provide supporting evidence that organizational cultures are partly
predetermined by nationality, industry and task; partly related to the organizational
structure and control [26].

Focusing on the strength of the dominant culture type in the sampled organizations, which
is related to the number of points assigned to each culture type; it is found that clan (3,62)
and hierarchy cultures (3,66) have almost same scores, in other words have the same
strength. Figure 2 shows the average culture plot for the sampled organizations.

n Flexibility and Discretion

io
at The Clan The Adhocracy
gr
External Focus and Differentiation

te
In
d 3,62 3,46
an
s
cu
Fo
al
rn 3,66 3,37
te
In

The Hierarchy The Market

Stability and Control

7
Figure 2. Average Culture Plot for the Sampled Organizations

Searching for the relationship between the various organizational aspects and the cultures
of the firms participated in the study; findings revealed that no significant differences
existed among the scores of different age, size, market or client groups. These findings
failed to support Hult etal [27], who found significance cultural differences among different
organizational sizes and ages. The results of the analysis of the culture scores according to
the organizational aspects are presented in table 3.

Table 3. Average Culture Scores Classified by Organizational Aspects

Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy

Firm Age (years)
 15 3,60 3,51 3,45 3,66
16 – 25 3,89 3,74 3,59 3,96
> 25 3,43 3,19 3,12 3,44
Firm Size (total number of full-time employees)
Small (< 50) 3,69 3,56 3,50 3,78
Medium (51- 150) 3,80 3,55 3,41 3,82
Large (> 150) 3,33 3,25 3,19 3,35
Client Type
Public 3,63 3,46 3,40 3,77
Private 3,50 3,35 3,28 3,48
Both 3,64 3,48 3,37 3,63
Market
Domestic 3,73 3,58 3,49 3,79
Both Domestic and International 3,40 3,24 3,15 3,42

Table 4 sets out the average scores of dimensions of organizational culture mentioned
above. As is seen in table 4, organizational leadership in the sample is influenced by a
strong hierarchy culture (3,78), while management of employees and organizational glue
are dominated by clan culture with average score of 3,78 and 3,85 respectively. Similar to
the leadership characteristics; scores of strategic emphases and criteria for success indicates
strong hierarchy cultures.

Table 4. Average Scores of Dimensions of Organizational Culture (N=107)

Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy

Dominant Characteristics of Organization 3,57 3,24 3,63 3,24
Organizational Leadership 3,33 3,45 2,95 3,78
Management of Employees 3,78 3,17 3,29 3,67
Organizational Glue 3,85 3,68 3,21 3,37

8
 Strategic Emphases 3,49 3,70 3,68 3,89
Criteria for Success 3,68 3,51 3,47 4,01
Overall Organizational Culture Profile 3,62 3,46 3,37 3,66

All dimensions of organizational culture seem to be in line with the overall organizational
culture profile of the sampled organizations, dominated by clan or hierarchy cultures. Only
“dominant characteristics” of the organizations emphasized the market culture with a score
of 3,63. Except for dominant characteristics, the findings show that the same or similar
culture types are emphasized in all parts of organizations indicating the existence of
cultural congruence in the sample, which is supposed to be positively related to the
organizational performance [20].

The findings presented here indicate that the companies in the Turkish Construction
Industry; (i) are result oriented, where people are very competitive, (ii) have a leadership
style that exemplifies coordinating, organizing and smooth-running efficiency, (iii) have a
management style which is characterized by team work, consensus and participation, (iv)
are organizations where commitment, loyalty and mutual trust is high, (v) emphasize
permanence and stability, and (vi) define success on the basis of efficiency, where
dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost production are critical.

5. Concluding Discussion

The aim of the research was to determine the cultural profile of the contractors operating in
the Turkish Construction Industry. The findings of the study revealed that contracting
companies within the context of Turkish Construction Industry are mostly dominated by
hierarchy and clan culture, which are both internally focused. However, the conclusions of
the study are limited to the sample studied, and therefore might reflect the bias of the
national culture.

9
References
[1] Ankrah, N.A. and Langford, D.A., (2005) Architects and Contractors: A Comparative
Study of Organizational Cultures, Construction Management and Economics, vol. 23(6),
pp.595-607.

[2] Low, S.P. and Shi, Y., (2001) Cultural Influences on organizational Processes in
International Projects: Two Case Studies, Work Study, vol. 50(6), pp.267-85.

[3] Hillebrant, P.M., (2000) Economic Theory and the Construction Industry, 3rd Edition,
Macmillan, London.

[4] Gould, F.E. & Joyce, N.E., (2000), Construction Project Management, Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall

[5] Phua F.T.T and Rowlinson S., (2003) Cultural Differences as an Explanatory Variable
for Adversarial Attitudes in the Construction Industry: the case of Hong-Kong,
Construction Management and Economics, vol. 21(7), pp: 777-85.

[6] Liu, A.M.M. and Fellows, R.F., (1999) The Impact of Culture on Project Goals, in
Ogunlana, S.O. (ed), Profitable Partnering in Construction Procurement, E&F.N. Spon,
London, pp. 523-32.

[7] Latham, (1994) Constructing the Team, HMSO, UK.

[8] Rameezdeen, R. and Gunarathna, N., (2003) Organizational Culture in Construction: An

Employee Perspective, Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building,
vol:3(1).

[9] Rowlinson, S., (2001) Matrix Organization Structure, Culture and Commitment- A
Hong-Kong Public Sector Case Study of Change, Construction Management and
Economics, vol. 19(7), pp: 669-73.

[10] Rooke, J. (1997) Developing a More Empirical Approach to Culture, Attitude and
Motivation in Construction Management Research: A Critique and Proposal, Journal of
Construction Procurement, vol: 3(2), pp.45-55.

10
[11] Kroeber, A.L. & Kluckhon, C., (1952) Culture: A critical review of concepts and
definitions, in Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology & Ethnology, 47
(1), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

[12] Senior, B (2001) Organizational Change, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

[13] Barney J.B., (1986) Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Competitive

Advantage, Academy of Management Review, vol. 11(3), pp.656-65.

[14] Hampden-Turner, C.(1994) Corporate Culture. London : Piaktus.

[15] Deal T.E. and Kenedy A. A., (1982) Corporate Culture, Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

[16] Schein, E., (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass Publishers, San
Francisco

[17] Hoecklin, L., (1996) Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive
Advantage, AddisonWesley, Wokingham.

[18] Denison D.R. and Mishra A.K., (1995) Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness, Organization Science, vol. 6 (2), pp.204-23.

[19] Quinn, J.B., (1980) Strategies for Change, Homewood, IL.

[20] Cameron K.S. and Quinn R.E., (1999) Diagnosing and Changing Organizational
Culture, Addison-Wesley Publishing, New York.

[21] Quinn, J.B., and Rohrbaugh, J., (1983) A spatial model of effectiveness: criteria
towards a competing values approach to organization analysis, Journal of Management
Science, vol.29, pp.363-77.

[22] Al-Khalifa K. and Aspinwall E.M., (2001) Using the Competing Values Frameworks to
Investigate the Culture of Qatar Industries, Total Quality Management, vol:12 (4), pp.417-
28.

11
[23] Paparone, C.R., (2003) Appling the Competing Values Framework to Study
Organizational Subcultures and System-Wide Planning Efforts in a Millitary University,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Public Affairs.

[24] Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C., (1998) Riding the Waves of Culture:
Understanding Cultural Diversity in Global Business, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

[25] Ronen, S., (1986) Comparative and Multi-National Management, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.

[26] Hofstede, G., Nevijen, B., Ohayv, D.D., and Sanders, G., (1990) Measuring
Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases,
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.35, pp:286-316.

[27] Hult, G.T.M, Snow, C.C. and Kandemir, D., (2003). The role of entrepreneurship in
building cultural competitiveness in different organizational types, Journal of Management,
vol. 29 (3), pp.401-26.

12