INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTI-NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

“Securing high Performance through Cultural awareness and Dispute Avoidance”

SHANGHAI, CHINA
November 21-23, 2008

{10pt space}
{10pt space}
{10pt space}
CULTURAL VARIABLES AND THE LINK BETWEEN MANAGERIAL
CHARACTERISTICS IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY:
REFLECTIONS FROM TURKISH AND DUTCH EXAMPLES
{10pt space}
{10pt space}
1 2
Ilknur Akiner and Wilco Tijhuis
{10pt space}
1. Ass. Prof. Dr, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey (ilknurakiner@gmail.com)
2. Ass. Prof. Dr, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (w.tijhuis@utwente.nl);
joint-coordinator of CIB W112 ‘Culture in Construction’ (www.cibworld.nl); managing
partner at WT/Beheer BV (www.wtbeheer.com)
{10pt space}
{10pt space}
ABSTRACT
{10pt space}
In the last two decades, the universality of organizational behaviour and the impact of
managerial characteristics in construction industry and multinational environment, mainly
developed in western countries, have been more broadly and almost routinely challenged by
growing cross-national research evidence. International construction projects involve
multinational participants from different political, legal, economic, and cultural backgrounds.
As one of the major issues affecting the management of international construction projects,
culture deserves wide research. The aim of this paper is to examine the managerial
characteristics of Turkish and Dutch Construction industry and the changes required to solve
recent organizational problems and difficulties in those industries. The paper reviews the
characteristics of (international) construction projects and discusses the cultural context. In
order to analyze the problems which are unique in construction industry, this study will begin
with a broad view of characteristics of Turkish and Dutch business-culture through the
differences of culture’s dimensions like power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and
individualism / collectivism. Furthermore, it sets a comparison of construction-management
approaches from viewpoints of five functional components of management: planning,
organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling through the cultural impacts.
{10pt space}
{10pt space}
Keywords: Construction Industry, Culture, Characteristics of Turkish and Dutch Business-
culture, Management Functions.
{10pt space}
{10pt space}
INTRODUCTION
{10pt space}
The human dimension in technological development has been an enigma for many years.
Despite the fact that the technological developments make life easier, as long as the human
factor is ignored, the full benefits of technology applications will be rarely encountered.
Construction is an important part of global economy with its unique characteristics affected by
and affecting all parts of the world. The construction industry has changed significantly within
recent years. Increased competition created by issues such as globalization and rapid
developments in construction technologies have led many organizations to seek innovative
solutions to decrease cost, improve schedule, keep current on technological developments

1
and ensure market share in their dynamic business environment. World is becoming “small
global village” because of increasing multinational companies and innovative ICTs
(Information & Communication Technologies). Hofstede (2001) stated that there is no global
solution for organization and management problems. Many researchers agree that there is a
correlation between cultural values and management applications (Rose et al. 2008; Schein,
2004, 1999, 1997; Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Seihl and Martin, 1998; Petty, Beadles and
Lowery, 1995; Lim, 1995; Denison, 1990; Deal and Kennedy, 1982).

Cross-cultural comparisons are critical, because there is a considerable evidence of

increasing internationalization and globalization of firms having operations in multinational
environment in construction. In this regard, attention should be given to the recognition and
understanding of cultural differences in the context of the construction industry and the
cultural impacts for the construction management.

Culture is important because “it is a powerful, latent, and often unconscious set of forces, that
determine both our individual and collective behaviour, ways of perceiving, thought patterns,
and values” (Schein E. H., 1999). Decisions made without awareness of these ‘operative
culture forces’, may result in unanticipated and undesirable consequences. Culture needs to
be taken seriously to help anticipate consequences and make choices about their desirability.
One of the last available ‘mechanisms’ left for organizations to improve their competitive
position within the construction industry is by considering its people (culture) along with its
technology (Schein E. H., 2004, 1997). In other words, if one wants to make construction
industry organizations, groups and project teams more efficient and effective, then one must
better understand the role that culture plays within them. Culture is identified as one of the
most difficult and complex approaches to understand. This is mainly due to culture being
defined in so many different and sometimes conflicting ways (Pepper G. L. 1995). More than
300 definitions of culture available in different research fields (in cross-cultural or cross-
national studies from the disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science,
economics, geography, history, comparative law, comparative medicine, and international
market research) which have changed over the past two generations (Barthorpe et al., 2000).

Kroeber & Kluckhohn (1952), American anthropologists, assembled more than 160 definitions
but it is difficult to find the best definition. The word ‘culture’ stems from the word ‘cultivate’
(the cultivation of soil) – i.e.: the way in which people act on nature and it was only in the
eighteenth century that it became synonymous with the ‘educated’ person. Bodley (1994)
culled a simple version that stated that culture involves what people think, what they do, and
what they produce. Culture has several properties: it is social heritage or tradition; it is shared,
learned human behavior; and it is symbolic, and based on shared, assigned meanings of the
members of a group (Kwan, and Ofori, 2001). Culture is commonly identified as “a set of
mores, values, attitudes, beliefs, and meanings that are shared by the members of a group or
organization”, and is often the primary way in which one ‘group’ (organization, team, etc)
differentiates itself from others (Hofstede, 2001, Duarte and Snyder 2001, Williams et al.
1993) This study focuses on the analysis of the nature of Turkish construction industry
through comparison with the Dutch construction industry. Hofstede’s famous cultural world
map and the cultural dimensions were used to express the differences between Turkish and
Dutch construction managerial characteristics. Results attempts to provide some insights into
the national culture and how it might assist in managerial characteristics through the
functional components of management in construction industry. The necessary data to fulfill
the research objective were obtained from four vital areas following Hofstede’s (2001, 1980)
cultural dimensions.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PRACTICES IN TURKEY AND THE NETHERLANDS

Construction Projects in Turkey

Turkish construction industry has been accelerated in the last 30 years with economic growth
aspects of scale and quantity. Turkish Construction and Architectural Services serve several
benefits such as “low-priced labour force” and “geographical position” close to the Middle East
and Russia. As a result; by using these advantages, Turkish construction industry became

2
competitive on the construction sector especially in the Middle East and Russia after 1980s.
Over 10 billion USD income; in other words, the relative important of construction industry in
the Gross National Product increased about % 5 -10 GNP interest per annum (Turkish
Statistical Institute , 2007). Construction industry in Turkish domestic industry has the big
weight in addition to the manufacturing industry and the service industry.

Accordingly, while considering positive contributions on the image of the country, a question
regarding the improvement of the companies’ performance becomes extremely important.
However, sector has some critical problems. Beside traditional problems regarding the project
finance and technology, another problem negatively affects the performance of the firms is
happened in cultural area. As seen on news media frequently, difficulties on the
understanding of the cultural properties and backgrounds in the countries where the firms
have construction projects cause the conflict with the local authority’s labours. Results of
researches done in many countries show that both national culture and the culture of country
which carry on business have to be understood properly. The firms which are succeeded in
this understanding can increase and sustain the performance and competitive advantage.

Many researchers point out an array of problems associated with the Turkish construction
sector (e.g. Sorguc, 1996; Toklu, 1996; Ozturan, 1996; Ozcan, 1997). Some of these
problems range from government policy and restrictions imposed on public construction
projects and bureaucratic procedures to contractual clauses advocating unfair risk sharing
and inadequacies in control mechanisms. Some of the other problems can be attributed to
inadequate technological know-how, lack of education and training in new technologies and
management approaches (Bayramoglu, S., 2000).

Construction Projects in The Netherlands

In the construction industry in the Netherlands there is a strong re-structuring going on,
started jointly by governmental bodies and the construction-industry boards, especially due to
two main events during the past few years: (1) A discovery of a large collusion-case in about
2001, and (2) an increasing influence of environmental issues e.g. recent cradle-to-cradle
concepts.

Ad (1): The discovery of several collusion cases in the tendering of public infrastructure
projects was quite an eye-opener for the Dutch government bodies. This large case, in which
the investigations were led by the so called Commission Vos (Vos et al, 2002) was the start
for a serious refocusing of governmental policy regarding competition-regulations, tendering
and contract-policy etc. In the meantime it has led to several improvement-programmes, e.g.
from transparency and trust-issues to innovation of technologies used.

Ad (2):
Also in the Dutch situation, the environment is quite a sensitive issue; especially due to the
fact that the coastal defence infrastructure plays a vital role in the existence of the
Netherlands, the impact of the heating of the planet, and re-designing of the product-life-
cycles, etc. (McDonough & Braungart, 2007) have signalled extra the need for improvements
regarding environmental policy. And because construction industry plays an important role in
the ‘shaping’ of the (Dutch) environment, this sector has to take this into account seriously, as
promoted now by the Dutch government.

These two main influences have created a new ‘wave’ of re-thinking and approaching the
construction issues from a new perspective: i.e. more focus on clients and added values, etc.
Although of course these kind of movements can quite easily tend to be like certain trends,
being ending somehow, they nevertheless seem to become still some ‘anchors’ for a
thorough sound and innovative climate in the Dutch construction industry.

3
COMPARISON OF CHARACTERISTICS AND DIFFERENCES IN CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT THROUGH THE CULTURAL IMPACTS BETWEEN TURKEY AND THE
NETHERLANDS

Although many studies have been undertaken in the area of management styles, they have
generally tended to be among manufacturing industries characterized by permanent
organization structures. There are few published works that are directly concerned with the
construction industry (Langford et al., 1995). Construction industry has characteristics that
separate it from all other industries. These characteristics which may have an impact on
leadership styles in construction are: (a) project characteristics, (b) contractual arrangements,
(c) project life-cycle and (d) environmental factors (Harvey and Ashworth, 1993).

Project-based nature of construction industry with its temporary multi-organizations (TMO) will
almost certainly have an important influence on the managerial leadership styles of
professionals working in the industry. Although, in most project environments, there is a
strong preference for a democratic participative style, it may not be the most effective for all
situations. Cleland (1995) argues that project leadership should be appropriate to the project
situation because leadership is a continuous and flexible process. Furthermore, construction
professionals need different leadership styles in different phases of the project life cycle.
Bresnen et al. (1986) mentioned that the temporariness of project cycles may have a bearing
upon an understanding of leadership in construction work and its effects. The style of
leadership changes as the project progresses through its life cycle. During the different
phases of the design process, styles may need to allow for more debates, fine-tuning and
deliberation (Hopper, 1990). Tijhuis (2006) described different approaches of leadership in
construction, in which a difference between opportunism and anti-cyclic approaches play an
important role, leading to three main issues for successful leadership: (a) the right timing, (b)
a strong focus and (c) the right people (Tijhuis, 2006).

Functional components of construction management are planning, organizing, leading, and

controlling through the cultural impacts. Planning bridges the gap from where we are to where
we want to be in a desired future. It strongly implies not only the production of new things, but
also sensible and workable innovation. Organizing is part of managing that involves
establishing an international structure of roles for people in an enterprise to fill. It is
international in the sense of making sure that all the tasks necessary to accomplish goals are
assigned and, it is hoped, they are assigned to people who can do them best. Staffing
involves filling, and keeping filled, the positions provided for by the organization structure. It
involves setting requirements for the job to be done, and it includes inventorying, appraising,
and selecting candidates for positions; compensating; and training or otherwise developing
both candidates and current jobholders to accomplish their tasks effectively. Regarding the
Leading, all managers would agree that their most important problems arise from people, their
desires and attitudes, their behaviors as individuals and in groups, and the need for effective
managers also to be effective leaders. Controlling is the measuring and correcting of activities
of subordinates to assure that events conform to plans. Thus it measures performance
against goals and plans, shows where negative deviations exist, and, by putting in motion
actions to correct deviations, helps ensure accomplishment of plans. Hence, each component
has an impact on each others directly through the cultural context (Ricky, 1990). Technology,
legislation, politics and strategy are directly resulting from different levels of cultures. All these
sources are originating from the national culture and organizational culture. There is little
doubt that cultural background will affect the way managers carry out their managerial
function and activities. Most of the scholars working on cultural issues emphasize the impact
of individual characteristics like cultural background on organizational and group behaviour.
Figure 1. shows the link between managerial characteristics and cultural values.

4
 Work Group
Manager Behavior
Behavior

Work Goals,
Tasks, Process

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

NATIONAL CULTURE
Common Values, Beliefs, Attitudes

Managerial Characteristics of
Behavior

Technology
Legislation
Politics
Strategy

Figure 1. The link between cultural values and managerial characteristics.

Each country has their traditional culture and reflects their culture on management. So
management style of each country differs on managerial style to compete with foreign
companies they have to concern. Table 1, summarizes the comparison between management
approaches of Turkey and the Netherlands in particular through the five components of
management. Turkish management depends on the group, long-term orientation, and
ambiguity of responsibility, while the Dutch management is based on the individual, short-
term orientation, individual responsibility, and professionalism, and is controlled by logic and
reason. These results are derived and adopted from the research results of Hofstede (2001)
regarding the world cultural map. And although the authors are aware of the recent
discussions on how the work of Hofstede can be used or not as a mapping-tool for ‘the’
differences between cultures, it still provides a useful tool for discussion and handling these
cultural differences. Nevertheless, it should at least be considered positively, because -
together with other theories and methods- it’s still usable in further developing of culture-
‘tools’, so that culture-issues in construction can transform from a ‘black box’ into a serious
‘part of the deal’, as described in earlier and recent works of CIB Commission W112 ‘Culture
in Construction’ (Tijhuis et al, 2001).

An ideal leader in the Turkish culture is described by Pasa et.al.(2001) as a decisive,

ambitious, assertive person who is somewhat aggressive but controlled at the same time, and
has a hands-on approach to problems. This image of an ideal leader is in line with high power
distance and highly assertive characteristics of Turkish society.

5
 Table 1. Differences by each country’s culture.

Netherlands Turkey
Planning Individual decision making; Collective decision making relying on
consensus;
Organizing Individual responsibility; clarity and Collective responsibility; ambiguity of
specificity of decision responsibility
responsibility for decision
Staffing Short-term Long-term employment common;
Employment; promotion based on promotion based on multiple criteria
primarily on individual performance Employees perform best in in-groups
Employees perform best as
individuals
Leading Leader as a social facilitator; leader Leader as a decision maker; leader
is part of the group; heads the group; directive
Consultative leadership leads to style; top-down communication;
satisfaction, performance, and Autocratic or Paternalistic style;
productivity Authoritative leadership and close
supervision lead to satisfaction,
performance, and productivity
Controlling Control focuses on individual Control focuses on group performance,
performance, Superiors pessimistic about employees’
Superiors optimistic about ambition and leadership capacities
employees’ ambition and leadership
capacities
Source: Hofstede, 2001

IMPACT OF HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS ON CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT OF TURKEY AND THE NETHERLANDS

In 1968 Dutch scholar Geert Hofstede conducted what is still today considered to be the
largest empirical and most influential cross-cultural value study in the field of different cultures
and their approach to management. Data was collected across 72 countries on 116,000
employees’ work experience from IBM world-wide company. Hofstede (2001) discovered four
large independent dimensions accounted for almost half of the variance in country mean
scores on thirty-three questions on values and perceptions. Hofstede studied common
cultural factors included in each country for expression of a national culture, which is not
generalized to all people in their country. According to Hofstede (2001,1980), countries can
be categorized along four dimensions of work-related value differences are power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism and masculinity/femininity (Hofstede, 2001).
However, investigating in culture-issues is in fact comparable with corporate-anthropological
research practice (Olila, 1995), in which it needs strongly to be investigated and analyzed ‘on
the work floor’ within organizations; Sanders described this, as he pointed at the importance
of ‘being a third-culture man’, e.g. being able to participate within organizations at one hand,
but on the other hand also step outside and see what happens to learn from it (Sanders,
1995).

Hofstede’s concept of power distance provides some insight to the type of management style
that would be fostered within a particular culture. Power distance refers to the inequality
between superiors and sub-ordinates. High power distance may lead to a very autocratic,
controlling type of leadership, whereas a low power distance may give rise to a more
democratic approach and place more emphasis on the empowerment of the subordinates etc.
Hofstede (2001) found that in countries with high power distance, employees preferred
autocratic, persuasive, or democratic majority-vote manager, whereas in countries with low
power distance, individuals preferred a consultative manager.

6
High uncertainty avoidance may lead to a more bureaucratic and controlling management,
whereas low uncertainty may lead to a more laissez-faire management. The
individualism/collectivism dimension is often explicitly linked to the individual’s relationship
with his or her employer organization. Members of collectivist societies would tend to have a
greater emotional dependence on their organizations and the organizations would be more
likely to assume greater responsibility for its members (Hofstede, 2001). On the contrary,
employed people in an individualist culture are expected to remain independent from groups,
organizations, and all other collectivities. They are concerned primarily about themselves and
their immediate families. This dimension suggests that high individualism may lead to a more
competitive type of management, whereas high collectivism may give rise to a more
consultative style. Hofstede suggests that the masculinity/femininity dimension affects the
meaning of work in people’s lives. This dimension concerns the extent to which individuals
tend to support male or female favoured goals. High masculinity may give rise to a fairly
macho type of management, whereas high femininity may lead to a more empathetic
consideration type of leadership. Masculine culture has a higher emphasis on assertiveness
and the acquisition of money and other material things. Feminine cultures stress relationships
among people, concern for others, and interest in the quality of work environment.

Power distance

Power distance can be defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of
institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed
unequally. ‘Institutions’ are the basic elements of society like the family, school, and the
community; ‘organizations’ are the places where people work (Hofstede, 1991). Table 2,
presents the score ranks of power distance index values. Turkish culture has been described
as being high on the collectivism and power distance value dimensions (Hofstede, 2001).
Turkey is ranked at 18/19, the Netherlands is at 40. It means that power distance in Turkey is
stronger than the Netherlands. The high power distance prevalent in the Turkish society
makes democratic leadership a rare practice. Due to the huge inequality between managers
and subordinates, most people do not even expect their managers to have a democratic style
(Pasha, 2000).

Table 2. Power distance index (PDI) value for Turkey and the Netherlands.

Score Rank Country PDI Score

18/19 Turkey 66 (High)
40 Netherlands 38 (Low)
Source: Hofstede, 1991, 2001

As a part of a large cross-cultural study, Kabasakal and Bodur (1998) found Turkey to be
higher than the world average in collectivism (fourth) and power distance (tenth) among 62
countries. In their investigation of how Turkish middle level managers saw their society, the
highest mean response for societal culture was attributed to collectivism and the second
highest to high power distance (Kabasakal and Bodur, 1998).In the high power distance, the
ideal boss, in the eyes of subordinates, is a benevolent autocrat or ‘paternalistic’ (Hofstede,
2001). Relationships between subordinates and superiors in a large power distance
organization are frequently loaded with emotions. In the low power distance, organizations
are fairly decentralized, with flat hierarchical pyramids and limited numbers of supervisory
personnel. Superiors should be accessible for subordinates, and the ideal boss is a
resourceful (and therefore respected) democrat. Subordinates expect to be consulted before
a decision is made that affects their work, but they accept that the boss is the one who finally
decides (Hofstede, 1991). Table 3. shows up key differences between small and large power
distance societies.

7
 Table 3. Key differences between small and large power distance societies.

Low power distance High power distance

Decentralized decision structures; less Centralized decision structures; more

concentration of authority concentration of authority
Flat organization pyramids Tall organization pyramids
The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat; sees self The ideal boss is a well-meaning autocrat or good
as practical, orderly, and relying on support father; sees self as benevolent decision maker
Subordinates expect to be consulted Subordinates expect to be told what to do
Source: Hofstede, 1991, 2001

Uncertainty avoidance

Members of high uncertainty avoidance cultures placed a premium on job security, career
patterns, retirement benefits, and so on. They also had a strong need for rules and
regulations; the manager was expected to issue clear instructions, and subordinates’
initiatives were tightly controlled. Lower uncertainty avoidance cultures were characterized by
a greater readiness to take risks and less emotional resistance to change. Turkish society
culture is characterized by strong uncertainty avoidance, in other words a strong need for
rules and regulations; employee preference for clear and unambiguous instruction from
management involving less risk-taking; and less individual initiative and responsibility in the
workplace (Hoftstede, 1980, 2001). This means that subordinates of such cultures would
most likely prefer to defer to the certainty of rules, procedures and leader directives, rather
than make key decisions themselves and accept responsibility (Giritli and Topcu-Oraz, 2004).
Giritli and Topcu-Oraz (2004) assert that there appears to be an alignment between the
observed leadership behaviour of managerial personnel in the Turkish construction industry
and the Turkish societal values of high-power distance and high-uncertainty avoidance. In
Table 4, Turkey shows high, however, the Netherlands shows low score in the uncertainty
avoidance. Table 5, also shows the differences between weak and strong uncertainty
avoidance societies.

Table 4. Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) values for Turkey and the Netherlands.

Score Rank Country UAI Score

16/17 Turkey 85 (High or Strong)
35 Netherlands 53 (Low or Weak)
Source: Hofstede, 1991, 2001

Table 5. Key differences between weak and strong uncertainty avoidance societies.

Weak uncertainty avoidance Strong uncertainty avoidance

Appeal to transformational leader role Appeal of hierarchical control role

Comfortable feeling when lazy; hardworking Emotional need to be busy; inner urge to
only when needed work hard
Tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas Suppression of deviant ideas and behavior;
and behavior resistance to innovation
Motivation by achievement and esteem or Motivation by security and esteem or
Belongingness belongingness
Weak loyalty to employer; short average duration Strong loyalty to employer; long average duration
of employment of employment
Top managers involved in strategy Top managers involved in operations
Source: Hofstede, 1991,2001

8
Individualism and Collectivism

Most comparative analyses of conflict management behaviour contrasted groups such as

Turkey-collectivists- and Netherlands-individualists. In Table 6, it is confirmed that Turkey and
the Netherlands are ranked to 28, 4/5. Turkey has been considered collectivistic in its social
behaviours, in comparison to the Netherlands. Table 7, summarizes key differences between
collectivist and individualist societies. Collectivists, in contrast to individual goals to collective
goals, possess a sense of harmony, interdependence, and concern for others (Hui and
Triandis, 1986). In collectivist cultures group decisions are favoured over individual ones, and
individual initiative is frowned upon. Furthermore, one’s identity in collectivist cultures is based
on the relations within groups, thus, emphasizing a strong ‘we’ consciousness (Hofstede,
1980). Hofstede (1980, 2001) wrote that in most collectivist cultures, the word ‘no’ is seldom
used, because saying no is a confrontation; ‘you may be right’ or ‘we will think about it’ are
examples of polite ways of turning down a request. Similarly, the word ‘yes’ should not
necessarily be seen as an approval, but as maintenance of the communication line.
Individuals in a high context culture are more likely to assume a non-confrontational, indirect
attitude toward conflicts.

Table 6. Individualism index (IDV) value for the Netherlands and Turkey.

Score Rank Country IDV Score

4/5 Netherlands 80 (High)
28 Turkey 37 (Low)
Source: Hofstede, 1991,2001

Table 7. Key differences between collectivist and individualist societies.

Collectivist Individualist

Diplomas provide entry to higher status Diplomas increase economic worth and/or
Groups self-respect
Managers chose duty, expertness, and prestige as Managers chose pleasure, affection, and security
life goals as life goals
Employer-employee relationship is basically Employer-employee relationship is a business
moral, like a family link deal in a “labor market”
Employees and managers report teamwork, Employees and managers report working
personal contacts, and discrimination at work individually
Hiring and promotion decisions are
Hiring and promotion decisions take
supposed to be based on skills and rules
employees’ in-group into account
only
Management is management of
Management is management of groups
individuals
Source: Hofstede, 1991,2001

Characteristics of the companies in the Netherlands in terms of management patterns or

management skills have shown common points; autonomy and entrepreneurship, productivity
through people, hands-on/value-driven, stick to the knitting, simple form/learn staff, and loose-
tight control, autonomy management, business development on imaginative power. About the
economic growth in Turkey it can be said that the main cause was organizational operation by
human resources and technology. The characteristic of human resources management is that
lifetime employment, promotion system by long-term evaluation and collective decision
making. Lifetime employment, promotion system by long-term evaluation and the seniority
system between organization and member have relation to Turkish traditional culture.
According to Pasa et. al. (2001) collectivism seems to be an important characteristic of the
Turkish culture.

9
CONCLUSIONS

In the construction context, cultural influences on managerial characteristic need to be

addressed since a growing number of contractor firms initiate or expand cross-border
activities. There is a growing awareness that success in the global construction marketplace
calls for the knowledge and sensitivity of managers to cultural differences in leadership
behaviour. This study has been initiated to examine the relationship between national culture
and the managerial characteristics of Turkey and the Netherlands. Nevertheless, the paper
analyses the main situations reflecting on both countries as a “small start-up” for larger
investigations in the near future. Therefore the main goal of the paper is a kind of ‘test’ for
future case-analyses on cultural differences on joint construction projects between Turkey
and the Netherlands. This is seen as the limitation of the study. Culture is not irrevocable but
it’s difficult to manage, as it essentially represents the accumulative values, beliefs, attitudes
of individuals within a nation, organization, occupational group or project based team
possess.

Due to the nature of construction industry, the successful changing of a culture or working
with another national culture requires clear management and commitment throughout the all
levels of organizations in the construction industry. The literature review provided a basis for
the identification of managerial characteristics. Although there are discussions going on about
its present representation of ‘the’ cultural differences, Hofstede’s cultural dimension results
received from the world-wide IBM companies are still usable as they probably changed only
slightly in the last three decades. Together with other theories and method for developing
further culture ‘tools’, they lead to improvements in handling the ‘black box’ of culture in
construction. However, the results of this research attempts to provide some insights into the
national cultural variables influence and the link between managerial characteristics of both
countries for further researches. The results reported in this study are tentative but promising.

Results show that there is a correlation between cultural dimensions with managerial
characteristics in both countries Turkey and The Netherlands. This seems to be possible even
though the expatriate managers maybe influenced by their own national culture. So managers
or executives from Turkish and Dutch construction industry, who want to work together within
joint construction-projects, must be aware of the cultural impacts and implications as an origin
of differences on their strategies. And that may lead to important lessons in the near future,
when investigating more into detail such experiences and practices. A thorough setting and
analyzing of (future) national and international case-studies is then one of the strategies the
authors are working on within their research programmes.

REFERENCES

Barthorpe, S., Duncan R., and Miller, C. (2000) The pluralistic facets of culture and its impact
on construction, Journalof Property Management,18(5), 335-351.

Bodley, J. H. (1994) Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, states, and the global system. Mountain
View, CA: Mayfield http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_culture/culture-
definitions/bodley-text.html, [accessed, 2008]

Bresnen, M.J., Bryman, A.E., Ford, J.R., Beardsworth, A.D. and Keil, E.T. (1986) The leader
orientation of construction site managers, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 112, 370–86.

Cameron K., and Quinn, R.E. (1999) Diagnosing and Changing Organizatinal Culture: Based
on the Competing Values Framework, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cleland, D.I. (1995) Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation, 2nd edn,
McGraw Hill, New York.

Deal, T.E and Kennedy, A. A. (1982) Corporate Cultures, Menlo Park: Addison Wesley
Publishing Co.

10
Denison, D.R. (1990) Corporate Culture and organizational effectiveness, John Wiley &Sons,
New York, NY.

Duarte D. L. and Snyder N. T. (2001) Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and
Techniques that Succeed. San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.

Giritli, H. and Topcu-Oraz, G. (2004) Leadership styles: some evidence from the Turkish
Construction industry, Construction Management and Economics,22,253-262

Harvey, R.C. and Ashworth, A. (1993) The construction industry of Great Britain, Butterworth-
Heinemann.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related

Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Harper Collins,
London.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions,

and Organizations across Nations, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hopper, J.R. (1990) Human factors of project organization, A Report to the University of
Texas, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.

Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (1998) Leadership, Values and Institutions: the case of Turkey.
Research paper, Bogaziçi University, Istanbul.

Koraltan, S. B.; Dikbas, A. (2002) An assessment of the applicability of partnering in the

Turkish construction sector, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20, pp: 315–321.

Kroeber A.L. and Kluckhohn, 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. http://www.pcp-net.org/encyclopaedia/culture.html
[accessed 2008]

Kwan, Ang Yee and Ofori , G. (2001) Chinese culture and successful implementation of
partnering in Singapore’s construction industry, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 19, pp. 619-632.

Langford, D., Fellows, R.F., Hancock, M. and Gale, A.W. (1995) Human Resources
Management in Construction, Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex.

Lim, B. (1995) Examining the Organizational Culture and Organizational Performance link,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Leadership, 16(5) : 16-21.

McDonough W. and M.Braungart (2007) Cradle to Cradle - Remaking the Way We Make;
Book; North Point Press; USA; 1st Edition; 2007; ISBN-13: 9780865475878

Olila J. (1995) International Experiences in Corporate Anthropology; Internal Discussion

Report; 23rd of March 1995; Erasmus University; Faculty of Law; Rotterdam.

Özcan, O. (1997) Kamu ihale sorunlari çerçevesinde eskalasyon uygulamalarinin Bayindirlik

ve Iskan Bakanligin ile FIDIC tipi sözlesmeler açisindan bir sulama ve drenaj projesinde
Degerlendirilmesi, Masters thesis, Istanbul Technical University. (in Turkish)

Özturan, I. (1996) Uluslararasi insaat ihaleleri baglaminda Bayindirlik Isleri Genel Sartnamesi
kökenli sözlesmelerin FIDIC model sözlesmeleri dogrultusunda düzenlenmesine yönelik bir
yaklasim, PhD thesis, Istanbul Technical University. (in Turkish)

11
Pasa-Fikret, S.(2000) Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist culture,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(8), 414-426

Pasa- Fikret, S., Kabasakal, H., and Bodur, M. (2001) Society, Organizations, and Leadership
in Turkey, Applied Psychology: An International Review,50(4), 559-589

Pepper G. L. (1995) Communications in Organizations: A Cultural Approach, McGraw-Hill Inc.

Petty, M.M., Beadles II, N.A. and Lowery, C.M. (1995) Relationship between Organizational
Culture and Organizational Performance, Psychological Reports, 76(2): 483-492.

Pratt, J., Mohrweis, L.C., and Beaulieu, P. (1993) The interaction between national and
organizational culture in accounting firms: an extension, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 18: 621-628.

Ricky W. G. (1990) Management, Houghton Mifflin Co., USA. (3. edition)

Rose, R.C; Kumar, N.; Abdullah, H. and Ling, G.Y. (2008) Organizational Culture as a Root of
Performance Improvement: Research and Recommendations, Contemporary Management
Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp: 43-56.

Sanders G.J.E.M. (1995) Being “a Third Culture Man”; Paper; Article in ‘Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal’; Vol.2, Nr.1; pp.5-7; MCB University Press.

Schein E. H. (1997) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.

Schein E. H. (1999) The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.

Schein E. H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.
(3. edition)

Seihl, C. and Martin, J. (1998), Measuring Organizational Culture: Mixing Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods, in Jones, M.O, et al. (Eds), Inside Organizations: Understanding the
Human Dimension, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 79-103.

Sorguç, D. (1996) Deneyimler isiginda ITU Yapi Isletmesi Programi, In proceedings of 1st
Yapi Isletmesi Kongresi. (in Turkish)

Toklu, Y.C. (1996) Türkiyede Yap-Islet-Devret uygulamalari ve sorunlari, In proceedings of 1st

Yapi Isletmesi Kongresi. (in Turkish)

Turkish Statistical Institute (2007) http://www.turkstat.gov.tr [accessed in 2007]

Tijhuis W. et al. (2001) Culture in Construction - Part of the Deal?; Paper; Proceedings of 2-
day workshop 22th-23rd of May, 2001 in Enschede, NL; CIB-TG23 ‘Culture in Construction’;
Edited by Dr.ir.W.Tijhuis – University of Twente, Enschede; ISBN 90-6363-022-0; CIB-Report
nr. 255; Rotterdam.

Tijhuis W. (2006) Leadership in Construction Industry: Learning from the Past; Paper;
Proceedings of the 2nd Specialty Conference ‘Leadership and Management in Construction’;
pp.399-408; CIB and ASCE; May 4-6, 2006; Bahamas.

Vos M. et al (2002) “De bouw uit de Schaduw – Parlementaire enquête Bouwnijverheid –

Eindrapport”; Final Investigation Report; SdU-Uitgevers; Den Haag.

Williams A., Dobson P., et al. (1993) Changing Culture: New Organisational Approaches,
London, Institute of Personal Management (IPM).

12