Content uploaded by Heyecan Giritli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Heyecan Giritli
Content may be subject to copyright.
Organizational culture: the case
of Turkish construction industry
Ela Oney-Yazıcı, Heyecan Giritli, Gulfer Topcu-Oraz
and Emrah Acar
Department of Architecture, Division of Project and Construction Management,
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – The main stimulus of this study is to examine the cultural profile of construction
organizations within the context of Turkish construction industry.
Design/methodology/approach – This study is a part of a cross-cultural research, initiated by CIB
W112 (Working Commission W112 of the International Council for Research and Innovation in
Building and Construction), concurrently ongoing in 15 different countries. Data were collected from
107 contracting and 27 architectural firms, by means of a questionnaire based on OCAI
(Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument), a well-known and widely used measurement tool
developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999).
Findings – The findings show that the Turkish construction industry has been dominated by firms
with a mixture of clan and hierarchy cultures. In addition, the analysis reported here indicates cultural
differences at organizational level in terms of firm type, size, and age.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to the understanding of organizational culture in the
construction industry by providing empirical evidence from the Turkish construction industry. As
future research direction, it highlights the need of a cross-cultural comparison among different
countries, and an investigation of the effects of cultural profiles of the organizational members on
organizational culture.
Keywords Organizational culture, Construction industry, Turkey
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Understanding of organizational culture is fundamental to examine what goes on in
organizations, how to run them and how to improve them (Schein, 1992).
Organizational culture is defined as the shared assumptions, beliefs and “normal
behaviors” (norms) present in an organization. Most organizational scholars and
observers recognize that organizational culture has a powerful effect on the
performance and long-term effectiveness of organizations. Cameron and Quinn (1999)
propose that what differentiates successful firms from others is their organizational
culture.
With the worldwide globalization trends, special attention has been given to the
study of organizations and their cultures. Empirical studies of organizational culture
have been carried out across various countries and industries (Hofstede, 1997;
Trompenaars and Hampton-Turner, 1998; Cameron and Quinn, 1999; see among
others). In comparison there seems to be a limited number of published studies related
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm
The funding for this study was provided by the Istanbul Technical University, Turkey and is
gratefully acknowledged.
Turkish
construction
industry
519
Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007
pp. 519-531
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
DOI 10.1108/09699980710828996
to the subject in project-based industries such as construction (Ankrah and Langford,
2005; Low and Shi, 2001; Zhang, and Liu, 2006).
After reviewing research on organizational culture, Ankrah and Langford (2005)
have concluded that there is a need to become more aware of the importance of this
phenomenon and its impact on organizational performance in the construction
industry. The main reasons for the growing importance of the organizational culture
can be explained by the internationalization of the construction markets (Low and Shi,
2001), and the fragmented nature of the industry (Hillebrant, 2000). 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 (Gould and Joyce, 2000). On the other hand, the adversarial relations
between different project participants are assumed to be influenced by the cultural
orientations of the stakeholders (Phua and Rowlinson, 2003). Thus, the study of
cultural issues should be addressed when considering the globalization of construction
markets.
Additionally, it is a common belief that organizations that have developed within
similar environments usually have similar cultures and related mindsets with regard to
ways of doing business. For this reason, the research reported in this paper, aims to
contribute to an understanding of organizational culture in the construction industry
using data from a developing country, such as Turkey, where there is no study in this
field. Findings of the study may also have implications for other cultures with a similar
make-up.
Background study
Despite different definitions of organizational culture, there is a consensus among
organizational researchers that it refers to the shared meanings or assumptions, beliefs
and understandings held by a group. More comprehensively, Schein (1992) defined
organizational culture as:
[...] a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel
in relation to those problems.
Similarly, Deshpande
´and Webster (1989, p. 4) proposed that organizational culture is:
[...] the pattern of shared values and beliefs that help individuals understand organizational
functioning and thus provide them with norms for behaviors in the organization.
There is an extensive body of knowledge in the literature that deals with
organizational culture. Many researchers have proposed a variety of dimensions and
attributes of organizational culture. Among them, Hofstede has been very influential in
studies of organizational culture. Drawing on a large sample of 116,000 employees of
IBM in 72 countries, Hofstede identified four dimensions of culture. These four
dimensions used to differentiate between cultures are: power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, masculinity/femininity and individualism/collectivism. Beyond these,
Hofstede (1997) also identified the process/results oriented, employee/job oriented,
parochial/professional, open/closed system, loose/tight control and
normative/pragmatic dimensions of culture. These dimensions have been commonly
adapted and applied in studies of organizational culture (Sødergaard, 1996).
ECAM
14,6
520
Other comprehensive studies into organizational culture have been carried out,
notably by Trompenaars and Hampton-Turner (1993), who conducted an extensive
research into the attitudes of 15,000 managers over a ten-year period in 28 different
countries. They proposed five cultural dimensions:
(1) universalism/particularism;
(2) collectivism/individualism;
(3) neutral/affective relationships;
(4) diffuse/specific relationships; and
(5) achievement/ascription.
When dealing with a multitude of dimensions, typologies are usually considered as an
alternative to provide a simplified means of assessing cultures. In this regard,
typologies are commonly used in the studies of organizational culture. Notable
contributors to these typologies include Handy (1993, 1995) who identified the club,
role, task and person typologies, and Quinn (1988) who identified the market,
hierarchy, adhocracy and clan typologies of culture.
Since the culture is regarded as a crucial factor in the long-term effectiveness of
organizations, it becomes important to be able to measure organizational culture.
Accordingly, a range of tools designed to measure organizational culture have been
developed and applied in industrial, educational, and health care settings over the last
two decades. All these tools examine employee perceptions and opinions about their
working environment (the so-called “climate” of an organization) but only a few, such
as the Competing Values Framework and the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI),
try to examine the values and beliefs that inform those views (Scott et al., 2003).
The majority of the existing studies in the Construction Management field mostly
attempt to appropriate the theoretical models and measurement tools of the
management literature. For instance, Maloney and Federle (1991, 1993) introduced the
competing values framework for analyzing the cultural elements in American
engineering and construction organizations. Focusing on the relationship between the
organizational culture and effectiveness, Zhang and Liu (2006) examined the
organizational culture profiles of construction enterprises in China by means of OCI
and Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), the measurement tool of
the Competing Values Framework developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999).
Rowlinson (2001), using Handy’s organizational culture and Hofstede’s national culture
frameworks, investigated the cultural aspects of organizational change in the
construction industry. Ankrah and Langford (2005) proposed a new measurement tool
after analyzing all cultural dimensions and typologies developed in the literature and
highlighted the cultural variability between organizations in the project coalition.
Literature review shows that despite the growing importance of organizational
culture in construction research, there are few cross-cultural, empirical studies. This
may be due to the difficulties of conducting research in several countries.
The study reported in this paper forms a part of a cross-cultural research, initiated
by CIB W112 on “Culture in Construction”, concurrently ongoing in 15 different
countries. The aim of the research project is to develop an international “Inventory of
Culture in Construction”. It continues to stimulate new participants from Europe, Asia,
Africa, Australia, and America.
Turkish
construction
industry
521
Research methodology
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 an ongoing debate concerning the study of culture among
construction management scholars. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to
discuss the methodological aspects of studying culture in the construction industry.
In order to be compatible with the studies conducted in other countries participating
in the CIB W112 research, Cameron and Quinn’s (1999) “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.
The CVF was originally proposed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) to understand
organizational effectiveness, and was later applied to explore different issues relative
to organizations (Al-Khalifa and Aspinwall, 2001).
The CVF is based on two major dimensions. The first dimension emphasizes the
organizational focus (internal versus external), whereas the second one distinguishes
between the stability and control and the flexibility and discretion. These two
dimensions form four quadrants (see Figure 1), each representing a major type of
organizational culture:
(1) clan;
(2) adhocracy;
(3) market; and
(4) hierarchy.
Figure 1.
The competing values
framework
ECAM
14,6
522
Theoretically, these four cultural typologies exist simultaneously in all organizations;
therefore, archetypes may be used to describe the pattern of the organizational culture
(Paperone, 2003).
Sampling and data collection
Unit of analysis for this study were the contracting and architectural firms operating in
the Turkish Construction Industry. A number of 351 firms were contacted, and 134 of
them participated in the study giving a response rate of 38.18 per cent. The firms were
selected by judgmental sampling procedure. The judgment criteria used for selection were:
.origin of nationality, with emphasis on local firms;
.size based on number of employees, with emphasis placed on medium and large
firms; and
.industry position based on market share, with the focus on the 12 largest firms.
Sample consisted of a total of 826 respondents (74.9 per cent male, 25.1 per cent female)
including both managerial and non-managerial professionals.
The questionnaire comprised two parts. Part I included questions regarding the
demographic characteristics of the firms and respondents, which are presented in
Table I. Although the analysis conducted in this study was at firm level, the
characteristics of the respondents are also provided in Table I to reflect a better profile
Frequency Percentage
Characteristics of the firms (N¼134)
Number of firms:
Contracting 107 79.9
Architectural 27 20.1
Firm age (years):
,15 45 34,6
16-25 46 35,4
.25 39 30,0
Size of firms (number of full-time employees):
Small 62 46,3
Medium 38 28,4
Large 34 25,4
Characteristics of the respondents (N¼826)
Number of respondents:
Contracting 723 87.5
Architectural 103 12.5
Gender:
Female 207 25.1
Male 619 74.9
Age of respondents (years):
30 and under 220 26.6
31-40 292 35.4
41-50 199 24.1
51 and above 109 13.2
Table I.
Characteristics of sample
Turkish
construction
industry
523
of the sample. As is seen in Table I, contracting firms are representing the 79.9 per cent
of the sampled organizations and 87.5 per cent of the respondents.
For the purpose of this study, organizations with less than 50 employees were
classified as small (46 per cent), those with 51-150 as medium (28 per cent), and those
with more than 150 as large (25 per cent). The contracting firms in the survey were
generally medium and large-sized whereas the architectural firms were small in size.
Searching for the cultural orientations of the firms, Part II was adopted from the
“Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)” developed by Cameron and
Quinn (1999). OCAI consists of six different questions which are relevant to the key
dimensions of organizational culture:
(1) dominant characteristics;
(2) organizational leadership;
(3) management of employees;
(4) organizational glue;
(5) strategic emphases; and
(6) criteria for success.
Each question has four alternative statements representing different cultural
orientations making a total of 24 questions. All respondents were asked to rate their
organizations’ culture on a five-point Likert scale. In this scoring system, for each of the
five response categories (completely true, mostly true, partly true, slightly true, never
true) a score of 1-5 was assigned, with the highest score of 5 being assigned to
“completely true”. The overall cultural profile of an organization was then derived by
calculating the average score of all respondents from the same firm.
Reliability coefficients (Cronbach alpha) were calculated for each of the different
culture types being assessed by the instrument. Coefficients were 0.89 for the clan and
adhocracy cultures, and 0.86 for the market and hierarchy cultures, which indicate the
fairness of all culture types.
Results and discussion
A cultural profile score for each organization was obtained by averaging the
respondent’s rating for each cultural type across the six dimensions. This provided an
indication of the cultural orientation of sampled firms based on the four cultural types.
The average scores for all the participating firms are shown in Table II. As is seen from
the table, the dominant culture of the sample is clan culture. Respondents identified
hierarchy type as the next most dominant in their organizations. These predominant
cultures were followed by adhocracy and market, respectively.
The sampled firms tend to have values consistent with employee focus or clan
culture and internal process or hierarchy culture. The values consistent with external
orientation and results focus are emphasized to a lesser extent.
This finding contributes to our understanding of the alignment between national
and organizational cultures. According to Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) model of national
culture, Turkey has been described as being high on the collectivism and power
distance value dimensions. This suggests that organizational cultures in Turkish firms
are characterized by both unequal (or hierarchical) and harmonious, family-like (clan)
relationships. The finding is also consistent with the earlier observations of the
ECAM
14,6
524
Turkish society. Trompenaars and Hampden (1998) found Turkey to have the steepest
hierarchy in its organizations. Turkish organizations have been also described as the
family-type (Trompenaars and Hampton-Turner, 1998).
Another explanation of this finding may be attributed to the nature of
state-business relations in the current Turkish context. The state is an important
institution in shaping organizational structure of the Turkish private companies.
Bugra, in her study, notes that the relations with government authorities, rather than
the market, determine the strategic decisions in Turkish organizations. This is also the
case for the Turkish construction industry. Even the large company owners manage
the company as a family-enterprise, rather than involving the professionals in the
major decisions. This may be due to the fact that the relations with the government
authorities is not delegated but conducted by the family members (Kabasakal and
Bodur, 1998).
Independent sample t-tests were conducted on the overall scores for each of the four
culture types to compare architectural and contracting firms. Items were randomly
pulled from the larger group in order to have equal sample sizes. The results, which are
presented in Table III revealed a significant difference for the market culture type
between contracting and architectural firms. Market culture is more dominant in the
contracting firms than in the architectural practices (t¼3.849, p,0.0001). This may
be attributed to the characteristics of the contracting firms operating in relatively more
uncertain and unpredictable markets and environments, where market culture,
prevalent in organizations where competitive pricing and market leadership are
important (Cameron and Quinn, 1999), might be essential for survival.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was also performed to examine organizational
culture differences by firm size and age of the firm. A post hoc Scheffe
´test was used to
explore differences among subgroups. Three of the ANOVA results for firm size were
found to be significant. Scheffe
´test ( p,0.05) revealed that the mean scores for large
firms for clan and hierarchy cultures were significantly lower than those of small and
medium-sized firms. These findings are not supportive of Cameron and Quinn (1999),
who related the internal process model to large organizational size, and are inconsistent
with many scholars who reported that larger organizations are characterized by
numerous hierarchical levels, standardized procedures, increased specialization,
limited flexibility and bureaucratic control (Child, 1973; Keats and Hitt, 1988; Lawler,
1997; Mintzberg, 1979). ANOVA results were also significant for adhocracy, or open
Culture types
Dimensions of culture Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy
Dominant characteristics 3.61 3.19 3.58 3.04
Organizational leadership 3.39 3.38 2.86 3.84
Management of employees 3.84 3.13 3.17 3.66
Organization glue 3.83 3.69 3.09 3.25
Strategic emphases 3.53 3.75 3.64 3.90
Criteria of success 3.66 3.52 3.36 4.04
Average of the six dimensions
Cultural profile of the sample 3.64 3.44 3.28 3.62
Notes: Scale: 1 ¼Strongly disagree, 2 ¼Disagree, 3 ¼Neutral, 4 ¼Agree, 5 ¼Strongly agree
Table II.
Mean scores on the
organizational culture
dimensions for the
sample
Turkish
construction
industry
525
systems model. The difference was between medium and large sized firms. Adhocracy
culture, which is observed in dynamic, innovative and entrepreneur organizations, is
more dominant in medium sized firms. This finding supports Gray et al. (2003), who
found that organizations with less that 100 employees are significantly more
innovative and performance-based organizations than larger ones.
Significant differences were also found in terms of organizational age. Scheffe
´tests
(p,0.05) indicated that 16 to 25 year old organizations scored significantly higher on
clan, adhocracy, and hierarchy cultures than older ones. This finding is inconsistent
with organizational life cycle theories where it is proposed that more hierarchical and
bureaucratic structures emerge as organizations grow and age (Greiner, 1998; Kriesi,
1996). On the other hand, it is possible to explain this finding with a strategic
management perspective; since the “growing firms might develop more complex
management systems with a number of management functions” (Birley and Westhead,
1990).
Ak-means cluster analysis was used for combining sampled firms into clusters
(groups) that describe cultural configurations of firms with similar cultural
characteristics. In order to determine the appropriate number of groups, a hierarchy
cluster analysis was first conducted at organizational level, using Ward’s method and
squared Euclidean distance as a distance measurement. Results from the hierarchy
cluster analysis showed that there are three underlying patterns of cultural types
among sampled firms. This number was then used as seed points for the
non-hierarchical k-means analysis.
Table IV presents the characteristics of each of the groups obtained, using the
culture types defined by Cameron and Quinn (1999). The dominancy of culture types in
each cluster is determined by the ratio of the mean scores of culture types in clusters to
the overall mean scores, where ,1 is low, 1 is moderate, and .1 is high.
Firms of the first cluster obtained low scores on market, and moderate scores in the
others. 45 organizations are characterized with cluster 1. Cluster 2 comprised
Culture types
NClan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy
Firm type
Architectural 27 3,75 3,39 2,93 3,47
Contracting 32 3.62 3.46 3.37 3.66
T-value 21.193 0.590 3.849 *** 1.671
Firm size
Small 62 3.72 3.48 3.25 3.65
Medium 38 3.80 3.55 3.41 3.82
Large 34 3.33 3.25 3.19 3.35
F-value 9.201 *** 3.507 *1.592 7.553 **
Firm age
#15 45 3.62 3.45 3.37 3.60
16-25 46 3.87 3.69 3.42 3.86
.25 39 3.47 3.21 3.06 3.44
F-value 6.919 ** 9.233 *** 3.172 5.505 *
Notes: *p,0.05 **
p,0.01 ***
p,0.001
Table III.
Cultural profile scores for
firm type, size, and age
ECAM
14,6
526
organizations with moderate scores for market culture and low scores on the others. A
total of 25 organizations belong to this group. Cluster 3 contained the largest sample,
with 64 organizations. In this group, there was a high emphasis on hierarchy and clan
cultures and to a lesser extent adhocracy and market cultures.
Table V sets out the descriptive statistics of the cultural clusters. As is seen in the
table, 55.6 per cent of the architectural design firms belong to cluster 1 with low scores
on market culture, while 52.3 per cent of the contracting firms belong to cluster 3,
which are dominated by a mixture of strong hierarchy and clan cultures. This finding
supports Ankrah and Langford (2005), who underline that contracting firms in
construction industry are quite formal organizations working under formal
procedures, where tasks are generally standardized, which are also the
characteristics of the hierarchy culture.
Searching for the cultural differences among organizations of different sizes, it has
been found that 51.6 per cent of the small firms and 52.6 per cent of the medium-sized
firms are in cluster 3. Regarding the age of the firms, Table V shows that cluster 3
comprises firms who have been in operation less than 25 years.
Graphical presentation of the mean scores in each of the four culture types for the
overall sample and cultural clusters is presented in Figure 2, using the competing
Cultural clusters
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Culture types Overall mean (N¼45) (N¼25) (N¼64) F-value
Clan 3,64 3.62 2.83 3.98 108.508 *
Adhocracy 3,44 3.21 2.76 3.87 167.741 *
Market 3,28 2.92 2.79 3.73 102.916 *
Hierarchy 3,62 3.47 2.82 4.04 182.701 *
Notes: N¼number of firms in the clusters; *p,0.001
Table IV.
Description of the three
cultural clusters
Cultural clusters
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
N(N¼45) (N¼25) (N¼64)
Firm type:
Contracting 107 30 (28,0) 21 (19,7) 56 (52,3)
Architectural 27 15 (55,6) 4 (14,8) 8 (29,6)
Firm size:
Small 62 20 (32,3) 10 (16,1) 32 (51,6)
Medium 38 16 (42,1) 2 (5,3) 20 (52,6)
Large 34 9 (26,5) 13 (38,2) 12 (35,3)
Firm age:
#15 45 14 (31,1) 7 (15,6) 24 (53,3)
16 - 25 46 12 (26,1) 4 (8,7) 30 (65,2)
.25 39 18 (46,2) 11 (28,2) 10 (25,6)
Note: N¼number of firms in the clusters; Figures in parentheses are percentages
Table V.
Descriptive statistics of
clusters by organizational
characteristics
Turkish
construction
industry
527
values framework axis and quadrants. A close look at the figure shows that there are
similarities between the clusters. Interestingly, the firms in all clusters had higher
scores for internally focused culture types (clan and hierarchy) when compared to the
externally focused ones (market and adhocracy), regardless from the characteristics of
the organizations.
Confirming the ANOVA and t-test results presented in Table III, this finding is
inconsistent with the assumptions of Dasmalchian et al. (2000) that environmental
unpredictability, which is also a common concern in construction industry, has a
positive effect on market culture and a negative one on the clan culture. Dasmalchian
et al. suggest that organizations operating in more unpredictable and uncertain
markets are more likely to develop a value system that emphasizes results orientation
and market focus, and de-emphasizes the culture of hierarchy and bureaucracy.
Similarly, Al-Khalifa and Aspinwall (2001) have posited that business organizations
tend to be less product-driven and more market-oriented in response to dynamic,
complex and challenging environments.
Conclusion
This paper presents the findings of a questionnaire survey conducted among
organizations in the construction sector with the view of establishing their current
cultural profiles. The results reported in this paper indicate that most of the sampled
organizations in the Turkish construction industry have a mixture of clan and
hierarchy cultures, which do not match the demands of their competitive
environments. Firms operating within the contracting and architectural services
sectors put more emphasis on stability and teamwork instead of maintaining
productivity and innovation. Yet, they may find it difficult to survive in a fiercely
Figure 2.
The cultural profiles of the
clusters
ECAM
14,6
528
competitive industry such as construction due to a mismatch between their culture and
environment.
This study also provided evidence to support the idea that organizational culture is
affected by the firm type, organizational size and age, given that:
.there is a significant difference between the organizational culture of
architectural and contracting firms in the sample, since the market culture is
more dominant in the latter, which may be attributed to competitive and
unpredictable business environment of the contracting firms;
.medium-sized firms have significantly high scores on clan and hierarchy
cultures compared to the large firms;
.adhocracy culture is more dominant in medium sized firms than the larger ones;
and
.firms in operation for 16-25 years are scored significantly high on clan,
adhocracy, and hierarchy cultures than older ones.
In the search of cultural configurations of firms with similar characteristics, the results
of the cluster analyses indicated that there exist three underlying cultural orientations
in the sample studied. Cluster I, with a low market score; seem to be more appropriate
for architectural firms and firms in operation for more than 25 years, while Cluster III,
with a high emphasis on clan and hierarchy culture, came over as more suitable for
contracting firms, small- and medium-sized firms, and relatively younger firms, in
operation for less than 25 years. No distinction has been captured in cluster II, the
smallest group in the sample, by firm type and organizational characteristics, except
for firm size. Almost 40 per cent of the large firms fall into this group, which has low
scores on all culture types, indicating a balanced culture.
The results also provide supporting evidence that organizational cultures are partly
predetermined by nationality, industry and task; and partly related to the
organizational structure and control (Hofstede et al., 1990). However, the conclusion
of the study is limited to the sample studied. All firms are Turkey-based; therefore a
comparison among different countries would be helpful to prevent the national bias.
Moreover, this study does not focus on the cultural profile of organizational members,
such as professional cultures of the respondents; therefore it is not possible to ascertain
the influence of the cultural characteristics of the respondents on organizational
culture. Thus, further research is needed to determine the generalizability of this
study’s findings.
The study of organizational culture in the construction industry is still in an
embryonic stage. We believe that studies of this sort will serve not only to enhance our
understanding of organizational culture in the construction industry, but will
ultimately point toward several issues that need to be investigated in future research.
References
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 No. 4,
pp. 417-28.
Turkish
construction
industry
529
Ankrah, N.A. and Langford, D.A. (2005), “Architects and contractors: a comparative study of
organizational cultures”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 595-607.
Birley, S. and Westhead, P. (1990), “Growth and performance contrasts between types of small
firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 535-57.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based
on the Competing Values Framework, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY.
Child, J. (1973), “Predicting and understanding organizational structure”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 168-85.
Dasmalchian, A., Lee, S. and Ng, I. (2000), “The interplay between organizational and national
cultures: a comparison of organizational practices in Canada and South Korea using the
Competing Values Framework”, Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 388-412.
Deshpande, R. and Webster, F.E. (1989), “Organizational culture and marketing: defining the
research agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Gray, J.H., Densen, I.L. and Sarros, J.C. (2003), “A matter of size: does organizational culture
predict job satisfaction in small organizations”, working paper, Monash University,
Melbourne.
Gould, F.E. and Joyce, N.E. (2000), Construction Project Management, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Greiner, L.E. (1998), “Evolution and revolution as organizations grow”, Harvard Business Review,
May.
Handy, C.B. (1993), Understanding Organizations, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Handy, C.B. (1995), Gods of Management: The Changing Work of Organizations, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Hillebrant, P.M. (2000), Economic Theory and the Construction Industry, 3rd ed., Macmillan,
London.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage Publications, London.
Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, Sage Publications, London.
Hofstede, G., Neujien, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990), “Measuring organizational culture:
a quantitative and qualitative study across cultures”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 286-316.
Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (1998), “Leaders, values, and institutions: the case of Turkey”,
working paper prepared for Globe, Bosporus University, Istanbul.
Keats, B. and Hitt, M. (1988), “A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions,
macro organizational characteristics and performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 570-98.
Kriesi, H. (1996), “The organizational structure of new social movements in a political context”, in
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D. and Mayer, N. (Eds), Comparative Perspectives On Social
Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lawler, E. III (1997), “Rethinking organization size”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 24-35.
ECAM
14,6
530
Low, S.P. and Shi, Y. (2001), “Cultural influences on organizational processes in international
projects: two case studies”, Work Study, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 267-85.
Maloney, W.F. and Federle, M.O. (1991), “Organizational culture and management”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-58.
Maloney, W.F. and Federle, M.O. (1993), “Practical models for organizational assessment”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-81.
Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Paparone, C.R. (2003), “Appling the competing values framework to study organizational
subcultures and system-wide planning efforts in a military university”, unpublished PhD
thesis, Department of Public Affairs, The Pennsylvania State University, Middletown, PA.
Phua, F.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 No. 7, pp. 777-85.
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.
Quinn, R.E. (1988), Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing
Demands of High Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rowlinson, S. (2001), “Matrix organization structure, culture and commitment – a Hong-Kong
public sector case study of change”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19
No. 7, pp. 669-73.
Shein, E. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H. and Marshall, M. (2003), “The quantitative measurement of
organizational culture in health care: a review of the available instruments – methods”,
Journal of Health Services Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 923-45.
Sødergaard, M. (1996), “Hofstede’s consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 447-56.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1993), The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: Value,
Systems for Creating Wealth in the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, France,
Sweden, and the Netherlands, Doubleday Publishing, London.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1998), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
Zhang, S.B. and Liu, A.M.M. (2006), “Organizational culture profiles of construction enterprises
in China”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 817-28.
Further reading
Bug
˘ra, A. (1990), “The Turkish holding company as a social institution”, Journal of Economics
and Administrative Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 35-51.
Corresponding author
Ela Oney-Yazıcı can be reached at: oneyel@itu.edu.tr
Turkish
construction
industry
531
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
