The Impact of Culture on Leadership Behavior:
Case of Contracting Personnel
Gulfer Topcu-Oraz
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey (email: oraz@itu.edu.tr)
Heyecan Giritli,
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey (email: giritli@itu.edu.tr)
Ela Oney-Yazıcı
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey (email: oneyel@itu.edu.tr)
Emrah Acar
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey (email: acare@itu.edu.tr)
Abstract
Cross-cultural leadership studies have generally emphasized a strong connection
between culture and leadership styles, but, not many have focused on the relationship of
an industry culture with the behavior of individuals and organizations who consider
themselves as part of the construction industry. Additionally, in comparison to other
fields of research, studies that have been undertaken on the subject of leadership in
relation to professional practice are very limited in the construction industry.
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 examine leadership behaviors that are usually
preferred and enacted in the Turkish Construction Industry. In the study, Hofstede’s
Values Survey Module (VSM) was used. A total of 723 professionals from 107
contracting firms evaluated their preferred and perceived leadership styles.
Keywords: culture, leadership, power distance, contracting personnel
1. Introduction
The cross-cultural literature has generally stressed a strong connection between culture
and leadership behaviors. Besides practical needs, there are important reasons to
examine the impact of culture on leadership. The view of universality of leadership
patterns is now being displaced with the knowledge that managerial attitutes, values,
behaviors, and efficacy differ across national cultures [1], [2]. Many researchers have
argued that the influence effectiveness of leaders varies considerably as a result of the
cultural forces in which leaders function [3].
Although strong evidence of the influence of national citizenship on leadership behavior
was reported in literature, not many focused on the relationship of an industry culture
with the behavior of individuals and organizations who consider themselves as part of
the industry. Additionally, in comparison to other fields of research, studies that have
been undertaken on the subject of leadership in relation to professional practice are very
limited in the construction industry.
The intent in this paper is to examine leadership behaviors that are usually preferred and
enacted in the Turkish Construction industry. The results presented in the paper are
preliminary results of a major research project which has been carried out in
collaboration with CIB TG-23 “Culture in Construction”.
2. Culture and Its Implications for leadership
While some reseachers have pointed out that universal leader behaviors exist, e.g. [4],
[5], others support a “culture specific” view of leadership indicating that unique cultural
characteristics such as language, religion, and values call for distinct leadership
approaches in different societies [6], [7], [8]. At the same time, however, the results of
Dorfman et.al [9] and Bass [10] give evidence for the validity of both universal and
culture-specific perspectives in the study of leadership across cultures.
To what extent are leadership behaviors culturally determined? A good way to approach
this question is to use Hofstede’s model of ‘national culture’. According to Hofstede,
countries can be categorized along four prominenet value dimensions: (1)
individualism-collectivism, (2) uncertainty avoidance, (3) power distance, and (4)
masculinity. These four dimensions were validated by data from completely different
sources [11]. The analysis of the replications [12] showed that the differences predicted
by Hofstede’s dimensions were largely confirmed.
Hofstede’s concept of power distance provides some insight as to the type of leadership
behavior that would be prefered within a particular culture. High power distance may
lead to a very autocratic, controlling type of leadership, whereas a low power distance
may give a rise to a more democratic approach. Hofstede [11] found that in countries
with high power distance, employees preferred autocratic, the persuasive, or the
democratic majority-vote manager. Whereas in countries with low power distance,
individuals preferred a consultative manager.
2
Hofstede’s second cultural dimension is uncertainty avoidance or the extent to which a
culture tolerates ambiguity and uncertainty. High uncertainty avoidance may lead to a
more bureaucratic and controlling leadership, whereas low uncertainty may lead to a
more laissez-faire leadership.
The individualism-collectivism dimension suggests that high individualism may lead to
a more competitive type of leadership, whereas high collectivism may give rise to a
more consultative behavior.
High masculinity may give rise to a fairly maco type of leadership, where high
femininity may lead to a more empathetic consideration type of leadership. In masculine
cultures, there is a higher emphasis on assertiveness and the acquisition of money and
other material things.
Rodrigues [13] has described possible relationships among Hofstede’s four dimensions
and House and Mitchell’s [14] four situation-linked leadership styles, namely directive,
supportive, achievement, and participative. According to his theory, a directive
leadership will be more effective in those societies with relatively high power distance,
collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. A supportive style is suitable for societies with
moderate power distance and collectivism while an achievement style can work in
societies with weak-to-moderate uncertainty avoidance. Furthermore, a participative
style can work well everywhere except in those societies with a combination of
relatively high power distance, strong collectivism and high uncertainty avoidance.
On the other hand, a distinction appears across developed and developing countries in
leadership practices. In a study investigating influence behavior of leaders in Turkey,
Fikret-Pasa [15] found that Turkish managers and leaders show paternalistic attributes.
Paternalism includes elements of both autocratic and nurturant behaviors where the
leader acts like a father to the followers [16].
3. Leadership in Construction
One of the most important research areas receiving relatively little attention in the
construction industry is leadership [17]. Grant [18] and Djebarni [19] expressed their
concerns on the under research of leadership in the construction industry.
In considering leadership behavior in construction industry, the first thing that needs to
be determined whether the construction industry is a special case. Firstly, the projectbased nature of the construction industry will almost certainly have an influence on the
managerial leadership behavior of professionals working in the industry.
3
In the context of the construction industry, the leadership behavior changes as the
project progresses through its life cycle. During the different phases of the design
process, leader behavior may need to allow for more debates, fine-tuning and
deliberation. Yet, during the construction phases, it may be more structured and
dominant. During a concrete pour under adverse conditions, it may need to be tough,
direct and even dictatorial. In settling disputes, it may need to be creative and
conciliatory [20]. In this respect, one can say that construction professionals are in need
of different leadership behaviors in different phases of the project life cycle.
Furthermore, the environment in which leadership is exercised is influential in shaping
the leadership behavior of people who occupy managerial positions in construction
settings. For example, the state of the labor market, and in particular the level of
unemployment, strongly influences the behavior adopted by the management. In this
case, employees have less bargaining power due to high unemployment, and may have
to accept whatever leadership behavior management adopts. This means that leaders in
construction industry are able to impose more authoritarian behaviors [21].
As noted previously, the influence of culture on leadership behavior is one of the most
intensively examined constructs in cross-cultural research. In the construction context,
cultural influences on leadership behavior also 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 behavior.
4. Research Methodology
In order to measure the pattern and frequency of preferred and perceived leadership
behaviors in Turkish contracting firms, a questionnaire was developed based on the
work of Hofstede.
A total of 107 contracting firms were sampled in the study. The firms were selected by
judgmental sampling procedure. The judgment criteria used for selection were: (a)
origin of nationality, with emphasis on local firms, (b) size based on number of
emloyees and yearly work volume, with the emphasis on medium and large firms, and
(c) industry position based on market share rates, with the focus on the 12 large firms.
The sample consisted of 723 respondents (78.7% men, 21.3% women), ranging from
managerial to non-managerial professionals. The age range was from 20 to 50 years
and above. 40.2% of the respondents were from 40 to 50 years above.
4
In the study, respondents were asked to evaluate the styles of managers whom they are
familiar with as well as their preferred management styles. A description of four
different types of managers is given in the questionnaire. Hofstede [2] defined an
autocratic manager (coded 1) as someone who “usually makes his/her decisions
promptly and and communicates them to his/her subordinates clearly and firmly.” A
paternalistic or persusive manager (coded 2) “usually makes his/her decisions promptly,
but before going ahead, tries to explain them fully to his/her subordinates.” A
consultative manager (coded 3) “usually consults with his/her subordinates before
he/she reaches his/her decisions.” A participative manager (coded 4) “usually calls a
meeting of his/her subordinates when there is an important decision to be made” and
“puts the problem before the group and tries to obtain consensus”.
5. Results and Discussion
In order to determine whether respondents’positions had any influence on preferred and
perceived leadership behaviors, respondents were divided into two groups reflecting the
managerial positions (middle and first-level management) and professional but nonmanagerial positions (non-managerial professionals). A total of 112 respondents who
were top-level managers were excluded from the analysis.
Table I and II contain a summary of the analysis for managerial and non-management
professionals in respect of their preferred and perceived leadership behaviors.
Table I Percentage of Responses For Preferred Leadership
Leadership
Behaviors
Autocratic
Paternalistic
Consultative
Participative
Total
Managerial
Personnel
6.3 (34)
18.6 (100)
27.0 (145)
48.1 (259)
100.0 (538)
Non-managerial
Personnel
2.9 (2)
22.1 (15)
23.5 (16)
51.5 (35)
100.0 (68)
Total
5.9 (36)
19.0 (115)
26.6 (161)
48.5 (294)
100.0 (606)
As is seen from Table I, the most preferred leadership behavior was participative
(48.5%), followed by consultative (26.6%), paternalistic (19.0%), and autocratic
(5.9%) leadership behavior. It is apparent that the majority in each group expressed a
preference for working under a leader who usually calls a meeting of his/her
subordinates when there is an important decision to be made” and “puts the problem
before the group and tries to obtain consensus”. This finding failed to support Esmer
[22], who found that the most preferred type of manager in Turkish Society was
consultative, and was inconsistent with Kabasakal and Bodur [16] who reported that the
5
ideal leader in society carries the behavioral characteristics of paternalistic and
consultative leaders.
This finding is also inconsistent with the contentions of others [23], [24] that within the
context of construction, authoritative leadership behavior is more frequently preferred
than all other behaviors. Yet, participative roles of leaders have a different meaning in
the Turkish Society than some other parts of the world. Participation is used more to
make followers feel part of the group than incorporating their ideas into the decision
making process or seeking consensus [3].
Table II Percentage of Responses for Perceived Leadership
Leadership
Behaviors
Autocratic
Paternalistic
Consultative
Participative
None*
Total
Managerial
Personnel
24.4 (131)
24.0 (129)
23.1 (124)
17.9 (96)
10.6 (57)
100.0 (225)
Nonmanagerial
Personel
26.5 (18)
33.8 (23)
19.1 (13)
8.8 (6)
11.8 (8)
100.0 (68)
Total
24.6 (149)
25.1 (152)
22.6 (137)
16.9 (102)
10.7 (65)
100.0 (605)
*invalid or missing value
Figures in Table II reveal that there are some differences between managerial and nonmanagerial positions. As is seen from the table, the most perceived leadership behaviors
for managerial professionals were autocratic (24.4%) and paternalistic (24.0 %),
followed by consultative (23.1%), and participative (17.9). For the non-managerial
professionals, paternalistic was the most perceived leadership behavior (25.1%),
followed by autocratic (24.6%), then consultative (19.1%), and then participative
(8.8%) behavior. It is possible to explain this finding in light of the high power distance
characterizing the Turkish Culture. Paternalism that was the most frequent perceived
leadership behavior among respondents includes elements of both autocratic and
nurturant behaviors where the leader acts like a father to the followers [16], [25]. The
second most frequent perceived leadership behavior was autocratic type. Furthermore,
participative behavior was reported to be the least prevalent in the context of
construction. This finding is consistent with the early observations of the Turkish
Society. As a part of a large cross-cultural study, Kabasakal and Bodur [16] found that
Turkish leaders are either predominantly autocratic/paternalistic, or consultative, but not
democratic. Furthermore, in a study conducted by Esmer [22] among 4824 people from
all regions of Turkey, working respondents were asked to evaluate the styles of
managers whom they are familiar with. Responses show that the most dominant
6
management style was authoritarian (53.4%), followed by paternalistic (25%),
consultative (1.6%) and democratic (8.5%).
It is apparent that the high power distance, characterizing the Turkish Society, positively
influences the autocratic/paternalistic behavior and negatively impact the participative
leadership behavior. For exploratory analysis, the power distance index was computed
as (Hofstede, 2001): 135 – 25 (mean score subordinates afraid) + (% perceived manager
1 + 2) – (% preferred manager 3). Here manager 1 is autocratic, 2 is
persuasive/paternalistic and 3 is consultative. The PDI scores were: all respondents
81.6, managers 79.9, and non-managerial personnel 92.05.
The PDI scores are notably higher than that for Turkey from Hofstede [2]. This
evidence may be attributed to the characteristics of the construction industry. The higher
score of contracting personnel seems likely to be due to the reflection of the precarious
nature of the work environment. Additionally, the power distance index for nonmanagerial professionals is higher than that for managerial staff. This finding provides
confirming evidence, which Hofstede [11] found lower power distance values for
managers than for non-managers.
6. Conclusion
This study has examined the perceived and preferred leadership behaviors among
contracting personnel within the Turkish construction industry. Effect of the position
was also investigated.
In the study, it was found that the perceived leadership behaviors for managerial and
non-managerial staff are predominantly autocratic and paternalistic. Participative
leadership was reported to be the least prevalent within the industry. There appears to be
an alignment between the most frequently observed leadership behavior of respondents
and the high power distance characterizing the Turkish society.
The study also found that there is a similar pattern for preferred type of leadership
among the levels of positions examined. Responses show that participative leadership is
more frequently preferred than all other behaviors.
The findings reported in this paper can only lend further support to the view that more
attention needs to be directed toward cultural differences in leadership behavior.
7
References
[1] Boyacigiller, N. and Adler, N.J. (1991) The parochial dinosaur: Organizational
science in a global context. Academy of Management Review 16 (4), 262–290.
[2] Hofstede, G., (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values. Sage Publications, London.
[3] Fikret-Pasa, S., Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (2001) Society, Organizations, and
Leadership in Turkey, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), p.559-589.
[4] Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., (1993) "Transformational leadership: a response to
critiques", in Chemers, M.M., Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research:
Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp.49-80.
[5] Dorfman P.W. and Ronen, S., (1991) The universality of leadership theories:
Challenges and paradoxes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings,
Miami.
[6] Hofstede, G., (1993) Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of
Management Executive, 7(1), 81-94.
[7] Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985) ‘Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions:
A Review and Synthesis’. Academy of Management Review 10: 435-454.
[8] Triandis, H.C., (1993) Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes.
Journal of Comparative Social Sciences, 27(3-4), 155-180.
[9] Dorfman, P.W. (1997) Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities
and Differences in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures. Leadership
Quarterly, 8(3), 233-274.
[10] Bass, B.M., (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: Leadership
to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), pp. 19-32.
[11] Hofstede,G., (2001) Culture’ consequences: Comparing values, behaviours,
institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd edition, Sage Publications, London.
[12] Sondergaard, M., (1994) Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations
and replications. Organization Studies, 15, 447-456.
8
[13] Rodrigues, C.A., (1990) "The situation and national culture as contingencies for
leadership behavior: two conceptual models", in Prasad. S.B (Eds),Advances in
International Comparative Management, pp.51-68.
[14] House, R. J. & Mitchell, T. R., (1974) Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3: 81-97.
[15] Pasha, S.F., (2000) Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist
culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, MCB University Press,
2178, 414-426.
[16] Kabasakal H. and Bodur, M., (1998) Leadership, Values and Institutions: The case
of Turkey. Research paper, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
[17] Chan A.T.S. and Chan, E.H.W., (2005) Impact of Perceived Leadership Styles on
Work Outcomes: Case of Building Professionals. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, ASCE, vol.131, No.4, p.413-422
[18] Grant, K.J., (1984) “Towards a leaderless industry”. Building Technology and
Management, 5, 3-4.
[19] Djebarni, R., (1993) "Leadership patterns in the construction industry in Algeria",
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Reading, Reading.
[20] Hopper, J.R., (1990) Human Factors of Project Organization, A Report to the
University of Texas. the Construction Industry Institute, Austin.
[21] Giritli, H. and Topçu Oraz, G., (2004) Leadership Styles: Some Evidence from the
Turkish Construction Industry. Construction Management and Economics, vol. 22(3),
pp.253-262.
[22] Esmer, T., (1997) Characteristics of the Turkish Culture. Radikal, 27 July.
[23] Lansley, P., (1994) Analysing Construction Organizations. Construction
Management and Economics, 12, 337-348.
[24] Sinclair, A., (1998) Doing Leadership Differently. Melbourne University Press,
Australia.
[25] Kim, U.M., (1994) Significance of paternalism and communalism in the
occupational welfare system of Korean firms: A national survey. In U. Kim, H.C.
9
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi & G. Yoon (eds), Individualism and collectivism:
Theory, method and applications (Cross-cultural research and methodology, No.18,
p.251-266), Thousanda Oaks, CA:Sage.
10