A RESEARCH IN TURKISH CULTURE ON THE REFLECTIONS OF KUT-BASED TASK CONCEPT TO ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR IN COMPARISON WITH WESTERN CULTURE

Abstract

In Turkish thought, ‘kut’ (political power) is given to Kagan by God. The ruler is the ruler because God has given him ‘kut’ and the political power has the right to authority. The study is based on the idea that ‘kut’ provides a reference frame that ‘duty’ is sacred. This idea is based on both paradigms emic and ethics. In order to show the difference of duty’s sacredness owing to kut between western and Turkish culture, Organizational Citizenship Behavior is used as a tool of test. The study is based on the assumption that the mean values obtained in empirical studies on Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Turkish Culture are higher than western cultures having in been touch with Turkish Culture. The t-test results show that there is a significant difference (t(53,81)=4,307; p<0,05) between the studies of Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Turkish Culture and Western Culture. The average of Organizational Citizenship Behavior studies examined in Turkish Culture was found higher than average of Organizational Citizenship Behavior studies examined in Western Culture.

Keywords

• Cross Culture
• Culture
• Emic
• Ethic
• Organizational Citizenship Behavior

References

1. Arsal, S.M. (1947). Türk Tarihi ve Hukuk (Vol. 1). İstanbul: İ. Akgün Matbaası.
2. Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and Deciding. United States: Cambridge University Press.
3. Basım, H.N. & Şeşen, H. (2006). Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Ölçeği Uyarlama ve Karşılaştırma Çalışması. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 61(4).
4. Genç, R. (1981). Karahanlı Devlet Teşkilâtı: XI. Yüzyıl: Türk Hâkimiyet Anlayışı ve Karahanlılar (Vol. 373). Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
5. Kafesoğlu, İ. (1988). Türk Milli Kültürü. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.
6. Kezer, A. (1987). Türk ve Batı Kültüründe Siyaset Kavramı (Vol. 82). Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.
7. Moorman, R.H. & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism‐Collectivism as an Individual Difference Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16(2): 127-142.
8. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.

9. Ögel, B. (2010). Türk Mitolojisi, Kaynakları ve Açıklamaları ile Destanlar, I-II. Cilt. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
10. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of The Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Management 26(3): 513-563.
11. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68(4): 653-663.
12. Williams, L.J. % Stella E.A. (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal of Management 17(3): 601-617.