Information and Communication Technologies and Organizational Culture in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide an insider’s perspective on the mutually constitutive interplay between Information and Communication Technologies ICTs and the organizational culture of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs over the last two decades. It is argued that the introduction of ICTs to work processes in the Ministry has been a set of reform attempts of senior bureaucrats to adapt the organization to the rapidly changing socio-political environment and to ensure the dominance of the Ministry in the information field of Turkish foreign policy. Reforms have targeted organizational behaviours manifesting the basic assumptions of the organizational culture, namely “hierarchy”, “secrecy”, “oneway communication with the public” and “the notion of the survival of the state”. This case study indicates that the influence of ICTs is most profound in the communication style of foreign service officials, which has gradually been changing from one-way to two-way communication with the public. ICTs have also enabled foreign service officials to develop collaborative cross-agency relations with other public and private organizations. The article

Keywords

• Turkey, Foreign Ministry, organizational culture, technology, communication, public diplomacy.

References

1. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The author thanks Dr. Manabrata Guha, Mr. Denis Cunningham, and Mr. Haldun Koç for their thorough review of the earlier drafts of this article.
2. Ozkan, “Public Diplomacy of Turkey”, 2013.
3. Rob Kling, “Social Informatics: A New Perspective on Social Research about Information and Communication Technologies”, Prometheus, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2000), pp.245-264.
4. Mentioned in Fountain (2004): Hirokazu Okumura develops the technology enactment framework by adding three groups of actors who take part in the enactment process. He argues that (i) vendors and consultants, (ii) key decision makers of technology systems within the organization, and (iii) policy makers, managers and staff members play roles with varying degree of influence in the technology enactment processes.
5. Geerth Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, 2001; Andrew M. Pettigrew, “On Studying Organizational Cultures”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24. No. 4 (December 1974), pp.57-581.
6. Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., San Francisco, John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
7. Priority is given to basic assumptions that are related to the most fundamental elements of organizational culture, namely its goals and missions, means to be employed to reach those goals and missions, and organizational identity. Beliefs, values and artefacts are referred to as they contribute to elaborations on the basic assumptions of the organizational culture of the Ministry.
8. Jozef Batora, Foreign Ministries and the Information Revolution: Going Virtual? (Diplomatic Studies Vol. 2), Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2008.

9. Gurpinar, Ottoman Imperial Diplomacy: A Political, Social and Cultural History, 2013.
10. Heper, The State Tradition in Turkey, 1985; Heper, “The Ottoman Legacy and Turkish Politics”, 2000; Mardin “Center-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics?”, 1973.
11. Heper “The Ottoman Legacy and Turkish Politics”, 2000.
12. Carter V. Findley, “The Legacy of Tradition to Reform: Origin of the Ottoman Foreign Ministry”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1970), pp. 334-357.
13. While assuming that the Ministry is formed and operates in accordance with the ideal model of Weberian bureaucracy, it is acknowledged that this simplification falls short of illustrating administrative particularities emanating from the political culture of the Turkish bureaucracy. However, this simplification will be kept to provide an analytically understandable organizational structure in discussions.
14. Cull, Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past, 2009; Melissen, The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, 2005, US CSIS Report, Reinventing Diplomacy in the Information Age, 1998.
15. Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 2 (1983), pp.147-161.
16. https://www.konsolosluk.gov.tr/eKonsolosluk/; https://diplomatic.mfa.gov.tr/; https:// www.evisa.gov.tr/en/; http://www.mfa.gov.tr/default.en.mfa; http://www.memleketim. gov.tr/ (last visited 29 March 2016).
17. Naci Koru, Hariciyeden Bilişim Yazıları, 2015, at http://nkoru.blogspot.com.tr/ (last visited 29 March 2016).
18. Koru became familiarized with computers while serving as Second Secretary at a Turkish diplomatic mission in Saudi Arabia in 1984. For his memoir see: Naci Koru, Hariciyeden Bilişim Yazıları, 2015, at http://nkoru.blogspot.com.tr/2010/04/bilgisayarla-ilk-tansma. html?view=flipcard (last visited 29 March 2016).
19. Bilgin Ozkan, “Türk İş Dünyasının Kamu Diplomasisindeki Rolü”, in Mehmet Sahin and B. Senem Cevik (ed.), Türk Dış Politikası ve Kamu Diplomasisi (Turkish Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy), Nobel, 2015.
20. Henry Mintzberg, The Structuring of Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice- Hall, 1978.
21. Mary J. Hatch, “The Dynamics of Organizational Culture”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4 (1993), pp.657-693.
22. Özlem Tür and Ahmet K. Han, “A Framework for Understanding the Changing Turkish Foreign Policy of the 2000s”, in Özden Z. Oktav (ed.), Turkey in the 21st Century: Quest for a New Foreign Policy, Farnham, Ashgate, 2011.
23. Naci Koru, Presentation on Technological Partnership Opportunities with Turkish Public Organizations 2011, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icblYJodXz8 (last visited 29 March 2016).
24. Batora, Foreign Ministries and the Information Revolution: Going Virtual?, 2008.
25. Nuriye Akman, “Turkey Strengthens Document Security After WikiLeaks Revelations”, Today’s Zaman, 4 December 2010, at http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkey- strengthens-document-security-after-wikileaks-revelati ons_228669.html (last visited 18 January 2016); Naci Koru, “Wikileaks Ders Oldu, Kendimize Çeki Düzen Veriyoruz”, Zaman, 3 December 2010, at http://www.zaman.com.tr/roportaj_wikileaks-ders-oldu- kendimize-cekiduzen-veriyoruz_1060170.html (last visited 18 January 2016). 35 Ibid.
26. Batora, Foreign Ministries and the Information Revolution: Going Virtual?, 2008.
27. Ozen, “Political and Administrative Attitudes of Turkish Bureaucrats: An Explanatory Framework for Change and Stability” (1991-1993).
28. Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, New York, The Penguin Press, 2008.
29. Ozkan, “Public Diplomacy of Turkey”, 2013.
30. Eyup Ersoy, “Old Principles, New Practices: Explaining the AKP Foreign Policy”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4 (2009-2010), pp.115-127.
31. Kemal Kirisci, “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy: The Rise of the Trading State” New Perspectives on Turkey, Vol. 40 (2009), pp.29-57.
32. Gunter Seufert, “Foreign Policy and Self-image: The Social Basis of Strategy Shifts in Turkey”, SWP Research Paper 11, 2012, at https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/ contents/products/research_papers/2012_RP12_srt.pdf (last visited 21 June 2016).
33. Sevgi Akarcesme, “Deputy FM: Foreign Ministry to Eventually Go Paperless”, Today’s Zaman, 6 August 2013, at http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_deputy-fm- foreign-ministry-to-eventually-go-paperless_322922.html (last visited 18 January 2016).
34. Cagri Erhan, “Dışişlerinin Hafızası Araştırmacılara Açılıyor (The Memory of the Ministry will be Open to the Public)”, Türkiye Gazetesi, 2 November 2014, at http://test. turkiyegazetesi.com.tr/yazarlar/prof-dr-cagri-erhan/583044.aspx (last visited 28 March 2016).