Introduction

Studies of organizational culture have predominantly focused on the psychological aspect of the relationship between employees and managers, such as organizational culture organizational commitment (Ghosh and Swamy, 2014; Gökyer, 2018, Haftkhavani, Faghiharam, Araghieh, 2012), silence (Erigüç, Özer, Turaç and Sonğur, 2014; Vakola, Bouradas, 2005) and citizenship behavior. Organizational power is another factor driving organizational communication and behaviors of employees. In the studies on organizational power, it is seen that the use of power (Alapo, 2018) and leadership (Fuqua, Payne and Cangemi, 2000) is emphasized. However, there is not much research on the power distance perceived by the instructor.

Understanding the dynamics of power distance is particularly important in Turkish higher education context due to the structures of institutions and the types of relations among different groups within the institution.  

The purpose of this research is to determine the reactions of instructors against unequal distribution of power which consist of “accept power”, “using force as a tool”, “legitimize power” and ‘consent power’.

Conceptual Framework

There are many studies examining the impact of cultural differences on individual behavior and organizational culture.  The most comprehensive of these is the research of Hofstede which explains the culture in five dimensions. According to Hofstede, the dominant national culture reflects itself on organizational culture with power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism / collectivism, long-term / short-term orientation and masculinity-femininity dimensions (Öğüt ve Kocabacak, 2008).  

Uncertainty Avoidance: In describing uncertainty avoidance, Hofstede (1980) first examined the uncertainty faced by organizations and stated that the main source of uncertainty was the organizational environment. According to Hofstede (1980), employees are highly motivated to take risks and to move forward in organizations where there is low uncertainty avoidance. In organizations where the avoidance of uncertainty is high, the possibility of individual development is limited as employees avoid taking risks.

Individualism, Collectivism: Another dimension of organizational culture is individualism-collectivism.  Hofstede found that societies in wealthy countries have a more individualistic approach, but developed countries have a more communal approach. (Öğüt ve Kocabacak, 2008: 154). Further according to Hofstede (2011) the level of individuality depends on the factors such as educational level, size, history, and culture of the organization.

Feminity-Masculinty: The values that stand out in masculinity dominant cultures are success, reputation, competition, aggression, independence and so on while the values that stand out in feminity dominant cultures are compassion, kindness, compassion, loyalty, love and sensitivity (Sargut, 2001).

Short Term - Long Term Orientation: Organizations dominated by short-term orientation has a type of culture dominated by past or present whereas  organizations dominated by long-term orientatio has a culture that is based on dynamic and future-oriented opinion (Öğüt ve Kocabacak, 2008).

Power Distance: Power distance, according to Hofstede (1994), is the degree to which the members of the organization accept the unequal distribution of power originating from status, wealth, good-looking, size and dignity. Power distance refers to the degree to which individuals, groups, or societies accept inequalities (e.g., inequalities in power, status, wealth) as unavoidable, legitimate, or functional (Hofstede, 1980). The relationship between bosses and subordinates in a low power distance society is one of interdependence in contrast to dependence in a high distance culture. Power distance influences the levels of participative decision making, centralization, and formal hierarchy within organizations (Hofstede, 2011).

The study was conducted based on phenomenological research design of qualitative research method. Phenomenological research predominantly focus on the experiences and aims to explore the underlying meaning of these experiences (Merriam, 1998). Participants The study group consists of 15 instructors determined by criterion sampling within the purposive sampling methods. The basic criterion in determining the study group is to include participants with difference academic titles. Data Collection and Analysis The data of the study were collected by the interview form prepared by the researchers. While the interview form was formed, the literature on the power distance was first reviewed and to determine the possible responses of instructors to power a semi-structured interview form was developed on the four basic dimensions of the Organizational Power Distance Scale developed by Yorulmaz, Colak, Altinkurt, Yilmaz (2018). Then the opinions of the two instructors were taken for the interview questions. Face-to-face interviews with the instructors. The duration of the interview ranged from 30 to 45 minutes. Descriptive analysis and content analysis techniques were used in the analysis of data. Descriptive analysis was performed depending on the themes specified in accordance with the questions in the interview protocol. These themes were determined to be “accept power”, “legitimize power”,, “use power as a tool” and ‘consent power’. While conducting content analysis, codes were initially created in accordance with the themes. Creating the codes facilitated summarizing and analysing the data.

I am currently working on the data analysis. Significant findings, discussions and conclusions will be provided during the conference.

Alapo, R. (2018). Organizational Power Politics and Leadership Experiences on the View and Use of Power in Organizations. Management, 6(1), 30-36. Erigüç, G., Özer, Ö., Turaç, İ. S., & Sonğur, C. (2014). The Causes and Effects of the Organizational Silence: On Which Issues the Nurses Remain Silent?. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 10(22), 131-153. Fuqua, H. E., Payne, K. E., & Cangemi, J. P. (2000). Leadership and the effective use of power. In National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal E (Vol. 17). Ghosh, S., & Swamy, D. R. (2014). A Literature Review on Organizational Commitment-A Comprehensive Summary. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 4(12), 4-14. Gökyer, N. (2018). Organizational Commitment of High School Teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(n3a), 115-125. Haftkhavani, Z. G., Faghiharam, B., & Araghieh, A. (2012). Organizational Commitment and Academic Performance (Case study: students at secondary schools for girls). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1529-1538. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures’ Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1) Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and Organisations: Software of the Mind,: McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. revised and expanded from" case study research in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104. Öğüt, A., A., Kocabacak, (2008). Küreselleşme Sürecinde Türk İş Kültüründe Yaşanan Dönüşümün Boyutları, Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı:23, ss.145-170. Rodrigues, C. A. (1998). Cultural Classifications of Societies and How They Affect Cross-Cultural Management. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. Vol: 5 (3), pp: 31-41. Sargut, S. (2001). “Kültürlerarası Farklılaşma ve Yönetim” İmge Kitabevi, Ankara. Vakola, M., & Bouradas, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: an empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27(5), 441-458. Yorulmaz, Y. İ., Çolak, İ., Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2018). Örgütsel Güç Mesafesi Ölçeği Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 8 (4). 671-686.