Anda di halaman 1dari 14

International Bulletin of Business Administration ISSN: 1451-243X Issue 10 (2011) EuroJournals, Inc. 2011 http://www.eurojournals.


Entrepreneur Managers' Leadership Approaches in Small Businesses: A Research in Antalya, Turkey

Nedim YUZBASIOGLU Tourism and Hotel Management School Akdeniz University, Campus, Antalya, Turkey E-mail: Tel: +90-242-3102023; Fax: +90-242-2275540 Pelin ARSEZEN OTAMIS Tourism and Hotel Management School Akdeniz University, Campus, Antalya, Turkey E-mail: Tel: +90-242-3102023; Fax: +90-242-2275540 M. Ozer DEMIR Business Administration, Akdeniz University, Campus, Antalya, Turkey E-mail: Tel: +90-242-6186655; Fax: +90-242-2275540 Abstract This work aims to survey employees perception of leadership behaviors held by the business owners; besides, it also aims to determine fundamental expectations of the business owners from those who are managed by them, with the intent to clarify the analysis. According to the results of the research, conducted on 40 SMEs that are active in Antalya, employees tend to be more sensitive to the behaviours aiming at the relationship in question. Employees, who are primarily affected by the applications of leadership behaviours, have in many respects the same views on entreprenuarial managers behaviours in SMEs with leaders views who expects the same views from employees.

Keywords: SMEs, paternalism, paternalistic leadership, Turkish leadership type, Antalya.

1. Introduction
Small and middle sized enterprises (SMEs) play an important economic role in Turkey, as world wide. SMEs are said to be the back bone of Turkish economy as they represent 99,5% of all enterprises in Turkey, thus economic issues mainly effects SMEs. SMEs in Turkey represent the structural economic problems of Turkish economy, and they are the first and most efected actors by the global conjunctural waves ( SMEs in Turkey count 1.880.879 representing %99,3 of all enterprises. SMEs in manufacturing sector count 272.513. As they are the main dynamic of manufacturing sector, politics and strategies mainly focus giving accelaretion to SMEs productivity and growth. They employ %80 of the work force, %60 of all investment, and %40 of the value added. They have %10 ratio in exports, and use 36

%25 of all credits ( SMEs produce small value added products because of their lack of technical knowledge and competency, their limited ability in reaching konwledge and information technology opportunities and in utilizing these technologic advantages (

1. SMEs in Turkey
Small and middle sized enterprises (SMEs) play an important economic role in Turkey, as world wide. SMEs are said to be the back bone of Turkish economy as they represent 99,5% of all enterprises in Turkey, thus economic issues mainly effects SMEs. SMEs in Turkey represent the structural economic problems of Turkish economy, and they are the first and most efected actors by the global conjunctural waves ( SMEs in Turkey count 1.880.879 representing %99,3 of all enterprises. SMEs in manufacturing sector count 272.513. As they are the main dynamic of manufacturing sector, politics and strategies mainly focus giving accelaretion to SMEs productivity and growth. They employ %80 of the work force, %60 of all investment, and %40 of the value added. They have %10 ratio in exports, and use %25 of all credits ( SMEs produce small value added products because of their lack of technical knowledge and competency, their limited ability in reaching konwledge and information technology opportunities and in utilizing these technologic advantages ( Although, their importance in the national economy can not be negletible, there is no avaible data to to analyze and enlight the sitiuation SMEs are in for all sectors. However, importance of SMEs role in Turkish economy resemble EU countries in the name of enterprise count and employement but diferentiate in developement level and cultural and political structure (Yetim & Yetim, 2006). In a world with declining customs and traditional essentials of competence are seem to be marketable new products and production methods, new management ideas and new technology developing innovation ability. Any country, sector or company lack of ability to utilize scientific and technological findings into economic and social use may no longer survive in such a changing world (Katz, 2005). According to european enterprise scales, Turkish industry is more SMEs structured, however, when whole economy is compared it is seen that agricultural sectors share and work force employed in agriculture in Turkey is far more than EU economy. But, parallel with the urbanization the situation follows developed country normals (, 2002). On the other hand, Turkeys capital investments is insufficient and foreign capital flows remains low. Under these circunstances, SMEs seem to be the answer for the excess work force to be employed in urban areas, as a appropriate developing strategy (, 2002).
Table 1: Distribution of SMEs by Sector and Work Force Employed by SMEs in Turkey
Enterprise Count 6.697 1.721 96.039 272.513 35.611 2.393 20.958 174.390 33.386 101.748. 868.186 267.237 1.880.879 Work Force Employed 78.755 57.819 334.778 2.126.896 224.210 75.841 175.889 546.088 101.148 222.102 2.007.384 502.774 6.453.684

Sector Education Electricity, Gas, Steam, Hot Water Production Real Estate, Rental and Related Business Manufacturing Construction Mining Finance Otels and Restaurants Health Social Services Whole Sale and Retail Transportation and Storage Total Source:, 2008


Table 1 shows that the SMEs in Turkey play an important role in employement. SMDSAs (SMEs Development and Support Agency of Industrial Ministry) research given in Table 2 illustrates manufacturing sector firms work force supporting rationale fort he role of SMEs .
Table 2: Distribution of Manufacturing Firms by Scale in Turkey
Enterprise Count 246.011 ( %90 ) 21.212 2.425 1.061 781 1.023 272.513 Total Work Force Employed 586.596 ( %27 ) 444.718 167.270 129.935 149.033 649.344 2.126.896

Scale ( Work Force ) 1-9 10-49 50-99 100-150 151-249 250 + Total Source:, 2008

SMEs working with 1-9 employees count %90 of all enterprises, and they are the main supplier for big companies.

2. Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneur

Entrepreneurship is a highly comprehensive process as it is affected by macro and micro properties such as individual, organizational and environmental factors. The whole process is called entrepreneurship paradigm. This paper assumes entrepreneur as the owner of the investment and the one who undertakes the risk, whether or not the founder of the entreprenuership, but to be the owner or the manager. There is no consensus on the definiton of the entrepreneur, however according to widely accepted definitions entrepreneur manages directs a small sized firm with no bound by a particular pledge or course (Collins et al., 2004; Stewart & Roth, 2007). Another view suggests that entrepreneur is the manager of the enterprise and risk taker (Miner v.d., 1989). Lots of normative and descriptive study studied entreprenuers personal characteristics. Brockhasus (1982) advocated that from a social perspective the most obvious factor is entreprenuers innovation. Schumpeter (1951) also claims that entreprenuer behavior is characterized by innovation. According to this view, only the one who achieves innovation behaves as an entrepreneur. McCelland (1961) says entreprrenuer behaviors key factor is active and/or innovative, unusual (uncommon) act (Smith & Miner, 1983). Differentiates entrepreneur creativity from artistic or literate creativity, emphisizing that entrepreneur puts ideas into action on the next step. Most mentioned entrepreneur characteristics are constancy, endurance (patience), high achivement motivation, opportunity evaluation, high initiative and responsibility, problem solving, fast learning, high self control, high uncertanity tolerance, measured risk taking, reliability, resistance to failure, creativity and innovation, vision, self confidence and optimism, independent behavior and team management (Carland et al, 1984).
Table 3: Characteristics of an Entrepreneur
Normative X X X X X Empiric

Date, Author, Charecteristic 1848, Mill, Riskbearing 1917, Weber, Formal Authory source 1934, Schumpeter, Diversity, Pioneering 1954, Sutton, Responsiblity will 1959, Hartman, Formal Authory source 1961, McCelland, Risk taking, Achivement requirement 1963, Davids, Ambition, independence desire, responsibility, self confidence



Table 3:

Characteristics of an Entrepreneur - continued


1964, Pickle, Vision, interpersonal relations, communication ability, technical knowledge

1971, Palmer, Risk measurement Risk lme 1971, Hornaday ve Aboud, Achivement motivation, authonomy, aggresiveness, power, publicity, differentiation, independence 1973, Winter, Power desireG ihtiyac 1974, Borland, Self control focus, 1974, Liles, Achivement motivation 1977, Gasse, Adaptation to personal values 1978, Timmons, Self direction, self confidence, gola oriented, rational risk taker creativity, diversity 1980, Sexton, Energic, ambitious, creativity against barriers 1981, Welsh ve White, Control desire, responsiblity, self confidence, competive, rational risk taker, 1982, Dunkelberg ve Cooper, Tendency to Growth/Developement, tendency to independence, tendency to craftmanship, Source: Adapted from Carland et al., 1984.

It may not be possible to define an entrepreneur profile solely relying on Table 3, but similiarities within studies may underline general characteristics. High risk taking attitutes, innovativeness, motivation for growth and developement, and high achivement motivation are mentioned by the most authors. Some authors claimed leadership charactersitics can be used to define entrepreneuri others mentioned its(his) role within the organization (Miller, 1983). Welsch and Young (1982) defined entrepreneurs personal characteristics as control oriented, Machiavellist, self esteem, risk taker, innovative, resisting or challenging authority, economically optimist, and management according to rules. Vision, mission and ambition are the three characteristics of an entrepreneur (Yetim & Yetim, 2006).

3. Leadership
Within the literature there are differing definitions of leadership by different authors. Yukl (1989) defined leader as one persons non-compulsory infleunce on a group of people, coordinating and directing them, in order to achieve a collective goal. Hedlund et al. (1998) defined leadership as a comprehensive performance area dealing with interpersonal and organizational problem solving ability. Burns (1978) defines leadership as peoples motivation (activate) to put their followers into action in order to achieve dependently or independently defined goals using economic, politic, and similiar isues and values. Kotter (1990) defines leadership as determinig strategic direction for the organization, transfering vision to employees and cunsumers, inspiring employees, focusing employees to the same goal and organizing them in order to achieve the vision. The principles of leadership is as follows (Block and McMillian, 1993): Leadership is a multi dimensional interaction process. Leadership includes behaviors relying on convincing (persuation). In a leadership process, followers are active participants. Leader and followers aim change and transformation. There are mutual goals and aims (objectives) in order to achieve the collective mission Leaders influence is well recognized till pre-historic ages and has affected all ages and societies. But modern leadership concept took its place at the begining of 20th century and followed characteristics theory, behavior theory, situational theory and neo-charismatic theories, mentioned in Table 4. 39

Table 4:

Summary of Leadership Theories

IV. Modern (Neocharismatic approach) Charismatic, visionery and transformative leadership approaches

I. Characteristics Theory

II. Behavioral Theory Michigan University Studies

III. Contingency Theory Blake & Fiedlers McGregors Effective Moutons X and Y Leadership Management Approach Model Matrix It is managers assumptions about human behaviour that determines managers actions. Hersey & Blanchards Contingency Approach Suggests task oriented ledership For irresponsible subordinates, both task and relationship oriented leadership for responsible subordinates Vroom & Yettons Making Decision Model

Kurt Lewin et al.

Tannenbaum & Schmidt

Ohio State Studies

Suggests 2 leadership style; 1) employee Differentiates Leaders may be oriented leaders as autocratic or leader autocratic or democratic at democratic the same time 2) task oriented Source: Arranged by authors.

Sugggests a Distingushes model effective distingushing and interpersonal ineffective relations leader oriented and task oriented

Suggests existence of Relationship oriented and task oriented leadership

Effective leadership style is effective decision making.


4. The Common Leadeship Typology in Turkey : Paternalist Leader

Studies on paternalistic leadership takes place in the last 20 years (Aycan, 2001; Fikret Pasa et al., 2001; Yetim & Yetim, 2006). Authors define paternalistic leadership as acombination of discipline and authority and paternal attitude (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007). In Exchange of paternal involvement and conservation employees are supposed to be respectfull, loyal (committed), and obedience (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007; Aycan, 2001). In Middle East, Pacific Asia and Latin American business cultures paternalistic leadership is very common and effective way of management (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007; Yetim & Yetim, 2006; Aycan, 2001). Aycan and Kanungos (2000) 10-country study, shows that paternalism is most common in India, Pakistan, China and Turkey; followed by Romania, Russia, ABD, Canada and least common countries are Isreal and Germany. Western management literature takes paternalism as if dictotarship and suggests its avaoidance (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007). Some psychiatric researhers found relationship between a persons feelings towards another person transfered to a third person (transference) and paternalism, and claim that feelings toward paternal figure is transfered to the manager as the authority figure (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007). Paternalistic leadeeship relies on values such as commitment (loyal) to the leader and obedience without questioning. According to Weber traditional paternal authority relies on patriarchal family model. Researchers claim that paternalism is stil an important tool as it fills employees psychological needs, and paternalism is kept as a strategic tool in need by global competence environment within local environment (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). Paternalism demands managers to involve employees daily lifes personally, as well as working hours. In paternalistic cultures people controling authority assimilate patern role and carry the mission of involvement and conservation (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007; Fikret Pasa et al, 2001; Yetim & Yetim, 2006). Subordinates show loyalty, respect and obedience in exchange of paternal conservation and attention (Aycan, 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007). Researchers claim that existance of benevolence and authority at the same time in paternalistic leadership is directly a matter of traditional cultrural values, and father as the grower, attendant, reliable meanwhile authoritarian, demanding and strict discipline figure. In a traditional father-kid relationship, father has the kid accept his authority over kids related with the kid, and is responsible for the requirements and recognizing kids interests. In Exchange kid obeys fathers absolute authority (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007). Paternalism is effectively used other than western cultures (Aycan, 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). Paternalism is not appraciated in western cultures as it is considered equal with authoritorian (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007), however, Aycan and Kanungo found strong negative corelation between paternalism and authoritorian. Paternalistic leadership is taken as authotarian and maniplative whereas other cultures advocates its positive effects. Moreoever, paternalism is more common within collectivist and high power distanced cultures. Within collectivist cultures, paternal leader is supposed to intervene the employees private life, but within individualist cultures intervening someones private life is unacceptable as it is recognized as a kind of violence and to be under constrainted or pressured. Paternalistic relationship demands the manager to intervene employees life as if he is part of the family, and paternalist leaders ideas and thoughts should be taken as right (Aycan, 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). Meanwhile, such a relationship is founded on unequality between the seniors and the subordinates, which recalls power distance in to consideration. As power distance is unquestionable in western cultures, paternalism is severely objected (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007). Recent researches claim that China, Pakistan, India and Turkey rate higher paternelizm compared to America, Canada, Germany and Israel (Aycan and Kanungo, 2000; Yetim & Yetim, 2006). Strong traditional family norms effect legal structure and paternalistic practices. In turkey firms are obligated to pay golden handshake (a payment given to someone who is made redundant), moreover, in case of an employeed woman marries and her husband does not want her to work, same 41

golden handshake is also paid. The practice proofs how organization is effected by family norms (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007). Some researcher also found positive significant relationship between power distance and tell what to do leadership (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007). The point of view is that paternalistic leadership is effective within culture in which maintaining hierarchical relationships important (Aycan, 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). Wtihin Turkish context, researches show that paternalistic leadership is an effective strategic management tool fort he traditional Turkish firm structure ishaped by high power distance and collectivism (Pellegrini & Scandura 2006).

5. Research Method
The purpose of the study is to determine the perceptions of employees about entreprrenuer-managers in SMEs, and to classify observed leadership typologies according to leadership theories. 5.1. Questionery Items Exploratory in nature, research is conducted at two stages. First a pre-test is conducted a qualitative field study with 10 employess, and entrepreneurs. Employess are asked to identify their bosses, and bosses are asked about their expectations from employess. All interviews are recorded and analysed, and on the next stage data derived from interviews is used to form the questionery. Most used adjectives are choosen as questions, resulting 5 items for employees, and 5 questions for bossess expectations about pre-defined adjectives. Final questionery if revised by three independent researchers in order to ensure nomological validity. 5.2. Data Collection and Sample ATSOs (Antalya Trade and Manufacturing Board) data base is used in order to determine SMEs in Antalya. SMEs are pre-called for cooperation. Totally, data is collected from 40 SMEs (Table 5) all managed by their owners. Purposive sampling method is used in order to determine the firms. 5 employees and 1 boss is choosen for each SMEs, totally 164 employees (because of working hours) and 40 bosses participated. No family reletionship is allowed among the participants.
Table 5: Sample Properties
Number 9 1 2 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 40 Ratio (%) 22,5 2,5 5 2,5 40 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5 5 10 100 Employees Between 50-130 175 Between 65-70 40 Between 5-40 120 17 35 85 240 Between 7-25 Between 15-60

Sector Fresh fruit and vegetable and seedling production and trade Milk and milk products production and trade Agricultural fertilizers and liquid manure packaging and trade Leather products manufacturing and trade Fresh fruit and vegetable brokerage Turkish delight and candy production Chemicals (cleaners) production and marketing Education firms Plastic manufacturing Catering Tourism sector Health sector Total


5.3. Reliability and Validity Reliability and validity is the most critised concepts for quntitative researchs (Punch, 2005). Five validity types are suggested for quantitative researhes: Descriptive Validity: Items should be free of meaning transmutation. Items are prapared according top re-test in order to ensure descriptive validity. Interpretive Validity: The study uses the adjectives pronounced by the participants themselves to ensure interpretive validity. Theoretical Validity: In this study the goal is high explanation degree of the fact. Generalizebility: Generalizibility of the study is limited as the universe does not contain all the SMEs in Turkey. Estimative Validity: In this study researchers evulated findings and concluted results and to ensure descriptive validity. 5.4. Research Findings Demographic Findings Demograrphics of entrepreneurs are given in Table 6.
Table 6:
Gender Education Lenght of service Firm age

Demographics for Entrepreneurs

Male 37 Primary school %26 1-5 years %27 1-5 years %15 Female 3 High School %32 6-10 years %40 6-10 years %42 Total 40 Pre-graduate %8 11-20 years %30 11-20 years %35 Graduate %34 20+ years %3 20+ years %8

Participant entreprenuers gender found to be as masculine, %92,5 is male and %7,5 is female, a very common finding among developing or undeveloped countries like Turkey (Yetim & Yetim, 2006). Entreprenurs are found to be over educated as %34 is graduated from a university. High school (%32) and university graduates (%34) totally represents %66 of the participants. The finding suggests entrepreneurs in Turkey are young and middle aged. Length of service also supports this finding; totally %67 of the participants running their own businesses are between 1-10 years, remanin %33 for entrepreneurships more (older) than 10 years. The participants minimum age is found as 22, and the oldest as 55and, average entrepreneur age is found to be 40. In general, entrepreneurs in Turkey found their entrepreneurship between their 25-30s (Yetim & Yetim, 2006). All findings support each other, that Turkish SMEs and entrepreneurs are young. Hisrich and Peters (1985) also claimed that male start their entrepreneurships at their early 30s and their female colleagues at their mid 30s. Most of the participants are founder-owner-manager (%95), only %5 (2/40) of the entrepreneurs took over entreprenuership. Reasons of starting a entrepreneurship is discussed within the literature (Miller, 1983; Todorovic, 2008), and most entrepreneurs are founder, entrepreneur, manager, leader, and owner
Table 7:
Gender Education Lenght of service Firm age

Demographics for Employees

Male 101 %62 Primary school %12 1-3 years %64 1-5 years Female 63 %48 High School %44 4-7 years %24 6-10 years

Pre-graduate %10 8+ years %12 11-20 years

Graduate %34

20+ years


The participant employees are %62 male and %38 female. No statistially significant difference is found between male and female employees defining their owner-managers. Average employee age is 30, which relatively low compared to european countries. It is as expected as the avarege employee age in Turkey is 36,4 (, 2008). Employees work experience with the firm matter of research is analysed under 3 categories. Employess length of service between 1-3 years account %64, 4-7 years %24 and more than 8 years %12. As length of service is important in defining the boss, no employee with less than one year experience is allowed. Education levels of participant employees reflect an educated workforce; %34 graduate, %10 pre-graduate, %44 high school, and %12 primary education. Employees Perceptions of Entrepreneur-Managers Behaviors SPSS-13 package program is used analysing the data. Raw data retrieved from employees is classifed in to three sub groups as personality related, work related and relatioship related. Adjectives used for defining owner-manger is categorized under leadership, management and entrepreneurship concepts by a specialist group. Adjectives are tagged into for sub gropus and than divided with positive or negative caps.


Figure 1: Grouping of Adjectives used by Employees for SMEs Owner-Manager

Positive Personality Related Negative Miserly (7) , Ambitious (4), Hidebound (4). Clever (5) , Fastidious (4).

Positive Owner-Manager Work Related Negative

Hardworking (32), Disciplined (25), Innovative (11), Analyser (9), Entrepreneur (5), Tidy (4), Visionery (7), Professional (7), Knowledgeable (4).

Workaholic (14).

Positive Relationship Related Negative

Benevolent (40), Smiling (15), Honest (12), Listener (11), Good (11), Protective (9), Paternalist (6), Sharing (5), Respectful (4), Polite (4).

Distanced (14), Normative (13) , Authoritarian (9), Strict (5).

* Numbers represent frequences of adjectives.


Figure 2: Categorized Employee Used Adjectives Determining Owner-Manager by Positive or Negative

Positive Adjectives Relationship Related: 127 Work Related: 104 Personality Related: 9

Negative Adjectives Relationship Related: 41 Work Related: 14 Personality Related: 15

Total =240

Total =70

As seen illustated in Figure 3, relationship related adjectives are foregrounded, personality related negative adjective predominate positive adjectives.
Figure 3: Categorized Employee used Adjectives Determining Owner-Manager by Relationships, Work, and Personality

Relationship Related Positive=127 Negative=41

Work Related Positive =104 Negative =14

Personality Related Positive =9 Negative =15

Total: 168

Total: 118

Total: 24

According to employees perceptions, entrepreneur-managers attiudes and behavior are predominated by relationships. Especially within positive attiudes benevolence rate the highest frequency. Benevolence, protective, paternalist adjectives are the distinctive characteristics of the paternelistic leadership (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2007). Moreover, when negative adjectives are analysed bosses are defined as distanced, normative and authoritarian, all seen in paternalistic leadership. On the other hand, adjectives used defining the boss (hard working, disciplined, inovative, analyser, entrepreneur, tidy, visionery, professional) are congruent with the entrepreneurs characteristics. Owner-managers hard working property is perceived as if positive, whereas workaholic is negative, by the employees. Yetim & Yetim (2006) claims that although it is the sign of an entrepreneurs high achievement motivation, being workaholic is disapproved by employees.


Disciplined owner-manager is perceived as positive, however, some employees recognize disciplined similiar to authoritarian. Interviews showed tahat discipline is wellcomed, but strict discipline and discipline in ralationships is disapproved by the employees. Work related perceptions show that boss properties are conqruent with entrepreneurs properties. As the owner-manager also works as if an amployee (Yetim & Yetim, 2006), he has high achievement motivation and perfection. Employees also rated high work and perfection related adjectives. Distanced was expected to be within relationship realted properties, however, employees perceived their bosses as distanced and cold within personality related properties. The finding suggests that a boss distance is acceptable at work, but it is not acceptable in personality. This finding is also cogruent with paternalistic leadership, distanced at the work to be done, but friendly at the personalty level. Mangers are defined as innovative and visionery, also congruent with entrepreneur propertis, and these adjectives are also perceived as positive. Smiling and honest are perceived as positive, no negative judgement is found about competence. Owner-managers Expectations from Employees Owner-managers main expectation from their employees is pre-tagged relying on prior researches (Aycan et al, 2000, Fikret-Pasa et al 1998, Scandura & Pellegrini, 2007, Kabasakal & Bodur, 1998). Table values represent ratings more than 2 specialist reivews are also refered. In the end, 41 adjectives defining boss expactations from employees is obtained.
Tablo 8: Bosses Expectations from Employees
Frequencey 37 25 14 8 6 4 Relationship Related Expectations Honest, Reliable Respectful Clean Smiling Healthy Responsible Social Frequency 29 12 9 6 5 5 4

Work Related Expectations Disciplined, Tidy, Attantive, Planned Team Player, Participating, Sharing, Harmonious Educated, Professional, Qualified Hardworking, Successive Initiative, Innovative Experienced

Bosses in SMEs expecte disciplined employees most. This finding is congruent with task related and authoritarian leadership behavior (Kagitcibasi, 2000). Data obtained from employees reflects perceived discipline and authority as the leadership bahavior, as well. Another boss expectation is found as employees honesty. Honesty plays an important role within cultures in which trust levels are at low level. It is sugested that trustworthy employees are expected in SMEs as the turnover is high. It is also a known fact that SMEs are mostly family entrepreneurships (Kagitcibasi, 2000). Family members supposed to be more trustworthy, and it may be the reason that they are employeed more often in SMEs. Participant owner-managers also expect their employees to be respectful. Turkish culture is characterized with high power distance (Aycan, 2000). Meanwhile, the size of the entreprenuership requires close manager-employee interaction. In such close and hierarchical realations shaped by definite power distance, relationship management becomes an important management challenge. As it is noted in the interviews with the SMEs entrepreneurs, importance of distance in relations is clearly defined. Most of the bosses mentioned that they whether behave like a father, or like a segeant depending on the situation, and suggested that a manager should behave paternalist. Other expectations from emplyees are tidyness, educated, and smiling. Specially bosses complain under qualfied (uneducated) employee ratios, and consider it as the main human reseources main problem. 47

Smiling, being a team player, participating, and harmonie are expactations at the secondary level. Bosses are asked to clearify these subjects, it is emphisized that bosses expect employees behave more harmanious, and collectivist (at socail life, as well as at work.) (presenting common actions during meals, and brakes). Other low rated expectations follow as being tidy, healthy, qualified, experienced, and hardworking.

6. Conclusion
SMEs populate most of the enterprises in Turkey, as well as worldwide. As they are managed by the owner of the enterprise, managers properties are explained by entrepreneur properties, as well as leadership. Other factor effecting SMEs are socio-cultural influences and sector. Low levels of buracracy and formality makes manager-employee relations more informal, resulting different expectations from each other. Meanwhile, managers effected by socio-cultural values are expected to behave in a different manner other than western managing practices. In this paper, entrepreneur-owner-managers leadership behaviors are determined, in the name of employees perceptions. Findings support evidence for managers expecting employees to be more task oriented, suggesting managers behaviors as paternelistic and control based leadership. The most significant finding of the study is that, in SMEs, close and informal relations between entrepreneur-owner-manager and employee forces paternelistic bahaviors, exceeding professional norms. Paternelistic behaviors may find its base within the Turkish culture it emerges. Benevolence, smiling but meanwhile distanced, authoritarian behaviors support this finding. Employees consider entrepreneur not only as a employer, but as a family member (brother, father, or a family elder). Within western management literature, the paternelism concept is misunderstood as if it is dictatorship or authoritarian. However, it is an effectively used management tool in cultures like (resembling) Turkey. As the SMEs boss is an entreprenuer, their control tendency, their loyalty (commitment) to work, and being workaholic is approvable. The study is limited to SMEs in Antalya, thus should be broadened contrywide. Especially statistically more strong tools should be used in the following researches for precise decissions. But stil, exploratory in nature researhes such as this paper enlights management practices in cultures like Turks.

[1] [2] [3] [4] Aycan, Z. (2001), Human Resource Management n Turkey: Current ssues And Future Challenges. International Journal Of Manpower, 22 (3), 252-260. Block, Z. ve I. Macmillan (1993). Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses Within The Firm, Boston, Ma:Harvard Business School Press. Burns, M. G., Leadership, Harper-Row, Newyork 1978. Carland W., Hoy F., Boulton W.R. , J.A.C. Carland (1984), "Differentiating Entrepreneurs From Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization", Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 9 Pp.354 - 359. Collins C.J., Hanges P., Locke E.A. (2004), "The Relationship Of Need For Achievement To Entrepreneurship: A Meta-Analysis", Human Performance, Vol. 17 Pp.95 - 117. Fikret-Pasa, S., Kabasakal, H., ve Bodur, M., (2001). Society, Organizations, And Leadership n Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 559-589. Hedlund, J., Sternberg, R.J., Horvath, J.A., Dennis, M., Forsythe, G.B., & Snook, S. The acquisition of tacit knowledge for military leadership: Implications for training. Paper presented at theSociety for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Dallas, TX, April 1998. Hisrich R.D. & Peters M. P. (1998). Entrepreneurship. Fourth Edition. United States: The Mcgraw Hill Book Co. 48

[5] [6] [7]


[9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[14] [15]

[16] [17] [18]


[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Kabasakal, H. & Bodur, M., Leadership And Culture n Turkey: A Multi-Faceted Phenomena, Http://Mgmt3.Ucalgary.Ca/Web/Globe-Nsf/ ndex, 1998. Kagitcibasi, C. (2000). Social Norms And Authoritarianism: A Turkish-American Comparison. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 16, 444-451. Kotter, J. P., Leading Change, Harvard Business, 1990 Miller, D. 1983. The Correlates Of Entrepreneurship n Three Types Of Firms. Management Science, 29, 7, 770-791. Pellegrini, E. & Scandura, T., (2006), Leadermember exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation, Journal of International Business Studies, 2006, vol. 37, issue 2, pages 264-279 Pellegrini, E. & Scandura, T., (2007), Paternalistic Leadership: A Review and Agenda for Future Research, Journal of Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, 566-593 Schumpeter, J. A. (1951) The Creative Response n Economichistory, R. V. Clemence (Der.), Essays On Entrepreurs, Innovations, Businesscycles, And The Evolution Of Capitalism, New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 216-226. Smith, N.R. & Miner, J.B., (1983), "Type of entrepreneur, type of firm, and managerial innovation: implications for organizational life cycle theory", in J.A. Hornaday (Eds). Stewart W.H. & Roth P.L. (2001), "Risk Propensity Differences Between Entrepreneurs And Managers: A Meta-Analytic Review", Journal Of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 Pp.145 - 153. Todorovic, Z. W. & Schlosser, F. K. (2007). An Entrepreneur And A Leader: A Framework Conceptualizing The nfluence Of Leadership Style On A Firm's Entrepreneurial Orientation Performance Relationship. Journal Of Small Business And Entrepreneurship, 20, 3, 289-308 Yetim, N. & Yetim, U. The Cultural Orientations Of Entrepreneurs And Employees Job Satisfaction: Turkish Small And Medium Sized Enterprises (Smes) Case. Social Indicators Research. Volume 77, Number 2, 257-286, DOI: 10.1007/s11205-005-4851-x, 2006 Yukl G.; Managerial Leadership: A Review Of Theory And Research, Journal Of Management, Vol. 15,No. 2, (1989), 252.,12.01.2008, 27.10.2008, 17.01.2008 http://www.Sanayi.Gov.Tr, 2002, 10.01.2008, 11.05.2009