.57}. : a. f». . W. H .. K wigga « .fiflm. 5%.: ... “kiwi? n. J! but fi. .31.”? 2 33.95.39.39 . a.» - a... . . ., ., .Pmr\—.L.}+ “ . .2 H w... I _.. ..... . wfi . a?“ RE _...A.‘ , 4 ,‘iun, $3. 5 Wm, £37m a» raw, «fl... . a o. if”; h. . «flag . la‘! 1.3..“ 51...”... , 3,...vfih, an... 2. 2c... x 1.. q ‘ nadvnmm. v . t. . it In”. %..53 ‘ i alumna. I u 3 54%;; 'V o . 1.2 kw. ,. .l‘o . ......... ihfiiw \LD‘I This is to certify that the dissertation entitled POLICE CULTURE IN TURKEY AND US: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLICE CULTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY POLICING presented by KAAN BOKE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD. degree in Criminal Justice LIBRARY Michigan State Universi M. WM; L’W Major Professor’s Signature MW ?J_5too Z} Date MSU is an affirmative-action. equal-opportunity employer MAR PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 3 * 00 _811‘922 1‘39 011% 6/07 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1 A POLICE CULTURE IN TURKEY AND US: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLICE CULTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY POLICING By Kaan BOKE A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Criminal Justice 2007 hax rnu< poh poht poht Fun} 0far and; dune ideni POHC PETC< “HI CIeaf ABSTRACT POLICE CULTURE IN TURKEY AND US: A COWARATIVE STUDY OF POLICE CULTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY POLICING By Kaan BOKE Studies dealing with law enforcement and order maintenance in Turkey primarily have been concerned with the historical development of the Turkish National Police. Not much research has focused on methodical and comprehensive studies of the views of the police officers and middle managers views on Turkish National Police and community policing. Not has there been any research comparison of the views of managers and police line officers relating to police organizational culture and community policing. Further, very little attention has been paid in Turkey to the existence and characteristics of an organization culture and subculture which might reflect and identifiable behavioral and attitude set among police officers. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the dimensions of the police organizational culture in Turkey and compare items with similar identifiable groups in the US. Further this dissertation intends to extend knowledge on police organizational culture and community policing by way of analyzing police officers perceptions relating to their organization’s work environment. It is hoped that this study will provide a wealth of practical information to police managers and others who seek a clear understanding about the police organizational culture in Turkey and the US. Copyright by KAAN BOKE 2007 Dedicated to my wife Hatice, my son Erkan and my wonderful country Turkey. h3\ gra' dies Ihrr COTE; IhIOL ansu Imel JUSU; reSEaf half} COIIe'c‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENT Throughout my journey to the PhD, many people - family, friends, and faculty- have generously offered support, advice, encouragement, and wisdom. I am deeply grateful to all of them I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my adviser and the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. Mahesh Nalla, for his guidance, mentorship and resources throughout the last three and half years. I deeply appreciate his concern and effort in taking time off from his busy schedule to meet with me regularly, which has helped me to achieve my goal of completing the dissertation and Ph. D. on time. The remaining members of my committee, Dr. Sheila Royo Maxwell, Dr Charles Corley and Dr. J. Kevin Ford, were invaluable in providing insight and encouragement throughout the process. Every individual on the committee was willing to take time and answer my questions and provide me with guidance by sharing experiences, insights, and intellect throughout this research effort. Many thanks should also go to all the faculty members at the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University whose classes served as a foundation for my research. They provided me a lot of knowledge and encouragement in the last three and half years. Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank Turkish National Police and my colleagues for their continuous support. I am indebted to all of you for your assistance in the completion of this endeavor. Sonsuz SEVGI ile. .. TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOFTABLES....................‘ ............................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ ix CHAPTER I Introduction and Statement of Problem ............................................................ 1 Background Literature and Theoretical Framework .............................................. 4 Research Questions Guiding the Study ............................................................. 7 CHAPTER 2 Community Policing and Turkish National Police .............................................. 12 Socio-Cultural and Structural Differences Between Two Countries .......................... 40 CHAPTER 3 Theoretical Background & Prior Research ....................................................... 51 Theoretical Approaches to Police Organizational Culture and Previous Literature. . . ......67 CHAPTER 4 Methodology ........................................................................................ 102 CHAPTER 5 Analysis ............................................................................................... 120 CHAPTER 6 Discussion .......................................................................................... 166 APPENDIX A ...................................................................................... 187 APPENDIX B ...................................................................................... 189 APPENDIX C ...................................................................................... 191 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................ 192 Vi Tat T3?“ T3“ Tal‘ Tab Tab; Tab. Tabll Tab]: Dime Tab]: in Tu Table In the Table in Tur LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Traditional versus Community Policing Models ...................................... 18 Table 2. Ethnological culture dimensions for Turkey and US. ............................... 43 Table 3. Complementarity of There Theoretical Perspectives ................................. 56 Table 4. Implications of the Three Perspectives Regarding Cultural Change ............... 59 Table 5. Level of Analysis and the Three Perspectives ......................................... 61 Table 6. Possible Origins of Diversity in Police Organizational Culture ............... 76-77 Table 7. Study sites in the United States ......................................................... 115 Table 8. Demographics of Police Officers in Turkey and US. ............................. 122 Table 9. Comparison of Mean Differences among Countries for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey & U.S. ................................................................... 129 Table 10. Comparison of Mean Differences among States for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey & U.S. .................................................................................. 133 Table 11. Comparison of Mean Differences among Cities for Organizational Dimensions in the US. ........................................................................................... 135 Table 12. Comparison of Mean Differences among States for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey. ........................................................................................... 137 vii Ta Ta’ the-I Ta“ Tu.“ Tat: Dir. Ta't‘ in t.“ Tat Din: Tabi Din: Tab} OI”; \ \ Tab}; Cult.” Tablk Table 13. Comparison of Mean Differences among Rank for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey & U.S. .................................................................................. 139 Table 14. Comparison of Mean Differences among Age for Organizational Dimensions in the US. ............................................................................................. 142 Table 15. Comparison of Mean Differences among Age for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey ............................................................................................... 143 Table 16. Comparison of Mean Differences among Gender for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey & U.S. .................................................................... 145 Table 17. Comparison of Mean Differences among Race for Organizational Dimensions in the US. .......................................................................................... 147 Table 18. Comparison of Mean Differences among Experience for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey & U.S. ................................................................... 149 Table 19. Comparison of Mean Differences among Education for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey & U.S. ................................................................... 151 Table 20. Comparison of Mean Differences among Population of City of Origin for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey & U.S. ................................................ 152 Table 21a & 21b. OLS Regression of the Dimensions of the Organizational Culture ......................................................................................... 157-158 Table 22. Support for Integration and Differentiation Perspectives ........................ 168 viii Fig LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Traditional view of police culture .................................................... 70 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION and STATEMENT of PROBLEM Integrationist perspective assumes that the police organizational culture is monolithic (homogenous) under the same situations (police work is police work) and that police everywhere share similar problems and concerns. Since all police officers share similar problems and concerns and deals with similar environment, each police officer forms a shared understanding for developing appropriate behavior (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985). In police organizational culture studies, main components of traditional police culture mostly have been connected with negative sides of policing, such as, abuse of power, corruption, etc. Notwithstanding the risks of monolithic view of police culture, integrationist perspective supposes that line officer culture represents the main characteristics of all police organizational culture (Foster, 2003). Mainly police organizational culture studies have emphasized the similar perception of policing across the whole organization and does not mention about the extent to which the shared understanding is accepted and implemented on extensive basis by the police officers. Existence of different understanding about policing in the same police organization based on the individual, structural, fimctional, social and political differences have taken place in the police organizational culture literature. Giving attention to these differences gives us holistic knowledge and understanding about the police organization. The problem with literature of Turkish police organizational culture is that the relationship between organizational culture and other variables has been more qua in c TNJ dun prox Char cont abOL PUI1 enfia COIN PQTCg assumed than validated. One of the intentions here is to provide a comprehensive literature review of police organizational culture studies and to make an assumption about police organizational culture in the Turkish National Police (TNP). Unfortunately, neither quantitative nor qualitative any study has explored the TNP police organizational culture in detail. For that reason one can only speculate about the police organization culture in TNP. Other aim of the study is to understand if there is a general consensus in the dimensions of the organizational culture among supervisors and line officers in TNP and provide valuable practical information to police officials and practitioners during the change effort (from traditional policing to community policing). This study also makes comparative analysis between US. and Turkish police cultures and their perceptions about the community policing. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to evaluate organizational culture in TNP and law enforcement organizations in the US and compare their understandings about the community policing. More specifically police officers’ (supervisors and non-supervisors) perceptions pertinent the dimensions of police organizational culture: (1) management support, (2) supervisory support, (3) improvement, (4) job challenges, (5) communication, (6) trust, (7) innovation, (8) social cohesion, (9) loyalty to fellow officers, (10) orientation to community policing, and (11) orientation to citizen cooperation. In other words, this study examine whether police officers share similar perceptions about the organizational culture regardless of their social background, hierarchical position and organization’s environment. In particular, this study addresses: How do police officers perceive their organizations? Do they share similar understandings or do they differ if this is issue when they differ? Do these differences come from individual dimensions, organizational dimensions or environmental factors? Do their attributes toward the organization affect their attitudes toward citizen or these differences affect overall police work (job performance, satisfaction, etc)? Does police culture is the same throughout the police occupation or does each police agency have unique organizational culture? Do police officers perceptions about the community policing vary within and between organizations? In this study, based on police organizational culture literature, various dimensions of organizational culture have been used to better focus on the degree of sharing and differences on certain aspects of the organizational dimensions amongst the police officers. The dimensions of organizational culture cover the main aspects of the multi-dimensional culture construct. This study first describes the general organizational culture in a systematic way and then focuses on the notion of different perceptions about the organizational culture and community policing amongst the police officers. Organizational culture provides the central framework for this study and also current study focuses on the existence of different cultures in police organizations. This study makes a comparison between perspectives of Turkish police officers and Midwest police officers in the US. and also amongst the two different segments in police organization; which include line officers and supervisors. This dissertation points out aforementioned issues by analyzing cultural dimensions of police officers to search out whether officers’ perceptions differ by rank, city, country and demographic features. This study also asserts that although police officers to some extend share similar perceptions about the organizational culture, some dimensions of the organizational culture are evaluated differently by police officers in order that police organizational culture is the best represented by multiple dimensions rather than single dimension which is shared by all police officers. The site of this study is four police departments of the Turkish National Police (Ankara, Istanbul, Bursa, and Trabzon) and five police departments in Midwest, US. (Detroit, Southfield, Ann Arbor, Columbus and Cleveland). Using eleven organizational culture dimensions significant variances in understandings are searched by using individual, organizational and environmental factors. For purposes of this study, in the United States, a medium police department is defined as one that employs between 100 and 300 police officers and large police departments is defined as one that employs more than 300 police officers. Background Literature and Theoretical Framework Culture is often referred to as surrounding an entire organization. Within this monolithic or functionalist perception of culture it is crucial to understand the elements that composed of organizational culture. Much of the research in this area strives to explain and analyze an overall culture in an organization, which is seen as a primary step towards understanding organizations. In organizational culture literature, mainly three different styles of organizational culture are employed by scholars. They are integration (functionalist or monolithic), differentiation and fragmentation. While the three models are extensively discussed in the chapter 111, the main assumptions of each of the perspectives are outlined below. Integration Perspective: J. Martin (1992) summarizes the main features of the integration studies as a (1) consistent interpretation, (2) clear/clarity (no ambiguity) and ar p6 C0 COT f0 u: duf and ambi clari PM 511th men. been Chara omen Chan_ (3) organization wide consensus. Integration perspective excludes ambiguity from culture and claims that ambiguity isn’t the part of the culture (Schein, 1991). Integration perspective has a monolithic view about organizational culture and sees deviation from consistency, organization wide consensus and clarity as a problem rather than different cultures (J. Martin, 2002). Differentiation Perspective: J. Martin and Frost (2004) mention three main characteristics of differentiation studies. They are: (l) interpretations are inconsistent, (2) consensus within the subculture rather than organization wide, and (3) clarity can be found within subcultures rather than organization wide. J. Martin (1992) claims differentiation studies see organizational culture as a nexus of environmental influences and subcultural characteristics rather than unitary. Fragmentation Perspective: Fragmentation perspective can be simply defined as ambiguity. These studies emphasize ambiguity as a core concept of culture rather than clarity. Fragmentation perspective focuses on multiplicities of interpretation which produces multiple interpretations with constant flux rather than the idea of permanent subcultures (J. Martin, 2002). Whilst Westley (1970) in his work sees police organizational culture as a single- monolithic culture (integration), during the last two-three decades many changes have been happened in police organizations. Changes include socio-demographic characteristics of officers (e. g., such as more gender variation and more educated police officers) and changes in organizational factors (e. g., community oriented policing). These changes have brought to attention the assumption of a single unvaried organizational culture concept in police organizational culture studies. In the last two-three decades scholars has started to view police organizational culture as a complex and multidimensional in nature (J. M. Brown, 1998; Haarr, 1997; Manning, 1994; Paoline, 2004; Schein, 1992; Wilson 1989). The existence of different cultures in organizations implies that there are several behavioral values which are located at the origin of comprehending the influence of police culture on different features of police organizations. In order to establish theoretical background of the study, this study uses J. Martin’s (1992) views of organizational culture which draws distinction between three perspectives namely, (1) integration, (2) differentiation, (3) fragmentation, about organizational culture. This study attempts to explore the shared understandings of police officers in different departments and also to analyze factors that influence police officers’ perceptions regarding their organizational culture and community policing. Concurring with integration and differentiation perspectives, this dissertation proposes that although police officers may have shared understandings pertinent to their organizational culture, to certain extent different perceptions exist in the police organization. And follows the idea that a few dimensions of police organizational culture are common across nations but most of the dimensions of the organizational culture are unique to nations. This study begins on the premise that organizational culture embodies different subcultures. For that reason, study employs both integration and differentiation perspectives. Since organizational culture is perceived as multiple dimensional construct, current study supports the argument that officers don’t have single-dimensional approach towards to organizational culture and police culture is not the same across the police profession. Rather it is mostly unique to the individual police agencies. 01 Gulf a'Ife poli exist fiorn 328, and agen. C0117: Research Questions Guiding the Study The aim of this dissertation is to examine the elements that influence police officer’s understanding about their organizational culture and specifically see police officers’ orientation to community policing. This study looks at organizational culture from both macro and micro levels. Although study uses organizational culture as an overarching framework, also focuses on the existence of subcultures in the police organization. The main attention addressed in this dissertation is that what extent police officer’s understanding pertinent to their organizational culture is influenced by organizational (organization size and rank), environmental (city, country) and individual factors (demographic characteristics). Several other questions, such as; ‘Do police agencies have unique police culture?’, ‘What dimensions are commonly shared by police officers?’, ‘Which factors affect police officer’s perceptions about the organizational culture? And community policing?’, ‘Do police organizations have subcultures?’, ‘if yes what types of subcultures exist in the police organization?’ and lastly ‘How police managers benefits might gain from these study?’ constitute the backbone of this study. More specifically, this study examines if demographic characteristics, such as age, experience, gender, race, education; organizational factors, such as organization size and police officer’s rank; and, environmental factors such as location of the police agency, influence police officers’ perceptions pertinent to their organizational culture and community policing. (’1 r0' by Significance of the Study This dissertation intends to extend the knowledge on police organizational culture by way of analyzing several elements that are assumed to affect the police officers’ perceptions pertinent to their organizational culture. Individual police officer’s behavior is affected not only by formal rules/regulations but also by informal norms, values in the organization and behaviors of other officers. In organizational culture literature, a limited number of studies (eg. Keeton & Mengistu, 1992) have examined the influence of different factors on person’s perception about the organizational culture. As a matter of fact, police organizational scholars have operationalized differences in the perceptions as simple ‘street cop/management cop’ or ‘rural police /urban police’. Other studies suggest that culture is multidimensional concept and several differences exist in the perceptions rather than simple dichotomization. Simple categorization masks important differences which leads misconceptions about the organizational culture. Focusing on multidimensional nature of organizational culture provides richer and more representational perceptiveness into police organizational culture in two countries. Using J. Martin’s framework provides the opportunity to get the detailed analysis of “some organizational groups or subcultures which are frequently overlooked in organizational research” (Harris & Ogbonna, 1998, p.119). In addition to that, this dissertation aims to extend the knowledge about police organizational culture and community policing in Turkey as there have been no studies that examined the affects of factors on perceptions of police officers pertinent to organizational culture and community policing. Despite the importance of studying police officer’s perception to attain better understanding of similarities or differences amongst the officers, little or none, so far, has been done in Turkish police organizational culture. Therefore, the main aim of this dissertation is to examine the police officer’s perception related to organizational culture and identify organizational culture perceptions of Turkish police officers. This study is the first known endeavor to examine the attitudes of Turkish police officers to such extent; therefore tries to provide a strong foundation upon which future studies could develop. As Turkish police force is national, and all police agencies work under the authority of Ministry of Interior, centralized structure and training system assures theoretically identical police agencies throughout the Turkey which would allow us to generalize the police organizational culture in Turkey. In last couple of years, TNP has started to understand side effects of traditional policing and has been planning to change incident driven traditional policing. Although last 2-3 years top TNP officials started to use the term of ‘community policing — community oriented policing’, TNP hasn’t undertaken the mission of implementing an extensive program of police reform with the aim of the changing old traditional policing with community oriented policing. This study provides a wealth of practical information to police managers and others who seek a clear understanding about the police organizational culture in Turkey and US. Having knowledge on the views and perceptions of the police officers is an invaluable resource for police officials during the change process. This study informs police managers about the distribution of cultural perceptions amongst the officers and also helps them to prepare police agencies for planned or expected organizational change (such as community policing) initiatives by minimizing resistance. Existing research on police organizational culture is built on single-society studies. No study has attempted to compare Turkish and United States police organizational cultures. This dissertation fills this gap in police organizational culture literature and contributes to international comparative police studies literature. Although cross national studies started to attract some scholars, comparative police organizational culture studies are still in their infancy. This study asserts that new studies should examine data collected from developing or undeveloped countries to test the reliability and validity of assumptions extended by researchers in developed countries. In addition to cross national comparison, this study seeks to examine differences within the nation, and contrary to the well studied one department studies (e. g., Muir, 1977; Skolnick 1966, 1994), this study examines whether different views of organizational culture from different police departments exist. Otherwise stated, in this study, explanations of organizational culture do provide reasons for variation among both police officers and organizations. Organization of the Study This study is organized into six chapters. In chapter L introduction to the study, background literature, statement of the problem, research questions, importance and significance of the study and limitations of the study are provided. Chapter 11 gives succinct information about history, training, organizational structure and recruitment process of Turkish National Police. In addition to that, provides information about the relationship between TNP and community policing. Lastly mentions rationale behind the comparative study between US. and Turkey. 10 Chapter 111 provides the literature review and analyses of previous research in the organizational culture and police organizational culture literature. Specifically defines organizational culture, multi level organizational culture and police culture, and then distinguishes integration and differentiation perspectives in the police organization culture literature. In addition to that explains why police organizational culture and subcultures are worth of study. Theoretical background of the study is provided in this chapter. Chapter IV describes the research design and methodology, provides extensive analysis of factors, which affect police officers perceptions pertinent to their organizational culture. Chapter V provides comprehensive analysis of research questions. Descriptive statistics, dimension summaries, detailed factor analysis, mean differences and OLS regression analysis are also provided in this chapter. Based on the study findings, Chapter VI provides a wealth of practical information to police managers and others who seek a clear understanding about the police organizational culture and community policing in Turkey and US. 11 CHAPTER II CONTEXT FOR THE PRESENT STUDY 2.1. Community Policing and Turkish National Police (TNP) Since this part of the paper directs attention to the TNP, it is beneficial to give concise information about the Turkish police system. Historically, ‘protect and serve’ was the primary principle of the Turkish police organization, and centralization of power has been a traditional feature of the general political administrative structure (Aydrn, 2006). As a part of this structure, law enforcement organizations shared the central authority of the state and served as a tool of the state to maintain public order. Professional police force was first founded in 1845. Before 1845, military forces (Janissaries) carried out public order and policing functions were accepted in the military duties. After the destruction of Janissaries, police were placed under the new police directorate, Zaptiye Mushiriyeti and gradually turned into a separate police ministry (Swanson, 1972). Upon the foundation of the new Turkish Republic, the name of the police organization was changed to General Directorate of Security and totally separated from the military and attached to the ministry of interior. Because of the highly centralized management style of the new Turkish Republic, new police force has gradually turned into a highly centralized paramilitary police force and centralization became a new crucial component of new policing (Sullivan, 2005). In addition to TNP, also Gendarmerie and Coastal Security are responsible from general security and these three forces work under the Ministry of Interior. Rural parts of the country (10 % of population) are policed by the Gendarmerie. The Coastal Guard controls the coastal areas 12 am am reg aux ihit prc the enf how has Anl; depg 80W \tnh Plac' pOIlQ and territorial waters. TNP is responsible for policing in municipal boundaries of cities and towns. TNP takes their authorization fi'om direct legislative authority and has a police regulation act as well as procedural guidelines also there are almost 145 different auxiliary acts which are directly or'indirectly being connected with police service. The three forces have separate arrangements for finance, central headquarters in the capital, provincial units, training schools, and communication systems. The highest officials of the organizations are attached to the Minister of Interior in regard to their law enforcement fimctions. The local units are under the control of the highest local authority; however they are attached to the Public Prosecutor in terms of their judicial fiinctions (Aydrn, 2006). The Ministry of Interior has the authority to control and firnd the police. Each city has its own police department under the command of headquarter which is located in Ankara, depending on the size and the population of the cities, the extent of the police departments varies. In city district, city police also work under the authority of city governor. City police chief, the head of the city police, is appointed by the three decrees with the signature of president, prime minister and the ministry of interior and all power places in his/her position. Under the chief of police, numbers of deputy chief (2nd degree police chiefs) control different units (such as terror, security, public relation). As an organizational policy, all police officers have to be rotated at least 3 times during their careers which means each police officer and police manager have to serve at least 3 different cities (one city has to be in east region) of the Turkey regardless of their willingness. Salary is tied to rank and length of service and normal employee length is for women 20 for men 25 years. 13 adn‘. poh. Frer‘ cent TUBE. CORT prox. paran hierar $38161 deleg of hi; Ihrou II‘iroU ”NDVe ”K)\e mm e aIIQ\\ Since centralization of power has been a traditional feature of the general political administrative structure through Turkish history, police system in Turkey is highly centralized and police force is designed as the national base which has almost 175.000 police officers and almost 5.000 supervisors. Police rank system also imitated from French police system, ranks starts from line officer/patrol officer through middle managers (sergeant, lieutenant, captain) and top command (from major through commander and deputy chief of police). Chief of police commands each of the 81 provincial/city police directorates. Like most of the other police organizations, Turkish National police has paramilitary structure which strictly emphasizes discipline and management bases on hierarchy. TNP are hierarchically structured with a quasi-military rank and command system and officers are expected to obey the commands of supervisors. Lack of delegation and lack of incentive for decentralized decision making are the other aspects of highly centralized TNP system. Police ranks starts from line officer/patrol officer through middle managers (sergeant, lieutenant, captain) and top command (from major through chief of police). According to Schein’s (2004, p.118) three dimensions of career movement, TNP involves two dimensions of career movement which are lateral movement from one duty to other (such as street level to detective bureau) and vertical movement from one rank to another (such as sergeant to lieutenant position). TNP do not allow inclusionary movement from outsider position to insider position. Although in United States police system police officers moves from line officer position to chief post and also each chief has patrolman (line officer) experience in his/her career (no lateral entry), in TNP, supervisors and line officers, most of the time, come from different 14 sources and they don’t share same patrolman experience. Promotion up to captain position is achieved through police commissions’ decision based on candidate’s work. record. Promotion from captain position to major position and also promotion from 3rd degree police chief position to 2nd degree police chief position is achieved through several examinations. TNP officers have been prohibited to form or to join unions or other organizations to represent them in negotiating with the government. Since policing is essentially government responsibility and communalities amongst the city districts in some aspects enable some extend of trust in broad statements. TNP police training has three main parts: Pre-service training, In-service training and graduate studies. Aim of the pre-service training is to prepare police cadets for police occupation. There are three types of pre-service training activities in TNP; (1) Police College, (2) Police Academy (newly The Faculty of Security Sciences) and (3) Police Vocational Schools of Higher Education. Selection and training process for line officers and supervisors differs. Both Police College and Police Academy are intended to prepare police supervisors. On the other hand Police Vocational Schools of Higher Education is intended to prepare police cadets for line officer duty. The Police College, four years occupational high school, dates back to 1938. Although training provided in Police College is very similar to a high school curriculum, discipline and hierarchy are strictly emphasized. The age of applicants for the police college changes between 13-17 years old both male and female (since 2003) youths. Police College prepares the cadets for police academy; cadets have direct access to continue their education in Police University after passing entrance exam (success rate 15 almost 100%). All educational expenses of the police college students are covered by TNP. The Faculty of Security Sciences is a 4-year university degree police management school prevalently focuses on law and policing subjects. Cadets receive a high-level law education. Police college graduates, high school graduates (after passing extremely challenging criteria and entrance exam), and international Students (since 1991) are accepted to the Faculty of Security Sciences. As of 2006, international students from 10 different countries, which are Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Palestine, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Mongolia, Moldavia, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, are accepted to the Faculty of Security Sciences. The graduates of Faculty of Security Sciences join the TNP with the rank of sergeant. lntemational students go back to their countries upon graduation. Police vocational schools of higher education are boarding schools and all the educational expenses are covered by the TNP. The aim of the police vocational schools of higher education is to train police line officers for TNP. As of 2005, 26 police vocational schools of higher education exist throughout the Turkey. Because of the aforementioned centralized structure of the TNP, all in-service training activities are coordinated by TNP department of education and provided by mostly department of education and related departments. Main goal of the in-service training is to provide police officers up to date knowledge related their occupation and regulations and prepare them to specialized units (such as terrorism or intelligence departments’ orientation courses). In-service training is offered to all TNP officials for free of charge during their professional. l6 Security Sciences Institute has started to offer graduate studies to police officers. During the four semester graduate training, first two semesters emphasize theoretical training and last two semesters dedicates to preparation of dissertation. Police officers who passed postgraduate training exam get permission for training for one-year duration, during this period their salaries are paid. 2.2. Community Policing and TNP Last couple of years, TNP top officials has been interested in the process of changing old style of policing and starting to implement community policing/community oriented policing. Prior to discussing TNP and community policing connection in detail, it will be reasonable to mention what is community policing and how it differs from traditional policing style. Conventionally agreed definition of community policing is provided by Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, and Bucqueroux “Community policing is a new philosophy of policing, based on the concept that police officers and private citizens working together in creative ways can help solve contemporary community problems related to crime, fear of crime, social and physical disorder, and neighborhood conditions. The phiIOSOphy is predicated upon the belief that achieving these goals requires that police departments develop a new relationship with citizens in the community, allowing them the power to set local police priorities and involving them in efforts to improve the overall quality of life in the neighborhoods. It shifls the focus of police work from handling random crime calls to addressing community concerns” (1998, p. 3). Put differently, community policing provides extensive connection between police and the society and make police responsive to the needs and priorities of the community. As it is 17 explained in the table 1, community policing significantly differs from traditional policing on many ways. Table 1. Traditional versus Community Policing Models (Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines & Bucqueroux, 1998, p. 23) _ Question Traditional Policing Community Policing i. Who are the police? A government agency Police are the public and the principally responsible for law enforcement public are the police; police officers are those who are paid to give full-time attention to the duties of every citizen 2. What is the relationship of the police to other public service departments? Priorities often conflict The police are one department among many responsible for improving the qualitLof life 3. What is the role of the police Focusing and solving crimes A broader problem solving approach 4. How is police efficiency measured By detection and arrest rates By the absence of crime and disorder 5. What are the highest Crimes that are high value Whatever problems disturb the priorities (e.g., bank robberies) and community most those involving violence 6. What specifically do police Incidents Citizens’ problems and deal with concerns 7. What determines the Response times Public cooperation effectiveness ofpol ice 8. What view do police take of Deal with them only if there is Vital fiinction and great service calls no real police work to do. opportunity 9. What is police Swift/effective response to Keeping close to the rofessionalism serious crime community 10. What kind of intelligence Crime intelligence (study of Criminal intelligence is most important particular crimes or series of (information about individuals activities crimes). or groups). 11. What is the essential Highly centralized; governed Emphasis on local nature of police accountability by rules, regulations and policy directives; accountable to the law. accountability to community needs 12. What is the headquarters? role of To provide the necessary rules and policy directives To values preach organizational 13. What is the role of the press liaison department To keep the ‘heat’ off operational officers so they canget on withthejob. To coordinate an essential channel of communication with the community 14. How do the police regard prosecutions As an important goal As one tool among many 18 Since the 1990s community policing has been to a great extend implemented and gained popularity in the US. A broad implementation of the community policing also influenced several non-westem countries’ (such as, Thailand, South Korea, etc.) policing styles and they have accepted community policing as a new policing style. Those countries have started to emphasize service role of the police, taken into consideration the needs of the public, provided to line officers high level of autonomy. In order to implement community policing, police organization should change their structure and move from centralized structure to decentralized structure and give line officers autonomy to decide. Community policing also sees police officers as problem solvers and emphasize service role of the police. Even seen in the brief explanation of the essential elements, community policing challenges main beliefs and values of traditional policing and classical police culture. In their study based on examination of community policing implementation sample of 281 American police agencies in 1993 and 1996, Zhao, Lovrich and Thurman (1999) found that “the greatest obstacle pertained to barriers within the police organization, not problems arising from the community at large” (p.87). Since organizational culture can be both a good resource and strong obstacle to implement organizational change (Greene, Bergman & McLaughlin, 1994; Trice & Beyer, 1993) knowledge on how police officers perceive their organization and whether differences exist amongst the police officers is crucial for police practitioners. In last couple of years, TNP has started to understand side effects of traditional policing top TNP command has been started to use the term of ‘community policing — community oriented policing’. Although TNP hasn’t undertaken the mission of 19 implementing an extensive program of police reform with the aim of the changing old traditional policing with community oriented policing, top TNP officials’ new emphasize on the service role of the police and importance of the developing positive relationship with citizens gives important signs of changes in the context of policing style. Top officials demand to move beyond the incident driven policing and get involved community into the policing. As mentioned before one of the main elements of the community policing is the acceptance of the public’s possession of information and resources which help police to perform their duties more effectively. Since traditionally policing in Turkey is perceived as a part of political device and its’ first priority is to serve for government, citizen is one of the most neglected subjects in the police work. As mentioned in the previous part, throughout the Turkish history law enforcement duty has been more reactive (incident/call driven) than proactive (information driven). And most of the time what citizens think about police service and how they help police to prevent and solve crime has been ignored and public have been perceived as a passive agent of police work (Public don’t know anything about the police work and police know the best mentality). This gap between the police and the society leads to isolation of police from the society and turned police solely focused on the law and order issues. Police basically concentrate upon crime rate, public order and response time and this traditional policing style gives high importance to ‘crime fighter’ approach. Police work is seen as a duty rather than service for that reason authority and power is considered as essential elements of the police work. Organizational strategy of TNP prevents police to decentralize their services and adjust patrol units. Last two decades, TNP have put. great emphasize on special units (such as public order, anti-smuggling 2O units, etc.) and those units’ work turned into more sophisticated and their officers have limited connection with the society. In addition to that aforementioned obligatory rotation of the police officers hinders to establish geographical responsibility to officers and permanent beat area. And these characteristics of TNP limit police-citizen interaction, isolate police from the neighborhoods, loose their ties with the society, feed ‘us versus them’ mentality and simply left people out of policing. And police developed the thought that they are the only expert on crime and don’t need to get any help from outsiders. Since no scientific endeavor has been focused on the Turkish police officers’ perception about their organizational culture and specifically community policing, this study attempts to fill that gap and gives practical information to police managers and scholars in order to accomplish successful transition from old style policing to community oriented policing. Further, this study captures TNP officers’ perceptions before change process, it will allow top officials to make adjustments and to evaluate the usefulness of community policing or other change process. Having knowledge on the views and perceptions of the police officers is an invaluable resource for police officials during the change process. In addition to that, this study will inform police managers about the distribution of cultural perceptions amongst the officers and also helps them to prepare police agencies for planned or expected organizational change initiatives by minimizing resistance. 2.3. Rationale of Studying Police Organizational Culture in T NP In Western police organizational culture studies, main components of traditional police culture have been connected with negative sides of policing, (such as, abuse of 21 power, corruption, etc) and seen as obstacle to implement organizational change (Greene, Bergman & McLaughlin, 1994; Trice & Beyer, 1993; Zhao, Lovrich & Thurman 1999). As Manning claimed because of the nature of the police work and social cohesion, the range of deviance among the police is not known. Further, interestingly officers also don’t necessarily identify their own violations (Manning, 1994). During the European Union membership candidacy, Turkish government has been mostly criticized on the basis of human rights violations committed by police officers (TUSIAD, 1999). According to the Turkish Human Rights Associations data (2004), since 1987, more than 2500 human rights violations (mostly abuse of using power, bad treatment in custody or police station) trial results has been sent to Turkey by European Court of Human Rights. And according to the European Court of Human Rights workload for 2002, applications about to Turkey are 3036 and it represents almost 10% of all workload of 20021. In addition to the loose prestige in international arena, Turkey has to pay millions of Euros to the complaints. As Reiner (1992) states in his literature review, police culture has adopted as a shared understanding, which eases police officers to cope with above, mentioned pressures. Although police organizational culture studies are commonly assumed that there is a connection between police culture and police practice, the characteristic of this relationship has not been adequately examined in the literature (Chan, 1999, p.105). Despite the supposed link between culture and violation, findings from some studies suggest that not all officers equally share the attitudes, values and norms of the traditional police culture (Broderick, 1977; M.K. Brown, 1988). Although limited or none literature ‘ Retrieved February. 03. 2007 from www.cchrcoe.int/eng/Press/2003/jan/Statistics_2002.htm web sue. 22 ah P“ anl of T\ 2.4 iii OI". » SIT. ”III and pri- EXP. 01w, POI}: m0: about the TNP organizational culture and officer perceptions regarding to community policing prevents us to make assumptions about the dimensions of organizational culture and possible multi-cultures in the organization, structure, recruitment and training process of TNP and socio-cultural value preferences of police officers and also my experiences in TNP give me some room to make argument about the TNP organizational culture. 2.4. Possible Origins of Diversity in Police Organizational Culture in TNP Intention here is to explore police organizational culture in TNP and examine whether significantly different subcultures and different understandings about the police organizational culture are exist in TNP. Based on the my previous experience and general structure of the TNP, mostly three possible origins of diversity take part in TNP; (1) individual factors (such as gender, education), (2) organizational factors (such as rank) and (3) environmental factors (such as location of the police department). And this study proposes that these factors affect officer’s perception about the organizational culture in TNP. In the following part, these three factors were discussed. (1) Individual Factors: Demographic characteristics of police officers (such as gender, education, age and experience of police officers) are possible to affect their perceptions about the organizational culture 9212951 Last 20 years Turkey has experienced big transition on every area (social, political, economical, etc.) and traditional woman role has also changed. Turkey as a modern country accepts gender equality and promotes women’s entrance to every part of 311i Bill 00 V8 dc dil bel 01f .ils. Gil ;‘ Ifni ma: the social world and work force. Each year TNP has recruited almost 5.000 new police line officers, and as a policy requirement TNP has to recruit minimum 10% of total recruitment as a female officer. This obligatory procedure brings heterogeneity to the TNP. In addition to police schools, ‘women also have a chance to attend Police College and Police University. Female police officers mostly work in the bureaus, headquarters and police schools. Small numbers of female officers work at the different departments and do patrol duty. Growing number of female police officers presence in TNP force police chiefs to give them more street jobs rather than just bureau jobs. Last five years police chiefs have started to give female officers patrol and traffic duties and promote some of them to the different departments, such as narcotics and terror, etc. As stated in the western literature, female officers’ perception about the job and organization differ by various ways. These variations come from different socialization process, male dominated nature of policing and macho characteristics of work environment. These differences bring same gender people together and lead kind of homogenous value and belief system within the same gender. Such as A. Worden (1993) found that female officers have more positive feelings toward to their departments than male officers have. Also Bahn’s study (1984) showed that female officers were more reluctant (71%) to carry gun off duty than male counterparts (17%). For that reason it is possible to assume that gender of the police officers affect their perceptions about the organizational culture in TNP. Although limited or none literature about the gender role in the TNP prevent me to extend my assumptions, based on my previous experiences I can safely assume that female officers are more cooperative with their colleagues, and perceive more management and supervisory support, their communication channels are more open, and 24 III ed' ha Sli Idea. they are more loyal to their fellow officers and their organization than male counterparts. Also female police officers see police work more service oriented than just law enforcement and they perceive citizen as cooperative and supportive. Education: As mentioned in the rank section, line officers and rank officers have different educational background. In addition to that, last couples of years most of the line officers have started to pursue university degree and also most of the middle managers have started to pursue graduate degree. In the organizational culture literature and also police culture literature education’s affect on officer’s perception is widely mentioned. Such as education’s affect on officer’s attitudes towards to professionalism (Fielding & Fielding, 1987; Shemock, 1992), cynicism (Alpert & Dunham, 1988), aggressive policing (Carter & Sapp, 1990) and job performance (Daniel, 1982) has been extensively discussed. Based on the western literature, it is possible to assume that the higher the education the higher the perceptions of management support, supervisory support, communication, trust, citizen cooperation and orientation to community policing and service role of the police in the TNP. Age and Experience: Age and experience of the police officers is more likely to influence the perception about the organizational culture (Sloan, 1991). Because of the fact that same age group officers have similar social, economic experiences, it is reasonable to expect that officers in same age group more likely are able to communicate easily with each other than with other age groups. Also new police officers have more positive views and idealistic prospects than older police officers who are known for having negative attitudes 25 YU 0 of pf pl d< toward innovation and idealistic expectations (O’Connell, Holzman, & Armandi, 1986). On the other hand, some studies (Brooks, 1986; Crank, Payn & Jackson, 1993) found that age and experience have positive relationship with officer’s morale and more experienced officers need less organizational isolation. Age and experience level affect police officers’ understanding about the role of the police (Hayeslip & Cordner, 1987) and police organizational culture. (2) Organizational Factors: Because of the different selection criteria and below mentioned several other reasons, this dissertation assumes that rank has significant affect on the police officer’s perception about the dimensions of the organizational culture. M: Although Reuss—Ianni argued that in the US. “There is no lateral entry into the department, everyone began his career as a cop and, they believed, everyone from the chief on-down accepted the values of loyalty, privilege, and the importance of keeping department business inside the department. One monolithic culture permeated the department” (Reuss-Ianni, 1983, p2), this study assumes that because of the aforementioned internal features and structural factors of TNP, the organizational culture of policing in Turkey is divided into three fragments which are line officers, middle managers (Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain) and top command (above Captain level). Although some central points of agreement can be found amongst these fragments, contrary to the idea of department wide consensus on culture, these fragments grounded in the strict rank system in TNP hierarchy which demands different viewpoint and paradigm from these three different fragments. Schein (2004, p. 120) claims that “frequent 1- Se: an pa an.- car isb this rotational movement from one location to another can result in a failure to absorb any of the deeper assumptions operating in any of the groups.” Based on his claim and obligatory rotation process in TNP personnel process, current study argues that differences amongst the police officers’ understanding pertinent to organizational culture mostly come from rank rather than working in different units or different cities. Based on the rank, this study proposes that TNP has three different segments which are; (1) line officers, (2) middle managers and (3) top managers. 1 - Line Officers: All police line officers (officers without rank) compose this segment. After graduating from police school, they are appointed as a line officer throughout the Turkey; they don’t have any option to choose where to work or which unit to work. Each city police agency’s human resource bureau has discretion to assign police officer to any duty based on mostly agency’s needs and sometimes officer’s capabilities and backgrounds. Line officers have chance to transfer to any other units (such as from patrol unit to narcotic bureau) after working several years. They are non-rank personnel and unlikely can be promoted to above ranks and most of the time during their entire career (formally 25 years) they work as a line officer. Their income level and social status is below the middle class standard in Turkey. 2 — Middle Managers: Supervisors from sergeant to captain positions compose this segment. After graduating from Police University, they are appointed as a sergeant throughout the Turkey, like line officers also they don’t have any option to choose where to work or which unit to work. Based on their work records and success they can be promoted to above ranks (promotion success rate almost 90% up to major position). Their social status increases directly proportional with their rank. In addition to obtain desired 27 -——a 0.3 - -‘. C01 pit mu pol: em alsu L’If E ha: .060“; l rank, also middle manager fragment includes those hoping for promotion, transfer, getting graduate degree and working outside of the Turkey. 3 — Top Managers: Supervisors from major position to 1" degree police chief compose this segment. After succeszully passing the promotion examination they are promoted to upper ranks. Top command has additional concerns and topics in addition to routine police job, such as political concern. For example supervisors who are 2"d degree police chief have to maintain some kind of political relationship with their social environment to promote 1St degree police chief position. In addition to political concern, also 1St degree police chiefs have to maintain strong relationships with the media, social groups and other powerfiil actors to continue their job otherwise they can be appointed to central headquarter as a consultant which is passive and undesirable position. In the next part of the discussion, several likely sources of segmentation in TNP based on rank are concisely mentioned. (a) Recruitment: The recruitment process in TNP is substantially different than US. There are at least two different entry levels in TNP, versus only a single level of entry in US. Police University and each police school have a recruitment duty which coordinates recruitment process and selection procedures under the coordination of Police Academy. Police cadets are recruited from the person who provides several requirements, minimum standards are set by legislation, which are age, education, height (also balance between height and weight), strong health conditions and finally positive background investigation. Non-admission rates for applicants to Police University and Police Schools are very high. In 2004, almost 60.000 people applied for Police University and just 100 people were selected, also for Police schools almost 100.000 people applied and 5.000 28 dil C21 COT“ people were selected. Both line officers and supervisors need to be passed above mentioned requirements to recruit into TNP. During the recruitment process, difference between segments comes from different education requirements. The minimum education level required for a line officer cadet is high school diploma with approximately 2.0 GPA, moderate score (min 105) from OSS (university entrance exam) and maximum time passed afier finishing high school is 7 years. On the other hand the minimum education level required for a police supervisor cadet is high school diploma with at least 3.5 GPA (or graduation from Police College), high score (min 170 which means top 20 percent of all OSS results) from OSS (university entrance exam) and maximum time passed after finishing high school is 3 years and person has to explain to recruitment committee what he/she has done during the 3 years. (b) Education: Education includes training activities provided in police training institutions for cadets before they join TNP as professionals. There are four types of schools for the TNP: National Police Academy, Police College, Police University, and Police Vocational Schools of Higher Education (last two are attached to National Police Academy). Police College and Police University are designed for preparing supervisors; Police Vocational Schools of Higher Education are designed for preparing line officers. Police College, Police University, and Police Vocational Schools of Higher Education are the boarding schools and all expenses are covered by TNP. For supervisors: The Police College is 4 year boarding vocational high school. Police College prepares the cadets for police academy; cadets have direct access to continue their education in Police University afier passing entrance exam (success rate 29 all (It ed for :0 un rec col Stt Un pol 1M pol IIlIt Bag, Ste 99" almost 100%). The curriculum of the police college is akin to a high school curriculum (regular high school has 3 year educational period in Turkey) with additional 1 year foreign language (English, German and French) preparation course; nevertheless, the education particularly concentrated upon discipline and hierarchy. The age of applicants for the police college changes between 13-17 years old both male and female (since 2003) youths. The Police University (newly called as Faculty of Security Sciences) is a 4 year university degree police management school prevalently focuses on law courses. Cadets receive a nearly same education as the law school students receive in Turkey. Police college graduates, high school graduates (after passing several exams), and international Students (since 1991) are accepted to the Police University. The graduates of Police University directly join the TNP with the rank of sergeant. For Line Officers: Police Vocational Schools of Higher Education are 2 year police vocational schools which aim to train police line officers for TNP. During this two-year course period, police cadets are tested in their intelligence and knowledge of policing. Currently there are 25 police vocational schools of higher education exist throughout the Turkey. Afier general recruitment process, all successful applicants randomly distributed to these 25 police schools. Only seven of them has special dormitory for female police cadets, for that reason female police cadets are sent to these seven police schools. Police school training is primarily vocational in its curricula, which cadets focus on instrumental topics such as law, firearms, search and seizure, criminal scene investigations and etc. Success rate (graduate rate) of police schools are almost 99%. 3O W hat lll‘| m. lld V» c hr dtr‘ PL" (207 lln; frit- ed, 311:. POI: Between middle managers and top managers: In the 905, Turkey has experienced a lot of improvements across the all areas, from social life to work environment. Along with these improvements, also police middle managers have started to realize that they have the potential; they should have improved themselves during their career. After 1997, most of the middle managers have been tried to seek graduate degree. Beyond the Police University training and work knowledge, graduate studies have given to middle managers more liberal, innovative, open-minded and critical perspective than their predecessors. This new knowledge also affects their occupational value systems and paradigms and it triggers the conflict, which will mention below, between middle and top managers. (c) Boarding school: Aforementioned training institutions are the boarding training institutions, which mean cadets have to stay in these facilities at least 5 weekdays. Cadets, who have first-degree relatives (parents, married sisters and brothers) live in same location with training institution, may get permission to stay with them during the Friday and Saturday nights. Most of the supervisors, who graduated from Police College, spend their 8 years at these boarding schools. Remaining supervisors come from high school; also spend their 4 years at the boarding school. For line officers time in boarding school is 2 years. These obligatory staying provide suitable environment for interaction and sharing and establish strong relationship (mostly far beyond the friendship) amongst the cadets, which continues throughout their entire life. Same education, socialization and the training/education enable police officers and police supervisors to hold similar values, beliefs and assumptions with other police officers and police supervisors. ((1) Promotion: Promotion in TNP, generally, compromises seniority (how many years served in that rank) and merit (in TNP, which means good service record not eligibility). Since in TNP police supervisor and police line officer come from different sources, line officers almost don’t have any chance (not impossible but very unlikely) to promote above rank. Line officers laterally move from one position (patrol officer) to other positions (such as detective bureau or anti-terrorism unit, etc.) but those movements don’t form a change in the rank status. From several perspectives promotion process increases the differences amongst segments. First of all, promotion procedures increase the gap between supervisors and line officers. Secondly line officers loose one of the motivation sources which come from promotion expectation. Thirdly, none of the supervisors (except very few supervisors) have any line officer (patrolman) experience which prevents likely empathy amongst ranks. Fourthly, supervisors see promotion process as a legal right; on the other hand line officers try to convince top command to open examination for line officers to promote some of them as sergeant. Currently, big debate about this issue is going on and each segment try to convince top commands as their arguments is better than others. This debate brings each segment’s member close to their segment and increases their bonds to members of the same segment. Another thing related to promotion process is, external qualifications (such as graduate studies) aren’t considered in the promotion process. Many middle managers have (or try to have) different external qualifications to improve themselves and also demand those qualifications to be considered in the process, on the other hand top command want to continue old promotion system which doesn’t consider eligibility and give big discretion power to top command to decide who will be promoted to upper 32 If\ he St’i mt It’C mu ol‘ 01?: Pl‘ ll: levels. This conflict also approximates people in same segment and two segments become estrange with each other. (e) View of police role: Although all three segments share the goal of maintain secure and safe district, they are different on the how this goal can be obtained. All of three segments have different priorities concerning to police role. Top commands, in most cases, have comprehensive perspective pertinent to police role and in addition to reducing crime rate, they have to pay attention to other aspects of policing. They consider powerful actors (political actors, media and strong lobbies) View about policing and give much of their attention to powerful actors concerns. Also top managers support the idea of tough policing and minimal relationship with citizen and their subordinates. On the other hand middle managers believe that new technology and new knowledge on policing can help police department to improve the quality of life of the district for that reason they claim that technology, partnership with citizen and lower level personnel, continuous learning and openness to new ideas are the essential part of the new policing. Middle managers give notice to pro-active side of policing and try to include community into policing. Middle managers, to certain degree, see themselves as a servant of community and give importance to concerns of community. Since middle managers open to change and innovation and also new knowledge related to their area, they prefer to see policing as a community oriented and pro-active rather than incident driven policing. Line officers mainly focus on two things on duty; first don’t get into trouble and safety first, second get job done. In order to handle workloads they develop ‘shortcuts - routines’ (Lipsky, 1981), they categories certain type of people based on their experiences, which increases the efficiency. As Skolnick claims for US line officer 33 If. i [l OF S Ci! 1 .40. six current study also agree with that for TNP line officers that due to dangerous nature of police job, line officers develop possible shortcuts to decrease their vulnerability to danger. Line officers don’t so much attention to concerns of community. Specifically top commands and line officers have different job priorities. Top command want to implement policies which represent the organizations; on the other hand line officers mainly consider overwhelming workload, limited resources and environmental constraints making decisions giving their jobs done. (f) _W_ork: Working conditions in TNP differs based on rank, location and unit. Several distinctions can be made based on working condition: such as headquarter personnel vs. city police, street level police vs. unit police (such as detective), top command vs. supervisors vs. line officers. Officers can move from street to headquarter or unit but one thing is clear that line officers can not likely (not impossible) to move the supervisor position. For that reason argument in here is, different working conditions and requirements between line officer and supervisors also produce fragmentation amongst the officers. For example, in precincts, which operates 24/7, normally (depends on the size of city /district and crime rate) one captain, 3 sergeant / lieutenant and 40-50 line officers works based on shift system. In that shifi system generally each of the three groups works 12 hours a day and takes 24 hours day off. Under this difficult work condition, captain never takes day off; he/she is expected to be on duty 24/7. For moderate police precinct, each group consists of 1 sergeant/lieutenant and approximately 15 line officers. Sergeants/lieutenants, who work in that precinct, can see each other during the shift change and make information change. Contrary to the US precinct system, due to'the several different reasons (such as another police unit makes patrol and 34 also limited resources, etc), generally police officers stay in police precinct and wait calls (call driven policing), when they get call, they go the incident location and take what they need and turn back the station for paper work and examination. Line officers spend their time with other line officers during the duty. On the other hand sergeant / lieutenant tries to manage this busy schedule and rapports situations to captain when it is necessary and interact with his/her term-mates (graduated same year) who work another precincts at the same time. Both line officers and sergeant increases their relationship with their peers (promotes sub-cultural boundaries) instead of making bridges between ranks, which causes increasing social network into social system (values, beliefs etc.) that defines the day-to-day practices of policing. The increasing specialized nature of management has isolated top managers and middle managers from their subordinates. The more their functions allow them to interact with other members of the subculture the more powerful their subculture identity will be. Studies conducted in western world shows that more socialization brings more impact on work related decision making happen in the police organization (Reuss-Ianni, 1983). Unfortunately, neither quantitative nor qualitative any study hasn’t been explored the TNP police organizational culture in detail. (g) International trmng experience: In 1997, a few middle managers started to seek training and education opportunity outside of the Turkey, after fiilfilling the formal bureaucratic requirements and convincing the top commands, first group of TNP officers went to US, Germany and France. Up to 2006 almost 200 police officers have been outside of the Turkey to get graduate degree. Basic requirements for applying to this education process are: accepted foreign language certificate (English, French, and German), being maximum 35 years old, at least 3 years work experience, no bad record 35 for last 3 years and successful work background. These requirements extend the existing gap amongst the three segments. First of all accepted foreign language certificate makes application almost impossible for line officers, up to now all applicants have been come from middle and top command segments. Secondly, since regulations order that maximum age for international graduate study is 35, almost all of the participants (also a few top commands) of this education opportunity come from middle managers segment. Thirdly, almost all applicants come from middle managers segment; this reality also encouraged other middle managers to seek graduate degree in or outside of Turkey to catch their term-mates. This informal obligation gives middle managers a chance to improve themselves. (h) lntemational work experience: After UN solved the conflict in old Yugoslavia, many member countries sent their police officer (every country has limit) to serve as a peace officer in old Yugoslavia. Also TNP started to send police officers to peace officer duty after 1995. Up to know more than 1000 TNP officers has been sent those duties from old Yugoslavia to Sierra Leonine. Basic requirements for applying international mission duties are: accepted foreign language certificate (English and recently also French), being maximum 35 years old, at least 3 years work experience, no bad record for last 3 years, successfiil work background, excellent driving ability. All these requirements are same with aforementioned graduate degree opportunity; exception is accepted foreign language certificate is not required high points as graduate study does. As expected, almost all applicants for these duties come from middle manager segments and as it happened in graduate degree, these duties also strengths their informal bonds with their segment. They. share same work environment (danger and being in different country), 36 same difficulties (mostly away from their families) and also same gaining (money, advancing their language, knowing other countries and learning new things). Those police officers also encourage their tenn-mates to apply UN or AGIT duties and to go outside of Turkey. Each new international duty increases the gap between middle manager segment and other segments, specifically top command segment. (i) Social background: As J. Martin (1992) mentions social values play an important duty in any organizational culture and which is also true for TNP. Police line officers mostly come from low-income families and rural areas. They carry their social- cultural values with them to police occupation. Main social~cultural values of police line officers are conservatism, nationalism, rely on their cultural and religious values (such as humbleness, modesty, not lies, etc.) Rural culture of Turkey support teamwork and cooperation and not promotes individual behavior. On the other hand police supervisors mostly come from middle-income families and urban areas. Urban culture of Turkey has transformed some of the values of traditional social culture and changed some of them with western values (such as humbleness with self-importance etc.) Competitive nature of the promotion system also advances these new values. These value differences affect segments’ paradigms and work perspectives and all of them cause the estrangement between segments. (j) Environment: Without taking into consideration the effects of social political environment of police, it might cause misinterpretations of organizational culture. Police departments are confronted with multiple and often opposing demands. In Turkey, police officers face with following dilemma numerous times; each of due process and crime control perspectives are held by powerful actors (community, lobbyists etc.) which have 37 ability to provide resources, and organizations confronted with problem of either follow due process or crime control. Whether due process or crime control, most of the time organizations have to select one of them, which mean losing other resources. According to resource dependency theory, organizations need resources in order to sustain themselves. As a result, organizations depend on the environment and others who control resources that the organization needs. “Power organizes around critical and scarce resources” (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, p.259) and is given to those who regulate the use, access and allocation of those resource. These dependencies create external control situations. Resources that flow into the organization are inherently affected by power through organizational environment factors. Organization gives up some of its autonomy in exchange for resources. Also as institutional theory argues that organizations, which fit to the directions of their environment, are seen legitimate and reduce the risk of losing support and having their activities questioned. Although each segment feels political pressure different than each others, all of them feel political pressure and this pressure affects their work and even their life. Political environment promotes environmental pressure on police work and this pressure mainly makes impact on higher ranks. For top managers the easiest way to seek legitimacy for their organization is to modify their structure so that the organization seems as though it is fitting to myths of its environment. Creating special gang unit, or community policing liaison bureau might be seen as an effort to "signal" to their institutional environment. Also top managers consider the importance of the political pressures before taking almost any decision; police top managers have built the usual practice of pursuing political power and relationships in the situations like promotion and 38 E- placement in a desired position and rank. This mentality creates difference amongst the ranks. Middle managers also consider (not so much like top commands) political pressure to continue their promotion without any interrupt. Political pressure is less likely seen in line officer segment. (3) Environmental Factors: In this study, location of the police department was used as an environmental factor, and assumed that in TNP, environment of the police department may have affect on police officer’s perceptions. Because of the following reasons, this study does not expect so significant differences amongst the locations of the police departments. Location of the Police Department: Since Turkish police force is national, and all police agencies work under the authority of Ministry of Interior, centralized structure and training system assures theoretically identical police agencies throughout the Turkey that would allow this study to expect similar perceptions related to police organizational culture across the Turkey. This dissertation does not ignore the environment affect on the police officers’ perceptions and also assumes that because of the city’s environment some of the dimensions can be differently understood by police officers in different cities. This study believes that in addition to aforementioned TNP structure and centralized management style, obligatory movement of the police officers (each 4-5 years police officer has to move another part of the Turkey) minimize (not eliminate) the environment’s affect on the police officers’ perception. For that reason current study assumes that location of the police department may have affect on the police officer’s perception but most of the dimensions do not differ across the nation by location of the police department. 39 (.2 2.5. Socio-Cultural and Structural Differences between Two Countries Before moving to organizational culture effects on police perception in the following chapter, this part of the dissertation directs attention to fundamental differences between Turkey and United States based on socio-cultural and structural features of two countries. In addition to individual and organizational factors’ affect on police officer’s perception, national and social cultural environment has also crucial affect on police culture and police behavior. National cultural values plays significant role in shaping officers’ perceptions and reactions to organizational dimensions. Currents study argues that different levels of cultures have different effects on organizational culture and police culture can not be completely understood without taking into consideration those effects of larger culture. From the police organizational culture perspective, differences between Turkey and the US. can be basically described in the two categories: (1) socio-cultural differences, and (2) differences in police systems (structural differences). Socio—Cultural differences: Since this study targets both Turkey and the US. as study sites, it is reasonable to mention cultural differences between two countries. Hofstede (1984a), in his well-known study, used a large database of employee value scores collected by IBM between 1967 and 1973. He compared fifiy countries and three regions based on their ethnological culture dimensions. Based on his findings he developed a model that includes four dimensions to differentiate cultural values of countries. These four dimensions are: (a) power distance, (b) uncertainty avoidance, (c) individualism vs. collectivism, (d) 40 masculinity vs. femininity. Based on Hofstede’s cultural value scale, this part of the study focused on socio-cultural differences between two countries. (a) Power distance: Focuses on power distribution in society and indicates how removed subordinates in an organization feel from their supervisors. In high power distance culture inequality is accepted; equality and opportunity distribution is for group of people (e.g., powerfiil tribe) not for everyone. As Hofstede states “inequality exists within any culture, but the degree of it that is tolerated varies between one culture and another” (1984b, p.390). And also in high power distance culture subordinates learn that it can be dangerous to question a decision of the superior (1984a, p.73). In low power distance culture, inequalities and status symbols are minimized; subordinates’ participation to decision-making process is expected. In small power distance societies “people can accept new and less powerfiil roles and still continue functioning” (Hofstede, 1984b, p.395). Hofstede looked at the nations responses on there questions: (1) how far they would prefer a superior who makes decisions in a manner which is directive vs. consultative, (2) how often subordinates feel afraid to disagree with their superiors, (3) how far their own superior in their eyes is directive vs. consultative. He calculated nations’ average scaled responses and rank-ordered the nations from high to low. Superiors with higher scores are inclined to be autocratic or paternalistic. On the other hand superiors with lower scores are inclined to be relatively participative. He found that for power distance dimension, education was the most dominant factor. One additional year education lowers power distance score by around 18 point (Hofstede, 1984a, p.77). As seen in the table 2, USA is located on the small power distance; Turkey is located on the relatively medium-high power distance (highest 41 number for power distance is 94 —Philippines and lowest score is ll-Austria). As a high power distance country, Turkey has centralized structure with several hierarchical levels and power is in the hands of the a few individuals at the top of the each organization’s hierarchy and most of the time Turkish people readily accept hierarchical organization structure and inequality in the power distribution. Autocratic leadership and close supervision are expected management style by the subordinates. Top-level managers and even supervisors don’t want to share their power with subordinates, don’t want to discuss their decision with them. Most of the time shared decision-making is seen weakness of the management. As a low power distance society, US. has decentralized structure and people tend to minimize inequalities and hierarchy in the organization. (b) Uncertainty avoidance: Gives idea about the tolerance for uncertainty within that culture. Hofstede used three different questions to evaluate nation’s perception on this dimension; ( 1) how readily company rules should be broken, (2) how long the person responding is likely to stay with the company, (3) how often he or she fells nervous or tense at work. High uncertainty avoidance score reflects people in that culture seeks certainty and security and intolerant for personal risk. Person in uncertainty avoiding society is more often nervous about what happen and he/she doesn’t want to make his/her situation more uncertain/unclear by leaving the security of their job. Uncertainty avoiding culture tries to avoid uncertain, unclear and unstructured situations by establishing more rules/policies and creating career stability. People in uncertainty avoiding culture are more tolerant of unfairness and inequality and less tolerant about personal risk taking. “Cultures with a strong uncertainty avoidance are active, aggressive, emotional, security- seeking, and intolerant” (Hofstede, 1984b, 390). IOI r13} If) SC." p37? ind Table 2. Ethnological culture dimensions for Turkey and US. (Hofstede, 1984a). Power Distance Uncertainty Individualism Masculinity I Avoidance Turkey 66 85 37 45 U. S. 40 46 9 I 62 Low score indicates relatively tolerant for unstructured/unclear situations and less tolerant for unfairness and inequality. In weak uncertainty avoidance culture, personal risk taking is acceptable. “Cultures with a weak uncertainty avoidance are contemplative, less aggressive, unemotional, accepting of personal risk, and relatively tolerant” (Hofstede, 1984b, 390). There is big difference between two countries based on uncertainty avoidance scale; Turkey is placed on the one of the highest places in this scale which is expected. Turkish culture gives great credit to discipline and rules, for that reason people seek certainty in their life (highest score is 112—Greece, and the lowest score is 8-Singapore). Rigid rules, formal procedures, specific/narrow guidelines and long-term job career stability are the main characteristics of the Turkish organizations. Any change effort can get high-level resistance from the all level of the hierarchy and to avoid conflict supervisors and managers tend to behave authoritarian rather than consultative or participative. (c) Individualism vs. Collecm: Looks for what extent society encourages individual or collective values. "Individualism describes the relationship between the individual and the collectivity which prevails in a given society. It is reflected in the way people live together, for example, in nuclear families, or tribes; and it has all kinds of value implication (Hofstede, 1984a, p. 213). High score suggest that individualism in that society is encouraged and valued and that the society is loosely integrated. Hofstede claims that individualistic cultures reflected in a stronger desire for challenging work and freedom in doing it, yet having time left for a private life beyond one’s employer. Although in the individualistic organizations job cannot invade person’s private life, job comes before the relationship. People in the individualistic culture place personal goals beyond the collective goals and tries to maintain individual freedom and personal responsibility for their actions. Individualistic culture emphasizes the ideal of being a good leader rather than being a member and gives importance to the values of individual success, achievement, self-actualization and self-respect. Low score reflects that society gives more value to group’s interests rather than individual’s interests and that society is tightly integrated. "From birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout peeple's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty" (Hofstede, 1991, p.51). Person in the collectivist culture learns to think him/herself as ‘we’ rather than ‘I’ (Hofstede, 1984b). Collectivist cultures are reflected in a stronger vale given to the provision for everyone of training & good working conditions. Collectivist cultures emphasize a tightly integrated social system in which members distinguish between in-groups and out-groups. For collectivist society, personal freedom can be sacrificed for the benefits of the society. And being a good member is always emphasized and seen as the ideal person type. Collectivist society protects “interests of its members but in turn expect their permanent loyalty” (Hofstede, 1984b, p.390). Loyalty to group/organization or society is seen as 44 crucially important and “breaking loyalty is seen one of the worst thing one can do” (Hofstede, 2004, p.75) and person cannot detach him/herself. Although in the collectivist organizations, job can invade person’s private life, relationship has precedence over the job/task and “members expect the employer to take account of family problems and allow time to fiilfill family duties, which may be many” (Hofstede, 1984b, p.394). Individualism is the highest dimension of United States, which is also the highest number amongst the fifty countries (Lowest score is 6—Guatemala, highest score 91—U.S.). As a collectivist society, in Turkey, organizations are responsible for employees, importance attached to training and use of skills in jobs, seniority is essential for qualification rather than previous performance, moral involvement with company, staying with one organizations are desirable and being good member is expected, personal relationships and knowing right person is important for career and lastly group decisions and conformity with the group/organization are always preferable on the individual decisions. (d) Masculinity and Femininig: Based previous literature Hofstede claims that women attach more importance to social goals, such as helping others, relationships and the physical environments; on the other hand men attach more importance to ego goals such as careers and money (Hofstede, 1991). High score on masculinity reflects men dominated society and low score reflects, “relatively overlapping social roles for sexes” (Hofstede, 1984b, p.390). Masculine and feminine work goals differ across countries. In higher masculine cultures people gives more attention to masculine values and opposes feminine values. Such as promotion, advancement, challenging nature of the work, the chances of higher earnings and individual recognition are the goals. Higher masculine work organizations promote material success, assertiveness and competitiveness and 45 respect whatever is big, strong and fast. Person’s performance is count and money matters. In high femininity society, working with cooperative colleagues, having good relationship with your superiors and managers, secure employment, being able to reside in desirable area and quality of life are more important goals (Hofstede, 1984a). Turkey is located on the feminine side of the scale and US. is placed on the masculine side (the highest score is 95-Japan and the lowest score is 5-Sweden). In the conclusion, as shown in table 6, Turkey’s culture is high in power distance and uncertainty avoidance and low in individualism and masculinity. On the other hand United States’ culture is high in individualism and masculinity, low in uncertainty avoidance and power distance. Although Turkey has divided into 7 (seven) different regions and some cultural and economic variations exist among these regions, there are strong similarities in the values, beliefs, customs and general behavior patterns of the Turkish people. Differences in the police system: Several important differences can be found between US. and Turkey police systems. First, decentralize and centralize structure of the police agencies. US. has 51 criminal justice systems, one federal system and also approximately 50.000 agencies are in state, federal or local government employed to serve as criminal justice organizations (police agencies, court, corrections, etc). Because of the fact that the criminal justice system in US. is overwhelmingly divided, every town, village, and city have their own police force and their own town courts, village courts, and city courts therefore dictating different levels of jurisdiction. State has limited control on local systems, which gives 46 ills! hi Ch (I) -—-e all Illl Cfl (I15 pl: me USf‘ €a( nah local police departments, a strong power and emphasize local interests. This structure is highly consistent with Hofstede’s argument about the US. The US. has the highest score on the individualism scale and individualistic values are emphasized. Thus, the US. culture is compatible with decentralized criminal justice system. Contrary to the United States’ decentralized police system, Turkey has national police force and one CJ system all over the country. State has extensive control on each city police departments and meeting state needs rather than seeking local needs is well regarded. Centralized structure is the traditional characteristics of Turkish history. National police structure and highly centralized system support Hofstede’s claim that culture is high in uncertainty and power distance are more likely have highly structured centralized pyramid structure. Turkey is placed on the higher part of the uncertainty avoidance and power distance indexes, which is compatible with highly centralized police structure. Second, because of the divided nature of CJ system in US, it is almost impossible to state any community’s values or needs in general or abstract form. Although different criminal justice systems across the US. share few variables in common, these variables are also weak and have different degree of influences. The United States’ CJ system is characterized by loosely coupled and overlapping roles. As mentioned before, Turkey has one common CJ system and every jurisdiction is obliged to use that. Third, police training in the US. is responsibility of local police departments and each local department prepares its curriculum for meeting local needs rather than seeking national consensus or standard. In Turkey, national nature of police system, all police training standard for each police school and coordinated from center. Training 47 pi h- ('2 III? IC\ Ci“? St‘l~ poi an; department at headquarters develop in-service training curriculum and send it to whole districts also Police Academy develop curriculum for every police schools throughout the Turkey. Fourth, community policing have changed the police role, police-environment & police-citizen relationships. Many new functions (such as, neighborhood problems) are included into the police role and creation of stable police jurisdictions increase familiarity between police officer and citizen. These changes encourage police officers to make changes in the old style policing (strict law enforcement and aggressive policing tactics) and employ new policing styles (service oriented style) to handle police job. Most of the police departments in the US. are created by their local lawmaking authority and operate under the municipal government with almost no direct political interference. This local police system responsive to local people’s needs and concerns rather than government’s needs. Although in the US. policing is mostly community oriented, that is police is responsible to serve the community, in Turkey, police share responsibility of central control and serve as a tool of the state. Since citizens have responsibilities rather than rights against the state, police evaluates state’s concerns above the citizens concerns. Police officers perceive their first priority as to serve the government rather than serving the citizen and thus police are always seen as a government agency rather than public servant. Fifth, based on decentralized structure and community oriented nature of the US. police system, it is reasonable to assume that different perceptions pertinent to police role and police occupation exist across the nation and monolithic police culture assumption can be misleading. On the other hand highly centralized structure of the TNP and historic 48 role of the police force us to assume that police officers’ perception regarding to their organizational culture don’t vary across the departments and socio-cultural environment’s affect on policing most likely be similar across the police departments in the Turkey. Sixth, person from the individualistic culture enjoys maintaining and using his/her freedom and this characteristic is reflected in the US. police system as autonomy of the police officers. In the most of the police departments, one-patrol officer carries patrol duty and responsibility for decision-making most of the time is given that individual patrol officer. This autonomy is perfectly explainable by individualist and lower power distance nature of American society. On the other hand, in TNP, patrol duty is carried out by minimum three police officers and instead of individual responsibility; group responsibility is essential in the patrol duty and responsibility for decision-making most of the time is given to supervisors rather than line officers. Also this feature of TNP is perfectly compatible with the collectivist and higher power distance nature of Turkish society. Because of the location, long history and new management style, Turkey has heterogeneous culture that includes both individualistic and collectivist cultures. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the new Turkish Republic was established in 1923. During the new regime, Turkey has experienced tremendous changes in all aspects of life. Specifically during the European Union membership process, Turkey has lived through rapid changes in all areas and these changes have also affected cultural and societal values. Collectivist society in urban area has started to give way to individualistic values and collectivist society is almost transformed to individualistic society and individual rights are emphasized more than before. Since policing has strong tie with its 49 environment and wide culture and societal values sets proper style of policing, aforementioned changes in the Turkish society has also affected the policing in Turkey. New emphasis on human rights also started to limit police’s autonomy and discretionary power. Last 30 years many changes have been happened in the US. police organizations, such as changes in the socio-demographic characteristics of officers (such as more gender variation and also more educated police officers) and also change in organizational factors (such as community oriented policing). These changes also have weakened the officers’ (at least some of them) connection with the traditional policing and created different understanding in the police organizations. These change effort is fairly new in the TNP and principles of traditional policing hasn’t been challenged as happened to some extent in the US. Although aforementioned differences exist between two countries, their work environments and police functions are very similar. Police officers in both countries’ work in danger and unsupportive work environments. Both police groups try to maintain order, enforce laws, protect citizens and perform similar actions (such as issue tickets and catch criminals). As prominent police scholars (Crank, 2004; Lipsky, 1980: Skolnick, 1994) assert that because of the different work related reasons police officers all over the world share mainly similar behaviors, values, and opinions. They see ‘police work as police work everywhere’. Similar occupational environments, police duties, and missions of the police departments support our rationale to make comparison between two countries’ police agencies to test the idea of integrative/monolithic police culture. 50 CHAPTER III THEORETICAL BACKGROUND & PRIOR RESEARCH This chapter analyzes the literature pertinent to organizational culture and police organizational culture and includes three sections. First section provides the discussion of the concept and the framework of organizational culture. Second section examines theoretical background of police organizational culture and explores previous studies attempts to understand the police organizational culture. This section seeks to outline police culture studies and looks at the integration and differentiation perspectives’ assumptions pertinent to police culture. Third section gives rationale for the examinations of the organizational culture and subcultures. 3.1. Definition of Organizational Culture When using organizational culture as a framework for analysis, it is crucial to select a concrete definition of culture. Since scholars from different fields examined the study of culture, definitions of culture can be found in many different versions and each different definition brings different approach to study organizational culture. However scholars differ on the generally accepted definition of culture. The concept of culture has been used by anthropologists to study ethnic or national groups through ethnographic and cross-cultural research (Louis, 1.985). In most interpretations, culture is viewed as patterned ways of perceiving, thinking, and responding within a specific environmental context. The literature based on organizational culture is to a certain extent inconsistent and lacks a clearly recognized definition. In organizational studies, mostly, the cultural view, organizations are composed of unique cultural formations, is accepted. Varied definitions are used in the study of organizational culture. Schein (1990) argued that variations come from a normal process of studying culture through different fields, such as anthropology, psychology and sociology. Also, Schein (2004) argues that although extensive discussion about the concept of organizational culture indicates the importance of organizational culture, it also produces problems for scholars and students to interpret the same vague definitions and contradictory practices. According to Reichers and Schneider (1990), formal writing on organizational culture can be traced to Pettigrew (1979) who summarized how the anthropological concepts of culture could be implemented to the study of organizations. Pettigrew viewed organizational culture as a reality that lets peOple to act within a given environment. According to Pettigrew, “Culture is the system of such publicly and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given group at a given time. This system of terms, forms, categories, and images interprets a people's own situation to themselves” (1979, p.574). Pettigrew claimed that culture is a root of concepts, which include language, ideology, symbol, belief, ritual, and myth. Also, Pettigrew argues that despite the immense varieties of culture, language “can typify and stabilize experiences and integrate those experiences into a meaningful whole” (1979, p.575). In addition to Pettigrew, Beyer and Trice (1993) have written extensively on the study of the "culture forms" of an organization. This includes rituals, myths, stories, symbols, rites and several other events. Denison (1983, p.5) defines organizational culture as "the set of values, beliefs, and behavior patterns that form the core identity of an organization”. Deal and Kennedy (1982, p.15) describe organizational culture as a system of informal rules that makes clear how people are to act most of the time. Barker (1999, p.41) explains organizational culture as "a creative set of discursive formations that we use as needed to make our work life meaningful, sensible and rational". Ouchi (1981, p.41) also defines the organizational culture as “a set of symbols, ceremonies and myths that communicates the underlying values and beliefs of that organization to its employees”. One of the definitions by Moorhead and Griffin (1998, p.513-514) is that “organizational culture is a set of shared values, often taken for granted, that help people in an organization understand which actions are considered acceptable and which are considered unacceptable”. Schein defines culture as a reference to ideas or behaviors that are shared or held in common by a group/organization and Schein (1992, p. 12) gives prevalently cited definition of organizational culture: “Culture is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the connect way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems”. Cameron and Quinn (1999, p.14) also share same definition of culture as the “taken-for—granted values, underlying assumptions, expectations, collective memories, and definitions present in an organization” and they considered that an organization’s culture makes the organization unique and organizational culture is an ideology that organizational members live with (1999, p.15). According to them, organizational culture provides people with a sense of identity and unwritten, unspoken, unconscious courses of action for how to get along in the organization while maintaining a stable social system within their organizational environment. They insist that each culture is composed of “unique Ill he all da Sll Ci Orr language, symbols, rules, and ethnocentric feelings” (p.15), which is reverberated by what the organization values, its aim and goals and the management styles that permeate the organization. Also Trice and Beyer (1993) see that groups of people develop organizational culture to deal with struggles come from work environment. According to Ott (1989, p8) "Organizational culture is like ordinary air. Usually, it cannot be touched, felt, or seen. It is not noticed unless it changes suddenly". Based on all these definitions, this study perceives organizational culture as shared understanding amongst the members of the organizations which defines and informally enforce appropriate behaviors and helps members of the organizations during the difficult situations gives them an appropriate solution to deal with work related problems (such as, role ambiguity and danger in the work environment). 3.2. Studies of Organizational culture Several distinctions have been made in the organizational culture studies. In this study, two of them will be concisely mentioned. Culture as a root metaphor / Culture as a Variable (Smirchich, 1983) Based on Smircich’s extensive literature review, she made distinction between organizational culture studies as a variable (something an organization has) and/or a root metaphor (something an organization is) and suggested that culture as a paradigm can be used for understanding organizations. According to Smircich, studies that see organizational culture as a variable (dependent / independent) are mostly consistent with the fimctionalist perspective, which assumes that causal relationship between organizational culture and other variables (such as performance, higher productivity, satisfaction). These studies look for practical ways and methods for control and increased efficiency for management. Organizational culture studies assume that culture can be seen as a root metaphor (Barley, 1983) and have different understanding and ask different questions compare to ‘culture as a variable’ view. These studies “tend to view culture as a lens for studying organizational culture” (J. Martin, 2002, p4) and “consider organization as a particular form of human expression” (Smircich, 1983, p.353). These studies also comprehend that organization’s environment “exists only as a pattern of symbolic relationships and meanings sustained through the continued processes of human interaction” (Smircich, 1983, p.353) rather than independent and objective entity. Smircich criticize this view for being oversimplifying the richness of organizational culture and claims that studies of culture as a root metaphor try to go beyond the causal relationship and get depth understanding of “how is organization accomplished and what does it mean to be organized” (Smircich, 1983, p.353). Three Theoretical views of organizational culture (J. Martin, 1992; 2002; 2004) According to J. Martin, most of the organizational culture studies use one of the three different theoretical views, which are ( 1) integration, (2) differentiation and (3) fragmentation. Intggration: J. Martin (1992) summarizes the main features of integration studies as a (1) organization wide consensus (2) consistency and (3) clarity. Organization wide consensus: J. Martin defines organization wide consensus as a core element of the integration perspective. Integration perspective assumes that employees at all level of the organization agree with the dimensions of the organizational ‘Jl 'JI cuhure Tabl Onci COIIN Relal mam '\ Oilt‘l ambi g IOband same j( aCllOn. j pledlCla 561156- m Organlz; mOHOHH OrganIZa culture. Table 3. Complementarity of There Theoretical Perspectives (J. Martin, 2002, p.95) Perspective Integration Differentiation Fragmentation Orientation to Organization-wide Subcultural Lack of consensus consensus consensus consensus Relation among Consistency Inconsistency Not clearly manifestations - consistent or inconsistent Orientation to Exclude it Channel it outside Acknowledge it ambiguity Consistency: Consistency implies that shared behaviors and believes pertinent to job and the environment in which job is carried out can be found among those performing same job. Integration perspective includes three different consistencies, namely (1) action, (2) symbolic, and (3) content. Clarity: Clarity excludes ambiguity to “control the uncontrollable and bring predictability to the uncertain” (J. Martin, 1992, p.51) Integration perspective seeks sense-making which is essential to control behavior which disrupts harmony and organization-wide consensus. Some of the integration studies (such as Schein, I991) exclude ambiguity from culture and claim that ambiguity isn’t the part of the culture. Integration perspective has monolithic view about the organizational culture and sees deviation from consistency, organization wide consensus and clarity as a problem rather than different cultures (J. 56 Martin 2002). Parker (2000, p.61) sees integration perspective as ‘manifestation of social engineering’ and assumes that integration perspective finds information in order that managers can easily control the organization. Integration model looks dimensions of the organizational culture and seeks way to explain how managers successfully create the culture (Pettigrew, 1979) and control the organization. Major part of the integration studies select managers and professionals as representative of organizational culture (such as Schein, 1996) and examine their views. Organizational culture is seen as ‘glue’, which holds members of the organization together (Siehl & Martin, 1984). Integration view asserts that organization needs to be agreed upon values, norms and orders to survive. Each part of organization works to maintain balance and to arrive to equilibrium after big changes / new circumstances in the organization. This equilibrium can be achieved by way of accepting, maintaining and enforcing norms, values and orders of organization (Schein, 1990). Integration perspective views change is occasionally necessary but it must take place over a long period of time, which gives organization a chance to adapt without disturbing normal performance. Integration view inclined to (almost) ignore different understandings about the organizational culture in favor of the assumption of unity. Most of the organizational culture literature emphasizes the integration perspective (Davis, 1984; Deal & Kennedy, 1988; Killmann et al., 1985; Peters & Waterman, I982; Schein, 1990). Integration perspective assumes strong connection between organizational culture and performance in a way that stronger organizational culture has superior organizational performance (Gordon & DiTomaso, 1992; Killmann et al., 1985). Fundamental assumption of integration perspective is that the dimensions of an organizational culture represent 57 organization and people in the organization and organizational culture is unique to a given organizational context (J. Martin, 1992). Some of the proponents of the integrative perspective argued that strength of the organizational culture is directly related to effectiveness, productivity and job satisfaction (A. Brown, 1995; Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Killmann et al., 1985; Kerr & Slocum, 1987; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Sackman, 1991.; Sims & Gioia, 1986). These studies claim that general consensus and clarity on the values produces commitment and enthusiasm which finally leads efficiency and productivity (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Begley & Czajka, 1993; Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997; Lincoln & Kallberg, 1985; Logan, 1984; O’Reilly, 1989; Sheridan, 1992). Differentiation: J. Martin and Frost (2004) mention three main characteristics of differentiation studies; (I) interpretations are inconsistent, (2) consensus within the subculture rather than organization wide, (3) clarity be found within subcultures rather than organization wide. Differentiation perspective sees organizational culture as a nexus of environmental influences and subcultural characteristics rather than unitary (J. Martin, 1992). Differentiation perspective assumes that organizational culture has multiple segments and each segment has different understandings pertinent to dimensions of the organizational culture (Gregory, 1983). Therefore, differentiation perspective gives main attention to subcultural differences in the organization (J. Martin, 2002). Horizontal subcultural differences (looks differences across functions, works, etc) and vertical subcultural differences (differences between different hierarchical levels) are two of the most common examples of differentiation perspective. Differentiation perspective develops different explanation of organizational culture, which assumes that organization 58 has subcultures and permits for competing goals (Riley, 1983) and focuses on consensus within subculture rather than organization wide. Table 4. Implications of the Three Perspectives Regarding Cultural Change (J. Martin, 2002, p. 149) Perspective Integration Differentiation Fragmentation Role of leader Leader centered Teams of leaders can Power diffused have secondary among individuals influence and environment (hegemonic discourse) Role of Can have some influence Environmental Boundary between environment but is separate from influences salient: environment and culture can be external (jolt) organization or enacted (nexus permeable and in approach) constant flux (nexus approach) Action Top-down control by Little direct advice to Individual seen as implications leaders, or seek culture- managers or powerless or as strategy fit, or question subordinate groups able to contribute normative ability to intellectually to control culture undermining hegemonic discourses Part of the differentiation studies focus on single subculture and give extensive picture of that culture, police organizational culture studies can be included in this category. As discussed in the next part of the paper, those police organizational culture studies narrowly focused on line officer subculture. Other differentiation studies emphasize at least two different kinds of subculture which most of the time conflict with each other. M. Young (1991) looked at different perceptions amongst the shop floor culture, work wear machinists culture, and bag machinist culture. Also Van Maanen (1991) studied employee culture in the Disneyland and argued that separate supervisor culture and submarine operator cultures exist. Although differentiation studies include and briefly mention the demographic subcultures (eg. Bartunek & Moch, 1991; Rosen, 1991; Van Maanen, 1991), main emphasis was placed on occupational subcultures. “In most differentiation studies, demographic grouping are mentioned ‘in passing’ rather than analyzed in depth” (J. Martin, 1992, p. 92). Fragmentation: Fragmentation view can be simply defined as ambiguity. These studies emphasize ambiguity as a core concept of culture rather than clarity. Fragmentation perspective focuses on multiplicities of interpretation, which produces multiple interpretations with constant flux, rather than the idea of permanent subcultures. As J. Martin mentions, “The fragmentation perspective the most difficult perspective to articulate because it focuses on ambiguity, and ambiguity is difficult to conceptualize clearly” (J. Martin, 2002, p.104). Contrary to integration perspective, fragmentation perspective sees ambiguity is normal and inescapable part of organization and focuses on “multiplicities of interpretation” (2002, p. 107). Taken together these three perspectives J. Martin asserts that ‘each of them 60 oppos cultw ambi oppose each other on the three dimensions of comparison: (1) the relationship among cultural manifestations, (2) the orientation to consensus in a culture and (3) treatment of ambiguity (see table 4 and table 5). She concludes that each of them complete each other in a precise way (J. Martin, 2002, p. 120) and it is misunderstanding to reach a conclusion that an organization has a culture that best represented by one of these three perspectives. Table 5. Level of Analysis and the Three Perspectives (J. Martin, 2002, p.152) Perspective Level of Analysis Integration Differentiation Fragmentation Organizational Consensus throughout the organization; goal is assimilation and No organization- wide consensus; organization is Issue-specific attention with no consensus; patterns member of the culture multiple subcultural identities conformity cluster of of issue activation in subcultures flux Subcultural No important Relation of Subcultural subcultural differences; subcultures can be: boundaries subculture can represent Enhancing, uncertain, whole Conflicting fluctuating, blurred, Independent nested, over-lapping Individual Self-unified, constant, a Self composed of Self fragmented, in flux; no central unity For this study, J. Martin’s framework constitutes the foundation of the theoretical framework. And this study use both integration and differentiation perspective to get better understanding about the organizational culture and to investigate different 61 >UI Ira 3 (I: u \ S n 0 so sh or to cu 01 Ir. a subculture in the police organization. Because of the difficulties of measuring fiagmentation perspective, current study excludes fragmentation perspective. 3.3. The Rationale of Organizational Culture A crucial theme common to all aforementioned definitions is that an organization develops its culture by arriving at a shared understanding. Getting to a shared understanding takes for granted that members have entree to a common communication system, in which communicated messages mean the same thing to each member. Strength of the internal culture depends on how many dimensions are similar among members (Denison, 1990). Organization will be more or less effective in creating the overall shared meaning among the members. Weick (1979) suggests that an organizational culture can be considered as a socially constructed phenomenon, possessing a distinctive manner of behavior, which is shared among its members. Perceptions are influenced by prominent characteristics of the organization. According to Schein (1985), the creation of an organizational culture is a complex process, and researchers have postulated many processes that might create a culture. Schein (1990, p. 111) explains processes of organizational culture as "(a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore (e) is to be taught to new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems". Also Willmott (1993, p.2) explains the rationale of organizational culture as "First, it conveys a sense of identity for organizational members Second, it facilitates 62 mean soda]: andsh; totak integi adapt proni seenz and h (hou' sunot mm as Con Vanab Scheh alEUes the generation of commitment to something larger than the self... Third, culture enhances social system stability And fourth, culture serves as a sense-making device that guide and shape behavior". According to Schein (1985), besides internal adoption, the organization also needs to take care of its surroundings in order to live (external adaptation). While the internal integration deals with the creation and maintenance of the organization itself, external adaptation gives the organization the means for taking care of the environment and promising remain alive. S. Feldman (1988, p.57) argues that "organizational culture is seen as a set of meanings created within the organization but influenced by broader social and historical processes". Members of the organization evolve some rules or premises (how to get, interpret and use information) concerning the characteristics of the surroundings. People regularly try and Optimize these assumptions as needed. Due to external adaptation and internal integration, A. Brown (1995) sees organizational culture as continuous processes of development and change. Researchers have proposed that organizational culture can influence such outcome variables as productivity, effectiveness, performance (Denison, 1990; Denison & Mishra, 1995; O’Reilly, 1989), job satisfaction (Jackofsky & Slocum, 1987), innovativeness (Lorsch, 1985) and leader decision making (Sapienza, 1985). This study agrees with the Schein’s (1992) arguments pertinent to importance of studying organizational culture and argues that without examining the underlying assumptions of organizational culture, it is almost impossible to explain organizational development, organizational change (lack of congruence between change programs aim and line officers’ goals) and resistance to change. And concept of the organizational culture is understood in this dissertation as a U] be CU great extend (or partly) agreement on behaviors, values and perceptions in the organization. One of the missing points in the aforementioned definitions is that what extend culture is accepted and implemented on a common ground by the employees. For that reason current study questions the monolithic view (integration view) of the organizational culture and seeks to explain whether employees’ perceptions change by individual, organizational and environmental factors. And following Martin’s (1997) suggestion this study seeks to uncover and interpret aspects of the organizational life to get better picture of perceptions, values and beliefs of officers. 3.4. Levels of Organizational Culture Culture is often referred to as surrounding an entire organization. Within this integrative perception of culture it is crucial to understand the elements that composed of organizational culture and scholar should give notice to the incongruity and different understandings in the organizational culture context. Much of the research in this area strives to explain and analyze an overall culture in an organization (Peters & Waterman, 1982). Furthermore, according to Harman (1989), the concept of organizational culture is used to a certain degree to disregard disunity and quarrel within a social structure. In last two decades the monolithic view of organizational culture gives way to diverse perception of the concept of organizational culture. Kunda (1992, p.174) claims that " Although organizations have distinctive cultures, it would be a mistake to think that any particular organization has only a single homogenous culture". Also Schein (1992) believes that because of the size and complexity of organization, the existence of diverse cultures in organization can be reality, and also claims that within most organizations, 64 groups of persons develop systems of meaning that can be differentiated from that of other clusters of people. J. Martin and Siehl (1983, p.53) recognize the organizational culture as a “composed of various interlocking, nested, sometimes conflicting subcultures”. M. Feldman (1991) accepts the reality of existence of different perceptions in the organization. Trice and Beyer (1993, p.174) give a definition of subcultures as "distinct clusters of ideologies, cultural forms, and other practice those identifiable groups of people in an organization exhibit". Hofstede (1984), in his comprehensive work of the organizational values in the subsidiary companies of big multi-national corporation running in forty countries, inferred that while a shared organizational culture existed across the corporation, each country enforced some distinct elements on the subculture. Scholars have different views regarding factors, which lead subcultures in organization such as, professional affiliation, social, or ethnic groups (Gregory, 1983; Morgan, 1986; Ott, 1989). In addition to these factors, Louis (1985) and Trice and Beyer (1993) also claim that subcultures can be promoted through conditions such as differential interaction based on structure, location, size, and division of labor; shared experiences which lead to common sense-making; similar personal characteristics; and social cohesion. Subcultures can complement or take away from the overall organizational culture. Ott (1989) describes three types of subcultures, which are: Enhancing subcultures are compatible with and sometimes stronger than the overall organizational culture. Orthogonal subcultures hold some aspects of the organization's culture but have developed cultural attributes of their own. Countercultures conflict with the larger culture. Gregory (1983) notices that subcultures ofien approach organizational 65 issues with an ethnocentric view based on their own shared meanings and priorities. According to Trice and Beyer (1993, p.175), the result of this perception can be organizational subcultures that have difficulty communicating and working together. "The more unique the elements of a subculture, the more it encourages members to loosen their commitment to the overall culture". Tierney (1988) claims that the recognition of different views within an overall organizational culture can help expand productivity and decrease conflict. Keeton and Mengistu’s study (1992) examined that whether different level managers have same perceptions about their organization culture or they have different views and they found that managers at different level of the organization have different understanding about the organizational culture. Some dimensions of the organization perceived differently across the managers at different level of the organization. Such as lower ranking managers have different perceptions about the dimensions of performance, leadership and productivity than higher-ranking managers. Concur with that, Schein (1996, p.337) also argues existence of three different cultures in the organization which are the operators, the engineers and the executives. E. Young (1989) explains two different cultures within a group of shop floor machinists, although both groups share similar characteristics, they maintain their uniqueness during the action. In addition to differences between shop floor machinists, Young also argues different perceptions between management and staff at that organization. Van Maanen (1991) looked at the Disneyland and argued existence of different cultures among the operators, ground personnel, tour guides and etc. 66 3.5. Theoretical Approaches to Police Organizational Culture and Previous Literature In western countries, police organizational culture has been studied for more than 40 years (Paoline, 2004) and conception of culture in police literature draw from anthropological and sociological origins. A great amount of research about police culture concerns the police’s use of force, corruption, deviant behavior, discretion and management (Harrison, 1998). According to Chan (1997, p.43), the concept of police culture originally emerged from “ethnographic studies of routine police work, which uncover a layer of informal occupational norms and values operating under the apparently rigid hierarchical structure of police organizations”. Westley (1970) states that police culture has its own customs, laws and morality. According to Manning (1989, p.360) police culture is “accepted practices, rules and principles of conduct that are situationally applied and generalized rationales and beliefs” and “core skills, cognitions, and affect' that define 'good police work” (Manning, 1977: 143). Also Kingshott, Bailey and Wolfe (2004) define police culture as ideas, information and ways of accomplishing and considering regarding to meaningful aims, with compiled values which are afterwards shared by police officers. McDonald, Gaffigan and Greenberg (1997) suggest that the concept of police culture includes the merging of two main constituents, which are the image of objective and professional crime fighters, and a system of beliefs and behaviors not written in any official documents. Skolnick (1966) claims that police develop a “working personality” as a consequence of their work environment, especially two essential elements of work conditions, which are danger and authority. Skolnick argues that the potential danger 67 from routine police work lead police officers to grow the feelings of suspicion and isolation towards to public. Also Skolnick claims that whilst police use authority, this action limits citizens’ liberty, and some of the citizens resist or challenge police officers’ authority and this response reinforce danger in police work. Reiner (1992) considers police culture as values, norms, perspectives and occupation rules that modify police behavior and mentions the intensity of the police culture arising because police work is a mission (not just another job). Reiner insulates definite characteristic of police culture that are related to Skolnick’s 'working personality' response to the danger of police work, also Manning (1978) claims that police officers perceive their work as uncertain and unclear, including a cynical view of the world, a machismo and racist attitude, a strong sense of solidarity with other officers, and a conservative political outlook social, political, legal, and organizational context of policing, orientation toward action, isolation from society, conservative political view, prejudice towards to minorities, discourages toward to innovation and change. Contrary to Reiner, Kingshott (2003) suggests that police culture researchers should take into consideration the interactions of the police with their various environments, and the people they meet in those environments. Also Skolnick (1972) claims that from beginning to end, policing is essentially political and this reality should be taken into consideration. Jackson and Lyon (2002) also see police culture is a cluster of different behaviors, officers’ reactions to their surroundings and community which they work in. As Manning (1995) explains, organizational cultures are a product of the different conditions and difficulties which most of the police officers encounter and likely react. External characteristics of police work and also police agencies urges into action 68 and solidifies the manifest characteristics of the police organization which results extensively consistent values and behaviors amongst the police officers (Hunt & Magenau, 1993). According to DiMaggio (1989), in the police work, thought process and activities gets institutionalized and underpin police officers ways of thinking and acting that are axiomatic. Also Paoline (2003, p.200) claims that describing police culture as an ‘occupational phenomena’ brings the idea that “officers collectively confront situations that arise in the environments of policing, and subsequent attitudes, values, and norms that result are in response to those environments”. Next part of the chapter provides explanations about the integration and differentiation view of police organizational culture studies. Integration view of police culture Many scholars see police culture as a monolithic culture and they argued that all officers share similar values, norms and behaviors. The idea of ‘police is police in everywhere’ has been claimed through several scholars. Westley perceived police organizational culture as uniform and assumed that all members shared similar values and beliefs. Similarly, Crank (1998, p.26) argued that "street cops everywhere tend to share a common culture because they respond to similar audiences everywhere" and focused on cultural homogeneity amongst the police officers and assumed unitary police culture. This view tends to generalize interpretations of findings to understand general agreement and consensus (see figure 1). Fig. l (Paoline, 2003, p.201) represents and summarizes the primary components of the monolithic view of police organizational culture, in terms of the environments, 69 coping mechanisms, and outcomes. Based on his review, Paoline differentiates police environment as occupational and organizational. Occupational environment (or as Skolnick mentioned ‘operational environment’) represents officer’s relationship with society and police organizational culture scholars mention two main characteristics as danger and coercive authority. Skolnick (1994, p.43) mentioned that danger and authority produce police officer’s operational personality and both of these are essential elements of police role. Danger and authority reinforce each other produce stress and anxiety. Integrative perspective argues that police try to cope stress and anxiety by the way of producing ‘suspiciousness’ and ‘maintaining the edge’ (Van Maanen, 1974) and isolating themselves from public (Sparrow et al. 1990). Figure 1. Traditional view of police culture (Paoline, 2003, p.201) Environments Coping , , Outcomes mechanism/prescriptions Occupational Danger Suspiciousness Coercive Authority Maintaining the edge \ / Social isolation Stress /' Anxiety \ / Loyalty Organizational \ Supervisor scrutiny Lay low/ CYA Role ambiguity Crime fighter orientation 70 Police organizational environment represents officer’s relationship with supervisors and other officers. Police culture literature mentions two main elements of organizational environment, which are role ambiguity/conflict and supervisor scrutiny. Integrative police culture studies mainly studied line officers behavior and they argued that police officers have extensive degree discretionary power and even some of the scholars argued that line officers have “considerable discretion in determining the nature, amount and quality of benefits and sanctions provided by their agencies” (Lipsky, 1980, p.13). Lipsky also claims that police officers have authority to decide who will be arrested that won’t. Coping mechanisms mentioned in figure I, produce two outcomes; loyalty and isolation. Being suspicious and maintaining the edge leads isolation from the public and produces the idea of ‘just police know and understand each other’. One step fiirther, ‘us vs. them’ mentality is inevitable which brings police and public to opposite sides on the continuum; one tries to limit freedom, others seek to commit crime. Also organizational environment brings loyalty and officer cover other officers, which produces ‘blue code of silence’. And police environment starts the governed by the fundamental belief of us versus them or “our word against their word” (Sullivan, 2004, 100). Some suppositions in the police literature are that police culture has innately negative intensions (Chan, I997; Skolnick, 1966; Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993). For example the Fitzgerald Report (1989, Queensland Police) and the Mollen report (1994, New York City police), make a connection between culture, ’deterioration of the Police Force', and corruption (cited in Chan, I999). Abuse of power, corruption, stress, violence, cynicism and negative attitude toward to citizens are believed unavoidable for police officers 71 (Rubi Ilallll pl pt til DI-J {’1 8r (in-p c. :dl (Rubinstein, I973; Skolnick, 1994) but how to deal with results of these issues, such as traumatic results of stress, is often disregarded (Kingshott, 2003). Miller, Blacker and Alexandra (1997) claim that although structure, duty and culture of police forces give a model to police officers to act, these characteristics and model do not entirely decide the actions of police officers. Also Fielding’s study in England has showed that the police officer is the final decision-maker of the structural and cultural affects of the organizational culture (Fielding 1988). While the culture may be powerful, it is nevertheless up to individuals to accommodate or resist its influence. Contrary to socialization perspective and passivist view, Shearing and Ericson (1991) see police organizational culture from the constructive perspective and they claim that police officers actively constructing and directing attention to the culture and they are not passive carriers of police culture. Although most of the times argued that loyalty, shared experiences, isolation binds officers together, according to Shearing and Ericson police officers use police culture as a ‘tool kit’ in order to produce sense of order. Integration perspective perceives organizational culture as unitary and presents us police line officers culture as representative of police organizational culture. It doesn’t pay attention to individual perspectives (differences), organizational variation and environmental variables (such as political power and political culture). Although police organizations may have distinctive cultures, it would be a mistake to think that police organizations have only a single homogenous culture and it is mostly same in everywhere. Police officers may have different views on some of the dimensions of the organizational culture. 50.1. just tiii Ilai SOC Pitts Vail; be . Ilui: UPI; US. has 51 criminal justice systems, one federal system and also approximately 50.000 agencies are in state, federal or local government employed to serve as criminal justice actors (police agencies, court, corrections, etc). Because of the fact that the criminal justice system in US. is overwhelmingly divided, every town, village, and city have their own police force and their own town courts, village courts, and city courts therefore dictating different levels of jurisdiction. It is almost impossible to state any society’s values or needs in general or abstract form. Actually this structure can be answer to Hagan’s (1989) question of “why is there so little criminal justice theory?” Hagan claims that elements of loosely coupled system are clear in criminal justice system. Although different criminal justice systems across the US. have share few variables in common, these variables are also weak and have different degree of influences. Even scholars have tried to develop CJ theory since 1950-55, decentralized structure and loosely coupling nature of CI system limits the ability of scholars to develop general theory of CJ administration. For aforementioned reasons, monolithic perspective pertinent to police organizational culture doesn’t explain a big part of the variation in the organizational culture and needs to extend its focus. Put another way, police organizational culture isn’t a unitary concept and cannot be explained by merely looking from integrative perspective’s monolithic view. Multidimensional nature of the organizational culture needs multiple constructs to explain rather than solely based on one dimension construct. 73 Differentiation view of police culture Whilst Westley in his work sees police organizational culture as a single- monolithic culture which shared by all members of the occupation, during last two-three decades many changes have been happened in police organizations, such as changes in the socio-demographic characteristics of officers (such as more gender variation and also more educated police officers) and also changes in organizational factors (such as community oriented policing). These changes also have brought to concern about the common understanding of a single unvaried organizational culture concept in police organizational culture studies, and in the last two-three decades scholars has been started to see police organizational culture as a complex and multi-colored (multidimensional) concept (J.M. Brown, 1998; Haarr, I997; Manning, 1994; Paoline, 2004; Schein, 1992; Wilson 1989) and criticized the monolithic view of organizational culture. Such as Manning (1994, p4) argued that without considering the different values and paradoxes in the organization, static, unitary and traditional view of organizational culture studies misleads the scholars. In same context also Shapland and Vagg (1987) implied that since many studies revealed different views and handling styles during the incidents and the complaints, it is pointless to talk about unitary police culture and expect unitary police behavior. As R. E. Ford (2003, p.106-107) mentions although some aspects of policing (such as coercive force, danger/uncertainty) can be shared by most of the police organizations, across the different departments, diversity in mission, duties, style and membership is inevitable and these differences also brings different focus and content of police culture. 74 The existence of different cultures in organizations implies that there are several behavioral values, which are located at the origin of comprehending the influence of police culture on different features of police organizations. One of the definitions of organizational subcultures is "subset of an organization's members who interact regularly with one another, identify themselves as a distinct group within the organization, share a set of problems commonly defined to be the problems of all, and routinely take action on the basis of collective understandings unique to the group” (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985, p.38) which gives credit to different perceptions, value systems and interests in the organization. Foster (2003, p.198) criticizes police culture studies for the reason of given so much importance to the values of line officers while ignoring other levels of police officers. “In the business world, for example, organizational culture has focused largely on managers and is viewed positively... In police studies, cop culture has been intrinsically linked with the most junior of officers in front-line policing, with little attention given to middle and senior managers”. Possible Origins of Diversity in Police Organizational Culture Based on the literature, mostly five possible origins of diversity (see table 6) take part in police organizational culture studies; (I) organizations, (2) rank, (3) individual officer styles, (4) working place, (5) gender and race. And police organizational culture literature proposes that these factors affect officer’s perception about the organizational culture. 75 Table 6. Possible Origins of Diversity in Police Organizational Culture 1. Organization Cain, 1973; Chan, 1996; Chevigny, I995; Falcone & Wells, 1995; Hassell, Zhao & Maguire, 2003; Langworthy, 1985; Liederbach, 2005. Parks, 1979; Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993; S. Walker, 1977; Websdale & Johnson, 1997; Weisheit, Wells & Falcone, 1995; Wilson, 1968. 2. Rank Bennett & Wilkie, I982, I984; MK. Brown, 1988; Farkas & Manning, 1997; Kaufmann & Beehr, 1989; Kleining, 1997; Lefltowitz, 1974; Manning, 1994; McDonald, Gaffigan & Greenberg, 1997; Perrott & Taylor, 1995; Punch, 1983; Reiner, 1992; Reuss-Ianni, 1983; Van Maanen, 1983; Vito et al. 2005; Wall, 1998. 3.Individual officer style Broderick, 1977; M.K. Brown, 1988; Fitzgerald et al., 2002; Mastrofski et al. 2002; McConville & Shepherd, 1992; Muir, 1977; Paoline & Terrill, 2005; Reiner, 1978; Walsh, 1977; White, 1972. 4.Working Place Dodd, 1967; Fielding, 1995; Garcia, 2005; Jefferson, 1990; Kraska, 1999; Kraska & Cubellis, 1997; Kraska & Kappeler, 1997; Kraska & Paulsen, 1997; Mastroski et al., 1995; Mastrofski et al., 2000; McDonald, Gaffigan & Greenberg, 1997; Miller, 1999; Novak et al. 1999; Tifft, 1974; M. Young, 1991. 76 Table 6 (cont’d) l Bahn, 1984; Bowling, 1999; Braithwaite & Brewer. 1998; 1M. 1 Brown, 1997, 1998; Butler et al., 2003; Cashmore, 2002; Cuadrado, 1995; Davis, 1984; Dick & Cassell, 2004; Dick & Jankowicz, 2001; Fielding, 1994; Haarr I997; Haarr & Morash, 1999; Heidensohn, 1992; Herbert, 2001; Holdaway, 1996, 1997; 5. Gender and Holdaway & Barron, 1997; Holdaway & Parker, 1998; Home, Race 1994; Johnson, 1991; Koening, 1978; C. Martin, 1996; S. Martin, 1980, 1995; S. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Miller, 1999; Morash & Greene, 1986; Morash & Haarr, 1995; Santos, 2004; Stenross & Kleinman 2003; Taylor & McKenzie, 1994; Walklate, 2000; A. Worden, 1993; Organization: Wilson (1968), in his ground breaking study, analyzed police role in American society and argued that police has three main roles; law enforcement, order maintenance and provision of services (legalistic, watchman, and service). Wilson suggested that local political culture was primary predictor of the organizational arrangements of police departments and police role varies based on organization and organization’s political environment (local political culture). Langworthy (1985) restudied Wilson’s assumptions by analyzing 152 police departments providing police job to a city population of more than 100.000 using FBI 1975 arrest data in his study. And he partially supported Wilson’s argument and concluded that arrest expectation directly related to local political culture 77 of police agency operate in. Although Langworthy tested Wilson’s thesis and his findings were extent to some degree similar with Wilson’s proposition, Hassell, Zhao and Maguire (2003) found that local political culture no longer effects organizational planning in police departments. When Skolnick and Fyfe (1993) and also Chevigny (1995) evaluated Rodney King incident, they proposed that Los Angeles Police Department has a distinctive police culture which displays tolerance to abuse of power. Websdale and Johnson (1997) and also Cain (1973) make general differentiation between urban and rural police forces and they propose that urban police compared to rural police are more disconnected from public. Weisheit, Wells and Falcone (1995) proposed that urban rural crime and policing style is different and this difference needs be taken into consideration. Meagher (1985) claimed that police officers in small departments have different policing styles than officers in medium and big police departments. Meagher surveyed 249 municipal police departments and found that officers in the small agencies perform specific police activities (such as patrolling school areas) more than their counterparts do in the medium and big agencies. Also Chan (1996) emphasizes the existence of difference among the police agencies with regard to aspects of police culture. In addition to aforementioned literature, policing style of the police organization (such as community policing, etc.) and selection procedure of the organization make difference on the organizational culture of the organization. Mil“ Based on her 168 eight-hour shifts observation in NYPD, Reuss—Ianni (1983) recognized existence of two different police cultures. Street cop culture, similar to 78 traditional police culture concept, is common among the patrol officers; management cop culture is common among officer who has high salary and good education background. Reuss-lanni proposed that street cop culture has been started to weakening among police because of the socio-political changes (Paoline, 2001). Reuss-Ianni claimed that hierarchical section within the police culture between ‘street cops’ and ‘management cops’ needs to be considered. Kleining (1997) makes distinction between management and street cops’ culture, based on different groupings within ranks, between uniformed and non-uniformed officers and so on. Also Punch (1983) classifies police culture into ‘bosses’ and ‘workers’ and she claims that isolation and loyalty was found within the police service between top level police officers and lower rank police officers. M.K. Brown (1988) also found two different cultures in California, like Reuss-Ianni’s study, one culture was in the management and other was in the street level. Brown defined this situation as “bifurcation of authority”. Manning (1994) based on his Britain fieldwork and research on London Metropolitan Police, states three different sections among ranks in Anglo-American police organizational culture which are lower participants (line or patrol officers), middle managers and top command. As Geertz (1973) believes that culture is embodied in the symbols through which people communicate, also Manning claims that each section of police has own cultural values, norms, rituals and interest. Patrol officers mostly focus on direct results of job (similar with street cop concept); middle managers play a mediating role between line officer and top command. Top command has additional concerns and topics in addition to routine police job, such as political concern. Also Perrott and Taylor 79 found that ranked personnel have more authoritarian in their beliefs and values than line officers have (Perrott & Taylor, 1995). All of the above discussions define street level police officers (line officers) as a representative of traditional policing (aka informal policing) and management cops are defined as representatives of the formal organizations. Discretion/autonomy/authority, professional wisdom/craftsman and shortcuts/routines are key dimensions of line officer culture and combine to differentiate line officer culture from management cops culture. Authority / Discretion: In literature line officers are defined the dimensions of high-level discretionary power and autonomy. Lipsky (1980, p.13) argues, “Street level officers (bureaucrats) have considerable discretion in determining the nature, amount and quality of benefits and sanctions provided by their agencies”. Van Maanen (1978), to some extend, shares Lipsky’s perspective and argues that line officers develop commonsense of understanding to deal with their job and maintain their autonomy. And this commonsense of understanding develops simple typification that helps them to apply their discretion and after some point discretion becomes structure and bias. To some extend police officers have authority to decide who will be arrested that won’t (like judges have same kind of discretion to suspend sentence or give maximum sentence). Although discretion and autonomy is seen as vital for line officers for their ability to do their jobs, I believe that discretionary power is not unlimited and is constrained by several factors, such as limited access to resources and technology. Skolnick sees discretion as a power for line officers and they can use it for trade and he claims that in some cases line officers give up from their discretionary powers. If the discretionary power exceeds the boundaries of moral values of particular society, line officers give up 80 their discretionary powers. Skolnick argues that line officers give up their discretionary powers for very small percentage of cases, which inescapably politicized and publicized and they follow formal organizational model (such as OJ. Simpson case). Professional Wisdom/Craftsman: Professional wisdom or craftsman mainly comes from daily work environment of police, which includes peer pressure/relation, danger and daily encounter with citizen. According to Skolnick (1994), ‘craftsman’ navigates pressure between law and order. As Skolnick mentioned, craftsman feels that they are able to judge who is guilty or not because of their training and experience and thus they should be allowed to determine the application the law which means when it is using the law as it intend to appropriate when it is intend to ignore. Van Maanen (1978) discusses the underlying structure of police thought and he describes understandings shared by street patrol officers as to what their work entails. These understandings are behavioral norms, the foundation of which allows recognition of the ‘asshole’. Line officers usually apply their professional wisdom (or craftsman) to case to effectively deal with workload and maintain their discretion. Resources - Work load/Limited resources. Routines, Work environment: Lipsky (1980) argues that ‘street level bureaucrats’ (line officers) mainly consider overwhelming workload, limited scarce resources, and environmental constraints on their decision making. In order to handle workloads they develop ‘shortcuts - routines’, they categories certain type of people based on their experiences, which increases the efficiency. Like Lipsky, Skolnick (1994) also argues that under organizational pressures to success police develop and use shorthand or ‘symbolic assailants’, which represents organize symbols of behavior. Skolnick claims that due to the fact that police job has dangerous work 81 environn danger. ‘ attitudes. \laanen. behavior particula 13p0l0gi€ UlldEIlyii patrol oi the four. managg decisic aUdle eanf CL .4 . (l) r-r .. . COD environment, police officers develop possible shorthand to decrease their vulnerability to danger. Van Maanen (1978) describes the acculturation of new officers and the work attitudes, values, and norms into which they were interact with others. According to Van Maanen, typologies are important for officers and significance of categorization is certain behaviors flow from this categorization. Like Lipsky, Van Maanen also types person into particular categories and individuals become categories and not people anymore. These typologies help officers to deal with scarce resources. Van Maanen discusses the underlying structure of police thought and he describes understandings shared by street patrol officers as to what their work entails. These understandings are behavioral norms, the foundation of which allows recognition of the ‘asshole’. In addition to line officer culture’ dimensions, one of the salient dimension of management cops is sovereign (environment, media, politics etc.) effects on their decision making process. Politics or Environment’s effect: According to Manning (1994) while line officers focus on immediate aspects of the job, middle management emphasize on management themes, and top command key on the politics of managing policing and its external audiences. For that reason management cops give much weight to what the external environment say and seek legitimacy for their actions/policies. Individual officer style: Brown’s research, based on his study in California police department, analyzed distinctness in police officer’s attitudes toward “aggressiveness” and “selectivity” (M. K. Brown, 1988). According to Paoline (2001, p.26) “this research suggests that officers cope in different ways with the strains created by their work environment, and that portraits proposes ‘professi holds in states di" limitatio stress o different Orientatii p. 3:4) I POlicemz Imellecr eontradi portraits of a single occupational culture may have been misdrawn”. Muir’s study proposes that officers differ in their negative attitudes toward citizens. Whilst ‘professional’ officer holds positive attitudes toward to community, ‘enforcer’ officer holds more negative attitudes toward to community (Muir, 1977). R. Worden (1995) states differentiation in the extent which officers held unfavorable attitudes toward legal limitations. Also Broderick (1977) suggests differentiation in the degree which officers’ stress on “due process of law” and “social order”. White (1972) notes officers’ differentiation pertinent to officers’ focus areas (outcomes or processes), control orientation, command control orientation and discretion control orientation. Muir (1977, p. 3-4) tries to find out dimensions of a good officer on the basis of two virtues. “A policeman becomes a good policeman to the extent that he develops two virtues. Intellectually he has to grasp the nature of human suffering. Morally he has to resolve the contradiction of achieving just ends with coercive manners”. Working place: McDonald, Gaffigan and Greenberg (1997) have recognized cultures within a police department, such as; a cop-to-cop culture, a cop-to-management culture, and a cop-to-community culture. Furthermore, Fielding (1995) argues that amongst the lower ranks there are different cultures between routine patrol officers and community constables. Tifft (1974) pointed out that patrol officers perceive their environment and organization different than tactical force and traffic officer. According to M. Young (1991), detectives have a different subculture compared to other police officers. Some of the scholars such as Jefferson and also Kraska and Paulsen proffer that Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams, or what is known in the academic literature as "police 83 parami li (Jeffery Kraska 8 sections BIC. l" officers the mos Jankowi. Iankowi W}: i: lav. enl bem 99.x Under 51 betuee SIUUIES Studies Shefn paramilitary units" (PPUs) have a specific and assertive version of the police sub—culture (Jefferson, 1990; Kraska, 1999; Kraska & Cubellis 1997; Kraska & Kappeler, 1997; Kraska & Paulsen, 1997). In a similar manner one might anticipate in police service to be sections between intelligence bureau personnel, anti-smuggling and anti terror personnel etc. Gender and Race: C. Martin (1996) found profoundly integrated variations between male and female officers’ experiences in a force. J. M. Brown (1997) claims that gender stereotyping one the most influential and persisting social classifications. Also Fielding’s, Dick and Jankowicz’s studies (latter one conducted in England) support Brown’s claim (Dick & Jankowicz, 2001; Fielding, 1994). According to National Center for Women & Policing study (2001, p2), women police officer represents approximately 11.2 % of all sworn law enforcement personnel. As mentioned before, many scholars find differences between male and female officers and for that reason they perceive gender’s effect on understanding about the police organizational culture. Differentiation also appears between different races. Bowling (1999), Holdaway (1996, 1997) and S. Martin’s (1995) studies found racial stereotyping in police culture. In addition to aforementioned five different source of differentiation also some studies found weak or moderate influence of age, experience and education on the police officer’s perception (Bell, 1979; Carter & Sapp, 1990; Fielding & Fielding, 1987; Shernock, 1992; R. Worden, 1990). Based on differentiation perspective in the police organizational culture literature, instead of looking unitary understanding, subcultures can share basic assumptions about 84 oreaniz. organiz. about U differ b; 36.VVh IHI‘Orma approve Organizc ll990); and d6\ IOyahy organlz, Officers CUIIUre argum Inform; \kjrhgm the dimensions of the organizational culture and each subculture may differ in many aspects of their understanding about the culture with other subcultures in the organization. And shared understanding can be found in the subculture instead of organization wide. Differentiation perspective assumes that police officers perceptions about the aforementioned traditional dimensions of the police organizational culture differ by individual organizational and environmental factors. 3.6. Why does organizational culture and subcultures significant for organization? Basic understanding about the police culture is essential to understand formal and informal police behaviors. M. K. Brown (1988) argued that organizational culture approves the violation of human rights, Skolnick and Fyfe (1993) perceived that organizational culture endorses abuse of power (use of extensive power), Sparrow et al. (1990) assumed organizational culture as a main barrier before the organizational chance and development, D. Walker (2001) claimed that organizational culture intensifies the loyalty amongst the officers and causes isolation, Silverman (1999) argued that organizational culture produces the concept of ‘others’ and increases bonds amongst the officers. Roberg and Kuykendall (1993) emphasized the importance of organizational culture during the informal socialization process in the police organization and they argued that police officers decode the message comes from top command based on this informal process. Van Maanen (1974) also perceived organizational culture as a learning environment and information change process. Lurigio and Skogan (1994) claimed that without extensive knowledge about the organizational culture it is difficult to achieve 85 I organiza moddt lino“ let: ofpohc‘ aszitoi changes reinforei organize audying COHugaC IElllng 1‘ ourOr ge dimensi the Oiht‘ COnI‘I Uu \ \. Organiz Configu manak’fi dHIPTEr organizational change and to implement and develop new program and new program should be compatible with organizational culture to succeed. Organizational culture studies help to comprehend and attain a great extend knowledge about the policing. It seeks to understand underlying causes of negative image of policing (such as isolation, abuse of power) and helps officials to use that knowledge as a tool to understand failure of implications and facilitate new developments and changes without confronting with any obstacles (or at least minimum resistance) and reinforce appropriate behaviors. From the integration perspective, one of the biggest difficulty for studying organizational culture and subcultures is to convince top commands to advantageous of studying organizational culture. During the my 10 years experience in TNP, I always come across the discouraging question of ‘Since everybody already knows what you are telling to us and we have more experience than you, what is all this stuff going to do for our organization’. Manning brings clarity the importance of knowledge about the different dimensions in organization. “Segments of an occupation differentially emphasize one or the other “side” of a value set, or change their weighting of one or one set, the internal configuration of the occupational culture changes. Since authority and power stratify organizations, and justify some practices and value preferences more than other, some configurations are more valued than others” (Manning, 1994, p9). These different value preferences and dimensions between segments (such as management cops and line officers) are expected to cause conflict. The existence of different cultures in the organization indicates that the main value system for the police 86 organiz. officers manage determi: manage maintai: Conflict styles K. fennor CilVll’On; OIIIE‘I' El relatiyel making OfiICErs. abOutrh Ideas (51 to do ar manage] 50me ex Simply. acriOnS < 10 58e m arbllran organization is not likely to be strongly held and to a great degree shared by all police officers. As Reuss-Ianni (1983) claims that these values of line officer culture and management culture determine the daily bases practices of policing, these dimensions determine behavior and the characters of officers. Although both line officers and management cops share same underlying concepts (such as reducing crime and maintaining safe district), both cultures diverge on the interpretations of these concepts. Conflict may arise from inter-segment differences in the meaning of the policing and styles of solving problems. As Reuss-lanni mentions different interpretations of ‘territoriality’, which comprises organizational and casual relationship between environment and conducts within police department and between police department and other environments. In line officer culture, district is local and line officers have relatively autonomous process, contrary to that in management police culture decisions making is centralized and headquarter takes much of the discretionary power of line officers. Since management cops mostly don’t deal with street, they aren’t concerned about the effects of their policy on the daily lives of line officers. Line officers develop ideas (such as routines or wisdom) of their responsibilities to meet with what they desire to do and these conceptions may or may not reach (or close to reach) the objectives of management. For the line officers this can indicate obtaining a freedom and autonomy (to some extend) but at the sacrifice of both responsibility and the correct act of the system. Simply, when the people responsible for maintaining the fiinctioning of the systems actions do not share the goals of a system, the system is in trouble. Line officers become to see management cops as unrelated to local needs and conditions, unsupportive, base on arbitrary decision and unrealistic. Since line officers are not included into decision- 87 making; time. li. reason (1980). fact th. official differen line of} perspec Ofganiz; differen about 11 can has: the Org ChaRBE. 37- Dir. making process, they don’t make great effort to succeed organization’s goals. Most of the time, line officers see ‘law in the book’ and ‘law in the action’ is not compatible for that reason organizational policy distort moving from the headquarters to local district. Lipsky (1980), Skolnick (1966, 1994) and also Van Maanen (1978) mentioned that due to the fact that line officers don’t have any time and enough resources, instead of putting official rules directly into practice, they adapt official rules to their work conditions. This different understanding generates new secrecy and new routines (shortcuts) amongst the line officers and increases gap between official perspective goals and line officers perspective. Since these differences between segments clearly conflict with the organizations goals and community’s needs, understanding organizational culture and differences between subcultures are crucially important. Without extensive understanding about the different cultures in the organization, any change and development programs can have an adverse affect on police organization. Gaining a deep understanding about the organizational culture and subcultures helps managers to successfiilly implement change, development or even training programs. 3.7. Dimensions and operationalization of the police organizational culture In the police organizational culture literature, organizational culture has been operationalized by using different dimensions. Lefleowitz (1974) analyzed police officer’s orientations toward job satisfaction, need gratification/orientation, job involvement and supervisory support. Reiner (1978), Talarico and Swanson (1982), and Crank and Caldero (1991) looked at patrol officers’ perception of the support they receive from management and their supervisors. Wilson (1968), Muir (1977), Reiner (1978), M. K. 88 Brovm to their police legal l’t enforCe Keane; citizen police r are l l ) l5.) rest Shernm Organiz. fellow siruatio BIOQkS' OfiICErs Sen’lCe belief 1' IOWard Brown (1988) and R. Worden (1995) made typologies to understand officers’ orientation to their work and their perceptions towards the organization. R. Worden (1989) analyzed police officers’ orientation towards to five different dimensions (1- role orientation, 2- legal restriction, 3- citizen respect and cooperation, 4- legal institution, and 5- selective enforcement) to explain police officers attitudes and behaviors. Sparrow, Moore and Kennedy (1990), Hayeslip and Cordner (1987) looked at officer’s perception about the citizen cooperation with the police. R. Worden (1990) analyzed education’s effects on police officers’ occupational understanding and he used five attitudinal dimensions which are (1) scope of the police role, (2) legal restriction, (3) discretion (4) rigid enforcement, (5) restrictiveness of supervision, (6) department as place the work and (7) morale. Shernock (1992) also looked at education’s effect on officer’s understanding pertinent to organizational culture and used 5 attitudinal scales; (1) tolerance toward to misconduct of fellow officers, (2) support for the service function, (3) handling order maintenance situations informally, (4) suspicion of the public and outside world, (5) insularity. Brooks, Piquero and Cronin (1993) compared two suburban police departments’ police officers’ attitudes by using nine attitude scale which are; crime control orientation, service orientation, perception of community support, perception of citizen cooperation, belief in police discretion, perception of criminal justice system support, orientation toward force, orientation toward police solidarity, and perception of the quality of police services. A. Worden (1993) examined different understanding between male and female officers by analyzing police officer’s orientation towards (1) police role, (2) citizen, (3) workplace, and (4) competence. Perrott and Taylor (1995) analyzed affect of rank on officer’s perception about the organizational culture and used measures of 89 E author; other i percep: of soci; public change police attitude manage orientar dislrusr (3000) POIlCinE and Pa( qUestio SUpen-i Also Ill Iradlllo CUIILlI’e (Time C T a _ ekEpU'\ authoritarianism, perceived stress, job satisfaction and social nearness to supervisors and other defined groups. Bennet (1997) and Scripture (1997) analyzed police officers’ perception about the supervisory support and citizen support. Britz (1997) used variables of socialization, peer support, organizational identification and distance from the general public to measure police subculture. Mastrofski and Bynum (1997) examined recent changes in the Lansing PD. to see officer perceptions about the several issues, such as, police work, patrol duty, citizen cooperation. Winfree and Newbold (1999) analyzed attitudes and orientations of police officers about communication/cooperation, management support and supervisory support. Paoline (2000) looked at police officer’s orientation to order maintenance, community policing, aggressiveness, selectivity, distrust of citizens, and perceptions of citizen cooperation. Halsted, Bromley and Cochran (2000) analyzed officers’ tendency towards police work (crime control vs. community policing). Engel and Worden (2003), Tenil, Paoline and Manning (2003), Paoline (2004) and Paoline and Terrill (2005) measured police organizational culture by using 22 survey questionnaires encompassing different dimensions; such as, attitudes toward citizen, supervisors, procedural guidelines, role orientations and policing tactics (2005, p.460). Also these studies measured police officers’ orientation to community policing by using same items used in this study. Cochran and Bromley (2003) measured police culture by using five different role orientation scales; (1) crime control, (2) service, (3) cynicism, (4) traditionalism and (5) receptivity to changes. “The existence of the traditional police sub- culture would be established by at least a sub-set of deputies with high scores on the crime control, cynicism, and traditionalism scales and low scores on the service and receptivity to change scales” (Cochran & Bromley, 2003, p.95). 90 dimens These t perceix about t police t role rat officers Muir, ] training SUpen-i. dangerC this be}. danger, SI"'Olnic Illejr Wt da”8€r leads Di gap ber As mentioned previously, in police organizational culture literature several dimensions are assumed as the dimensions of the traditional police organizational culture. These dimensions are: (l) distrust to managers, (2) distrust to supervisors, (3) high level perceived job challenges, (4) poor communication, (5 and 6) unwillingness or pessimism about the innovation and improvement, (7) high level perceived social cohesion in the police department, (8) high level loyalty to fellow officers, (9) orientation to crime fighter role rather than service side of policing and (10) low level perceived citizen cooperation. Distrust to Managers and Supervisors: Police culture studies assumed that police officers held negative feelings about his/her superiors (Crank, 2003; Manning, 1977; Muir, 1977; Skolnick, 1966; 1994). As Manning argued that during the pre-service training and field training, police officers learned that don’t trust to managers and supervisors. Job Challenge: Integrative police culture literature claimed that police job is dangerous and challenging (Skolnick, 1966; Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993). Skolnick credited this behavior to the police mentality that whilst they are working, they are in persistent danger, and also they need to be suspicious so that they correctly conduct their job. Skolnick (1966) claims that police develop a “working personality” as a consequence of their work environment, especially two essential elements of work conditions, which are danger and authority. Skolnick argues that the potential danger from routine police work leads police officers to grow the feelings of suspicion and isolation towards to public. Communication: Lack of communication in the organization and communication gap between different hierarchical levels of police organization was highly cited (M. K. 91 Brosm. culture what pal conflic: Supervi implen‘: hand Ii emiron make p but not CUIIUre organiz CUIIUre. CUIIUre pTOieq STOrieS; Social“; in the arcade” Ieal‘n . Brown, 1988; Lipsky, 1980; Muir, 1977; Skolnick, 1993) in the police organizational culture literature. Unwillingness about the Innovation and Improvement: Policy/organizational goals are important to determine the limits of discretion. Lacks of agreement between what police officers are officially supposed to do and what they really do, results are role conflict, and the possibility of the development of informal rules and shortcuts. Supervisors and police line officers have different job priorities. Supervisors want to implement policies, which represent the organizations (M. K. Brown, 1988); on the other hand line officers mainly consider overwhelming workload, limited resources and environmental constraints making decisions to get their job done (Lipsky, 1980). Officers make policy for organizations by manipulating discretion and using resources for some but not for all. Sometimes police officers may buy in organizational policy. Social Cohesion and Loyalty: Integration perspective assumes that organizational culture expects generous loyalty from each police officer to other officers in that organization (M. K. Brown, 1988). As M. K. Brown (1988, p.85) mentioned, police culture, seen as one of the most important coping mechanism “The values of the police culture derive from the hazards of police work and seek to minimize these hazards and protect members”, is transferred to generation to generation by both informally (such as stories) and formally (such as by the way of FTO system). Van Maanen (1978) states that socialization process gives new police officers a tool kit to continue to stay as a member in the organization. The enculturation procedure of new police officers starts in police academy or police schools and during this time, as Van Maanen stated, they actively learn ‘group cohesion’ and ‘loyalty’. As Manning (1977) claimed that one of the most efiect share effective aesthetics of police organizational culture is the understanding of solidarity shared by police officers. Schein (1985) also shares similar ideas with Skolnick as “cognitive overload and/or an inability to decipher and categorize the multitude of stimuli impinging on the senses' as a major source of anxiety (cognitive anxiety) for people, so that a stable system of cognitions is ’absolutely necessary' for their own protection and survival” (Schein 1985, p.179). Manning (1977) claims that policing is defined by 'situationally justified actions' rather than being rule-driven. This perception also supports the negative side of police culture. Van Maanen (1983) argues that advanced level reliance on to other officers creates shield which protect them from the effects of their faults. Niederhoffer (1967) believes that police officer’s experience in police school causes an impressive increase in cynicism and suspiciousness. After finishing formal training (aka. formal socialization process), police officers start to interaction in the work environment with associate police officers and older group members (a.k.a. informal socialization). In addition to formal and informal socialization processes, stories and instructive concise expresses both guide new police officers on how to perceive the world and perform in it and also creates shared vocabulary. Manning states that police officers are contingent on other officers because of the characteristics of work related environment (cited in Sparrow, Moore & Kennedy, 1990). For that reason, new police officers are anticipated to demonstrate their allegiance to other police officers and moreover new officers should cover to other officers against ‘the others / public’. Also in a group, new police officers do not challenge (also not expected from them) the original assumptions of group. Kappeler, Sluder, and Alpert (1994) believe that new police officers learn racist beliefs during the formal and informal socialization processes. 93 Police Role Orientation and Orientation to Community Policing: In addition to that also police officers often times experience role ambiguity. Based on the literature police officers have three main duties; (1) law enforcement, (2) order maintenance and (3) service (Paoline, 2003). New policing styles enforces service oriented law enforcement (or community policing) and supervisors expect from police officers same style to each situation, but as mentioned previously, most of the times police officers use their discretion relating to which methods to employ and as Skolnick (1994) stated because of the danger of the work environment police cannot always employ same style. Loose coupling system (Hagan, 1989) in police organizations enables line officers to use their discretionary power and distance themselves from organizational goals and policies and create their culture in organization. Organizational realities faced by police line officers inclined to produce work practices that differed from the official thoughts which produce stress and anxiety. To cope with stress and anxiety, in the organizational environment, police officers develop stay low and ‘CYA’ attitude (Paoline, 2003, p.202). They do their job as less as possible, avoid dangerous calls, don’t give any extra effort for anything, focus upon their safety. All of these ‘stay low’ kinds of strategies provide officers a secure environment in the isolated and hostile work environment. Other coping strategy is being law enforcer and crime fighter which means officer strictly enforces law or focuses on real crime rather than service side of policing. Both of these coping strategies have backlashes and both of strategy can bring officer to the supervisor’s attention. For that reason police officer behaves like a bureaucrat (as Lipsky mentioned ‘street level bureaucrats’), selectively enforces law, avoids ambiguous situations and focuses on real crime (such as robbery). Since police officer usually deals with ‘less 94 important situations’, focusing on real crimes doesn’t help most of the time and police officers keep low profile to deal with ambiguous situations. Citizen Cooperation: Police work is seemed as isolated from the society and officers saw citizens as a potential criminal (M. K. Brown, 1988; Herbert, 1998; Kleining, 1997). Also Herbert (1998) claims that perception of seeing themselves distinct from society support feelings of distrust and suspicion towards to public. And this isolation from community develops an “us versus them” mentality (Kleining, 1997). As Kleining observes, the police tend to have diminished social contacts with the community they serve, become alienated from it, and develop an ‘us vs. them’ mentality. Isolation from public leads to police strength their bonds with the member of the police departments and improves the effects of police culture on police behavior. As Anshel (2000) claims that police sees each of the citizen as a potential lawbreaker and this feeling feeds their opposed and also hostile relationship with public. Whilst police use authority, this action limits citizens’ liberty, and some of the citizens resist or challenge police officers’ authority and this response reinforce danger in police work. Police officers perceive their work as uncertain and unclear (Manning, 1978), including a cynical View of the world, a machismo and racist attitude, a strong sense of solidarity with other officers, and a conservative political outlook social, political, legal, and organizational context of policing, orientation toward action, isolation from society, conservative political view, prejudice towards to minorities, discourages toward to innovation and change. This dissertation aims to assess the dimensions of the traditional police organizational culture and to map the possible differences in understandings of that culture. This study believes that if differences in understandings of organizational culture are pernicious to the police organization’s general mission, police organization should take into consideration these differences before training and development programs are set up to execute significant change, such as community policing (Keeton & Mengistu, I992) Contrary to traditional understanding about the police organizational culture, aforementioned recent police culture studies found that different understandings and subcultures exist in police department. Individual, organizational and environmental factors affect officers’ understanding about their organizational culture. Most of the aforementioned literature used micro-level focus and look most of the time from individual factors level (eg. race, gender). However no study has examined organizational culture by way of using all three factors (individual, organizational and environmental) together and looking their effect on officer’s understanding about the different dimensions of organizational culture. In addition to that, to our knowledge, no study has attempted to use J. Martin’s influential theoretical framework in police organizational culture literature. Therefore, this study attempts to fill this void by examining police organizational culture and community policing understanding in Turkey and compare with the US. More specifically, current study examines police organizational culture among supervisors and line officers in cities across the Turkey and compare with similar samples from the US by using J. Martin’s theoretical framework. This dissertation intends to concentrate upon ‘why do police officers have certain views on organizational culture?’ and as stated in the literature review section, none of 96 the police culture studies has actually looked at J. Martin’s theory and relation with the police organizational culture. Knowledge pertinent to police organizational culture has been limited to empirical research based on a few dimensions of organizational culture. This study expands upon existent study’s findings (Bennett, 1997; Britz, 1997; Brooks, Piquero & Cronin, 1993; M. K. Brown, 1988; Cochran & Bromley, 2003; Crank & Caldero, 1991; Engel & Worden, 2003; Halsted, Bromley & Cochran, 2000; Hayeslip & Cordner, 1987; Leflcowitz, 1974; Mastrofski & Bynum, 1997; Muir, 1977; Paoline, 2000; Paoline, 2004; Paoline & Terrill, 2005; Perrott & Taylor, 1995; Reiner, 1978; Scripture, 1997; Shernock, 1992; Sparrow, Moore & Kennedy, 1990; Talarico & Swanson, 1982; Terril, Paoline & Manning, 2003; Wilson, 1968; Winfree & Newbold, 1999; A. Worden, 1993; R. Worden, 1990; 1995) and this study’s assumptions are compatible with existent researches that individual, organizational and environmental factors affect officers’ perceptions pertinent to police organizational culture. Although some of the dimensions of the organizational culture may common cross the nations, most of the dimensions of the organizational culture differs across the police departments and also countries. This study analyzed officers’ understanding on organizational culture using data collected in nine (9) cities in the two different countries. Aforementioned studies looked at the police organizational culture by using different dimensions. There have been limited explanations of the dimensions that affect officers’ perception pertinent to organizational culture. Although aforementioned studies have used some of the dimensions of the organizational culture, none of them included all of the dimensions studied in this study and none of these studies have employed J. Martin’s three perspectives as a framework. This study aims to fill that gap and extends 97 the research on police organizational culture by analyzing multi-dimensions of organizational culture. The existence of different cultures in organizations implies that there are several behavioral values which are located at the origin of comprehending the influence of police culture on different features of police organizations. This study designed and conceptualized organizational culture more comprehensively to include additional concepts, such as loyalty and social cohesion, etc. And in that sense this dissertation is doing something new, and generating new knowledge. Not only generating new knowledge in the US. police culture, but also in the comparative research with Turkey. And whether findings are similar in both countries in relation to police organizational culture and community policing in given organizationally Turkey has a different framework relative to decentralized police framework in US. Based on this premise primary research questions addressed in this dissertation are as follows: As following differentiation perspective, this study likely to find that individual, organizational, environmental factors affect police officer’s perception about the dimensions of organizational culture. Based on differentiation perspective, this study likely to find that officer’s perception about the various dimensions of organizational culture differs by police officer’s age, gender, experience, education, city of originally come from, police officer’s rank and the size of the police organization and country of the police organization. There are significant differences within and across organizations in the police officer’s perception with regard to organizational dimensions. Depending on the culture which the police organization exists police officers’ view of police organizational culture 98 will vary. Countries that have monolithic cultures that are greater homogeneity, they will be less differences in terms of how they view the organizational culture. Hypotheses Main Hypothesis: Ho: Interpretations about the dimensions of the organizational culture among police officers are consistent. Common cultural consensus exists across organization and across countries. These common dimensions of the traditional police culture are perceived in a similar manner by officers in the different police departments and different countries (Integration perspective). H1: Interpretations about the dimensions of the police organizational culture among police officers are inconsistent. Common cultural consensus doesn’t exist across organization or across countries. There are significant differences exist across organizations in the police officer’s perception with regard to organizational dimensions (Differentiation perspective). Sub-Hypotheses: Individual, organizational and environmental factors don’t affect organization wide consensus about the dimensions of the organizational culture (Integration perspective). 99 Individual, organizational and environmental factors affect police officer’s perception regarding to dimensions of the organizational culture (differentiation perspective). Environmental Factors: Hla: Turkish police officers compare to United States’ police officers more likely to have positive perceptions about most of the dimensions of the organizational culture (positive perceptions on the management support, communication, negative perceptions on the community policing). Hlb: Police officers’ perceptions about the dimensions of organizational culture significantly differ by the state of the police department. ch: Police officers’ perceptions about the dimensions of organizational culture significantly differ by the location of the police department in the US. Hld: Location of the police department does not significantly affect police officers’ perceptions in the TNP. This study expects several mean differences, but not to a great extent. Organizational Factors: H2: Supervisors compare to line officers more likely to have positive views about most of the dimensions of the organizational culture (positive views on the community policing, management support, communication, improvement, etc. and negative views on the job challenge and loyalty). 100 “'3 Individual Factors: H3a: Older police officers are most likely to have negative perceptions about most of the dimensions of the organizational culture (such as negative perception about the management support, community policing and positive view on the job challenge, etc). H3b: Female police officers compare to male officers are more likely to have positive views about most of the dimensions of the organizational culture (such as positive view on management support, community policing and negative view on job challenge, etc.). H3c: Non-white police officers compare to white counterparts are more likely to have positive views about most of the dimensions of the organizational culture (such as positive orientation towards to community policing, positive perception about the citizen cooperation, etc). H3d: Police officer’s experience negatively affects police officer’s perception pertinent to most of the dimensions of the police organizational culture (such as negative perception on the community policing, citizen cooperation, management support and positive perception on the job challenge, etc). H3c: Police officer’s education positively affects officer’s view about most of the dimensions of organizational culture (such as positive views on the community policing, communication and trust, negative views on the job challenge, loyalty, etc.) H3f: Police officer comes from small population compare to officer comes from larger population more likely to have positive perceptions about most of the dimensions of the organizational culture (positive views about the community policing, citizen cooperation, etc.). 101 CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is to evaluate organizational culture in Turkish National police and five Midwest (Michigan and Ohio) cities in the US. More specifically police officers’ (supervisors and non-supervisors) perceptions pertinent the area of (1) management support, (2) supervisory support, (3) improvement, (4) job challenges, (5) communication, (6) trust, (7) innovation, (8) social cohesion, (9) loyalty to fellow officers, (10) orientation to community policing and (11) citizen cooperation were examined. In other words, study examined whether police officers share same perceptions about the organizational culture regardless of their social background, hierarchical position and organization’s environment or they have different perceptions about the organizational culture. How police officers perceive their organizations? Do they share similar understandings or do they differ if this is issue when they differ? Do these differences come from individual dimensions, organizational dimensions or environmental factors? Do their attributes toward the organization affect their attitudes toward citizen or these differences affect overall police work (job performance, satisfaction, etc) and their understanding about the community policing? Does police culture is the same throughout the police occupation or does each police agency have unique organizational culture? Do these dimensions of organizational culture affect police officers’ perception about the community policing or do individual and 102 organizational factors affect officers’ perception? Does really country or location of the police department affect officer’s perception on these dimensions? As Golden (1992) mentioned most of the time individual’s active position (active agent) is underestimated in the organizational culture literature. Concurring with the Alvesson (1993), current study sees the individual as an important factor to comprehend organizational culture. Since organizational culture is constructed maintained and reproduced by peOple, culture can be understood by studying people as cultural subjects (Alvesson, 1993, p.81). Individual level analysis extends our comprehension to include the reflection of the police officer’s understanding. Since individual police officer is seen as a producer of organizational culture, this study is not assuming that police officer in the organization mechanistically adapt the values of organizational culture. Rather this study claims two way interactions between organizational culture and individual police officer which transmits cultural values. 4.1. Survey Instrument The comprehension of organizational behavior in various cultural contents has been an intimidating defy for scholars. According to Aycan et al. (2000), due to complex nature of social life, organizational behavior theories and researches need to be considered to integrate factors relevant with individual, group, organization and cultural content. As a matter of fact, there is little or no consensus amongst the organizational culture scholars on dimensions of the organizational culture to cover individual, organizational and environmental factors. 103 This study intends to acquire a through understanding of the views of police officers. In this study Zeitz, Johannesson and Ritchie’s (1997) organizational culture index is used. Based on the extensive literature review, Zeitz et al. (1997) developed ten (10) priori dimensions of organizational culture and a factor analysis of results from 866 respondents indicates five (5) essential dimensions of the organizational culture. Instrument developed by Zeitz et al. have been utilized in various studies (Armstrong- Stassen, Wagar, Cattaneo, 2001; Armstrong-Stassen, Reavley, Ghanam, 2005; Cameron, Armstrong-Stassen, Bergeron, Out, 2004; Carmeli, 2005; Chen, Chen, Yen, 2005; Douglas & Fredendall, 2004; Kayis, Kim, Shin, 2003; Korunka, Carayon, Sainfort, Scharitzer, Hoonakker, 2003; Lee, Rho, Lee, 2003; Payne, Nielsen, Tyran, 2002; Pool, 2000; Prajogo & McDermott, 2005; Sridhar, Gudmundson, Feinauer, 2004; Swaffin- Smith, Barnes, Townsend, 2002) and “the scales have very acceptable psychometric properties in measuring culture attributes” (Pool, 2000, p.375). This dissertation used all cultural dimensions given by Zeitz et al. (1997) and also included several other dimensions that are relevant to police organization to ensure that the dimensions being examined are connected to the police organizational culture. Using Zeitz and his colleagues’ survey (1997) measuring police organizational culture, current study modified the scales and also to fit the TNP organization to overcome likely cultural problems with the use same copy of US. survey in Turkey. This study is very well aware of the instruments designed in US. are often unable to address differences in meaning within another country. For dealing with these problems and increase reliability and validity of the study, current study used both back-translation and pre-test methods. The survey was designed originally in English and was translated to 104 Turkish. Professional translators back translated the surveys to English for reliability and validity purposes. Turkish survey was also pre-tested on a small number of Turkish police officers work in Istanbul and Ankara and some minor changes were made to clarify misunderstandings raised by Turkish officers. Subjects were informed about the confidentiality of their identity. All respondent officers voluntarily participated to study. Survey questions were identical for both line officers and supervisors to obtain total agreement. 4.2. Measurement of Variables For this study, data collected utilizing a questionnaire that included two sections. The first section was planned to collect socio-demographic information of police officers including age, gender, experience, rank, race (for the US. part of the study), city population of originally come from, family and relative’s occupations in specific fields which allows for comparison different groups of police officers. Second section of the study was designed to evaluate perceptions of the individual officers on the different dimensions of the organizational culture. In this study, fifty nine (59) questions were designed and asked the respondents to assess their perceptions on 11 (eleven) dimensions of organizational culture. Following Cooke and Rousseau’s (1988) suggestion in this study organizational culture is accepted as a multi dimensional construct and evaluation of the each dimension is seen essential. Current study have adopted Zeitz et al. (1997)’s organizational culture index and also included several different dimensions related to police work. The reliability and validity 105 of these scales was extensively tested by Zeitz et al. (1997) and additional factor and reliability tests were also conducted in this study. In addition to Zeitz et al.(1997), an extensive study of organizational culture dimensions is carried out by Berg and Wilderom (2004), Berry (1991), Carr and Littman (1990), Crosby (1979), Dean and Evans (1994), Denison (1996), Gordon and DiTomaso (1992), Hunt (1992), Juran (1995), Lawler, Mohrman and Ledford (1995), McMillan (1989), O’Reilley, Chatman and Caldwell (1991), Payne and Mansfield (1973), Payne, Nielsen and Tyran (2002), Ross (1993 ), Rousseau (1990), Schmidt and Finnegan (1992), Scholtes (1998) and Xenikou and Fumham (1996). Such as, Xenikou and Furnham (1996) have tested four (4) different measures of organizational culture (1- Organizational belief questionnaire developed by Sashkin, 1984; 2- Corporate culture survey developed by Glaser, 1983; 3- Organizational culture inventory developed by Cooke and Lafferty, 1989; and 4— Culture gap survey developed by Kilman and Saxton, 1983) and they found that “considerable overlap between conceptually very similar questionnaires that differ in format, question type, and response scale” (Xenikou & Fumham, 1996, p.369). Almost all of the aforementioned studies agree on the following mostly accepted organizational culture dimensions: (1) communication, (2) innovation, (3) job challenges, (4) social cohesion, and (5) trust. In this study, eleven dimensions of organizational culture were used to measure the self perceptions of police officers. These eleven dimensions are; (1) management support, (2) supervisory support, (3) improvement, (4) job challenges, (5) communication, (6) trust, (7) innovation, (8) social cohesion, (9) loyalty to fellow officers, (10) orientation to community policing and (11) citizen cooperation. As 106 mentioned, for certain dimensions this study assumes similarities and for certain dimensions expect differences thru cross cultures. Measurement of dependent variables: Aforementioned eleven dimensions of organizational culture were used as dependent variables. Since this study focused on obtaining information on organizational culture, instead of using single item-measures, each of the dimensions was evaluated by two to eight item/questions. Answer of each question is coded on five (5) point likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ = l to ‘strongly agree’ = 5. 1 - Management support: Eight questions were intended to measure perceived management support in the police organization. The higher score indicates higher management support in the organization. A sample item is, “Police managers here try to plan ahead for changes that might affect our performance”. 2 — Supervisory support: Three questions were intended to measure perceived supervisor support in the police agency. The higher score indicates higher level supervisory support in the agency. A sample item is, “My supervisor gives credit to people when they do a good job”. 3 — Improvement: Three questions were intended to measure officer’s opinion about improvement in the police organization. The high score reflects higher level of perceived quality improvement in the agency. A sample item is, “People in my unit try to improve the quality of their work”. 4 - Job challenges: Five questions were intended to measure the extent to which police officers feel that police job demanded them to use a variety of abilities and 107 provided them with new challenges. Higher score indicates officer sees his/her job as challenging. A sample item is, “The job requires me to use a number of complex or high- level skills”. 5 — Communication: Six questions were intended to measure officer’s opinion about communication in the police agency (between line officers and top command and between line officers themselves). Higher scores indicate higher level communication in the agency. A sample item is, “Top police management does a good job of communicating with employees”. 6 - Trust: Three questions were intended to measure officer’s opinion about trust that exists amongst the police officers. High score reflects higher level perceived trust in the organization. A sample item is, “My supervisor shows complete trust in officers’ ability to perform their tasks well”. 7 - Innovation: Seven questions were intended to measure officer’s opinion about the innovation in the agency. High score reflects high level encouragement for innovation and new ideas. A sample item is, “Officers in my work unit are encouraged to try new and better ways of doing the job”. 8 — Social cohesion: Four questions were intended to measure social networks amongst the officers. Higher number reflects low level social networks and low number reflects high level social networks amongst the officers in their organization. A sample item is,” Officers in my work unit enjoy their coworkers”. 9 — Loyalty: Three questions were intended to measure loyalty amongst the officers. Higher number reflects high level loyalty to the fellow officers in the 108 organization. A sample item is, “If my fellow officer makes a mistake at work, it is my responsibility to protect him”. 10 — Orientation to community policing: Four questions were intended to measure officer’s perception regarding to community policing. High score reflects service oriented policing — community oriented policing and low score reflects traditional policing. A sample item is, “Patrol officers should be expected to do something about the litter and trash”. 1 l — Orientation to citizen cooperation: Three questions were intended to measure officer’s perception about the citizen cooperation with police. High score reflects citizen willingly cooperate with police. A sample item is, “Citizens would often call the police if they saw something suspicious?” Measurement of independent variables: Independent variables are divided into three categories: (1) Individual factors, (2) organizational factors and (3) environmental factors. Individual Factors (Socio Demographic Characteristics): These micro-level variables dominated police organizational culture literature (e.g. Brooks, 1986; Crank, Payn & Jackson, 1993; Fielding & Fielding, 1987; Shernock, 1992; Sun &Payne, 2004; D. Walker, 1983; A. Worden, 1993). In order to protect anonymity of the respondents, categorical measurement was used for age, education and experience. 109 Age: Age was broken into four categories: (1) Less than 25, (2) 26-30, (3) 31-40, (4) 41 or more. And then based on response rate, these four categories reduced into 3 categories: (1) less than 30 years, and (2) 31-40 years, and (3)41 or more. Ede; Sex of the officer was measured by: (1) Female, (2) Male _R_ac_e: Based on LEMAS 2000, race of the officer was broken into three categories: (1) Caucasian, (2) African-America, (3) other. And then based on response rate, these three categories reduced into 2 categories: (1) White, and (2) Non-white. For Turkey sites, this item was excluded. Education level: Education level of officer was broken into four categories: (1) Police school, (2) Bachelor of Arts/Science, (3) Master of Arts/Science, (4) PhD. Since all study sites set minimum education requirement for recruitment is High School, this study didn’t include high school as an Option. Based on the response rate, these four categories reduced into 2 categories: (1) Police school and (2) University or above. Experience: Police officer’s work time in the police agency is measured as: (1) Less than 5 years, (2) 6-10 years, (3) 1 1 years or more. And then based on response rate, these three categories reduced into two categories: (1) 10 years or less, and (2) 11 years or more. City population of originallycome from: Officer’s city (originally come from) population was measured as: (1) Less than 10.000, (2) 10.001 and 50.000, (3) 50.001 and 250.000 and (4) 250.001 or more. And then based on response rate, these four categories reduced into two categories: (1) 250.000 or less and (2) 250.001 or more. Parents’ profession: Officer’s parents’ previous job experience in the police or military area was measured. 110 Relatives’fiprofession: Officer’s relatives’ previous job experience in the police or military area was measured. Ogganizational Factors: Organizational factors were measured by using rank. m: Rank of the officer was measured as (1) Line officers, (2) Supervisors. Substantial rank variation exists between the Turkey and the US. Although it can be seen problematic to rank equivalencies amongst the countries, Turkish line police officers perfectly correspond with the US. patrol officers and also Turkish middle managers can match with the US. police sergeant and lieutenant. Because of the several difficulties, this study didn’t include top managers into this study. Environmental Factors: Environmental factors included: (1) Country of the police agency, (2) state of the police agency and (3) name of the police agency. Country of the_police agency: Examining differences between two countries, country names were included into the study. State of the police ageng; Examining differences between two states (Michigan and Ohio), also state names were included into the study. Name of thgiolice agency: Examining differences amongst the cities, city police departments’ names were included into the study. 4.3. Study Population & Research Sites and Administration of Questionnaires One of the important critics to the organizational culture studies (specifically to the integrative studies) is rely on data from small and unrepresentative number of employees (such as data from only supervisors) and then try to generalize study findings to whole organization. To avoid this problem, and to hear the voices of the whole 111 population, current study relies on data from large and representative number of officers. This dissertation tries to reach police officers from different level of the organization and have different socio-demographic characteristics. Detailed study sample is provided below. Turkey Site Since the police officers in Turkey are randomly chosen for each city for a period of time, any city of Turkey can be a location of this study. In order to increase sample size and taking big picture of TNP culture, Ankara, Istanbul, Bursa and Trabzon were chosen as study sites in Turkey. Ankara, with a population of approximately seven (7) million people, is the capital city and second biggest city of Turkey. City is placed in the center of the Turkey and since all ministry headquarters are in this city, Ankara can be seen as a center of the official communication and transaction. Both TNP HQ and Ankara city police are present in the Ankara. Ankara city police, has more than 13.000 police officers, is responsible of the police affairs in the city area. Istanbul, with a population of approximately fifteen (15) million people, is the biggest city of Turkey and the second biggest city of Europe. Istanbul is placed between Europe and Asia (like a bridge between two continents) and center of cultural, economical and social activities. Istanbul city police, has more than 29.000 police officers, is responsible of the police affairs in the city. Bursa, with a population of approximately 2.5 million people, is the fifth biggest city of Turkey.‘ Bursa is placed on the west side of the Turkey and one of the 112 economically well developed cities in the Turkey. Bursa city police, has approximately 5.900 police officers, is responsible of the police affairs in the city. Finally, Trabzon is one of the medium size cities of Turkey, with a population of approximately 250.000 people. Trabzon is placed on the north east side of the Turkey (very close to Russia) and city police has approximately 1.500 police officers, is responsible of the police affairs in the city. In order to administer this study in TNP, first brief summary of the study was provided, includes general purposes of the study, to the TNP officials in the HQ and requested permission to conduct this survey in aforementioned cities. Upon given permission by HQ, contact persons in these cities were arranged, without contact personnel and local police permission, HQ’s allowance wouldn’t provide much support. Prior connections and identity of researcher (being active Turkish police officer) minimized accessibility problems. Police line officers and middle managers from those city police agencies were randomly selected. Police officers lists were taken from departments of human resources, located in police headquarter in city police agencies, and surveys were distributed to randomly selected police officers. Completed surveys in sealed envelopes returned to a designated researcher’s representatives in Ankara, Istanbul, Bursa and Trabzon. The representatives sent the surveys to Michigan. One thousand nine hundred and fifty (I950) questionnaires were distributed to the line officers and middle managers in the four police departments. 113 United States (Midwest) Site: Michigan and Ohio were selected as collection sites. To make an appropriate comparison with cities in Turkey site, this study selected both medium and large local police agencies in these states. Medium police agencies are defined as which have 150 - 300 sworn officers and large police departments are defined as which more than 300 sworn officers. Since Turkey has not had any state, university or sheriff police, these police agencies were excluded from research list. Questionnaires (2 pages and 2 sided) and consent form with self labeled and stamped envelopes were either put into officer’s mailbox or given to officer him/herself. Officer filled the questionnaire by making their answers on the survey sheet, since survey doesn’t have any identification marks all responses are completely anonymous and won’t be used in anyway that may identify the officers. Participant’s privacy protected to the maximum extends allowable by law. After officers finishing the survey, they put it into self labeled and stamped envelopes and retumed/mailed it to researcher. Michigan: List of local police agencies that has more than 150 police officers were taken and tried to contact with them. Detroit, Ann Arbor and Southfield Police Departments gave positive response. QM: Detroit with a population of approximately 952.000 people is the biggest city in Michigan. Detroit PD is comprised of 4.804 employees (4154 sworn officers) and the sixth biggest local police departments in the US. City police is divided into newly structured six police districts: (1) Northwest, (2) Southwest, (3) Eastern, (4) Northeastern, (5) Central and (6) Western Districts. Each police district is under the command of a deputy chief with large autonomy in that district area. Detroit PD is following community 114 policing and have community policing plan but it is not a formal, written one. All recruits are receiving community policing training which means at least 8 hours training during the 12 month period. Community policing is administered by special unit with full time personnel, 151 community policing officers (geographically assigned) and 52 school resource officers (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.115). Detroit PD is trying to get involved community into partnership and for that they are administering citizen police academy, citizen training, community group meetings and problem solving partnership (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.127). Table 7. Study Sites in the United States“ Full time Sworn Officer City Officers I Employees Officers Assigned to Population per I (Number & respond to 10.000 Percent) calls residents (Number & Percent) MICHIGAN Detroit 4.804 4.154 (%86) 2.186 (%53) 951.270 44 Ann Arbor 226 159 (%70) 72 (%39) 1 14.024 15 I76 157 (%89) 1 I9 (%76) 78.296 20 Southfield OHIO Columbus 2.114 1.787 (%84) 1.535 (%88) 763.351 23 Cleveland 2.386 1.822 (%76) 800 (%44) 478.403 38 * Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.26, 28. ; US. census data (2000) and official websites of police departments. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor with a population of approximately 1 14.000 people is the one of the ‘university city’ in the Michigan. Ann Arbor PD is comprised of 226 employees (159 sworn officers). Ann Arbor PD, like Detroit PD, is following community policing and have community policing plan but it is not a formal, written one. All recruits 115 and officers are receiving community policing training which means at least 8 hours training during the 12 month period. Community policing is administered by special unit with full time personnel, 9 community policing officers (geographically assigned) and 2 school resource officers (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.115). Ann Arbor PD is very actively seeking to get involved community into partnership and for that they are administering citizen police academy, citizen surveys, community group meetings and problem solving partnership. Also patrol officers and investigators are geographically assigned and officer problem solving projects are actively encouraged (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.115, 127). Southfield: Southfield with a population of approximately 78.300 people is the one of the medium size city in the Michigan. Southfield PD is comprised of 176 employees (157 sworn officers). Southfield PD is following community policing strategy and has formal/written community policing plan. Some (not all) recruits and officers are receiving community policing training which means at least 8 hours training during the 12 month period. Community policing is administered by special unit with fiill time personnel, 2 community policing officers (geographically assigned) and 4 school resource officers (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.115). Southfield PD is administering community/group meetings to get involved community into partnership. Also patrol officers are geographically assigned and officer problem solving projects are actively encouraged (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, pl 15, 127). Following information was provided to departments: One page summary of the study (for detail contact information), copy of survey instrument and consent form. Because of the size of the agencies, current study used different methods for 116 administering questionnaire for those agencies. For Ann Arbor and Southfield, whole police agency was selected as a sample. 150 surveys (total 300) were distributed to both police agencies. On the other hand, because of the agency size and cost, in the initial meeting Detroit Police Department gave a specified numbers of survey distribution (maximum 300 survey) to the designated police districts: (1) Northwest, (2) Southwest, (3) Eastern, (4) Northeastern, (5) Central and finally (6) Western Districts. Ohio: Large police departments which have more than 300 sworn officers were selected and after contacting with them finally researcher decided to conduct survey in Columbus and Cleveland Police Departments. Columbus: Columbus with a population of approximately 763.351 people is the capital city of Ohio. Columbus PD is comprised of 2.114 employees (1787 sworn officers) and second biggest local police department in the Ohio, twenty fourth biggest local police department in the US. In order to effectively conduct police job, city is divided into different subdivisions and these subdivisions are fiirther divided into zones, each zone is supervised by a commander. These zones are fiirther divided into precincts (Columbus PD has 19 police precincts) and each precinct is supervised by police sergeantz. Columbus PD is following community policing and have formal written community policing plan. All recruits are receiving community policing training which means at least 8 hours training during the 12 month period. Community policing is administered by special unit with full time personnel, 68 community policing officers (geographically assigned) and 30 school resource officers (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.117). Columbus PD is very actively seeking to get involved community into partnership 2 The information provided on this page is retrieved Fcbniary, ()3, 2007 from official web page (http://www.columbuspolice.org) of Columbus PD. 117 and for that they are administering citizen police academy, citizen surveys, citizen training, community group meetings and problem solving partnership. Also patrol officers and investigators are geographically assigned and officer problem solving projects are actively encouraged (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.115, 129). Cleveland: Cleveland with a population of approximately 478.403 people is the second biggest city of Ohio. Cleveland PD is comprised of 2.386 employees (1822 sworn officers) and the biggest local police department in the Ohio, twenty first biggest local police department in the US. In order to effectively conduct police job, police division is organized into three main functional programs; (1) Administrative operations, (2) Field operations, (3) Special operations". Cleveland PD is following community policing and have formal written community policing plan. But interestingly none of the personnel (recruits, officers or civilians) are receiving community policing training. Community policing is administered by special unit with full time personnel, 46 community policing officers (geographically assigned) and 20 school resource officers (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.117). Cleveland PD is trying to get involved community into partnership and for that they are administering citizen police academy and community group meetings. Although patrol officers and investigators are geographically assigned, officer problem solving projects are neither actively encouraged nor included in evaluation (Reaves & Hickman, 2004, p.115, 129). Following information was provided to these two police departments: One page summary of the study (for detail contact information), copy of survey instrument and consent form. Because of the size of the agencies, 350 questionnaires (total 700 3 The information provided on this page is retrieved February, 03, 2007 from official web page (http://wwwcity.cleveland.oh.us/govemment/departments/pubsafety/police/policeindhtml) of Cleveland PD. 118 questionnaires) were distributed to the randomly selected police officers and supervisors in these two police departments. One thousand and three hundred (1300) questionnaires were distributed to the line officers and supervisors in the Mid-West police departments. 119 CHAPTER V ANALYSIS This chapter describes the statistical methods used to evaluate the research questions. The first part of this chapter provides demographic characteristics of the study population, followed by the results of factor analyses for the organizational culture dimensions. In addition, several mean differences of the study population are shown, and the main differences among police officers’ perceptions pertinent to organizational culture are discussed. Finally, OLS regression analyses are reported. The aim of this dissertation is to examine factors that influence police officers’ understanding about their organizational culture and specifically community policing. In order to cany out this task, three thousand two hundred fifty (3,250) questionnaires were mailed/distributed to the police officers in the study sites. The response rate was more than 70%, which is considered a good level rate4 (Babbie, 1986, p.221; Fuller, 1974) to be representative and reduce the chances of response bias. Of these, 2,046 were completed correctly and thus usable for analysis. Prior to data analysis, all the variables in the survey were examined by using the SPSS 14.0 statistical program to satisfy fundamental issues related to data analysis, such as accuracy of data entry, missing data, outliers, and the normality of distributions. Based on this data screening, 2,046 cases remained for the analyses. As an exploratory study of an under-researched area, the data represents an important endeavor to understand police organizational culture and perceptions about the community policing. 4 Similar surveys in different countries have produced different response rates: 45 % in the Griffin. Dunbar and McGill’s (1978) study , 66% in the Pale and Fridell’s (1993) study , 53% in the Zhao, Thurman and Ne’s (1999) study and 62 % in the Burke and Mikkelsen’s (2005) study. 120 5.1. Demographic Characteristics of Police Officers The preliminary part of the questionnaire obtained information about socio- demographic characteristics of the officer including age, gender, experience, population of city of origin, and education (see table 8). The sample was mostly male (82%, 1,680) line officers (75%) with a modal age of 3 1—40 (35%, 720) and 11 years or more experience (46%). In terms of education, 38 % of the officers reported university level or higher education, and most of the police officers (43%) originally came from large cities (more than 250.000 populations). The Turkey sample consists of 1,028 (75%) line officers and 349 (25%) police supervisors. These 1,377 police officers represent a response rate of 71%. Of the participants in Turkey, 86% were male and 14% were female, which is a reasonable representation of gender composition of police officers in the TNP. The majority of the police officers (N=438, 32%) were 31 to 40 years of age. All line officers have a high school diploma and at least police school education; all police supervisors have at least police university education or an equivalent four-year university diploma, and the remaining (2%) have a higher level of education. The majority of the police officers (39%) have eleven years or more experience. Most of the officers in the study are originally from less than 250.000 populations. 12] Table 8. Demographics of Police Officers in Turkey and US. (N = 2046) Turkey US. (N = 1377) (N = 669) N % N % Age 30 years or less 733 53 95 14 31-40 years 438 32 282 42 41 years and more 205 15 290 44 Gender Male 1 186 86 497 75 Female 190 14 164 25 Level of Education Police School 834 61 429 64 University or above 543 39 238 36 Experience 10 years or less 844 61 247 37 11 years or more 532 39 422 63 Population of city of origin 250.000 or less 873 63 282 42 250.00] or more 503 37 382 58 Rank Supervisors 3 49 25 149 23 Line Officers 1028 75 514 77 Race Caucasian N/A 406 61 African-American N/A 209 32 Other N/A 44 7 Parents Job experience in Military/Police 251 18 244 37 Relatives Job experience in Military/Police 634 46 385 59 The United States sample includes 514 (77%) line officers and 149 (23%) police supervisors. Six hundred sixty-nine police officers voluntarily participated and returned self-administered questionnaires to the researchers (the response rate was 51%). Of the 122 participants in the US., 75% were male and 25% were female, which is similar to the gender composition of police officers in these five police departments. The US. sample consists of 61% white, 32% African-American and 7% other race police officers. The majority of the police officers (N=290, 44%) were 41 years of age or older, and (N=282) 42% of the officers were 31 to 40 years of age. All officers have a high school diploma and at least police school education with the remaining (7%) reporting a higher level of education. The majority of the police officers (63%) have eleven years’ experience or more. Most of the officers in the study are originally from big cities. 5.2. Factor Analysis and Dimension Summaries To determine which factors and items were to be analyzed, the following criteria from Zeitz et al. was followed: “(a) individual items must have a minimum factor loading of .40 (convergent reliability), (b) items must play a .30 loading difference with any other valid factor (discriminant validity), (c) factors must have at least 3 items, (d) indexes formed from factors must have Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores of .65 or greater’” (Zeitz et al., 1997, p.424). Prior to the factor analyses, the appropriateness of factor analysis was checked and it was supported by Barlett’s test of sphericity (59266.45, p< .0001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of .92. In addition to these criteria, the Kaiser-Guttman criterion was used, and factors that have eigenvalues of less than 1.00 were ignored. Both Cattell (1966) and Gorsuch (1983) observed that the Kaiser-Gutman criterion may retain too many factors. Kim and Mueller ( 1978) emphasized the importance of the performing multiple criteria, and for that reason, scree test was carefully examined and taken into consideration the interpretability of factors to 5 Trust scale based on two item-survey questions and had Cronbach’s alpha of .63. 123 determine factor retention. Principal factor analysis with promax—oblique rotation was performed to find out whether the data supported the aforementioned organizational culture scales. Since it is generally agreed that these dimensions of organizational culture are normally correlated and not orthogonal (Zeitz et al., 1997), and following Ford, MacCallum and Tait’s (1986) suggestion that, since “orthogonal rotation is a subset of oblique rotation, it is more sensible to rotate the factors obliquely” (p.306), oblique rotation was used. Factors were also rotated with varimax-orthogonal to test the consistency of support for the factors and varimax-orthogonal gave essentially similar results. In this analysis, 50 survey items used and principal factor analysis reduced these 50 items to 45 items with 11 factors. The factor analysis result showed in Appendix A strongly supported the construct validity of the instrument and the majority of the scales retained their intended structures. All hypothesized eleven dimensions of organizational culture account for 70% of the variance in the scale responses. In order to determine the reliability of the dimensions, Cronbach's coefficient alpha was calculated for each dimension of organizational culture as shown in Appendix A and Appendix B. Organizational dimensions, except trust", exceed Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores of .70. The scales were reliable, all 10 scales having a Cronbach’s alpha of greater than .70, the lowest alpha of .70 associated with both ‘job challenge’ scales, and the highest alpha of .92 associated with the ‘management support’ scale. (1) Management Support: All items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure perceived management support in the police organization. Items’ loadings were greater than .63 and communalities were greater than .40. The 6 Findings based on the trust scale should be considered cautiously. 124 management support factor explained 64% of the common variance and had Cronbach’s alpha of .92. (2) Supervisory Support: All items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure perceived supervisor support in the police agency. Items’ loadings were greater than .65 and communalities were greater than .43. The supervisory support factor explained 70% of the common variance and had Cronbach’s alpha of .78. (3) Improvement: All items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure ofiicers’ Opinions about improvement in the police organization. Items’ loadings were greater than .86 and communalities were greater than .74. The improvement factor explained 78% of the common variance and had Cronbach’s alpha of .86. (4) Job Challenges: All items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure the extent to which police officers feel that police work demanded them to use a variety of abilities and provided them with new challenges. Items’ loadings ranged from .55 to .73 and communalities were greater than .30. The job challenges factor explained 50% of the common variance and had Cronbach’s alpha of .70. (5) Communication: Five questions/items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure ot’frcers’ opinions about communication in the police agency (between line officers and top command and between line officers themselves). Items’ loadings ranged from .67 to .86 and communalities were greater than .46. One item had a factor loading less than .24 and a communality of .05 indicating that the intended communication scale did not predict a considerable proportion of variance on this item. Thus this item was dropped from the communication scale; the scale explained 65% of the common variance and had a Cronbach’s alpha of .86. 125 (6) m: Two items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure officers’ opinions about trust that exists amongst the police officers. Items’ loadings were .85 and communalities were .73. One item had a factor loading less than .53 and a communality of .28 indicating that the intended trust scale did not predict a considerable proportion of variance on this item. Thus this item was dropped from the trust scale; the scale explained 73% of the common variance and had a Cronbach’s alpha of 63. (7) Innovation: Five items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure oflicers’ opinions about the innovation in the agency. Items’ loadings ranged from .45 to .90 and communalities were greater than .30. Two items had a factor loading less than .40 and a communality of less than .18 indicating that the intended innovation scale did not predict a considerable proportion of variance on these items. Thus these two items were dropped fiom the innovation scale; the scale explained 63% of the common variance and had a Cronbach’s alpha of .84. (8) Social Cohesion: All items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure social networks amongst the officers. Items’ loadings ranged from .67 to .88 and communalities were greater than .45. The social cohesion factor explained 63% of the common variance and had Cronbach’s alpha of .79. (9) L_9y_afiy: All items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure loyalty among the officers. ‘ltems’ loadings ranged from .82 to .88 and communalities were greater than .67. The loyalty factor explained 74% of the common variance and had Cronbach’s alpha of .82. (10) Orientation to Community Policing: All items were loaded in their intended scale, which were intended to measure officers’ perceptions regarding community policing. 126 Items’ loadings ranged from .71 to .80 and communalities were greater than .50. The community policing factor explained 55% of the common variance and had Cronbach’s alpha of .73. (11) Citizen Cooperation: All items were loaded in their intended scale, which was intended to measure officers’ perceptions about citizen cooperation with police. Items’ loadings ranged from .73 to .88 and communalities were greater than .53. The citizen cooperation factor explained 64% of the common variance and had Cronbach’s alpha of .72. 5.3. Mean Differences Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and T-Test were performed to test mean differences in the officers’ perceptions. Mean comparisons for police officers suggested statistically significant findings. Environmental Factors The first hypothesis, whether police officers’ perceptions about the police organizational culture differ by the environments of police departments, was tested by using three mean difference tests. As shown in table 9 thru table 12, officers’ perceptions regarding police organizational culture varied by three variations of locations of the police department (namely; country, state and city). Country Differences: Turkish and US. officers’ perceptions significantly difi’ered on most of the dimensions of the organizational culture (see table 9). As expected, police officers’ understanding differed by country of police officers on the dimensions of management support, supervisory support, improvement, job challenges, 127 communication, trust, innovation, patrol duty and loyalty to fellow officers. Country of police officers did not significantly affect police officers’ opinions about the dimensions of social cohesion and citizen cooperation. The mean for management support in Turkey was 23.08 and close to agree; more than half of the officers agreed in their perception of management support. In the US, the mean was a moderate 21.97 and almost 40% of officers agreed in their perception of management support. Regarding the supervisory support dimension, the mean was moderate (9.07) in Turkey and high (10.32) in the US. More than 60% of police officers in the US. stated a high level of supervisory support. On the other hand this percentage decreased to 40% in Turkish police officers. U.S. policing style gives supervisors and line officers a very close working atmosphere and line officers work directly with their immediate supervisors (mostly sergeants) and get direct support. Contrary to that, Turkish policing style enforces centralized structure and strict hierarchy. Although in the last five to ten years, middle managers have tried to change some parts of this structure and to reduce the gap between the hierarchical levels, the distance between line officers and their immediate supervisors compared to their American counterparts is large. This gap limits the perceived level of support from supervisors. 128 Table 9. Comparison of Mean Differences among Countries for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey & U.S. (N = 2046) Turkey United States (N = 1377) (N = 669) SCALES M SD M SD F Management Support (8-40) 23.68 7.27 21.87 7.82 21.56“ Supervision (3-15) 9.07 2.84 10.32 3.24 62.42" Improvement (3-15) 9.57 2.90 10.17 2.90 15.74" Job Challenges (5-25) 15.98 4.11 18.11 3.92 122.03“ Communication (5-25) 13.03 4.96 10.33 4.20 123.57" Trust (2-10) 6.09 2.10 5.71 1.94 13.16" Innovation (5-25) 14.09 4.75 12.90 4.17 25.66“ Social Cohesion (4-20) 13.47 3.74 13.32 3.04 .83 Community Policing (4-20) 11.66 3.43 14.75 2.65 410.47 ** Citizen Cooperation (3-15) 9.52 2.76 9.62 2.65 .60 Loyalty (3-15) 9.22 3.34 6.91 2.35 252.62" * p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed) 129 The means for improvement in both countries (9.57 vs. 1017) were in the agree level. Officers’ mean scores on the improvement dimension were higher in the US. than in Turkey. Regarding job challenges, both countries’ police officers perceived their job to be challenging (15.98 vs. 18.11). Police officers in the US. saw their job to be more challenging than officers in Turkey did. More than 70% of police officers in the US. perceived their job to be challenging. Both countries’ police officers gave low scores for the dimension of communication in their agencies. Police officers in the US. had lower scores (mean score 10.33) regarding communication in the police departments. More than 72% of police officers perceived a low level of communication in the organization. On the other hand, almost half of the police officers in Turkey gave low scores for communication in their organizations (mean score 13.03). Turkish police officers compared to American counterparts held more positive views about trust. The mean score for Turkish police officers (6.07) indicates that police officers perceived trust in their organizations. On the other hand, the mean score for American police officers (5.71) indicates more than 50% of the officers had positive views about the trust existing among the officers in their organization. Regarding innovation, Turkish police officers had a significantly higher mean score than American counterparts. The mean score (14.09) of Turkish police officers was close to the agree level, and 50% of Turkish police officers had positive views about the innovation in their agencies. The mean score (12.90) of American police officers was 130 moderate, and almost 35% of them had positive perceptions about the innovation in their agencies. Regarding community policing, police officers in the US. had significantly higher mean scores than Turkish counterparts. The mean score (14.75) of American police officers indicates that more than 7 5% of police officers in the US. agreed with the patrol duties stated in the survey. For Turkish police officers (mean score 11.66) this percentage is close to 40%. When each item in the community policing scale was examined, it was seen that Turkish police officers are in the transition stage: they are moving from the traditional police role to a service-oriented policing style, but it is going to take some time. As expected from aforementioned Hofstede’s analysis, Turkish police officers had significantly higher scores in the loyalty dimension than American police officers (9.22 vs. 6.91). Turkish police officers gave importance to strong connections with their fellow officers and loyalty was seen as one of the most essential characteristics of being a team member. On the other hand, the mean of loyalty was low among the American police officers, and they had negative perceptions about the loyalty scale. Regarding social cohesion and citizen cooperation dimensions, both of the countries’ police officers’ mean scores did not significantly differ from each other. The means for the social cohesion dimension for both countries nearly agreed (13.47 vs. 13.32), and police officers saw a high level of cohesion in their departments and rated their social network as good. Also, the means for the citizen cooperation scale nearly agreed and were high in both countries (9.52 vs. 9.62). Both Turkish and American police officers gave importance to citizen cooperation. With regard to the American police 131 officers’ score, it is reasonable to assume that since all five American police departments have formal/informal community policing plans and different community policing implementations, these implementations and their continuous community policing trainings have improved their perceptions about citizen cooperation. For Turkish police officers’, it is possible to assume that the middle managers’ continuous improvement efforts in the last decade have started to transform police officers’ perceptions about citizen cooperation. Overall, as hypothesized, Turkish police officers held more positive perceptions for organizational dimensions than their American counterparts. On the other hand, United States police officers have a broader role orientation than Turkish police officers. Hence police role orientations and perceptions are shaped by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Findings supported hypothesis 1a. State Differences: Findings showed that (see table 10) police officers’ perceptions about the dimensions of organizational culture significantly differed by the state of the police department. Nine of eleven dimensions were significantly differently perceived by police officers in Ohio compared to police officers in Michigan. For all dimensions, police officers who work in Ohio had more positive views than police officers working in Michigan (even for non-significant two dimensions). For community policing and loyalty scale, both states’ officers’ perceptions did not significantly differ. This finding contradicts the integration perspective’s assumption of ‘one consistent police culture’ and supports hypothesis 1b. Table 10. Comparison of Mean Differences among States for Organizational Dimensions in the US. (N = 669) Michigan Ohio (N=319) (N=350) SCALES ‘ M SD M so F Management Support (8-40) 19.09 8.04 24.43 6.66 87.04" Supervision (3-15) 9.99 3.20 10.63 3.25 6.57* Improvement (3-15) 9.75 2.98 10.55 2.77 12.91M Job Challenges (5-25) 17.76 4.11 18.42 3.72 4.58* Communication (5-25) ' 9.68 4.39 10.93 3.94 14.46M Trust (2-10) 5.23 2.02 6.15 1.76 39.08“ Innovation (5-25) 12.01 4.32 13.71 3.86 27.97" Social Cohesion (4-20) 13.06 2.98 13.55 3.09 4.20* Community Policing (4-20) 14.65 2.85 14.83 2.45 .76 Citizen Cooperation (3-15) 9.17 2.88 10.04 2.35 18.44" Loyalty (3—15) 6.73 2.50 7.07 2.19 3.49 * P < 05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed) 133 .I City Differences (U.S.): Findings showed that (Table 11) ten of eleven dimensions differed based on the city of the police department (the exception was the community policing scale). For ten of eleven dimensions the Detroit PD police officers compared to other police departments had the lowest score. Based on the results, it is possible to assume that the Detroit PD lowered the mean score of Michigan and created the aforementioned significant state differences. Following this assumption, Detroit PD was eliminated from the sample and then the mean differences were compared by state and city levels again. Based on the state of the police department, four of eleven dimensions of organizational culture were still significantly differently perceived by police officers. Based on the city of the police department, seven of eleven dimensions of the organizational culture were significantly differently perceived by police officers. Although eliminating the Detroit PD from the data made some changes in the results, significantly different perceptions still existed based on the location of the police department. Findings supported hypothesis 1c. 134 Halo _ #. 003318: 3.30»: 059.303 3.95 05. us we Camgmwmsosa US$383 5 Cm. Az n ooov U28: >5: >39 mocnumoa OoEBocm gag—Ea AZ n No3 AZ n o3 «2&3 975d AZlowv mfikhmfi a mu 2— m5 a mu 3 m5 a MD m. Kunmmoaoa wagon 3.3 8.3 n+3. owo nubo “G 8.3. obu -.wm obo 3.8.... mcneimwo: woo woo 2.8 w. _w 2.5 urn“ 2.3 NS 9.3 92 “Post. Hauqoéaoa who woo woo NS 200 N3 2.0» moo 8.3 Nmm 5.3!. Hod Ora—_oamom 3.3 ”emu Hwbq WE 5.8 .523. Saw .593 3.3 moo Pow: 0033:3830: moo Ann 5. 3 P3 Sho Pow :50 who 5.3 Poo 3.5m... 4.2% PE _.3 93 fimm MNN _.mq oho Bow Mmo Emu nub—2. 550330: wobo 5.0m ENG woo qu Aoq Eon“ woo 5o.» woo nubq: moor: 00:88: Sac WS 5.9“ Now 3.3. Now 5.3 w. _m 3.5 Now 3.33. 0033535 wo=om=m 3% w. E 3% NNA 3.3 Now Koo Now 3.3 Moo .8 053: 0003330: ”we NB 8.3 Now _o.o.\. N13 Ho. 3 N. 5 0.8 Now noho: Howe—Q obo NoA o.NN N. 3 oLm Moo ooa _.3 Now N.No How: _.. n A .3. _..... u A .3 Agoézoav 135 a) City Differences (Turkey): Based on the previously mentioned structural characteristics of the TNP, this study assumed that location of the police departments would not significantly affect police officers’ perceptions. Several mean differences would be expected, but not to a great extent. Findings indicated that (see table 12) based on the city of the police department, police officers’ perceptions significantly differed on ten of eleven dimensions of the organizational culture. Only for the job challenges scale did officers’ perceptions not significantly differ. Similar to the US. data, in the Turkey sample, the Ankara Police Department had the lowest score for the six of eleven dimensions. To examine whether these significant differences among the city police departments came from the Ankara Police Department, Ankara PD was eliminated from the sample and then mean differences of city police departments were compared. After eliminating the Ankara PD from the data, police officers’ perceptions significantly differed on seven of eleven dimensions of organizational culture. Although eliminating the Ankara PD from the data made some changes in the mean difference table, significantly different perceptions still existed based on the location of the police department. Hypothesis 1d received no support. 136 F—‘h-‘m H020 5. 0030030: 02.300: 050338 :30:m 05. 30 2.9. 0&330103: 6230:0203 2: 31:180. AZ H 2qu 203:9: >383 9:3 .3ch0: 04 u 30V 04 n Ed Quad AZH20V 9.02500 a mu a mu a mu a mu m. 22303303 9600:: 3-08 No.0 0.3 8.00 0.0m No.3 ouo mmflw ubo 0.3.; 3:002:20: 0-23 0.3 w. 3 who NE mam ~00 woo 0.3 5.3.... 23088303 3.23 0.3. N00 0.8 Ni 0.00 Now 0.00 w. E 93... .2020 03:239.. 3&3 Com 98 20.3 0.2 3.3 mph 3.00 W3 NAN 003303830: 303 SN» Mao 5. K srNo 5.0m 0.02 5.2 9mm Mum: 2.23323 9N0 NE mow N3 m..\0 2.0o M02 N: $32. 230350: 3.80 3.0m M20 5.0m B:0 20w 0.00 Boo A. S 3.3.; moor: 0025301008 2.3 0.3. 2.56.2 v.3 Koo N02 300 0.00 0.00:. 0033033. 00:03m Shoo 500 N00 2.3 0.0.0 2.00 0.0m 2&0 wok: No.2?» 03%: 000003.30: 6.23 0.3 Nd 0.00 Nd 0.3 NS 0.00 w. 2 940.... 2100.05. 0-23 0.3 woo 0.2 0.8 ”mo Won 0.02 N00 ~00» _.. 0 A .3. .2. 0 A .3 320-2303 137 Organizational Factors A second hypothesis relates to officers’ perceptions on the dimensions of organizational culture and the level of hierarchy in the police department. Findings partially support hypothesis two (see table 13). Findings showed that for several dimensions of the organizational culture, different levels of organizational hierarchy had a different understanding about the organizational culture both in the TNP and in the US. Because of the aforementioned several factors, significant differences were expected on almost all items in the TNP based on rank. Surprisingly, only one dimension (trust) significantly differed based on rank in the TNP. Although supervisors held more positive views compared to line officers in the TNP, these differences were not significant. Several reasons can explain these findings; first of all, in the last five to ten years middle managers in the TNP have been trying to change all TNP environments and leading the change effort in the TNP. In addition to these endeavors, police managers have transferred their culture to the whole organization. Second, middle managers mostly work closely with line officers, and they are the closest leading figure for line officers and especially less experienced officers. Third, in police schools, most of the administration and training have been managed by middle managers. During the two-year police school training, in addition to general values and police training, middle managers also socialize police cadets with their idealistic organizational culture values and strongly encourage them to learn new techniques and methods instead of following the traditional style. Also, an increasing number of university graduate line officers are starting to make revisions to the line ofiicers’ culture. All of these factors might help to close the gap between line officers’ and supervisors’ perceptions. 138 0.020 3. 0030050: 00 go»: 05,2308 0395 55: m2 Gammaummoaa 9303303.. 3 0.0180 an Cm. Az H N008 H0180 Cm. Can 0802 managing :30 Gang. 9602me E n 8an E u :00 3&5 E3 9.950% a mu 3 mu m. a mu a mu m. Ewawm03oafi wagon 3-on N93 0.3 N900 0.8 .No 8.; mbw N900 0.”: 2:03. 96023030 9600: 0L3 0.00 N00 00“ N00 N.m0 3.5 0;: 2.3 N.0_ 0.33. 3635303 GL3 0.”: N00 0.2 NAN .00 0.0.» N00 3.: N00 8.3!. 000 0wm=oamom 3-8V $.00 0.0m 3.3 WNN .NN 3.0m 0.00 5.3 0.00 0.00 0033030030: 3-va 5.00 MG $.00 09m NNN 5.; 0.3 5.0m 0.3 9%.; Ham” 3-08 90¢ N. _m 0.3 5% 5.3» 93 _.00 0.?“ Emu MS: =30<030= 393 3.8 A.0~ 30M 0.: .00 Sum PE KEN 0.3 00.2.; meow»: 00:88: QTNOV 5.: 0.0.0 3.3 N00 .00 5.; 0.3 3&0 ~00 9.32. 00335.5N 00:03m 3&8 550 0.3 5.2 wbm .mo :00 N00 3.: N00 0.001. 0:30: 00000300: QLmv 000 N3 0.2 NAO .: 000 NQN _o.o0 ~wa @005 SEQ 0-30 0.3 U» 0% Na :0 EN 0.: 93 NB 3.3: _.. 0 A .3. _..... 0 A .S QEkom—oav 139 In the US, differences based on rank were clearer than in the TNP site. In the US, officers’ perceptions on almost all dimensions (except job challenges) of the organizational culture differed based on rank. Although traditional police culture studies mentioned line officers’ vs. ranked officers’ culture differences, in the last two decades police managers, with the help of the community policing philosophy, have tried to eliminate this gap. Results showed that significantly different understandings still exist between line officers and supervisors even for job related dimensions (such as community policing, etc). Supervisors held significantly more positive views compared to line officers on the dimensions of management support, supervisory support, improvement, communication, innovation, trust, social cohesion, community policing and citizen cooperation. Line officers compared to supervisors had more positive views on the dimension of loyalty to fellow officers. Although findings supported hypothesis 2 for the US. site, the Turkey site did not provide any support for hypothesis 2. Individual Factors The third hypothesis was whether police officers’ perceptions about the police organizational culture differ by ofiicers’ demographic characteristics. As shown in table 14 thru table 20, officers’ perceptions regarding police organizational culture varied by officers’ individual characteristics in both countries. Table 14 thru table 20 indicated that in both Turkey and US. data, there were significant differences in the perceptions about the organizational culture based on officers’ age, gender, education, race, the population 140 421ml size of their hometown, and years of experience. Therefore, the conclusion supports the third hypothesis. Age: Based on age categories, in both Turkey and the US. several dimensions of organizational culture differed. Specifically, U.S. police officers’ perceptions significantly varied on seven of eleven dimensions of organizational culture (see table 14). Older police officers (41-years-old or older) compared to the other two age categories had significantly positive views on the dimensions of management support, improvement, communication, trust, innovation and citizen cooperation. Also, older police officers had the lowest score for loyalty scale. In contrast to the United States, in Turkey, officers’ age did not influence officers’ perceptions on various dimensions of organizational culture (see table 15). Turkish police officers’ perceptions differed on three of eleven dimensions of organizational culture by age of the officer. For supervisory support scale, younger police officers compared to the other two categories hold significantly positive views. For improvement scale, older officers compared to the other two categories hold more positive perceptions; finally, officers in the middle age category compared to older and younger age categories perceive police work as challenging. Although hypothesis 3a predicted that older police officers are most likely to have negative perceptions about most of the dimensions of the organizational culture compared to other age categories, these findings did not support hypothesis 3a. Contrary to expectations, older age police officers hold more positive views about the dimensions of organizational culture than other age categories. 14] Table 14. Comparison of Mean Differences among Age groups for Organizational Dimensions in the US. (N = 667) Less than 30 31-40 41 and more (N=95) (N=282) (N=290) SCALES M so M SD M 51) F Management . . .3 .25 23.07 7.93 6.18“ Support(8-40) 2049 863 211 7 Supervision(3-15) 9.92 3.39 10.24 3.26 10.55 3.16 1.53 Improvement(3-IS) 9.71 3.13 9.83 2.78 10.65 2.88 7.07" JObChanengeS 18.56 4.28 17.75 4.01 18.32 3.69 2.21 (5-25) commumca‘m“ 10.18 4.68 9.84 3.89 10.86 4.31 4.21* (5-25) Trust(2-IO) 5.20 1.97 5.70 1.98 5.87 1.87 4.15* Innovation(5-25) 13.14 4.38 12.36 3.74 13.35 4.45 4.18* Social Cohesion (4-20) 1301 2.94 13.33 3.09 13.38 3.04 .52 Community Policing(4_20) 14.76 2.81 14.57 2.47 14.91 2.77 1.20 (C3'f125'3)"C°°pe’a“°“ 9.25 3.08 9.27 2.49 10.08 2.59 7.79" Loyalty(3-15) 7.46 2.40 7.02 2.38 6.63 2.28 4.82" * p < _05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed) 142 Table 15. Comparison of Mean Differences among Age groups for Organizational Dimensions in Turkey (N = 1375) Less than 30 31-40 41 and more (N=732) (N=438) (N=205) SCALES M so M so M so Management . 7.09 23.03 7.21 22.67 7.11 .49 Support (8-40) 23 22 Supervision(3-15) 8.78 3.03 8.41 2.73 8.27 2.38 382* Improvement(3-l5) 9.l6 2.87 9.54 2.83 9.69 2.87 3.93* JObChanenges 15.53 4.40 16.82 3.62 15.77 3.77 13.97" (5-25) commun'cat'o" 12.56 4.84 12.66 4.57 12.73 4.64 .13 (5-25) Trust(2-10) 6.07 2.12 5.96 1.99 5.76 2.11 1.90 lnnovation(5-25) 13.40 4.87 13.85 4.22 13.26 4.38 1.67 Social Cohesion (420) 13.34 3.88 13.71 3.56 13.41 3.61 1.41 Community Policing(4_20) 11.84 3.39 11.45 3.26 11.48 3.89 2,12 83?)" COOPerat‘O" 9.52 2.78 9.69 2.65 9.15 2.90 2.63 Loyalty(3-15) 9.23 3.28 9.02 3.34 9.56 3.51 1.82 * p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed) l43 T‘“-—.KFI:- Gender: As stated previously, an extensive amount of literature mentions differences between male and female officers’ perceptions regarding the dimensions of organizational culture. Results of mean differences showed that (see table 16), based on gender, Turkish police officers’ perceptions significantly varied on almost all (nine of eleven) tested dimensions of organizational culture. Results indicated that male and female police officers in Turkey had significantly different understandings about the police organizational culture. Although both male and female police officers are subject to the same training process, female police officers have more positive perceptions about the dimensions of management support, supervisory support, communication, trust, innovation, social cohesion, loyalty and citizen cooperation than male counterparts have. For the dimension of job challenges, male police officers perceive police work to be more challenging than female police officers do. Turkish police officers’ perceptions did not significantly differ on the dimensions of improvement and community policing based on gender. A different socialization process, working in a male- dominated occupation, and different work environments (bureau vs. street) may account for considerably big differences between male and female officers related to their understanding about the dimensions of the organizational culture. These findings are both surprising and particularly enlightening for police scholars and police managers. 144 Fx .m $83 3. 00331.8: cm 36:: 93.2303 8:05 0252. m9, 0635303: 055383 3: Asa—8% an Cm. Az n ~88 Haw—8% Cm. moan—o 3&0 moan; 3:5 :4 u 38 E 1 E3 A2183 A2133 unifimm a mu 2— mb a, 2— mU 3 mu m, Egmmoaoa wagon no.3 m.o~ 3.3 Qwo 3.3:. 2.3 :3 3.3 :3 .3 966238: 0.3 NS W3 N3 5km». 8.8 mum 8.3 w. 5 who Hanqoéaoa cam u. 3 Duo Nam Won 9mm Woo 5% N3 Nam How Ora—0&8 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.3!. 3.3 3.3 5.8 9.5 .3 0033:3830: 3.3 Moo 59.x 3.3 $.33. _o. 3 3.03 :30 3.3 .3 4.2% 9% Hum 93 _.oo 3.8: MB 3.3 man foo 93!. 533:8: 3.3 3.3 3.3 300 3.3:. Saw 93 5.3 3.8 .3 mega 00:88: 3.3 93 3.3 may uuhm: 5.: VB 3.3 New .3 09:35:34 wozom:m Sbw 93 :60 W3 NAM 3.wo who 3.mw N63 mh—a Q33: 0026330: Ho. 3 Nam PAN Nd =.:: o. 2 Na 09¢ Noe aka»... P3554 9mm Foo o. 2 may «has: 9% Nam Soc Nun Nww 2. 6 A .8. .1 6 A .8 agoéae 145 Compared to Turkey, in the US. sample, officers’ gender did not influence ofiicers’ perceptions on various dimensions of organizational culture. American ofiicers’ perceptions differed in three of eleven dimensions of organizational culture by gender of officer. And on these three dimensions, contrary to the Turkish police officers’ findings, male police officers have more positive perceptions on the dimensions of trust, community policing and citizen cooperation than female police officers have. Hypothesis 3b predicted that female police officers compared to male officers had more positive views regarding the dimensions of the organizational culture. Findings supported hypothesis 3b for the Turkey site, but for the US. site, hypothesis 3b received no support. Race: Police officers’ race had significant effect on officers’ perceptions of the dimensions of the organizational culture (see table 17). Based on race, white and non- white police officers had significantly different understandings about the eight of eleven dimensions of organizational culture. White police officers had more positive perceptions on the dimensions of management support, supervisory support, improvement, job challenges, trust, innovation, social cohesion and citizen cooperation than non-white police officers. Race of the police officer did not significantly affect officers’ perceptions of the dimensions of communication, community policing and loyalty to fellow officers; both white and non-white police officers shared similar understandings on these three dimensions. 146 Table 17. Comparison of Mean Differences among Race for Organizational Dimensions in the US. (N = 659) White Non-White (N = 406) m = 253) SCALES ' M SD M SD F Management Support (8—40) 22.67 7.63 20.62 7.99 10.66" Superwsnon (3-15) 10.73 3.13 9.76 3.28 “.25“ Improvement (3-15) 10.44 2.74 9.71 3.12 9.67" Job Challenges (5-25) 18.42 3.70 17.63 4.22 6.27* Communication (5-25) 10.47 4.11 10.15 4.40 .88 T 2-10 . . . . rust( ) 589 188 542 201 9.12“ I t' 5-25 . . . nnova ion( ) 13 34 4 11 12 29 4.21 9.62“ Social Cohesion (4-20) 13.55 2.86 12.94 3.29 6.30* Community Policing (4-20) 14.79 2.49 14.76 2.90 .38 Citizen C o t' 3-15 9. . . . o pera ion( ) 87 2 47 9 22 2 85 9.32" Loyalty (3-15) 6.84 2.25 7.07 2.50 1.49 *p < .05, ** p < .01. (two-tailed) 147 Hypothesis 3c predicted that non-white officers compared to white officers had more positive views on most of the dimensions of the organizational culture. Although findings supported different understandings based on race, they did not support the direction of the differences. Contrary to hypothesis 3c, white officers hold more positive views compared to non-white officers on the dimensions. Experience: Findings showed that (see table 18) officers’ perceptions of the dimensions of the organizational culture significantly varied by officers’ experience on six of eleven dimensions in the US. and four of eleven dimensions in Turkey. Officers who had eleven or more years’ experience in the US. held more positive views on the dimensions of supervisory support, improvement, trust, social cohesion and citizen cooperation than officers who had ten years’ experience or less. Experienced police officers in Turkey had more positive perceptions on the improvement and innovation than less experienced officers had. On the other hand, experienced Turkish officers compared to less experienced officers held more negative views on trust and perceived police work as challenging. Hypothesis 3d predicted that experienced police officers compared to less experienced officers hold more negative views about most of the dimensions of the organizational culture. Although findings supported different understandings based on the experience, they did not support the direction of the differences. Contrary to hypothesis 3d, in the US. experienced officers hold more positive views on the dimensions compared to less experienced officers. 148 .11 4" I Hug... E. 003318: cm 38: 0520308 macaw angle—.8 m2 Oamwaummoaa 958995 E Hcawow an Cum. Az H NOAMV .2.an Cm. 3 «£5 25% 2 <8; 9 :53 _o <83 95% I «83 ca :58 AZ u mfiv E u $8 AZHNAJ EMANNV any—hm.» 3 mu 2 mu m. a mu 2— mU a, Kmammaaoa manna: 3.8 8; 8.3 q. _o .oo 5.; man 5.3 #3 Po; 969.3832 wagon mom who mLm Nam fino 0.3 93 5mm 93 MS» Haunoéaoa o. 5 New v.3 Nd Smut. 0.0m Wow 3.3 Nd 5.3!. How Ora—_osmam 3.3 PM» 3.3 92 3.3!. 5.8 +8 5.8 wmm a» 0033:3030: 5.3 5.3 5.: 5.3 .mm 5.3 Aka 5.3 Pom .3 H23 obo N. 5 Wm» #8 5.3» mum No; 93 _.3 Puma ~==o005 00:00 50:02 05:22me 0« >005.“ AZ n 5505 2 H 5050 04058 Azu8mv 5.050595. a mu 3 56 m. 70 mu 2— 56 5. 700350303 50000: 55.55 a.05 55.50 5.05 5.55 55.3 5.55 55.55 5.00 0.5a 50002080. 500003 5.50 50a 0. 5 5.00 5.5.001. 5.5 5.55 5.5 5.55 0.5.5.. 5303,0303 0.55 5.5a 0.05 5.55 .00 5.3 5.05 5.05 5.50 5.05 500 033—00500 5.5 5.ao 550 0.50 5.2 5.00 5.50 5.50 0.5a 5.05 m 003303830: 5.00 0.50 5.0a 5.50 0.50» 5.05 0. 5 5. 50 0.55 5.: a .350 5.55 5.05 a.5a 5.50 5.53. aaa 0.05 5.55 _.0a 0.3 0:330:00 5.5 0.5 _0.5 5.5 5.3: 5.5 0.50 5.50 0.5 0.00 5003— 003850: 5.55 5.05 5.50 0. 5 0.55 q. 5 5.05 a.a5 5.3 5.50.. 0033033c 00.0035 :50 5.05 5.55 5.55 55.0%; 00.55 5.a0 50.55 5.3 _.55 0350: 00000330: 0.a5 5.5 0.50 5.5_ 5.5» 0.0a 5.5 0.55 5.5a 5.5a» 0100.03. 0.55 5.5a 0.0a 5.50 5.05 5.55 5.00 :05 5. 5 0.3: _.. 0 A .05. _..... 0 A .0. 020-8208 42:0] 0.020 50. 00300150: 0». 7000: 90.0.0838 030:5 5.000—0:0: 0.. 33. 00. 015:. 0.0a 0050050303: 0530:5503 0: 5.0185 .5 cm. Az M 50000 0.0285 cm. 550.000 010% 550.005 on 308 550.000 0185 550.000 0a 0:08 0.2 n 0050 Az n 5550 0.25550 025550 5.05555. a mu 3 5U a 2— 56 2— 55 0 700350303 50000: 55.00 5.50 55.05 5.55 5.55 55.00 .555 55.00 0.50 5.50 5:002:03N 50000: 0.50 5.05 5.a0 5.0a 5.3» 5.55 5. 5 0.00 5.50 5.5.5.; 53:83:83 05— 5.5.5 0.5 5.00 _.00 5.00 5.55 0.00 5.00 5.55 500 0:35:53 55.: 0.3 5.5 5.55 .0a 5.55 5.55 5.05 5.0a .50 003303830: 5.5.5 5.00 5.50 0.05 5.00.. 5.00 0.50 5.55 0.55 .a0 H200 a._a 5.05 5.5a 5.5 5.00 5.05 _.0a 5.5.5 _.05 5.3.. 530530: 50.55 0.0a 5.50 0.3 0.55.; 5.50 0.55 505 0.5 5.05 5030. 00:88: 5.00 0.05 5.05 555 .00 5.50 5.05 5.5.5 5.50 .55 085530 025:5 5.8 5.55 :00 5.50 93. :00 N05 :55 5.05 .2 033: 00000830: 0.00 555 0.55 5.05 .50 0.55 5.05 0.05 5.50 5.a0 H.053? 0.55 5.00 0.00 5.: .55 a.0_ 5.55 a.05 5.50 .00 _.. 0 A .05. I. 0 A .05 000003—08 152 Hypothesis 3f predicted that a police officer from a small population compared to an ofiicer from a larger population would have more positive perceptions of most of the dimensions of the organizational culture. Findings partially supported hypothesis 3f. Overall, mean differences showed that individual, organizational and environmental factors have a significant effect on the officers’ perceptions regarding the dimensions of the organizational culture. Although integration perspective claims that interpretations about the dimensions of the organizational culture are consistent throughout the organizations/police agencies and common cultural consensus exists across organization and across countries, findings showed that these common dimensions of police organizational culture are perceived differently by officers in the different police departments and different countries. Common cultural consensus does not exist across organization or across countries. There are significant differences that exist across organizations in the police officers’ perceptions with regard to organizational dimensions. 5.4. Regression Analyses The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multiple regression analysis was performed to the extent to which the relationship reported in the mean differences still holds while controlling for the effects of other variables. Two tables (Table 21a and 21b) were presented to examine the effects of individual, organizational, environmental and police work orientation factors on the dimensions of the organizational culture. Independent variables were divided into three categories: (1) Individual and organizational factors, (2) orientation to police work and (3) environmental factors. Regression models included the following individual and organizational factors: gender, education, experience, I 53 population of city of origin, officer’s parents or relatives’ previous job experience in the police or military and officer rank. Country of police officers was used as an environmental factor. Police ofiicers’ orientation to police work was measured by using five outlooks based on one single survey question. These outlooks are: (1) Law enforcement, (2) aggressive policing, (3) citizen distrust, (4) selective enforcement, (5) order maintenance (see Appendix C). Law enforcement reflects officers’ orientation to law enforcement function. Aggressive policing reflects officers’ orientation to proactive policing. Citizen distrust reflects officers’ cynicism about the citizen. Selective enforcement “concerns the degree to which officers endorse non-enforcement against the minor offenses” (Paoline, et al., 2000, p.589). Order maintenance reflects officers’ orientation to the order maintenance function. The answer to each question was coded on a five-point likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ = l to ‘strongly agree’ = 5. Models reported unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors. Management Support: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual, organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on perceptions of management support. As indicated in the mean differences, female officers were more likely to have more positive perceptions of the management support dimension than male police officers. An officer fiom a small population compared to an officer from a larger population held a more positive perception of management support. Furthermore, the rank of the police officers positively associated with management support. Police officers who had orientations of law enforcement, selective enforcement and order maintenance also reported positive perceptions of management support. On the 154 fl other side, officers who had a proactive policing style and cynical view about citizens had negative perceptions of management support. And finally, as indicated in the mean difference scores, Turkish police officers compared to American counterparts were more likely to have positive perceptions of management support. The R squared (.131) value indicated that 13 percent of the variation in the perception of management support was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Police officers’ orientation to the order maintenance role was the strongest (Beta .171) predictor of the officers’ perceptions on the management support scale in the model. Supervisory Support: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual, organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on perceptions of supervisory support. Officers with a university degree or higher reported more positive supervisory support than officers with police school education. Officers from smaller populations compared to officers from larger populations held more positive perceptions on the management support scale. Furthermore, the rank of the police officer positively associated with the supervisory support dimension. Police officers who had orientations of law enforcement, selective enforcement and order maintenance were more likely to report positive perceptions of supervisory support. On the other hand, officers who had a proactive policing style had negative perceptions of supervisory support. And finally, consistent with mean difference results, American police officers compared to Turkish counterparts were more likely to have positive perceptions on the supervisory support scale. The R squared (.161) value indicated that 16% of the variation in the perception of supervisory support was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Country of police officer was the 155 strongest (Beta .274) predictor of officers’ perceptions on the supervisory support scale in the model. Improvement: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on perceptions of improvement. Experienced police officers had more positive views on the improvement dimension than less experienced police officers. Female police officers reported more positive perceptions on the improvement dimension than male police officers. Police officers who had orientations of selective enforcement and order maintenance were more likely to report positive perceptions on improvement. Officers’ orientation to aggressive policing and cynical views about citizens did not significantly contribute to the model. And finally, as indicated in the mean difference results, American police officers compared to Turkish counterparts were more likely to report positive views on the improvement dimension. The R squared (.078) value indicated that almost 8% of the variation in the perception of improvement was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Police officers’ orientation to order maintenance was the strongest (Beta .177) predictor of officers’ perceptions on improvement in the model. 156 0.020 500. Ohm ”0000030: 03:0 0530:3000 05 0:0 0050050030:0_ 00:50 04 n 5003 300050303 7 m: 2 3051000. 0:0 0.. 0:000:00:— 5.0082 50002 000$. _ 0303053000 4 50: 0:00—0:53 ‘ 00000030000: 3 9.02 2058:0000 00000.88 00053380 u: -03 $0.: .8: A. a: .000: A. as 5% $03 .55: 0.80 03001300": -0505: 3:0 -055 C: 0 -08... $30 5%: $00 0.08: a: 0 09.808 8335 2 Bean: .50 8.03 .39. A. as .5 A. as -. :0 $03 .5: 0.83 380 00:82:35 .5 a 0.3.0 .08 :53 .08 A. a: -. :5 $30 .555 0.38 000.38 00:82:03 -52 $30 -03 :58 .80 :53 .85: SN: -52 $550 wwwmwwfihflmw 08528 :08: 053 .08: A. as -80 A. a: .08 0.80 -000. B0: 00% wmsmzmmoa u: .03: C5 .58. SE .35 God .0; $03 .58 a: 0 0103030: 8 00:00 $2.: 55 00028330 .30. A. :80 :5. 0.33 .50 23 -03. A. _ :8 5001.05 $553020 02% -08: A. :0 -. 5. 8:0 -80 0.83 0;: 0.88 -000: A. :5 933 003.0 -500: 0:8 -. so 0.83 -08 0.83 .08 0.80 -05 1.. :80 52805 maoaaaoa .20: 250 53: 0.8.0 .58: 230 -525: :08 .a0: 0.8: :00: B30 .58: 258 .30: 23 -85 :50 :50: :58 min—00500:.— 5.0303 09509005. u: 4 .505. 35 _ :2: $5 _ 551.2: _ 031.380 _ 0.055.155 0” E: 0:: 0.35 9:3 500 m 3.23 :8: 0.35 ~33 0008 2000mm mama 08 0000030000000 85000000: 80810:? 2:: £00003 0:0: 5: 0000003000.. _.. 0A.05. .1. 0A0: 157 H020 ~00. Ohm “SB-00000: 0m :00 0030000000 00. :00 on 0000000003 00:50 A2 u N003 _ M00000 00:50:05. GEN-0: Ham” 05505000 0000000: FOE? 000—0005 0 0350: 0.0070050 .50 O.- .Smnwmous. 55080.0 96010000 9560100000 HS .80 A008 hum... AMANV .Nmu :qu .03 A003 .80203 Moo... A0020 0802 70000": .550 00050 -0005: 0.55 -.5a..0.5550 -050 00000 .500 0.5050 03 A003 050008008 0000000525005 2 Bean: .5552. 0. 0000 .505 0.5050 000 0. :50 -555. 00000 005 0. 030 -0: 0. 0550 30.030 Hue—0002:0090! .o00 A. 58 .w 3 meuv .ocu Abowv .80 A. :3 .Naq A. $8 .000 Cad 060033 0000820003 055 00050 -505 0.5550 -055 0. 0.500 -000 0. 0050 -050. 0. 0050 .050 C050 03000. $03 03mg- 0005000000: 0550000 2.3030 3500:2000 -.500:E50 -000 00500 -050 00550 -0 05 00050 -505 00550 g _wcmnimoa MC .30... A._m~v .30.... AQZV .ZN ANNS -QnuiApoAv .omN A.~o£ .wmw Aged 0103.503 8 000.000 $00.... 5% 9009.832: .000 Abmwv .30 A0 _8 .30: AbwAv ~30... A058 103 A053 .So 038 0.5530520 0.0009000 .03 0.0050 -005 0. 003 3005:0050 -005 0.0050 .550: 0.003 000 00.53 00058 0000250 -000 00050 .500 £000 -050 00500 .500: 0.0000 -. 005. 0030 -055 00050 m0_002<0 mac—.0039: .03: A0003 boo: @d .03.... Abaov .02: A008 .woq: A0008 .oqw Abme 0.030.... 0.030.... 00.000 7033005500 .35.... Abmov .031. €me A003 .30.... Ame 25$ .50 Abwwv Mai—6:50:3— 5.08: $.30: :60: 000530 Adm. n: ATE A030 .bwwi. Amwmv .Amm. Ahw: A. 5.3 Abomv .qu Ahoov. 0m 0005 0000 0.500 0.555 0.550 0.055 m. 5.300 5.30 03.300 $.30 0:.ONN Fwd 2000! 90300 0.3 050800800000 000E800: 00003000000. 2:: 005500.00 020; 5 05000300050 0. uAbm. _..... 3.2. 158 Job Challenges: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on perceptions of job challenges. Male police officers perceived police work to be more challenging than female police officers did. Police officers who had relatives who had worked in the police or military saw police work as more challenging. Police officers who had orientations of law enforcement and selective enforcement perceived police work as less challenging. On the other hand, officers who had orientation to aggressive policing saw police work to be challenging. Officers’ orientation to order maintenance and a cynical view about citizens did not significantly contribute to the model. And finally, as indicated in the mean difference analysis, American police officers compared to Turkish counterparts perceived police work to be more challenging. The R squared (.187) value indicated that 19% of the variation in the perception of job challenges was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Police oflicers’ orientation to selective enforcement was the strongest (Beta - .245) predictor of officers’ perceptions on job challenges in the model. Communication: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on perceptions of communication. Female police officers compared to male counterparts reported more positive views on this scale. Also police officers from small populations reported more positive views than officers from larger populations. Police officers who had orientations of law enforcement, selective enforcement and order maintenance had positive perceptions on communication. On the other hand, officers who had orientation to aggressive policing and cynical views about citizens hold negative perceptions about 159 communication. And finally, consistent with mean difference findings, Turkish police officers compared to American counterparts reported more positive views on the communication dimension. The R squared (.249) value indicated that almost 25% of the variation in the communication dimension was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Police officers’ orientation to order maintenance was the strongest (Beta .234) predictor of officers’ perception on communication in the model. T_ru_st: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual and organizational factors had significant effects on perceptions of communication. Officers with a university degree had a higher level of trust than officers with police school education. Officers from small populations compared to officers from larger populations held more positive perceptions on the trust dimension. Furthermore, the rank of the police officers positively associated with supervisory support. Police officers who had orientations of selective enforcement and order maintenance had positive perceptions on trust. Officers’ orientation to law enforcement, aggressive policing and cynical views about citizens did not significantly contribute to the model. Although the mean difference findings showed significant difference for the trust scale between Turkey and the US, the country of the police officer did not significantly affect police officers’ views on the trust dimension in this model. The R squared (.102) value indicated that 10% of the variation in the trust dimension was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Police officers’ orientation to order maintenance was the strongest (Beta .178) predictor of officers’ perceptions on trust in the model. 160 Innovation: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on perceptions of innovation. As indicated in the mean difference analysis, both experienced officers and female officers reported more positive perceptions on the innovation dimension than less experienced and male police officers. Officers from small populations compared to officers from larger populations held more positive perceptions on the innovation scale. Furthermore, the rank of the police officers positively associated with the perception of innovation. Police officers who had orientations of selective enforcement and order maintenance also reported positive perception on the innovation dimension. Officers’ orientation to law enforcement, aggressive policing and cynical views about citizens did not significantly contribute to the model. And finally, consistent with mean difference results, Turkish police officers compared to American counterparts reported more positive views on the innovation dimension. The R squared (.109) value indicated that almost 11% of the variation in the perception of innovation was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Police officers’ orientation to selective enforcement was the strongest (Beta .126) predictor of officers’ perceptions on communication in the model. Social Cohesion: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on perceptions of the social cohesion. Female police officers saw their organization to be more cohesive than male counterparts. Police officers who had orientations of law enforcement, selective enforcement and order maintenance reported positive perceptions of social cohesion. On the other hand, officers who had orientations to a proactive 16l policing style reported negative perceptions of social cohesion. Officers’ cynical views about citizens did not significantly contribute to the model. Contrary to mean difference results, the model showed that the country of police officers significantly affected their perception of social cohesion. American police officers compared to Turkish counterparts reported more positive views on social cohesion. The R squared (.294) value indicated that almost 30% of the variation in the social cohesion dimension was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Police officers’ orientation to order maintenance was the strongest (Beta .372) predictor of officers’ perception on the social cohesion dimension in the model. Loyalty: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on perceptions of loyalty. Both ranked officers and officers with a university degree or higher reported negative perceptions on the loyalty scale. Police officers who had orientations of law enforcement, selective enforcement and order maintenance had positive perceptions on the loyalty scale. Officers who had cynical views about citizens reported a positive score on loyalty. Officers’ orientation to aggressive policing did not significantly contribute to the model. And finally, consistent with mean difference results, Turkish police officers compared to American counterparts reported more positive views on the loyalty dimension. The R squared (.325) value indicated that almost 33% of the variation in the loyalty scale was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Country of the police officer was the strongest (Beta - .320) predictor of officers’ perceptions on loyalty in the model. l62 Community Policing: Statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that individual organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on perceptions of community policing. Officers who had relatives who worked in police or military jobs held negative perceptions about community policing. Police officers who had orientations of proactive policing, selective enforcement and order maintenance had positive perceptions on community policing. On the other hand, officers who had cynical views about citizens reported negative perceptions of community policing. Officers’ orientation to law enforcement did not significantly contribute to the model. And finally, consistent with mean difference results, American police officers compared to Turkish counterparts reported more positive views on the community policing dimension. The R squared (.270) value indicated that 27% of the variation in the community policing scale was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Officers’ orientation to law enforcement was the strongest (Beta .340) predictor of officers’ perception on community policing in the model. Citizen Cooperation: Contrary to other dimensions, statistical significance of the regression coefficients indicated that only experience had significant effects on perceptions of citizen cooperation. None of the other variables in the model significantly contributed to the model. Consistent with mean difference results, country of the police officer also did not have any effect on the citizen cooperation dimension. Turkish police officers compared to American counterparts reported more positive views on the loyalty dimension. Experienced police officers compared to less experienced police officers perceived citizens as c00perative. The R squared (.022) value indicated that only 2% of 163 the variation in the citizen cooperation scale was explained by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Overall, OLS regression results showed consistent findings with mean difference results. Afier controlling for the effects of the other factors, individual organizational and environmental factors still had a significant effect on the officers’ perceptions regarding dimensions of the organizational culture. Summary of Findings: Mean differences and OLS regression results indicated that officers’ perceptions were affected by individual, organizational and environmental factors. The following are summarized statistical findings: 0 Based on the age categories, U.S. police officers’ perceptions significantly varied on seven of eleven dimensions of organizational culture. In contrast to the United States, in Turkey, officers’ age did not influence officers’ perceptions on various dimensions of organizational culture. 0 Results indicated that male and female police officers in Turkey had significantly different understandings about the police organizational culture. Compared to Turkey, in the US. sample, officers’ gender did not influence officers’ perceptions on various dimensions of organizational culture. 0 Based on race, white and non-white police officers had significantly different understandings about eight of the eleven dimensions of organizational culture. 0 Experienced officers held more positive views compared to less experienced officers on the dimensions in both countries. 164 Police officers with a university degree or above had more positive perceptions on the dimensions. Population of the city of a police officer’s origin did not have a significant effect on the officers’ perceptions in either Turkey or the US. In the US, officers’ perceptions on almost all dimensions (except job challenges) of the organizational culture differed based on rank. Although supervisors held more positive views compared to line officers in the TNP, these differences were not significant. Officers’ perceptions on organizational culture dimensions varied by the locations of the police department (namely, city, state and country). In addition to mean difference results, OLS regressions showed that individual, organizational and environmental factors had significant effects on officers’ perceptions regarding organizational culture dimensions. 165 CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION The purpose of this study is to evaluate organizational culture in the Turkish National police and five Midwest (Michigan and Ohio) cities in the US. More specifically, the study examines police officers’ (supervisors’ and non—supervisors’) perceptions pertinent to the categories of (1) management support, (2) supervisory support, (3) improvement, (4) job challenges, (5) communication, (6) trust, (7) innovation, (8) social cohesion, (9) loyalty to fellow officers, (10) orientation to community policing and (1 l) citizen cooperation. The main focus of this dissertation is the extent to which police officers’ understanding pertinent to their organizational culture and community policing is influenced by organizational (rank), environmental (city, state, country) and individual factors (demographic characteristics). In this study, based on police organizational culture literature, various dimensions of organizational culture have been used to better focus on the degree of similarity or difference in certain aspects of the organizational dimensions among the police officers. The dimensions of organizational culture cover the main aspects of the multi-dimensional culture construct. In order to carry out this task, three thousand two hundred fifty (3,250) questionnaires were mailed/distributed to the police officers at the study sites. Being a police officer helped the researcher to access study sites both in US. and Turkey. Of these 3,250 questionnaires, 2,046 were completed correctly and thus usable for analysis. Demographic characteristics of the study population, the results of factor analyses for the 166 41ml organizational culture dimensions, mean differences of the study population and, finally, OLS regression results were reported in Chapter Five. 6.1. Key Findings In particular, this study attempt to answer following questions: How do police officers perceive their organizations? Do they share similar understandings or do they differ if this is issue when they differ? Do these differences come from individual dimensions, organizational dimensions or environmental factors? Does police culture is the same throughout the police occupation or does each police agency have unique organizational culture? Do police officers perceptions about the community policing vary within and between organizations? In this study, based on police organizational culture literature, various dimensions of organizational culture have been used to better focus on the degree of sharing and differences on certain aspects of the organizational dimensions amongst the police officers. The dimensions of organizational culture cover the main aspects of the multi-dimensional culture construct. Overall findings suggest support for both integration and differentiation perspectives (see table 14). Eleven of the seventeen factors (including both US. and Turkey) supported differentiation perspective and seven of the seventeen factors supported integration perspective7. 7 In the US. officer’s education supported both differentiation and integration perspectives. 167 Table 22. Support for Integration and Differentiation Perspectives l Integration [ Differentiation Environmental Factors Country State City (US) ++++ City (Turkey) Organizational Factors + Rank (U.S.) Rank (Turkey) + Individual Factors United States Age + Gender + Race + Experience + Education + + Pop. of city of origin + Turkey Age + Gender + Experience + Education + Pop. of city of origin + The following section reports a summary of emergent findings. Location of the police department (city, state and country) significantly affected officers’ perceptions on the dimensions of the organizational culture. The empirical results, by and large, supported the differentiation view’s main proposition that interpretations about the dimensions of the police organizational culture among police officers are inconsistent. Common cultural consensus did not exist across organizations or across countries. There were significant differences across organizations in the police officers’ perceptions with regard to organizational dimensions. 168 LA‘ Turkish police officers hold more positive perceptions for organizational dimensions than American counterparts. Turkish police officers were loyal to their fellow officers, perceived a high level of management support, had positive perceptions about innovation, improvement and trust in their organizations, did not see police work as too challenging, and gave a lower score for communication and a moderate score for supervisory support dimensions. On the other hand, American police officers perceived a high level of supervisory support, had positive perceptions on improvement and trust in their organizations, saw police work as challenging, and gave lower scores for management support, communication, innovation and loyalty dimensions. To help discuss these differences, it is usefiil to apply Hofstede’s findings for each country. National cultural values play a significant role in shaping officers’ perceptions and reactions to organizational dimensions. As argued in Chapter Two, different levels of cultures have different effects on organizational culture, and police culture can not be completely understood without taking into consideration those effects of the larger culture. As shown in Table Two, Turkey’s culture is high in power distance and uncertainty avoidance and low in individualism and masculinity. On the other hand, the United States’ culture is high in individualism and masculinity, low in uncertainty avoidance and power distance. As a high power distance country, Turkey has a centralized structure with several hierarchical levels, and power is in the hands of a few individuals at the top of each organization’s hierarchy; most of the time Turkish people readily accept hierarchical organization structure and inequality in power distribution. Autocratic leadership and close supervision are the management style expected by subordinates. As a low power 169 distance society, the US. has a decentralized structure, and people tend to minimize inequalities and hierarchy in the organization. They can criticize their top officials and do not accept inequalities at work. These characteristics may help to explain the greater management support in the TNP and the relatively lower level of management support in the US. As a collectivist society, in Turkey, being a good team member is expected, personal relationships and knowing the right person are important for one’s career, and group decisions and conformity with the group/organization are always preferable on the individual decisions. As an individualistic society, U.S. culture places personal goals above collective goals and tries to maintain the individual’s freedom and personal responsibility for his/her actions; the culture emphasizes the ideal of being a good leader rather than being a team member and highly values individual success, achievement, self-actualization and self-respect. All of these characteristics may help to explain the high level of loyalty in the TNP and the low level of loyalty in the US. In a society characterized as highly feminine, like Turkey, working with cooperative colleagues, having good relationships with your superiors and managers, and maintaining secure employment are important. In more masculine cultures, like the US, people give more attention to promotion, advancement, the challenging nature of the work, the chances of higher earnings and individual recognition. All of these characteristics may help to explain the high level of trust, high level of management support, and low level of job challenges in the TNP, as well as the high level of job challenges, low level of management support, and relatively lower trust in the US. Although some of these differences may be explained by using Hofstede’s findings, some of the current study’s findings did not 170 f“ I I fit into Hosftede’s findings. For instance, as the high level improvement and innovation perceptions in the TNP contradict the high uncertainty avoidance of Turkish culture. One possible explanation is that during the European Union membership process, Turkey has experienced rapid changes in all areas and these changes have also affected cultural and societal values. The collectivist society in urban areas has started to give way to individualistic values and has almost transformed into an individualistic society, with the result that individual rights are emphasized more than before. Since policing has strong ties with its environment and wider culture, and since societal values determine the proper style of policing, the aforementioned changes in Turkish society have also affected the policing in Turkey. One of the most significant and crucial differences between the two countries police officers’ perceptions was their orientation to patrol duty. The American police officers had a broader role orientation than Turkish police officers. More than 75% of American police officers agreed with the patrol duties stated in the survey, but for Turkish police officers, this percentage was less than 40%. One possible explanation is that in the last 30 years, many changes have happened in US. police organizations, such as changes in the socio-demographic characteristics of officers (e.g., more gender variation and also more educated police officers) and changes in organizational factors (e.g., community-oriented policing). These changes also have weakened the officers’ (at least some of them) connection with traditional policing and created different understandings in the police organizations. These change efforts are fairly new in the TNP and the principles of traditional policing have not been challenged to the same extent as in the US. Community policing has changed the 171 police role, police-environment & police-citizen relationships. Many new functions (such as responding to neighborhood problems) are included in the police role, and the creation of stable police jurisdictions has increased familiarity between police officer and citizen. These changes encourage police officers to make changes in the old style of policing (strict law enforcement and aggressive policing tactics) and to employ new policing styles (service-oriented style) to handle police work. Most of the police departments in the US. are created by their local lawmaking authority and operate under the municipal government with almost no direct political interference. This local police system is responsive to local people’s needs and concerns rather than the government’s needs. Although in the US, policing is mostly community- oriented, that is, police are responsible for serving the community; in Turkey, police share the responsibility of central control and serve as a tool of the state. Since citizens have responsibilities rather than rights against the state, police evaluate the state’s concerns above the citizens’ concerns. Police officers perceive their first priority to be to serve the government rather than to serve the citizen. Although police officers’ perceptions differed on almost all of the dimensions stated in this study based on their country, both countries’ police officers’ mean scores did not significantly differ from each other on the dimensions of social cohesion and citizen cooperation. Both Turkish and American police officers agreed with the importance of citizen cooperation, perceived a high level of social cohesion in their departments, and rated their social network as good. These findings are interesting for the US. Although traditional police culture literature mentions isolation from citizens and cohesion with other police officers (an us vs. them mentality), study findings 172 indicated that police officers had high scores on both cooperation with citizens and cohesion with other officers, but were intolerant of unethical behaviors. With regard to the American police officers’ score, it is reasonable to assume that since all five American police departments have formal/informal community policing plans and different community policing implementations, these implementations and their continuous community policing trainings have improved their perceptions about citizen cooperation. One possible explanation for high social cohesion and low loyalty is both strict policies on unethical behaviors and the challenging nature of police work. For Turkish police officers, it is possible to assume that the middle managers’ continuous improvement efforts in the last decade have started to transform police officers’ perceptions about citizen cooperation. The high score on social cohesion is consistent with the Hofstede’s collectivist and feminine culture arguments. Officers working in Ohio had more positive views than officers working in Michigan (even for two non-significant dimensions). Only for community policing and loyalty scale did both states’ officers’ perceptions not differ significantly. Similar perceptions about patrol duties indicated that the philosophy of community policing was understood similarly and influenced how officers performed their duties everyday. The Detroit PD police officers compared to other police departments in the US. had the lowest mean scores. The Ankara PD police officers compared to other police departments in Turkey had the lowest mean scores for six of the eleven dimensions of organizational culture. Eliminating both of these cities from datasets did not significantly affect differences among the other cities, which indicates that location of 173 the police department was one of the significant factors in the police officers’ perceptions. Contrary to assumptions stated in Chapter Two, the location of police departments in Turkey had a significant effect- on police officers’ perceptions. Although the centralized structure and training, as well as some of the factors stated in Chapter Two encourage the similar perception assumption, each city had different perceptions on the organizational culture dimensions. The OLS multiple regression analysis indicated that the country of the police department and perceptions related to police work explained the greatest amount of variance in police officers’ perceptions. OLS models explained ten to thirty-two percent of the variance in the officers’ perceptions. The OLS multiple regression analysis explained less than ten percent variance in the improvement dimension and less than three percent variance in the citizen cooperation dimension. Although officers’ perceptions differed based on individual factors, findings provided mixed support for both integration and differentiation perspectives. In the US, three of six individual factors provided support for integration perspective and four of six individual factors (officers’ education supported both of the perspectives) provided support for differentiation perspective. On the other hand, in the TNP, three of five individual factors provided support for integration perspective and two of five individual factors provided support for differentiation perspective. In the TNP, female officers and educated officers were more likely to have positive views about the dimensions of the organizational culture compared to other officers. Age, experience, and the population of the officer’s city of origin did not significantly affect officers’ 174 perceptions on most of the dimensions of the organizational culture. These findings are consistent with the assumptions made in Chapter Two. In the US, older officers, white officersg. experienced officers and educated officers were more likely to have positive views about the dimensions of the organizational culture compared to other officers. Gender and the population of the officer’s city of origin did not significantly affect officers’ perceptions on most of the dimensions of the organizational culture. 0 Officers’ perceptions differed based on rank in the US. and findings supported differentiation perspective. Ranked officers compared to line officers were more likely to have positive perceptions on the dimensions of the organizational culture. Contrary to assumptions made in Chapter Two, rank did not significantly affect police officers’ perceptions in the TNP and findings, by and large, supported integration perspective. 6.2. Implications This study presents several implications for both police practitioners and scholars: This dissertation extends the knowledge of police organizational culture by way of analyzing several elements that are assumed to affect the police officers’ perceptions pertinent to their organizational culture. Police organizational scholars have operationalized differences in the officers’ perceptions as simple “street cop/management cop” or “rural police /urban police” oppositions. This study indicated that culture is a multidimensional concept and several differences exist in their perceptions rather than simple dichotomization. Simple 8 Although the study found significant differences based on race in the US. afler eliminating the Detroit PD from the dataset. these differences disappearec. categorization masks important differences, which leads to misconceptions about the organizational culture. Focusing on the multidimensional nature of organizational culture provided richer and more representational perceptiveness into police organizational culture in two countries. Existing research on police organizational culture is built on single-society studies. No study has attempted to compare Turkish and American police organizational cultures. This dissertation fills this gap in police organizational culture literature and contributes to international comparative police studies literature. In addition to cross—national comparison, this study examines whether different views of organizational culture from different police departments exist. This dissertation extends the knowledge about police organizational culture in Turkey as there have been no studies that have examined the effects of factors on police officers’ perceptions pertinent to organizational culture and specifically community policing. This study is the first known endeavor to examine the attitudes of Turkish police officers to such an extent; therefore, it tries to provide a strong foundation upon which fixture studies could develop. This study provides a wealth of practical information to police managers and others who seek a clear understanding about the police organizational culture in Turkey and the US. Knowledge of the views and perceptions of the police officers is an invaluable resource for police officials during the change process. This study informs police managers about the distribution of cultural perceptions among the officers and also helps them to prepare police agencies for planned or expected organizational change (such as 176 community policing) initiatives by minimizing resistance. For that reason, it is important to know how officers perceive their organizations, environments and roles, and what factors affect these perceptions, so that these perceptions might be influenced in a positive direction. Findings showed that even in centralized structure and highly uniform organizations like the Turkish National Police, individual factors (gender and education and partially experience) had significant effects on officers’ perceptions. Although centralized recruiting procedures and identical training systems across the police schools try to ensure the similarity (or minimize the differences) of the individual officers’ perceptions, findings indicated the significant effects of individual factors and the existence of different subcultures in the TNP. As expected, study findings indicated that educated police officers hold more positive perceptions on the dimensions. In the last decade, the TNP has invested more resources for education; this finding is one of the good signs of the TNP’s investment and supports the idea that the TNP should continue to invest more in education. Findings also showed that contrary to expectations stated in Chapter Two, rank did not significantly affect officers’ perceptions in the TNP. Supervisors and line officers shared similar perceptions on the dimensions. The existence of similar perceptions among line officers and supervisors may help police practitioners to institute successfiil organizational changes (from traditional policing to community policing) and receive favorable reactions to them. Also, similar perceptions may help to close the gap between fine officers and supervisors. 177 Focusing on the attempted changes of a single culture is relatively easier than trying to identify differences among subcultures. This dissertation not only intends to provide a clear picture of officers’ perceptions on the dimensions of the organizational culture, but also presents the degrees of similarity between subcultures on the dimensions. A strong culture (consensus on the dimensions) does not always indicate a healthy organizational culture. Officers can strongly agree on the unethical norms or procedures. One of the most important findings for Turkish police practitioners and police scholars is that the location of the police department significantly affected police officers’ perceptions. Although the TNP is a national police organization with a centralized structure and training system that assures theoretically identical police agencies throughout Turkey, environment (location of the PD) had significant effects on the police officers’ perceptions, and most of the dimensions were differently understood by police officers in different cities. As opposed to assumptions stated in Chapter Two, obligatory movement of the police officers (every four or five years police officers have to move to another part of Turkey, at least two times during their career) did not minimize the environment’s effects on the police officers’ perceptions. This study indicates that a centralized structure, following the same rules and regulations, and dealing with similar conditions did not assure similar perceptions and role orientations across departments. TNP top officials and practitioners should acknowledge that officers in different cities will respond to the same situation in different ways. The centralized structure of the TNP forces police practitioners to follow a uniform training plan for all cities by disregarding differences among the cities. These 178 differences among the cities should be taken into consideration for re-designing centralized training processes or even for re—designing the structure of the TNP. Due to the fact that the main characteristics of community policing (such as decentralized structure, autonomy for line officers, etc.) are considered to be significant departures from the TNP’s policing style, top officials should open their communication channels to their personnel’s views and opinions. The TNP has a paramilitary structure with a centralized decision-making process; most of the time decisions move from top to bottom, and the bottom does not have any direct input for this process. The centralized structure of the TNP is its most important distinction from Westem-style police organizations in the context of police structure and management style. The national- agency characteristics of the TNP limit the organization’s ability to change from a centralized structure to a decentralized one. Top command does not talk with lower level personnel about any kind of management-related decisions, and they find it unnecessary to know line officers’ and middle managers’ Opinions. Since both line officers and middle managers (at least, a significant proportion of them) directly communicate with the citizens and put into practice the police duties, they represent the backbone of the police force. Since it is expected that the impact of police reform will be dramatic, TNP top officials should know police officers’ perceptions about their jobs and the organizational culture. Police officers’ perceptions about their organizational culture are closely related to their perceptions about the changes in policing style. Police officers’ unique value system upholds specific attitudes and behaviors (e. g., the crime-fighting side of policing) and ignores essential elements of community policing. Knowledge about the TNP organizational Culture gives top officials sufficient insight to minimize possible resistance 179 and to maximize a chance of successfully implementing new changes. TNP officials should know whether police officers’ perceptions are compatible with the new policing style. Because of the hierarchically and bureaucratically controlled nature of the TNP, top officials lead officers to do only what they are told and enforce non-participative decision-making style. Top officials might be capable of forcing police officers to follow new directions and new rules and of changing the structure of the organization, but these are not sufficient to guarantee successful implementation of changes in the context of changing policing style. Community policing requires using new methods and accepting new behavior styles to conduct police work, which is, most of the time, contradictory to line officers’ traditional understandings of policing. As Skolnick (1966; 1994) and Lipsky (1980) argued, whenever a gap occurs between line officers’ goals and the organization’s goals, officers use their discretion and fill in that gap. Although from the outside they can be seen as following new rules and regulations, actually they follow their old methods. In addition, the gap between line officers and top command prevents healthy communication, and each innovation attempt that comes from top command is perceived by officers as another contrived or politically-oriented attempt to maintain their power position. Although TNP top command believe that officers accept and perform whatever they are told, without knowing how officers’ perceive their jobs and their environment, and without an accurate understanding of the organizational culture, top command most likely will fail to make successfiil changes in the TNP’s policing style. According to J. K. Ford, an increasing amount of research and practice has showed that “increased involvement and participation is desired by most people, has the ability to energize performance, produces better solutions to problems, and greatly enhances acceptance of 180 decisions” (J. K. Ford, 2002, p.130). As Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1990) note, without support from line officers, it is difficult to implement community policing. Because of the fact that a positive relationship between citizens and the police is essential in modern policing strategies (especially in the community policing), in the last decade, the TNP has started to improve the relationship between them. This study finding shows that most of the Turkish police officers reported a positive perception of citizens, which means that these improvement efforts have started to get results, and the TNP should strictly continue and improve these efforts. Even though the TNP has tried to make changes in policing strategy (from traditional policing to community policing), and this study has given some indications of these improvements, changing the policing philosophy will definitely take time. Study findings showed that Turkish police officers’ patrol duty definitions were narrower than American counterparts. TNP officers held more positive perceptions regarding the law enforcement side of police work orientation rather than the community policing/service side of policing. This knowledge is crucial for police practitioners in the TNP during the preliminary stages of planning and implementing changes in the traditional policing strategy. TNP officials should acknowledge that changes in the policing style and modifications to officers’ perceptions take time; for that reason, top officials should have realistic expectations for this process. Although it is not clearly shown in the study findings and limited literature prevents comparisons with past studies, highly educated and motivated Turkish middle managers have continued to lead change efforts in the TNP and have transferred their value systems to their proximate subordinates. Top management should take into 181 consideration their suggestions and continue to support them to become one of the best police organizations in the world. This dissertation’s findings advance our knowledge about the police organizational culture and challenge the idea of a universal police culture. This study supports to the argument that multiple cultures exist within and across organizations. The existence of different perceptions across the police departments questions the uniform implementation plan of any program/change efforts. Study findings signify that individual, organizational and environmental factors should carefully be considered before any implementation, and implementation plans should be adapted to these factors. Although study findings mostly supported previous police organizational culture literature on the sources of the diversity, the direction of the race effect on perceptions should be cautiously evaluated. As stated previously, eliminating the Detroit Police Department from the dataset completely changed the directions of the race effect. Rank significantly affected officers’ perceptions in the US. This finding indicates that even though community policing aimed to reduce the gap between line officers and ranked officers, the gap still existed in these five different police departments. Police practitioners and scholars should look at these significant discrepancies in the perceptions and try to understand what is leading these differences. A high degree of perceptional similarities on the dimensions of community policing and citizen cooperation in the US. may be attributed to the fact that the philosophy of community policing was understood similarly and influenced how officers performed their everyday duties. Contrary to previous literature and conventional wisdom, U.S. police officers gave significantly lower scores on the loyalty scale. This may be associated with the individualistic culture of the US. and may also be attributed to strict policies on unethical behaviors and the so-called “code of silence.” Research findings encourage police practitioners and scholars to continue these efforts to minimize unethical behaviors in the police organizations. Study findings indicate that the Detroit PD held the lowest mean scores compared to other cities, and this result should be seriously taken into consideration by police practitioners. Officials should carefully reevaluate their relationships with their subordinates and devote extra attention to finding out what is driving these low scores in the Detroit PD. 6.3. Limitations As with any study, several limitations are inherent in this study. The first limitation is its cross-sectional design. Data was collected at a single point in time and presented snapshot pictures of the organizations. Although reverse causal relationship is not a big concern for this study, its cross-sectional design limits its ability to facilitate causal explanation. The second limitation is that this is the first known endeavor to explore the TNP police culture and compare it to US. police agencies. The lack of existing literature on the subject did not provide enough baseline for this study. The third limitation is that the generalizability of this study finding for the US. site is limited; the decentralized structure of the US. criminal justice system, the inclusion of only urban 183 police departments, and the sampling of two states out of fifty all contribute to this limitation. 6.4. Future Research This dissertation represents the first known attempt to explore the TNP police organizational culture and compare it to US. police organizations. Even though this study provides a strong foundation for future research, it raises several questions. The first question is the generalizability of study findings for both the TNP and urban police departments in the Midwestern US; for that reason, the study findings need to be replicated. Specifically, significant gender differences on the dimensions in the TNP and rank differences in the US. need to be carefiJlly examined. Also, the lowest mean scores in the Detroit PD need further research. In order to better understand the existence of the different subcultures in the organizations, replication is needed. Second, in addition to a cross-sectional design, future research should use longitudinal research to firlly understand officers’ perceptions of the organizational culture dimensions over time. Third, because of the absence of literature about the TNP organizational culture, this study provides an overview to establish a baseline for future research. Future research should include explanatory studies and focus on causal relationships. Fourth, although this study tried to include multiple factors, the study did miss some factors. Future research should look at the social, political and cultural environments and other criminal justice factors’ effects on officers’ perceptions. Fifth, future research should continue to include individual, organizational and environmental factors and continue to see organizational culture as a multi-dimensional concept. Sixth, although this study included 184 both line officers and supervisors, future research should also include other segments (such as top managers). And finally, future studies should move beyond the Western context and focus on the international comparative field. 6.5. Conclusion The broad conclusion of this study is that individual, organizational and environmental factors significantly affect officers’ perceptions on the dimensions of the organizational culture. The purpose of this study is to evaluate organizational culture in the TNP and law enforcement organizations in the US. This conclusion was reached by collecting and analyzing empirical data. This study provided quantifiable information on police officers’ perceptions regarding organizational culture dimensions, analyzed individual, organizational and environmental factors effects on officers’ perceptions, presented the first known overview of the TNP organizational culture, identified the existence of different perceptions within and among police organizations and provided a wealth of practical information to police managers and others who seek a clear understanding of police organizational culture in Turkey and the US, serving as a starting point for future comparative studies and research efforts. Also, the current study fills a gap in the field of comparative research by providing the first comparative study between the TNP and US. police organizations. Furthermore, this study has reached the conclusion that police organizational cultures are not one-dimensional (monolithic) and do differ within and across organizations. 185 APPENDICES 186 APPENDIX A Factor Loadings for Organizational Culture Scales (N = 2046) Scale / Scale Items Factor Eigenvalue Scale Loading Management Support (range 8-40) 5.07 0.916 A. 12 There is a strong commitment to quality at all 0.802 levels of this organization ' A. 13 Members of this organization show concern for the 0.789 need for quality A. 14 Continuous quality improvement is an important 0.777 goal of this organization A. 15 Top police managers in this organization follow up 0.829 on suggestions for improvement A. 16 Our top management tries to make this 0.842 organization a good place to work A. 17 Top police managers in my department set clear 0.843 goals for quality improvement A. 18 Police managers here try to plan ahead for changes 0.826 that might affect our performance A. 19 People in this organization are aware of its overall 0.638 mission Supervisory Support (range 3-15) 2.10 0.776 8.20 My supervisor gives credit to people when they do 0.914 a good job. 8.21 My supervisor rewards being cooperative and a 0.915 good team player. 322 My supervisor fails to give me feedback on work 1 0.653 have done (R). Improvement (range 3-15) 2.34 0.856 C. 23 People in my unit try to improve the quality of 0.857 their work. 0.903 C.24 Police officers in my work unit believe that quality improvement is their responsibility. 0.883 025 Police officers in my unit analyze their work to look for ways of doing a better job Job Challenges (range 5-25) 2.31 0.700 E3] The job requires me to use a number of complex or 0.734 high-level skills E.32 I have new and interesting things to do in my work. 0.705 E.33 My work challenges me. 0.54] E.34 The job is simple and repetitive (R). 0.703 E35 1 am never bored at work since I have many 0.696 different things to do. Communication (range 5-25) 3.23 0.861 F.36 Top police management does a good job of 0.862 communicating with employees. F.37 Top management gives praise and recognition for 0.884 outstanding performance. F.38 Overall, I have trust in the top management. 0.868 F.39 Officers who perform well receive financial 0.708 rewards such as higher pay, awards, etc. F .41 Internal conflicts are resolved to the satisfaction of those concerned. 0.671 187 APPENDIX A (cont’d) Scale / Scale Items Factor Scale Loadini Trust (range 2-10) 1.46 0.625 G.43 My supervisor shows complete trust in officers’ 0.853 ability to perform their tasks well. 044 Within reason, officers in this organization can say 0.853 what they want without fear of punishment Innovation (range 5-25) 3.11 0.835 H.45 We are encouraged to make suggestions for 0.840 improvements in our work. 11.46 Officers in my work unit are encouraged to try new 0.875 and better ways of doing the job. 11.47 Creativity is actively encouraged in this 0.897 organization. 0.796 H. 48 Those who come up new ideas get rewarded in this organization. 0.444 11.49 Trying new ways of solving problems is discouraged here (R). Social Cohesion (range 4-20) 2.50 0.794 1.52 Officers in my work unit enjoy their coworkers. 0.836 1.53 Coworkers in my work unit are like a family. 0.876 1.54 Problems exist here between coworkers. (R) 0.665 1.55 I trust my fellow officers to do what is in the best 0.766 interests of the organization. Loyalty (range 3-15) 2.20 0.817 1.56 If my fellow officer makes a mistake at work, it is 0.816 my responsibility to protect him 1.57 I will never report against my fellow officer even if 0.875 he has violated rules. 1.58 IN violate a rule, I expect my fellow officer to 0.876 protect me. Community Policing (range 4-20) 2.21 0.727 K.64 Patrol officers should be expected to do something 0.740 about neighbor’s disputes. K.65 Patrol officers sould be expected to do something 0.795 about family disputes. K66 Patrol officers should be expected to do something 0.727 about litter and trash. K.67 Patrol officers should be expected to do something 0.708 about nuisance that causes lots of problems for neighbors Citizen Cooperation (range 3-15) 1.92 0.717 L.68 Citizens would ofien call the police if they saw 0.785 something suspicious. L.69 Citizens would often provide information about a 0.878 crime if they knew something and were asked by police. L.70 Citizens are willing to work with the police and try 0.730 to solve neighborhood problems. 188 BomeUUn w 235 Wampum—56m. 6801378 9333 E6 Haonoonoimonm o». Gameswubaopa 5.52.583 E u NOAo Zr» vim—u A N m A m a u m E0503 weave: 8- A8 A5 .3 NNQ 3.3 meeozmmod. wagon 0L3 N gm o.~ 6.: .Am: ravage—63 Ant—my 0 .3 pm 3.8 Amt. .AN: How OAS—Eamon 0&8 A .3 SQ 3.8 30A .8 .om... 0033;38:86me u .3 :baAS .82.. .AN: mat. LA... Haameov o .3 PAGE .AA.:.. .3... .mo... new... .3: 3505305393 A .mA 5.293 out. .AN: .uA: no.1... 6A.... .31 moomanorommoiAbS m .3 GAGQW mo: .31. MN: soot. .Aoi. AA: we: Goa—sci? Ace—85m 3&3 @ .3 363.8 .52. .Nmi. .No: .8... .81. .31 be: .33.. >63 gmU _ N w A m m .N m o 3 033a 0830820: 00 . A A 6-5 :8 .3 cs .8: .:: .3: .8... .2: .5: .3... .5: _... mu .3 gmfiQfiL$ CC .3 3.8 .31. .o_ .3: Awa: 0o: .33.. .32. moi. .ow .. 3A .8 :. ex .3 Agoxaiv 189 fiengx w 839 — N w A m m N m c _o : Coca—w A3 CNV LN... .No... .8... Na... .Nm... .2 JG... ..ON .31. .0A $31. 9%me CB .wA1. .5... .31. .om... .31. NM... No.1. .3... .8 .31. .3 AWE—WE CAV be... .21. .oo. .31. .ON .3. .31. .0A .31. .00... .._N.. Osage E as: .5: Lo: .:: .8: -3. -.:: Le... -8: .8 -2 ”won WV :3 LN... .31. JAN... .51. JOA Joe. LN... Joe... JON LN... .om mxeoaosom - A0 2.3 ..OA .8 .8... .5... .31. ..2 .2 -.oo .ow... .3. Joe... masowaoz Amy 5 .31. .31. .2 .81. .81. .2 be... .2 ..ON -.oo -.oo eons—~30: 0m 05. 0». 03mm: - 9v :8 Lo... :8 .ON .31. .31. ..ON -. B1. -.2 be... JON -. $1. 238” m” 0953. CHCBSQ 968$. a” mSS Cuoaov. an Ear Cu mcuamsmoav. a” Gonna. CHEEOV. on Ween CnZosbfiiov. m mxuaaaaoa Cu: <83 0. :58 931303. m” mucosa: CMCESEQ o. .533. s” 269.520: cm 03.. 0». 01mm: Eugene 3m: Nmoboo usage—c. _..eA bu 1. nA .2 Qéoggoav 190 APPENDIX C Orientation to Police Work (1) Law Enforcement: Enforcing the law is by far a police officers’ most important responsibility. (2) Aggressive Policing: A good police officer is one who patrols aggressively by stopping cars, checking out people, running license checks and so forth. (3) Citizen Distrust: Police officers have reason to be distrustful of most citizens. (4) Selective Enforcement: Very often I say that there are good reasons for NOT arresting someone who has committed a minor criminal offense. (5) Order Maintenance: Patrol officers should be expected to do something about public nuisance. Note: Answer of each question is coded on five (5) point likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ = 1 to ‘strongly agree’ = 5. 191 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alpert, G., & Dunham, R. (1988). Policing urban America. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Anshel, M. H. (2000). A conceptual model and implications for coping with stressful events in police work. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 375—400. Armstrong — Stassen, M., Wagar, T. H., & Cattaneo, J. R. (2001). Sustaining service quality initiative in the midst of downsizing: Can it be done? Journal of Quality Management, 6, 2] 1-233. Armstrong — Stassen, M., Reavley, M., & Ghanam, D. (2005). Organizational downsizing and its perceived impact on quality management practices. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22 (9), 950-967. Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Khursid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A ten country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 192- 220. Aydm, A. H. (2006). Turkey. In D. K. Das (Ed). World police encyclopedia (pp.855- 861). New York: Routledge. Babbie, E. (1986). The practice of social research (4th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publications. Bahn, C. (1984). Police socialization in the eighties: Strains in the forging of an occupational identity. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 390-394. Barker, J. (1999). The discipline of teamwork: Participation and concertive control. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (3), 393-413. Bartunek, J., & Moch, M. (1991). Multiple constituencies and the quality of working life intervention at FoodCom. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin, (Eds), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 104-114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95-1 12. Bayley, D. (2001). Democratizing the police abroad: What to do and how to do it. National Institute of Justice: US. Department of Justice. Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 552-556. Bell, D. J. (1979). The police role and higher education. Journal of Police Science and Administration 7(4), 467-475. Bennett, R. R. (1997). Job satisfaction among police constables: A comparative study in three developing nations. Justice Quarterly, (14), 2, 295-324. Bennett, S., & Wilkie, R. (1982). Police inter-group relations: An exercise in vertical organizational perception. Police Studies, 5 (1), 9-13. Berg, P. T., & Celeste, P. M. (2004). Defining, measuring and comparing organizational cultures. Applied Psychology: An lntemational Review, 53 (4), 570-582. Berry, T. H. (1991) Managing the total quality transformation. New York: McGraw-I-Iill Britz, M. T. (1997). The police subculture and occupational socialization: Exploring individual and demographic characteristics. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 127— 146. 193 Bowling, B. (1999). Violent racism: Victimization, policing and social context. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Braithwaite, H., & Brewer, N. (1998). Differences in the conflict resolution tactics of male and female police patrol officers, lntemational Journal of Police Science and Management, 1 (3), 276-287. Broderick, J. J. (1977). Police in a time of change. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Brooks, L. W., Piquero, A., & Cronin, J. (1993). Police officer attitudes concerning their communities and their roles: A comparison of two suburban police departments. American Journal of Police, 12 (3), 115—139. Brown, A. (1995). Organizational culture. London: Pitman Publishing. Brown, J. M. (1997). European policewomen: A comparative research perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 25, 1-19. Brown, J. M. (1998). Aspects of discriminatory treatment of women police oflicers serving in forces in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 38 (2), 265-282. Brown, M. K. (198 8). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform (2"° ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Burke, R. J ., & Mikkelsen, A. (2005). Burnout, job stress and attitudes towards the use of force by Norwegian police officers. Policing, 28(2), 269-278. Butler, E. K., Winfree, L. T., & Newbold, G. (2003). Policing and gender: Male and female perspectives among members of the New Zealand Police. Police Quarterly, 6 (3), 298-329. Cain, M. (1973). Society and policeman ’s role. London. l94 Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Cameron, S., Armstrong-Stassen, M., Bergeron, S., & Out J. (2004). Recruitment and retention of nurses: Challenges facing hospital and community employers Nursing Leadership, 17 (3), 79-92. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850. Carmeli, A. (2005). The relationship between organizational culture and withdrawal intensions and behavior. International Journal of Manpower, 26 (2), 177-195. Carr, D. K., Littman, I. D. (1990). Excellence in government. Arlington, VA: Coopers and Lybrand Carter, D., & Sapp, A. (1990). The evolution of higher education in law enforcement: Preliminary findings from a national study. Jaumal of Criminal Justice Education, I (1), 59-85. Cashmore, E. (2002). Behind the window dressing: Ethnic minority police perspectives on cultural diversity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(2), 327-341. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276. Chan, J. (1996). Changing police culture. British Journal of Criminology, 36 (1), 109—34. Chan, J. (1997). Changing police culture. Cambridge University Press. Chan, J. (1999). Police culture. In Dixon, D. (Ed). A culture of corruption: Changing an Australian police service (pp. 98-13 7).. Sydney: Hawkins Press. 195 Chen, S. H., Chen, H. G., & Yen, D. C. (2005). An empirical study of software process maturity, TQM practices and organizational characteristics in Taiwanese companies. Total Quality Management, 16 (10), 1091-1102. Chevigny, P. (1995). Edge of the knife police violence in the Americas. New York: The New Press. . Cochran, J. K., & Bromley, M. L. (2003)_The myth (’2) of the police sub-culture. Policing, 26 (1), 88-1 17. Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group & Organization Studies, 13 (3), 245-273. Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1989). Organizational culture inventory. Plymouth, MI. : Human Synergistics. Crank, J. P. (2004). Understandingpolice culture. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Crank, J. P., Payn, B, & Jackson, S. (1993). The relationship between police belief systems and attitudes toward police practices. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 199-221. Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cuadrado, M. (1995). Female police officers: Gender bias and professionalism. American Journal of Police, 14(2), 149-165. Davis, S. (1984). Managing corporate culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Daniel, E. D. (1982). The effect of a college degree on police absenteeism. The Police Chief: 49 (9), 70-71. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. 196 Dean, J. W., Evans, J. R. (1994). Total quality: Management, organization, and strategy. Minneapolis, MN: West Denison, D. (1983). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, [2 (2), 5-23. Denison, D. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Denison, D. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21 (3), 619-654. Denison, D., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204-223. Dick, P., & Jankowicz, D. (2001). A social constructionist account of police culture and its influence on the representation and progression of female officers: A repertory grid analysis in a UK police force. Policing, 24 (2), 181-199. Dick, P., & Cassell, C. (2004). The position of policewomen: A discourse analytic study. Work, Employment and Society, 18(1), 51-72. DiMaggio, P. (1989). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed) Research on institutional patterns: Environment and culture (pp. 3-21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Press. Dodd, D. J. (1967). Policing mentality and behavior. Issues in Criminology, 3, 47- 67. Douglas, T. J., & Fredendall, L. D. (2004). Evaluating the Deming management model of total quality in services. Decision Sciences, 35 (3), 393-419. Durivage, A., Barrette, J., Montcalm, L., & Laberge, M. (1992). Analysis of organizational culture: The key to strategic planning. Canadian Police 197 College Journal, 16, 94-134. Engel, R. S., & Worden, R. E. (2003). Police offrcers’ attitudes, behavior and supervisory influences: An analysis of problem solving. Criminology, 41 (1), 131-166. Falcone, D. N., & Wells, L. E. (1995). The county sheriff as a distinctive policing modality. American Journal of Police, 14 (3/4), 123-149. Feldman, S. (1988). How organizational culture can affect innovation. Organizational Dynamics, 1 7 (1), 57-68. Feldman, M. (1991). The meanings of ambiguity: Learning from stories and metaphors. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 145-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Fielding, N. G. (1988). Joining forces: Police training, socialization, and occupational competence. New York: Routledge. Fielding, N. G. (1994). Cop canteen culture. In T. Newbum & E. A. Stanko (Eds), Just boys doing business: Men, masculinities and crime (pp. 46— 63). New York: Routledge. Fielding, N. G. (1995). Community policing. Oxford: Clarendon. Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1987). A study of resignation during British police training. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 24-36. Fitzgerald, M., Hough, M., Joseph, 1., & Qureshi, T. (2002). Policing for London. UK: Willan Publishing. Ford, J. K. (2002). Organizational change and development. In M. Morash & J. K. Ford (Eds), The move to community policing: Making change happen (pp. 126-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 198 Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39 (2), 291-314. Ford, R. E. (2003). Saying one thing, meaning another: The role of parables in police training. Police Quarterly, 6, 84—110. Foster, J. (2003). Police cultures. In T. Newbum (Ed), Handbook of policing (pp. 196-227). Devon: Willan Publishing. Fuller, C. (1974). Effects of anonymity on return rate and response bias in a mail survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 292-296. Garcia, V. (2005). Constructing the ‘Other’ within the police culture: An analysis of deviant unit within the police organization. Police Practice and Research, 6 (1), 65-80. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Glaser, R. (1983). The corporate culture survey. Organizational design and development. PA: Bryn Mawr. Golden, K. A. (1992). The individual and organizational culture: Strategies for action in highly-ordered contexts. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 1-21. Gordon, G. G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 32, 793-798. Greene, J. R., Bergman, W. T., & McLaughlin, E. J. (1994). Implementing community policing: Cultural and structural change in police organizations. In D. P. Rosenbaum (Ed), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 92-109). London: Sage Publications. Gregory, K. L. (1983). Native view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 359-376. 199 Griffin, G. R., Dunbar, R. L. M., & McGill, M. E. (1978). Factors associated with job satisfaction among police personnel. Joumal of Police Science and Administration, 6, 77-85. Haarr, R. H. (1997). Patterns of integration in a police patrol bureau: Race and gender barriers to integration. Justice Quarterly, 14, 53-85. Haarr, R. H., & Morash, M. (1999). Gender, race and strategies of coping with occupational stress in policing. Justice Quarterly, 16 (2), 303-336. Hagan, J. (1989). Why is there so little criminal justice theory? Neglected macro and micro-level links between organization and power. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 1 16-35. Halsted, A. J., Bromley, M. L., & Cochran, J. K. (2000). The effects of work orientations on job satisfaction among sheriff’s deputies practicing community - oriented policing. Policing, 23 (1), 82-104. Harman K. M. (1989). Culture and Conflict in Academic Organisation: Symbolic Aspects of University Worlds, Journal of Educational Administration 27(3), 31—55. Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (1998). A three-perspective approach to understanding culture in retail organizations. Personal Review, 27 (2), 104-123. Harrison, S. J. (1998). Police Organizational Culture: Using ingrained values to build positive organizational improvement. Journal of Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 3(2). Hart, R. G., & Magenau, J. M. (1993). Power and the police chief. Sage Publications. Hassell, K. D., Zhao J., & Maguire, E. R. (2003). Structural arrangements in large municipal police organizations: Revisiting Wilson’s theory of local political culture. Policing, 26 (2), 231-250. 200 Hayeslip, D., & Cordner, G. (1987). The effects of community oriented patrol on officer attitudes. American Journal of Police, 6(1), 95-119. Heidensohn, F. (1992). Women in control? The role of women in law enforcement. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Helms, M. M., & Stern, R. (2001). Exploring the factors that influence employees’ perceptions of their organization’s culture. Journal of Management in Medicine, 15(6), 415-429. Herbert, S. (1998). Police subculture reconsidered. Criminology, 36, 343— 369. Herbert, S. (2001). Hard charger or station queen. Gender, Place and C ulture; A journal of feminist geography, 8 (1), 55-71. Hofstede, G. H. (1984a). Culture 's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. H. (1984b). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. The Academy of Management Review, 9 (3), 389-398. Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations — Software of the mind. UK: McGraw-Hill Books. Hofstede, G. H. (2004). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Second edition. UK: McGraw-Hill. Holdaway, S. (1996), The racialisation of British policing. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Holdaway, S. (1997). Constructing and sustaining "race" within the police workforce. British Journal of Sociology, 48 (1), 18-34. Holdaway, S., & Barron, A. (1997). Resigners? The experience of Black and Asian 201 police officers. London: Macmillan. Holdaway, S., & Parker, S. K. (1998). Policing women police: Uniform patrol, promotion and representation in the CID. British Journal of Criminology, 88 (1), 40-64. Hunt, V. D. (1992). Quality in America. Homewood, IL: Irwin Ivkovic, S. K. (2005). Police (mis)behavior: A cross cultural study of corruption seriousness. Policing, 28(3), 546-566. Jackofsky, E. F., & Slocum, J. W. (1987). A causal analysis of the impact of job performance on the voluntary turnover process. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 263-270. Jackson, A., & Lyon, A. (2002). Policing afier ethnic conflict: Culture, democratic policing, politics and the public. Policing, 25 (2), 221 — 241. Jefferson, T. (1990). The case against paramilitary policing. Milton Keynes: Open University. Johnson, L. (1991). Job strain among police officer: Gender comparisons. Police Studies, 14, 12-16. Juran, J. M. (1995). The history of managing for quality in the United States. In J. M. Juran (Ed), A History of Managing for Quality (pp. 553-601). Milwaukee. WI: ASQC Quality Press. Kappeler, V. E., Sluder, R. D., & Alpert, G. P. (1994). Forces of deviance: The dark side of policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Karahanna, E., Evaristo, J. R., & Srite, M. (2005). Levels of culture and individual behavior: An integrative perspective. Journal of Global Irjormation Management, 13(2), 1-20. Kaufmann, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1989). Occupational stressors, individual strains and social supports among police officers. Human Relations, 2, 185-197. Kayis, 3., Kim, H., & Shin, T. H. (2003). A comparative analysis of cultural, conceptual and practical constraints on quality management implementations: Findings from Australian and Korean banking industries. TQM & Business Excellence, I4 (7), 765-777. ’ Keeton, K. B., & Mengistu, B. (1992). The perception of organizational culture by management level: Implications for training and development. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(2), 205-213. Kerr, J., & Slocum, J.W. (1987). Managing corporate culture through reward systems. Academy of Management Executive, 1 (2), 99-108. Kilman, R. H., & Saxton, M. J. (1983), Kilman—Saxton culture gap survey. Organizational design consultants. Pittsburgh, PA. Kilman, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1985). Introduction: Five key issues in understanding and changing culture. In RH. Kilman, M.J. Saxton, R. Serpa and Associates (Eds), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 1-16). San Francisko, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Kingshott, B. E, Bailey, K., & Wolfe, S. E. (2004). Police culture, ethics and entitlement theory. Criminal Justice Studies, 17 (2), 187 -202. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22, 730-757. Kleinig, J. (1997). The ethics of policing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koening, E. J. (1978). An overview of attitudes toward women in law enforcement. 203 Public Administration Review, 38 (3), 267-275. Korunka, C. Carayon, P., Sainfort, F., Scharitzer, D., & Hoonakker, P. (2003). Quality in the public sector from an employee’s perspective: Results from transnational comparison. Total Quality Management, 14(5), 537-548. Kotter, J. P. & Heskett, J. L. (1992), Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: Free Press. Kraska, P. B. (1999). Questioning the militarization of US. police: Critical versus advocacy scholarship. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 6, 1-22. Kraska, P. B., & Paulsen, D. (1997). Grounded research into US paramilitary policing: Forging the iron fist inside the velvet glove. Policing and Society, 7 (4), 253-70. Kraska, P. B., & Cubellis, L. J. ( 1997). Militarizing Mayberry and beyond: Making sense of American paramilitary policing. Justice Quarterly, 14, 607-629. Kraska P. B., & Kappeler, V. E. (1997). Militarizing American police: The rise and normalization of paramilitary units. Social Problems, 44 (1), 1-18. Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Langworthy, R. (1985). Research note: Wilson’s theory of police behavior: a replication of the constraint theory. Justice Quarterly, 2, 89-98. Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., &Ledford Jr., G. E. (1995). Creating high performance organizations. San Francisco, CA: J ossey-Bass. Lee, S. M., Rho, B. H., & Lee, S. G. (2003). Impact of Malcolm Baldrige national quality award criteria on organizational quality performance. International Journal of Production Research, 4 I (9), 2003-2020. 204 Lefkowitz, J. (1974). Job attitudes of police: Overall description and demographic correlates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 5, 221-230. Liederbach, J. (2005). Addressing the “elephant in the living room”: An observational study of the work of suburban police. Policing, 28 (3), 415- 434. Lincoln, J ., & Kallberg, A. (1985). Work organization and workforce commitment: A study of plants and employees in the US. and Japan. American Sociological Review, 50, 738-760. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Sage Publications. Lorsch, J. W. (1985). Strategic myopia: Culture as an invisible barrier to change. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 84-102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Louis, H. R. (1985). Sourcing workplace cultures: Why, when, and how. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds), Gaining control of the corporate culture. (pp. 126-136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lurigio, A. J., & Skogan, W. G. (1994). Winning the hearts and minds of police officers: As assessment of staff perceptions of community policing in Chicago. Crime & Delinquency, 40 (3), 315-330. McDonald, P., Gaffigan, S., & Greenberg, S. (1997). Police integrity: Definition and historical significance. In S. Gaffigan, & P. McDonald, (Eds) Police integrity; public service with honor. (pp. 81-83). US. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Manning, P. K. (1977). Police work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Manning, P. K. (1978). Rules, colleagues and situationally justifies actors. In P. Manning, & J. Van Maanen, (Eds), Policing: A view from the street (pp. 71- 90). California. Manning, P. K. (1989). Occupational culture. In W. G. Bailey (Ed), The 205 encyclopedia of police science (pp. 360-363). New York and London: Garland. Manning, P. K. (1993). Toward a theory of police organization: polarities and change. Paper given to the lntemational Conference on Social Change in Policing, 3-5 August , Taipei. Manning, P. K. (1994). Police occupational culture: Segmentation, politics, and sentiments. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Manning, P. K. (1995). The police occupational culture in Anglo-American societies. In W. Bailey (Ed), The encyclopedia of police science (pp. 472- 475). New York: Garland. Manning, P. K. (2005). The study of policing. Police Quarterly, 8 (1), 23-43. Martin, C. (1996). The impact of equal opportunities policies on the day to day experiences of women police constables. British Journal of Criminology, 36 (4), 510-528. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Martin, J ., & Frost, P. (1996). The organizational culture war games: A struggle for intellectual dominance. In S. R Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord, (Eds), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 599-621). London: Sage Publications. Martin, J ., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics. 12(3), 52-64. Martin, S. (1980). Breaking and entering: Policewomen on patrol. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 206 Martin, S. (1995). The interactive effects of race and sex on women police officers. In B. R. Price, & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, victims and workers. (pp. 527-543). New York: McGraw-Hill. Martin, S., & Jurik, N. (1996). Doing justice, doing gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mastrofski, S. D., Worden, R. E., & Snipes, J. B. (1995). Law enforcement in a time of community policing. Criminology, 33 (4), 539-563. Mastrofski, S. D., Bynum, T. S., Schafer, J. A, & DeJong, C. (1997). Lansing officers on patrol: Information from systematic observation of police (A report to the Lansing (MI) Police Department). East Lansing, MI: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. 8., Parks, R. B., & Maxwell. C. D. (2000). The helping hand of the law: Police control of citizens on request. Criminology, 38 (2), 307-342. Mastrofski, S. D., Reisig, M. D., & McCluskey, J. D. (2002). Police disrespect toward the public: An encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40 (3), 519- 552. McConville, M., & Shepherd, D. (1992). Watching people watching communities. London: Routledge. McDonald, P., Gaffigan, S. & Greenberg, S. (1997). Police integrity: Definition and historical significance. In S. Gaffigan, & P.McDonald, (Eds), Police Integrity: Public service with honor (pp. 81-83). US. Department of justice, National Institute of Justice, McMillan, C. (1989). The Japanese industrial system. Berlin, Germany: DcGr‘uyter McNamara, J. H. (1967). Uncertainties in police work: The relevance of police recruits’ background and training. In D. Bordua (Ed), The police: Six sociological essays (pp. 163— 252). New York: Wiley. 207 Meagher, M. S. (1985). Police patrol styles: How pervasive is community variation? Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13, 36—45. Miller, S. (1999). Gender and community policing: Walking the talk. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Miller, S., Blacker, J., & Alexandra, A. (1997). Police ethics. St Leonards, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin. Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. (1998). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Morash, M., & Greene, J. R. (1986). Evaluating women on patrol: A critique of conventional wisdom. Evaluation Review, 10(2), 230-255. Morash, M., & Haarr, R. N. (1995). Gender, workplace problems and stress in policing. Justice Quarterly, 12 (I), 113-140. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Muir, W. K. (1977). Police: Street corner politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Niederhoffer, A. (1967). Behind the shield. Garden City, New York. Novak, K., Hartman, J., Holsinger, A. M., & Turner, M. G. (1999). The effects of aggressive policing of disorder on serious crime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 22 (2): 171-90. O’Connell, B. J., Holzman, H., & Armandi, B. R. (1986). Police cynicism and the modes of adaptation. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14 (4), 307-13. O'Reilly, C. (1989). Corporations, culture, and commitment: Motivation and social control in organizations. In M. Tushman, C. O'Reilly, & D. Nadler (Eds), Management of organizations: Strategies, tactics, and analyses (pp. 285- 208 303). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. O'Reilly, 0, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487-516. Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Chicago: The Dorsey Press. Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Paoline, E. A. (2001). Rethinking police culture: Ofiicers’ occupational attitudes. New York: LFB Publishing. Paoline, E. A. (2003). Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 199-214. Paoline, E. A. (2004). Shedding light on police culture: An examination of officers’ occupational attitudes. Police Quarterly, 7(2), 205-236 Paoline, E. A., Myers, S. M., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Police culture, individualism, and community policing: Evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17, 575— 605. Paoline, E. A., & Terrill, W. (2005). The impact of police culture on traffic stop searches: An analysis of attitudes and behavior. Policing, 28(3), 455-472. Parks, R. B. (1979). Police reorganization. A review of its evaluation. In How well does it work? Review of Criminal justice evaluation. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office. Pate, A. M., & Fridell, L. A. (1993). Police use of force: Ofiicial reports, citizen complaints, and legal Consequences. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. 209 Payne, R. L., & Mansfield, R. (1973). Relationships of perceptions of organizational climate to organizational structure, context, and hierarchical position. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 515-526. Payne, B. M., Nielsen, J. F., & Tyran, K L. (2002). An investigation of cultural cohesion in a community bank. International Journal of Human Resource Management, I3 (4), 677-696. Perrott, S. B., & Taylor, D. M. (1995). Attitudinal differences between police constables and their supervisors: Potential influences of personality, work environment and occupational role. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 326- 339. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and Row. Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On Studying Organizational Cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4), 570-581. Pool, S. W. (2000). The learning organization: Motivating employees by integrating TQM philosophy in a supportive organizational culture. Leadership Organization Development Journal, 21 (8), 373-3 78. Projogo, D. I., & McDermott, C. M. (2005). The relationship between total quality management practices and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25 (11), 1 101-1 122. Punch, M. (1983). Officers and men: Occupational culture, inter-rank antagonism, and the investigation of corruption. In M. Punch (Ed), Control in the police organization (pp. 227-250). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Radin, B. A. (1993). A critique of TQM: Problems of implementation in the public sector. Public Administration Quarterly, 1 7 (I), 42—54. Reaves, B. A., & Hickman, M. J. (2004). Law enforcement management and administrative statistics, 2000: Data for individual state and local agencies with 100 or more ofiicers. US. Department of Justice: Office of Justice 210 Programs, NCJ, 203350. Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed), Organizational culture and climate (pp. 5- 39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reiner, R. (1978). The blue-coated worker. New York: Cambridge University Press. Reiner, R. (1992). Police research in United Kingdom: A critical review. Crime and Justice, 15, 435—508. Reuss-Ianni, E. (1983). Two cultures of policing. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Riley, P. (1983). A structurationist account of political cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 414--43 7. Roberg, R. R., & Kuykendau J. (1993). Police and Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Rosen, M. (1985). Breakfast at Spiro's: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management, 11, 31-48. Ross, J. E. (1993). Total quality management: Text, cases and readings. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press Rousseau, D. (1990). Quantitative assessment of organizational culture: The case for multiple measures. In B. Schneider (Ed), Organization climate and culture (pp. 153—192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rubinstein, J. (1973). City police. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Sackman, S. (1991). Cultural knowledge in organizations: Exploring the collective mind. Sage, London. 211 Santos, C. M. (2004). En-gendering the police. Iatin American Research Review, 39 (3), 29—56. Sapienza, A. M. (1985). Believing is seeing: How organizational culture influences the decisions top managers make. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, and Roy Serpa (Eds), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 66-83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ‘ Sashkin, M. (1984), Pillars of excellence - Organizational beliefs questionnaire, organizational design and development. PA: Bryn Mawr. Schall. M. A. (1983). Communication rules approach to organizational culture. Science Quarterly, 28, 557-581. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45 (2), 109- 119. Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture? In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds), Reframing Organizational Culture (pp. 243- 253). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership, Second Edition, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Schriber, J. B., & Gutek, B. A. (1987). Some time dimensions of work: Measurement of an underlying aspect of organizational culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 642-650. Schmidt, W. H., &Finnegan, J. P. (1992). The race without a finish line. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 212 Scholtes, P. R. (1988). The team handbook: How to use teams to improve quality. Madison, WI: Joiner Associates Scripture, A. E. (1997). The sources of police culture: Demographic or environmental variables? Policing and Society, 7, 163-1 76. Shapland, J ., & Vagg, J. (1987). Policing by the public and policing by the police. In P. Willmott (Ed), Policing and the community (pp. 21 -28). London: Policy Studies Institute. Shearing, C. D. & Ericson, R. V. (1991). Culture as figurative action. British Journal of Sociology, 42, 481-506. Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. The Academy of Management Journal, 35 (5), 1036-1056. Shernock, S. K. (1992). The effects of college education on professional attitudes among police. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3 (1), 71-92. Silverman, E. B. (1999). NYPD battles crime: Innovative strategies in policing. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Sims, H., & Gioia, D. (1986). The thinking organization. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Skolnick, J. H. (1966). Justice without Trial. New York: Wiley. Skolnick, J. H. ( 1972). Changing conceptions of police. In Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago. Skolnick, J. H. (1994). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in democratic society. New York: Wiley. Skolnick, J .‘H. & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. New York: The Free Press. 213 Sloan, J. (1991). The ‘New’ female criminal revisited: Police officer attitudes about female criminality. American Journal of Police, 10(4), 105-128. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts or culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (3), 339—358. Sparrow, M. K., Moore, M. H., & Kennedy, D. M. (1990). Beyond 911: A new era for policing. United States: Basic Books. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale constniction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sridhar, B. S., Gudmundson, D., & Feinauer, D. (2004). Cultural assessment: differences in perceptions between boards of directors and other organizational members. S.A.M Advanced Management Journal, 69 (4), 31- 39. Swaffin-Smith, C., Barnes, R., & Townsend, MC. (2002). Culture surveys: Monitoring and enhancing change programs. Total Quality Management, 13 (6), 855-861. Swanson, G. W. (1972). The Ottoman police. Journal of Contemporary History, 7 (1/2), 243-260. Sullivan, B. (2004). Can traditional work standards and the contemporary employee coexist? Police Chief 71(10), 99—104. Sullivan, L. E. (2005) Encyclopedia of law enforcement. CA: Thousand Oaks, Sage Publication. Sun, I. Y., & Payne, B. K. (2004). Racial differences in resolving conflicts: A comparison between Black and White police officers. Crime & Delinquency, 50(4), 516-541. 214 Talarico, S. M., & Swanson, C. R. (1982). An analysis of police perceptions of supervisory and administrative support. Police Studies, 5 (1), 47-54. Taylor, C., & McKenzie, I. (1994). The glass ceiling at the top of the greasy pole. Policing, 10(4), 260-267. Terril, W., Paoline, E. A., & Manning, P. K. (2003). Police culture and coercion. Criminology, 41 (4), 1101-1132. Teske, R. H. (1982). Small town and university policing: participant observation study. Police Chief, 49, 44-51. Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21. Tifft, L. L. (1974). Cop personality reconsidered. Journal of Police Science and Administration. 2, 266. Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1993). The cultures of work organizations, Prentice Hall. TUSIAD (1999). Avrupa Birligine tam uyelige dogru, siyasi kistaslar ve uyum sureci. TUSIAD Yayinlarr, Istanbul. Van Maanen, J. (1974). Working the streets: A deve10pmental view of police behavior. In H. Jacob (ed) The potential for reform of criminal justice (pp. 53-130). Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications. Van Maanen, J. (1978). The asshole. In P.K. Manning, & J. Van Maanen (Eds), Policing a view from the streets, (pp. 221-23 8). Santa Monica, CA. Van Maanen, J. (1983). The boss: First line supervision in an American police agency. In Punch, M., (Ed), Control in police organization (pp. 275-317). Cambridge: MIT Press. Van Maanen, J. (1984). Making rank: Becoming an American police sergeant, Urban Life, 13, 155-176. 215 Van Maanen, J. (1991). The smile Factory: Work at Disneyland. In P. J. Frost, L. F. 1 Moore, M. R. Louis, & C. C. Lundberg (Eds), Reframing Organizational Culture (pp. 58-76). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Van Maanen, J. & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In P]. Frost, L.F. Moore, MR. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds), Organizational Culture (pp. 31-53). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Vito, G. F., Wlash, W. F., & Kunselman, J. (2005). Community policing: Middle manager’s perspective. Police Quarterly, 8(4), 490-511. Waddington, P. A. (1999). Police (canteen) sub-culture. British Journal of Criminology, 39, 287-309. Walker, D. B. (1983). Black police values and the black community. Police Studies, 5, 20-28. Walker, S. (1977). A critical history of police reform. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Walker, S. (2001). Police accountability: The role of citizen oversight. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Walklate, S. (2000). Equal opportunities and the future of policing. In. F. Leishman, B. Loveday, & S. Savage (Eds), Core issues in policing (pp.191-203). Longmans, Harlow. Wall, D. S. (1998). The chief constables of England and Wales: The socio-legal history of a criminal justice elite. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Walsh, J. (1977). Career styles and police behaviour. In D. Bayley (ed), Police and society (pp. 149-167). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Websdale, N., & Johnson, B. (1997). The policing of domestic violence in rural and urban areas: the voices of battered women in Kentucky. Policing and Society, 6: 297 — 317. 216 Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organization. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Weisheit, R. A., Wells, L. E., & Falcone, D. N. (1995). Crime and policing in rural and small-town America: An overview of the issues, NIJ Research Report, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Westley, W. A. (1977). Violence and the police: a sociological study of law, custom and morality. Cambridge: MIT Press. White, S. O. (1972). A perspective on police professionalization. Law and Society Review, 7, 61—85. Willmott, H. (1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modem organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4), 515-552. Wilson, J .Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, J .Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. Basic Books. Winfree, L. T., & Newbold, G. (1999). Community policing and the New Zealand police. Policing, 22 (4), 589-617. Worden, A. P. (1993). The attitudes of women and men in policing: Testing conventional and contemporary wisdom. Criminology, 31, 203-241. Worden, R. E. (1989). Situational and attitudinal explanations of police behavior: a theoretical reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law & Society, 23 (4), 667- 711. Worden, R. E. (1990). A badge and a baccalaureate: Policies, hypotheses, and further evidence. Justice Quarterly 7 (3), 565-92. Worden, R. E. (1995). Police officers’ belief systems: A framework for analysis. 217 American Journal of Police, 14, 49— 81. Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49 (3), 349-71. Young, E. (1989). On the naming of the rose: Interests and multiple meanings as elements of organizational culture. Organization Studies, 10, 187-206. Young, M. (1991). An inside job. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Zeitz, G., Russell, J., & Ritchie, J. (1997). An employee survey measuring total quality management practices and culture. Group & Organization Studies, 22 (4), 414.444. Zhao, J., Lovrich, N. P., Thurman, Q. (1999). The status of community policing in American cities: Facilitators and Impediments revisited. Policing, 22 (1), 74- 92. Zhao, J., Thurman, Q., & He, N. (1999). Sources of job satisfaction among police officers: A test of demographic and work environment models. Justice Quarterly, 16(1), 153-173. 218 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii