When guests became migrants and workers pensioners

Term paper for “International Culture Management”
Winter Semester 2012

Introduction

This paper is divided into three parts. The first section of the paper reports about the personal experience of different cultural backgrounds from the perspective of turkish and German people. It refers to the different cognition of both parties during the first migration wave.
Further it deals with the issues of integration into German society and the failure which caused isolation into turkish community districts like Koeln-Mühlheim. Today, Turks represent about 4-5% of Germany’s total population. What does the word “guest workers” exactly mean?
A guest worker is defined as “An individual with special permission to work on a temporary basis in another country when a shortage of labor is an issue” (Business dictionary, 2012).
Everything started when the recruiting agreement was signed on the 31th of October in 1961 by Turkey and Germany. By this time, Germany faced the highest demand on labour in history. The ”economic miracle”, the rapid reconstruction and development of the economy of West Germany after World War II, lead to the highest demand on the labour market in german history. To the same time Turkey suffered under mass unemployment and a constant growth in population. The recruiting agreement between Turkey and Germany was the start for a large-scale immigration of guestworkers. The requirements for acceptance were a passed health check proofed by german doctors and being unmarried. Within the first year 7,116 male turks migrated to Germany as guest workers. The original plan was to stay for up to 3 years, saving as much money as possible in Germany before returning home. Soon it became obvious that people felt comfortable within their new work and life situation. Turkish people had the possibility to earn good salaries constantly and to integrate in turkish communities in Germany. This resulted in the replacement of Germans by Turks because of the higher quality workforce. Until today, Turks separate themselves more from the German society than any other migration group. One of the reasons for this separation might be the tendency to live in isolated communities, followed by the low willingness to learn the German language. Turks interact only little outside of their own ethnic group and identify more with Turkey than other immigrant groups with their respective countries of origin.

The second section reports from an interview with Turks who migrated to Germany in the 1960s to work and gain new experience. Their personal positive and negative experience, cultural issues and integration story function as basis of this paper. We had the pleasure to meet them in the authentic atmosphere of a turkish restaurant in Koeln Muelheim. They shared their impressions of Germany and gave us an overview of how they had struggled. The plan to leave Germany after having saved enough money to return and live in Turkey with a higher standard of living was the same in every story. The reasons for staying and changing this plan varied but the dream of a better live made them settle.

The third section of the paper deals with hofstede's theory.
Geert Hofstede is an influential dutch researcher in the fields of organizational culture studies.
His theory of cultural dimensions describes mainly the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis. Splitted in five different segments (Power distance, individualism, uncertainty, masculinity and long term orientation ) Hofstede found a possibility to measure the different cultural aspects. Applying this theory to our paper, it underlines the cultural differences between Germany and Turkey and explains the problems that made migration so difficult.

Interview with foreign workers We met three contemporary witnesses whose stories stand as great examples for turkish foreign workers from the 1960’s. They are originally turkish citizens who integrated themselves in Germany since their immigration. Everyone of them has it’s own interesting and exciting story and they were willing to give us an insight on to their Adventures. Their positive and negative experiences were shared with us. In order to present our interviewees in a harmonious atmosphere we set the meeting in the turkish restaurant “Doy Doy” , which is famous for its delicious turkish cuisine. First we introduce our interviewees by taking a closer look at their personal information: Name Zeki Keskinkilic Servet Keskinkilic Erkal Özgüzel Profession watchmaker nursery nurse unskilled worker Year of 1967 1967 1964
Immigration

Children three daughters (former Cologne Business School students)

Additional Mr. Keskinkilic is known in Cologne as
Information “The Watchdoctor”

What was the reason for your decision on immigrating to Germany? Erkal Özgüzel: “ In Turkey we suffered from a great mass unemployment. There were not enough jobs, especially not for those who were no graduates, based on the absence of an official industry. I passed the health check to work in Germany and my next step was obvious.” Zeki Keskinkilic: “ I was a skilled worker but when I saw the chance to gain more money in Germany as a watchmaker I decided to take this chance. I have to admit that I have a thirst for adventure and honestly this was also a reason for immigrating!” (laughing)

What did you already know about Germany, what did you expect? Z: “Actually, the Germans were known for the Holocaust in the World War II. For me, it was a strange country with a strange culture. They are christian and I expected a rich country.” E: “I had the guts to come to Germany because a lot of my friends already emigrated. I expected many job opportunities but I never thought about staying in Germany forever” Servet Keskinkilic: “ Yes we heard that there are many opportunities in Germany and I thought that my English skills would be helpful to manage things in everyday life in such a foreign country.” How did you come to Germany? Z, S: “We arrived by train, it took us four days.” E: “After I passed the health testing I also came by train over Jugoslav, Bulgaria, Austria and Czechia to Germany.” Can you visualize your first days? S: “I did not know where to buy food and this difficulty filled my first days, of course (smiles). I always told my family at home about the first impressions I gained and how I felt - of course not by telephone but rather in letters.” Z: “During my first days I was searching for a job.” E: “I was working immediately after arriving i Germany although I did not know how to speak the language. You really cannot imagine how this worked…” (laughs and wallows in memories)

What did you eat? Where did you buy food? Z: “I have to confess, I bought dog food by accident (everybody laughs loud), because of the printed meat picture on it!” S: “I only found pork in small German supermarkets . A friend of mine gave me the advice to go to ALDI and from that day on I knew at least where to go. I was honestly not that pleased because it was very untidy, and everywhere were pallets!” E: “Grilled chicken! Day and Night! (smiles)” How did you experience your first confrontation with local inhabitants? S: “Someone addressed me informally with “du”. For me this was very disrespectful because at that time turkish people even titled their own parents formally.” Z: “I never saw Germans (laughing). Just a guy from Hungary and a lot of Turkish people.” Which incidents brought you difficulties? E: “My neighbor once asked me when I plan to go back to Turkey. This was the only situation where I personally felt xenophobia, because I never mentioned to go back.”
S: “I knew that some Germans could speak English but bizarrely it was not common to use English these days. It was a big difficulty for me because my only chance to get along was to use the English language. Germans seemed to avoid speaking English because they were too proud to use another language but their own. Just like the French today.” How long did it take to learn the German language S: “In comparison to our friends and colleagues Zeki and me learned German quickly which is a result of my English knowledge.” E: “Most of my colleagues were Turkish. That’s why I did not learn that fast.” What was positively surprising for you in Germany? E: “The collocation and infrastructure were well organized.” Z: “People were very kind. When I entered a beer tavern for example they tapped my shoulder and made me feel welcome.”

Did you plan to return? Erkal Özgüzel: “Every single person I know, who was a guest worker here, was planning to return, but we did not plan with our furniture, cars and of course our children. This is why we extended our return. Ultimately we decided to stay in Germany” How did you keep in touch with your homeland? Servet Keskinkilic: “Letters, no email, no whatsapp (laughs)” Erkal Keskinkilic: ”There was a radio channel called “WDR 5”, which had a turkish news program. It was just on for 20 minutes every day.”

Turkish and German culture in comparison after Hofstede

Dimensions of National Culture

The values that distinguished countries from one another could be grouped statistically into four clusters. These four clusters became Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture:

Power Distance (PDI)
Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)
A fifth Dimension was added in 1991 based on research by Michael Bond, who conducted an additional international study among students with a survey instrument that was developed together with Chinese employees and managers.
That Dimension, based on Confucian dynamism, is Long-Term Orientation (LTO) and was applied in 23 countries.
In 2010, research by Michael Minkov allowed to extend the number of country scores for this dimension to 93, using recent World Values Survey data from representative samples of national populations.

What about Germany and Turkey?

Power distance
This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal – it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.

Highly decentralised and supported by a strong middle class, Germany is not surprisingly among the lower power distance countries (score of 35). Co-determination rights are comparatively extensive and have to be taken into account by the management. A direct and participative communication and meeting style is common, control is disliked and leadership is challenged to show expertise and best accepted when it’s based on it.

Turkey scores high on this dimension (score of 66) which means that following characterises the Turkish style: Dependent, hierarchical, superiors often inaccessible and the ideal boss is a father figure. Power is centralized and managers rely on their bosses and on rules. Employees expect to be told what to do. Control is expected and attitude towards managers is formal. Communication is indirect and the information flow is selective. The same structure can be observed in the family unit, where the father is a kind of patriarch to whom others submit.

Obviously there is and was a serious culture clash between Turkish immigrants and German residents in terms of power distance! Turkish families are set up a lot more hierarchical which also leads to more rules and more guidelines in social behavior. While this makes it easier for Turkish parents to control and observe their children compared to Germans, it also creates problems, for example when doing business. German workers are acting colder, straight to the point and with less respect for interacting persons. Turkish people are more interested in a clear, not breakable structure, trying to involve more participants. German companies still value Turkish workers very high, because they are less likely to ask for any additional benefits.

Individualism
The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people´s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We”. In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to ‘in groups’ that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.

The German society is a truly individualistic one (score of 67). Small families with a focus on the parent-children relationship rather than aunts and uncles are most common. There is a strong belief in the ideal of self-actualization. Loyalty is based on personal preferences for people as well as a sense of duty and responsibility. This is defined by the contract between the employer and the employee. Communication is among the most direct in the world following the ideal to be “honest, even if it hurts” – and by this giving the counterpart a fair chance to learn from mistakes.

Turkey, with a score of 37 is a collectivistic society. This means that the “We” is important, people belong to in-groups (families, clans or organisations) who look after each other in exchange for loyalty. Communication is indirect and the harmony of the group has to be maintained, open conflicts are avoided. The relationship has a moral base and this always has priority over task fulfillment. Time must be invested initially to establish a relationship of trust. Nepotism may be found more often. Feedback is always indirect, also in the business environment.

In business and social behaviour these different scores often create difficult situations, caused by the missing knowledge about the other culture. Germans and Turkish follow different goals when acting and dealing with each other. The “circle of benefit” for the average German individual, compared to a Turkish one, is a lot smaller. Also the Number of persons they feel responsible for is quite little, meanwhile a Turkish person shares its own goods with a bigger group. Especially in terms of reputation it is difficult for both sides to understand each other. Both value and rate reputation very different. Germans are more assessed by the individual position and what a single person reached. In the turkish culture these ratings are dependent on the whole family!

Masculinity / Femininity
A high score (masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner / best in field – a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational behaviour.
A low score (feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A feminine society is one where quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable. The fundamental issue here is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (masculine) or liking what you do (feminine).

With a score of 66 Germany is considered a masculine society. Performance is highly valued and early required as the school system separates children into different types of schools at the age of ten. People rather “live in order to work” and draw a lot of self-esteem from their tasks. Managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Status is often shown, especially through cars, watches and technical devices.

Turkey scores 45 and is in the “middle” of the scale but more on the feminine side. This means that the softer aspects of culture such as leveling with others, consensus, sympathy for the underdog are valued and encouraged. Conflicts are avoided in private and work life and consensus at the end is important. Leisure time is important for Turks, it is the time when the whole family, clan and friends come together to enjoy life. Status is shown, but this comes more out of the high PDI.

When dealing with each other, both cultures tend to interpret the other side wrong. As already shown in the individualistic performance, Germans often use status symbols and assets to express them self´s, which in the Turkish culture is considered as arrogance and overestimation. Germans value work higher than the Turkish do, which for example leads to clashes when negotiating about working hours and additional requirements set by companies. Also Turkish people are avoiding conflicts in open or public situations, meanwhile Germans are more likely to come up with a problem straight away.

Uncertainty avoidance
The dimension Uncertainty Avoidance has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? This ambiguity brings anxiety among different cultures which have learnt to deal with it in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the UAI score.

Germany is among the uncertainty avoidance countries (score of 65). In line with the philosophical heritage of Kant, Hegel and Fichte there is a strong preference for deductive rather than inductive approaches, be it in thinking, presenting or planning: the systematic overview has to be given in order to proceed. This is also reflected by the law system. Details are equally important to create certainty that a certain topic or project is well-thought-out.
In combination with their low Power Distance, where the certainty for own decisions is not covered by the larger responsibility of the boss, Germans prefer to compensate for their higher uncertainty by strongly relying on expertise.

Turkey scores 85 on this dimension and thus there is a huge need for laws and rules. In order to minimize anxiety, people make use of a lot of rituals. For foreigners they might seem religious, with the many references to “Allah”, but often they are just traditional social patterns, used in specific situations to ease tension.

The comparison of both cultures show the similarities they share. In terms of “Uncertainty Avoidance” the Turkish even have a bigger need for hierarchies and strict systems than Germans, which further underlines the Power Distance point. Here, both cultures do not clash but follow the same built up, having matching needs.

Long term orientation
The long term orientation dimension is closely related to the teachings of Confucius and can be interpreted as dealing with society’s search for virtue, the extent to which a society shows a pragmatic future-oriented perspective rather than a conventional historical short-term point of view.

The Germans score 31, making it a short term orientation culture. Societies with a short-term orientation generally exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save, strong social pressure to “keep up with the Joneses”, impatience for achieving quick results, and a strong concern with establishing the Truth i.e. normative. Western societies are typically found at the short-term end of this dimension, as are the countries of the Middle East.

For Turkey there is no scientific data given by research, but in a broad approach they seem to be more short term oriented than on a long term view.

In comparison both countries share a short term orientation. The Turkish seem to have almost the same time approach than Germans, also both seem to be quite risk averse. Both cultures are slow in implementing changes and stick to older traditions and knowledge. The future outlook is faced carefully and plans are made for relatively short time periods. The cultural clashing points here appear to be just existent in terms of motivation and the way of future prediction. Germans, again, are planning more individualistic, involving just their close family and friends. Turkish people tend to have a future approach involving their whole family and a big circle of friends.

Hofstede Conclusion
The approach on all of the five dimensions gives a good impression of how the Turkish and the German culture differ and match. Especially in how individualistic people are, how large their power distance is and if they are more masculine or feminine, they show significant differences. One of the biggest influences on these distinctions is how both cultures define their “circle of trust”, meaning size of close family and friends.
Still, both sides are not as different as they seem at first sight. They match in points of uncertainty avoidance and long term orientation and also the other dimensions allow the understanding and acceptance of the other culture. Turkish immigrants for example seem to have developed an higher individualistic orientation and a more masculine culture approach.

The Turkish culture crashes the German culture In the 1960´s there were no more than 1500 Turks in the Federal Republic of Germany. Traditionally these people stayed in Germany because they were students, business people or merchants, which is why they had no stable place of residence. Based on that and the effect of wars, the outcome numbers of Turkish people in Germany is shown below.

▪ 1878: 41
▪ 1893: 198
▪ 1917: 2046
▪ 1925: 1164
▪ 1933: 585
▪ 1938: 3310
▪ 1945: 79 It started in 1961 when the Federal Republic of Germany and Turkey agreed on a recruitment agreement. Turkish people had the possibility to get enlisted by German companies who desperately needed worker for the booming economy. More than two and a half million Turks applied for an employment permit between 1961 and 1973. Every fourth of them received an acceptance. In West-Germany they should have worked between two to four years in order to save money and then go back to Turkey. This was expected by the Germans and the Turks, but it happened differently. It was not easy for Turkish people to travel to another country, without speaking the language, knowing the culture, religion and mentality.

Housing
When the guest workers reached the Federal Republic of Germany, they were fragmented to different companies. The first impression they gained was the housing that was provided by the German enterprises, which were simple wooden barracks. As the Turkish came as guest workers, they did not expect to live there for longer than four years. Huge cities developed next to the companies due to the arrangements of barrack. The best example is Volkswagen. The development of Wolfsburg is very well - known for its formation. Language
Turkish guest workers had massive problems to adapt to the different situation woth another language. In order to solve this problem as fast as possible, language courses were offered by companies to the workers. Nowadays, the Turks that stayed in the Federal Republic of Germany, still have some difficulties with the German language although they live here for 50 years now. In contrast, the second generation visited German schools and joined the German education system which gives them an enormous advantage. As a result many Turks of the second generation run successful companies, have high posts in politics or are managers. Food
Regarding German food, the Turkish guest workers had a massive problem. In the restaurants or snack bars mainly pork was sold. As most of them were Muslims and strong believers, they were not allowed to eat pig meat. As a result, German restaurant and supermarkets had to change their entire assortment of goods to fulfil their customers wants and needs. Much more chicken and lamb was sold. As some guest workers decided to stay longer, some of them built up their own restaurants, supermarkets and fruit shops in order to supply the other Turks with traditional food. This culture change, no this cultural improvement is part of our German culture nowadays. Especially in Cologne, Turkish restaurants belong to the cityscape and contributed a lot to the cultural diversity. Work
Most of the guest workers started by working in the coal mining and in the car industry (Ford, Opel, VW etc). The German workers felt too educated for this manufacturing work, so many jobs in that sector were appointed to guest workers who were willing to do what was considered as low esteem jobs. Religion
As the Islam was no common religion in Germany, many Muslims had no contact point to act out their religion. Until the beginning of the 1960s no mosque has been built in the Federal Republic of Germany which resulted in a huge problem for strong believers. After some years the first mosques was built which made many guest workers feel more native. Family
In 1961, 678 702 men and 146 681 women arrived in Germany as guest workers. They were aged between 20 and 30 years. Mainly young people immigrated because they wanted to experience an adventure and were looking for making money and better future perspectives. They did not want to stay longer than 2-4 years, but many of them founded a family in Germany and enjoyed the higher living standards. Many of them sent shares of their salary to their families in Turkey. Their families recognized how well their children feel in the Federal Republic of Germany and many of them decided to travel to Germany in order to live and work there, because live was much better at that time in Germany.

Probably one of the most famous and important quotes is from Max Frisch, a German author. He describes the situation 50 years ago in seven words “Wir riefen Arbeitskräfte und es kamen Menschen." (We called for workforce and humans appeared) – free translated.
These words describe some problems that occurred in the last 50 years, but also the failure of the politics, which finally set up a reasonable law in 2005.

Without the help of guest workers, the economic boom in the Federal Republic of Germany could have never been reached to this extent. Germany as a country as well as the culture profited enormously. The cultural diversity gained from Turkish immigration has shaped Germany to what it is today.

Conclusion Despite the fact that Turkish roots in Germany go back for more than 50 years, too many Turks still live in extremely isolated communities and have only little interaction with “native” Germans. The language is one of the biggest obstacle to Turks of the first and second generation for social integration. The cultural conflicts between Turks and “native” Germans highlight the development of Turkish communities as parallel societies that reject “native” Germans cultural values. The responsibility can be found on both sides. Integration can only be successful if both parties are willing to adapt to the other culture. The German government and attitude of “native” Germans have prevented Turks, who are willing to integrate, from assimilating into German society.

Reforms in the last years have implemented policies of isolation instead of immigration and eased the process of naturalization: Still, it remains difficult for Turks born in Germany to acquire German citizenship. The result is the loss of national identity with Germany and a higher sense of belonging to Turkey.

Turks, the German government and “native” Germans will have to work together to end the separation from Turks to the “native” German society. As the population with Turkish origin continue to grow faster than the “native” German population the development of parallel societies is becoming more likely. The policy of the current German government is the first step towards integration, but the cooperation of the host and immigrant populations is needed to complete the process.

The Turks living in Germany play a major role in creating a bridge between Turkey and Germany and between the two societies and cultures, contributing to the development of these relationships. The third generation and the fourth will have the chance to total integration through new formed binational marriages and new family ties. Through integration the German society has the opportunity to experience a higher degree of cultural diversity and further encourage friendship between these two nations.

References

Business dictionary (2012). Definition guest worker, viewed on 15.11.2012 retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/guest-worker.html#ixzz2Cj2oQsP0” Erdem, Kurtay (2007). Ethnic Marketing for Turks in Germany. London. GRIN Verlag oHG

Hofstede, Geert (2003). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications Inc.

& http://geert-hofstede.com/index.php

Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies

Schwartz, S. H. & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across culture: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology