Leadership and Culture in Russia: The Case of Transitional Economy

Mikhail V. Gratchev1

Nikolai G. Rogovsky2

Boris V. Rakitski3

INTRODUCTION

Countries of the former Soviet block adjust to the global factors and conditions of socio-economic development in parallel to their revolutionary efforts to substitute the totalitarian system of the past with democracy and free market. While the level of success of such a transition varies among different countries, Russia with no doubt is overcoming the most substantial changes of systemic nature in macro- and microeconomic framework, in political structure, in peoples’ motivation and entrepreneurship, and in cultural norms and behaviors in the society. This makes it important to understand the current developments in Russia within the global context, and at the same time explain the factors that determine effective leadership and influence of culture in transitional economy.

Statistical data in Chapter **** displays Russia as recent superpower (still on top in military expenditure of 12.3 percent in GDP) with the largest territory covering eleven time zones, currently placing itself among developing countries with GDP 2,260 US$ per capita. Economic transition in 1990-1998 resulted in deep crisis with annual decline of GDP of 7 percent and annual decline in gross domestic investment of 13.7 percent. According to 1998 data the country of 146.9 million people Russia has low indicators of life expectancy of 67 years. Unemployment rate is high 13.3 percent even with high indicators of female economic activity (80.8 percent).

While economic crisis of the 1990s was deep, there are strong indications of revitalization and purification of the economy. Obsolete industries shrink and new advanced industries emerge at an incredible pace. Legislation is under construction. There are visible signs of openness of Russia and establishing civilized business practices. A number of enterprises and people who act as entrepreneurs and real business leaders is growing in the market-oriented economy. A shift in management paradigm and organizational techniques is visible everywhere - in traditional mining and machine-building industries fighting for survival, in new fast growing telecommunications, construction, business services, and trade. The business community has begun to understand that intangible assets such as cultural variables (at both organizational and national levels) and certain leadership styles and behavior can be the sources of competitive advantage. Multinational corporations transfer leadership skills and management know-how to Russia. Local managers and entrepreneurs seek for compatibility in organizational methods and language of business with their foreign partners. 1 Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Moscow, Russia 2 California State University, Hayward, Hayward CA 3 Institute of Problems and Perspectives of the Country, Moscow, Russia

2

The period when the main GLOBE data collection was conducted was the time of radical changes in all the spheres of social life, especially in property and financial system, following the political reforms of the early 1990s. In very few years economic landscape became unrecognizable from the past. The most tremendous changes were privatization and restructuring of financial institutions. Mikhail Gorbachev’s words about “chaos in the minds” adequately describe the “mental model” of many Russians at that time. This is why historic overview of Russian business culture and leadership at large is combined with the specific analysis of transitional effects of economic and behavioral transformation on culture and leadership.

This chapter is guided by these current changes, and describes the emic characteristics of Russia with special focus on business culture and its interrelations with entrepreneurial leadership in a transitional economy. GLOBE methodology and techniques help to understand that in contemporary Russia: 1) instead of Soviet universalism of the past we find a fragmented managerial corps and cultural clusters; 2) types and characteristics of business culture are marginal when compared to the other countries, and Russian management does not fit easily internationally recognized practices; 3) the profile of effective business leader in Russia absorbs historical features of a nation, heritage of totalitarian system, and peculiarities of society-in-transition, and 4) there is visible shift in public attention to business leadership with media playing important role in re-inventing this leadership profile.

GENESIS OF RUSSIAN BUSINESS CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP

Based on literature overview, related to different periods of nation’s history, general features of business culture and leadership can be determined. They refer to aggregate characteristics of culture, enormous entrepreneurial potential of Russian people, their continuous fight against monopolism, and search for effective principles of business management4.

4 Five groups of research sources to study business culture and leadership in Russia can be determined. (1) An extensive historiography on the subject related to pre-Revolution period exists: memoirs of traders (kuptsi); books by Russian historians (Karamzin 1892; Klyuchevski 1904; Soloviev 1913), documents and papers on industry development of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and companies' business records. (2) During the Soviet period the phenomenon of Russian business leadership received limited attention in the USSR because economically the state became the only employer legally capable to exploit economic freedom and further, the Party monopolized responsibility for management development and economic transformations politically. The result was ideological censorship of Russian economic history and the standardization of economic "heroes" such as politically loyal directors of state-owned enterprises or Party nomenklatura leaders. (3) In the West, Sovietologists focused on Russian entrepreneurship in the Tsarist period (the rise of Muskovy business activity in the sixteenth/seventeenth centuries, cultural economic determinants of Russian business in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and also the role of foreign businesses influencing Russian economy) and also gave insight relevant to business activity in the USSR (the state's domination over the economy and pseudo-entrepreneurial role of the Party, central planning as determinant of Soviet economy and transfer of risk of entrepreneurship from individual to the state) (Blackwell 1994; Berliner 1976; Owen 1981; Guroff and Carstensen 1983). (4) In the post-Socialist period of Russian history a discussion started on rebirth of Russian entrepreneurship and business leadership (Ageev 1991; Kuzmichev and Petrov 1993; Shikhirev 2000). And (5) international interaction of Russian scholars and access of Western researchers to Russian data had led to analyze Russian business practice with the advanced management research tools and provide with international comparisons of entrepreneurship, management and business ethics (Puffer 1992; Hisrich and Gratchev 1993, 1996; Bollinger 1994; Anderson and Shikhirev 1994; Puffer and McCarthy 1995;

3

Aggregate characteristics

The main features of Russian culture are rooted in Slavic history, Orthodox religion, and specific features of climate and nature. While Russia was growing through centuries, its leaders were traditionally associated with the state, religion or military. The first independent Slavonic state - Kievan Rus - was founded in 862 with the capital in Kiev. Later the centre of gravity had shifted to the cities of Novgorod and Vladimir. Being subjugated by the Tatars, the Russian development was seriously stunned through the 13-15th centuries until in 1480 Muscovy (Moscow State) succeeded in uniting the Russian states. After liberalization from the Tatars, Muskovy strengthed as the dominant principality, and Russian Tzars such as Ivan the Great (ruled in 1462-1505) and Boris Godunov (1598-1605) are still respected historic figures. The Russian Orthodox church was a great influence in society, and several spiritual leaders were deified and are still highly respected (such as St.Sergii of Radonezh).

Russian history was marked by repeated attempts to catch up with the West economically, politically and culturally. At the same time the country’s leaders pursued imperial ambitions to the south and east (Caucasus, Central Asia, Siberia, Far East). Peter the Great (1696-1725) started “Westernization” by autocratic and barbarian means, proclaiming Russia as Empire in 1721, and constructing St.Petersburg as its new capital. He was also an admired military leader leading Russia to victories in several wars. The imperial gains were later consolidated by Catherine the Great (1762-1796).

Through the centuries Russia absorbed the basic values of both the West and the East - reason and inspiration. And it served as a bridge between Western and Eastern cultural traditions, with the certain psychological dependence on both. These characteristics attracted much attention from the 18th century to early 20th century. According to one of the best Russian historians of the nineteenth century V. Kluchevski, the national character combined among the others such qualities as: the habit of patient struggle against misfortunes and hardships; ability to concentrate efforts; ability to cooperate within large geographic space (Kluchevski 1904). The other famous intellectual, P. Chaadaev defined contradictive Russian national character by such features as: brutality and inclination to violence; impersonal collectivism; Messianism; internal freedom; kindness; humanism; gentleness; search for truth (Chaadaev 1991).

But in the 20th century under Communism these Russian characteristics were enforced by the specific Soviet (totalitarian) traits, such as perception of environment as hostile and dangerous; society’s supremacy over individual’s goals; and relativistic view of the morality with acceptance of double standards in life. One feature, should be underlined. As D. Mikheev explains,

real courage and cowardice can be measured only in the face of obvious, not just perceived, dangers. In these circumstances, Russians are anything but cowards (Mikheev 1987, 521-522).

Russian culture is rich in contradictions, is spiritual, and sustainable. With the Russian contribution to the human civilization, it is seen as an important factor for global development.

Ageev, Gratchev and Hisrich 1995; Rogovsky, Bertocci, and Gratchev, 1997; Puffer, McCarthy and Naumov 2000; Michailova 2000; de Vries 2000; Fey 2001, Gratchev 2001).

4

Being holistic and influential, Slavic-Orthodox culture5 is treated as one of few global cultures (Huntington 1993).

Entrepreneurial potential and fight against monopolism

In Imperial Russia, in the Soviet Union and in post-Socialist Russia one can see a vast amount of entrepreneurial potential. In the medieval Russian cities of Kiev and Novgorod not only did merchants and artisans have political power and substantial wealth, but almost everyone above the lowest level of peasants was engaged in one type of enterprise or another. In Imperial Russia there was a substantial supply of entrepreneurial energy from both within and outside the business enterprise. And St.Peterbourgh managed to breed a cosmopolitan type of entrepreneur.

Entrepreneurs in the time of Peter the Great were traders who had created Europe's strongest military-industrial complex for Imperial Russia. The economic liberalism of Catherine the Great in the late 18th century had attracted to entrepreneurship the highest-ranking Russian nobles. However, the Industrial revolution (which started in Russia half a century later than it had started in England) brought to Russia the real spirit of private entrepreneurship. This phenomenon primarily affected textile industries oriented to the internal market.

After defeating Napoleon in 1812-15 Russia was recognized as the great power, however lagging behind the West institutionally and economically. Autocratic state was based on the predominantly agrarian economy and a feudal serf system. The Economic reform of 1861 gave freedom to peasants and activated different social groups. Industrial policy led to the "railway fever" and created favorable conditions for development of banking capital to be added to existing industrial capital. Talented Russian businessmen S. Morozov, L. Knopp, P. Ryabushinski and others became founders of successful business empires in Russia and introduced many organizational innovations.

A vigorous level of entrepreneurial response existed even within the Soviet command system. There is a certain positive Russian entrepreneurial heritage, including courageous behaviors, great technical projects and charitable traditions. However Russian history has been a continuous fight against monopolism. In contrast to the West, Russia

appears to have largely retained, even in periods of rapid industrial expansion, an autocratic or patrimonial system (single-centered) which has sharply limited the autonomy of economic units in the use and disposal of resources, and which has preserved for those in political control the right, if only de jure, to determine the pace and pattern of economic development (Guroff and Carstensen 1983, 347).

The feature of pre-Revolution and Soviet societies - non-economic domination of a small group of elite aristocracy or Party nomenclature over economic development - directly influenced: economic policy (imperial foreign and oppressive domestic economic policy and creation of military-industrial complex); ownership (state as the owner and employer, restriction of other ownership forms); institutions (legislation hostile to business, bureaucratization, standardization of structures and decisions); and culture (state paternalism and lack of personal responsibility and initiative).

5 The collapse of the USSR has changed the ethnic and demographic structure of Russia making it more culturally homogenous. While ethnic Russians counted less than a half of the USSR population before 1990s, in contemporary Russia the ethnic Russians represent 81.5% of population, thus creating a strong base for nationalistic trends and behaviors. Tatars are the second ethnic group with 3.8% of population.

5

In the Soviet economy the overwhelming majority of resources were under the control of a small group of monopolistic or oligopolistic coalitions6. The needs of the society were sacrificed for the sake of stability and the expansion of these coalitions. Their influence on political leadership secured decision-making by the suppression of competition and by channeling public opinion. In general, their domination resulted in a 20-25 year delay in undertaking the required structural changes causing Russia to lag behind international standards of quality of life.

In contemporary Russia, the question of the role of state and large corporations in economic development is critical. Russia’s economy is run by a small number of financial-industrial groups, arguably more powerful than the state. The future of the country will largely depend on the relationships between these major economic players and the government.

In the current transitional economy the core discussions on the future of Russian business focus on dilemma of large corporations vs. small businesses, the role of the government in supporting large businesses, and ownership structure (shareholders, institutions, managers and employees). While Russian top government officials and Parliament members, academic experts, and representatives of the leading companies display the diversity and contradictions of views on the future of large businesses, the main conclusion is that the stage of aggregating the capital through selling state property (“privatization stage”) is over, and the new epoch could be defined as the stage of “managing capital effectively”. And the oligarchs - leaders of industrial and financial empires, such as B. Berezovsky, V. Gussinski, R. Vyakhirev – displayed the new model for leadership in the Russian economy.

Three main conclusions help in understanding the process of re-inventing the Russian corporation in the late 1990s. First, the leaders of the large industrial corporations are quite interested in effective organizational development. They often seek new ways to switch from conglomerates of financially loosely linked entities to diversified corporations - whether with related or unrelated businesses7. This presents the new stage in development of management mentality of the Russians, and the process of building the critical mass of people able and willing to manage their businesses in a “modern” way. Second, the large businesses put pressure on the government in lobbying its interests and adjusting the legislation accordingly. Their leaders resist the current government actions to demonopolize the Russian economy and to increase tax pressure on large business. They underline that the government does not have a clear strategy on development of large businesses. Third, currently there is no visible stakeholders’ influence on corporate design and development. There is no indication of any constructive dialogue between business and its stakeholders (unions in particular) in the nearest future. And the Russian corporations are in the process of formation also displaying a unique, yet not clear national identity.8

6 This phenomenon was not unique only for the military-industrial complex. It also existed in such industrial areas as construction, mining, trade, and power engineering. For example, in the mid-1980s in the USSR one could identify only two main retail networks, one airline company, one oil-extraction ministerial monopoly, and nine ministerial concerns in defense industries. 7 In May 1998 representatives of large financial-industrial groups (FIG), questioned by EBRD, ranked lack of finance and lack of competitive advantages among their key problems in business and organizational development. According to EBRD experts, however, the main FIG problems were structural weaknesses, poor corporate management, low cost effectiveness, and the unclear role of the financial institution. 8 The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Michael Camdessus in Spring 1998 personally warned Russian President Yeltsin about the dangers of an Asian-like “incestuous relationships between banking, government and corporate sectors” in Russia, comparing a growing oligarchy with the Asian system of chaebels,

6

Leadership diversity

The competitive market factors in transitional economy make Russian managerial corps very diverse with a variety of economic and political interests. The first group, the Old Guard, consists of those who proved their talents as leaders in a number of large-scale projects, such as managing technological innovations. They exploit their access to key decision-making points and information, and use former connections and control over resources. These people still keep the leading position in the large industrial corporations or in the internationally competitive sectors of the economy (oil-and-gas, space, aviation, shipbuilding and others). The second group, the New Wave of entrepreneurs, initiated by economic reform, follow a different road to economic independence. This group searches for innovations, and reflects the new economic thinking. They are leaders of former shadow economy which is now being increasingly legalized, former Communist party functionaries, or military officers who successfully transformed into businessmen. A large proportion of this group is young people, hungry for success and business education. Another group of people, who can be called Unwilling Entrepreneurs, were forced to take initiatives due to fear of unemployment and are involved primarily in small-scale trade transactions. Finally, there is a growing interest on behalf of Foreign Entrepreneurs to operate in the Russian market. Among this group are the representatives of the Russian Diaspora, who strengthen economic ties with Russian business.

Similar version of clustering Russian business leaders is suggested by M. de Vries. He identifies two groups separated by a substantial generation gap. In the first group he places young enthusiastic, talented people who recognize the opportunities of the new open society. This group also includes former black marketers turning to legitimized business and children of Party nomenklatura. The second group is combined by the administrators and bureaucrats who used to supervise the Soviet economy in the past. However this group is not homogeneous. One subgroup belongs to present business elite well connected to retain privileged positions. The other subgroup among the older generation is focused on self-preservation, making whatever superficial adjustments to maintain their status, but often giving lip service to the new economy (de Vries 2000, 71-72).

Research on entrepreneurial leaders also identifies several types of business culture current Russian leaders display. They are motivated by one or combination of the following business philosophies: bureaucratic entrepreneurship, based on active initiatives but under state-run supervision; pragmatic entrepreneurship, based on maximum profitability on a technocratic basis; predatory entrepreneurship, based on the search for success through tough suppression of rivals including Mafia connections, growth by any means, and cheating on partners, consumers and the state; and socially responsible entrepreneurship, based on linking business to the promotion of national interests, the resolution of social problems, and universal human values and beliefs (Ageev, Gratchev and Hisrich 1995).

EMIC MANIFESTATIONS AND UNOBTRUSIVE MEASUREMENTS OF SOCIETAL CULTURE

which are closed, family-controlled conglomerates with secret ties to banks and government officials (April 1998 press-conferences at the U.S - Russia Business Council and at National Press Club in Washington).

7

GLOBE societal culture dimensions have provided the authors with instruments to aggregate and describe important emic manifestations and use unobtrusive measurements for the Russian cultural profile.

Collectivism

Russians are stereotyped to be very collectivist. However, a closer look at this issue makes things more complicated. Historically Russians lived on large open spaces, working together. Being an agrarian country for centuries, with low geographic mobility of peasants within the serf system, Russia was known for its collective (obshina) type of behavior. The Russian Orthodox Church supported strong family ties, and inter-group mutual support. Social frame did not permit a high level of individual freedom, and there were quite a few limitations to express individual competitiveness (winning was not always appreciated). And in many cases Russian collectivism was formal, prescribed by the social institutions.

Economic reforms of the second half of 19th century and early 20th century started the process of destroying the collectivist traditions. But the higher level of individual freedom (migration, labor market, access to education, democratic trends) after the Revolution was substituted by politicized artificial loyalty and obedience to the Party, which controlled behavior and achieved peoples’ conformity through total surveillance and purges. The Party also took responsibility in substituting family and natural group loyalty with the loyalty to the political system and the state.

However, collectivist behavior was displayed in the periods of high danger, such as the fight for national survival during the Second World War, known in Russia as “The Great Patriotic War”. In the 1990s, when the struggle for economic survival in the years of economic turmoil made the mutual support important, some more reflections of collectivism were seen, especially among the socially excluded groups. On the other hand, indoctrination of Westernized behavior through media, and the official doctrine of entrepreneurship is now pushing the country along the road of higher individualism and social fragmentation.

That is why Russia currently displays the striking contradictions of highly individualistic behavior, low social responsibility, and at the same time active networking for survival (often exploited by criminal structures). Russian individualism is expressed in the social environment, when individual freedoms are declared but not protected, and win-lose philosophy becomes a commonplace.

Gender Egalitarianism

There are interesting emic observations related to the gender egalitarianism trends in Russia. In medieval times the roles of Russian men and women were clearly defined and separated from each other. Man was responsible for activities outside home (hunter, agrarian, spokesperson for the family), while woman took care of internal home affairs. But with the increased influence of the state, and later the Communist system, on the social environment, the individual’s control of this environment declined, and, as a result, the gender-defined social roles changed.

During the Soviet period, gender egalitarianism was indoctrinated by the state. This doctrine resulted in, at least de jure, equal access of men and women to education and jobs. The Party even forcefully managed the “right” balance of men and women in the political and government bodies. Stalin’s repressions and the second World War have visibly decreased the male population and enabled women to take over different men’s activities in such industries as textile, education, health care, turning them into women’s professions.

8

Statistical data displays quite a balanced situation in employment in early 1990s with the situation changing in transitional years of mid-1990s when GLOBE data was collected. In 1990 37 million men and 38 million women were involved in the economic activity. In 1995 these numbers changed with decrease in women involved in the economy – 39 and 33 accordingly. Situation in skilled workforce favored women: out of all men involved in the economic activity 17 percent have higher professional education (graduate) and 28 percent have professional education (undergraduate). The numbers for women were 20 and 39 percent accordingly (Russia…1997, 33; Russian… 1996, 87).

Assertiveness

In the medieval times with the roles clearly divided by gender, the masculine type of culture was reflected in family patriarch, strong leadership of the head of the family, and in society - the role of the Tzar (with only few historic exceptions). The masculine role defined by society-required boldness, courage, men’s supervision, and often militant behavior. It also was reflected in Russia’s aggressive expansion of its Imperial territory. And military people were respected in society.

But it is also worth mentioning, that Western influences (French, in particular), in the 18th-19th centuries added some feminine characteristics to the noble strata of the society. By active interaction with the French establishment, and acceptance of the French language by aristocracy as its second (and occasionally even the first) language, with the French literature and arts, the higher respect to women and romanticism were transferred to the Emperor’s court.

In the decades of Communist dictatorship however, the gender roles became less certain. By promoting official policy of caring for people (especially for children), education and full employment, the Communist party indoctrinated the elements of feminine culture. On the other hand, the years of war, programs of military-industrial complex demanded autocratic and assertive behavior. And current situation in the economy again requires tough, often painful decisions, strong leadership for survival, and pressure on subordinates.

Power Distance

Again, Russia has experienced serious changes in behaviors and values related to Power Distance. In the pre-Revolutionary period the power in the society was distributed unevenly. It was reflected in formalized social status stratification, a system of serfdom that had existed until mid-19th century, a weak middle class, strong centralization of power in the hands of state, and lack of democratic traditions. This trend continued in the Stalin era, with the Party hierarchy as the power stratification framework, and effective, though suppressive by all means control systems over people’s behavior. The tradition of respect for authority is still strong in contemporary Russian society.

Current common belief in democratic reforms may eliminate political power over economic behavior, and give society a higher level of economic freedom and competition. The opportunities for people today are increasingly linked to education, skills, experience, rather than political connections. This in turn should modify behavior of people, management styles and social norms.

Performance Orientation

In the Soviet era it was common to de-emphasize the need to exceed the planned indicators, delegated from above. In the Soviet era most managers and factory directors were not rewarded

9

for achieving high results that did not fit into the state-designed economic plans. Neither had they access to additional resources or legally defined economic freedom. Legitimized achievements were not recognized by economic means (there were official limits to salaries), rather rewarded symbolically with awards, or by status in nomenklatura hierarchy. In other domains of human activity, the state rewarded only those high achievements in science, sports, and arts, that were blessed by official propaganda.

Nowadays, the state and legislation are lagging behind the energetic expression of initiative and competition in the economy. As many Russian say now, “everything is possible”, and this puts no limits to the possible individual and organizational achievements. However, quite often the results are achieved by ignoring ethical standards and rules of morality, thus making the performance orientation a contradictory weapon in competition.

Future Orientation.

This phenomenon is one of the most interesting observations of our research. In 1990s Russia became a society with limited future orientation after all those decades of strong beliefs in better life in Communism and national long-term planning system. Perestroika and post-Perestroika years destroyed the holistic set of beliefs in the society, without substituting the beliefs with another set. The society at large is quite disoriented and uncertain about the future. The continuous government reshuffling, changes in legislation, political instability add to this enormously. People and businesses in mid-1990s did not rely on savings, quickly transferring inflated rubles into hard currencies and/or spending money above all thinkable limits. The signs of economic stabilization in 2000-2001 are still coupled with mass suspicion to authorities and their promises about future positive changes.

The vision as expressed by business leaders is also limited, even in the fast growing modern industries such as telecommunications and financial services. Very few companies apply strategic management techniques using internationally recognized instruments. Another indication of the low future orientation is an inability or unwillingness of many companies to invest in human resources, as this investment is long-term.

However managers interviewed managers expressed a strong desire for stability in the society, which enables them to think and act strategically. This leads to an optimistic conclusion on the future development of Russia and hope that its business environment will become more predictable.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Of course, in the last decade most of the population has lost clear sense of direction in new fragmented and uncertain environment. Many realities of the past that secured people and supported tolerance of uncertainty (respect for age, tradition, rule orientation, social order) are no longer valid. However, the situation in contemporary Russia may be labeled as “creative survival”, when people quickly and creatively adjust to rapidly changing situations and conditions in the environment. This situation demands specific traits needed for quick reaction, multi-scenario thinking, networking and sharing risk. Many new Russian entrepreneurs work successfully in networks, often relying not just on formal agreements, but on friendship and social interaction.

An interesting current Russian phenomenon is the fact that the government, that followed the recommendations of the IMF and the World Bank, became the source of new risks in society.

10

For example, economic crisis of August 1998 was triggered by the speculative government policy (government bonds pyramids). The market system with the inappropriate risks is unacceptable to many business people, and there are voices in favor of nationalization of key industries (banking, electricity, energy, defense).

Humane Orientation

Contemporary Russia can be characterized by the absence of social norms and laws that protect the unfortunate ones, there is much unfairness and corruption in business, and ethical norms and morality are not highly respected in business and society at large. Much of the current behavior in the economy is quite exploitative, and much wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few. Poverty in Russia today is widespread. Suspicion, and mistrust are more a rule than an exception. At the organizational level, welfare and social benefits are often neglected, and the level of wage arrears in Russia is astronomical.

It is worth mentioning that in Russia competition is often unfair and is beyond the law. It is supplemented by violence and growing shadow economy (illegal sector or legal business by illegal means). Economist Intelligence Unit in 1998 assessed Russia with highest ratings for corruption, higher than in sub-Sakharan Africa or Latin America. And foreign journalists coined a term called “gangster-bureaucrat” to describe this new breed of Russian business managers with clean records and underworld ties (Handelman, 1997). In such situation Mafia paternalism and “protection” may be viewed by some people as pseudohumanism.

Humane Orientation is very likely inversely related to the frequency and severity of aggressiveness and hostile actions within cultures. That is visible in contemporary Russia, with many ethnic conflicts all over the country. However, the picture is not finished if the “socially responsible entrepreneurship” linking business to the promotion of social interests and universal human values and beliefs, is missed. Many Russians view as important such fundamental issues: survival, justice, goal achievement, self-actualization, self-respect, economic benefits of activities.

GLOBE DATA COLLECTION

The main body of GLOBE quantitative data was generated in 1995-1996 with additional data for media analysis collected in 2001. In order to create the cultural and leadership profile of Russia, the authors collected information through pre-pilot study, focused group interviews, GLOBE survey of managers in telecommunication, food processing and banking industries.

Pre-pilot study

In 1994 pre-pilot research Russian CCIs surveyed 127 managers and entrepreneurs using the simplified survey with questions reflecting GLOBE societal culture dimensions. The respondents represented key areas of the Russian economy: state-owned enterprises (5 percent), joint-stock companies (28 percent), limited partnerships (35 percent), individual businessmen (26 percent), joint-ventures (6 percent). They did their business in manufacturing - (31 percent), extraction industries - (2 percent), agribusiness - (3 percent), trade - (20 percent), construction - (4 percent), business services - (30 percent) and communications - (10 percent). The results of pre-pilot survey provided with preliminary generic profile of Russian culture.

11

Focused interviews

Focused group interviews were designed along GLOBE guidelines to provide with preliminary generic profile of leadership in Russia.

Since the authors were aware of tremendous differences between various groups of managers/entrepreneurs, in the focused group interviews they targeted two groups. The first group of five managers/entrepreneurs represented those with experience in the Soviet economy and contemporary business organizations. They were mature people between 38 and 51 years of age, from machine building, construction and publishing industries. The second group of three managers/entrepreneurs represented new businessmen between 22 and 36 years of age, who started businesses only 1 - 3 years ago in such industries as telecommunications and wholesale trade. All respondents represented businesses in Moscow or in Greater Moscow Region. This approach helped to understand leadership similarities shared by managers of Russia, and also uncover the differences in attitudes toward leadership, expressed by representatives of these two groups. The interviews taken in informal atmosphere were recorded and analyzed.

GLOBE sample

When Russian CCIs were distributing GLOBE questionnaires and were interacting with respondents, they faced a number of country-specific problems. First, not all the questions designed in the West were perfectly clear to those surveyed even the questions had passed Q-sort and back and forth translation. In few cases the authors had to explain those managers trained in the Soviet era basic conceptual management ideas to facilitate adequate response. Market-oriented human resource management was an example. Second, culture of interviewing people has not been developed in the Soviet Union. Historically people were suspicious to any unofficial attempts to learn about their views and assessments. Those interviewed were somewhat hesitant to give honest answers to some questions, especially related to the profile of their company and to personal data on employment and education. Third, there was low motivation to contribute to GLOBE with no visible quick benefits to respondents who complained spending a lot of time to answer the questions. Fourth, in the turbulent economic environment of 1995 it was hardly possible to access few organizations with deep and detailed research, and Russian CCIs had to look for creative solutions in accessing such a large number of managers in three industries. Also industry related data and statistics in just privatized economy was not adequate. All these factors had put additional pressure on data collection. This explains the fact that CCIs lacked information for the organizational level research.

The main GLOBE data was collected in 1995 and 1996. Responses were received from 450 managers in food processing, telecommunication and banking/finance, 150 managers in each industry. In order to access this large group the authors targeted nationally recognized management training and development centers. In Moscow respondents from banking and finance were accessed through Training and Development Center under Ministry of Finance, and Academy of National Economy under the Government of Russian Federation helped with accessing managers in food processing industry. In St.Peterbourg the authors surveyed participants of management development programs at Training and Development Institute of Communication Industry. The surveys were administered in two largest cities in Russia but respondents came for training from different parts of the country – Far East, Siberia, the Urals, Southern and Northern Russia and large cities of Central Region.

12

Based on the data collected, the authors aggregated responses to demographic questions of the survey and designed the profile of the sample. The average age of respondents was 38.8 years, and the gender composition of the sample was 61.7 percent men and 38.3 percent women.

The questions related to citizenship and nationality in transitional country, that had just changed its name, anthem and flag, were often considered as ambiguous. Some people differentiated Russia and the USSR, while other didn’t: 96 percent had named the USSR and Russia as the place of birth, but Georgia and Ukraine (which were a part of the USSR in the past) were mentioned by 2 percent of respondents accordingly. The average number of years that respondents had lived in Russia was 37.9 years. Out of the whole sample three respondents lived outside Russia for more than one year. Ethnic composition of the sample was very diverse: Russians - 69 percent, Ukrainians – 10 percent, Tatars – 5 percent, other nationalities’ percentage was under 2 percent, such as Kalmyk, Khakas, Georgians, Mordva, Belarus, Karel, Buryat, German. In the past in the USSR Jews were formally considered as nationality, and 4 percent respondents answered accordingly. 25 percent reported themselves as believers, 22 percent as Christians (including Russian Orthodox Church) and 3 percent as Buddhists. When asked about their families, all of them reported that their fathers and mothers were born in the USSR. However, out of the whole sample 10 percent indicated the Ukrainian language spoken in the family, one percent – German and one precent – Hebrew.

Average employment profile of managers was as follows: number of years employed - 16.8 years, management experience – 7.4 years, employment in their current organization – 8.6 years. 40 percent were members of professional organizations, and 15 percent were actively involved in trade and industry associations. In the past 5 percent of respondents had jobs in multinational corporations.

Surveyed managers worked in production and engineering (42 percent), administration (28 percent), sales and marketing (15 percent), human resource management (8 percent), R&D (5 percent), the other 2 percent were in planning and other functions. The average number of people reporting to those surveyed was 15.4, with the average number of administrative layers between them and CEO of 2.1, and layers below – 2.9. The average number of people in the organizations was 1,378. And 83 percent of managers used one language in their work, 15 percent used two languages and 2 percent used three languages.

Educational level of respondents was very high – total number of years in education was 15.5. The university/college background of 61 percent was technical and 39 in economics, planning and finance. However, in food industry and telecommunication the number of technical graduates was even higher. And 12 percent of all respondents received some training in Western management concepts and techniques.

PRE-PILOT CULTURE PROFILE

Pre-pilot study helped to sketch a rough picture of Russian societal culture as perceived by managers to be explored later in details through GLOBE questionnaires. When asked about

9 Among those managers/entrepreneurs, 6 (5%) represented state-owned enterprises, 36 (28%) - joint-stock companies, 44 (35%) - limited partnerships, 34 (26%) were individual businessmen, and 7 (6%) represented joint-

13

future versus present orientation, fewer respondents (44 percent) preferred future orientation vs. present (56 percent). It was considered as the ‘positive surprise’ for the people in the economy of hyperinflation and strong demand for short-term return on investments. 62 percent of respondents relied more on power and authority, than on consensus and team-building (38 percent). Few respondents (17 percent) preferred impersonal versus personal approach (83 percent) in dealing with people. However, majority of respondents mentioned they lacked skills in human resources management. Most of respondents were willing to accept the idea of establishing the order and following the rules (69 percent) rather than exploiting the benefits of uncertainty (31 percent), adding that it is entrepreneurs who need stability in the rules of the game to do business effectively. Political shifts, poor legislation, and rapid changes in the laws were treated as strong limitations for business leadership. It was a surprise to Russian CCIs to see how many entrepreneurs/managers – 64 percent - preferred individualistic versus collectivist approach, if one takes into consideration past history and the indoctrination of collectivist-socialist ideology in the former USSR. Also when asked to assess assertiveness, 52 percent preferred assertive than non-assertive behavior.

Based on this survey the authors had summarized respondents’ reactions to societal issues in transitional economy as more present-oriented, with preferred assertive and individualistic behavior, but seeking more order and relying on personal approach in management.

GLOBE SCALES: SOCIETAL CULTURE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

The main discussion is based on societal culture profile generated from GLOBE questionnaires. Picture 1 summarizes quantitative findings that lead to the most important conclusions. Here we review the data along each GLOBE dimension and then discuss the content of these findings and interrelations among the main results. Table 1 contains quantitative data. We make important observations of these results: some dimensions display more agreement between “As Is” and “Should Be” (Collectivism I and II, Egalitarianism and Assertiveness) while the others present more differences between behaviors “As Is” and values “Should Be” (Power Distance, Performance Orientation, Future Orientation, Uncertainty Avoidance, Humane Orientation). We now will examine the results in that order.

[INSERT PICTURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

Collectivism I

In the Russian “As Is” scale, the level of Collectivism I is 4.5 thus placing Russia in the B group with ranking of 18. This reflects the traditional and historically encouraged group-oriented behavior rooted in historic traditions and Socialist indoctrination of collectivist behavior. At the same time there is different attitude of the respondents to “Should Be” situation that is placing Russia in the C group ranking 59 with low collectivism of 3.89. This fact indicates the process

ventures. The businesses represented in the sample, were in manufacturing - 39 (31%), extraction industries - 2 (2%), agribusiness - 4 (3%), trade - 26 (20%), construction - 5 (4%), business services - 38 (30%) and communications - 13 (10%). 10 But there were concerns of the respondents on the criteria and understanding of the difference between ‘high’ and ‘average’ and measurements.

14

of fragmentation of society, break-down of traditional group values in the society of survival and neglecting teamwork that is so critical for innovative economy.

Family Collectivism II

Family Collectivism “As Is” indicator is high with the level of 5.63 that positions Russia in the leading group A with rank 18. While the assessment of this dimension in the “Should Be” format is still high - 5.79, Russia falls in the B group with rank 20, as the other countries’ respondents consider their “Should Be” values in Family Collectivism at a higher level. Family collectivism is deeply rooted in the history and culture of society and in the Russian case confirms that certain values are not yet strongly influenced by the transitional process. From findings on both dimensions however it is clear that Russia is inclined to transform itself into a more individualistic society.

Gender Egalitarianism

The “As Is” (4.07) and “ Should Be” (4.18) indicators for Russia are quite close, thus displaying low concern of respondents with the difference between values and behaviors in this issue. While current behaviors could be considered as quite egalitarian (rank 2 in A group), when compared with the general trend, expressed by respondents in the other countries, Russia is less concerned with the issues of strengthening egalitarianism in the value system (“Should Be” rank 48 in B group).

Assertiveness

The “As Is” indicator is 3.68 placing Russian managers’ values assessments in B group with rank 54, while “Should Be” indicator is 2.83 in C group with rank 58. In both cases the situation in Russia is quite clear. Current transition demands assertive behavior with tough measures to survive and transform businesses and society at large. This does not leave much space for caring for the other people, or change the values of transitional economy.

Power Distance

In Russian case, the difference between “As Is” and “ Should Be” cases is great. The “As Is” behavioral indicator 5.52 is high in A group (rank 14). That should be considered as heritage from the Soviet totalitarian system. But managers surveyed indicate that the values related to power distance are preferably of democratic nature. The “ Should Be” indicator is 2.62 (group C, rank 41). While the ranking reflects the majority of other countries surveyed having higher level of democratic expectations, those Russian businesses relying on this trend could find easier way to fit international democratic practices and interact with foreign counterparts.

Performance Orientation

In the Russian case quite poor performance orientation is reported with the “ As Is” indicator of 3.39, thus placing Russia into a C group of countries with rank 59. While the results of “Should Be” indicator are rather high (5.54) that still benchmarks the country’s results in the marginal position with rank 55 in D group. This fact results from the Soviet past practices as well as from the difficulties of setting clear performance targets in the turbulent economic environment. Also performance is not the key for many managers who make the fortune from privatization.

Future Orientation

15

Again, this dimension is important in understanding the mechanisms of an economy in transition. It presents striking differences in the behavioral assessment of the current situation and values and expectations of the respondents. “As Is” indicator 2.88 is extremely low, putting Russia with rank 61 at the end of the countries’ list, into a D group. It is far from the all country average response, and unmistakably characterizes the nature of the current transformational business culture. However, as in Performance Orientation case, the Russian respondents believe that Russia’s survival is contingent on changes in orientation, in this case – link values to future orientation. The “ Should Be” indicator of 5.48 is high making Russia with rank 34 join the future-oriented countries of group A.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Contemporary Russian managers accept reality and uncertainty in society and economy. With an “As Is” indicator of 2.88, Russia is placed into the D group and has the lowest rank of 61 on avoidance practices. This could be interpreted as “uncertainty acceptance” in the transitional economy. To a certain extent this is additional indication of entrepreneurial and risk-oriented behavior of Russian managers. At the same time, managers’ responses to “ Should Be” questions, show a large gap between reality on the one hand, and values and expectations on the other. Russian “Should Be” indicator of 5.07 and rank 18 brings the country to the group A with high uncertainty avoidance preferences. That is the indication of a more ordered and planned system the Russian managers value.

Humane Orientation

The difference between the current behavior and values of the Russian managers looks encouraging when predicting the future of the country. While the “As Is” indicator of 3.94 ranks Russia 38 in the C group with a relatively low level of humane orientation in behavior, the “Should Be” indicator is high - 5.59 that ranks Russia 18 in an A group of most humane oriented countries.

Interpretation of interrelations among the GLOBE Societal Culture results

GLOBE indicators and rankings for Russia reflect the realities of painful economic reforms and display current business “mental models” in Russia. Marginal numbers and country ratings on Uncertainty Avoidance, Future Orientation, Performance Orientation “As Is” scales as well as the gaps between values and behaviors confirm the Russian managers’ mindset of “creative survival” in uncertain environment, their search for “quick buck” rather than long-term investments (such as investments in human resources), unpredictability and reliance on substitutes for legal structures.

Some dimensions present interesting interrelations between indicators worth interpreting in the chapter. Extreme Uncertainty Avoidance indicator and rank could be assessed favorably for entrepreneurship unless one links it to Future Orientation marginal as well. That can be interpreted as lack of vision in entrepreneurship activities primarily focused on survival and not long-term development of business. With Humane Orientation of behavior in C cluster this combination leaves little hope for long-term investments in human resources. Especially with Power Distance and Assertiveness numbers explaining the tough (preferably administrative) measures in crisis management and in restructuring enterprises and industries.

Overall picture of “As Is” of Russian managers’ behavior presents the marginal profile that does not fit easily internationally recognized practices. That may add additional difficulties for the

16

Russian businesses in interaction with the foreign partners, for example, in creating strategic alliances.

There is a large gap between “ As Is” and “ Should Be” data on the dimensions linked directly to reforms in the economy. The “ Should Be” model displays the deficit in practice and a preference for a more humanistic, ethical, democratic and stable system. At the same time, there is no serious gap on dimensions, which are strongly linked to historical cultural roots, such as Family Collectivism. Gender Egalitarianism is also not in the focus of current management concern. But when compared to the overall democratic trend, it may become a problem for Russia in the future.

The culture profile in pre-pilot analysis to a great extent corresponds to the quantitative results based on the main GLOBE survey.

LEADERSHIP PROFILE IN FOCUSED GROUP INTERVIEWS

In focused group interviews participants talked about characteristics of leadership and leaders in Russia. They suggested that leaders should be defined differently in society on the one hand, and in the economy on the other.

According to the interviewees, the definition of leadership in general should be based on stereotypes of heroes, developed in history, as well as indoctrinated by official propaganda. Leaders are associated with national success, great achievements, and heroism. They are inspiring people with personal ability, creativity, courage and risk-taking. The effectiveness of leaders was judged by interviewees via results and success. More often strong leaders were valued in the history of the state (Tzar Peter the Great, dictator Joseph Stalin), in large scale projects (physicists I. Kurchatov and A. Sakharov in nuclear industry, engineer academician S. Korolev in space exploration), in team-builders with recognized success (coach V. Lobanovski, leading Soviet soccer team to win the European Cup). Both groups of respondents shared these views.

In the economy, however, leadership was viewed differently by representatives of group one and group two, and without consensus. In the Soviet economy the responsibility of factory manager was the implementation of the plan: meeting previously indicated targets. Extraordinary results in productivity, innovations that did not fit the “planning system” were the factors of unbalance and were not appreciated. The state used propaganda to create an image of those leaders who were productive, loyal to the Communist party, and outspoke officially recognized values.

Representatives of the fist group defined leadership in the economy as the ability to represent and share technical skills and expertise. Few remarks were made about managers’ professionalism and to deal with people effectively. The representatives of the first group thought that the most important job of the manager was to follow the already established norms and principles. The second group of younger aggressive entrepreneurs with practically no experience in the old Soviet system, was more definite on leadership qualities such as creating new companies, new businesses, and in general, - taking risk and inspiring others to follow them. The interviewed managers/entrepreneurs of this group showed themselves as not just administrators but also “organizational culture creators”.

17

One interesting comment was made about charitable traditions of Russian entrepreneurship. People from both groups appreciated the charitable activities of the pre-Revolutionary industrialists (S. Morozov, P. Ryabushinski) who donated resources to hospitals, theaters, and museums and preserved Russian arts and culture.

In general, discussion with the Russian managers/entrepreneurs indicated their strong interest in leadership qualities, and consequently in leadership development. The issues of special interest were related to the nature of leaders: whether leaders are those with naturally developed features, or those who have leadership qualities, based on focused individual work, individual training. It became clear that most of those interviewed agree that one can develop these qualities. During these interviews attention was given to the use of the term ‘leadership’, keeping in mind historically determined politicization of society.

While discussing different interpretations of leadership the interviewees came to consensus with CCIs on the following. First, leadership is the reality of every society. It is based on the freely released diverse human activity. At a certain historic moment it becomes the focus of special attention, when it can be purposefully accumulated and developed, thus making leadership one of management’s strategic resources. Second, leadership is a practical social phenomenon, which can be found in various social fabrics (individual, collective, culture and politics). Leadership includes the ability to catalyze practical reaction to the factors of socio-economic development. This is “the first social move” to one of the possible options (scenarios) of moving into the future. In other words, leadership creates something new, non-standard - in the practical form (precedent) by involving others into its activity. Third, leadership also is an organizational phenomenon, and here respondents agreed with GLOBE definition of leadership as the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization of which they are members. Fourth, leadership is also interdependent with society. And only those leaders who are strongly tied to the socio-cultural background of their nation are able to absorb and distribute the advanced international experience without possible dangerous side effects. If a society is unable to create mass motivation, it may create leaders who will remove the society from the road of ethical development. Social partnership, degree of corporate citizenship, and social responsibilities depend on moral potential of leadership. At the same time, the discussants agreed that society is responsible for healthy leadership, by providing the appropriate level of freedom and reasonable tolerance to unexpected and unusual behaviors.

GLOBE SCALES: LEADERSHIP RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

The overall profile of Russian leaders according to globally endorsed implicit Leadership theory dimensions (Charismatic, Team-Oriented, Participative, Humane, Self-Protective, Autonomous) is displayed on Picture 2. Table 2 contains quantitative data.

[INSERT PICTURE 2 ABOUT HERE]

Charismatic/Value-Based orientation

Aggregate indicators for universal positive leader attributes summarized in Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership dimension are relatively low for Russia and could be interpreted as only

18

slightly contributing to outstanding leadership. Charismatic dimension indicator is 5.66 with rank 47 in D group (worldwide mean values 4.5-6.5).

The first order CLT dimensions for Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership display Visionary (6.07) as most important dimension in considering effective leadership in Russia. In the range for factors slightly contributing to effective leadership we find the following first order dimensions: Performance-Oriented (5.92), Inspirational (5.89), Decisive (5.86) and Integrator (5.72). Self-Sacrifice (4.28) has no impact on outstanding leadership. While comparing these factors for Russia to the other countries, one can consider the Russian profile in A group on Decisive dimension, in B group on Visionary, Performance Orientation, and Integrity, while Self-Sacrificial is in C group.

Team orientation

Second order scales for Team Oriented Leadership do not provide with optimistic assessment of Russia as well. Team-Oriented dimension indicator is 5.63 with rank 46 in C group (worldwide mean values 4.7-6.2).

The first order scales provide with the following data. While Administrative Competence is the factor most contributing to effective leadership in Russia (6.03), the other CLT dimensions present only somewhat contributing this leadership: Team-Oriented (5.15), Team Integrator (5.56), diplomatic (5.01) and Malevolent (reverse score 1.85). In the all country benchmarking Russia is among the countries with high indicators for Administratively Competent (A group), while the critical factors such as Team Orientation and Malevolence place it only into C group. On the other two dimensions Diplomatic and Team Integrator Russia has joined B group.

Humane orientation

The dimension that nearly universally contributes to effective leadership is Humane Orientation, and in Russia it has limited impact on outstanding leadership. Humane Orientation is 4.08 with rank 60 in D group (worldwide mean values 3.8-5.6).

The first order dimensions related to second order Humane Orientation are Modesty, that in the Russian case indicates 4.25 (no visible impact on effective leadership) and Humane Orientation with indicator 3.92, that makes it slightly inhibiting people being outstanding leaders. Both first order dimensions place Russia into C group.

Participative orientation

In this case Russia is in D group (worldwide mean values 4.5-6.1). Two first order dimensions contribute to Participative orientation with indicator is 4.67 (Autonomous, reverse score). One is Autocratic 4.16 that can be considered as having no impact on leadership and the other is Non-Participative, with 2.82 (reverse score).

Autonomous

The second order Autonomous dimension for Russia is 4.63 in group A (worldwide mean values 2.3-4.7) that is based on such characteristics as individualism, independence, uniqueness, and autonomous. In the Russian case first order dimension for Autonomous with indicator 4.04 explains the fact that being autonomous is not important for outstanding leadership.

Self-Protective

19

Those dimensions corresponding to universal negative leader attribute somewhat slightly contribute to leadership. Self-Protective orientation indicator for Russia is 3.69 with rank 17 in D group (worldwide mean values 2.5-4.6). That means that this dimension only slightly inhibits from being an outstanding leader. This is based on nearly no impact of dimension Status Conscious (4.75) and only slightly influencing Conflict Inducer (3.90). The other first order dimensions somewhat inhibiting people from being outstanding leader: Self-Centered (2.48), Face Saver (2.67) and Procedural (2.98). In the all country comparisons Russia positions itself in B groups on such factors as Status Conscious, Self-Centered, and Conflict Inducer, on Face Saver dimension it is in group C and on Procedural – in group D. With a very low score on the Procedural dimension indicates that being procedural is likely to be a greater inhibitor of effective leadership in Russia than in most countries included in the GLOBE sample.

The profile of effective leadership

In terms of GLOBE dimensions Russia displays a clear picture of what makes effective leadership. The most important are Charismatic I (Visionary) and Administrative Competency. They are followed by being Decisive, Performance Orientation and Charismatic III (Inspirational). Also Integrity, Team Integration, Collaborative, and Diplomatic are considered to contribute to outstanding leadership. At the same time such dimensions as Self-Sacrifice, Modesty and Human Orientation, Status Consciousness, and Conflict Inducer to not make a difference.

These findings fit the societal culture scales results. They display the profile of an administratively competent manager with abilities to think strategically, capable to make serious decisions and inspire his followers to meet performance targets. To a certain extent he/she relies on teams and through diplomatic and collaborative moves succeeds in integrating efforts of their members. However, in his/her actions there is not much interest in humane orientation to the others and modesty in personal behavior. He/she may sacrifice a lot and does not take much care of saving face. Status is not important to the modern Russian leader.

GLOBE results suggest that universal positive leader attributes such as Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership and Team Oriented Leadership are considered as contributors to outstanding leadership in Russia. While the level of such influence is much lower than in most of the other countries, transitional society fits the global culturally endorsed CLT dimensions. The other two dimensions that nearly universally contribute to leadership – Participative and Humane orientation - have only limited impact in Russia. Universal negative leader attributes such as Self-Protective and Autonomous, are also not very important. Summarizing these findings one may consider Russia as marginal in finding the ways for effective leadership concepts and practices.

The authors however are far from taking a morbid point of view that Russia will never catch up with the others even in the attitude towards leaders. Young people show more individualism, they are inventive and creative. Moreover, they are ready to express their own ideas and to defend their own principles. It’s very unlikely that today’s youngsters will blindly obey a leader, no matter who he is. The authors had some other positive discoveries, noticing the growing interest in future orientation, moral values and in individualism. Still, as the country is in transition it’s very hard to work out an exact definition of the Russian country-specific implicit theory of leadership. Everything is changing so quickly and the psychology of the Russian

20

people is not an exception. In our analysis we tried to present, the latest developments in the changing vision of culture and leadership in Russia.

LEADERSHIP EXPRESSED IN MEDIA

Media analysis was carried out as part of GLOBE project with a view to reveal public opinion towards leaders and leadership in Russia. The authors’ main task was to determine how the media portrays leaders and the phenomenon of leadership, and then compare the results to the other findings within the project.

For the media analysis two periods from November 26 to December 2, 1996 and from July 30 to August 6, 2001 were chosen. Within these periods there were neither significant political events, nor holidays which could somehow influence the content of the media publications. Thus, the information published in the studied newspapers was quite generic.

Russian newspapers are the second largest source of information for the public after television. In recent years, however, there was a certain decline in the reading audience as compared statistically to the 1980s. This is the result of growing social and political apathy in the late 1990s. It also reflects the fact that many people are concerned with their survival rather than with national events they can not control. Also, there is a wide-spread belief that media is increasingly controlled by tycoons, and as result, less objective, serving populist interests of a narrow group of oligopolies.

Five leading nationally distributed newspapers were selected for the analysis (Table 3). “IZVESTIYA” is a daily newspaper which provides in-depth analyses of national and international economy and politics, comments on events in sports and cultural life, and presents interviews with well-known politicians and businessmen. Its readers are mostly middle-aged people with higher education, many of them civil servants. “ARGUMENTY I FAKTY”, a weekly newspaper with the largest circulation in Russia offers its readers a wide range of information in practically all possible areas: from political news to UFOs. The newspaper is oriented on mass readership of all the ages and occupations. Moreover, it is one of few independent newspapers, respected by representatives of different, sometimes even extremely opposite political groups. “MOSKOVSKY KOMSOMOLETZ” is a popular daily newspaper considered to be a democratic one. It absorbs scandals, sensations, piquant details of personal life of politicians and compromising data about well-known people. However, this newspaper has a considerable influence on many people, it is popular and even forms public opinion on an event or a person. “NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA” with the smallest circulation of all those sampled, is considered one of the best informed and most reliable newspapers targeting the intellectual elite segment of the market. “KOMMERSANT-DAILY” with a circulation of 400,000 was among the first newspapers in democratic Russia to be differentiated as a business daily. While it publishes news and opinions on politics, arts, international affairs, business focus is still dominating in this newspaper. One can get the latest market trends, CEOs opinions, mergers and acquisitions stories and others. “KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA” originally targeting young population now is considered as well-informed and analytical newspaper with broad customer base. “TRUD” - the former trade union daily with the highest circulation in the

21

USSR (up to eighteen million daily!) - currently is one of popular newspapers for general public, trying to distance itself from union paper and position as well-informed and enjoyable reading.

Having looked through the issues related to the said periods, 217 articles and editorials were identified that could be referred to as dealing with the problem of leadership in various spheres of life: economics, politics, sports, culture, and daily events. Among all the articles selected for media analysis 162 articles (75 percent) focused on Russian leaders and 55 articles (25 percent) were devoted to leaders from foreign countries.

At the first stage the articles were sorted according to the spheres of leaders’ activity: politics, business, sport, arts and show business, others. The structures of the “foreign” and “Russian” samples were different from each other (Table 4). In the “foreign” case the interest to political leaders was the highest with 22 articles (40 percent of the “foreign” sample), business leaders were mentioned in 16 articles (29 percent), in show business - 7 articles (13 percent), and in sports – also 7 articles (13 percent). In the Russian case the structure was quite similar. The highest interest was expressed in political leaders in more than half of the sample – in 82 articles (51 percent of the “Russian” sample), business leaders were described in 25 articles (16 percent), in sports – 10 articles (6 percent), arts and show business – 30 articles (18 percent) and other areas attracted attention in 15 articles (9 percent). These findings present moderate interest of Russian media to leaders in business as compared to the other groups of leaders. Also political leadership – both international and domestic - is a visible priority for Russian newspapers.

The next step was to filter the articles and assess the kind of leadership issues they discussed. At this stage, in the Russian sample the authors excluded interviews (as not impartial because one can hardly speak impartially about himself/herself) and simply informative articles (as not allowing us to get any idea of media attitude to the personality of leaders). Finally out of 162 articles that had mentioned leaders in Russia 130 (80 percent), remained for the “linguistic” analysis.

The words and word combinations (“typical phrases”) were sorted according to GLOBE media analysis guidelines and grouped by category of descriptions of leaders and leadership (Table 5). We identified the frequencies with which these categories were mentioned. These frequencies displayed relative importance of different characteristics and the following conclusions can be made.

The most important trait of a leader expressed by media was image with frequency 25 (13 percent of all phrases and expressions). That was not a surprise as creating an image is one of the main tasks of media itself and is the means for the newspapers to communicate the effective and outstanding leadership. The next four characteristics were facilitate and action with frequencies 22 and 21 (11 percent each), knowledge with frequency 19 (10 percent), and energy with frequency 17 (9 percent). This result corresponds with the GLOBE leadership profile of a manager oriented on decision-making and capable to inspire the followers.

Communication trait was somewhat less visible with frequency 15 (8 percent) and corresponded with moderate team orientation in leadership profile. And moderate frequencies of 7 and 6 (4 and 3 percent) were displayed by change and survive traits that might be important to the current transitional economy.

Not only those traits mentioned most frequently, but also those least frequent items were reviewed by the authors. Characteristics that should be important for value-based charismatic

22

leadership were not considered as important at all in media summary. Charisma, vision and creativity were mentioned less than 5 times (under 2 percent) and role model of a leader only 5 times (3 percent). These results correspond with the marginal acceptance of such a leadership in Russia as discussed in the previous section. It is worth mentioning that weakness and fault items were rare with frequencies 3 (1.5 percent) that can bring us to a conclusion that in a non-face saving society media designs more positive image of a leader than the reality is.

We construct the following average leadership media profile. Russian leader has rich image linked to his/her success, competencies, social and professional recognition. He/she displays action-oriented and energetic behavior of facilitator with entrepreneurial competencies. In particular, he/she is “full of unprecedented intervention”, “acts with no hesitations” as a “real fighter”, “hardworking, restless and enduring”. At the same time media profile does not permit to consider him/her as charismatic leader with clear systemic vision and cultural sensitivity. He/she is capable to control the situation, facilitate change in the organization and survive in the turbulent environment, but this looks not very important for becoming an outstanding leader.

CONCLUSIONS

The radical transformation in Russia in 1990s has resulted in movement toward democratization of the society. In economics, the market is substituting a previous monopolistic and ideology dominated system. Combined with these two changes is the “cultural” change, in which values, norms of behavior, and artifacts are reassessed, renewed, created or removed.

Culture and leadership in Russia today are defined by three groups of factors. First, traditional and historically developed through centuries emic features of Russian society. Second, the influence of totalitarian heritage of the twentieth century. And third, the radical revolution in culture and leadership in the 1990s’ transitional period. All three were considered as substantial for interpretation of the GLOBE findings and for comparing Russian profile to other countries.

This chapter shed light on the state and current transformation of culture and leadership in Russia. The findings presented here seem to have quite important implications for both researchers and practitioners. The GLOBE project is one of the first attempts to collect research-oriented Russian data set which, first, is created by using internationally recognized and reliable research methods and, second, is ready for cross-cultural comparative research among 61 nations within a common research framework.

Although the Russian current economic situation is rather unpredictable, the GLOBE findings convey certain optimism. Russia’s competitiveness at both national and corporate levels could be based on such advantageous characteristics of Russian managers, mentioned in this study, as courage and ability to launch large-scale projects, decisiveness, ability to make decisions and assume responsibility, ability to quickly react and operate in unstable environment. At the same time, cultural transformation related to such findings as increasingly common future orientation and healthy individualism, also look promising.

Literature

23

Ageev, A., Gratchev, M., & Hisrich, R. (1995) Entrepreneurship in the Soviet Union and Post-Socialist Russia, Small Business Economics 7(5), 365-376.

Ageev A. (1991) Predprinimatelstvo: problemi sobstvennosti I kulturi. [Entrepreneurship: Problems of Ownership and Culture] Moscow: Nauka Publishers.

Anderson D., & Shikhirev P., (1994) Akuli i delfini. [Sharks and Dolphins] Moscow: Delo Publishers.

Berdiaev N. (1990) Russkaya ideya. Osnovnie problemi Russkoi misli XIX i nachala XX veka. [Russian Idea. Key Problems of Russian Thought of XIX-early XX centuries] O Rossii i Russkoi filosifskoi kulture. Moscow: Nauka Publishers.

Berliner J. (1976) The Innovation Decision in the Soviet Industry; Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Blackwell W. (1994) The Industrialization of Russia: a Historical Perspective. Arlington Heights: H. Davidson.

Bollinger, D. (1994) The Four Cornerstones and Three Pillars in the “House of Russia” Management System. Journal of Management Development, 13(2),49-54.

Chaadaev, P. (1991) Philosophical Works of Peter Chaadaev. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publilshers.

Fey, C. & Denison D. (2001) Organizational Culture and Effectiveness: the Case of Foreign Firms in Russia. SSE/EFI Working Paper Sesies in Business Administration No. 2000:4.

Gratchev, M. (2001) Making the Most of Cultural Differences. Harvard Business Review, October.

Guroff G. & Carstensen F. (Eds.) (1983) Entrepreneurship in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Hingley, R. (1981) The Russian Mind. N.Y.: Charles Scribner.

Hisrich R. & Gratchev M.. (1993) The Russian Entrepreneur. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(6),487-498.

Hisrich R. & Gratchev M (1995) The Russian Entrepreneur: Characteristics: Prescriptions for Managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 10(2), 3-10.

Hisrich R. & Gratchev M (1996) Entrepreneurial Leadership in the Global Economy: Similarities and Differences. Journal of Management Systems 8(1-4), 29-38.

Hisrich R., Gratchev M., Bolshakov, Z., Popov, D. & Ilyin, A (1996) DOKA Corporation: An Entrepreneurial Russian High-Technology Venture. Cases in International Entrepreneurship. Ed. by R. Hisrich. - Chicago: Robert D. Irwin, Inc., 287-302.

Hisrich R. and Gratchev M (1997) Russian vs. American Entrepreneurs: Where are the Ethics? In P. Reynolds (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Boston: Babson College, 256-257.

Hofstede G.. (1984) Cultures Consequences. International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Holden, N., Cooper, C. & Carr, J. (1998) Dealing with the New Russia: Management Cultures in Collision. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

24

House R. , Wright, N., & Aditya, R. (1997) Cross-Cultural Research on Organizational Leadership. A Critical Analysis and a Proposed Theory. New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology. P. Ch. Earley and M. Erez (ed.). S.F., Lexington Press.****

House B., **** (1998) Cultural Influences on Leadership: Project GLOBE. Advances in Global Leadership. / Ed. by W. Mobley. (1).****

Huntington S. (1993) The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.

Karamzin N. (1892) Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskago. [History of the Russian State] St.Peterburg: Izd. Evg. Evdokimova.

Kluchevskii, V. (1904) Kurs Russkoi istorii. [The Course in Russian History] M.: Sinodalnaya Tipografiya.

Kuzmichev A. & Petrov R. (1993) Russkie millionshiki. [Russian millionaires] Moscow: Vlados/Foros.

Michailova, S. (2000) Contrasts in culture: Russian and Western perspectives on organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 14 (4).

Mikheyev D. (1987) The Soviet Mentality. Political Psychology, 8, (4).

Mikheyev, D. (1996) Russia Transformed. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Naumov, A. (1996) Hofstedovo Izmerenie Rossii [Hofstede’s Dimention of Russia], Menedzhment 3, 70-103.

Naumov, A. & Puffer, S. (2000) Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede's dimensions. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 49 (4), 709-718.

Owen, Th. (1981) Capitalism and Politics in Russia: A Social History of Moscow Merchants, 1855-1905; N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Puffer, S. (1994) Understanding the Bear: A Portrait of Russian Business Leaders. Academy of Management Executive, February, 41-54.

Puffer, S. (Ed.) (1992) The Russian Management Revolution: Preparing Managers for the Market Economy. Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.

Puffer S. & McCarthy D. (1995) Finding the Ground in Russian and American Business Ethics, California Management Review, 37(2), 29-46.

Puffer, S.M., McCarthy, D.J. & Naumov, A.I. (1997) Russian managers’ beliefs about work: Beyond the stereotypes. Journal of World Business, 32 (3), 258-276.

Puffer, S.M., McCarthy, D.J. & Naumov, A.I. (2000) The Russian Capitalist Experiment: From State-Owned Organizations to Entrepreneurships. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Randall, L. (2001) Reluctant Capitalists: Russia’s Journey Through Market Transition. New York: Routledge.

Rogovsky, N., Bertocci, C., & Gratchev, M. (1997) Social Exclusion and Business Initiatives in the Economies in Transition: The Case of Russia. Copenhagen: The Danish National Institute of Social Research.

25

Rogovsky, N. & Schuler, R. (1997) Managing Human Resources Across Cultures. Business and the Contemporary World, IX(1), 63-75.

Russia in Numbers (1997), Official publication, State Committee on Statistics, Moscow.

Russian Statistical Yearbook (1996), Official publication, State Committee on Statistics, Moscow.

Shama A. (1995) Entry Strategies of U.S. Firms to the Newly Independent States, Baltic Republics, and Eastern European Countries. California Management Review, 37(3),90-109.

Schuler, R. & Rogovsky, N. (1998) Understanding Compensation Practice Variations Across Firms: The Impact of National Culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 159-177.

Shikhirev, P. (2000) Vvedenie v Rossiiskuiu Delovuiu Kul'turu. [Introduction to Russian Business Culture] Moscow: Novosti.

Soloviev, V. (1913) Sobranie sotchinenii [Collection of Works] St.Petersburg: Prosveshenie.

De Vries, M. (2000) A Jourbey into the “Wild East”: Leadership Style and Organizational Practices in Russia, Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 67-81.

Wilson, D. & Donaldson, L. (1996) Russian Etiquette & Ethics in Business. Chicago: NTS Business Books.

26

5.07

2.83

3.89

4.18

5.59

2.62

5.54

5.48

5.79

3.39

3.68

4.54.07

3.94

5.522.88

2.885.63

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

uncertainty avoidance

performance orientation

future orientation

assertiveness

collectivismegalitarianism

humane orientation

power distance

family collectivism

"Should Be" "As Is"

Picture 1. Societal culture scales for Russia

27

First order CLT dimensions

4.673.69

4.08

4.67

5.66

5.63

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Charismatic

Team-Oriented

Participative

Humane

Self-Protectiv e

Autonomous

First order CLT dimensions

Picture 2. Leadership profile for Russia based on globally endorsed implicit leadership theory dimensions

28

Table 1. Summary of GLOBE societal culture scales for Russia

“As Is” Rank (group)

“Should Be”

Rank (group)

Collectivism 4.50 B 3.89 C

Family Collectivism 5.63 A 5.79 B

Gender Egalitarianism 4.07 A 4.18 B

Assertiveness 3.68 B 2.83 C

Power Distance 5.52 A 2.62 C

Performance Orientation 3.39 C 5.54 B

Future Orientation 2.88 D 5.48 A

Uncertainty Avoidance 2.88 D 5.07 A

Humane Orientation 3.94 C 5.59 A

29

Table 2. Summary of GLOBE leadership scales for Russia

Leadership Dimension

Indicator Group Leadership Dimension Indicator Group

Performance Orientation

5.92 B Procedural (formerly bureaucratic)

2.98 D

Autocratic

4.16 A Administratively Competent

6.03 A

Modesty

4.25 C Self-centered 2.48 B

Charismatic III (Self Sacrificial)

4.28 C Autonomous (Formerly Individualistic)

4.04 A

Team I: Collaborative (Team Orientation)

5.15 C Status Consciousness 4.75 B

Decisive

5.86 A Charismatic II (Inspirational)

5.89 C

Diplomatic

5.01 B Malevolent 1.85 C

Face-saver

2.67 C Team II: Team Integrator 5.65 B

Humane Orientation

3.92 C Conflict Inducer 3.90 B

Charismatic I (Visionary)

6.07 B Non-Participative 2.82 B

Integrity

5.72 C

30

Table 3. Media Sources for Analysis

Media source 1996 2001 circulation Number of

pages

“IZVESTIYA” X X 556,284 (1996)

234,500 (2001)

6 (1996)

12 (2001)

“ARGUMENTY I FAKTY” X X 3,360,000 (1996)

2,921,170 (2001)

24 (1996)

20 (2001)

“MOSKOVSKY KOMSOMOLETZ”

X 868,523 8

“NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA” X 48,000 16

“KOMMERSANT-DAILY” X 400,000 12-18

“KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA”

X 765,000 24

“TRUD” X 612,850 8

31

Table 4. The Composition of the Articles Sample (1996/2001)

Areas of Interest Russian Leaders

number of articles (1996+2001=total)

Russian Leaders (%)

Foreign Leaders (number of articles) (1996+2001=total)

Foreign Leaders (%)

Politics 48+34=82 51 7+15=22 40

Business 10+15=25 16 12+4=16 29

Sport 5+5=10 6 3+4=7 13

Arts and show business 3+27=30 18 5+2=7 13

Others 8+7=15 9 0+3=3 5

Total 74+88=162 100 27+28=55 100

32

Table 5. Leadership Traits in Russian Media

Category

Frequency

1996

Frequency

2001

TOTAL Typical phrases

Image 13 12 25 has a modest way of life; image of professional; the most popular; the most patient and stable; in style of a man who always says I don’t know; not ordinary man; unbelievably modest; one of the richest men of the country; I’m self-sufficient; old charming manners; extremely ambitious; the thing in itself; round, bumpy, smell like buns; successful business; was very successful in start-up; representative of large Russian business; famous economist; well-known expert; economic brains; a person you should trust; recognized expert in international finance and investments; extraordinary financial leader; elite of Russian business; respected;

Facilitate 16 6 22 able to attract people; moderate, bright, clear minded; can help; can solve; will try to settle disputes; was more concrete; gave his support to all; power methods; has an entrepreneurial talent; flexible and compliant; expressed maximum loyalty; beloved man; doesn’t worry; can concentrate; accumulate seriously; attractive, working man; calm smile; natural liberality; advice and support; supervised the project to its implementation; facilitator; made it possible; organized training the other people

Action 13 8 21 active and fruitful cooperation; actively urged; acted self-sacrificing; actively gesticulated; shot while arguing; offended Catholic church; got everybody out; storm and rush; variety of started businesses; hurry in search; well trained aggression; impudence is good and fruitful not only in war actions; promise; business activity; started in new position; brainstorming; worked on a project; start-up initiative; restructuring

Knowledge 11 8 19 a man with great organizational potential; put in all they learned successfully; soft intelligence; awarded with diplomas; his career was impetuous; did a lot in the term when the others can only learn the basics; has got master’s degree; respected professional; qualities of a leader; highly professional conversation; with knowledge of facts; experienced; has strong abilities, managerial experience, deserved authority and confidence; experience in working in international markets; has thirty years of experience as director; has extraordinary capabilities; bachelor; master of business administration; topic of the dissertation; accumulated experience and knowledge; Ph.D. in Law

Energy 9 8 17 at work from 9 to 9; stays longer than anyone else; high energy; has done a hard work; resisted furiously; inspired by energy; his way was hard and he went to his goal through heavy fighting; behaved courageously; very strong, that’s the wife who is the engine of this couple; sources for quick success; was not job-hopper, rather energetically climbed the career ladder; was courages to propose; he is brave as expert; business activity; one year was enough for breakthrough;

Communicate 11 4 15 the man who can not work in team; joked and peppered his speech with phraseologisms; soft voice; active and fruitful

33

cooperation; read from my lips; try not to aggravate relationships; the best propagandist; understood each other; easily communicates; let’s keep together; doesn’t speak a lot; never keeps his friends and colleagues with whom he had a business; talks a lot; involved in international business and broad economic ties; easy going; uses simple language; relies on cooperation

Direct, Direction

9 2 11 recommended; suggested; gave advise; was able to convince; enjoy planning; against war; competition- yes; don’t take into consideration existing rules and customs if they are the obstacles on the way up; growing leader; makes principle statements; follows clear and simple ideology

Obligation 8 2 10 personally make decisions and personally take responsibility; didn’t leave his stand but for order obligation promised help; no partner betrayed him, although they were under terrible pressure; set a high value on his position; pass responsibility to somebody else; he always kept his point of view; easily does unauthorized things; never goes against the will of the people; is responsible for financial and economic issues; always kept his promises

Objective 7 0 7 has confidence; has come to bring everything in order; will be as in Europe; he’s sure he’ll win; all his actions are aimed at an external effect ; I looked for morality everywhere; doesn’t intend to sit on two chairs

Control 4 3 7 mighty governor; as general commands; solid capital, good power; the most influential; can manage all the assets of the company; tries to have the process under control; full control

Change 3 4 7 decided to reconstruct; decided to reconstruct according to the rules of science; I know what I want to change; transformational leadership; restructuring; changing the organization; change master

Survive 3 3 6 Survivor; had enough energy to resist; life is series of strikes that we should survive at any cost; learned to protect himself; was not confused with the competitors’ moves; quickly avoided confrontation

Role Model 3 2 5 model; with care of a wolf; exemplary model; entrepreneurial talent that was awarded by life, business and recognition; a long-term leader of a large corporation for thirty years

Creativity 2 2 4 unique creativity; full of ideas; could creatively apply his potential; multiple hobbies

Charisma 2 2 4 charismatically popular; uncharismatic; man capable to create a successful for ten years business; one of the most influential oil businessmen in the country;

Weakness 2 1 3 terrible when angry; chef’s expression wasn’t quite correct; he looked upset and didn’t know what to do; failed only once

Faults 1 2 3 was several times prosecuted; blamed for money laundering; criminal sources for capitals

Culture 2 0 2 begin to use classical phrases; fond of ritual African religions

Vision 1 1 2 estimated the situation correctly at once; made the company one of the leading businesses;

System 1 1 2 wanted to bring everything in order; multidimensional approach

34