A Tossed Salad: Heterogeneity of Societal Culture and Preferred Leader Behavior in the Russian Federation

Introduction

The geopolitical, social, and economic importance and influence of Russia is a constant on the global stage. This is even more emphasized in the context of the recent and still ongoing health and geo-political turmoil, including the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Understanding the societal-culture and leadership, including that of business, in this country is, thus, important today more than ever. However, the academic literature on societal cultural values and business leadership in the Russian Federation is sparse, and the findings are mixed and inconclusive. In concert with the afore mentioned context, the potential to augment our understanding regarding the society and effective leadership in this important nation is immensely valuable for both the academy and various professional communities, rendering such research particularly necessary.

The purpose of this study is to respond to this need. Drawing on culturally contingent theory (House et al., 2004), we embark on this investigation to examine the cultural value profile and employee preferences for explicit leader behaviors across the Russian Federation. Using data obtained from two large regions of Russia, Siberian, and European or Western Russia, we place our focus on the relationships between the cultural values dimensions (Hofstede et al., 2011) and preferred leader behavior dimensions (Stogdill, 1974) in and between these regions. In doing so, we contribute to the culturally contingent theory, as well as to the Hofstede’s and Stogdill´s culture and leadership models, extending them in the Russian context. We, further, contribute to the literature on cross-cultural management and leadership by providing a systematic and in-depth intra-national study on societal culture and business leadership in the Russian Federation. To do so, we first report the findings of our literature review and then proceed to pose and test our hypotheses. Finally, we discuss our findings and contributions, as well as limitations and future research directions.

Literature Review

Hypotheses

Though the theoretical notions and empirical evidence converge, to a limited degree, around the characteristic Russian Slavophile societal culture and preferred leadership, the generalization of such conclusions is problematic. From the theoretical standpoint, some research (e.g. Chimenson, 2021; Naumov, 1996) argues for the heterogeneity of the Slavophile and Western cultural values in the country, stemming from the historical, political, economic, thus, cultural contacts and dynamics. From an empirical aspect, our review of literature indicates several flaws therein. Hofstede´s model of culture dominates the literature; however, the cultural value dimensions have been used selectively, accentuating some and neglecting or completely disregarding other. Mostly leader-centric research uses sometimes modified or even unreported instruments operationalizing various leadership styles, attitudes, and behaviors. There is almost no dedicated research on intra-national differences and similarities in neither cultural values, leadership nor their relationships in Russia, as this country was often but one, along other, non-Slavic participating polygons, in the extant studies. Data in such studies was often obtained from different, often unspecified, parts of Russia by means of not only unspecified, but also inadequate (e.g. students, non-working population) samples.

Theoretical discordance and methodological flaws resulted in a lack of an unequivocal consensus related to the societal-cultural profile, preferred leader behaviors and their relationships in Russia. Drawing on these arguments and culturally contingent theory (House et al., 2004) we argue that Russia is a culturally heterogeneous society, and that European and Siberian regions should culturally differ from one another. Consequently, employees in these regions should exhibit varying preferences for leader behaviors as should the relationships between cultural values and these preferences vary. Given the colliding theoretical arguments and indeterminate empirical evidence, with an aim to explore the structure of these variations, we draw on culturally contingent theory and hypothesize differences between Siberian and Western Russian samples in H1 : cultural values, hence, H2 : employee preferences for leader behaviors, and H3 : their correlations.

Method and Findings

Methodological specifics (research instruments´ content, development, validation, translation, data analyses procedures and sample selection) related to this study are presented in the Editorial (Ljubica & Littrell) of this Special Issue. We applied random quota sampling, selecting from finite populations - employed businesspeople. Most of the data was collected via online surveys (i.e. employing Google Forms), however, when necessary, we utilized manual distribution and retrieval of paper surveys by volunteer faculty and students and mailed paper surveys to organization managers and executives to seek participation and distribution within their organization.

We have drawn two samples; one from Chita, Siberia (which we refer to as the “Siberian sample”) and several cites west of the Urals (e.g. Moscow, Rostov-on-Don, Kursk, and St Petersburg) which we refer to as the “European Russia sample”. Demographic specifics of the samples are presented in Table S1 in our supplemental file. The Siberian sample is larger (N = 333) and significantly younger (by 20 years in average) than the European sample (N = 107) and has a more balanced gender distribution unlike the European sample, dominated by women. A Bachelor degree is the most prevalent education level in both samples, with managerial respondents dominating the Siberian sample. In the Siberian sample most of the respondents work in privately owned, non-for-profit and non-governmental manufacturing and (various) service organizations and industries, while in the European sample, most respondents are employed by public or private education organizations.

Supporting our hypotheses, our results are depicted in Figures S1 and S2, and Tables S2 through S5 in our supplemental file. As may be seen in Table S2 and Figure S1, Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Indulgence and Monumentalism are significantly lower and Uncertainty Avoidance is significantly higher in Siberian sample, while no significant differences in Long-Term orientation are observed between samples. Table S3 and Figure S2 show preferred leader behaviors are significantly different between the samples with the smallest differences in Representation (.11) and Tolerance of Freedom (.43). The Siberian sample displays lower mean scores for all the behavioral dimensions.

Table S4 shows that, in the European sample, Monumentalism is significantly and positively related with most of the behavioral dimensions. Power Distance is positively related to Persuasion, Role Assumption and Integration and Individualism is negatively related to Initiation of Structure and Superior Orientation. Table S5 indicates the Siberian sample displays significant positive correlations between Power Distance and Consideration, between Masculinity and Representation and Persuasion, and negative between Indulgence and Persuasion.

In the Siberian sample, significant (p ≤ .05) and marginal correlations were obtained for Age (r = .124) and Years of Work Experience (r = .127) and Monumentalism; Number of Employees in the Organization and Indulgence (r = −.110); Tolerance of Freedom (r = .116) and the Role Assumption (r = −.113) leader behavior factors. In the European sample, significant (p ≤ .05) correlations were obtained for Years of Work Experience and Tolerance of Uncertainty (r = .200), Production Emphasis (r = −.228) and Superior Orientation (r = .194) factors; and for Job level and Initiation of Structure (r = −.308) leader behavior factor.

Discussion

In support of our hypotheses, we found that Siberian and European-Western Russia are distinct culture areas. Both possess traditional Slavophile-Orthodox as well as Western societal cultural values. The Siberian sample exhibited lower leader behavioral dimension mean scores, implying less intense affect when describing leaders. With this research, we contribute to the cross-cultural management and leadership literature by providing a systematic, intra-national study of cultural values and preferences for leader behaviors in the Russian Federation. We also extend the culturally contingent leadership theory by applying it in the Russian cultural context and by showing that; indeed, cultural values affect employee preferences for explicit leader behaviors. We now proceed to discuss our findings in relation to the literature and the reasons we believe are behind such findings. We then underline the limitations of and future research directions our research indicates.

Lower scores, thus, expectations from leaders in Siberian Russia are consistent with notions in the literature arguing for distance from political centers of these areas and the consequent lack of trust in authority and holders of power (Vitale, 2013; Naumov & Puffer, 2000). These findings also corroborate prior research that indicates Individualism values to be less accentuated in Siberian Russia (Naumov & Puffer, 2000), however, this support is only partial as we, unlike Naumov and Puffer, found Uncertainty Avoidance to be much higher in Siberian than in European Russia. We believe a viable explanation for these findings is that the geographical, social, and institutional distance and economic disparities between these regions rendered Siberian people more insecure about their future facilitating closer interpersonal bonds that substitute governmental and other formal authority-related care and provisions. Personal relations seem to have more importance than rules and play a central role in advancing peoples´ interests, creating opportunity and security in Siberia. This personal networking is characteristic for Russian society and is known as ‘blat’ - ‘favors of access’ (Balabanova et al., 2016; Ledeneva, 1998). The degree to which people rely on one another also varies significantly, depending on where they live. Generally, isolated villages or towns in rural areas, are more collectivistic, less heedful to power figures (i.e. leaders), less indulgent, thus more restrained, as they may not have access to certain provisions and exhibit less emphasis on status and symbols. Our findings indicating much higher Power Distance, Indulgence and Monumentalism values in the European Russia support such claims.

Conversely, both regions share low Long-Term Orientation, corroborating notions of the uniformly short-term oriented Russian society. For instance, The Levada Centre (2016) found 65% of Russians aged between 18 and 24 do not plan their lives further than two years ahead. In 2015, 46% of respondents to a poll stated they could not plan their future, as they did not know what would happen to them even in the next few months.

Further supporting societal-cultural distinctiveness of the Siberian Russia, positive relations between Power Distance and Integration and Consideration may imply expectations for leader concern and support, thus, a more paternalistic and inclusive leadership, generally not characteristic for Russia. However, the relationships between Masculinity and Representation and Persuasion, may reflect expectations of leader assertiveness and initiative, that is, desirability of a more authoritarian but supportive leadership, traditionally accepted in the Russian Federation. In European Russia, on the other hand, positive and significant relations are observed between Monumentalism and almost all leader behavior dimensions, indicating, unlike in Siberian Russia, perception of leaders as important, influential, and even celebrated, a traditional Russian or Slavic cultural feature. Positive relations between Power Distance and Persuasion, Role Assumption, and Integration (shared with Siberian Russia) are also aligned with such features, while those negative between Individualism and Initiation of Structure and Superior Orientation reflect a more Western-like characteristics.

In Siberia, older Russians are generally more Monumentalistic, and larger organizations nurture a more egalitarian type of managerial leadership. In Western Russia, more experienced, higher-level managerial leaders tend to have a more relaxed preference for pushing for higher production, and less interest in promoting their group, indicating confidence in their subordinates. These findings provide partial support for the Siberian Paradox phenomenon and corroborate notions of the generational voids and heterogeneity or coexistence and interaction of Western and traditional values (e.g. Chimenson et al., 2021; Naumov, 1996) and leader behaviors in the context of the Russian society and business.

Limitations, Future Research Directions and Conclusions

Despite our findings informing researchers and practitioners on preferred, thus, culturally accepted, and effective leadership in Russia, much more effort is required to enlarge and systematize the literature, hence, to concretize practical implications. For instance, Russia is divided on 46 oblasts (counties), has 22 Republics, 4 autonomous areas, and 8 ethnicities who speak over 150 languages and dialects, warranting additional research across these (sub)categories. Future research must safeguard methodological rigor and utilize multiple cultural models, as the reliability of any extrapolated value in cultural characterizations is low and susceptible to random effects, rendering the findings incorrect and misleading (Schwartz, 1992). To ensure generalizability researchers should use constructs on other levels, such as personal values and organizational norms and practices and examine their interactions with cultural models and leadership conceptualizations. These efforts are needed to develop a body of knowledge, paralleling that in the global West and East, elucidating the Black Box of culture and leadership in Russia. Consequently, such efforts are needed to construct concrete and effective guidelines for practitioners.

Supplemental Material