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

Abstract

In this study, we examine societal-cultural values and employee preferences for explicit leader behaviors and their relationships in the Russian Federation. Our analyses of data obtained from samples in two large regions (Siberia and Western Russia); indicate the heterogeneity, that is, differences of the traditional, Slavophile-Orthodox, and Western-like characteristics therein. In doing so, we contribute to the literature on culturally contingent business leadership in Russia, by providing a basis for and stimulating research to enlarge and systematize the literature and construct useful practical recommendations.

Keywords

culture leader behavior preferences Russia heterogeneity

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

Russian Societal-Cultural Profile

There is a theoretical consensus in the anthropology and cultural science literature (e.g. Vitale, 2013), that Russia represents the landmark or the criterion for the Slavophile societal culture. Some empirical evidence in the cross-cultural management literature (Hofstede, 2011) show that Slavic societal culture can be characterized as tending to score high on Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance; and low on Individualism and Indulgence. The Russian Federation occupies a unique position within Slavic culture, simultaneously representing its historical and linguistic roots while also developing a distinct cultural identity. The empirical evidence on the profile of national culture value dimensions in Russia, however, is sparse in, both, volume and insights, as well as conflicting. Some research indicates Russia is a high (indices greater than 60) Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance society. However, other research reports these and, with a larger degree of variability, other (i.e. Individualism, Masculinity) values as low (indices below 40) to moderate (indices between 40 and 60; Hofstede, 2011; Bollinger, 1994; Elenkov, 1998; Erastova, 2016; May, Puffer, & McCarthy, 2005; Naumov, 1996; Naumov & Puffer, 2000). Long-term Orientation is the least studied, with some research omitting this dimension, while some indicating high values (Erastova, 2016). We were able to locate but a single study (Hofstede, 2011) showing Indulgence as low and no studies other than ours on Monumentalism. The findings of the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004) add to the conflicting findings. This study found, for instance, high Power Distance and In-Group Collectivism (similar to Individualism) values, and low Uncertainty Avoidance and Future Orientation (similar to Long-Term Orientation) values in the country.

Cultural Dynamism in Russia

Consistent with notions that cultural values are not static but dynamic and, thus, susceptible to change (Hofstede, 2011), there have been several trends and shifts in Russian societal culture in the last few decades. Chimenson et al. (2021) argue that Russia’s interactions with the West in context of globalization and evolving geopolitical relations, triggered dramatic societal upheavals have fostered people’s ability to simultaneously embrace seemingly paradoxical, traditional Slavophile and Western values. Naumov (1996), who argued for a post-Soviet trend toward emphasis on personal power as opposed to positional power, reflecting a rise in Individualism and Materialism, corroborates this notion. In the Soviet era, the state was responsible for the people and determined their lives, rendering those raised in that time to feel a reduced sense of control over their lives, possess more pessimistic and fatalistic attitudes towards the future and more easily accept authority and power inequalities. Those born in the post-socialist period have more optimistic views and prefer personal control and power (Naumov, 1996), reflecting a decrease in Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance.

Culture Areas in Russia

In anthropology, “culture area” is a contiguous geographic area comprising several societies that possess the same or similar traits or that share a dominant cultural orientation and can, thus, be defined by traits, those uniquely present, and those uniquely absent (Mason, 1895). Societal cultures can differ and regions within a society can vary, especially in large and complex societies, as is Russia. Hence, many regional, socio-cultural divisions are possible, however, the West (Western, European Russia) - East (traditional, Slavophile) division is most common for the country (Hofstede, 2011). European Russia, urban, political, economic, and technological powerhouse of the country, is also geographically closer to the global West. Together with notions of Naumov (1996) and Chimenson et al. (2021), this implies that European Russia is more likely to exhibit cultural values characteristic to the global West, while Siberian Russia is more likely to exhibit Slavophile societal-cultural values.

Some research (e.g. Vitale, 2013), however, states that the culture of Eastern/Siberian Russia is quite different from Slavic-orthodox or Slavophile or even Asiatic, a notion known as the Siberian paradox. This research argues that many dissidents and political exiles as well as American merchants during the czarist period, imported western values in Siberia, reflecting in a merchant bourgeoisie mentality, the sense of self-government or individual freedom from the autocracy, the perception of the distance from the political center and, consequently, the normalization of uncertainty and freedom of thinking. Only Naumov and Puffer (2000), however, report the analyses of intra-national cultural variations indicating largest differences in Individualism and Uncertainty Avoidance, which are much lower in Siberia. These findings represent a partial corroboration of, both, the idea of “Westernized” European Russia and Slavophile Siberian Russia.

Business Leadership in the Russian Cultural Context

Literature on business leadership in Russia shares limited volume and insights with that of cultural values and is mostly leader-centric (based on leader self-reported data), putting forth a myriad of leadership types, styles, behaviors, or characteristics argued to be most prevalent, distinctive or effective in Russia. For instance, Fey et al. (2001) argued that most effective leader archetypes in Russia are task or relationship-oriented, democratic, as opposed to autocratic leaders. Balabanova (2016; 2018) found preferences for paternalistic, authoritarian and task-oriented leaders. Similarly, Elenkov (1998) found that the expected and accepted, hence, effective leadership style in Russia is an autocratic but supportive and intuitive, rather than factual style. McCarthy et al. (2008) described Russian leaders as transactional, and Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2001 as situational, consultative (but not participative), and both democratic and autocratic. Rhodes et al. (2004) posed personal leadership; time management, creative cooperation, and personal vision. Follower-centric research found that a more relational, democratic style of leadership rather than autocratic style was more effective (Levene & Higgs, 2018), and that transactional style is most prevalent in practice in Russia (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2001).

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

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

Supplemental Material for A Tossed Salad: Heterogeneity of Societal Culture and Preferred Leader Behavior in the Russian Federation by Romie F. Littrell, and Jasenko Ljubica in Cross-Cultural Research

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Romie Frederick Littrell has contributed to this Editorial within the framework of a subsidy granted to the National Research University - Higher School of Economics, Moscow, by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data availability: The data collected for this special issue is the property of the authors of the articles and the Center for Cross Cultural Comparisons. If you would like access, please request through the Editors of the Special Issue, Dr. Jasenko Ljubica, email: jasenko01@net.hr and/or Dr. Romie Frederick Littrell, email: rlittrell@hse.ru. Access may or may not be freely available due to the various persons, universities, and national governments involved.*

ORCID iDs

Romie F. Littrell

Jasenko Ljubica

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Romie F. Littrell is organizer and facilitator of the Centre for Cross Cultural Comparisons and a professor in the Department of Management of the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Petersburg, The Russian Federation. He has an extensive research and publication background in leadership and management in international business, winning several awards for journal articles and conference papers. Dr. Littrell has several decades of international business practitioner experience as well. He has earned PhDs in industrial/organizational psychology at Auckland University of Technology New Zealand and in business administration at Kennedy College Zurich, Switzerland.

Jasenko Ljubica is an Assistant Professor at the University of Split, Faculty of Economics, Business and Tourism (FEBT) in Split, Croatia, where he obtained his Ph.D. in organization and management (2015; special focus on expatriate managers). His research lies at the intersection of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Psychology and Human Resources in International Business where he studies Expatriate Management and Global Leadership. Underpinning his research is his additional interest in Research Methods in Management Sciences. Following his professional career in international business, he has taught and conducted research across five continents and seven countries and received numerous awards and recognitions for his professional and academic work.

References

Ardichvili

A. A.

Gasparishvili

(2001). Leadership profiles of managers in post-communist countries: A comparative study. Leadership and Organization Development, 22, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730110382613

Balabanova

Efendiev

Ehrnrooth

Koveshnikov

(2016). Job satisfaction, blat and intentions to leave among blue-collar employees in contemporary Russia. Baltic Journal of Management, 11(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-03-2015-0079

Balabanova

Rebrov

Koveshnikov

(2018). Managerial styles in privately owned domestic organizations in Russia: Heterogeneity, antecedents, and organizational implications. Management and Organization Review, 14(1), 37–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.45

Bollinger

(1994). The four cornerstones and three pillars in the “house of Russia” management system. The Journal of Management Development, 13(2), 49–54.

Chimenson

M. A.

Kolesova

E. I.

Volchock

(2021). Russia's cultural transformation in the age of globalization. In Berry

J. V.

Bond

M. H.

Sam

M. K.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (5th ed., pp. 399–418). Sage.

Elenkov

(1998). Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cultural comparative study. California Management Review, 40(4), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165968

Erastova

A. V.

(2016). The influence of the ethnic culture specifics on the organizational culture of the industrial enterprise. European Research Studies, 19(3), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.17687/JEB.0402.01

Fey

Adaeva

Vitkovskaia

(2001). Developing a model of leadership styles: What works best in Russia? International Business Review, 10(6), 615–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(01)00035-X

Hofstede

(2011). Culture and consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

10.

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Sully de Luque

(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.

11.

Ledeneva

A. V.

(1998). Russia's economy of favors: Blat, networking, and informal exchange. Cornell University Press.

12.

Levene

Higgs

(2018). Leadership and change implementation in a Russian context. Journal of General Management, 44(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306307018780406

13.

Mason

O. T.

(1895). Similarities in culture. American Anthropologist, 8(2), 101–117.

14.

May

R. C.

Puffer

S. M.

McCarthy

D. J.

(2005). Transferring management knowledge to Russia: A culturally based approach. The Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 24–35. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/4166172

15.

McCarthy

D. J.

Puffer

S. M.

May

R. C.

Ledgerwood

D. E.

Stewart

Jr., W. H.

(2008). Overcoming resistance to change in Russian organizations: The legacy of transactional leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.04.002

16.

Naumov

A. N.

(1996). Russian national character: A psychological perspective. Intercultural Press.

17.

Naumov

A. N.

Puffer

S. M.

(2000). Russian culture and business. In Naumov

A. N.

(Ed.), Organizational culture and business in Russia: A comparative approach. Routledge.

18.

Rhodes

Emery

Tian

Shurden

Tolbert

Oertel

(2004). Leader ethic: A cross-cultural examination of Covey‘s effective habits. Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 8(1), 65–70.

19.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

20.

Stogdill

R. M.

(1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. The Free Press.

21.

The Levada centre (2016). Visions of the future: Planning horizon and attitudes. The Levada centre. Retrieved May 11, 2023. from https://www.levada.ru/en/2023/02/14/visions-of-the-future-planning-horizon-and-attitudes/

22.

Vitale

(2013). Russia and the West: The myth of Russian cultural homogeneity and the “siberian paradox. Conference proceedings: Telos in Europe: The L’Aquila Conference, 7-9 September 2012. L’Aquila, Italy.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.52 MB