A Comparison of Preferred Leader Behaviors in Slavic Countries: Three Tribes and Seven Nations

Introduction

The study of leadership has a long and rich history, tracing back to the 6th century BC with the philosophical insights of Lao Tzu. However, it was not until the early 1930s that business leadership emerged as a distinct field of systematic scientific inquiry (Littrell, 2002). Driven by globalization and the increasing internationalization of companies, research on cross-cultural management and leadership has gained significant traction. At the heart of this growing academic interest lies the recognition that societal culture profoundly influences the effectiveness of leadership (Hofstede, 1980; Nandesh et al., 2022; Yukl, 2010). A compelling body of empirical evidence underscores the fact that the impact of various leadership styles and behaviors on individual and organizational outcomes varies across cultures (for a comprehensive review see: Zhang et al., 2021, 2022; Crede et al., 2019). While the majority of this research stems from the global West (Western Europe, Northern America) and East (East and Southeast Asia, Australia), there is relatively little known about leadership in Slavic societal cultures, uniquely positioned between these two global regions. Slavic nations share a complex and complicated history marked by cultural, economic, and military tensions, coupled with the ongoing process of European integration. This interplay of factors has opened Slavic nations to global influences, necessitating a systematic investigation into effective business leadership in this culturally distinct context.

Specifically, we delve into the similarities and differences in employee preferences for explicit leader behaviors across seven Slavic countries, affiliated with three Slavic tribes (Kamusella et al., 2016): Southern Slavs (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia and Serbia), Western Slavs (Poland and Czech Republic), and Eastern Slavs (Russia). We aim to provide a systematic, and comprehensive comparative study of leadership preferences, shedding light on the “Black Box” of culturally contingent leadership in these astonishing cultures. To achieve this, we first present comprehensive literature review. Subsequently, we develop and test hypotheses, and discuss the results of data analyses.

Literature Review

Research on leadership preferences in the Slavic nations is modest in, both, volume and, due to mixed and inconclusive findings, insights. This research shows that the most practiced leadership style in Bosnia and Herzegovina is participative and consultative, autonomous and directive in Croatia (Bakotić & Bulog, 2021; Fabac et al., 2022; Kostić-Bobanović & Bobanović, 2013), while leaders in both countries nurture vigilant (exploring all options) decision-making style (Dabić et al., 2015). Research also converges, to a relatively high degree in Serbia, indicating a tendency towards exploitative, authoritative leadership style (Janićijević & Marinković, 2015; Radulovic et al., 2019). Findings in other participating Slavic nations are much more conflicting. Some research (Kostovski et al., 2015) suggests that leaders in North Macedonia are more autocratically inclined, however, other research (Bojadjiev et al., 2015; Mileva et al., 2020) indicates they utilize democratic and participative style of leadership. Supporting such notions, Drakulovski et al. (2017) and Zenku and Kotevska Dimovska (2022) argue that transformational leadership that encourages follower confidence and productivity is most effective in North Macedonia. Similarly, research on leadership in Russia branches out in two streams. One indicates that expected and accepted, hence, effective leadership style in Russia is autocratic and transactional (Balabanova et al., 2018; Elenkov, 1998; Fey et al., 2001; McCarthy et al., 2008). The other stream argues for democratic, consultative, and relationship-focused style (Ardichvili et al., 2001; Levene & Higgs, 2018).

Research on business leadership in Poland and Czech Republic is also conflicting. Some research (House et al., 2004; Sułkowski & Mączyński, 2017) demonstrated a tendency toward team-oriented and less participative leadership; however, other research (Koźmiński, 2013) argues that charisma and authority are the premier characteristics of Polish leaders. Bajcar and Babiak (2015) argue for two dominant leadership styles in Poland: transactional in domestic organizations, and participative in multinational enterprises. Research (Costigan et al., 2011; Eisenberg et al., 2015; Steinmann & Pugnetti, 2021; Strużyna et al., 2021) also argues that preferences for more Western-like, participative leadership styles have been on the rise in Poland in the last few decades. Similarly, in Czech Republic the accepted and preferred leadership style was traditionally autocratic and transactional (Auer-Rizzi & Reber, 2013; Suutari & Riusala, 2001), however, Kohnová et al. (2023) identified a shift towards team-based and participative leadership in this country.

Hence, in addition to paucity, literature on business leadership in Slavic countries offers conflicting and limited, piecemeal insights. Extant literature entails, rather sporadically, some Slavic countries alongside other non-Slavic polygons, omitting dedicated, systematic, in-depth investigations of implicit leadership-related attributes and explicit manifestations (styles, behaviors) across and within Slavic nations and especially tribes. This research, furthermore, dominantly relies on leader-reported, thus, neglecting follower (employee)-reported data, and uses varying conceptualizations and operationalization of various leadership exhibitions, often inhibiting comprehension and replicability.

Hypotheses

Evidently, the cross-cultural management and leadership literature does not provide a consensus regarding the employees’ preferences for explicit leader behaviors in Slavic societal cultures. We, thus, draw on culturally contingent leadership theory (House et al., 2004) to examine the similarities and differences in such preferences in and across the participating Slavic nations. Extending the theory in Slavic context, we argue that despite sharing the same origins and ancestral heritage, Slavic nations belong to different tribes. These tribes have different languages, ethno-cultural subdivisions, that is, culture areas within their respective countries and have mixed, through time, with members of various ethnic, religious and other groups (Kamusella et al., 2016). Additionally, most of the Slavic nations, other than Russia that does, and Ukraine and Belarus which do not participate in this study, are relatively small and culturally homogenous countries with strong national cultures (Hofstede, 1980). This implies that intra-national similarities and not differences should be emphasized. We, thus, hypothesize:

H1

Mean scores for preferences for explicit leader behaviors will significantly differ between Slavic tribes.

H2

Mean scores for preferences for explicit leader behaviors will vary to a lesser degree between countries that belong to the same tribe, and to a greater degree between countries that belong to different tribes.

H3

Mean scores for preferences for explicit leader behaviors will vary to a lesser degree between culture areas (regions) of the participating countries that belong to the same tribe, and to a greater degree between culture areas of the participating countries that belong to different tribes.

Method & Results

Discussion

Culturally contingent leadership theory suggests that leadership-related attitudes are influenced by cultural values, norms, and expectations (House et al., 2004). Extending the theory in the Slavic context, we provide explanations of the variations in the magnitude and structure of preferences for explicit leader behaviors in our participating polygons, thereby increasing the explanatory power of our study. In doing so, we contribute to the theory as well as the cross-cultural management and leadership literature by providing the first systematic cross-cultural comparison of leadership preferences in and across Slavic nations and tribes. We augment our contributions with elaborations of the drivers behind variations in the magnitude and structure of such preferences. However, due to the pioneering nature of our study, and its limitations, more research is needed to fortify our findings.

As may be seen in Figures S1 and S2, Southern Slavs and Western Slavs exhibit similarly high (er) scores for leader behavioral dimensions, relative to Eastern Slavs. Western and Southern Slavic countries have been nearing the Global West in the last few decades with most of the countries approaching Euro-integration. Global West nurtures norms that include transforming the role of a leader from autocratic or even authoritarian towards inspiring and exemplary figures, showcasing social brokerage, decreasing the difference across hierarchical echelons in organizations, and deemphasizing assertiveness of and dependability on leaders (Levene & Higgs, 2018; McCharthy et al., 2008; Nandeesh et al., 2022). These trends may have pushed Southern and Western Slavic nations culturally closer to the Global West, reflecting the importance, as well as higher expectations from their leaders. Southern Slavs, furthermore, have been experiencing almost never-ending military, political and social-cultural turmoil (indeed, the Southern Slavic or Balkan areas have long been known as a “powder keg”; Veremis, 2015), producing a tradition of admiring political, military and other types of leaders. These nations, thus, place higher importance and stronger expectations of these and other (business) leaders. Western Slavs, on the other hand, have been a part of the Global West the longest, thus, nurturing values of equality, participation and inclusion. Employees in these nations may be more self and less leader-reliant.

Eastern Slavic nations are quasi-democratic and authoritarian, depriving people outside of the elite circles from decision-making power. This may have diminished their faith and expectations from leaders, explaining lower scores relative to Southern and Western Slavs. Tribal cultural value profiles (see in this Special Issue) confirm these notions. Power Distance and Monumentalism are larger for Southern Slavs suggesting stronger reliance and expectation in leaders, as is Individualism for Western Slavs reflecting preference toward autonomy and self-reliance. Eastern Slavs have the lowest Power Distance and Individualism values, corroborating the lowest scores across the leader behavioral dimensions.

Representation, further, is the behavioral dimension with the highest degree of similarities between the samples. Relatively high scores for this dimension across all samples imply that Slavic employees perceive and respect the formal role of the leader as a representative of the group. The most preferred behaviors are those relationships focused – Demand Reconciliation, Persuasiveness, Consideration and Integration. The least preferred are task-focused behaviors of Production Emphasis, Superior Orientation, Tolerance of Freedom, as well as Tolerance of Uncertainty. This indicates that Slavic nations accentuate relational harmony and well-being, derogating task execution. Employees in these nations, thus, expect their leaders to play more of a social than executive role. Low scores for Tolerance of Freedom (empowerment), implying that Slavic employees expect their leaders to take and not share responsibility, support such notions, as do relatively high scores on Indulgence across all the participating polygons except for Russian regions (see in this Special Issue). Low scores for Tolerance of Uncertainty behaviors collide with low scores for the same dimension of societal culture and responsibility avoidance, in addition to relatively high Power Distance values across the polygons. This implies Slavic employees may be desensitized from, hence, have diminished expectations for future-structuring leader behaviors. Recent and still ongoing global health (Covid-19) and geopolitical turmoil, unfolding in some Slavic countries in particular, may be driving such an inclination. However, as elaborated below, more research is needed to underpin such a conclusion.

Limitations and Future Research

As with other studies dealing with international differences in business leadership-related attitudes and opinions, our study is not free of limitations. Firstly, despite our efforts, we were not able to collect data in all the Slavic countries, including Bulgaria, Slovenia, Montenegro (Southern Slavs), Slovakia (Western Slavs), and Belarus and Ukraine (Eastern Slavs). Second, our sample distributions across several criteria such as size, gender, job levels, regions of countries, ethnicities and others, are not balanced. Temporal, financial, and other constraints such as educational systems, social norms tabooing leadership research or religion identification prevented us to obtain more demographically balanced data. Third, our analysis focused exclusively on employee preferences for leader behaviors. Finally, analyzing cross-cultural data requires unique methods and techniques to account for cultural variations. Failing to do so may lead to misinterpretations of results and there is additional caution in the interpretation of the results. Future research must acknowledge multi-level dynamics between personal values and attributes, organizational and various environmental influences and their interactions with different cultural models and leadership conceptualizations.

Conclusion

As shown in our study, the concept of Slavic leadership emerges as a notably intricate construct, both similar but also different from “West” or “East” understandings of leadership (House et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2021, 2022). Uncovering similarities and differences within and between Slavic countries and tribes, we offer the pioneering scientific insight into what truly is a Black Box of cross-cultural management and leadership research, leading us to rethink the approach of equating cultures to countries and vice versa. In doing so, we hope to ignite academic and professional interest for further discovering and uncovering the culture and leadership across and within these astonishing nations.

Supplemental Material