Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T11:57:52.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managerial Styles in Privately Owned Domestic Organizations in Russia: Heterogeneity, Antecedents, and Organizational Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

Evgeniya Balabanova ,
Alexey Rebrov  and
Alexei Koveshnikov
Evgeniya Balabanova
Affiliation:
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia
Alexey Rebrov
Affiliation:
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia
Alexei Koveshnikov*
Affiliation:
Aalto University, Finland
*
Corresponding author: Alexei Koveshnikov ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on a dataset consisting of 344 personal interviews, participant observations, and internal documents collected in 26 privately owned business organizations in Russia, the study aims at complementing existing research on Russian indigenous management in three ways. First, it examines the managerial styles of key individuals (i.e. owners and/or CEOs) in the case organizations. Hence, it taps into the existing heterogeneity of managerial styles, the so-called groupvergence, found in contemporary Russian organizations, and documents their idiosyncratic features, such as the transformational nature of authoritarian leadership. Second, the study explores the antecedents of the identified styles to establish what factors contribute to their emergence and thus sheds light on how the heterogeneous managerial styles in Russian organizations come into existence. Finally, the study investigates how the identified styles manifest themselves in organizations by influencing organizational goals and strategies, organizational structures, supporting mechanisms, relationships between organizational members, and reward systems. It therefore elaborates on the organizational implications of the styles and highlights the mechanisms of their sustainable diffusion to lower organizational levels in Russian organizations.

摘要:

摘要:

利用一个包括344份个人访谈、参与观察和从26个俄罗斯私营组织搜集的内部文档的数据, 本研究旨在从三个方面对现有的俄罗斯本土管理研究做出补充。第一, 探讨这些组织中的主要个体 (即所有者和/或CEO) 的管理风格, 从而了解现代俄罗斯组织中管理风格的异质性, 即所谓的群体收敛 (groupvergence) , 并记录这些管理风格的独特性, 诸如权威领导中的转型式特点。第二, 本研究探讨所发现的管理风格的前因变量, 从而发现导致这些风格出现的因素, 揭示俄罗斯组织中的不同管理风格是怎样发生的。最后, 本研究探讨所发现的管理风格在组织中如何影响组织目标和策略、组织架构、支持机制、组织成员之间的关系、以及奖励体系等, 从而阐述管理风格的组织意义, 并强调它们对于俄罗斯组织中低层员工的长久影响。

रूस के 26 निजी स्वामित्व व्यवसायों से 344 साक्षात्कार, सहभागी अवलोकन, व दस्तावेज़ों के आंकड़ा समुच्चय के आधार पर किये गए इस शोध का लक्ष्य सम्प्रति रूसी स्वदेशीय प्रबंधन अध्ययन का तीन आयामों से पूरक होना है. सर्वप्रथम यह शोध प्रतिनिधि संगठनों के महत्त्वपूर्ण व्यक्तियों (स्वामी/मुख्य कार्यकारी) की प्रबंधन शैली का परीक्षण करता है. अतः, यह पत्र सम्प्रति रूसी संगठनों में उपलब्ध प्रबंधन शैलियों की विविधता, जिसमें तथाकथित सामूहिक अभिसरण (ग्रुप कन्वर्जेन्स) समाहित है, पर नज़र डालता है, और साथ ही उसके अधिकारवादी नेतृत्व को रूपांतरण स्वरूप जैसे स्वभाव विशिष्ट तत्वों को दर्ज करता है. दूसरा, यह शोध पत्र अभिज्ञात शैलियों के पूर्वगामी तत्वों पर अनुसंधान कर उनके कारकों को निरूपित करता है जिस से उसमें पृथक प्रबंधन शैलियों के आविर्भाव पर प्रकाश डाला गया है. अंततः, यह शोध अध्ययन यह अनुसंधान करता है की किस प्रकार प्रबंधन शैलियां नियत संगठन में सांगठनिक लक्ष्य व रणनीति, संरचना, सहायक प्रक्रियाओं और सदस्यों के सम्बन्ध तथा प्रतिफल को प्रभावित कर प्रदर्शित होती हैं. यह शोध इस प्रकार प्रबंधन शैलियों के संगठनात्मक प्रभाव का ब्यौरा देता है और साथ ही रूसी संगठनों में उनके निचले स्तर पर सतत प्रसार पर प्रकाश डालता है.

Sumário:

SUMÁRIO:

Com base em um conjunto de dados composto por 344 entrevistas pessoais, observação participante e documentos internos coletados em 26 organizações empresariais de propriedade privada na Rússia, o estudo visa complementar a pesquisa existente sobre a gestão natural da Rússia de três maneiras. Primeiramente, ele examina os estilos gerenciais de indivíduos-chave (ou seja, proprietários e / ou CEOs) nas organizações dos casos. Por conseguinte, ele aborda a heterogeneidade existente de estilos gerenciais, a chamada “groupvergence”, encontrada em organizações russas contemporâneas, e documenta suas características idiossincráticas, como a natureza transformacional da liderança autoritária. Em segundo lugar, o estudo explora os antecedentes dos estilos identificados para identificar quais fatores contribuem para o seu surgimento e, portanto, lança luz sobre como os estilos gerenciais heterogêneos nas organizações russas se tornam realidade. Finalmente, o estudo investiga como os estilos identificados se manifestam nas organizações influenciando os objetivos e estratégias organizacionais, estruturas organizacionais, mecanismos de apoio, relacionamentos entre membros organizacionais e sistemas de recompensa. Ele, portanto, elabora as implicações organizacionais dos estilos e destaca os mecanismos de sua difusão sustentável para reduzir os níveis organizacionais nas organizações russas.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

На основании выборки из 344 личных интервью, непосредственных наблюдений и внутренних документов из 26 частных коммерческих организаций в России, данная работа ставит своей целью дополнить существующие исследования по исконным моделям управления в России в трех аспектах. Во-первых, в этом исследовании рассматриваются стили управления, которые свойственны ключевым лицам (т.е. владельцам и/или руководителям) в изучаемых организациях. Следовательно, данное исследование подтверждает существование гетерогенности в управленческих стилях, так называемую групповую вергенцию, в современных российских организациях, а также документирует своеобразные особенности этих стилей, такие как трансформационный характер авторитарного руководства. Во-вторых, данная работа изучает предпосылки для этих стилей управления с той целью, чтобы определить, какие факторы способствуют их возникновению, и, таким образом, проливает свет на то, как возникают гетерогенные стили управления в российских организациях. Наконец, в работе исследуется, каким образом эти стили проявляются в организациях, а именно, какое влияние они оказывают на организационные цели и стратегии, организационные структуры, вспомогательные механизмы, отношения между членами организации и системы вознаграждения. Таким образом, в данной работе делаются выводы о влиянии стилей управления на организации, а также выявляются механизмы их устойчивого распространения на более низкие организационные уровни в российских организациях.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Basándose en una base de datos que consta de 344 entrevistas personales, observaciones de participantes y documentos internos recopilados en 26 organizaciones empresariales de propiedad privada en Rusia, el estudio intenta complementar la investigación existente en gestión autóctona de tres maneras. Primero, examina los estilos gerenciales de individuos clave (es decir, los dueños, y/o CEO) en el caso de las organizaciones. Por lo tanto, se nutre la heterogeneidad existente de los estilos de gestión, la llamada convergencia grupal, encontrada en las organizaciones Rusas contemporáneas, y documenta sus características idiosincráticas, como la naturaleza transformacional del liderazgo autoritario. Segundo, el estudio explora los antecedentes de los estilos identificados para establecer cuales factores contribuyen a su surgimiento y por lo tanto arroja luz sobre cómo los estilos gerenciales en las organizaciones Rusas llegan a existir. Finalmente, el estudio investiga como los estilos identificados se manifiestan en las organizaciones al influir las metas y estrategias organizacionales, las estructuras organizacionales, los mecanismos de apoyo, las relaciones entre los miembros organizacionales, y los sistemas de recompensa. Por lo tanto, elabora las implicaciones organizacionales de los estilos y resalta los mecanismos de su difusión sostenible a los niveles organizacionales bajos en las organizaciones rusas.

Keywords

heterogeneityindigenous managementmanagerial stylesowners/CEOsRussiatrickle-down effect异质性本土管理管理风格所有者/CEO俄罗斯涓滴效应विविधतास्वदेशीय प्रबंधनप्रबंधन शैलियाँस्वामी/मुख्य कार्यकारीरूसअन्तःस्रवण सिद्धांतheterogeneidadegestão naturalestilos gerenciaisproprietáriosCEOsRússiaefeito gotejanteгетерогенностьисконные модели управлениястили управлениявладельцы/руководителиРоссияэффект постепенного стимулированияheterogeneidadgestión autóctonaestilos gerencialesdueños/CEOsRusiaefecto de goteo
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 37 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 507–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexashin, Y., & Blenkinsopp, J. 2005. Changes in Russian managerial values: A test of the convergence hypothesis? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 (3): 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2016. Intellectual failure and ideological success in organization studies: The case of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25 (2): 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amernic, J., Craig, R., & Tourish, D. 2007. The transformational leader as pedagogue, physician, architect, commander, and saint: Five root metaphors in Jack Welch's letters to stockholders of General Electric. Human Relations, 60 (12): 1839–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardichvili, A., & Gasparishvili, A. 2001. Socio-cultural values, internal work culture and leadership styles in four post-communist countries. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1 (2): 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardichvili, A., & Kuchinke, P. 2002. Leadership styles and cultural values among managers and subordinates: A comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union, Germany, and the US. Human Resource Development International, 5 (1): 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astakhova, M., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Hogue, M. 2010. A typology of middle managers in modern Russia: An intracultural puzzle. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34 (5): 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. 1995. MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical Report. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.Google Scholar
Bakacsi, G., Sandor, T., Andras, K., & Viktor, I. 2002. Eastern European cluster: Tradition and transition. Journal of World Business, 37 (1): 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balabanova, E., & Efendiev, A. 2015. The voice of employees in Russian business organizations: Conceptualization and empirical analysis. Mir Rossii, 24 (3): 61–87 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Balabanova, E., Efendiev, A., Ehrnrooth, M., & Koveshnikov, A. 2015. Idiosyncrasy, heterogeneity and evolution of managerial styles in contemporary Russia. Baltic Journal of Management, 10 (1): 2–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, H., & Barton, L. C. 2011. Trust and psychological empowerment in the Russian work context. Human Resource Management Review, 21: 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. 2008. CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29 (5): 615–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Björkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. 2007. Explaining choice of MNC subsidiary human resource management practices: Evidence from a three-country study. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (3): 340–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, M. L. 2002. Taming ‘wild’ capitalism. Discourse and Society, 13 (2): 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. 1992. A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18 (3): 523–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conger, J. A. 1998. Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9 (1): 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13 (1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, S. E. A., Day, M., & Brewster, C. 2014. Changing HRM systems in two Russian oil companies: Western hegemony or Russian spetsifika? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25 (22): 3134–3156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, S. E. A., Meyer, K. E., & Day, M. 2010. Stages of organizational transformation in transition economies: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (3): 416–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efendiev, A. G., & Balabanova, E. S. 2012. The social organization of Russian business: Theoretical and methodological approaches and their realization in the empirical study. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 39 (5): 58–69 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Efendiev, A. G., Balabanova, E. S., & Liubykh, Zh. S. 2014. Russian employees' participation in decision taking in domestic and foreign-owned companies. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 41 (12): 41–50 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Elenkov, D. S. 1997. Differences and similarities in managerial values between US and Russian managers: An empirical study. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27 (1): 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elenkov, D. S. 1998. Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cultural comparative study. California Management Review, 40 (4): 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elenkov, D. S. 2002. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. Journal of Business Research, 55 (6): 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, C. F., Adaeva, M., & Vitkovskaia, A. 2001. Developing a model of leadership styles: What works best in Russia? International Business Review, 10 (6): 615–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, C. F., & Björkman, I. 2001. The effect of human resource management practices on MNC subsidiary performance in Russia. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (1): 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, C. F., & Denison, D. R. 2003. Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can American theory be applied in Russia? Organization Science, 14 (6): 686–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, C. F., & Shekshnia, S. 2011. The key commandments for doing business in Russia. Organizational Dynamics, 40 (1): 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garengo, P., & Bititci, U. 2007. Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: An empirical study in Scottish SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27 (8): 802–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpelson, V., & Kapeliushnikov, R. 2011. Labor market adjustment: Is Russia different? Working papers by IZA. Series ‘IZA Discussion Paper’. No. 5588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16 (1): 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grachev, M. V. 2009. Russia, culture, and leadership: Cross-cultural comparisons of managerial values and practices. Problems of Post-Communism, 56 (1): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurkov, I., & Settles, A. 2013. A dominant archetype of the HRM system in Russian industrial companies in post-recession times. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (19): 3630–3643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurkov, I. 2016. Human resource management in Russian manufacturing subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Post-Communist Economies, 28 (3): 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtbrügge, D. 2013. Indigenous management research. Management International Review, 53 (1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, A. M., Kim, S. S., & Butt, A. N. 2016. Leveraging values diversity: The emergence and implications of a global managerial culture in global organizations. Management International Review, 56 (2): 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. 2000. A journey into the ‘Wild East’: Leadership style and organizational practices in Russia. Organizational Dynamics, 28 (4): 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. 2001. The anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and leadership. Human Relations, 54 (5): 585–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobernyuk, E., Stiles, D., & Ellson, T. 2014. International joint ventures in Russia: Cultures' influences on alliance success. Journal of Business Research, 67 (4): 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korostelina, K. V. 2013. Ukraine twenty years after independence: Concept models of the society. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 46 (1): 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koveshnikov, A., Barner-Rasmussen, W., Ehrnrooth, M., & Mäkelä, K. 2012. A framework of successful organizational practices in Western multinational companies operating in Russia. Journal of World Business, 47 (3): 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koveshnikov, A., Vaara, E., & Ehrnrooth, M. 2016. Stereotype-based managerial identity work in multinational corporations. Organization Studies, 37 (9): 1353–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latukha, M. 2015. Talent management in Russian companies: Domestic challenges and international experience. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26 (8): 1051–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. 2012. The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision of employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (5): 1187–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattsson, L.-G., & Salmi, A. 2013. The changing role of personal networks during Russian transformation: Challenges for Russian management. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28 (3): 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. 2012. A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65 (2): 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. C., Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. 2005. Transferring management knowledge to Russia: A culturally based approach. Academy of Management Executives, 19 (2): 24–35.Google Scholar
Mayer, D., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. 2009. How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. J., & Puffer, S. M. 2013. Business and management in Russia: A review of the post-Soviet literature and future research directions. European Journal of International Management, 7 (1): 74–111.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D., Puffer, S., & Darda, S. V. 2010. Convergence in entrepreneurial leadership style: Evidence from Russia. California Management Review, 52 (4): 48–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., May, R. C., Ledgerwood, D. E., & Stewart, W. H. Jr. 2008. Overcoming resistance to change in Russian organizations: The legacy of transactional leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37 (3): 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., Vikhanski, O. S., & Naumov, A. I. 2005. Russian managers in the new Europe: Need for a new management style. Organizational Dynamics, 34 (3): 231– 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michailova, S. 2002. When common sense becomes uncommon: Participation and empowerment in Russian companies with Western participation. Journal of World Business, 37 (3): 180–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michailova, S., & Worm, V. 2003. Personal networking in Russia and China: Blat and guanxi. European Management Journal, 21 (4): 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mixon, L. 2009. Use of the authorizing figure, authoritarian charisma, and national myth in the discourse of Hugo Chávez: Toward a critical model of rhetorical analysis for political discourse. Regent University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.Google Scholar
Muratbekova-Touron, M. 2002. Working in Kazakhstan and Russia: Perception of French managers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13 (2): 2213–2231.Google Scholar
Noordegraaf, M., & Stewart, R. 2000. Managerial behaviour research in private and public sectors: Distinctiveness, disputes and directions. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (3): 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Chatman, J. A. 2014. The promise and problems of organizational culture: CEO personality, culture, and firm performance. Group and Organization Management, 39 (6): 595–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. 2003. The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 795–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. 2011. Two decades of Russian business and management research: An institutional theory perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25 (2): 21–36.Google Scholar
Puffer, S. M., McCarthy, D. J., Jaeger, A. M., & Dunlap, D. 2013. The use of favors by emerging market managers: Facilitator or inhibitor of international expansion? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30 (2): 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler−Smith, E., Hampson, Y., Chaston, I., & Badger, B. 2003. Managerial behavior, entrepreneurial style, and small firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41 (1): 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40 (3): 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, A. 2016. Terror, love and brainwashing: Attachment in cults and totalitarian systems. London & New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. 2002. Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55 (2): 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourish, D., & Vatcha, N. 2005. Charismatic leadership and corporate cultism at Enron: The elimination of dissent, the promotion of conformity and organizational collapse. Leadership, 1 (4): 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upchurch, M., & Marinkovic, D. 2011. Wild capitalism, privatisation and employment relations in Serbia. Employee Relations, 33 (4): 316–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voldnes, G., Grønhaug, K., & Sogn-Grundvåg, G. 2014. Conducting qualitative research in Russia: Challenges and advice. Journal of East-West Business, 20 (3): 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., Tsui, A., & Xin, K. 2011. CEO leadership behaviors, organizational performance, and employees’ attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (1): 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisbord, M. R. 1978. Organizational diagnosis: A workbook of theory and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. 2001. Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar