Relationships between Employer and Employees in Great Britain and in Russia - Research Paper Example

Relationships between employer and employees in UK and Russia: Comparison from employee viewpoint By YOU YOUR ACADEMIC ORGANISATION HERE 10 January 2008 Relationships between employer and employees in UK and Russia: Comparison from employee viewpoint Introduction The cultural differences between Russian employees and workers in the United Kingdom are substantially different in relation to how authority is perceived in both nations, as well as the interpersonal relationship. Employees in the UK are often described as being individualistic and are often considered to be vital contributors to the business environment in regards to their own unique accomplishments and insight into streamlining business practices. In opposite accord, employees in Russia are often dominated by rigidly-controlled organisations in which their individual contributions to the company are over-shadowed by strict authoritarian control. This paper compares the different cultural aspects between workers in these two countries, relying on both primary research data and secondary literature to determine how employee/employer relationships are viewed in the UK and Russia. The Russian Worker Russia is considered to be a hierarchical culture, meaning that the majority of decision-making, especially in business, is determined at the highest managerial levels of the company with minimal consultation to lower-ranking workers (Landy & Conte, 2006). Most Russian organisations have a rather mechanistic structure, in which employees are expected to conform to senior-level decisions somewhat regardless of their own unique perspectives on the managerial policies (Sul, 2000). The aforementioned would tend to illustrate that Russian employees are not often given the opportunity to expand their own abilities and utilise their unique skills in education and experience to guide the organisation. Thus, in many respects, the Russian employee maintains virtually no influence in the internal affairs of the business until they reach a level of managerial status. Such a culture is categorised using Hofstede’s cultural dimension as having high power distance, which suggests that Russian cultural factors create significant divides between authority and the workers (Mathis & Jackson, 2005). Power distance is also categorised as the worker’s own high expectations of this existing division between manager and employee and have learned to thrive in such an environment where their unique input is not taken into consideration when building managerial policy or procedure. The strong hierarchical culture in Russian businesses tend to make employees reluctant to challenge the decision-making of authoritarian managers as such confrontation might suggest that the employee maintains little respect for social status; from the managers’ perspective a threat to the stability of social and managerial structures (Brett, 2004). The many layers of Russian management generally maintain a social superior (or middle manager) through which employees handle their grievances or turn toward for conflict resolution (Brett). In a typical Russian organisation, it would be deemed highly inappropriate and unacceptable for an employee to appeal directly to the higher levels of management in the hierarchy without first seeking the advices or attention of immediate supervision. For instance, if an employee in the Russian business environment recognised an opportunity for enhancing productivity and staff performance, they would likely reconsider whether to discuss the matter for fear that colleagues would consider such suggestions to be complaints, thus damaging interpersonal relationships in the company (Anttonen, Tuunanen & Alon, 2005). An additional element of the Russian business environment is a high instance of uncertainty avoidance, categorised as the dimension of culture in which people prefer structured rather than unstructured situations (via-web.de, 2007). For instance, high uncertainty avoidance generally categorises workers (and managers) as being highly resistant to change, perceiving that changes to the organisational climate or enhancing traditional business practices may represent a threat to the social and political norm in the company. This would tend to suggest, rather subjectively, that Russian employees prefer to stay within established methods of conducting business and are less flexible in the constantly-fluctuating competitive business environment. The UK Employee Quite opposite from the Russian employee is the worker in the United Kingdom, characterised as maintaining a high expectation for individualism. Individualism is represented by the level to which an employee or manager views the importance of individual worker contribution to the business and the level to which such suggestions or influences are taken seriously (Mathis & Jackson). High individualist cultures tend to isolate unique performance aspects of workers and provide ample reward when ideas or suggestions, from a singular individual, serve to enhance business operations or profitability. Further, individualist business environments usually create employee development programmes (or other similar motivational incentives) which firmly establish that a person can succeed and build career longevity based on unique performance; over that of the group environment. In addition, because of the individualist mentality, UK employees generally expect that a business will maintain significantly-less division between authority and the worker, giving them opportunities for autonomy and for having a voice for suggestions regarding improvements. Hence, there are low levels of power distance in the UK where managers and employees theoretically act as a team, rather than through a rigid hierarchical structure where top-down decision-making is not challenged. A recent survey of over 1,000 UK employees, focusing on the perceived importance of aspects of business communication, indicated that the majority of UK workers considered corporate level communications between the worker to be of significant importance, as well as from the middle management layers (Kessler, Undy & Heron, 2004). This would tend to suggest that most UK employees believe that the highest levels of the management team should not be segregated from the lower levels in virtually all aspects of the business. All of the aforementioned would tend to illustrate that the UK business climate is an inter-connected system of communication, team-working and individualism in which employees have many opportunities to express their unique skills and talents. The UK culture is also illustrated as one with very low uncertainty avoidance, in which the employees and managers alike are more flexible to internal and external changes without offering resistance (Griffin & Moorhead, 2006). This would tend to suggest that the UK business environment is much more flexible and willing to radically alter process and procedure in favour of increased productivity and profitability. Primary Study Methodology All of the elements of the UK and Russian environment would tend to suggest that both cultures maintain radically-different viewpoints in relation to adaptation and flexibility and the nature by which organisations are managed from an authoritarian versus individualistic perspective. The theory would tend to illustrate that an individual who accepted an expatriate assignment in Russia would have a very difficult time adjusting to a more rigid Russian business structure. In opposite accord, Russian employees may find that somewhat unstructured UK business practices and beliefs are too unorthodox and experience difficulty when the business theoretically places more emphasis on individual contribution. However, is this entirely true? In order to determine practice versus theory, it was important to conduct a small-scale study targeted at a sample of employees in Russia and the UK, asking questions pertaining to perceptions of individualism, power distance, and internal business flexibility. The study took a quantitative approach to research, which Henslin (2003) describes as relying on the interpretation of data using various statistical numbers. As such, the primary study instrument consisted of a multi-tick, structured questionnaire (self-administered) designed to elicit specific responses to a series of well-designed questions. As this researcher maintains many ties to the Russian environment, the questionnaire was distributed to a third-party via e-mail. This third party was instructed to distribute copies of the research instrument to all subordinate members (within reason) within their organisation. For ethics reasons, the name of the company is being obscured from the research study, however the firm is a well-known, larger-scale industrial corporation with an employee population of over 350. The original desired sample group was expected to consist of between 80-100 employees. The questionnaires were returned via the postal service with a participation level of 68, representing the unique viewpoints of 68 Russian employees. The UK sample group consisted of responses for 61 employees, distributed to employees within an organisation that this researcher maintains association with. For ethics considerations, the name of the individual employees and the organisation are being obscured from the data discussion of this study. The survey was distributed over a one week period. The questionnaire template is listed in Appendix A. All of the multi-tick responses were coordinated and plotted using simple Microsoft Office tools. An average of all scores was determined by adding individual responses and dividing by the number of participants to determine a mean ratio by country of origin. Data Results Table 1 illustrates the mean totals from both the UK sample and the Russian sample. Table 1 Individualism, Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance         UK Sample Russian Sample     Management Consultation 3.42 2.07     Likelihood to Consult Superiors 4.18 2.56     Importance of Executive Communication 4.01 2.65     Level of Value for Individual Contribution 3.91 1.56     Frequency of Change Activities 4.65 2.5     Likelihood to Appeal Directly to Executives 3.11 1.33     Degree of Individual Talent Utilisation 3.87 2.08 Discussion The results of the employee questionnaires were completely congruent with the theoretical perspectives regarding the various levels of individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance within the UK and Russian cultural system. The frequency by which managers consulted employees in Russia was significantly lower than that of their UK counterparts. In fact, 37 Russian employees indicated one as their multi-tick answers in response to the question highlighting managerial willingness to consult with lower-level employees, indicating that such events either never occur or are extremely infrequent. In opposite accord, UK employees were widely mixed regarding the frequency of these events, however the 3.42 mean average tends to illustrate that this occurs much more regularly in the UK business environment. The Russian likelihood to consult superiors about improvements or suggestions was quite low in comparison to that of their UK colleagues. The UK sample indicated a very high willingness to discuss issues with superiors. In addition, the overall importance for executive level communication was quite high in the UK as opposed to Russia. These statistics lend further support to the low levels of power distance frequently cited within the UK business climate. Russian employees cited a dramatic under-utilisation of their individual contribution, with a mean average of only 1.56 regarding managerial value for their skills and abilities. UK employees were significantly higher with a mean of 3.91. In similar accord, the degree to which talents are actually utilised by management scored only 2.08 for Russian employees compared to 3.87 for UK workers, suggesting a much higher level of individualism in the UK; as is supported by secondary research literature. The frequency of change activities in Russia was quite low at 2.5, compared to UK perceptions at a rather startling average of 4.65. The literature suggested that UK employees and business environments are more adaptable, hence the primary study results support these notions. The likelihood to appeal directly to executive level managers scored a low 1.33 in the Russian environment, and was reasonably low in the UK as well, with a 3.11 mean average. This can probably be explained by the high levels of power distance in Russia as well as the layers of management which exist at the corporation utilised for the UK sample. In most companies, it is inappropriate to skip middle management layers to appeal directly to executive leadership. Usually, by rather common knowledge, appeals directly to executive management are a last resort effort when middle management is unable to handle the conflict or dispute. Conclusion and Recommendations It is quite clear that there is a significant difference regarding manager/subordinate relationships in Russia compared to the United Kingdom. Higher levels of distance between authoritarian regimes in the Russian environment are categorised by diminished appeals to management for individual improvement suggestions, management willingness to consult subordinates for suggestions, and the employee lack of willingness to appeal directly to executive leadership. This would support the research literature highlighting the strict, authoritarian, mechanistic structures in the Russian organisation. One particular element of interest, reflecting on the literature review of Russian culture, was the suggestion that Russian business leaders and their subordinates are much less flexible to change than those individuals in Western cultures. Perhaps this represents a failing in the Russian business environment where traditionalism outweighs improvement, which might contribute to the fact that the current Russian economy is still struggling in regards to maintaining a competitive, global edge. It might be a competent recommendation for Russian business leaders to consider the successes of more progressive societies and work towards creating a more flexible and adaptable Russia. The economy in the UK is quite strong today, which might be attributed to the flexibility which appears to exist in most UK businesses today. It is clear that individual contributions in Russia maintain far less scrutiny and value than that of their UK counterparts, which was illustrated by the perceived level of value that Russian managers place on their employees and the minimal degree of talent utilisation. It would be likely unrealistic to assume that a culture can change overnight, however Russian business leaders would likely benefit from pool of ideas and skills provided by talented workers if they strive to work more as a team rather than as a rigid hierarchy of command and subordination. It would seem that high power distance, lack of individualism, and high uncertainty avoidance are all inter-linked in the Russian business environment which can serve to create difficulties in Western nations. Hence, the most logical conclusion which can be drawn from this research project is that the UK is far more progressive and flexible than Russian businesses and employees are valued in far greater proportion. Bibliography Anttonen, N., Tuunanen, M. & Alon, I. (2005). ‘The International Business Environments of Franchising in Russia’. Academy of Marketing Science Review. No. 5: 1-18. Brett, Jeanne M. (2004). ‘Negotiating Globally. How to Negotiate Deals, Resolve Disputes, and Make Decisions Across Cultural Boundaries’. Retrieved 30 Dec 2007 from http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/68/07879558/0787955868.pdf Griffin, R. & Moorehead, G. (2006). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. 8th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company. Henslin, James M. (2003). Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach. 6th ed. A & B Publishing. Kessler, I., Undy, R. & Heron, P. (2004). ‘Employee perspectives on communication and consultation: findings from a cross-national survey’. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 15(3): 512-532. Landy, F. & Conte, J. (2006). Work in the 21st Century. An Introduction to Industrial and Organisational Psychology. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing: 33-36. Mathis, R. & Jackson, J. (2005). Human Resource Management. 10th ed. United Kingdom, Thomson South Western. Sul, Hoon Ku. (2000). ‘Franchising and the Global Environment’. Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management – Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University. Retrieved 31 Dec 2007 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-01142002-151314/unrestricted/Str_etd.pdf via-web.de. (2007). ‘International business cultures’. International business studies – Germany. Retrieved 30 Dec 2007 from http://www.via-web.de/283.html Appendix A: Study Questionnaire Template 1. To what level do you feel that your management consults you regarding your opinion about the business environment? 1 2 3 4 5 2. If you identified an opportunity to change a policy or procedure for the better, how likely would you be to appeal to management to discuss the issue? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How important is it that you receive communications from the corporate (executive) level? 1 2 3 4 5 4. To what level does your organisation value group work over that of individual contribution? 1 2 3 4 5 5. To what degree does your organization actively implement changes to the way things are done internally or externally? 1 2 3 4 5 6. How likely would you be to appeal directly to executive-level managers to discuss your problems or concerns about your job? 1 2 3 4 5 7. To what degree do you feel that your own skills, talents and ideas are utilised in the firm? 1 2 3 4 5 Read More