Leadership styes used in modern Russia - Essay Example

?Table of Contents Introduction 2 Body 2 Diversity 3 itative not itarian leadership 3 Strong one-company organizational culture with foreign elements 5 Empowered modern organizations 7 Competitiveness 7 Manifestations of leadership 8 Modern Russian leaders 9 Conclusion 11 Recommendations 12 References 14 Leadership Styles in Modern Russia Introduction Since the fall of the USSR which saw the separation of the Soviet countries, Russia rose to be one of the more unique economies and political unions in the world. Coming from a communist set-up, modern Russia has managed to establish a strong leadership style in its corporate as well as its political setting. Under the modern Russia, there are various leadership styles which have become very apparent. This report shall consider and critically assess these leadership styles applied by companies/individuals in modern Russia. This paper seeks to assess what type and how these leadership styles are being applied in modern Russia, and how effective they are in helping achieve the economic and political goals of the country. Body During the transition period from the totalitarian governance to the free market, Russia has managed to overcome the major changes within the microeconomic and macroeconomic framework, including the political processes and cultural practices and behaviours (Fey and Dennison, 2001). It is therefore important to evaluate and understand the present progression of Russia under a global setting, and to evaluate the elements which indicate effective leadership and the impact of culture within the transition economy. Throughout the years, Russia was able to gain the values of both the West and the East, mostly in relation to reason as well as inspiration. It also provided a bridge between the East and Western values and traditions (Gratchev, 2001). These qualities helped push Russia to success, often encouraging it to concentrate its efforts towards gaining control over its large geographic space. Diversity In modern Russia, the role of the state and corporations in economic activities is very much significant. Their economy is controlled by a few financial and industrial conglomerates and considered significantly power than the government (Bollinger, 1994). Russia’s future will have to depend on the relations between the different major players in the economy and the government. Within the competitive framework of the modern economic Russia, the country’s management core is diverse in its economic and political interests (Gratchev, 2001). Some groups are known as the Old Guard who are highly adept at large-scale activities, including the management of technological innovations (Gratchev, et.al., 2005). These leaders also manage to access the primary decision-making points and utilize connections in order to control resources. These leaders manage large industrial corporations in highly competitive sectors including oil, gas, space travel, and shipbuilding (Gratchev, et.al., 2005). The other set of modern Russian leaders are known as the New Wave leaders. These leaders work based on the initiation of economic reform. These are also the younger leaders who seek success and business education. Another group of leaders are known as the Unwilling Entrepreneurs (Gratchev, et.al., 2005). These are leaders who are prompted to take the initiative due to their fears of unemployment; and most of their transactions are in the small-scale trade. Based on these diverse elements and motivations, modern Russian leadership contains elements of the diverse, and their distinct and diverse quality is their motivation for engaging in business (Gratchev, et.al., 2005). Authoritative not authoritarian leadership Russia is traditionally based on authoritative leadership, and the new era of capitalism supports this tradition. Even with strong entrepreneurship competencies among its businessmen, these businessmen have significant power within organizations (Kets de Vries, et.al., 2004). Followers see their leaders as superior individuals who have unique qualities which deserve their loyalty. These followers also need their powerful and charismatic leaders and often look up to these leaders regardless of the intentions of these leaders (Kets de Vries, et.al., 2004). In the higher rungs of Russian power, leaders do not have similar expectations of foreigners occupying leadership positions. Even where these leaders may occupy the position of CEO, it would not mean that these leaders would gain the same support from the Russian subordinates (McCarthy, et.al., 2008). Respect and conformity usually arises only if the foreign leader would show superior competence and manifest strong and effective results. As these foreign leaders are then recognized for their skills and competence, the subordinates then expect these leaders to manage their issues and improve their work lives, as well as the performance of the company. Foreign leaders have a higher standard to fulfil in terms of Russian corporate leadership especially as foreigners are perceived to be more progressive than their Russian counterparts (McCarthy, et.al., 2008). Where the conditions are ideal, Russian employees supported by managers can achieve significant success. Robert Sheppard, a British national managed Sidanco as its de facto president in 1999 after Moscow courts declared the company bankrupt (Fey, 2010). According to Fey (2010) through Sheppard’s leadership, the company somehow gained significant advancements, raking in profits with the help of a new business model. Based on internal surveys, the employees were also very much satisfied. Sheppard implemented changes in the company by applying authoritative leadership. This type of leadership was applied with the entry of a strong and highly-involved executive who uses authority which he gains from the competence of his followers (Fey, 2010). This type of leadership can only work however where the template for effective leadership is already laid out. Authoritative leadership can therefore only work best with the support of effective and supportive members. As was apparent in the managed subsidiaries for the company, Sheppard was able to work with these subsidiaries in order to implement essential changes in the corporation. Tough decisions were made as he took out unreliable employees and put in place the right people in the regional branches (Fey, 2010). According to Fey (2010), Sheppard met with the main and relevant leaders in Russia, including the regional governors, federal minsters, and bankers, emphasizing the commitment of Sidanco and BP to the future of the country and the company. Through this type of leadership, the people within and outside the company recognized the success of the company and of their new leader. Ahlstrom and Bruton (2009) note however that the authoritative form of leadership may not work if the company is not ready for such structure. In this case, Sidanco was already not performing well financially and needed a strong hand to push it into boundaries which it has never tried. Ahlstrom and Bruton (2009) points out that authoritative leadership may not always work for companies, especially those which are already displaying favourable progress, or those which do not need to be fixed. In this case Sidanco needed to be fixed, and it needed compelling direction to carry it through crucial moments in its management (Phillips and Gully, 2011). Strong one-company organizational culture with foreign elements Modern leadership in Russia has also manifested that a strong and effective organizational culture which manifests with clear sustainable organizational practices in the achievement of specific goals in successful corporate Russia (Fey, 2008). Pavel Sarkov of the UPM Paper in St. Petersburg emphasized the importance of strong organizational culture in Russia by indicating that organizational culture is a main element which distinguishes their firm from other firms. Pavel also declares that their company is founded on trust in their employees, openness (internal and external), as well as initiative (Fey, 2010). According to Kuhlmann (2010), “behind every successful leader is a vibrant culture that engages and energizes employees.” In most instances, culture is defined by the leader. In this case Pavel defined the culture and through such culture energized his employees. The impact of the common corporate culture, accepting foreign elements was also highlighted in the case of Mars Company. The Mars Company has applied a strong organizational culture with strong foreign elements which have consistently been applied within the company (Fey and Dennison, 2003). Although the company is primarily a subsidiary of the US Mars, Inc., this Russian subsidiary has proved to be one of its strongest and biggest subsidiaries (Rothacher, 2003). Fey and Dennison (2003) emphasize therefore that the company has distinctive foreign elements and utilizes such features to its maximum advantage in order to secure talented employees. Not all foreign elements are however needed in order to gain success, Fey and Dennison (2003) also argue that it is also important to adapt to the local culture, using its strengths to support the foreign elements (Fey and Dennison, 2003). Foreign elements have also been seen in terms of its informal culture which is considered an American quality. Each employee is referred to as associates and the flow of data to the different associates is encouraged. This open quality in the workplace is not traditionally a Russian quality for corporations; however, the current Russian setting has recognized the importance of applying and adopting effective foreign qualities for their companies (Fey and Dennison, 2003). Adopting the best features of the American corporate culture may have worked well for the Mars Company because the company is still very much an American subsidiary; it is however difficult to gauge if such one-company culture can still apply to Russian companies without foreign influences. According to Anghel (2012) the essence of adapting to the corporate culture is better founded on using the local culture, not on imposing the foreign culture. In the case of Mars Company, the dominant American culture has been imposed over the local culture (Anghel, 2012). In essence, the adaptation is discarded and the acceptance of a diverse corporate culture is pushed aside. Empowered modern organizations Empowerment has been recognized as a major management element for corporations. According to ___ the leader who is able to empower his members transfers or transmits some of his power and authority to the members as well. This can be a difficult undertaking for leaders, especially as most leaders want to stay in control. Nevertheless, empowering one’s members can also ensure more responsive followers and members. In Russia, this has proven to be a significant challenge for their corporations (Kets de Vries, 2001). Traditionally, Russian organizations do not know much about empowerment; however, foreign corporations in Russia including Gillette and Microsoft have recognized that empowerment can be built into their corporations. Under these considerations, modern Russian leadership have also acknowledged the fact that empowerment is a process, and a gradual process at that (Kets de Vries, 2001). It cannot therefore be secured overnight and must be carried out via step-by-step actions. Empowerment is also expected to secure visible results in order to motivate employees. In the case of Gillette, there were 650 workers employed at the St. Petersburg subsidiary and in order to increase and empower employees, the company implemented a cross-functional project known as rapid improvement events (Fey, 2010). This is seen when cross-functional teams with members from different positions in the organization are allowed a week off in order to resolve specific issues and implement solutions the soonest time possible. According to Forbes and Ahmed (2010), this type of leadership helps achieve immediate results. The empowerment of employees would also achieve mobilization, however, according to Gill (2012), it also signifies the relinquishment of power from the leader. Without proper monitoring and supervision however, losing power to the employees may also imply the loss of administrative control over the company. Empowerment of employees as pointed out by Gill (2012) carries inherent risks which may not impact well on management, especially if the goals of the members are not congruent with the goals of the leaders. Competitiveness During the communist era, it was convenient to perform based on planned outcomes and goals as most of their leaders were rewarded for meeting favorable results (Hisrich and Gratchev, 1995). In the modern setting, the state is performing behind the initiatives taken under the competitive economy. For corporate leaders however, they believe that everything is possible and they do not put limits on their individual and organizational goals (Gratchev, 2001). Russia has taken on the qualities of competitiveness within the international arena because it has recognized the need to stay relevant in the current age of globalization. This was very much apparent in the case of Gazprom which has grown significantly since its establishment in the 1980s (Kenneth, 2003). At whatever point that its political voice needed to be heard, its leaders have not been hesitant in expressing their objectives and in seeking ways to fulfill such objectives (De Vries, 2000). This competitiveness and to some degree, its assertiveness has often caused friction with other countries, notably the United States and some of its neighboring former territories (Gratchev, et.al., 2005). Nevertheless, its quality of competitiveness has helped its leaders both in the political and economic scene to achieve their goals. Modern Russian leaders Modern Russian leaders and entrepreneurs have been engaged and involved in leadership development. Issues of notable interest included the nature of leaders and whether these leaders are those who gradually developed favorable features or those who had no leadership qualities and earned leadership training (Randall, 2001). Modern Russian leadership portrays qualities which are based on learned skills with their entrepreneurs portraying elements based on both their traditions and modern concepts. As a result of the emerging global trends in leadership, Russian corporate executives have had no choice but to apply the authoritarian leadership styles (Fey and Dennison, 2001). This is based on the fact that the more effective style of leadership for Russia is the authoritative leadership style. This type of leadership helps ensure a comprehensive vision and helps empower communities by establishing significance and hope for citizens wanting to establish their own business, while also ensuring teamwork and integrated leadership styles (Hisrich and Gratchev, 1995). Authoritarian leadership is being applied by the emerging corporate leaders who understand that this type of leadership does not give in to coercion. In effect, in relation to the Russian experience, authoritarian leadership has demonstrated that most people in the corporate scene have autonomy and competence, as well as importance and impact to the economy (Bollinger, 1994). In exploring transactional and transformational leadership, it would be important to express that the transactional leaders in modern Russia function based on the structures of attainable traditions. On the other hand, the transformational leaders consider the more extensive changes which are supported by a clear vision (Bollinger, 1994). In general, Russian leadership is based on authoritative and transformational leadership. This is supported by the fact that leadership practices have been considered important in Russia only if they are supported by trends and authoritative concepts. Russia’s record is also rich in the activities of authoritative leaders who helped establish a strong and effective business setting (Bollinger, 1994). In contrast to the various fears of Russians in relation to authoritative leadership, this type of leadership does not necessarily imply a lack of direction. In fact, authoritative practices ensure that all employees and enterprises have the guiding tools on the direction to take and on the operational purpose of their activities (Blackwell, 1994). In assessing the leadership elements which have been applied in Russia, it would be important to suggest that leadership practices within said period are similar to contemporary Russia. The leadership activities which were used at the start of the 20th century had significant elements of communism and this established a fodder for autocratic and a patrimonial style of leadership (Blackwell, 1994). Such concepts have significantly prevented growth in the economy and in social empowerment. Even with such issues, the contemporary Russia is seeing the rise of leaders who are also portraying diverse leadership qualities which are very much authoritative and innovative; these styles are also communicative and are supported by dynamic relations (Blackwell, 1994). Based on current leadership research, Russians are seeking value-based leaders like Nogotkov from Ernst and Young who can also motivate others and ensure favorable performance results supported by decisive core standards (Modern Russia, 2011). One main reason for this preferred direction can be seen in terms of being visionary in one’s leadership and entrepreneurship stance. These qualities would likely ensure both short-term and long-term business growth (Gratchev, et.al., 2005). In effect, Russian leadership is based on the presentations of emerging executives who are seeking to fulfill their obligations and commitments. This situation is protecting a scenario for effective leaders who can be knowledgeable and highly competent. It can therefore be said that leadership practices in Russia are based on the established qualities of integrity, collaboration as well as administrative strength and teamwork (Hisrich and Gratchev, 1995). Under these conditions, Russian leaders have ensured the establishment of specific indicators which are also being used to protect diverse organizational and managerial practices in relation to current and future investments of resources. Conclusion It is important to indicate that the leadership styles being applied in Russia today are a clear indication of a nation which is going through social as well as economic changes; and leadership qualities being used are effective as well as reliable (Bollinger, 1994). In some instances, these leadership styles are working well for corporate Russia, however, in other cases, especially in having foreign corporate styles dominate, the local corporate styles may work best for these corporations. As modern Russia is trying to catch up with its western contemporaries, it is also veering away from its better qualities, qualities which are unique to its industries and human resources. It is however understandable for Russia to look to its foreign counterparts, especially in the current age of globalized industries. Nevertheless, retaining some of its local leadership qualities may also help identify it as a corporate leader. Recommendations Modern Russian leaders portray qualities which are based on traditional, Soviet, and contemporary Russia. Primarily, contemporary Russia is supported by foreign elements which are relevant to their leadership goals. To some extent, shared qualities within these periods of Russian history portray qualities of authoritativeness. This quality has been seen in the political as well as the economic sector of modern Russia. The kind of leadership being seen in Russia today can be attributed to the vision and the decisiveness of their administrative processes which the emerging and the new leaders have also applied and embraced. In comparing the current leaders to their predecessors, it is important to note that modern Russian economic and political leaders are directing their activities towards the achievement of global economic standards which are more liberal and more engaging than the traditional goals of previous Soviet and traditional leaders in Russia. Russia also needs to consider the maintenance of its local leadership qualities in order to protect its unique identity while still being globally competitive. References Anghel, G., 2011. Doomed to internationalization and modernization of corporate culture: The Russian experience of German firms. London: Springer. Blackwell, W., 1994. The industrialization of Russia: a historical perspective. Arlington Heights: H. Davidson. De Vries, M., 2000. A journey into the “Wild East”: Leadership style and organizational practices in Russia. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), pp. 67-81. Fey, C. and Denison, D., 2001. Organizational Culture and Effectiveness: the Case of Foreign Firms in Russia. Business Administration No. 2000, 4. Fey, C. and Denison, D., 2003. Organizational culture and effectiveness: An American theory be applied in Russia?. Organization Science, 14(6), pp. 686–706. Fey, C.F., 2008. Overcoming a leader’s greatest challenge: involving employees in firms in Russia. Organization Dynamics, 37(3), pp. 254-265 Fey, C., 2010. The key commandments for doing business in Russia [online]. Available at: http://www.sseru.org/materials/articles/key%20commandments%2024.pdf [Accessed 22 November 2012]. Forbes, L. and Ahmed, S., 2010. Modern construction: Lean project delivery and integrated practices. London: CRC Press. Gill, R., 2012. Theory and practice of leadership. London: SAGE. Gratchev, M., 2001. Making the most of cultural differences. Harvard Business Review. Gratchev, M., Rogovsky, N. and Ratitski, B., 2005. Leadership and culture in Russia: the case of transitional economy [online]. Available at: http://www.fh-fulda.de/fileadmin/Fachbereich_SW/Downloads/Profs/Wolf/Studies/russia/russia_chapter_tc4.pdf [Accessed 23 October 2012]. Hisrich, R. and Gratchev, M., 1995. The Russian entrepreneur: Characteristics: prescriptions for managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(2), pp. 3-10. Kenneth, C., 2003. Russian corporations eye global markets. The Russia Journal, 510 [online]. Available at: http://www.russiajournal.com/node/14661 [Accessed 25 October 2012]. Kets de Vries, M., 2001. The Anarchist Within: Clinical Reflections on Russian Character and Leadership Style. Human Relations, 54(5), pp. 585–628. Kets de Vries, M., Shekshnia, S., Korotov, K., and Florent-Treacy, E., 2004. The new Russian business leaders. London: Edward Elgar. Kuhlmann, A., 2010. Culture-driven leadership [online]. Available at: http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/culture-driven-leadership#.UWIobzcccyA [Accessed 02 April 2013]. McCarthy, D., Puffer, S., May, R., and Ledgerwood, D., 2008. Overcoming resistance to change in Russian organizations: The legacy of transactional leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(3), pp. 221-235. Michailova, S., 2000. Contrasts in culture: Russian and Western perspectives on organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 14 (4). Mikheyev, D. (1996). Russia transformed. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. Modern Russia, 2011. Entrepreneurs doing business in Russia adopt open leadership styles [online]. Available at: http://www.modernrussia.com/content/entrepreneurs-doing-business-russia-adopt-open-leadership-styles [Accessed 25 October 2012]. Naumov, A. and Puffer, S., 2000. Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede's dimensions. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 49 (4), pp. 709-718. Puffer, S.M., McCarthy, D.J. and Naumov, A.I., 2000. The Russian capitalist experiment: From state-owned organizations to entrepreneurships. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Randall, L., 2001. Reluctant capitalists: Russia’s journey through market transition. New York: Routledge. Rothacher, A., 2004. Corporate cultures and global brands. London: World Scientific. Rogovsky, N., Bertocci, C., and Gratchev, M., 1997. Social exclusion and business initiatives in the economies in transition: the case of Russia. Copenhagen: The Danish National Institute of Social Research. Schuler, R. and Rogovsky, N., 1998. Understanding compensation practice variations across firms: the impact of national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 159- 177. Wilson, D. & Donaldson, L., 1996. Russian etiquette & ethics in business. Chicago: NTS Business Books. Read More