Leadership and Culture in Russia: The Case of Transitional Economy
Mikhail V. Gratchev1
Nikolai G. Rogovsky2
Boris V. Rakitski3
INTRODUCTION
Countries of the former Soviet block adjust to the global factors and conditions of socioeconomic development in parallel to their revolutionary efforts to substitute the totalitarian
system of the past with democracy and free market. While the level of success of such a
transition varies among different countries, Russia with no doubt is overcoming the most
substantial changes of systemic nature in macro- and microeconomic framework, in political
structure, in peoples’ motivation and entrepreneurship, and in cultural norms and behaviors in
the society. This makes it important to understand the current developments in Russia within the
global context, and at the same time explain the factors that determine effective leadership and
influence of culture in transitional economy.
Statistical data in Chapter **** displays Russia as recent superpower (still on top in military
expenditure of 12.3 percent in GDP) with the largest territory covering eleven time zones,
currently placing itself among developing countries with GDP 2,260 US$ per capita. Economic
transition in 1990-1998 resulted in deep crisis with annual decline of GDP of 7 percent and
annual decline in gross domestic investment of 13.7 percent. According to 1998 data the country
of 146.9 million people Russia has low indicators of life expectancy of 67 years. Unemployment
rate is high 13.3 percent even with high indicators of female economic activity (80.8 percent).
While economic crisis of the 1990s was deep, there are strong indications of revitalization and
purification of the economy. Obsolete industries shrink and new advanced industries emerge at
an incredible pace. Legislation is under construction. There are visible signs of openness of
Russia and establishing civilized business practices. A number of enterprises and people who act
as entrepreneurs and real business leaders is growing in the market-oriented economy. A shift in
management paradigm and organizational techniques is visible everywhere - in traditional
mining and machine-building industries fighting for survival, in new fast growing
telecommunications, construction, business services, and trade. The business community has
begun to understand that intangible assets such as cultural variables (at both organizational and
national levels) and certain leadership styles and behavior can be the sources of competitive
advantage. Multinational corporations transfer leadership skills and management know-how to
Russia. Local managers and entrepreneurs seek for compatibility in organizational methods and
language of business with their foreign partners.
1
2
3
Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Moscow, Russia
California State University, Hayward, Hayward CA
Institute of Problems and Perspectives of the Country, Moscow, Russia
2
The period when the main GLOBE data collection was conducted was the time of radical
changes in all the spheres of social life, especially in property and financial system, following the
political reforms of the early 1990s. In very few years economic landscape became
unrecognizable from the past. The most tremendous changes were privatization and
restructuring of financial institutions. Mikhail Gorbachev’s words about “chaos in the minds”
adequately describe the “mental model” of many Russians at that time. This is why historic
overview of Russian business culture and leadership at large is combined with the specific
analysis of transitional effects of economic and behavioral transformation on culture and
leadership.
This chapter is guided by these current changes, and describes the emic characteristics of Russia
with special focus on business culture and its interrelations with entrepreneurial leadership in a
transitional economy. GLOBE methodology and techniques help to understand that in
contemporary Russia: 1) instead of Soviet universalism of the past we find a fragmented
managerial corps and cultural clusters; 2) types and characteristics of business culture are
marginal when compared to the other countries, and Russian management does not fit easily
internationally recognized practices; 3) the profile of effective business leader in Russia absorbs
historical features of a nation, heritage of totalitarian system, and peculiarities of society-intransition, and 4) there is visible shift in public attention to business leadership with media
playing important role in re-inventing this leadership profile.
GENESIS OF RUSSIAN BUSINESS CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP
Based on literature overview, related to different periods of nation’s history, general features of
business culture and leadership can be determined. They refer to aggregate characteristics of
culture, enormous entrepreneurial potential of Russian people, their continuous fight against
monopolism, and search for effective principles of business management4.
4
Five groups of research sources to study business culture and leadership in Russia can be determined. (1) An
extensive historiography on the subject related to pre-Revolution period exists: memoirs of traders (kuptsi); books
by Russian historians (Karamzin 1892; Klyuchevski 1904; Soloviev 1913), documents and papers on industry
development of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and companies' business records. (2) During the
Soviet period the phenomenon of Russian business leadership received limited attention in the USSR because
economically the state became the only employer legally capable to exploit economic freedom and further, the Party
monopolized responsibility for management development and economic transformations politically. The result was
ideological censorship of Russian economic history and the standardization of economic "heroes" such as politically
loyal directors of state-owned enterprises or Party nomenklatura leaders. (3) In the West, Sovietologists focused on
Russian entrepreneurship in the Tsarist period (the rise of Muskovy business activity in the sixteenth/seventeenth
centuries, cultural economic determinants of Russian business in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and
also the role of foreign businesses influencing Russian economy) and also gave insight relevant to business activity
in the USSR (the state's domination over the economy and pseudo-entrepreneurial role of the Party, central planning
as determinant of Soviet economy and transfer of risk of entrepreneurship from individual to the state) (Blackwell
1994; Berliner 1976; Owen 1981; Guroff and Carstensen 1983). (4) In the post-Socialist period of Russian history
a discussion started on rebirth of Russian entrepreneurship and business leadership (Ageev 1991; Kuzmichev and
Petrov 1993; Shikhirev 2000). And (5) international interaction of Russian scholars and access of Western
researchers to Russian data had led to analyze Russian business practice with the advanced management research
tools and provide with international comparisons of entrepreneurship, management and business ethics (Puffer 1992;
Hisrich and Gratchev 1993, 1996; Bollinger 1994; Anderson and Shikhirev 1994; Puffer and McCarthy 1995;
3
Aggregate characteristics
The main features of Russian culture are rooted in Slavic history, Orthodox religion, and specific
features of climate and nature. While Russia was growing through centuries, its leaders were
traditionally associated with the state, religion or military. The first independent Slavonic state Kievan Rus - was founded in 862 with the capital in Kiev. Later the centre of gravity had shifted
to the cities of Novgorod and Vladimir. Being subjugated by the Tatars, the Russian
development was seriously stunned through the 13-15th centuries until in 1480 Muscovy
(Moscow State) succeeded in uniting the Russian states. After liberalization from the Tatars,
Muskovy strengthed as the dominant principality, and Russian Tzars such as Ivan the Great
(ruled in 1462-1505) and Boris Godunov (1598-1605) are still respected historic figures. The
Russian Orthodox church was a great influence in society, and several spiritual leaders were
deified and are still highly respected (such as St.Sergii of Radonezh).
Russian history was marked by repeated attempts to catch up with the West economically,
politically and culturally. At the same time the country’s leaders pursued imperial ambitions to
the south and east (Caucasus, Central Asia, Siberia, Far East). Peter the Great (1696-1725)
started “Westernization” by autocratic and barbarian means, proclaiming Russia as Empire in
1721, and constructing St.Petersburg as its new capital. He was also an admired military leader
leading Russia to victories in several wars. The imperial gains were later consolidated by
Catherine the Great (1762-1796).
Through the centuries Russia absorbed the basic values of both the West and the East - reason
and inspiration. And it served as a bridge between Western and Eastern cultural traditions, with
the certain psychological dependence on both. These characteristics attracted much attention
from the 18th century to early 20th century. According to one of the best Russian historians of the
nineteenth century V. Kluchevski, the national character combined among the others such
qualities as: the habit of patient struggle against misfortunes and hardships; ability to concentrate
efforts; ability to cooperate within large geographic space (Kluchevski 1904). The other famous
intellectual, P. Chaadaev defined contradictive Russian national character by such features as:
brutality and inclination to violence; impersonal collectivism; Messianism; internal freedom;
kindness; humanism; gentleness; search for truth (Chaadaev 1991).
But in the 20th century under Communism these Russian characteristics were enforced by the
specific Soviet (totalitarian) traits, such as perception of environment as hostile and dangerous;
society’s supremacy over individual’s goals; and relativistic view of the morality with
acceptance of double standards in life. One feature, should be underlined. As D. Mikheev
explains,
real courage and cowardice can be measured only in the face of obvious, not just
perceived, dangers. In these circumstances, Russians are anything but cowards (Mikheev
1987, 521-522).
Russian culture is rich in contradictions, is spiritual, and sustainable. With the Russian
contribution to the human civilization, it is seen as an important factor for global development.
Ageev, Gratchev and Hisrich 1995; Rogovsky, Bertocci, and Gratchev, 1997; Puffer, McCarthy and Naumov 2000;
Michailova 2000; de Vries 2000; Fey 2001, Gratchev 2001).
4
Being holistic and influential, Slavic-Orthodox culture5 is treated as one of few global cultures
(Huntington 1993).
Entrepreneurial potential and fight against monopolism
In Imperial Russia, in the Soviet Union and in post-Socialist Russia one can see a vast amount of
entrepreneurial potential. In the medieval Russian cities of Kiev and Novgorod not only did
merchants and artisans have political power and substantial wealth, but almost everyone above
the lowest level of peasants was engaged in one type of enterprise or another. In Imperial Russia
there was a substantial supply of entrepreneurial energy from both within and outside the
business enterprise. And St.Peterbourgh managed to breed a cosmopolitan type of entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurs in the time of Peter the Great were traders who had created Europe's strongest
military-industrial complex for Imperial Russia. The economic liberalism of Catherine the Great
in the late 18th century had attracted to entrepreneurship the highest-ranking Russian nobles.
However, the Industrial revolution (which started in Russia half a century later than it had started
in England) brought to Russia the real spirit of private entrepreneurship. This phenomenon
primarily affected textile industries oriented to the internal market.
After defeating Napoleon in 1812-15 Russia was recognized as the great power, however lagging
behind the West institutionally and economically. Autocratic state was based on the
predominantly agrarian economy and a feudal serf system. The Economic reform of 1861 gave
freedom to peasants and activated different social groups. Industrial policy led to the "railway
fever" and created favorable conditions for development of banking capital to be added to
existing industrial capital. Talented Russian businessmen S. Morozov, L. Knopp, P.
Ryabushinski and others became founders of successful business empires in Russia and
introduced many organizational innovations.
A vigorous level of entrepreneurial response existed even within the Soviet command system.
There is a certain positive Russian entrepreneurial heritage, including courageous behaviors,
great technical projects and charitable traditions. However Russian history has been a
continuous fight against monopolism. In contrast to the West, Russia
appears to have largely retained, even in periods of rapid industrial expansion, an
autocratic or patrimonial system (single-centered) which has sharply limited the
autonomy of economic units in the use and disposal of resources, and which has
preserved for those in political control the right, if only de jure, to determine the pace and
pattern of economic development (Guroff and Carstensen 1983, 347).
The feature of pre-Revolution and Soviet societies - non-economic domination of a small group
of elite aristocracy or Party nomenclature over economic development - directly influenced:
economic policy (imperial foreign and oppressive domestic economic policy and creation of
military-industrial complex); ownership (state as the owner and employer, restriction of other
ownership forms); institutions (legislation hostile to business, bureaucratization, standardization
of structures and decisions); and culture (state paternalism and lack of personal responsibility
and initiative).
5
The collapse of the USSR has changed the ethnic and demographic structure of Russia making it more culturally
homogenous. While ethnic Russians counted less than a half of the USSR population before 1990s, in contemporary
Russia the ethnic Russians represent 81.5% of population, thus creating a strong base for nationalistic trends and
behaviors. Tatars are the second ethnic group with 3.8% of population.
5
In the Soviet economy the overwhelming majority of resources were under the control of a small
group of monopolistic or oligopolistic coalitions6. The needs of the society were sacrificed for
the sake of stability and the expansion of these coalitions. Their influence on political leadership
secured decision-making by the suppression of competition and by channeling public opinion. In
general, their domination resulted in a 20-25 year delay in undertaking the required structural
changes causing Russia to lag behind international standards of quality of life.
In contemporary Russia, the question of the role of state and large corporations in economic
development is critical. Russia’s economy is run by a small number of financial-industrial
groups, arguably more powerful than the state. The future of the country will largely depend on
the relationships between these major economic players and the government.
In the current transitional economy the core discussions on the future of Russian business focus
on dilemma of large corporations vs. small businesses, the role of the government in supporting
large businesses, and ownership structure (shareholders, institutions, managers and employees).
While Russian top government officials and Parliament members, academic experts, and
representatives of the leading companies display the diversity and contradictions of views on the
future of large businesses, the main conclusion is that the stage of aggregating the capital through
selling state property (“privatization stage”) is over, and the new epoch could be defined as the
stage of “managing capital effectively”. And the oligarchs - leaders of industrial and financial
empires, such as B. Berezovsky, V. Gussinski, R. Vyakhirev – displayed the new model for
leadership in the Russian economy.
Three main conclusions help in understanding the process of re-inventing the Russian
corporation in the late 1990s. First, the leaders of the large industrial corporations are quite
interested in effective organizational development. They often seek new ways to switch from
conglomerates of financially loosely linked entities to diversified corporations - whether with
related or unrelated businesses7. This presents the new stage in development of management
mentality of the Russians, and the process of building the critical mass of people able and willing
to manage their businesses in a “modern” way. Second, the large businesses put pressure on the
government in lobbying its interests and adjusting the legislation accordingly. Their leaders
resist the current government actions to demonopolize the Russian economy and to increase tax
pressure on large business. They underline that the government does not have a clear strategy on
development of large businesses. Third, currently there is no visible stakeholders’ influence on
corporate design and development. There is no indication of any constructive dialogue between
business and its stakeholders (unions in particular) in the nearest future. And the Russian
corporations are in the process of formation also displaying a unique, yet not clear national
identity.8
6
This phenomenon was not unique only for the military-industrial complex. It also existed in such industrial areas
as construction, mining, trade, and power engineering. For example, in the mid-1980s in the USSR one could
identify only two main retail networks, one airline company, one oil-extraction ministerial monopoly, and nine
ministerial concerns in defense industries.
7
In May 1998 representatives of large financial-industrial groups (FIG), questioned by EBRD, ranked lack of
finance and lack of competitive advantages among their key problems in business and organizational development.
According to EBRD experts, however, the main FIG problems were structural weaknesses, poor corporate
management, low cost effectiveness, and the unclear role of the financial institution.
8
The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Michael Camdessus in Spring 1998 personally
warned Russian President Yeltsin about the dangers of an Asian-like “incestuous relationships between banking,
government and corporate sectors” in Russia, comparing a growing oligarchy with the Asian system of chaebels,
6
Leadership diversity
The competitive market factors in transitional economy make Russian managerial corps very
diverse with a variety of economic and political interests. The first group, the Old Guard,
consists of those who proved their talents as leaders in a number of large-scale projects, such as
managing technological innovations. They exploit their access to key decision-making points
and information, and use former connections and control over resources. These people still keep
the leading position in the large industrial corporations or in the internationally competitive
sectors of the economy (oil-and-gas, space, aviation, shipbuilding and others). The second
group, the New Wave of entrepreneurs, initiated by economic reform, follow a different road to
economic independence. This group searches for innovations, and reflects the new economic
thinking. They are leaders of former shadow economy which is now being increasingly
legalized, former Communist party functionaries, or military officers who successfully
transformed into businessmen. A large proportion of this group is young people, hungry for
success and business education. Another group of people, who can be called Unwilling
Entrepreneurs, were forced to take initiatives due to fear of unemployment and are involved
primarily in small-scale trade transactions. Finally, there is a growing interest on behalf of
Foreign Entrepreneurs to operate in the Russian market. Among this group are the
representatives of the Russian Diaspora, who strengthen economic ties with Russian business.
Similar version of clustering Russian business leaders is suggested by M. de Vries. He identifies
two groups separated by a substantial generation gap. In the first group he places young
enthusiastic, talented people who recognize the opportunities of the new open society. This
group also includes former black marketers turning to legitimized business and children of Party
nomenklatura. The second group is combined by the administrators and bureaucrats who used to
supervise the Soviet economy in the past. However this group is not homogeneous. One
subgroup belongs to present business elite well connected to retain privileged positions. The
other subgroup among the older generation is focused on self-preservation, making whatever
superficial adjustments to maintain their status, but often giving lip service to the new economy
(de Vries 2000, 71-72).
Research on entrepreneurial leaders also identifies several types of business culture current
Russian leaders display. They are motivated by one or combination of the following business
philosophies: bureaucratic entrepreneurship, based on active initiatives but under state-run
supervision; pragmatic entrepreneurship, based on maximum profitability on a technocratic
basis; predatory entrepreneurship, based on the search for success through tough suppression of
rivals including Mafia connections, growth by any means, and cheating on partners, consumers
and the state; and socially responsible entrepreneurship, based on linking business to the
promotion of national interests, the resolution of social problems, and universal human values
and beliefs (Ageev, Gratchev and Hisrich 1995).
EMIC MANIFESTATIONS AND UNOBTRUSIVE MEASUREMENTS OF SOCIETAL
CULTURE
which are closed, family-controlled conglomerates with secret ties to banks and government officials (April 1998
press-conferences at the U.S - Russia Business Council and at National Press Club in Washington).
7
GLOBE societal culture dimensions have provided the authors with instruments to aggregate and
describe important emic manifestations and use unobtrusive measurements for the Russian
cultural profile.
Collectivism
Russians are stereotyped to be very collectivist. However, a closer look at this issue makes
things more complicated. Historically Russians lived on large open spaces, working together.
Being an agrarian country for centuries, with low geographic mobility of peasants within the serf
system, Russia was known for its collective (obshina) type of behavior. The Russian Orthodox
Church supported strong family ties, and inter-group mutual support. Social frame did not
permit a high level of individual freedom, and there were quite a few limitations to express
individual competitiveness (winning was not always appreciated). And in many cases Russian
collectivism was formal, prescribed by the social institutions.
Economic reforms of the second half of 19th century and early 20th century started the process of
destroying the collectivist traditions. But the higher level of individual freedom (migration,
labor market, access to education, democratic trends) after the Revolution was substituted by
politicized artificial loyalty and obedience to the Party, which controlled behavior and achieved
peoples’ conformity through total surveillance and purges. The Party also took responsibility in
substituting family and natural group loyalty with the loyalty to the political system and the state.
However, collectivist behavior was displayed in the periods of high danger, such as the fight for
national survival during the Second World War, known in Russia as “The Great Patriotic War”.
In the 1990s, when the struggle for economic survival in the years of economic turmoil made the
mutual support important, some more reflections of collectivism were seen, especially among
the socially excluded groups. On the other hand, indoctrination of Westernized behavior through
media, and the official doctrine of entrepreneurship is now pushing the country along the road of
higher individualism and social fragmentation.
That is why Russia currently displays the striking contradictions of highly individualistic
behavior, low social responsibility, and at the same time active networking for survival (often
exploited by criminal structures). Russian individualism is expressed in the social environment,
when individual freedoms are declared but not protected, and win-lose philosophy becomes a
commonplace.
Gender Egalitarianism
There are interesting emic observations related to the gender egalitarianism trends in Russia. In
medieval times the roles of Russian men and women were clearly defined and separated from
each other. Man was responsible for activities outside home (hunter, agrarian, spokesperson for
the family), while woman took care of internal home affairs. But with the increased influence of
the state, and later the Communist system, on the social environment, the individual’s control of
this environment declined, and, as a result, the gender-defined social roles changed.
During the Soviet period, gender egalitarianism was indoctrinated by the state. This doctrine
resulted in, at least de jure, equal access of men and women to education and jobs. The Party
even forcefully managed the “right” balance of men and women in the political and government
bodies. Stalin’s repressions and the second World War have visibly decreased the male
population and enabled women to take over different men’s activities in such industries as
textile, education, health care, turning them into women’s professions.
8
Statistical data displays quite a balanced situation in employment in early 1990s with the
situation changing in transitional years of mid-1990s when GLOBE data was collected. In 1990
37 million men and 38 million women were involved in the economic activity. In 1995 these
numbers changed with decrease in women involved in the economy – 39 and 33 accordingly.
Situation in skilled workforce favored women: out of all men involved in the economic activity
17 percent have higher professional education (graduate) and 28 percent have professional
education (undergraduate). The numbers for women were 20 and 39 percent accordingly
(Russia…1997, 33; Russian… 1996, 87).
Assertiveness
In the medieval times with the roles clearly divided by gender, the masculine type of culture was
reflected in family patriarch, strong leadership of the head of the family, and in society - the role
of the Tzar (with only few historic exceptions). The masculine role defined by society-required
boldness, courage, men’s supervision, and often militant behavior. It also was reflected in
Russia’s aggressive expansion of its Imperial territory. And military people were respected in
society.
But it is also worth mentioning, that Western influences (French, in particular), in the 18th-19th
centuries added some feminine characteristics to the noble strata of the society. By active
interaction with the French establishment, and acceptance of the French language by aristocracy
as its second (and occasionally even the first) language, with the French literature and arts, the
higher respect to women and romanticism were transferred to the Emperor’s court.
In the decades of Communist dictatorship however, the gender roles became less certain. By
promoting official policy of caring for people (especially for children), education and full
employment, the Communist party indoctrinated the elements of feminine culture. On the other
hand, the years of war, programs of military-industrial complex demanded autocratic and
assertive behavior. And current situation in the economy again requires tough, often painful
decisions, strong leadership for survival, and pressure on subordinates.
Power Distance
Again, Russia has experienced serious changes in behaviors and values related to Power
Distance. In the pre-Revolutionary period the power in the society was distributed unevenly. It
was reflected in formalized social status stratification, a system of serfdom that had existed until
mid-19th century, a weak middle class, strong centralization of power in the hands of state, and
lack of democratic traditions. This trend continued in the Stalin era, with the Party hierarchy as
the power stratification framework, and effective, though suppressive by all means control
systems over people’s behavior. The tradition of respect for authority is still strong in
contemporary Russian society.
Current common belief in democratic reforms may eliminate political power over economic
behavior, and give society a higher level of economic freedom and competition. The
opportunities for people today are increasingly linked to education, skills, experience, rather than
political connections. This in turn should modify behavior of people, management styles and
social norms.
Performance Orientation
In the Soviet era it was common to de-emphasize the need to exceed the planned indicators,
delegated from above. In the Soviet era most managers and factory directors were not rewarded
9
for achieving high results that did not fit into the state-designed economic plans. Neither had
they access to additional resources or legally defined economic freedom. Legitimized
achievements were not recognized by economic means (there were official limits to salaries),
rather rewarded symbolically with awards, or by status in nomenklatura hierarchy. In other
domains of human activity, the state rewarded only those high achievements in science, sports,
and arts, that were blessed by official propaganda.
Nowadays, the state and legislation are lagging behind the energetic expression of initiative and
competition in the economy. As many Russian say now, “everything is possible”, and this puts
no limits to the possible individual and organizational achievements. However, quite often the
results are achieved by ignoring ethical standards and rules of morality, thus making the
performance orientation a contradictory weapon in competition.
Future Orientation.
This phenomenon is one of the most interesting observations of our research. In 1990s Russia
became a society with limited future orientation after all those decades of strong beliefs in better
life in Communism and national long-term planning system. Perestroika and post-Perestroika
years destroyed the holistic set of beliefs in the society, without substituting the beliefs with
another set. The society at large is quite disoriented and uncertain about the future. The
continuous government reshuffling, changes in legislation, political instability add to this
enormously. People and businesses in mid-1990s did not rely on savings, quickly transferring
inflated rubles into hard currencies and/or spending money above all thinkable limits. The signs
of economic stabilization in 2000-2001 are still coupled with mass suspicion to authorities and
their promises about future positive changes.
The vision as expressed by business leaders is also limited, even in the fast growing modern
industries such as telecommunications and financial services. Very few companies apply
strategic management techniques using internationally recognized instruments. Another
indication of the low future orientation is an inability or unwillingness of many companies to
invest in human resources, as this investment is long-term.
However managers interviewed managers expressed a strong desire for stability in the society,
which enables them to think and act strategically. This leads to an optimistic conclusion on the
future development of Russia and hope that its business environment will become more
predictable.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Of course, in the last decade most of the population has lost clear sense of direction in new
fragmented and uncertain environment. Many realities of the past that secured people and
supported tolerance of uncertainty (respect for age, tradition, rule orientation, social order) are no
longer valid. However, the situation in contemporary Russia may be labeled as “creative
survival”, when people quickly and creatively adjust to rapidly changing situations and
conditions in the environment. This situation demands specific traits needed for quick reaction,
multi-scenario thinking, networking and sharing risk. Many new Russian entrepreneurs work
successfully in networks, often relying not just on formal agreements, but on friendship and
social interaction.
An interesting current Russian phenomenon is the fact that the government, that followed the
recommendations of the IMF and the World Bank, became the source of new risks in society.
10
For example, economic crisis of August 1998 was triggered by the speculative government
policy (government bonds pyramids). The market system with the inappropriate risks is
unacceptable to many business people, and there are voices in favor of nationalization of key
industries (banking, electricity, energy, defense).
Humane Orientation
Contemporary Russia can be characterized by the absence of social norms and laws that protect
the unfortunate ones, there is much unfairness and corruption in business, and ethical norms and
morality are not highly respected in business and society at large. Much of the current behavior
in the economy is quite exploitative, and much wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few.
Poverty in Russia today is widespread. Suspicion, and mistrust are more a rule than an
exception. At the organizational level, welfare and social benefits are often neglected, and the
level of wage arrears in Russia is astronomical.
It is worth mentioning that in Russia competition is often unfair and is beyond the law. It is
supplemented by violence and growing shadow economy (illegal sector or legal business by
illegal means). Economist Intelligence Unit in 1998 assessed Russia with highest ratings for
corruption, higher than in sub-Sakharan Africa or Latin America. And foreign journalists coined
a term called “gangster-bureaucrat” to describe this new breed of Russian business managers
with clean records and underworld ties (Handelman, 1997). In such situation Mafia paternalism
and “protection” may be viewed by some people as pseudohumanism.
Humane Orientation is very likely inversely related to the frequency and severity of
aggressiveness and hostile actions within cultures. That is visible in contemporary Russia, with
many ethnic conflicts all over the country. However, the picture is not finished if the “socially
responsible entrepreneurship” linking business to the promotion of social interests and universal
human values and beliefs, is missed. Many Russians view as important such fundamental issues:
survival, justice, goal achievement, self-actualization, self-respect, economic benefits of
activities.
GLOBE DATA COLLECTION
The main body of GLOBE quantitative data was generated in 1995-1996 with additional data for
media analysis collected in 2001. In order to create the cultural and leadership profile of Russia,
the authors collected information through pre-pilot study, focused group interviews, GLOBE
survey of managers in telecommunication, food processing and banking industries.
Pre-pilot study
In 1994 pre-pilot research Russian CCIs surveyed 127 managers and entrepreneurs using the
simplified survey with questions reflecting GLOBE societal culture dimensions. The
respondents represented key areas of the Russian economy: state-owned enterprises (5 percent),
joint-stock companies (28 percent), limited partnerships (35 percent), individual businessmen (26
percent), joint-ventures (6 percent). They did their business in manufacturing - (31 percent),
extraction industries - (2 percent), agribusiness - (3 percent), trade - (20 percent), construction (4 percent), business services - (30 percent) and communications - (10 percent). The results of
pre-pilot survey provided with preliminary generic profile of Russian culture.
11
Focused interviews
Focused group interviews were designed along GLOBE guidelines to provide with preliminary
generic profile of leadership in Russia.
Since the authors were aware of tremendous differences between various groups of
managers/entrepreneurs, in the focused group interviews they targeted two groups. The first
group of five managers/entrepreneurs represented those with experience in the Soviet economy
and contemporary business organizations. They were mature people between 38 and 51 years of
age, from machine building, construction and publishing industries. The second group of three
managers/entrepreneurs represented new businessmen between 22 and 36 years of age, who
started businesses only 1 - 3 years ago in such industries as telecommunications and wholesale
trade. All respondents represented businesses in Moscow or in Greater Moscow Region. This
approach helped to understand leadership similarities shared by managers of Russia, and also
uncover the differences in attitudes toward leadership, expressed by representatives of these two
groups. The interviews taken in informal atmosphere were recorded and analyzed.
GLOBE sample
When Russian CCIs were distributing GLOBE questionnaires and were interacting with
respondents, they faced a number of country-specific problems. First, not all the questions
designed in the West were perfectly clear to those surveyed even the questions had passed Q-sort
and back and forth translation. In few cases the authors had to explain those managers trained in
the Soviet era basic conceptual management ideas to facilitate adequate response. Marketoriented human resource management was an example. Second, culture of interviewing people
has not been developed in the Soviet Union. Historically people were suspicious to any
unofficial attempts to learn about their views and assessments. Those interviewed were
somewhat hesitant to give honest answers to some questions, especially related to the profile of
their company and to personal data on employment and education. Third, there was low
motivation to contribute to GLOBE with no visible quick benefits to respondents who
complained spending a lot of time to answer the questions. Fourth, in the turbulent economic
environment of 1995 it was hardly possible to access few organizations with deep and detailed
research, and Russian CCIs had to look for creative solutions in accessing such a large number of
managers in three industries. Also industry related data and statistics in just privatized economy
was not adequate. All these factors had put additional pressure on data collection. This explains
the fact that CCIs lacked information for the organizational level research.
The main GLOBE data was collected in 1995 and 1996. Responses were received from 450
managers in food processing, telecommunication and banking/finance, 150 managers in each
industry. In order to access this large group the authors targeted nationally recognized
management training and development centers. In Moscow respondents from banking and
finance were accessed through Training and Development Center under Ministry of Finance, and
Academy of National Economy under the Government of Russian Federation helped with
accessing managers in food processing industry. In St.Peterbourg the authors surveyed
participants of management development programs at Training and Development Institute of
Communication Industry. The surveys were administered in two largest cities in Russia but
respondents came for training from different parts of the country – Far East, Siberia, the Urals,
Southern and Northern Russia and large cities of Central Region.
12
Based on the data collected, the authors aggregated responses to demographic questions of the
survey and designed the profile of the sample. The average age of respondents was 38.8 years,
and the gender composition of the sample was 61.7 percent men and 38.3 percent women.
The questions related to citizenship and nationality in transitional country, that had just changed
its name, anthem and flag, were often considered as ambiguous. Some people differentiated
Russia and the USSR, while other didn’t: 96 percent had named the USSR and Russia as the
place of birth, but Georgia and Ukraine (which were a part of the USSR in the past) were
mentioned by 2 percent of respondents accordingly. The average number of years that
respondents had lived in Russia was 37.9 years. Out of the whole sample three respondents lived
outside Russia for more than one year. Ethnic composition of the sample was very diverse:
Russians - 69 percent, Ukrainians – 10 percent, Tatars – 5 percent, other nationalities’ percentage
was under 2 percent, such as Kalmyk, Khakas, Georgians, Mordva, Belarus, Karel, Buryat,
German. In the past in the USSR Jews were formally considered as nationality, and 4 percent
respondents answered accordingly. 25 percent reported themselves as believers, 22 percent as
Christians (including Russian Orthodox Church) and 3 percent as Buddhists. When asked about
their families, all of them reported that their fathers and mothers were born in the USSR.
However, out of the whole sample 10 percent indicated the Ukrainian language spoken in the
family, one percent – German and one precent – Hebrew.
Average employment profile of managers was as follows: number of years employed - 16.8
years, management experience – 7.4 years, employment in their current organization – 8.6 years.
40 percent were members of professional organizations, and 15 percent were actively involved in
trade and industry associations. In the past 5 percent of respondents had jobs in multinational
corporations.
Surveyed managers worked in production and engineering (42 percent), administration (28
percent), sales and marketing (15 percent), human resource management (8 percent), R&D (5
percent), the other 2 percent were in planning and other functions. The average number of
people reporting to those surveyed was 15.4, with the average number of administrative layers
between them and CEO of 2.1, and layers below – 2.9. The average number of people in the
organizations was 1,378. And 83 percent of managers used one language in their work, 15
percent used two languages and 2 percent used three languages.
Educational level of respondents was very high – total number of years in education was 15.5.
The university/college background of 61 percent was technical and 39 in economics, planning
and finance. However, in food industry and telecommunication the number of technical
graduates was even higher. And 12 percent of all respondents received some training in Western
management concepts and techniques.
PRE-PILOT CULTURE PROFILE
Pre-pilot study helped to sketch a rough picture of Russian societal culture as perceived by
managers to be explored later in details through GLOBE questionnaires. When asked about
9
Among those managers/entrepreneurs, 6 (5%) represented state-owned enterprises, 36 (28%) - joint-stock
companies, 44 (35%) - limited partnerships, 34 (26%) were individual businessmen, and 7 (6%) represented joint-
13
future versus present orientation, fewer respondents (44 percent) preferred future orientation vs.
present (56 percent). It was considered as the ‘positive surprise’ for the people in the economy
of hyperinflation and strong demand for short-term return on investments. 62 percent of
respondents relied more on power and authority, than on consensus and team-building (38
percent). Few respondents (17 percent) preferred impersonal versus personal approach (83
percent) in dealing with people. However, majority of respondents mentioned they lacked skills
in human resources management. Most of respondents were willing to accept the idea of
establishing the order and following the rules (69 percent) rather than exploiting the benefits of
uncertainty (31 percent), adding that it is entrepreneurs who need stability in the rules of the
game to do business effectively. Political shifts, poor legislation, and rapid changes in the laws
were treated as strong limitations for business leadership. It was a surprise to Russian CCIs to
see how many entrepreneurs/managers – 64 percent - preferred individualistic versus collectivist
approach, if one takes into consideration past history and the indoctrination of collectivistsocialist ideology in the former USSR. Also when asked to assess assertiveness, 52 percent
preferred assertive than non-assertive behavior.
Based on this survey the authors had summarized respondents’ reactions to societal issues in
transitional economy as more present-oriented, with preferred assertive and individualistic
behavior, but seeking more order and relying on personal approach in management.
GLOBE SCALES: SOCIETAL CULTURE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
The main discussion is based on societal culture profile generated from GLOBE questionnaires.
Picture 1 summarizes quantitative findings that lead to the most important conclusions. Here we
review the data along each GLOBE dimension and then discuss the content of these findings and
interrelations among the main results. Table 1 contains quantitative data. We make important
observations of these results: some dimensions display more agreement between “As Is” and
“Should Be” (Collectivism I and II, Egalitarianism and Assertiveness) while the others present
more differences between behaviors “As Is” and values “Should Be” (Power Distance,
Performance Orientation, Future Orientation, Uncertainty Avoidance, Humane Orientation). We
now will examine the results in that order.
[INSERT PICTURE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Collectivism I
In the Russian “As Is” scale, the level of Collectivism I is 4.5 thus placing Russia in the B group
with ranking of 18. This reflects the traditional and historically encouraged group-oriented
behavior rooted in historic traditions and Socialist indoctrination of collectivist behavior. At the
same time there is different attitude of the respondents to “Should Be” situation that is placing
Russia in the C group ranking 59 with low collectivism of 3.89. This fact indicates the process
ventures. The businesses represented in the sample, were in manufacturing - 39 (31%), extraction industries - 2
(2%), agribusiness - 4 (3%), trade - 26 (20%), construction - 5 (4%), business services - 38 (30%) and
communications - 13 (10%).
10
But there were concerns of the respondents on the criteria and understanding of the difference between ‘high’ and
‘average’ and measurements.
14
of fragmentation of society, break-down of traditional group values in the society of survival and
neglecting teamwork that is so critical for innovative economy.
Family Collectivism II
Family Collectivism “As Is” indicator is high with the level of 5.63 that positions Russia in the
leading group A with rank 18. While the assessment of this dimension in the “Should Be”
format is still high - 5.79, Russia falls in the B group with rank 20, as the other countries’
respondents consider their “Should Be” values in Family Collectivism at a higher level. Family
collectivism is deeply rooted in the history and culture of society and in the Russian case
confirms that certain values are not yet strongly influenced by the transitional process. From
findings on both dimensions however it is clear that Russia is inclined to transform itself into a
more individualistic society.
Gender Egalitarianism
The “As Is” (4.07) and “ Should Be” (4.18) indicators for Russia are quite close, thus displaying
low concern of respondents with the difference between values and behaviors in this issue.
While current behaviors could be considered as quite egalitarian (rank 2 in A group), when
compared with the general trend, expressed by respondents in the other countries, Russia is less
concerned with the issues of strengthening egalitarianism in the value system (“Should Be” rank
48 in B group).
Assertiveness
The “As Is” indicator is 3.68 placing Russian managers’ values assessments in B group with rank
54, while “Should Be” indicator is 2.83 in C group with rank 58. In both cases the situation in
Russia is quite clear. Current transition demands assertive behavior with tough measures to
survive and transform businesses and society at large. This does not leave much space for caring
for the other people, or change the values of transitional economy.
Power Distance
In Russian case, the difference between “As Is” and “ Should Be” cases is great. The “As Is”
behavioral indicator 5.52 is high in A group (rank 14). That should be considered as heritage
from the Soviet totalitarian system. But managers surveyed indicate that the values related to
power distance are preferably of democratic nature. The “ Should Be” indicator is 2.62 (group
C, rank 41). While the ranking reflects the majority of other countries surveyed having higher
level of democratic expectations, those Russian businesses relying on this trend could find easier
way to fit international democratic practices and interact with foreign counterparts.
Performance Orientation
In the Russian case quite poor performance orientation is reported with the “ As Is” indicator of
3.39, thus placing Russia into a C group of countries with rank 59. While the results of “Should
Be” indicator are rather high (5.54) that still benchmarks the country’s results in the marginal
position with rank 55 in D group. This fact results from the Soviet past practices as well as from
the difficulties of setting clear performance targets in the turbulent economic environment. Also
performance is not the key for many managers who make the fortune from privatization.
Future Orientation
15
Again, this dimension is important in understanding the mechanisms of an economy in transition.
It presents striking differences in the behavioral assessment of the current situation and values
and expectations of the respondents. “As Is” indicator 2.88 is extremely low, putting Russia with
rank 61 at the end of the countries’ list, into a D group. It is far from the all country average
response, and unmistakably characterizes the nature of the current transformational business
culture. However, as in Performance Orientation case, the Russian respondents believe that
Russia’s survival is contingent on changes in orientation, in this case – link values to future
orientation. The “ Should Be” indicator of 5.48 is high making Russia with rank 34 join the
future-oriented countries of group A.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Contemporary Russian managers accept reality and uncertainty in society and economy. With an
“As Is” indicator of 2.88, Russia is placed into the D group and has the lowest rank of 61 on
avoidance practices. This could be interpreted as “uncertainty acceptance” in the transitional
economy. To a certain extent this is additional indication of entrepreneurial and risk-oriented
behavior of Russian managers. At the same time, managers’ responses to “ Should Be”
questions, show a large gap between reality on the one hand, and values and expectations on the
other. Russian “Should Be” indicator of 5.07 and rank 18 brings the country to the group A with
high uncertainty avoidance preferences. That is the indication of a more ordered and planned
system the Russian managers value.
Humane Orientation
The difference between the current behavior and values of the Russian managers looks
encouraging when predicting the future of the country. While the “As Is” indicator of 3.94 ranks
Russia 38 in the C group with a relatively low level of humane orientation in behavior, the
“Should Be” indicator is high - 5.59 that ranks Russia 18 in an A group of most humane oriented
countries.
Interpretation of interrelations among the GLOBE Societal Culture results
GLOBE indicators and rankings for Russia reflect the realities of painful economic reforms and
display current business “mental models” in Russia. Marginal numbers and country ratings on
Uncertainty Avoidance, Future Orientation, Performance Orientation “As Is” scales as well as
the gaps between values and behaviors confirm the Russian managers’ mindset of “creative
survival” in uncertain environment, their search for “quick buck” rather than long-term
investments (such as investments in human resources), unpredictability and reliance on
substitutes for legal structures.
Some dimensions present interesting interrelations between indicators worth interpreting in the
chapter. Extreme Uncertainty Avoidance indicator and rank could be assessed favorably for
entrepreneurship unless one links it to Future Orientation marginal as well. That can be
interpreted as lack of vision in entrepreneurship activities primarily focused on survival and not
long-term development of business. With Humane Orientation of behavior in C cluster this
combination leaves little hope for long-term investments in human resources. Especially with
Power Distance and Assertiveness numbers explaining the tough (preferably administrative)
measures in crisis management and in restructuring enterprises and industries.
Overall picture of “As Is” of Russian managers’ behavior presents the marginal profile that does
not fit easily internationally recognized practices. That may add additional difficulties for the
16
Russian businesses in interaction with the foreign partners, for example, in creating strategic
alliances.
There is a large gap between “ As Is” and “ Should Be” data on the dimensions linked directly
to reforms in the economy. The “ Should Be” model displays the deficit in practice and a
preference for a more humanistic, ethical, democratic and stable system. At the same time, there
is no serious gap on dimensions, which are strongly linked to historical cultural roots, such as
Family Collectivism. Gender Egalitarianism is also not in the focus of current management
concern. But when compared to the overall democratic trend, it may become a problem for
Russia in the future.
The culture profile in pre-pilot analysis to a great extent corresponds to the quantitative results
based on the main GLOBE survey.
LEADERSHIP PROFILE IN FOCUSED GROUP INTERVIEWS
In focused group interviews participants talked about characteristics of leadership and leaders in
Russia. They suggested that leaders should be defined differently in society on the one hand, and
in the economy on the other.
According to the interviewees, the definition of leadership in general should be based on
stereotypes of heroes, developed in history, as well as indoctrinated by official propaganda.
Leaders are associated with national success, great achievements, and heroism. They are
inspiring people with personal ability, creativity, courage and risk-taking. The effectiveness of
leaders was judged by interviewees via results and success. More often strong leaders were
valued in the history of the state (Tzar Peter the Great, dictator Joseph Stalin), in large scale
projects (physicists I. Kurchatov and A. Sakharov in nuclear industry, engineer academician S.
Korolev in space exploration), in team-builders with recognized success (coach V. Lobanovski,
leading Soviet soccer team to win the European Cup). Both groups of respondents shared these
views.
In the economy, however, leadership was viewed differently by representatives of group one and
group two, and without consensus. In the Soviet economy the responsibility of factory manager
was the implementation of the plan: meeting previously indicated targets. Extraordinary results
in productivity, innovations that did not fit the “planning system” were the factors of unbalance
and were not appreciated. The state used propaganda to create an image of those leaders who
were productive, loyal to the Communist party, and outspoke officially recognized values.
Representatives of the fist group defined leadership in the economy as the ability to represent
and share technical skills and expertise. Few remarks were made about managers’
professionalism and to deal with people effectively. The representatives of the first group
thought that the most important job of the manager was to follow the already established norms
and principles. The second group of younger aggressive entrepreneurs with practically no
experience in the old Soviet system, was more definite on leadership qualities such as creating
new companies, new businesses, and in general, - taking risk and inspiring others to follow them.
The interviewed managers/entrepreneurs of this group showed themselves as not just
administrators but also “organizational culture creators”.
17
One interesting comment was made about charitable traditions of Russian entrepreneurship.
People from both groups appreciated the charitable activities of the pre-Revolutionary
industrialists (S. Morozov, P. Ryabushinski) who donated resources to hospitals, theaters, and
museums and preserved Russian arts and culture.
In general, discussion with the Russian managers/entrepreneurs indicated their strong interest in
leadership qualities, and consequently in leadership development. The issues of special interest
were related to the nature of leaders: whether leaders are those with naturally developed features,
or those who have leadership qualities, based on focused individual work, individual training. It
became clear that most of those interviewed agree that one can develop these qualities. During
these interviews attention was given to the use of the term ‘leadership’, keeping in mind
historically determined politicization of society.
While discussing different interpretations of leadership the interviewees came to consensus with
CCIs on the following. First, leadership is the reality of every society. It is based on the freely
released diverse human activity. At a certain historic moment it becomes the focus of special
attention, when it can be purposefully accumulated and developed, thus making leadership one
of management’s strategic resources. Second, leadership is a practical social phenomenon,
which can be found in various social fabrics (individual, collective, culture and politics).
Leadership includes the ability to catalyze practical reaction to the factors of socio-economic
development. This is “the first social move” to one of the possible options (scenarios) of moving
into the future. In other words, leadership creates something new, non-standard - in the practical
form (precedent) by involving others into its activity. Third, leadership also is an organizational
phenomenon, and here respondents agreed with GLOBE definition of leadership as the ability of
an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and
success of the organization of which they are members. Fourth, leadership is also interdependent
with society. And only those leaders who are strongly tied to the socio-cultural background of
their nation are able to absorb and distribute the advanced international experience without
possible dangerous side effects. If a society is unable to create mass motivation, it may create
leaders who will remove the society from the road of ethical development. Social partnership,
degree of corporate citizenship, and social responsibilities depend on moral potential of
leadership. At the same time, the discussants agreed that society is responsible for healthy
leadership, by providing the appropriate level of freedom and reasonable tolerance to unexpected
and unusual behaviors.
GLOBE SCALES: LEADERSHIP RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
The overall profile of Russian leaders according to globally endorsed implicit Leadership theory
dimensions (Charismatic, Team-Oriented, Participative, Humane, Self-Protective, Autonomous)
is displayed on Picture 2. Table 2 contains quantitative data.
[INSERT PICTURE 2 ABOUT HERE]
Charismatic/Value-Based orientation
Aggregate indicators for universal positive leader attributes summarized in Charismatic/ValueBased Leadership dimension are relatively low for Russia and could be interpreted as only
18
slightly contributing to outstanding leadership. Charismatic dimension indicator is 5.66 with
rank 47 in D group (worldwide mean values 4.5-6.5).
The first order CLT dimensions for Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership display Visionary
(6.07) as most important dimension in considering effective leadership in Russia. In the range
for factors slightly contributing to effective leadership we find the following first order
dimensions: Performance-Oriented (5.92), Inspirational (5.89), Decisive (5.86) and Integrator
(5.72). Self-Sacrifice (4.28) has no impact on outstanding leadership. While comparing these
factors for Russia to the other countries, one can consider the Russian profile in A group on
Decisive dimension, in B group on Visionary, Performance Orientation, and Integrity, while
Self-Sacrificial is in C group.
Team orientation
Second order scales for Team Oriented Leadership do not provide with optimistic assessment of
Russia as well. Team-Oriented dimension indicator is 5.63 with rank 46 in C group (worldwide
mean values 4.7-6.2).
The first order scales provide with the following data. While Administrative Competence is the
factor most contributing to effective leadership in Russia (6.03), the other CLT dimensions
present only somewhat contributing this leadership: Team-Oriented (5.15), Team Integrator
(5.56), diplomatic (5.01) and Malevolent (reverse score 1.85). In the all country benchmarking
Russia is among the countries with high indicators for Administratively Competent (A group),
while the critical factors such as Team Orientation and Malevolence place it only into C group.
On the other two dimensions Diplomatic and Team Integrator Russia has joined B group.
Humane orientation
The dimension that nearly universally contributes to effective leadership is Humane Orientation,
and in Russia it has limited impact on outstanding leadership. Humane Orientation is 4.08 with
rank 60 in D group (worldwide mean values 3.8-5.6).
The first order dimensions related to second order Humane Orientation are Modesty, that in the
Russian case indicates 4.25 (no visible impact on effective leadership) and Humane Orientation
with indicator 3.92, that makes it slightly inhibiting people being outstanding leaders. Both first
order dimensions place Russia into C group.
Participative orientation
In this case Russia is in D group (worldwide mean values 4.5-6.1). Two first order dimensions
contribute to Participative orientation with indicator is 4.67 (Autonomous, reverse score). One is
Autocratic 4.16 that can be considered as having no impact on leadership and the other is NonParticipative, with 2.82 (reverse score).
Autonomous
The second order Autonomous dimension for Russia is 4.63 in group A (worldwide mean values
2.3-4.7) that is based on such characteristics as individualism, independence, uniqueness, and
autonomous. In the Russian case first order dimension for Autonomous with indicator 4.04
explains the fact that being autonomous is not important for outstanding leadership.
Self-Protective
19
Those dimensions corresponding to universal negative leader attribute somewhat slightly
contribute to leadership. Self-Protective orientation indicator for Russia is 3.69 with rank 17 in
D group (worldwide mean values 2.5-4.6). That means that this dimension only slightly inhibits
from being an outstanding leader. This is based on nearly no impact of dimension Status
Conscious (4.75) and only slightly influencing Conflict Inducer (3.90). The other first order
dimensions somewhat inhibiting people from being outstanding leader: Self-Centered (2.48),
Face Saver (2.67) and Procedural (2.98). In the all country comparisons Russia positions itself in
B groups on such factors as Status Conscious, Self-Centered, and Conflict Inducer, on Face
Saver dimension it is in group C and on Procedural – in group D. With a very low score on the
Procedural dimension indicates that being procedural is likely to be a greater inhibitor of
effective leadership in Russia than in most countries included in the GLOBE sample.
The profile of effective leadership
In terms of GLOBE dimensions Russia displays a clear picture of what makes effective
leadership. The most important are Charismatic I (Visionary) and Administrative Competency.
They are followed by being Decisive, Performance Orientation and Charismatic III
(Inspirational). Also Integrity, Team Integration, Collaborative, and Diplomatic are considered
to contribute to outstanding leadership. At the same time such dimensions as Self-Sacrifice,
Modesty and Human Orientation, Status Consciousness, and Conflict Inducer to not make a
difference.
These findings fit the societal culture scales results. They display the profile of an
administratively competent manager with abilities to think strategically, capable to make serious
decisions and inspire his followers to meet performance targets. To a certain extent he/she relies
on teams and through diplomatic and collaborative moves succeeds in integrating efforts of their
members. However, in his/her actions there is not much interest in humane orientation to the
others and modesty in personal behavior. He/she may sacrifice a lot and does not take much care
of saving face. Status is not important to the modern Russian leader.
GLOBE results suggest that universal positive leader attributes such as Charismatic/Value-Based
Leadership and Team Oriented Leadership are considered as contributors to outstanding
leadership in Russia. While the level of such influence is much lower than in most of the other
countries, transitional society fits the global culturally endorsed CLT dimensions. The other two
dimensions that nearly universally contribute to leadership – Participative and Humane
orientation - have only limited impact in Russia. Universal negative leader attributes such as
Self-Protective and Autonomous, are also not very important. Summarizing these findings one
may consider Russia as marginal in finding the ways for effective leadership concepts and
practices.
The authors however are far from taking a morbid point of view that Russia will never catch up
with the others even in the attitude towards leaders. Young people show more individualism,
they are inventive and creative. Moreover, they are ready to express their own ideas and to
defend their own principles. It’s very unlikely that today’s youngsters will blindly obey a leader,
no matter who he is. The authors had some other positive discoveries, noticing the growing
interest in future orientation, moral values and in individualism. Still, as the country is in
transition it’s very hard to work out an exact definition of the Russian country-specific implicit
theory of leadership. Everything is changing so quickly and the psychology of the Russian
20
people is not an exception. In our analysis we tried to present, the latest developments in the
changing vision of culture and leadership in Russia.
LEADERSHIP EXPRESSED IN MEDIA
Media analysis was carried out as part of GLOBE project with a view to reveal public opinion
towards leaders and leadership in Russia. The authors’ main task was to determine how the
media portrays leaders and the phenomenon of leadership, and then compare the results to the
other findings within the project.
For the media analysis two periods from November 26 to December 2, 1996 and from July 30 to
August 6, 2001 were chosen. Within these periods there were neither significant political events,
nor holidays which could somehow influence the content of the media publications. Thus, the
information published in the studied newspapers was quite generic.
Russian newspapers are the second largest source of information for the public after television.
In recent years, however, there was a certain decline in the reading audience as compared
statistically to the 1980s. This is the result of growing social and political apathy in the late
1990s. It also reflects the fact that many people are concerned with their survival rather than
with national events they can not control. Also, there is a wide-spread belief that media is
increasingly controlled by tycoons, and as result, less objective, serving populist interests of a
narrow group of oligopolies.
Five leading nationally distributed newspapers were selected for the analysis (Table 3).
“IZVESTIYA” is a daily newspaper which provides in-depth analyses of national and
international economy and politics, comments on events in sports and cultural life, and presents
interviews with well-known politicians and businessmen. Its readers are mostly middle-aged
people with higher education, many of them civil servants. “ARGUMENTY I FAKTY”, a
weekly newspaper with the largest circulation in Russia offers its readers a wide range of
information in practically all possible areas: from political news to UFOs. The newspaper is
oriented on mass readership of all the ages and occupations. Moreover, it is one of few
independent newspapers, respected by representatives of different, sometimes even extremely
opposite political groups. “MOSKOVSKY KOMSOMOLETZ” is a popular daily newspaper
considered to be a democratic one. It absorbs scandals, sensations, piquant details of personal
life of politicians and compromising data about well-known people. However, this newspaper
has a considerable influence on many people, it is popular and even forms public opinion on an
event or a person. “NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA” with the smallest circulation of all those
sampled, is considered one of the best informed and most reliable newspapers targeting the
intellectual elite segment of the market. “KOMMERSANT-DAILY” with a circulation of
400,000 was among the first newspapers in democratic Russia to be differentiated as a business
daily. While it publishes news and opinions on politics, arts, international affairs, business focus
is still dominating in this newspaper. One can get the latest market trends, CEOs opinions,
mergers and acquisitions stories and others. “KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA” originally
targeting young population now is considered as well-informed and analytical newspaper with
broad customer base. “TRUD” - the former trade union daily with the highest circulation in the
21
USSR (up to eighteen million daily!) - currently is one of popular newspapers for general public,
trying to distance itself from union paper and position as well-informed and enjoyable reading.
Having looked through the issues related to the said periods, 217 articles and editorials were
identified that could be referred to as dealing with the problem of leadership in various spheres
of life: economics, politics, sports, culture, and daily events. Among all the articles selected for
media analysis 162 articles (75 percent) focused on Russian leaders and 55 articles (25 percent)
were devoted to leaders from foreign countries.
At the first stage the articles were sorted according to the spheres of leaders’ activity: politics,
business, sport, arts and show business, others. The structures of the “foreign” and “Russian”
samples were different from each other (Table 4). In the “foreign” case the interest to political
leaders was the highest with 22 articles (40 percent of the “foreign” sample), business leaders
were mentioned in 16 articles (29 percent), in show business - 7 articles (13 percent), and in
sports – also 7 articles (13 percent). In the Russian case the structure was quite similar. The
highest interest was expressed in political leaders in more than half of the sample – in 82 articles
(51 percent of the “Russian” sample), business leaders were described in 25 articles (16 percent),
in sports – 10 articles (6 percent), arts and show business – 30 articles (18 percent) and other
areas attracted attention in 15 articles (9 percent). These findings present moderate interest of
Russian media to leaders in business as compared to the other groups of leaders. Also political
leadership – both international and domestic - is a visible priority for Russian newspapers.
The next step was to filter the articles and assess the kind of leadership issues they discussed. At
this stage, in the Russian sample the authors excluded interviews (as not impartial because one
can hardly speak impartially about himself/herself) and simply informative articles (as not
allowing us to get any idea of media attitude to the personality of leaders). Finally out of 162
articles that had mentioned leaders in Russia 130 (80 percent), remained for the “linguistic”
analysis.
The words and word combinations (“typical phrases”) were sorted according to GLOBE media
analysis guidelines and grouped by category of descriptions of leaders and leadership (Table 5).
We identified the frequencies with which these categories were mentioned. These frequencies
displayed relative importance of different characteristics and the following conclusions can be
made.
The most important trait of a leader expressed by media was image with frequency 25 (13
percent of all phrases and expressions). That was not a surprise as creating an image is one of
the main tasks of media itself and is the means for the newspapers to communicate the effective
and outstanding leadership. The next four characteristics were facilitate and action with
frequencies 22 and 21 (11 percent each), knowledge with frequency 19 (10 percent), and energy
with frequency 17 (9 percent). This result corresponds with the GLOBE leadership profile of a
manager oriented on decision-making and capable to inspire the followers.
Communication trait was somewhat less visible with frequency 15 (8 percent) and corresponded
with moderate team orientation in leadership profile. And moderate frequencies of 7 and 6 (4
and 3 percent) were displayed by change and survive traits that might be important to the current
transitional economy.
Not only those traits mentioned most frequently, but also those least frequent items were
reviewed by the authors. Characteristics that should be important for value-based charismatic
22
leadership were not considered as important at all in media summary. Charisma, vision and
creativity were mentioned less than 5 times (under 2 percent) and role model of a leader only 5
times (3 percent). These results correspond with the marginal acceptance of such a leadership in
Russia as discussed in the previous section. It is worth mentioning that weakness and fault items
were rare with frequencies 3 (1.5 percent) that can bring us to a conclusion that in a non-face
saving society media designs more positive image of a leader than the reality is.
We construct the following average leadership media profile. Russian leader has rich image
linked to his/her success, competencies, social and professional recognition. He/she displays
action-oriented and energetic behavior of facilitator with entrepreneurial competencies. In
particular, he/she is “full of unprecedented intervention”, “acts with no hesitations” as a “real
fighter”, “hardworking, restless and enduring”. At the same time media profile does not permit
to consider him/her as charismatic leader with clear systemic vision and cultural sensitivity.
He/she is capable to control the situation, facilitate change in the organization and survive in the
turbulent environment, but this looks not very important for becoming an outstanding leader.
CONCLUSIONS
The radical transformation in Russia in 1990s has resulted in movement toward democratization
of the society. In economics, the market is substituting a previous monopolistic and ideology
dominated system. Combined with these two changes is the “cultural” change, in which values,
norms of behavior, and artifacts are reassessed, renewed, created or removed.
Culture and leadership in Russia today are defined by three groups of factors. First, traditional
and historically developed through centuries emic features of Russian society. Second, the
influence of totalitarian heritage of the twentieth century. And third, the radical revolution in
culture and leadership in the 1990s’ transitional period. All three were considered as substantial
for interpretation of the GLOBE findings and for comparing Russian profile to other countries.
This chapter shed light on the state and current transformation of culture and leadership in
Russia. The findings presented here seem to have quite important implications for both
researchers and practitioners. The GLOBE project is one of the first attempts to collect researchoriented Russian data set which, first, is created by using internationally recognized and reliable
research methods and, second, is ready for cross-cultural comparative research among 61 nations
within a common research framework.
Although the Russian current economic situation is rather unpredictable, the GLOBE findings
convey certain optimism. Russia’s competitiveness at both national and corporate levels could
be based on such advantageous characteristics of Russian managers, mentioned in this study, as
courage and ability to launch large-scale projects, decisiveness, ability to make decisions and
assume responsibility, ability to quickly react and operate in unstable environment. At the same
time, cultural transformation related to such findings as increasingly common future orientation
and healthy individualism, also look promising.
Literature
23
Ageev, A., Gratchev, M., & Hisrich, R. (1995) Entrepreneurship in the Soviet Union and PostSocialist Russia, Small Business Economics 7(5), 365-376.
Ageev A. (1991) Predprinimatelstvo: problemi sobstvennosti I kulturi. [Entrepreneurship:
Problems of Ownership and Culture] Moscow: Nauka Publishers.
Anderson D., & Shikhirev P., (1994) Akuli i delfini. [Sharks and Dolphins] Moscow: Delo
Publishers.
Berdiaev N. (1990) Russkaya ideya. Osnovnie problemi Russkoi misli XIX i nachala XX veka.
[Russian Idea. Key Problems of Russian Thought of XIX-early XX centuries] O Rossii i
Russkoi filosifskoi kulture. Moscow: Nauka Publishers.
Berliner J. (1976) The Innovation Decision in the Soviet Industry; Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Blackwell W. (1994)
Heights: H. Davidson.
The Industrialization of Russia: a Historical Perspective. Arlington
Bollinger, D. (1994) The Four Cornerstones and Three Pillars in the “House of Russia”
Management System. Journal of Management Development, 13(2),49-54.
Chaadaev, P. (1991) Philosophical Works of Peter Chaadaev. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publilshers.
Fey, C. & Denison D. (2001) Organizational Culture and Effectiveness: the Case of Foreign
Firms in Russia. SSE/EFI Working Paper Sesies in Business Administration No. 2000:4.
Gratchev, M. (2001) Making the Most of Cultural Differences. Harvard Business Review,
October.
Guroff G. & Carstensen F. (Eds.) (1983) Entrepreneurship in Imperial Russia and the Soviet
Union. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Hingley, R. (1981) The Russian Mind. N.Y.: Charles Scribner.
Hisrich R. & Gratchev M.. (1993) The Russian Entrepreneur. Journal of Business Venturing,
8(6),487-498.
Hisrich R. & Gratchev M (1995) The Russian Entrepreneur: Characteristics: Prescriptions for
Managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 10(2), 3-10.
Hisrich R. & Gratchev M (1996) Entrepreneurial Leadership in the Global Economy:
Similarities and Differences. Journal of Management Systems 8(1-4), 29-38.
Hisrich R., Gratchev M., Bolshakov, Z., Popov, D. & Ilyin, A (1996) DOKA Corporation: An
Entrepreneurial Russian High-Technology Venture. Cases in International Entrepreneurship.
Ed. by R. Hisrich. - Chicago: Robert D. Irwin, Inc., 287-302.
Hisrich R. and Gratchev M (1997) Russian vs. American Entrepreneurs: Where are the Ethics?
In P. Reynolds (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Boston: Babson College, 256257.
Hofstede G.. (1984) Cultures Consequences. International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Holden, N., Cooper, C. & Carr, J. (1998) Dealing with the New Russia: Management Cultures in
Collision. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
24
House R. , Wright, N., & Aditya, R. (1997) Cross-Cultural Research on Organizational
Leadership. A Critical Analysis and a Proposed Theory. New Perspectives on International
Industrial/Organizational Psychology. P. Ch. Earley and M. Erez (ed.). S.F., Lexington
Press.****
House B., **** (1998) Cultural Influences on Leadership: Project GLOBE. Advances in Global
Leadership. / Ed. by W. Mobley. (1).****
Huntington S. (1993) The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
Karamzin N. (1892) Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskago.
St.Peterburg: Izd. Evg. Evdokimova.
[History of the Russian State]
Kluchevskii, V. (1904) Kurs Russkoi istorii. [The Course in Russian History] M.: Sinodalnaya
Tipografiya.
Kuzmichev A. & Petrov R. (1993) Russkie millionshiki. [Russian millionaires] Moscow:
Vlados/Foros.
Michailova, S. (2000) Contrasts in culture: Russian and Western perspectives on organizational
change. The Academy of Management Executive, 14 (4).
Mikheyev D. (1987) The Soviet Mentality. Political Psychology, 8, (4).
Mikheyev, D. (1996) Russia Transformed. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
Naumov, A. (1996) Hofstedovo Izmerenie Rossii [Hofstede’s Dimention of Russia],
Menedzhment 3, 70-103.
Naumov, A. & Puffer, S. (2000) Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede's dimensions.
Applied Psychology. An International Review, 49 (4), 709-718.
Owen, Th. (1981) Capitalism and Politics in Russia: A Social History of Moscow Merchants,
1855-1905; N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Puffer, S. (1994) Understanding the Bear: A Portrait of Russian Business Leaders. Academy of
Management Executive, February, 41-54.
Puffer, S. (Ed.) (1992) The Russian Management Revolution: Preparing Managers for the
Market Economy. Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.
Puffer S. & McCarthy D. (1995) Finding the Ground in Russian and American Business Ethics,
California Management Review, 37(2), 29-46.
Puffer, S.M., McCarthy, D.J. & Naumov, A.I. (1997) Russian managers’ beliefs about work:
Beyond the stereotypes. Journal of World Business, 32 (3), 258-276.
Puffer, S.M., McCarthy, D.J. & 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.
Rogovsky, N., Bertocci, C., & 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.
25
Rogovsky, N. & Schuler, R. (1997) Managing Human Resources Across Cultures. Business and
the Contemporary World, IX(1), 63-75.
Russia in Numbers (1997), Official publication, State Committee on Statistics, Moscow.
Russian Statistical Yearbook (1996), Official publication, State Committee on Statistics,
Moscow.
Shama A. (1995) Entry Strategies of U.S. Firms to the Newly Independent States, Baltic
Republics, and Eastern European Countries. California Management Review, 37(3),90-109.
Schuler, R. & Rogovsky, N. (1998) Understanding Compensation Practice Variations Across
Firms: The Impact of National Culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 159177.
Shikhirev, P. (2000) Vvedenie v Rossiiskuiu Delovuiu Kul'turu. [Introduction to Russian
Business Culture] Moscow: Novosti.
Soloviev, V. (1913) Sobranie sotchinenii [Collection of Works] St.Petersburg: Prosveshenie.
De Vries, M. (2000) A Jourbey into the “Wild East”: Leadership Style and Organizational
Practices in Russia, Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 67-81.
Wilson, D. & Donaldson, L. (1996) Russian Etiquette & Ethics in Business. Chicago: NTS
Business Books.
26
uncertainty avoidance
7
6
family collectivis m
5
performance orientation
5.07
5.79
5.54
4
5.63
3
2.88
3.39
2
power dis tance
5.52
2.62
2.88
1
0
future orientation
5.48
2.83
3.68
3.94
5.59
humane orientation
4.07 3.89
4.18
egalitarianis m
"Should Be"
Picture 1. Societal culture scales for Russia
4.5
collectivis m
"As Is"
as s ertivenes s
27
First order CLT dimensions
Charismatic
7
6
5.66
5
4
5.63
Autonomous
Team-Oriented
3
4.67
2
1
0
3.69
4.67
Self-Protectiv e
Participative
4.08
Humane
First order CLT dimensions
Picture 2. Leadership profile for Russia based on globally endorsed implicit leadership theory
dimensions
28
Table 1. Summary of GLOBE societal culture scales for Russia
“As Is”
Rank
(group)
“Should
Be”
Rank
(group)
Collectivism
4.50
B
3.89
C
Family Collectivism
5.63
A
5.79
B
Gender Egalitarianism
4.07
A
4.18
B
Assertiveness
3.68
B
2.83
C
Power Distance
5.52
A
2.62
C
Performance Orientation
3.39
C
5.54
B
Future Orientation
2.88
D
5.48
A
Uncertainty Avoidance
2.88
D
5.07
A
Humane Orientation
3.94
C
5.59
A
29
Table 2. Summary of GLOBE leadership scales for Russia
Leadership Dimension
Indicator
Group
Leadership Dimension
Indicator
Group
Performance Orientation
5.92
B
Procedural (formerly
bureaucratic)
2.98
D
Autocratic
4.16
A
Administratively
Competent
6.03
A
Modesty
4.25
C
Self-centered
2.48
B
Charismatic III (Self
Sacrificial)
4.28
C
Autonomous (Formerly
Individualistic)
4.04
A
Team I: Collaborative
(Team Orientation)
5.15
C
Status Consciousness
4.75
B
Decisive
5.86
A
Charismatic II
(Inspirational)
5.89
C
Diplomatic
5.01
B
Malevolent
1.85
C
Face-saver
2.67
C
Team II: Team Integrator
5.65
B
Humane Orientation
3.92
C
Conflict Inducer
3.90
B
Charismatic I (Visionary)
6.07
B
Non-Participative
2.82
B
Integrity
5.72
C
30
Table 3. Media Sources for Analysis
Media source
“IZVESTIYA”
“ARGUMENTY I FAKTY”
1996
2001
X
X
X
X
circulation
Number of
pages
556,284 (1996)
6 (1996)
234,500 (2001)
12 (2001)
3,360,000 (1996)
24 (1996)
2,921,170 (2001)
20 (2001)
“MOSKOVSKY
KOMSOMOLETZ”
X
868,523
8
“NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA”
X
48,000
16
“KOMMERSANT-DAILY”
X
400,000
12-18
“KOMSOMOLSKAYA
PRAVDA”
X
765,000
24
“TRUD”
X
612,850
8
31
Table 4. The Composition of the Articles Sample (1996/2001)
Areas of Interest
Russian Leaders
number of articles
(1996+2001=total)
Russian Leaders
(%)
Foreign Leaders
(number of articles)
(1996+2001=total)
Foreign Leaders
(%)
Politics
48+34=82
51
7+15=22
40
Business
10+15=25
16
12+4=16
29
Sport
5+5=10
6
3+4=7
13
Arts and show business
3+27=30
18
5+2=7
13
Others
8+7=15
9
0+3=3
5
Total
74+88=162
100
27+28=55
100
32
Table 5. Leadership Traits in Russian Media
Category
Frequency
Frequency
1996
2001
TOTAL
Typical phrases
Image
13
12
25
has a modest way of life; image of professional; the most
popular; the most patient and stable; in style of a man who
always says I don’t know; not ordinary man; unbelievably
modest; one of the richest men of the country; I’m selfsufficient; old charming manners; extremely ambitious; the
thing in itself; round, bumpy, smell like buns; successful
business; was very successful in start-up; representative of
large Russian business; famous economist; well-known expert;
economic brains; a person you should trust; recognized expert
in international finance and investments; extraordinary
financial leader; elite of Russian business; respected;
Facilitate
16
6
22
able to attract people; moderate, bright, clear minded; can help;
can solve; will try to settle disputes; was more concrete; gave
his support to all; power methods; has an entrepreneurial talent;
flexible and compliant; expressed maximum loyalty; beloved
man; doesn’t worry; can concentrate; accumulate seriously;
attractive, working man; calm smile; natural liberality; advice
and support; supervised the project to its implementation;
facilitator; made it possible; organized training the other people
Action
13
8
21
active and fruitful cooperation; actively urged; acted selfsacrificing; actively gesticulated; shot while arguing; offended
Catholic church; got everybody out; storm and rush; variety of
started businesses; hurry in search; well trained aggression;
impudence is good and fruitful not only in war actions;
promise; business activity; started in new position;
brainstorming; worked on a project; start-up initiative;
restructuring
Knowledge
11
8
19
a man with great organizational potential; put in all they
learned successfully; soft intelligence; awarded with diplomas;
his career was impetuous; did a lot in the term when the others
can only learn the basics; has got master’s degree; respected
professional; qualities of a leader; highly professional
conversation; with knowledge of facts; experienced; has strong
abilities, managerial experience, deserved authority and
confidence; experience in working in international markets; has
thirty years of experience as director; has extraordinary
capabilities; bachelor; master of business administration; topic
of the dissertation; accumulated experience and knowledge;
Ph.D. in Law
Energy
9
8
17
at work from 9 to 9; stays longer than anyone else; high energy;
has done a hard work; resisted furiously; inspired by energy;
his way was hard and he went to his goal through heavy
fighting; behaved courageously; very strong, that’s the wife
who is the engine of this couple; sources for quick success; was
not job-hopper, rather energetically climbed the career ladder;
was courages to propose; he is brave as expert; business
activity; one year was enough for breakthrough;
Communicate
11
4
15
the man who can not work in team; joked and peppered his
speech with phraseologisms; soft voice; active and fruitful
33
cooperation; read from my lips; try not to aggravate
relationships; the best propagandist; understood each other;
easily communicates; let’s keep together; doesn’t speak a lot;
never keeps his friends and colleagues with whom he had a
business; talks a lot; involved in international business and
broad economic ties; easy going; uses simple language; relies
on cooperation
Direct,
Direction
9
2
11
recommended; suggested; gave advise; was able to convince;
enjoy planning; against war; competition- yes; don’t take into
consideration existing rules and customs if they are the
obstacles on the way up; growing leader; makes principle
statements; follows clear and simple ideology
Obligation
8
2
10
personally make decisions and personally take responsibility;
didn’t leave his stand but for order obligation promised help;
no partner betrayed him, although they were under terrible
pressure; set a high value on his position; pass responsibility to
somebody else; he always kept his point of view; easily does
unauthorized things; never goes against the will of the people;
is responsible for financial and economic issues; always kept
his promises
Objective
7
0
7
has confidence; has come to bring everything in order; will be
as in Europe; he’s sure he’ll win; all his actions are aimed at an
external effect ; I looked for morality everywhere; doesn’t
intend to sit on two chairs
Control
4
3
7
mighty governor; as general commands; solid capital, good
power; the most influential; can manage all the assets of the
company; tries to have the process under control; full control
Change
3
4
7
decided to reconstruct; decided to reconstruct according to the
rules of science; I know what I want to change;
transformational leadership; restructuring; changing the
organization; change master
Survive
3
3
6
Survivor; had enough energy to resist; life is series of strikes
that we should survive at any cost; learned to protect himself;
was not confused with the competitors’ moves; quickly avoided
confrontation
Role Model
3
2
5
model; with care of a wolf; exemplary model; entrepreneurial
talent that was awarded by life, business and recognition; a
long-term leader of a large corporation for thirty years
Creativity
2
2
4
unique creativity; full of ideas; could creatively apply his
potential; multiple hobbies
Charisma
2
2
4
charismatically popular; uncharismatic; man capable to create a
successful for ten years business; one of the most influential oil
businessmen in the country;
Weakness
2
1
3
terrible when angry; chef’s expression wasn’t quite correct; he
looked upset and didn’t know what to do; failed only once
Faults
1
2
3
was several times prosecuted; blamed for money laundering;
criminal sources for capitals
Culture
2
0
2
begin to use classical phrases; fond of ritual African religions
Vision
1
1
2
estimated the situation correctly at once; made the company
one of the leading businesses;
System
1
1
2
wanted to bring everything in order; multidimensional
approach
34