Edinonachalie and the Soviet industrial manager, 1928–1937

This study, in which the collapse of the USSR is discussed within the scope of central planning and bureaucracy, focuses on Soviet type firm organization. In the literature, central planning and bureaucracy are generally considered as fields that work together, and the nuances between these two separate structures are mostly neglected. This has led to the erroneous attribution of problems arising from the bureaucratic structure to central planning. The aim of this study is to emphasize the conflict/difference between bureaucratic mechanisms and central planning phenomena in the USSR. The main finding from the theoretical arguments derived from the literature based on primary sources is that central planning is not the cause of inefficiency. The conditions that prepared the collapse emerged from the conflict of bureaucratic aims, mainly political motives, with central plans. Starting from this thesis, the study aims to reveal the contradiction between bureaucracy and central planning by analyzing the management principles of firms, which are the smallest decision units in the central planning hierarchy of the USSR.

show abstract

“…Bu kaos ortamı içinde 1929 yılında "edinonachalie ilkesi" ortaya atılır (Kuromiya, 1984). Çoğu yönetici tasfiye edilmiştir (Kuromiya, 1984).…”

Section: Sovyet Bürokrasisinin Plan Teknokrasisi üZerine Etkisiunclassified

Plan-Bureaucracy Conflict in the USSR: Soviet Type Firm Organization

AFŞAR

YILDIRIM²,

SARAÇ

2022

Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 1906, he developed the principle of democratic-centralism as a guide for the management of the Party. In 1918, he established edinonachalie -one-man rule, derived from democratic-centralism, as the key management system of Soviet enterprises (Kuromiya 1984). At its inception, democratic-centralism created an ingenious balance of centralized leadership and grassroots democracy.…”

Section: History Of Collectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Managerial Learning Can Assist Economic Transformation in Russia

Vlachoutsicos

Lawrence

1996

Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Russian economic reform is still not effective at the institutional and individual levels, levels at which managerial learning is essential for success. In particular, Russian state enterprises, privatized or not, need to learn how to proceed with radical restructuring if they are to become effective. In doing this, they need to be dealt with as collectives in the Russian tradition rather than as corporations in the Western tradition. Russia also needs the managerial learning required to support a massive wave of entrepreneurship — especially in the creation of distribution and credit organizations. Finally, Russian managers need to be familiarized with a selected set of management skills and techniques relevant to dealing with the challenges of a competitive market, even though their skills in a number of other important management areas are fully recognized.It is no secret that the transformation of the Russian economy is still not effective. Nor is it a secret that the success of the reforms is a matter of global importance. The chief reason for the slow progress is, in our view, that reforms at the institutional and individual levels have been neglected. It is at these levels that managerial learning is a key to success. To be effective at the institutional level, educational programmes must provide the know-how so that state enterprises can restructure themselves into smaller market-oriented firms. To be effective at the individual level, managerial educational programmes must help Russian managers transform themselves from shortage-focused managers operating in a planned economy, to profit-focused managers operating in a competitive market economy. Developing such programmes will be especially difficult since Western teachers of management and Russian enterprise managers have a limited base of shared management knowledge and organizational culture. To understand the managerial education challenge in Russia, the status of the economic reform effort must be briefly reviewed. -, .~~ .

show abstract

“…In addition, the principle of one-person leadership originated in the army and public administration under Paul I in the late 18th century (Kuromiya, 1984). Highly centralized control continued when the Communists seized power, with one person leadership being mandated by Lenin in 1923 as the guiding principle of enterprise management.…”

Section: Power Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

The fit between Russian culture and compensation

Puffer

Shekshnia²

1996

The Int. Exec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Western firms that depend on Russian nationals to help operate their businesses in Russia need to find effective ways of designing compensation packages to attract, motivate, and reward these valuable employees. This article proposes that several important aspects of Russian culture should be taken into account. An overview of Russian culture and a discussion of the way it was embedded in compensation systems during the Communist period are presented as background, using Hofstede's five dimensions of culture as a framework. Two surveys of Western firms' compensation policies for Russian nationals are then discussed in light of Russian culture. The article concludes with culturally based guidelines to assist Western firms in developing effective compensation plans for Russian employees.

show abstract

Edinonachalie and the Soviet industrial manager, 1928–1937

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

Plan-Bureaucracy Conflict in the USSR: Soviet Type Firm Organization

Plan-Bureaucracy Conflict in the USSR: Soviet Type Firm Organization

How Managerial Learning Can Assist Economic Transformation in Russia

The fit between Russian culture and compensation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About