Idiosyncrasy, heterogeneity and evolution of managerial styles in contemporary Russia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine managerial styles of Russian managers in the context of institutional and economic environment of contemporary Russia. Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a sample of 482 line and middle managers covering eight geographic regions, 14 industries and 80 organizations in Russia. Findings – Employing factor and cluster analyses the paper identifies four distinct managerial styles: paternalistic, exploitative, performance oriented and passive. In addition, the paper analyzes a number of contingent characteristics of these typological Russian managers such as their age, career development, regional, industrial and organizational presence. Originality/value – The analysis enriches the understanding of managerial style idiosyncrasy, heterogeneity and evolution in Russia. The identified plurality of managerial styles, differentially related to a number of contingency variables, indicates that it pays off for western companies to avoid using stereotypical ideas when dealing with their Russian counterparts and employ conscious strategies when recruiting managers to their Russian operations instead.

The Three Graces of Leadership: Untangling the Relative Importance and the Mediating Mechanisms of Three Leadership Styles in Russia

“…Lastly, we note that our analyses found the role of control variables such as gender, age and hierarchical position to be insignificant in predicting how the three leadership styles influence employee work engagement. Our study indicates that although these variables might affect what leadership orientations Russian employees have, as previous research has suggested (Astakhova et al, 2010;Balabanova et al, 2015), they do not influence how Russian employees react to different leadership styles with work engagement behaviors. It suggests the predominant role of employees' implicit leadership theories in determining their reactions to different leadership behaviors over employees' gender, age and hierarchical position.…”

“…Moreover, also followers’ perceptions and expectations of leaders change and potentially become more heterogeneous (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013; Ling, Chai, & Fang, 2000; Offermann & Coats, 2018). In support, specifically in the Russian context, the focal context of this article, a range of different managerial styles has been found to coexist and be effective in organizations (Balabanova, Efendiev, Ehrnrooth, & Koveshnikov, 2015; Balabanova, Rebrov, & Koveshnikov, 2018). Furthermore, several researchers have claimed that since the 1990s the traditional control-oriented leadership style has been gradually replaced or complemented in Russia by more Westernized ones, such as, authoritative (e.g., Fey, Adaeva, & Vitkovskaia, 2001; Kets de Vries, 2000; McCarthy, Puffer, & Darda, 2010).…”

“…Moreover, since the 1990s, Russian leadership has also evolved toward heterogeneity. As several recent studies show (e.g., Balabanova et al, 2015Balabanova et al, , 2018, a range of different leadership styles coexist today in Russian business organizations. The studies indicate that instead of relying on the over-simplistic view that since 1991 Russian management has evolved in a steady, linear manner from the traditional authoritarian toward a more Westernized transformational or authoritative style, a more realistic view is that contemporary Russian management situationally combines and exhibits a range of leadership behaviors pertinent to different leadership styles.…”

“…Transformational leadership was found to be effective in facilitating organizational performance (Elenkov, 2002) and organizational identification (Koveshnikov & Ehrnrooth, 2018). Paternalistic leadership has been declared an enduring and fundamental feature of many leader–employee relationships in Russia (Balabanova et al, 2015; Kets de Vries, 2001; Puffer, 1994). Finally, with some empirical support research showed that authoritarian leadership style, ‘in which loyalty is exchanged for freedom from accountability’, is still efficient in modern Russia (Balabanova et al, 2018; Fey et al, 2001; McCarthy, Puffer, May, Ledgerwood, & Stewart Jr, 2008: 226).…”

“…In order to control for cultural context, we examine the three styles in the context of Russia, more specifically, among white-collar employees in Russian domestic organizations. We believe that Russia offers a suitable context for our study due to its cultural, socioeconomic, and institutional specifics, all three leadership styles representing the three focal aspects of leadership, namely charisma, benevolence, and authority, were shown to be present and influential in Russian organizations (see Balabanova et al, 2015). Transformational leadership was found to be effective in facilitating organizational performance (Elenkov, 2002) and organizational identification (Koveshnikov & Ehrnrooth, 2018).…”