Download Organisation development and Russian culture

Organisation development and Russian culture: compatibility and contradictions
Christopher J. Rees
University of Manchester, UK
Ekaterina Dyukareva-Sheridan
British Council, Russia
Introduction
Organisations in modern-day Russia are currently implementing radical change initiatives
brought about by factors such as the demise of the control-led economy of the Soviet Union and
the trend towards globalisation. As a process of planned organisational change, Organisation
Development (OD) may be seen by many to be a natural strategy to be employed in the process
of radical change. Yet, at the outset, it is noted that OD does not, to date, have a strong tradition
of use in either the former Soviet Union or in post-1991 Russia. This observation provides a
clear rationale for the research. The main aim of this paper is to explore the compatibility of key
values and themes of OD with various aspects of Russian culture. Given Russia’s cultural
traditions and the change management issues it currently faces, it is considered to be relevant to
explore the extent to which Western-emanating OD has the potential to add value to change
management initiatives in the Eastern European country of Russia.
The study has two specific objectives which address the main aim outlined above. That is, a) to
identify key components of OD and analyse their nature from a Russian culture perspective and
b) to examine the potential applicability of OD interventions within Russia. The structure of the
paper is outlined below. Initial sections of the paper attempt to identify key components of OD.
Thus, the study highlights certain features of OD, for example, its underpinning humanistic
philosophy, that arguably distinguishes it from more general change management strategies
(Rees & Sharifi, 2002). Other key components of OD that are identified in the paper include
teamwork, democratic leadership and empowerment. The paper then seeks to identify features of
Russian culture that are potentially compatible or conflict with the components of OD
highlighted in the previous sections of the paper. This analysis of the key OD components from a
Russian culture perspective is undertaken using various literature-based sources, some of them
written in the Russian language. The majority of these sources contain, at best, only indirect
references to OD studies in Russia. The final section of the paper is used to discuss the
implications of the study for research and practice.
The emergence of OD in the field of change management
The discipline of OD is relatively young and was formalised in the late 1960s. Burke (1994, cited
in Egan, 2002) highlighted that the term ‘organisation development’ first appeared in the
literature in 1969. According to French and Bell (1999), the development of the OD field was
influenced by four historical stems, those being, the invention of the T-group, the emergence of
action research, survey research technology and finally the development of socioclinical and
sociotechnical approaches. A number of studies on OD values summarise that they are
surrounded by motives of helping people for the benefits of individuals and organisations.
According to Golembiewski (1991), OD is value-driven and creates challenges to fit OD values
to specific cultures. The humanistic philosophy of OD leads its proponents to design
interventions aimed at providing employees with opportunities for empowerment, taking
responsibility, and autonomy within the workplace.
It is stressed that the humanistic values of OD cannot be disassociated from the practice of OD
(Rees and Sharifi, 2002). This observation reveals itself in two specific debates that dominate
the field of OD. The first debate surrounds the extent to which OD practitioners are losing sight
of traditional OD values, often because of commercial pressures (Gellerman, 2004; Van Eynde et
al., 1992; Weidner, 2004; Worley and Feyerham, 2003; Worren, Ruddle and Moore, 1999). We
highlight the existence of this first debate because it creates a need for writers to clarify how they
perceive OD. As such, this first debate about the very nature of OD impinges on the second
debate which is more central to our theme. This second debate surrounds the extent to which OD
is transferable across national boundaries and cultures (Fagenson-Eland, Ensher and Burke,
2004; Shevat, 2003; Wigglesworth, 1987). For example, James (2004:313) deals specifically
with the use of OD by Western donors and consultants in Africa, and seeks to answer the
question of whether OD in this setting represents an example of ‘technique peddling’ by Western
influences. Similarly, Rao and Vijayalakshmi (2000) have examined the state of OD in India
and have sought identify the ways in which OD has been altered and developed in order to relate
to Indian culture.
It is highlighted that despite this burgeoning body of literature on the application of OD in
various cultural settings, current research into the applicability of OD to Russia is scarce. This is
surprising particularly because of the change management issues facing post-Soviet Russia
(Clarke and Metalina, 2000; Filatotchev, Buck and Zhokov, 2000; Michailova, 2000) and the
current openness of Russia to Western management researchers.
Thus, while literature
exploring the use of OD in Eastern Europe and the CIS did emerge in the late Soviet and early
post-Soviet days (see Geroy and Carroll, 1994; Perlaki, 1994; Walck, 1993) recent studies that
explore the applicability of OD to modern-day Russia are notably by their scarcity. In the
following sections of the paper, we seek to explore this topic by identifying key components of
OD and examining their potential compatibility with Russian culture.
Components of OD
At the outset, we highlight that we use the term OD in this paper, to refer to the traditional
discipline that is underpinned by, and promotes, humanistic philosophy (Grieve, 2000: 399).
Having offered this clarification, it is possible to identify some common components relevant to
most OD programmes such as, but not exclusively, leadership, management systems and
structures, power, collaboration, communication/relationships/attitudes within teams and groups
as well as between the consultants and client systems, motivations, national and organisational
culture, empowerment and autonomy, learning capacity, attitudes towards change, acceptability
of teamwork and many others. These components feature with varying frequency in published
descriptions of OD (Egan, 2002). All the outlined components form, to various degrees, an
integral part of any OD process and should be considered carefully when embarking n OD
initiatives. Arguably, however, three of these components dominate OD literature, particularly
textbooks, namely groups and teams, leadership and empowerment. The next section focuses on
these three components of OD.
Groups/Teams
Teams are an inseparable part of OD and team building is thought of as one of the most effective
methods to change and develop organisations. The early founders of OD focussed mainly on the
T-group movement which strongly favoured group dynamics, feedback movement and survey
research, however early OD interventions were categorised as primarily focusing on
interpersonal relations and individuals (Ruona and Gibson, 2004). The concept of team building
derived from the application of laboratory learning used primarily in 1950s and 1960s (Harvey
and Brown, 2001).
In OD teams are believed to be the building blocks of the organisation and ‘intact work teams’
seem critical in achieving organisational success (French and Bell, 1999). It is perceived that the
involvement of teams through team building exercises can lead to initiating other OD
interventions dealing with strategic changes, employee involvement, work design, restructuring,
etc. (Cummings and Worley, 2001). According to Senior (2002), OD approaches to change are
based on the assumption that teams and work groups are an essential element in the process of
developing and implementing change.
Leadership
The way organisations and their employees experience change is highly dependent on
organisational leaders and their future vision of the company. Leadership wisdom is vital for
building effective individuals, teams and organisations (Cacioppe, 2000). Leadership as a
component of OD appears to be one of the key prerequisites for successful OD interventions
where the so-called ‘top-down’ approach means that leaders initiate and take changes forwards.
Leadership can be defined as personal qualities, styles, behaviours and decisions adopted by the
leader (Arnold et al., 1998). It is beyond the scope of this paper to study these facets of
leadership, however it is an aim to explore leadership as one of the key components of OD. In
OD efforts, leadership must be seen as a highly interactive and democratic process involving the
development of skills of all organisational members (French and Bell, 1999). Moreover, Lindell
and Rosenqvist (1992, cited in Senior, 2002) highlight that behaviours surrounding
transformational leadership seem most appropriate for change interventions providing vision,
gaining respect and trust, inspiring and communicating high expectations, promoting careful
problem solving, treating each employee individually and, finally, coaching and advising.
Leaders are the main providers of organisational change as they direct and take their
organisations forward to achieve success through change interventions.
Empowerment
Empowerment is identified as one of the fundamental goals and cornerstones of the OD field.
‘To empower is to give someone power, which is done by giving individuals the authority to
make decisions, to contribute their ideas, to exert influence, and to be responsible’ (French and
Bell, 1999: 88). Grieves (2000) draws up a list of empowerment characteristics including a series
of features such as involvement in decision-making processes, access to information, shared
ownership and a redistribution of rewards. As changing attitudes forms part of OD interventions,
empowerment contributes to this change process significantly through involving individuals in
teams in achieving goals, taking responsibility and working in an autonomous way.
In OD leaders aim to create an environment for empowering employees so that their energy can
be channelled towards organisational achievement and teams rather than towards feeling
powerless leading to in appropriate competitiveness and hostility among the organisational
members (Burke, 1982). However, it is recognised that empowerment is not necessarily natural
for organisational life and contradicts the traditional views of how organisations should be run
(Harvey and Brown, 2001). In highly hierarchical organisations empowerment is likely to fail,
thus this component is heavily dependent on leadership, organisational and even national culture
whether it gives preference to autonomous methods of working or not.
There is an obvious link between leadership, teams and empowerment in OD. Some OD
assumptions are based on beliefs that autonomous work groups, team building, quality circles,
survey feedback will only work with increased participation leading to better solutions (French
and Bell, 1999), therefore we single out empowerment as a key element in OD and especially in
team interventions. The formation, development and work of teams are all highly dependent on
leaders and the way they empower teams to make autonomous decisions. Having singled out
three key components of OD, we recognise that they are not isolated from other elements
constituting OD such as communication, relationships, collaboration, motivations and some
others which should be thoroughly analysed and taken into account when embarking on any OD
programmes. Nevertheless, these three identified components of OD are crucial to OD success
and are interrelated in the process of planned change.
The fit between OD and Russian culture
Every nation generates its cultural values which reflect the nation’s vision of the world. The
Russian culture has been described aptly by Polonsky and Edwards (1998: 334); they state that
Russia: ‘…being the most Asian in Europe and the most European in Asia obviously influences
the socio-economic process taking place during the transition from the communist system, giving
it a recognisable Russian flavour’. They add that Russia exhibits a whole variety of cultures still
bearing some common traits. The extreme diversity of the country suggests that a whole range of
languages, cultures, religions and ethnic groups are represented making it difficult to establish
some set frameworks and models to work for all Russian subcultures. However, the Russian
character is considered by many to be a blend of Western and Asian cultures and has been
shaping by the dominance of the Russian Orthodox Church, tsarist times and the communism
regime (Puffer, 1996; Solzhenitsyn, 1991).
The central question we are raising surrounds the extent to which there is a close fit between OD
values and philosophies, and Russian values and culture. It is believed that the closer the value
systems are, the greater can be the impact provided by OD when transforming organisations. The
following sections of the paper discuss the potential compatibility of Russian values and culture
with specific components of OD, that is, teamwork, democratic leadership, and empowerment.
Teams and Groups within the Russian Culture
Russia’s current economic conditions can be described as fairly harsh; however, Russian people
have been surviving in such conditions for centuries. One of the ideas for survival is the theory
of collectivism, with groups and collectives playing a prominent role in Russian society. The
collectivistic nature of Russians was witnessed back in the Tsar times in the 18th and 19th
centuries and is sustained at present. A notion of ‘artels’ or teams was established strengthening
mutual responsibility, the use of common capital and joint labour (Karyakin, 1995). He defined
artels as an autonomous production organisation with the monetary responsibility for final
results of collective work and the collectively owned production assets. Artels’ key features
involved managing internal and external relations, being responsible for common property and
for achieving set labour results. However, with the development of the centrally planned
economy in the Soviet times, artels were eliminated due to their independent nature that proved
difficult for the centralised system to control.
Looking back to Soviet times, Russians used to live in agricultural villages side-by-side with
other families. People were equal in their rights and no one was meant to stand out of the crowd.
One of the Russian features was the interdependency between people and, as highlighted by
Puffer (1996), a high value was put on the well-being of the kollektivs (collectives). Puffer notes
that those who showed signs of making themselves stand out of the group were viewed with
contempt and suspicion. She observes that as a consequence of such socially undesirable
behaviours and individualistic traits such as ambition, striving for achievement and initiative
were almost destroyed. It is important to state that much of the Russian values are depicted in the
sayings such as ‘Better to have one hundred friends than one hundred rubles’ or ‘Together in the
village we will move even mountains’. The reasoning behind such customary sayings can be
traced to the collectivistic traits of Russians manifesting themselves in a group-oriented society
where personal networks and links play a key role in the life of citizens.
It is surprising that collectivistic traits have been so powerful within the Russian culture for
decades especially with the rise of individualism in the Western world. It should be noted that
group relations are key to most aspects of Russian life, be it business or family relations.
Relationships have deep roots within the Russian culture which, perhaps, can help to explain this
gregarious mentality. Bond and Tykkylainen (1996) observe that work communities, as
important social units, are still essential in the Russian society. Collectivism emerges as an ideal
way of collaborating with individuals in groups, however it creates certain barriers for people
relying completely on others in the society. This interdependence within the culture leads to lack
of personal responsibility and initiative.
The ‘kollektivs’ as basic units of Soviet society were widespread, with the term applying to stable
groups of colleagues in a given farm, office or factory. Indeed, some studies suggest that a
kollektiv is a unique phenomenon exclusive to Soviet Russia (Kharkhordin, 1999). The word
has experienced some transformations since its creation dating back to the beginning of the 20th
century. At that time kollektivs were perceived by social psychologists as ‘signifiers’ capturing
an observed set of actions carried out by a spontaneous gathering or a group of people be it a
crowd, an army or a public (Kharkhordin, 1999). During the communist times the word
‘kollektiv’ could only be used for groups of people related to the Communist party and it was
considered a high privilege to be given this title. Kollektivs were later used interchangeably with
‘cell’ (iacheika) where kollektivs were considered more appropriate for ideological reasons
closely reflecting the aims of the revolution, whereby cells resembled a more technical notion
(Kharkhordin, 1999).
In 1930s the so-called ‘kolkhozy’ (collective farms) and industrial collectives appeared
representing the same long-established collectivistic traits of the Russian and later Soviet society.
Collectivisation of the Soviet society did not end at the workplace. The concept of ‘co-habitation
kollektives’ (bytovye kollektivy) was created to describe the life of people sharing everyday
facilities and housing (Kharkhordin, 1999). By 1950s kollektivs could be found everywhere
referring to the country, the party, industrial units, factories, etc. Soviet scholars developed an
extensive classification of kollektivs comprising of sixteen distinct types among which the key
ones were a family, children’s kollektivs in educational institutions, students’ kollektivs,
production-based kollektivs, military kollektivs, kollektivs of sports enthusiasts and most
peculiarly kollektivs of Soviet tourists travelling together abroad (Kharkhordin, 1999).
Kluchevsky (1987), a famous Russian historian, provides a deeper understanding of Russian
characteristics referring to the group as the traditional building block of the Russian society. He
concludes that Russians prefer collectivistic working practices to individualism.
When analysing the nature of team/group working in Russia, considerations should be given to
its historic traditions and collectivistic traits discussed earlier. It would seem natural for the
Russian society to welcome a group working approach relying on its long history of collectivism
and Russian people forming a group-oriented society over the decades. However, this does not
appear to be as transparent as presented above. The recent trends emphasising individualism in
the West might influence the shift from collectivistic working approaches to individual initiative,
responsibility and creativity.
On the one hand, as the study by Hisrich and Gratchev (2001) highlights, in the 1990s reflections
of collectivism were visible in the times of economic turmoil and struggle. On the other, the
influence of the Western norms and behaviours brought by the media and through the philosophy
of entrepreneurship are moving the country towards higher individualism (Hisrich and Gratchev,
2001). Moreover, Giacobbe-Miller et al. (2003) underline that unlike individualists, collectivists
are believed to be more resistant to change. Therefore, the team working approach as it is
portrayed and emphasised by modern practitioners may not be as easily applicable as the historic
traits suggest.
Kollektivs seem to share a number of common values with teams although the two notions have
some differences. Western teams tend to be initiated by individuals who are willing to achieve
better performance results through working and collaborating with each other. Members of
kollektivs, according to Lebedev (1999), are bound to achieve a common goal by working
together. Therefore, present kollektivs in Russia seem to have changed their attributes in keeping
with more team-oriented approaches. In effect, they can be truly referred to as teams. Fey et al.
(1999) found that most top-performing companies in Russia resort to team working extensively.
Having stated that, however, a study on teams in 1984 showed that 71.7 per cent of all the
industrial workers in Russia were engaged in team working (Karyakin, 1995). An opposite view
is expressed in Burress’s study (1996) which concluded that companies were not prepared to
embark on team working approaches and were in dire need of fundamental business skills in
order to start implementing team-based practices. Strong and Nicholson (1998: 80) seem to share
the opinion stating that programmes aimed at empowering teams ‘should be shelved until well in
the future’.
Again, due to significant lack of research and literature devoted to team/group working practices
in Russia, it is not possible to make any strong conclusions about the application of this
component as part of an OD strategy to change Russian organisations. However the presented
analysis prompts us to state that kollektivs appear to represent some aspects of team working and
group working approaches seem to be tolerated and highly supported by some Russian
companies.
Leadership in Russian Organisations from an OD Perspective
A number of studies are devoted to leadership styles in Russian organisations. The history of the
command economy suggests that Soviet and consequently Russian leaders are highly autocratic
exhibiting quick decision-making features which can be summarised as a dictatorial style of
business leadership (Hisrich and Gratchev, 2001). In support of the view Walck (1993)
emphasises that the Soviet system was extremely hierarchical where managers often followed the
one-man rule principle (edinonachalie). As a consequence, authoritarianism and the
concentration of power at the top discouraged creativity, individual initiative and innovation
within the Russian society (Kets de Vries, 2000). One writer has even sought to depict some
comparisons of the former Red Executive leaders and the present market-oriented managers to
provide an overview of the challenges Russian managers currently face when attempting to
survive in the present changing environment (Longenecker, 2001). What is apparent is that an
autocratic style of management has long been present in the Russian society and even today, the
problems of hierarchical structures create barriers for effective organisational work. According to
Bollinger (1994), the Russian cultural dimension of high power distance suggests that Russian
employees expect an autocratic style of management, offset by the support provided to the
employee’s family.
A slightly different observation is made by May et al. (1998) who propose that the fragile
relationship between Russian managers and workers, marred by historical suspicion and mistrust,
represents a significant barrier to organisational effectiveness. They add that the vast majority of
Russian managers typically view employees’ behaviour with disdain. There is little evidence to
suggest that a great deal has changed in the 1990s. Rather, autocratic leadership seems a
prevalent feature of state-owned organisations where the old communist ways are still in place.
‘A CEO of a traditional Russian organization can still be compared with the largest matrioshka
doll who holds all the other managers and workers, and enjoys the support and trust of the
workers on many different occasions’ (Michailova, 2000: 104).
On a more positive note, Chacko and Wacker’s (2001) study suggests that ‘managers’ are
gradually replacing ‘bureaucrats’ in the Russian enterprises. Furthermore, a sign of the
increasing number of Western investors and managers being attracted by the Russian
organisational potential for creating future partnerships is a promising shift towards more open
management styles. Moreover, Westerners are acting as change agents in driving the
organisational changes forward and influence the development of Russian enterprises, their
leaders and employees.
The humanistic values of OD emphasise people’s attitudes, behaviours and roles in
organisations. Therefore OD can undoubtedly be considered as one of the possible solutions to
resolving and changing current leadership styles to become more humanistic in their nature.
However, according to Walck (1993), despite one-man rules, the Soviet system envisages the
balance of collective decisions as embodied in the democratic centralism principle and the
attention to the rights of the workers.
In relation to OD, one of the field’s key values is a ‘concern for democracy’, involving
employees in decision-making and problem-solving processes and emphasising co-operation
between employers and employees. This suggests that low power distance is propagated by OD
strategies. In the case of Russia, high power distance is observed as this value is a permanent
constituent of the Russian mentality (Bollinger, 1994). In this vein, Elenkov (1998) emphasises
that the degree of the centralised decision-making can be explained by power distance: the larger
the power distance, the more likely the power will be centralised. In inflexible, hierarchical and
bureaucratic processes within Russian organisations, there is a dire necessity in Russia to enable
organisations to be more competitive and capable of meeting new challenges and demands of the
market economies. The OD study in Russia by Walck (1993) suggests that many enterprise
leaders are afraid of changes and seem to be strongly resisting those and that is where similar
techniques to OD such as gaming (igropraktika) emerge as a way to confront such fears and
relate rationally to the changes.
Studying Russian leadership traits from an OD perspective, autocratism and bureaucracy seem to
be dominant in the Russian society, whereby transformational leadership needed in OD
interventions is hardly observed. Some surveys highlight that transformational leadership in
Russia is relatively low, perhaps because of the tight Communist party control during the Soviet
Era (Ardichvili, 2001). However, having stated that, it should be noted that in such a diverse
country as Russia, a number of various styles can be noticed. Arguably, more flexible, peopleoriented and participative styles of leadership and management are prevalent in private
enterprises which can perhaps be explained by the personal initiative of their leaders to start new
businesses and expand to new markets. Puffer (1996) observes that young people representing a
new generation of leaders and managers have very little experience of the communist regime
struggling to accomplish the new, whereas communist managers struggle to accomplish the
routine. This suggests the possible emergence of transformational leaders in Russia.
OD and Empowerment in Russian Society
Due to the traditional hierarchical and bureaucratic systems within Russian organisations,
empowerment is unlikely to fit with such structures. Fey et al. (1999), studying organisational
culture in Russia, observe that due to high level of uncertainty, employees tend to avoid any
possible conflict within the hierarchical structures which may be a result of a personal initiative
outside the set guidelines of such systems.
It is important to draw on the definition of Russian participative management put forward by
Naumov, Puffer and Jones (1995, cited in Fey et al., 1999: 50), that is, that managers have ‘the
desire to participate, but not to assume responsibility’. Some studies suggest that employee
empowerment in Russia was not useful in achieving productivity gains in Russian factories,
however Russian employees under research claimed that they were not provided with
encouragement and adequate resources and lacked specific training on empowerment techniques
(Elenkov, 1998). Moreover, the mindset that was formed under the command system and total
centralisation led to employees’ reluctantance to make decisions, assume responsibility and take
initiative (Shekshnia, cited in Puffer, 1996). Having provided some initial background on
empowerment in Russia, it is suggested that the analysis in this section focuses on women
empowerment in particular, as it is one of the most vital issues of past and yet present times
especially when analysing the potential for OD interventions in Russian organisations.
In terms of the empowerment of women, the constitution of the USSR ensured equal rights
between men and women whereby women were expected to participate fully in all aspects of the
society’s life (Deshpande et al., 2000). However, women were at times more equal than they
wanted to be, which Puffer (1996) refers to as ‘a case of too much equality’. Despite the socalled ‘too much equality’, women were not occupying managerial positions and the majority
only progressed to the worker levels. During the Soviet time it was evident that women did not
advance to managerial posts to the full extent of their abilities, skills and training. Koval (1995)
underlines that even when women had higher education and outstanding scientific degrees than
their male colleagues, they would usually occupy a lower position doing a relatively low-paid
work. The explanation could be uncovered by their dual roles of fulfilling family responsibilities
and work tasks (Rees and Miazhevich, 2005).
In the Russian context, women constitute the majority of the Russian population – 53 per cent
(Lissyutkina, 1999). Consequently, it would only seem logical that, as a numerical majority, they
should be provided with enough power and rights to participate in taking changes forward as
well as making decisions in organisational context. However, the hidden discrimination of
women could be witnessed in many spheres of life.
Until recent times, girls were oriented towards women’s jobs, women were isolated from politics
and there was a considerable gap in payment between male and female labour (Voronina, cited in
Posadskaya et al., 1994). As highlighted by Puffer (1996), women’s participation in the labour
force in the USSR was strong in numbers, but weak in influence and status. Times are gradually
changing with women holding more managerial positions, fulfilling political roles, starting new
businesses, establishing women movements and generally exhibiting more equality than during
the Communist regime. New businesswomen understand the losing proposition of the parasitic
past attitudes and are taking charge of their lives (Khotkina, cited in Posadskaya et al., 1994).
Kay’s study of Russian women (2000) suggests some promising and tangible changes in the
general feel of attitudes towards the issue of gender and the way women are represented through
media sources. Another important cultural observation is made by Lissyutkina (1999, cited in
Kay, 2000) emphasising that in post-Soviet Russia, the home and the family spheres are much
more highly valued in Russia than in the West. Thus, Russian women seem to give preference to
the balanced roles of work and family responsibilities.
Yet a lot of barriers are to be overcome in the women’s movement towards equal working
opportunities and full empowerment at workplaces. However, Lissyutkina (1999, cited in
Bridger, 1999) observes that in the period of reforms since the collapse of the USSR, isolation
has been overcome as a number of women’s organisations have emerged and made direct contact
with their counterparts internationally. Moreover, women are establishing political parties
lobbying their rights and representing women’s issues at governmental levels.
Drawing on the Grieves’s (2000) list of empowerment, where decision-making is one of its
characteristics, Russian women appear to participate in decision-making processes. This is
supported by the research of Kay (2000) stating that the overwhelming majority of women taking
part in the study indicated that they were involved in organisational decisions.
Another feature of empowerment according to Grieves’ framework is access to information. As
it was suggested earlier in the section, women organisations have been exposed to more
resources and information in the post-Soviet period and are able to exchange information with
their international colleagues meaning a constantly developing access to various resources.
The third element of empowerment according to Grieves is ownership. With the start of the
market economy in Russia, new business opportunities appeared. Consequently, women are
starting to establish numerous business entities and NGOs. This can be regarded as an
opportunity for proving women’s rights, skills and competencies which are increasingly evident
in the new Russia. Modern Russian businesswomen are self-reliant and optimistic, and ready to
create new jobs for other women in small enterprises: ‘Their (women’s) commercial activity is
tied to the new forms of ownership the market economy has introduced, and the political views,
too, tend to be progressive’ (Khotkina, 1994: 107).
Conclusion
This study has sought to explore the compatibility between OD values, as reflected by teamwork,
democratic leadership and empowerment, with Russian values and culture. The main
conclusions of the study are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1. The Fit between OD Components and Russian Culture
OD components
Russian context
Values and Philosophies
(humanism, trust, openness,
democracy, helping
relationships)
Group support, co-operation,
value of human relations,
openness,
paternalism,
autocratism; high level of
trust in long-established
relationships, at the same
time lack of trust for
‘strangers’ outside the system
OD within Russian
Organisations
Russian culture is partially
consistent with the OD values.
However lack of trust and
autocratism can be impediments
to successful OD strategies.
Teams/Groups
High collectivistic traits are
evident in the historical and
ongoing use of kollektivs in
many spheres of Russian life.
Leadership
Predominantly autocratic with
a
respect
for
strong,
authoritarian leaders. More
recently, there is evidence of
an emerging transformational,
people-oriented approach to
leadership, particularly in the
private sector.
Empowerment
There is some evidence of the
advancement
of
women
empowerment in recent years,
as reflected in the activities of
businesswomen,
political
lobbyists, and internationally
focused
women’s
organisations.
Team/group
working
approaches are likely to be
supported by Russian society
because of its collectivistic
values.
Although autocratism/one-man
power is not tolerated by OD,
new management styles of
shared power and ownership
and a value shift towards
human aspects of organisations
can be observed. These may be
beneficial in increasing success
rates of OD programmes.
Emergence
of
women
empowerment
suggests
a
gradual cultural shift relating to
the roles of women in society.
This shift is compatible with the
empowerment component of
OD.
Based on all the above discussions and analysis, it is concluded that OD, can be beneficial for
Russian organisations seeking to improve performance and respond to rapidly changing
environments. Nevertheless, significant attention should be given to cultural barriers to OD
interventions bearing in mind the differences between Russian and OD values. Prior to designing
and embarking on OD interventions in Russia, such potentially adverse aspects such as autocratic
leadership styles, low levels of trust and high power distance should be thoroughly studied to
adjust the interventions accordingly (see Table 1). Building on Russia’s collectivistic traits,
values of human relations, co-operation, group support, the recent emergence of transformational
leadership styles and advancement of women empowerment can all contribute to the generation
of successful OD outcomes. Perhaps this thinking is best summarised by Golembiewski (1991:
51) more general observation: ‘OD applications always have to deal with the fit between
interventions and cultures, but the prime concern is with the sub-cultures of specific
organizations or their sub-units, as contrasted with the society or national culture in which the
organization is embedded’.
Bibliography
Ardichvili, A. (2001). ‘Leadership Styles and Work-Related Values of Managers and Employees
of Manufacturing Enterprises in Post-Communist Countries’. Human Resource Development
Quarterly 12 (4): 363-383.
Arnold, J., Cooper, C. and Robertson, I. (1998). Work Psychology. Understanding Human
Behaviour in the Workplace. (3rd edition). Financial Times: Prentice Hall.
Bollinger, D. (1994). ‘The Four Cornerstones and Three Pillars in the “House of Russia”
Management System’. Journal of Management Development 13 (2): 49-54.
Bond, D. and Tykkylainen, M. (1996). ‘Northwestern Russia: A Case Study in “Pocket”
Development’. European Business Review 96 (5): 54-60.
Bridger, S. (ed.) (1999). Women and Political Change. Perspectives from East-Central Europe.
Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
Burke, W. (1982). Organization Development. Principles and Practices. Boston (Mass.): Little,
Brown and Co.
Burress, A. (1996). ‘Mini-Case Study. The Current Russian Reality and Teams’. Work Teams
Newsletter 6 (1), http://www.workteams.unt.edu/newsletter/Archive/v6-1.html.
Cacioppe, R. (2000). ‘Creating Spirit at Work: Re-visioning Organization Development and
Leadership – Part II’. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 21 (2): 10-119.
Chacko, T. and Wacker, J. (2001). ‘An Examination of Strategic Goals and Management
Practices of Russian Enterprises’. International Business Review 10: 475-490.
Clarke, S. and Metalina, T. (2000) ‘Training in the new private sector in Russia’. International
Journal of Human Resource Management 11(1): 19-36
Cummings, T. and Worley, C. (2001). Organization Development and Change (7th edition).
South-Western College Publishing.
Deshpande, S., Joseph, J. and Maximov, V. (2000). ‘Perceptions of Proper Ethical Conduct of
Male and Female Russian Managers’. Journal of Business Ethics 24 (2): 179-183.
Deshpande, S.P., George, E. & Joseph, J. (2000) Ethical climates and managerial success in
Russian organizations, Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2): 211-217
Egan, T. (2002). ‘Organization Development: An Examination of Definitions and Dependent
Variables’. Organization Development Journal 20 (2): 59-69.
Elenkov, D. (1998). ‘Can American Management Concepts Work in Russia? A Cross-Cultural
Comparative Study’. California Management Review 40 (4): 133-156.
Fagenson-Eland, E., Ensher, E. and Burke, W. (2004) ‘Organisation Development and Change
Interventions: A Seven Nation Comparison’. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40(4) :
432-465
Fey, C., Nordahl, C. and Zatterstrom, H. (1999). ‘Organizational culture in Russia: The secret to
success’. Business Horizons November-December: 47-55.
Filatochev, I., Buck, T. and Zhukov, V. (2000) ‘Downsizing in privatised firms in Russia,
Ukraine and Belarus’. Academy of Management Journal 43(3): 286-304
French, W. and Bell, C. (1999). Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions
for Organization Improvement. (6th edition). London: Prentice
Hall International.
Gellermann, W. (2004) ‘Organization Development, Corporations, and Society’. Organization
Development Journal 22(2): 29-36
Geroy, G.D. and Carroll, J.B. (1994) Helping or hindering: Should Western OD have an
unfettered passport to the CIS? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5(3): 281-285
Giacobbe-Miller, J.K., Miller, D.J, Zhang, W. and Victorov, V.I. (2003) Country and
organizational-level adaptation to foreign workplace ideologies: a comparative study of
distributive justice values in China, Russia and the United States, Journal of International
Business Studies, 34(4): 389-406
Golembiewski, R. (1991). ‘Organizational Development in the Third World: Values, Closeness
of Fit and Culture-Boundedness’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2
(1): 39-53.
Golembiewski, R. (2004) ‘Twenty Questions for Our Future: Challenges Facing OD and ODers,
or Whatever it is Labeled’. Organization Development Journal 22(2): 6-20
Grieves, J. (2000). ‘Introduction: The Origin of Organization Development’. Journal of
Management Development 19 (5): 345-447.
Harvey, D. and Brown, D. (2001). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (6th
edition). New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
Hisrich, R. and Gratchev, M. (2001). ‘Ethical Dimension of Russian and American
Entrepreneurs’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 8 (1): 5-18.
James, R. (2004) ‘Exploring OD in Africa: A Response to David Lewis’. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership 14(3): 313-325
Karyakin, A. (1995). ‘The History and Traditions of Teamwork in Russia’. Work Teams
Newsletter 5 (3), http://www.workteams.unt.edu/newsletter/Archive/v5-3.html.
Kay, R. (2000). Russian Women and Their Organizations. Gender, Discrimination and
Grassroots Women’s Organizations, 1991-1996. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Kets de Vries, M. (2000). ‘A Journey into the “Wild West”: Leadership Style and Organizational
Practice in Russia’. Organizational Dynamics 28 (4): 67-81.
Kharkhordin, O. (1999). The Collective and the Individual in Russia. A Study of Practices.
London: University of California Press.
Kluchevsky, V. (1987). Kurs Russkoy Istorii (A Course of Russian History). Moscow: Misl.
Koval, V. (ed.) (1995). Women in Contemporary Russia. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Lebedev, V. (1999). ‘Kollektiv kak Sotsialnyi Object Upravleniya’ (A Kollektiv as a Social
Object of Management). Zhurnal Problem Teorii i Praktiki Upravlenia (The Journal of
Problems of Management Theory and Practice), 4, http://www.ptpu.ru/issues/4_99/14_4_99.htm.
Longenecker, C. (2001). ‘Why Managers Fail in Post-Soviet Russia: Causes and Lessons’.
European Business Review 13 (2): 101-108.
May, R., Bormann Young, C. and Ledgerwood, D. (1998). ‘Lessons from Russian Human
Resource Management Experience’. European Management Journal 16 (4): 447-459.
Michailova, S. (2000). ‘Constrasts in Culture: Russian and Western Perspectives on
Organizational Change’. The Academy of Management Executive 14 (4): 99-112.
Perlaki, I. (1994) ‘Organizational Development in Eastern Europe: Learning to Build Culturespecific OD Theories’. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 30(3): 297-312
Polonsky, G. and Edwards, V. (1998). ‘Transformation in Russia: Insights from the Russian
Province’. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 19 (6): 332-339.
Posadskaya, A. and Others at the Moscow Gender Centre (eds.) (1994). Women in Russia. A New
Era in Russian Feminism. London: Verso.
Puffer, S. and Associates (eds.) (1996). Business and Management in Russia. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Rao, T.V. and Vijayalakshmi (2000) ‘Organization Development in India’. Organization
Development Journal 18(1): 51-63
Rees, C.J. and Miazhevich, G. (2005) The Emerging Identity of Women Managers in Post Soviet
Belarus, Women in Management Review, 20(5/6): in press
Rees, C. and Sharifi, S. (2002). ‘Organisation Development: From Beliefs to Practice’. Zagreb
International Review of Economics & Business, Special Conference issue: 109-122.
Ruona, W. and Gibson, S. (2004). ‘The Making of Twenty-First Century HR: An Analysis of the
Convergence of HRM, HRD, and OD’. Human Resource Management 43 (1): 49-66.
Senior, B. (2002). Organisational Change. (2nd edition). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.
Shevat, A. (2003) ‘Making OD Global’. Organization Development Journal 21(2): 87-92
Solzhenitsyn, A. (1991). Rebuilding Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals. London:
Harper Collins.
Strong, K. and Nicholson, J. (1998). ‘Managing in Eastern Europe: The Challenge of Developing
Effective Organizations in Russia’. Organization Development Journal 16 (1): 75-82.
Van-Eynde, D. Church, C. Hurley, R. and Burke, W. (1992) ‘What OD Practitioners Believe’.
Training and Development 46(4): 41-45
Walck, C. (1993). ‘Organization Development in the USSR’. Journal of Managerial Psychology
8 (2): 10-17.
Walck, C. (1995). ‘Global Ideas, Local Realities: The Development Project and Missionary
Management in Russia’. Journal of Organizational Change and Management 8 (4): 69-84.
Weidner C.K. (2004) ‘A Brand in Dire Straits: Organization Development at Sixty’.
Organization Development Journal 22(2): 37-47
Wigglesworth, D. (1987) ‘Is OD Basically Anglo-Saxon? Some Potentially Controversial
Thoughts on Applying OD in Other Cultures’. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal 8(2): 29-31
Worley, C. and Feyerherm, A. (2003). ‘Reflections on the Future of Organization Development’.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39 (1): 97-115.
Worren, N., Ruddle, K. and Moore, K. (1999) ‘From Organizational Development to Change
Management: The Emergence of a New Profession’. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
35(3): 273-286