Cultural Consideration in Contextualized Leadership in Post-Communist Eastern Europe

This study will look at cultural issues in contextualized leadership in the context of post-communist Eastern Europe. In order to accomplish this task, an understanding of not only post-communist, but also communist culture and leadership is necessary. Culture and leadership in post-communist Eastern Europe did not arise out of a cultural vacuum. Therefore, we must look at the effects of communism on the current social situation. In order to determine what constitutes contextualized leadership, an examination of cultural constraints in relationship to leadership values is necessary. In so doing, a contextual leadership should find points of continuity within the current cultural context of Eastern Europe.

While the fall of communism brought political change, this essay suggests that leadership styles have remained the same. This is not to be understood as a judgment statement because the characteristics of communist leadership styles were necessarily bad. At the same time, it is very true that communist leadership became corrupted, but the general cultural constraints continue today. One key to a contextualized leadership in post-communist Eastern Europe is to eliminate the “dark-side” of leadership while preserving and adapting a culturally acceptable leadership style.

In order to understand post-communist Eastern Europe we must first try to understand communist Eastern Europe. Definitions of Eastern Europe are somewhat subjective. While it is true that Soviet bloc countries were once considered Eastern Europe, the break up of Soviet control necessitates a more precise definition. As such, Eastern Europe can be understood as that geo-political area encompassing former Soviet bloc countries east of Hungary and the countries of the former Soviet Union west of the Ural Mountains. To further differentiate Eastern Europe from the Baltic States and Central Europe, this study considers the religious element essential. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, Eastern Europe is also that geo-political area where Orthodox Christianity is the predominate faith. By this definition, Eastern Europe includes Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Ukraine.

Characteristics of Communist Leadership

Karl Marx’s vision of a new political philosophy would work to politically and socially transform Eastern Europe until 1992. He motivated people to follow that vision and he organized them in such a way that they were loyal to his cause. As Leighton Ford notes, Douglas Hyde once remarked,

Marx concluded his Communist Manifesto with the words “You have a world to win.” Here is a tremendous aim. In material terms one could hardly aim higher. The belief that the world is there to be won and that Communists can win it is firmly implanted in the mind of every Communist cadre. It is with him all the time. (Ford 1991, 107-108)

One of his followers, Vladimir Ilich Lenin (1917-1922) took his vision and overthrew the czarist regime in Russia in February of 1917. For the next 85 years the Soviet Union would have an additional seven leaders who all shared similar leadership styles. Soviet leaders were characterized by an authoritarian to a totalitarian style of leadership that was patrimonial, transactional and intolerant of differences and change. While these characteristics will be apparent in the descriptions of various communist leaders, patrimonial leadership generally is that style of leadership that attempts to solidify a committed constituency of faithful followers and rewards the constituency for their faithfulness. As such, Soviet leadership sought to ensure unity and cohesion to a one-party government (Carter 1986, 38).

Joseph Stalin (1922-1953) was a prime example of patrimonial leadership. He systematically removed people from office in order to appoint those who were loyal to him (Hughes 1996, 586). Not only this, he endeared himself to the people by deifying Lenin even though he did not agree with Lenin’s philosophy (Bryant 1996, 17). Mikhail Gorbachev (1985-1991), like Stalin, endeared himself to the people by assuring them that his perestroika was a direct result of Lenin’s 1917 revolution (Smith 1998, 326). After years of being hidden, Soviet documents revealed a different side of Lenin. He was a cruel man who led the attacks on clergy and peasants. He was the instigator of Bolshevik concentration camps, executions, and mass terror (Smith 1998, 327). He could not tolerate differences from his ideal political philosophy.

Yuri Andropov (1982-1984) was known as a ruthless yet effective leader. He was widely feared and respected because of how he treated critical moments in Soviet politics. He restored morale in the KGB and crushed the 1956 crisis in Hungary (Carter 1986, 32). Andropov’s transactional leadership of the Soviet Union was passed down to Konstantin Chernenko (1984-1985) and to Gorbachev and is demonstrated by the number of economic experiments throughout the country, some successful, some not (Carter 1986, 36-37).

Soviet patrimonial leadership, where trusted followers were placed in key positions to ensure loyalty, was a model for other East European countries. Nicolae Ceauşescu (1967-1989) of Romania filled many of his key positions with family members. The intolerance of Soviet leaders also characterized other East European leadership. Tudor Zhikov (1971-1989) insisted that Bulgarian Turks change their Muslim names to reflect their Slavic residence. Slobodan Milosevic (1989-1999) took away Kosovo’s autonomy in March of 1989 because of a threat to Serbian nationalism. In his 1971 study, Geert Hofstede showed that the former Yugoslavia had a strong affinity to authoritarianism, collectivism, and intolerance unequalled anywhere else in Europe (Hofstede 1996, 162). Communist leadership has been characterized by abuse. They manipulated followers for their own personal gain. In most cases, they arrived to power only to take advantage of their followers (Luthans et al. 1998, 186).

Characteristics of Post-Communist Leadership

The so called “velvet revolution” of 1989-92 that spread throughout Eastern Europe promised wide-spread change because of a “modernization vacuum” and the incongruence between reality and idealism (Goralczyk 1995, 154). However, the change that is being experienced is not the change that was anticipated. In fact, some would say that there has been little change, especially in the political leadership of post-communist Eastern Europe. Vladimir Tismaneanu states,

In the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, the ex-communists have created gigantic networks of influence, preserved or restored many of the old patterns of hypercentralized state controls over the economy and the media, and embraced nationalism as a convenient ideological substitute for the defunct Leninism. (1998, 3-4)

Yet one thing is certain, the former communist regimes that once plagued the region are not coming back, but they are not totally retired either (Aksyonov et al. 1996, 11). The longer it takes to establish a market economy and democratic transformation, the more likely it is that the countries of Eastern Europe will become nationalistic and leadership will become authoritarian (Goralczyk 1995, 145, 148). Quoting Tismaneanu again,

Post-communist nationalism is thus a political and ideological phenomenon with a dual nature: as an expression of an historical cleavage, it rejects the spurious internationalism of communist propaganda and emphasizes long-repressed national values; on the other hand, it is a nationalism rooted in and marked by Leninist-authoritarian mentalities and habits, directed against any principle of difference and primarily against those groups and forces that champion pro-Western, pluralist orientations. (1998, 7)

Leslie Holmes enumerates three developmental stages in post-communism: “dream, rude awakening, more realistic balanced position” (Lane 1999, 450). This has raised a number of questions about the viability of East European transformation. George Sanford asks if Eastern Europe is in a transition to democratic capitalism or in an unpredictable and chaotic development where the only clear change has been the abandonment of a communist political monocracy and a command economy (Sanford 1997, 507).

There is indication that change has occurred in the mentality of business leadership, which has direct bearing on this study. For example, in a survey of 40 Russian entrepreneurs, McCarthy, Puffer, and Shekshnia (1993) found that most adopted very opportunistic strategies in their new ventures (Kaufmann et al. 1995, 43). However, a change has not occurred in leadership style. While the atrocities and terror of communist leadership are forever gone, the fundamental principles of how leaders lead are still the same.

In their survey of 292 Russian managers, Puffer, McCarthy, and Naumov discovered some interesting insights into these managers’ beliefs about work. First, they found that managers viewed their occupations as meaningful, satisfying and a way of self-expression. Furthermore, they discovered that managers felt that work should provide opportunities for using one’s abilities, experimenting with new ideas, and seeking new experiences (Puffer et al. 1997, 261). These managers have been motivated by the rewards that they received. This signifies the transactional style of leadership that was practiced during communism.

Second, they found that managers believed that working with a group and the contribution to a group was more important than working alone. To the managers, a group was the most important entity in an organization. This collectivist orientation was prevalent during communism and was characterized by a patrimonial style of leadership. Third, they found that while Russian managers were collectivistic, they were also individualistic. At first appearance this seems to be a contradiction, but people had to be self-reliant in order to survive under a totalitarian communist regime (Puffer et al. 1997, 262).

Fourth, they found that Russian managers took a more authoritarian posture in decision-making. They favored a clear separation between those with authority and those without. The Russian idea of strong leadership is consistent with the managers surveyed. Fifth, Russian managers were less likely to value leisure time. This is consistent with their work ethic. Sixth, they found that Russian managers neither endorsed nor dismissed Marxist-related beliefs. They did not feel that “workers” were exploited nor did they feel that “workers” did the most important work (Puffer et al. 1997, 263).

Puffer’s study clearly demonstrates that post-communist leaders share similar leadership styles to their communist predecessors. The primary difference is that post-communist leadership is not as intolerant of change as was communist leadership. However, the threat of the rise of nationalism is very real and intolerance is a prime characteristic of the threat (Kuzmic 1993, 7). The implication of these characteristics is that leadership styles have not significantly changed over time.

The majority of East Europeans subscribe to Orthodox Christianity. Just as in communist and post-communist leadership, authoritarianism, collectivism and intolerance can also characterize the Orthodox Church’s leadership. The authoritarian character of the Orthodox Church is seen in the Church’s dogmatic stance that it is the one true, infallible church (Clapsis 1990). It is further demonstrated in the role of the priest. He and he alone is the administrator of God’s grace through the sacraments. The collectivistic character of the Church is seen in its stance on the councils; whether ecumenical or not, whenever the Church gathers together and makes a decision, it is infallible (Florovsky 1994, 117-118). Similarly, the view that East Europeans are emphatically Orthodox gives further credence to a collectivist mindset. The intolerance of the Orthodox Church is seen in its view of “schismatic” churches. These churches cannot experience God’s grace because they have departed from Orthodox Christianity (Clapsis 1990). Likewise, intolerance is demonstrated by the Orthodox Churches’ attempts to become state churches.

Evangelical churches are not all that dissimilar. Authoritarianism and collectivism can also characterize them (Kuzmic 1993, 7). By their nature, evangelical churches are not necessarily intolerant; however, intolerance toward the Orthodox Church is seen by their continual evangelization of Orthodox people and their belief that the Orthodox Church is heretical. Many of the influential leaders of the East European evangelical church are those who grew up under communism. Typically they are authoritarian and therefore hold most of the ministry responsibilities of the church.

Just as Scripture, leadership must be contextualized in order to provide culturally relevant forms that maintain biblical functions. Cultural constraints in relationship to leadership styles provide helpful insights into contextualization of church leadership. Research that has been conducted on characteristics of leadership suggests that Eastern Europe and the United States are on opposite ends of a spectrum with regard to these characteristics. Yet modern mission efforts in Eastern Europe have seemingly not adopted East European cultural values. Leadership is often taught from an inherently western perspective. The present essay asserts that cultural constraints must be taken into consideration for contextualized leadership to be effective in the East European church.

Cultural Considerations

In his 1971 study of 64 national subsidiaries of the IBM Corporation, Geert Hofstede of the University of Limburg in Maastricht, Netherlands found that cultural constraints in management theories were quite prominent. Administering 116,000 questionnaires to managers and employees, Hofstede analyzed four dimensions that allowed some predictions on the way the IBM society operated in relationship to management (Hofstede 1993, 89-91). The first dimension of the study is Power Distance, defined as the extent to which a culture will consider the separation between the general population and its authority as normal. A culture with a large Power Distance would see leadership as autocratic or authoritarian and consider it normal, whereas a country with small Power Distance would be more consensus oriented. Detelin Elenkov notes, “It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders” (1998, 135).

The second dimension of Individualism is understood as the difference between a society’s preference to act individualistically or to act collectivistically. Hofstede comments, “In collectivist societies a child learns to respect the group to which it belongs, usually the family, and to differentiate between in-group member and out-group members” (1993, 89). The third dimension is labeled Masculinity and is defined by values that are associated with the role of men. These values, notes Hofstede, include “assertiveness, performance, success and competition” (1993, 90). Its converse is associated with the role of women. Femininity is characterized by attitudes of caring and concern. The fourth dimension, Uncertainty Avoidance, is understood in terms of a culture’s need for structure as exhibited in rules and traditions versus an unstructured culture characterized by risk taking (Hofstede 1993, 90).

Hofstede asserts that cultural values must be taken into consideration in order to assure effective leadership. He notes, “I only protest against a naïve universalism that knows only one recipe for development, the one supposed to have worked in the United States” (Hofstede 1993, 88). Hofstede, arguing from cultural characteristics found in indigenous literature, hypothesized that Russian society has an extreme degree of inequality among the population of the country. The society is less individualistic and is inclined towards values of maintaining relationships and solidarity (femininity) rather than competition and assertiveness (masculinity). Hofstede evaluates Russia as rigid rather than flexible, valuing clear rules whether written or tradition. Finally, Russian society is inclined towards an orientation on the past and present that is exemplified by holding tradition and social obligation highly (Hofstede 1993, 87-88).

While Hofstede acknowledge that the statistics for Russian values “have been estimated based on imperfect replications or personal impressions” (1993, 90), Daniel Bollinger (1994) utilized his questions to empirically study leadership in Russia. He administered the questions to 55 executives and directors from the Higher Commercial Management School in Moscow who “more or less matched with IBM employees” (Hofstede 1996, 162). Bollinger’s study of Russian executives and directors as well as Hofstede’s study of IBM employees in Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia show that East European society has a large degree of inequality between leaders and followers which is viewed as normal. This indicates that authority positions are held in high regard. Bollinger notes that, “In this type of culture, employees expect an autocratic management style, offset by the support given to the subordinate’s family” (1994, 53). The society is less individualistic and more collectivistic while being inclined towards values of maintaining relationships and solidarity rather than competition and assertiveness.

The studies indicate that Eastern Europe is rigid rather than flexible, valuing clear rules whether written or tradition leading to an orientation on the past and present, “like respect for tradition and fulfilling social obligations” (Hofstede 1993, 91). Hofstede suggests that these values in East European society are due to the influence of the Byzantine Empire that now resides in the Orthodox Church (1996, 162).

Since Hofstede’s hypothesis (1993) and Bollinger’s study (1994), others have applied his methodology to confirm the initial hypothesis. Alexander Ardichvili acknowledges that not only Bollinger (1994) but also Naumov (1996) and Elenkov (1997) verify Hofstede’s hypothesis that Russian leaders demonstrate autocratic leadership as well as collectivism in the manner in which support is directed to families of employees (Ardichvili, 2001).

These cultural constraints are significant for developing a style of leadership that is culturally relevant. One model of leadership that is capable of bridging the cultural constraints is the transactional-transformation leadership paradigm (Bass 1997; cf. Cooper 2005). Bernard Bass (1990) suggests that transformational leadership is most effective in collectivistic cultures like those of Eastern Europe (Luthans et al. 1998, 185). Transformational leadership focuses on instilling a sense of pride in people for what is being accomplished by motivating them through communicating high expectations while treating people with respect (Bass 1990; Cooper 2005). Because of the high degree of Uncertainty Avoidance, East Europeans look for strong leaders in whom to place their faith (Luthans et al. 1998, 188). Effective leadership requires a charismatic leader. More specifically for Eastern Europe, a charismatic leader must personify freedom and justice (Askyonov 1996, 10). Yet, there is a danger in charismatic leadership.

Jay Conger points out that authority in charismatic leadership tends to be highly centralized. This tendency potentially weakens the authority structures of an organization due to its limiting the number of leaders. As would be expected, it potentially creates a leadership vacuum after a charismatic leader departs (1990, 55). Authoritarian leaders also have a tendency to manipulate employees for personal gain. Their vision for the company is more personal than strategic. Their communication tends to distort reality for personal recognition. Their management style is impulsive and autocratic and tends to alienate others (Conger 1990, 44, 51-52). Because of the high degree of Power Distance, East Europeans are much more susceptible and vulnerable to “dark” leaders (Luthans et al. 1998, 189).

In order for leadership to be effective in the context of Eastern Europe it must reflect the constraints of the culture. Hofstede’s study demonstrates that the cultural constraints associated with the United States are vastly different from those of Eastern Europe. This indicates that leadership styles should be expected to look different. Unfortunately, many a missionary has taught that biblical leadership is reflected in servant leaders without consideration that servant leadership is an American cultural expression (Cooper 2005).

If history is a testimony to the continuity of characteristics of leadership, then leadership in Eastern Europe should exhibit the characteristics outlined in this essay if it is to be contextual. An East European contextual leadership could be characterized as authoritative, collectivistic and focused on maintaining relationships (as seen in patrimonial leadership) as it values clear standards (as exhibited by intolerance). Naturally, thinking in terms of biblical leadership, one would want to be certain that these characteristics are evident in the life of the early church. In this, our attention is drawn to Jesus.

Jesus was unquestionably a model leader. From his life and example we have an understanding of biblical leadership. Many such as Ford (1991), Cedar (1987) and Sanders (1967) have focused on Jesus as a transformer and servant, describing what they believed to be spiritual leadership. However, do we not see Jesus in other ways? For example, there was very little tolerance in Jesus’ teaching on the law. On several occasions Jesus asserts, “You have heard that it was said . . . . But I say to you . . .” (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 38-39, 43-44). If consideration is given to what Jesus taught concerning being a disciple then his authoritative force is felt, “You therefore must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Jesus left little room in his call to an absolutely committed life of discipleship.

Matthew’s gospel gives a clear picture of what it means to be a disciple. When Jesus calls Peter and Andrew he tells them “follow me and I will make you fishers of men” (Matt 4:19). A verse later he calls James and John (Matt 4:21). Jesus’ call was very specific and had specific expectations. If a person is a disciple of Christ then there is a necessity of at least three things. Being a disciple of Jesus Christ necessitates a commitment to obedience that is exemplified in missions and involves sacrifice. There is no ambiguity in this call to discipleship. Jesus demanded absolute commitment to a life of discipleship by the narrow gate (Matt 7:13-14). This life was recognized by its fruit (Matt 7:15-20) that was a result of obedience to the Father’s will (Matt 7:21-23). This, according to Jesus, was a wise person who acted on his words (Matt 7:24-27).

Jesus’ authority and intolerance was uniquely balanced with a deep commitment to his disciples. Nevertheless, we cannot say that these characteristics are any less spiritual than those found to be favored by American missionaries. Characteristics such as servant and shepherd are essential spiritual qualities of a leader. However, just as there was a “dark-side” to leadership under communism there can also be a “dark-side” to the application of these less-talked-about characteristics of Jesus’ leadership. As Christians we must keep in mind that leading as Jesus requires living as Jesus.

Application in East European Christian Organizations

Bollinger asserts three implicit implications for his study of Russian executives and managers that might serve in applying cultural values in leadership for Christian organizations. First, consideration must be given to the way in which organizations are led. Leadership should take into consideration the expectations of those who are being led. Therefore, leadership is not simply applying a particular style as much as it is adapting the style to the people who are being led. In the case of Eastern Europe, due to large Power Distance and low Individualism people expect to be led by strong leaders who care for them more than they care for achieving an objective. Bollinger comments, “Therefore, a system of management by objectives, which presupposes the confidence and independence to negotiate with one’s boss, a shared desire among bosses and subordinates to take risks and a desire to achieve, is incompatible with Russian culture” (1994, 53).

Second, leadership in Christian organizations should motivate people to believe in what they are doing. Since Eastern Europe is characterized by the dimension of Femininity, motivating people should focus on caring for them and their families. Adding numbers, whether of new converts or membership in the organization, is not a motivating factor in Eastern Europe. Bollinger notes, “For this group of countries, security and a sense of belonging are the strongest motivators” (1994, 53).

Finally, the structure of Christian organizations should reflect the culture. Since Eastern Europe has a large Power Distance decision-making should be centralized. Congregational forms of church that emphasize democratic values, for example, will struggle in the culture. Similarly, due to the high degree of Uncertainty Avoidance, organizations should have clearly defined objectives and goals so as to not cause stress or insecurity about the future. “High power distance combined with high uncertainty avoidance gives rise to a pyramid-shaped bureaucratic structure, which is both formal and centralized” (Bollinger 1994, 54).

This essay has looked at issues confronting post-communist East European leadership in the church. By looking at communist leadership principles the essay had a basis for comparison of post-communist leadership styles. The essay suggests that there is little difference in their styles while the methods departed significantly. Then, the essay demonstrated that cultural constraints significantly affect leadership and must be taken into consideration when contextualizing leadership. What can be concluded from this is that these cultural constraints act amorally and therefore are acceptable in contextualizing New Testament church leadership in Eastern Europe. However, the possibility for corrupting leadership styles is real. With very little compromise, strong charismatic leadership that is authoritarian, collectivistic and focuses on values as set out in Scripture appears to be a potentially successful method of contextualized church leadership. At the same time, the body of believers that respects the authority of church leadership has a great responsibility to assure that leadership does not turn “dark.”