REFLECTIONS ON CHARACTER AND LEADERSHIP

294 REFLECTIONS ON CHARACTER AND LEADERSHIP

This avoidance of reality reached incredible heights under the State

Planning Committee (GOSPLAN). Because decision - making was

imposed from above, people charged with the day - to - day operation of

the enterprise — whether company or government agency — were relieved

of the task of setting realistic plans and targets. This led to an abdication

of personal responsibility for the work that needed to be done.

This decision - making process made for extremely unrealistic pro-

duction targets. What developed was a fi nely tuned, deeply rooted

practice of deceiving higher authority. Many executives spent all their

energy trying to reduce often excessive targets set from above and to

shift responsibility to others. They colluded with managers and local

Party offi cials to cook the books and deceive the higher - ups about the

real levels of output in the factory or on the farm. ‘ In principle it can

be done, ’ was a manager ’ s favored response to authority. But that attitude

led to what by Western standards were irrational, cost - ineffective behav-

iors, such as maintaining extremely high inventories of fi nished goods,

hoarding materials and labor, and accepting unconnected goods that

could be bartered for badly needed supplies.

During GOSPLAN days, ‘ storming ’ — working in a mad frenzy to

fulfi ll certain agreed - upon quotas — was part of the routine. Crash pro-

grams became a national pastime. This fi re - fi ghting mode of ‘ storming ’

is still typical of many organizations in Russia. Setting goals for the

future is not a high priority. Long - term planning and strategic thinking

are often taken with a pinch of salt. In most organizations, short - term

survival is what counts (Michailova, 1997 ).

The Fluidity of Time

Russians do not see time as a fi nite resource, structured in a sequential

and linear fashion (Hall and Hall, 1990 ). Rather, they see it as a loose

entity or even non - existent. This perspective is a legacy of their agri-

cultural heritage: on the farm, time is multi - focused, expanding as

necessary to accommodate a variety of activities. Thus Russians plan

activities concurrently, causing considerable fragmentation. In Russian

business dealings, constant interruption is the norm, punctuality is often

disregarded, deadlines are seen as mere suggestions, and scheduling is

diffi cult.

This polychromic view of time refl ects the fact that Russia is a

‘ being ’ , not a ‘ doing ’ , culture (Hall, 1966, 1973 ; Laurent, 1983 ). Rus-

sians tend to be contemplative rather than action - or task - oriented. As

mentioned earlier, their activities are relationship - centered. Experience

counts more than goal accomplishment or achievement. The harsh