Characteristic Features of the Innovation Culture of Post-Soviet Management

Characteristic features of the innovation culture of post-soviet management

Yuri Alekseichenko, Minsk

Typical features and manifestations of innovation culture of domestic industrial managers in conditions of the transformation period: empirical analysis

Analysis of the innovating activity of enterprises within the framework of the project on ‘the management of innovation and the modernisation of post-soviet industry’ was focused on problems of the management of the innovation process which was studied on the basis of a sociological approach.

The use of such an analytical perspective presumes a conception of innovation activity as a social process which is realised in the complex interaction of internal and external factors of influence with the aim of realising effective innovations of various types in the enterprise. The factors mentioned may vary according to the intensity of their influence on the process studied, they may be either objective or subjective and may also have other specific features. However, they all have to be taken into account and analysed either separately or in dialectical interaction, determining the processes and procedures of the initiation, realisation and assessment of the results of innovation in industrial enterprises.

Macro- and microeconomic external and internal objective factors of the innovation process have been examined in some detail in other chapters. So at the centre of our attention will be subjective factors, related to the innovation mentality of post-soviet managers which, when it is expressed in a particular type of innovating behaviour, has a significant influence on the planning and realisation of innovation.

The notions of ‘innovation mentality’ and ‘innovation behaviour’ are two of the basic categories of a special sociological theory, the sociology of innovation, which has recently entered a stage of intensive formation and development.[1] Another key concept of this theory is the category of ‘innovation culture’ which, on the one hand, is the basis for the realisation and development of an innovation mentality (and, as a consequence, the regulation of innovation behaviour) and, on the other hand, is itself subject to the transformative influence of the innovation mentality which reflects the rapidly changing conditions of external socio-economic, institutional and organisational means of innovation.

The innovation culture of the management of post-soviet enterprises as a subjective internal factor of the innovation process will provide the analytical focus of this chapter.

The appeal to the category of ‘innovation culture’ as an instrument for the analysis of primary research material requires a brief interpretation of the content and internal structure of this concept in its inter-relations with the sociological understanding of such a multi-layered and complex root phenomenon as culture.

Perhaps, the only consensus in modern sociology concerning the category‘culture’, is that it, alongside the term‘society’is recognised ‘as one of the most widely used concepts’,[2] the diversity and ambiguity of which derives from the various treatments of its ‘roles, place and essence... In the context of world civilisation’.[3] At the same time, the variety of existing sociological definitions of culture can conditionally be divided into two basic directions.

In the first set of definitions culture is represented as the result of human activityappearing in the form of a set of norms and values, and also marks, symbols and material objects. It fulfils the role of social memory of society, providing in it a connection of times and continuity of generations.[4]

Analysing this research approach, it is necessary to agree with G.N. Sokolova, who notes that ‘the concept of culture as social memory... does not capture the cultural development of society - renewing its values and norms on the basis of the ... replacement of out-of-date values with new ones’.[5]

Recognition of the static character in the interpretation of the category ‘culture’, as a key inadequacy of this conception, alongside the judgement that the active culture-forming role of the person is neglected (the subject within the framework of this theoretical tradition actually appears as a puppet of cultural norms and sanctions), has led a number of our researchers to develop an alternative analytical direction in the study of this phenomenon.

The characteristic feature of this second conceptual direction is the definition of culture as means of human activity including a complex and multi-sided system of extra-biological developed mechanisms, due to which the activity of people in society is stimulated, programmed, co-ordinated and realised.[6]

This approach to the study of culture seems to be more fruitful than the first analytical tradition, the evidence of which is its wide application in research of such socio-cultural phenomena as organisational culture, economic culture, the culture of management, culture of work, professional culture etc.

Among the whole variety of culturological constructs, developed on the basis of the understanding of culture as a means of human activity, the greatest interest for our analysis is offered by the concept of management culture.

Now this socio-cultural concept is in the stage of formation and approbation at the level of the analysis of the industrial relations inside the collective economic subject (the enterprise). In the given context the culture of management appears as a projection of fundamental value-normative components of higher level cultural systems (organisational and economic cultures of society) onto the sphere of the socio-economic, technological and organisational-managerial relations inside the enterprise. It is treated as a stable structure of interaction of the employees in the development and realisation of decisions concerning the use of the limited resources of the given subject of production.[7]

Following the logic of this approach, it is possible to formulate the concept of the innovation culture of the enterprise, which will be treated as a special form of manifestation of its economic culture in the sphere of the development and introduction of innovations. However, such a detailed elaboration might deflect us from the analytical focus of this section that was defined earlier, which should be oriented to the innovation culture and to the personality characteristic of the chiefs and specialists of the enterprise, and on the factors determining the mentality and behaviour of managers at all stages of realisation of an innovation.

It is precisely the absence of such a ‘subjective’ component in the definition of economic and innovation cultures of the enterprise cited above that limits the possibilities of its use in our analysis. The similar lack (absence of analysis at the level of the person) is also characteristic of the definition of innovation culture as an historically formed, stable system of norms, rules and methods of realisation of innovations in various spheres of the life of a society, characteristic of the given socio-cultural community.

In this context there is an obvious need to develop this definition of innovation culture in order to delineate the personality aspect of this socio-cultural phenomenon, which can be considered as an independent systematic formation, having complex regulatory properties.

Thus, projecting the definitions considered onto the level of the person managing, who manages the process of realisation of innovations inside an industrial organisation, one can define the innovation culture of the manager as the stable setof methods of developing and realising decisions concerning the use of the internal and external resources of the enterprise for the planning and realisation of innovation activity.

Within the framework of the formulated approach innovation culture appears as self-sufficient social - psychological mechanism, capable of self-reproduction and self-regulation, which renders a determining influence on the style of management and the specificity of the economic behaviour of the manager during the initiation and realisation at the enterprise of innovations of various types. The main features of the innovation culture of managers are that, first, like their economic culture, it includes both social norms and values of a societal scale, which acquire a specific significance in the sphere of innovation activity, and also social norms arising immediately out of the practice and experience of the realisation of innovations within the given economic subject. Second, the innovation culture of managers is defined by such key characteristics of their social-psychological make-up as economic interests, interiorised social stereotypes, social and value orientations, professional orientation of the personality and so on.[8]

The innovation culture of managers is realised in their professional activity, related to the realisation of innovations, but at the same time it is subject to the direct and mediated influence of the innovation activity itself as well as the external environment within which this activity proceeds.

The structure of innovation culture is analogous to that of other socio-cultural systems (such as political, philosophical, legal, economic culture), which have been distinguished by our own researchers in the past as significant personality characteristics of the individual subjects of social processes.[9]One can represent it in the form of a set of three interrelated levels (aspects): cognitive, which includes components characterising the innovation competence of the manager, that is his or her professional knowledge, skills and experience related to the sphere of the realisation of innovations in the enterprise; value-motivational, which characterises the motive force of innovation culture, that is the system of demands, values, motives and stereotypes which prompt the manager to realise a particular model of behaviour in carrying out an innovation. This level is represented through the motivational sphere of personality, regulating its innovation activity;[10]behavioural, which is manifested in the system of practical activity of managers at all stages of the development and realisation of innovations. This level represents itself as being immediately accessible to empirical analysis, the sum of the indicators of the level and character of the innovation culture of its individual bearer.

The main significance of the innovation culture of the manager is in providing the analytical basis and the managerial accompaniments of the innovation processes in the enterprise. The qualitative level and type of the innovation culture inherent in the managerial personnel of a concrete industrial organisation, to a considerable extent determines the very existence and also the degree of solidity and development of the innovation strategy in the given enterprise. Moreover, the character of the innovation culture of management, which determines the algorithm of management action for the realisation of the innovation strategy in each concrete situation, determines the final success (or failure) in the realisation of this or that innovation. The level of cognitive-skill training of the chiefs, its breadth and versatility, deep-rootedness and degree of flexibility of the stereotype assimilated by management, the values and norms of economic activity and also the existence and degree of development of other components of the innovation culture are key factors on which depends the maintenance and monitoring of the balance of interests of the main participants in the innovation process. Such a balance, as is well-known, is one of the most important preconditions not only for the smooth and effective introduction of innovations in the enterprise, but also for the increase of its competitiveness and profitability on this foundation.[11]

The study of the innovation culture of management is particularly topical in conditions of transformation processes characteristic of post-soviet industry. The essence of the radical changes proceeding in the sphere of the management of the innovation activity of the enterprise, consists in the necessary reorientation from the previous model of innovation management that was established on the basis of a routine industrial process in conditions of a command economy, stable technical base and stable product range to a new model corresponding to the conditions of a market economy. The main feature of the new model of management of innovation processes in the enterprise is its constant intensification in order to achieve an uninterrupted process of innovation as the means of existence and development of the enterprise. Such a radical transformation of the model of innovation management demands deep and substantial changes in the system of management of the enterprise, in the style of management and the mentality of its managers and, consequently, in its innovation culture.

How much have the key components of the innovation culture of the present leaders and specialists of post-soviet industrial enterprises been transformed during the years of reform? In what direction and under the influence of what factors has their innovation culture evolved, what are its characteristic features today?

The rich and varied primary material from the qualitative research gathered in the course of the realisation of the project ‘the management of innovation and the modernisation of post-soviet industry’ makes it possible for us to answer these and other, related, questions. The theoretical conception of innovation culture developed above is completely appropriate for the process of its structural and functional operationalisation on the basis of the mass of qualitative sociological data obtained with the aim of studying the content and developmental tendencies of the phenomenon that we are studying through concrete empirical indicators.

Among the latter we have selected evidence on the actual level and versatility of the professional training of domestic managers, including their basic education and features of their professional socialisation. The individual judgements and assessments of managers regarding the problem of innovation activities in the enterprises and their own place and role in the process of planning and realising innovations is very significant for the empirical analysis of the state of the innovation culture. Finally, evidence collected in the course of observation and interviews on the actual behaviour of managers in the process of realising innovations, and also their assessment of the results of the collective and their own efforts invested into the realisation of the innovation analysed, is very important.

As a result, despite the geographical dispersion and variety of branches of the enterprises studied, the composite analysis of the empirical materials that have been collected leads to the distinction between three most general features of the innovation culture of domestic managers which are characteristic of the present stage of its development. These are its authoritarianism, informality and technocratism, which are inherent in the established methods by which the chiefs of post-soviet industry develop and implement decisions concerning the realisation of innovation activity in the enterprises under their control.

The empirical basis for the definition of authoritarianism as a typical feature of the innovation culture of post-soviet management is the frequent mention in the research reports on the enterprises of a range of specific features of the organisational environment and the corresponding managerial behaviour. Among the most typical kinds of empirical evidence are things such as:

A monopoly of the enterprise director on managerial information and innovating initiative, which is only sometimes relaxed by the admission to this sphere of particular representatives of senior management.

The individual character of taking innovation decisions, which are conducted down the organisational-managerial hierarchy as orders and instructions;

The concentration in the hands of the director (sometimes a narrow circle of top managers) of the controlling functions and responsibility for the realisation of innovations;

Adherence to strict formal discipline in the process of realisation of innovation, preference for punishments or threats of punishments over other forms of encouraging the activity of subordinates in the realisation of the innovation project.

Empirical indicators of informality as a characteristic feature of the innovation culture of management, found in the majority of enterprises studied, are the following typical features of the process of development and introduction of an innovation:

The absence in the organisational structure of the enterprise of formal subdivisions responsible for the development and realisation of the innovation policy of the particular industrial organisation, for the collection and analysis of the corresponding information with the aim of establishing a corporate innovation strategy;

The absence of a clear system of criteria and lack of prescribed procedures for the selection and substantiation of innovation projects, control over the course of their realisation and assessment of their effectiveness, which gives the corresponding activity of the management (according to the analysis of their verbal foundations by informants) a spontaneous and intuitive-irrational character;

Reliance on personal relations and unofficial models of collaboration in establishing the necessary contacts with outsiders of the innovation process in scientific-research, credit and financial, power and other structures able to exert a significant influence on the realisation and effectiveness of the innovation;

The use of the mechanism of non-commercial transfer of innovative ideas,[12] the adoption, without patents or licences, of new product and production conceptions, technological schemas and developments and also other unofficial receipts of cost reductions in realising innovation projects

Finally, the technocratism of the innovation culture of the chiefs of post-soviet industrial enterprises is reflected in such typical empirical features of their economic mentality and behaviour as:

Concentration of the efforts of management on the detailed elaboration exclusively of the technical and technological content of the innovation project while complete ignoring or marginalising its economic, organisational, social-psychological and other humanitarian aspects;

Giving priority to the technical services and specialists of the enterprise over its economic (in particular marketing) and personnel departments and staff in relation to the initiation and practical management of innovation projects

The absence of a thought-out system of activation and management of the human factor in the innovation processes, leading to problems of the ineffective motivation of personnel and the rise of innovation conflicts within the labour collective;

The neglect of the opinions of experts without technical skills regarding the realisation of the innovation and an uncritical attitude to their own inadequate knowledge of economic and social-humanitarian aspects of the innovation processes.[13]

The key features of the innovation culture of post-soviet industrial directors, defined on the basis of the empirical indicators described, require additional analysis of their emergence and the real influence on the innovation processes, directions and factors of their development. The identification of the specificity of the interrelation of these features of innovation culture and the prospects of their overcoming / rooting in the practice of the innovating behaviour of domestic managers is also very interesting. The resolution of these research tasks will constitute the content of the next three paragraphs of this chapter.