The main purpose of this paper was to examine consequences changes in organizational design in post communist Russia and the ‘Big Picture’ of how these consequences changes will affect Russia.. We posed the question if it is possible for Russia to gain back some of its former power by centralization within the whole government structure.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Structure of the USSR’s Government between 1917 and 1991
Russia’s Government Structure after 1991
The Crash Down of the USSR under Aspects of Organizational Analysis
Russian Government Structure under Aspects of McGregor’s Theories
Implications on Today’s World System – Economic and Politic Aspects
Summary and Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
The main objective of this paper is to analyze the consequences of changes in organizational design in post-communist Russia and to explore whether the trend toward centralization within the government structure might allow Russia to reclaim some of its former global influence.
- Historical analysis of Soviet government structures (1917–1991).
- Evaluation of Russia's political and organizational transition after 1991.
- Organizational analysis of the USSR's collapse and external environmental dependencies.
- Application of McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y to evaluate current Russian leadership styles.
- Economic impact of state centralization, exemplified by the Yukos case.
Excerpt from the Book
The Crash Down of the USSR under Aspects of Organizational Analysis
The organizational structure of the former USSR can described best as a functional structure. This kind of structure is characterized by a great deal of centralization and vertical linkages. Within a functional structure activities were grouped together by common functions. This structure is normally used when in-depth expertise is needed. In general a functional structure should lead to economies of scale because the employees are quite familiar with their tasks. They should be experts in what they are doing. Within Communism it was difficult to profit from economies of scale. Employees had no incentives to make any efforts or to exert themselves. Therefore, they worked on a minimum level or just as much as they are asked to fulfill the plans given by the government. That means that the biggest advantage of a functional structure was not used within the former USSR.
One of the most important sectors within the former USSR’s task environment was the ‘International Sector’. The Soviet Union was very dependant on this area, especially on certain resources such as technology and banking. This dependence is illustrated by the following examples: The Soviets earned a huge amount of hard currency by selling oil. But in order to earn such a huge amount they were dependent on a high oil price which is influenced by the oil extraction quota of foreign countries. In order to further increase its earnings in hard currency the USSR planned a gas and oil project with Japan. To reach the project’s goals the Soviets needed the cooperation with Japan as well as European and American firms. The Soviets bought many restricted high technologies from western companies, e.g. they were dependent on firms who did not follow the restriction by the U.S. government regarding the embargo of selling high technologies to the USSR. Many European countries lent money and made loans to the USSR.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This section outlines the paper’s purpose, which is to investigate how changes in Russia's organizational design and government centralization affect the country's position in global politics and economics.
Structure of the USSR’s Government between 1917 and 1991: This chapter reviews the historical evolution of Soviet governance, focusing on the development of command-and-control structures and the systemic failures that eventually led to the collapse of the USSR.
Russia’s Government Structure after 1991: This part examines the transition to a post-communist government, highlighting the establishment of the presidency and the subsequent power struggles between the legislature and executive branches.
The Crash Down of the USSR under Aspects of Organizational Analysis: This chapter applies organizational theory to explain how a rigid, centralized functional structure left the Soviet Union unable to adapt to external environmental pressures during the Cold War.
Russian Government Structure under Aspects of McGregor’s Theories: This section uses McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y to analyze the leadership styles and organizational cultures of both the Soviet era and modern Russia, emphasizing the prevalence of bureaucratic centralization.
Implications on Today’s World System – Economic and Politic Aspects: This chapter discusses modern Russian efforts to re-centralize power, specifically focusing on the Yukos crisis as a strategic move to control critical energy resources and influence global markets.
Summary and Conclusion: This final section synthesizes the analysis, arguing that while centralization provides short-term control, it makes the Russian state vulnerable to environmental uncertainty, suggesting that democratic reform remains the more sustainable long-term path.
Keywords
Russia, USSR, Centralization, Organizational Design, Government Structure, Cold War, McGregor's Theory, Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Putin, Energy Sector, Environmental Uncertainty, Political Power, Economic Reform, Command Economy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the evolution of organizational design within the Russian government, specifically looking at the historical tendency toward centralization and its consequences for global political and economic influence.
What are the core thematic areas?
The core themes include Soviet history, organizational theory applied to state governance, the impact of international environmental pressures, and the role of leadership theories in shaping state structures.
What is the research goal of the work?
The goal is to determine if current trends toward centralization allow Russia to regain its former power or if this approach repeats the systemic errors that contributed to the collapse of the USSR.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The research uses a comparative historical analysis combined with organizational theory frameworks, specifically functional structure analysis and McGregor’s leadership theories, to interpret political events.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the history of Soviet governance, the post-1991 transition, an organizational critique of the USSR's collapse, an application of McGregor’s theories to modern Russia, and an analysis of how state control over oil—using the Yukos case as an example—serves geopolitical objectives.
What are the key terms characterizing the work?
Key terms include centralization, organizational design, functional structure, environmental uncertainty, and energy geopolitics.
How does the author analyze the fall of the USSR?
The author argues that the Soviet Union’s rigid functional structure and top-down command system made it incapable of adjusting to external environmental changes, such as those induced by the Reagan administration.
What is the significance of the Yukos case in this study?
The Yukos crisis is used as a case study to demonstrate how the Kremlin consolidates power by taking control of the most profitable sectors of the economy to influence global oil prices and secure national revenue.
Why does the author consider modern Russia to be pessimistic in its structure?
Using McGregor’s theory, the author identifies the Russian government as "pessimistic" due to its high level of formalization, centralized control, and lack of trust in decentralized decision-making processes.
- Quote paper
- Andreas Vester (Author), 2005, From USSR to Russia - An Analysis of the Evolution of Organizational Design, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/49395
