Serbian Journal of Management 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

Serbian
JournalofManagement

www.sjm06.com

ORGANIZATIONAL ROUTINES IN RUSSIAN COMPANIES:REVIEW OF PRACTICESOlga Valievaa,b*aInstitute of Economic and Industrial Engineering of Siberian Branch of
Russian Academy of Science, Novosibirsk, Russia
bNovosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia(Received 26 June 2014; accepted 28 July 2014)
Abstract
Results of the first stage of the researches conducted in 2012-2013 are presented in article.
Researches are connected with studying of transformational processes intra corporate of managemetn
practices in the Russian companies and their subsequent institutionalization. Preliminary results
showed that in the companies there is a standard set of organizational routines which part are
information, and administrative routines, routines of the power of the founder, genetic, institutional anddevelopment routines. During research statistically significant connection between types oforganizational structures, the sizes of the organization, information processing and administrative
practices is established. It is revealed as change of approaches to management of the organization canaffect a corruption component.
Keywords: organizational routines, institutional elements, organizational structure, information
processing, management of practices, decision-making, centralization, corruption, transactional costs

1. INTRODUCTION
Now influence of organizational routines
on efficiency of activity of the organizations
and adoption of administrative decisions is
widely discussed within the directions on
Social and Organizational psychology,* Corresponding author: O_valieva@mail.ru

DOI:10.5937/sjm9-6362

Organizational sociology, Organization
Theory,Organizational
learning,
Organizational culture, Institutional Theory,
Evolutionary Theory, Routine Activity
Theory, Theory of organizational routinesand capabilities and others.
The concept “routines as memories of the242

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

organization” was entered by R. Nelson and
S. J. Winter. They noted that “the rutinizationreflects achievements of coordination andformation of memory of the organization
supporting this coordination” and routine
functioning is self-sustaining (Nelson &Winter, 1982). At the same time, authors
allocated aspects of “a rutinization of
innovations” according to which theorganizations have to have routines which
are supported by innovative efforts andpractices. Feldman and Pentland treat
concept definition of organizational routines
as “repetitive, recognizable patterns ofinterdependent actions, carried out by
multiple actors” (Feldman & Pentland,2003). In one of the latest works of S. J.
Winter, addressing to John Dewey works,emphasizes importance of transferring of theanalysis of organizational routines on levelof the individual actor and inclusion in theanalysis of psychological aspects, (Winter,2013).
2. THEORETICAL APPROACHES AND
HYPOTHESESAs a whole researches on organizationalroutines can be divided into three vectors.
The first vector in the center of the analysis
puts the certain actor and focuses attention
on micro-foundations of routines (Abell etal., 2008; Felin & Hesterly, 2007; Felin et al.,2012).
“The
microfoundationsoforganizational routines and capabilities
include constituent components (i.e. main
effects) – individuals, processes, andstructure; and interactions within and acrosscomponents (i.e. interaction effects) – theinteractions of individuals, processes, andstructures that contribute to the aggregationand emergence of the collective constructs”(Felin et al., 2012).

Withinorganizational
psychology
motivations and incentives, and also
connection of organizational routines andhabits are studied. (Becker, 2005; Cohen &Bacdayan, 1994; Gioia & Poole, 1984;
Verplanken & Aarts, 1999; Limayem et al.,2007; Ortiz de Guinea & Markus, 2009;
Wood & Neal, 2007 ets.).
The second vector of researches is
directed on studying of influence of macrolevel on organizational routines and dynamic
capabilities (Helfat et al., 2007; Teece, 2012;
Teece et al., 1997; Winter, 2003; Winter,2013). Pentland, B.T., Feldman, M.S. andcoauthors consider actions as a starting point
for the study organizational routines and as
an alternative micro-foundation. Authors
claim that “macro-level dynamics of routines
emerge from the micro-level relationshipbetween specific actions and patterns ofaction”. (Pentland et al., 2012). It is researchvery interesting because demonstrated
relationpath
dependence
betweenperformances and routines. Martin Friesl and
Joanne Larty highlights two areas for future
research: the political dimension of
replication strategies and drift in the processof replication (Friesl & Larty, 2013).
The third vector is an institutional
approach which shows a role of institutes
and developed administrative the practices inorganization functioning. Institutional
approachtoresearchdeveloped
administrative the practices provides a better
understanding
about
organization
functioning as open system in constantly
changing institutional environment.
In researches on the theory of theorganization it is possible to allocate
conditionally three approaches to studying of
influence of institutes for intra organizationalchanges and interactions. The first approachconsiders the organizations as dependent on

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

environment. According to researchers, suchorganizations build in the formal andinformal norms incorporated from theinstitutional environment, in the set of own
corporate rules and act as a certain passive
link or the conductor in a chain of transfer of
institutes with macro - on microlevel (Meyer& Rowan, 1977; Meyer, 2008). In other case,institutsionalist consider reaction of theorganizations to change of transactional
expenses as a result of environment
influence (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1985:
Williamson, 2000).
The second type of researches focuses
attention that institutional elements usuallyarise in the organization, instead of becauseof external processes of coercion (Zucker,
1983; Zucker , 1987; Tolbert & Zucker,1983). As Zsuker claims: “… theorganizations are an important source of an
institutionalization of new action. Alreadyinstitutionalized elements can “infect” otherorganizations with new legitimate practices”(Zucker, 1987). Authors of above-mentioned
approaches claim that again arisen
institutional elements, are easily transferredto the companies beginners and remainduring the long period of time, possessing
high resistance to changes (Nelson & Winter,
1982).
Zsuker allocates three basic principles ofanorganizational
institutionalization(Zucker, 1987):
1. Institutional elements arise mainly insmall groups or in the organizations at thelevel of processes;
2. Formalization of organizational
structure and processes, as a rule, become asource of a new institutionalization;
3. The institutionalization increases
stability of existence of the organization
except for cases when more effective
alternatives are ignored.

243

The third type of researches notes the dual
nature of the organizations, considering that“… they are components of institutes and in
too time form institutes” (Greif, 2006). The
organization can be independent institute forthe own personnel as forms intra corporate
standards of behavior and the practices
peculiar to this organization. A. Greif's
approach is unique that in the center of
research of the nature of institutes it places
motivation which induces actors to conformto certain rules.
Thus, at specification of concept oforganizational routine we were guided by themain assumptions:
1. The routine is a set of repeating actionsof the individual or group of individuals at
implementation of the professional activity
within one organization;
2. Routines are inherited signs which canbe transferred from one organization toanother through knowledge of individuals(obvious and implicit), information(personalized and not personalized) andprocesses (administrative, technological,
production, etc.)
3. The basic carrier of routine is theindividual.
Hypothesis 1. For any organization atypical of organizational routines whichreflects standard administrative practices ischaracteristic.
Hypothesis 2. Influence of the size of thecompany and type of organizational
structures interdependent.
Hypothesis 3. The type of organizational
structure and power distribution amongshareholders/founders
haslineardependence. The power among shareholders
is more widely distributed, the it is more

244

difficult organizational
management.

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

structuresof only on the solution of internal problems islower.

Hypothesis 4. Organizational structures
are closely connected with intensity ofprocessing of information streams and theorganization sizes. The size of theorganization and degree of intensity of
information processing has impact on a
choice of organizational structure.

Hypothesis 6. The progressive forms ofgovernment reduce risk of influence ofcorruption.
Hypothesis 7. Than the power among
owners or shareholders is more widelydistributed, subjects one company smaller
the corruption component influences.

Hypothesis 4-1. In the organizations withsimple organizational structures and theHypothesis 8. The level of taxes is higher,
small sizes processing, as a rule, oral and the corruption is higher.
informal.
Hypothesis 4-2. In more formal and 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
functional structures processing of
information is more difficult, directed on
The institutional space of the Russiancommunications and efficiency.
business and its landscape are rather various.
On the one hand are the formal norms having
Hypothesis 4-3. In the decentralized considerable impact on adoption oforganizational structures (matrix and administrative decisions and the institutional
divisional) information streams are directed environment as a whole, reflecting severe
on adaptation to fast-changing conditions of Russian reality. With another – the informal
the market, and in divisions simple and oral practiceswho are from part derivative offorms of interactions prevail.
external influence of factors of institutional
and a business environment, and from part
Hypothesis 4-4. In the companies with developing under the influence of dynamics
simple and functional organizational of sociocultural changes.
structures decision-making process is
Our research was constructed on anconcentrated at the top level of business assumption that eventually the defined
hierarchy. Thus information streams simple organizational practices are transformed andand oral.
corrections according to requirements of thechanging institutional environment are
Hypothesis
5.
Decision-making exposed. We tried to understand, whichcentralization at the top level of organizational elements are exposed toorganizational
hierarchyleads
to changes to a greater or lesser extent as thesepreservation of the enterprise and changes depend on functional characteristics
orientation of the company to domestic of the enterprises. Lester, Parnell andpolicy. The power among shareholders is Carrakher's work which coordinatedmore widely distributed, the risk of short administrative practices to stages of life
circuit of the company, and concentration cycle of the studied companies (Lester et al.,O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

2003) was taken as a basis of our research.
Research set as the purpose to study
influence of factors of the external andinternal environment on structural changes in
the companies, to reveal the general anddistinctive features of organizationalchanges, to compare the revealed featureswith stages of life cycle of the organization.
The questionnaire contained twentyquestions, and covered seven groups:
1. Enterprise size;
2. Structure of property and formal
power;
3.
Organizational
structureofmanagement;
4.
Control,
specializationanddifferentiation;
5. Processing of information streams inorganization;
6. Decision-making processes;
7. Influence of transactional costs.
The main objectives of research were:• Identification of factors of theenvironment influencing a choice of strategic
priorities of the company;• Identification of the internal factors
having direct impact on decision-making
processes in the organization (“a trap of thefounder”, information processing and soforth);• Identification of prevailing type oforganizational structure on types of thecompanies (the size, branch, forms ofownership and decision-making);• Classification of the organizations bystages of life cycle;• Comparison of strategy of developmentof the organization to types of organizational
structures.
In our research we relied on surveys
conducted with heads of 94 companies ofNovosibirsk and the Novosibirsk region. The
first stage of poll was carried out since245

October 2012 till October 2013. Survey was
conducted by a method of the profoundsemi-structured interviews. Polls covered:• Regional divisions of the international
companies;• Large federal companies which arebranches or regional representations;• Large Novosibirsk enterprises;• Enterprises of medium and small
business.
The branch orientation of the companies
was allocated on the basis of the OKVED
codes.
From 94 respondents of thecompanies the bulk is occupied in a services
sector – 28,7%, in wholesale and retail trade– 18%, in production of food – 8,5%,transport and communication – 5,3%. Also
heads of the companies participated in pollfrom spheres of production of mechanisms,
machineand the equipment, electric
equipment, distribution of the electric power,
agriculture, financial activity and so forth.
As for answers to questions we used aninterval scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 – I
absolutely not agree, 2 – I don't agree, 3 – itis neutral, 4 – I agree, and 5 – I completely
agree) submitting to normal distribution, as
the main characteristic used average value(Appendix A). Average values of answers of
respondents are given in table 1 onquestionnaire questions.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Hypothesis 1. For any organization atypical of organizational routines whichreflects standard administrative practices ischaracteristic.
The factorial analysis which has been
carried out by the Method of main acomponent (Principal Component Analysis)
at use of a method of rotation of Varimax

246

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

revealed six groups of independent variables.
The cumulative percent of the explained
dispersion made 62,513% (Appendix B).
The factorial analysis allowed to allocate
six types of routines (Table 1) which allinterrogated companies should face. The firstgroup of routines which we designated as“Information routines”, included thevariables
characterizing
formsof
information processing and connected withrather difficult organizational structures.
The
secondgroup
included“Administrative routines”, including modern

styles and methods of adoption ofadministrative decisions. The third group –“A trap of the founder”, included only one
indicator characterizing the preserved
condition of the enterprise, growth locked ata stage and being in a “manual control”
mode (Adizes, 2008). The fourth group –“Genetic routines”, routines which are
peculiar to all companies at the initial stagesof development. The fifth – “Institutionalroutines”, expenses which included both tax,
and corruption components. The sixth –“Development routines”, the routines,

Table 1. Types of routines

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

allowing to assume a course of further
development of the company: from power
distribution
among
severalfounders/shareholders before introduction of
specialization
andthesubsequentdifferentiation.
As a result of the carried-out factorial
analysis we can specify concept oforganizational routine as sets of information
and administrative routines, routines of thepower of the founder, genetic, institutionaland development routines (Valieva, 2014).
Organizational
structuresandinformation process in the organizations
The structure of the organization carries
out two main functions: 1) promotes toinformation passing in the organization and2) to achievement of effective coordinationand integration (Duncan, 1979). According
to R. Duncan organizational structures need
to be considered from the point of view of
information streams.
Elements of structure have to correspondto the organization size, its age and a stage oflife cycle, environmental conditions in which
it functions, an available business model andthe organization of the production cycle,
used technology etc.
Key question for managers is the questionof what optimum organizational structures tochoose for the company as to transform it in
the subsequent taking into account changing
internal and external living conditions of theorganization.
There is a number of researches ofinterrelations of organizational structure withthe whole set of situational variables. Blau,
Hage and Aiken, Hall, Lawrence and Lorschand Chaild were pioneers of theseresearches. H. Mintzberg allocated fiveconfiguration of business and connected

247

them with organizational structures(Mintzberg, 1979), communication of
institutional and inertial restrictions withorganizational structures was revealed in
Hannan and Freeman works (Hannan &Freeman, 1977).
Organizational information-processing
Theory considers the organization as systemof continuous information processing,connects changes of organizational structureof the company with dynamics and volume
of information streams (Tushman & Nadler,
1978; Huber, 1982; Egelhoff, 1991).
In our research we apply approach of asituational determinism at which a dependent
variable is the type of organizational
structure. There is a model according towhich the structure is transformed under the
influence of a set of independent variables.
As a result of the regression analysis in
structure of the independent situationalvariables influencing type of organizational
structure, entered: the company size, extent
of distribution of the formal power in theorganization, centralization of adoption ofadministrative decisions, specialization anddifferentiation, and also forms andinformation processing methods in theorganization.
In our work stable relations between typeof organizational structure and information
processing level were revealed. As
technologies of information processing arecharacterized by different technologicalprocesses and depend on degree ofprogressiveness of used technologies, thehypothesis of influence of technologies onorganizational structures which Woodward
developed, Perrow, Hage and Aiken
indirectly is confirmed.
The subsequent hypotheses wereconfirmed through carrying out the
regression analysis. The regression analysis

248

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

was carried out by a method Stepwise
Hypothesis 3. The type of organizational
regression (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to- structure and power distribution among
enter <= ,050, Probability-of-F-to-remove shareholders/founders
haslinear>= ,100).
dependence. The power among shareholders
is more widely distributed, the it is more
Hypothesis 2. Influence of the size of the difficult organizational structures ofcompany and type of organizational management.
structures interdependent.
Usually involvement of new shareholders
The correlation analysis showed (Pearson is connected with expansion of borders ofCorrelation) that the size of the company is business, an entry into the new markets,
closely
connected
with
typeof release of new type of production andorganizational structure and an information diversification. Our research shows thatprocessing form. For the small companies organizational structures of management
the simple organizational structure, become complicated in process ofcentralization both not numerous monitoring involvement of new owners (Table 3).
systems and simple oral information
For the companies with the sprayedtransfers are significant. For the medium- property there is no importance of problems
sized and large companies the system of the of “a trap of the founder”.
information processing which has been
welded on upon communications andHypothesis 4. Organizational structures
increase of efficiency (Appendix C) is are closely connected with intensity ofsignificant only.
processing of information streams and theIn our research we received direct organization sizes. The size of theconfirmation of influence of the size of the organization and degree of intensity oforganization on its organizational structure information processing has impact on a
(Table 2). Though J. Chaild claimed that choice of organizational structure.
influence of the size on structure no morethan deterministic and is caused by factors of
The correlation analysis showed that there
technological economy (Chaild, 1972).
are statistically significant communications
According to results of regression model between organizational structures andthe small companies have simple information
processing.
Simpleorganizational structure.
organizational structures, as a rule, exists inthe small companies with the centralized
decision-making, not numerous monitoring
Table 2. Size of the company and type of organizational structure

Dependent Variable: VAR1

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

249

Table 3. Organizational structures and expansion of the formal power in the companies

Dependent Variable: VAR3

systems. In such companies, as a rule,information transfer form simple and oral.
For functional structures more difficult
systems of transfer and information
processing are characteristic. The correlation
analysis shows that the organizations withsimilar structures use all tool kit of
information processing. The decentralizedorganizational structures also show stable
relations with information processing, but
the variables connected with wide
distribution of property and differentiation ofbusiness were connected to thesecommunications (to Appendix C).
Hypothesis 4-1. In the organizations withsimple organizational structures and thesmall sizes processing, as a rule, oral andinformal (Table 4).

Hypothesis 4-2. In more formal andfunctional structures processing of
information is more difficult, directed oncommunications and efficiency (Table 5).
Hypothesis 4-3. And at last, in thedecentralized organizational structures(matrix and divisional) information streams
are directed on adaptation to fast-changing
conditions of the market, and in divisions
simple and oral forms of interactions prevail.
It confirms the thesis about different types
and forms of organizational structures andcommunications even in one diversified
company (Table 6).
Hypothesis 4-4. In the companies withsimple and functional organizational

Table 4. Structure of the independent variables influencing simple organizational structure

Dependent Variable: VAR6

Table 5. Structure of the independent variables influencing functional organizational
structure

Dependent Variable: VAR7

250

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

structures decision-making process is (Klein & Saidenberg, 2010).
concentrated at the top level of business
Probably such dissonance arises for thehierarchy. Thus information streams simple reason that forms and methods ofand oral (Table 7).
organizational
managementchangedeventually. Today operational control ofCommunicationoforganizational diversified structures is exercised throughstructure, specialization and differentiation
new technologies of transfer and information
processing.
In the research L. Donaldson I analysed
the companies of the USA which were
Hypothesis 5. Specialization with thediversified or weren't diversified in 1949- subsequent differentiation is accompanied by
1959 y. Also I analyzed as structure of each strengthening of level of informationof them I changed towards bigger processing, transition to the decentralized
centralization in the next ten years (1959- structures of management. Similar division1969). From the diversified companies the demands power distribution in the
structure was changed only by 25% (n=48) companies more widely.
(Donaldson, 1987). However in later
empirical researches the importance ofIn our research differentiation is closelyorganizational structures and their influence connected with processing of information
on economic efficiency is confirmed. So streams for the purpose of improvement ofresearch Peter G. Klein and Marc R. coordination and communication between
Saidenberg shows that the banks which departments. Thus differentiation is observed
differently have been built in holding in the companies from decentralization of thestructures (bank holding companies formal power and organizational structures(BHC’s)) have different rates of return (Table 8).
Table 6. Structure of the independent variables influencing decentralized organizational
structures (divisional and matrix)

Dependent Variable: VAR8

Table 7. Centralization, organizational structures and information processing

Dependent Variable: VAR9

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

Thus, a problem of bureaucratization andcoordination, which was noted by J. Chaild(Chaild, 1972), decides through use of
progressive forms of information processingin the organizations. The hypothesis
confirmed the classical research A. Chandlerthat the increase in extent of diversificationof the company leads to change oforganizational structure with functional on
divisional (Chandler, 1962).
Influence of methods of adoption ofadministrative decisions
From the middle of the sixtieth years oflast century the theory of “dominantcoalition” formulated by Cyert and March,
Thompson, Dublin, Chandler and Chaild
intensively develops. The concept of thedominating
coalition
considersorganizational structures from the point ofview of distribution of the power and processof adoption of strategic decisions in theorganization (Chaild, 1972). In the theory ofstrategic leadership technologies of adoptionof key decisions also are considered. It is251

considered that a role of the director generalof chief executive officers (CEO) andconsequently concentration of the formal
power and authority on his hands is higher,
than the power concentrated in hands of Top
Management Teams.
Hypothesis
5.
Decision-making
centralization at the top level oforganizational
hierarchy
leadstopreservation of the enterprise andorientation of the company to domestic
policy. The power among shareholders ismore widely distributed, the risk of shortcircuit of the company, and concentration
only on the solution of internal problems islower (Table 9).
Transactional Costs, Management ofpractices and Corruption
Formulating hypotheses we relied on two
points of view. The first - J. Chaildaccording to which task environment and theorganization size in total make impact onprocesses of adoption of administrative

Table 8. Structure of the independent variables, influencing specialization and differentiation

Dependent Variable: VAR10

Table 9. Concentration of the power and conservative administrative practices

Dependent Variable: VAR15

252

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

decisions (Chaild, 1972). The second are theinstitutional concepts indicating theimportance of the institutional environment
for economic activity (Williamson, 1985;
Williamson, 2000; Oleinik, 2005; Oleinik,2010). The Russian sociologist of Anton
Oleinik claims that “characteristics of theinstitutional environment should beconsidered independent variable, anddependent – parameters of administrative
structures, including market” (Oleinik,2005).
Influence of transactional costs us was
included for the characteristic of variabilityof environment. By many authors it wasproved, the variability is higher, theconditions of uncertainty are higher and themore organizational structure has to beadaptive and have the developed horizontal
communications (Stinchcomb, Burnce andStulker, Hage and Aiken, Lawrence andLorsch). At institutsionalist taxes andcorruption are a part of transactional costs(“institutional structures of production”) anddirectly influence efficiency of activity of theorganization (Coase, 1937; Williamson,
1985; Williamson, 2000).
Corruption a component it was entered byus as a factor reducing economic efficiencyof the companies. However corruption
problems in Russia have system character
and are shown in three forms: in government
administration, in business and in society.
The former rector of the Russian Economic
School, and today professor of economy of
the Parisian Institute of Political researches(Sciences Po) Sergey Guriev claims that
corruption ruined the Russian economy
because institutes of protection of theproperty rights and a guarantee ofobservance of contracts were destroyed(Guriev, 2014). In the work “Corruption
economy” Mark Levin showed that the scaleof corruption depends on the following
parameters of bureaucratic system: wage
level in public sector, monitoring systems ofwork of the officials which quality is definedby probability of punishment of the bribetaker, and severity of the laws determining
the amount of punishments for bribery(Levin, 2008). A. Ledeneva carried out theanalysis of cultural bases of corruption in
Russia and revealed existence of informal
rules and system of a personal contact, often
more important for adoption of political andeconomic decisions, than formal laws orhierarchies of management (Ledeneva, 1998;
Ledeneva, 2006; Ledeneva, 2013).
The main conclusion consists of the latest
work that it is necessary to modernize
informal networks by means of introspection
and gradual reduction of their use. Only it
can do “to change system from within”(Ledeneva, 2013).
Hypothesis 6. The progressive forms ofgovernment reduce risk of influence ofcorruption. All types of team management
are thus used, specialization anddifferentiation is entered. Information
processing also occurs more intensively forthe purpose of coordination of adoption ofadministrative decisions and fast reaction tomarket changes.
Our research shows that change ofprocess approaches to management,
involvement in decision-making of target
groups and design teams can lower a
corruption component in business (Table
10).
Hypothesis 7. Than the power among
owners or shareholders is more widelydistributed, subjects one company smaller
the corruption component influences.

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

253

Table 10. Management of practices, information and corruption

Dependent Variable: VAR16

The companies having board of directors,
as a rule, have adaptation organizational
structures (divisional or matrix) andinformation processing in these companies is
directed on increase of efficiency of thecompanies. In those companies in which thepower is distributed among several
shareholders/owners gradual differentiation
is observed, and decision-making is carriedout by progressive group of managers(Appendix C) (Table 11).

most significant factors of environment. And
the hypothesis of linear positive
communication of taxes and corruption
successfully was confirmed (Table 12).
Nevertheless, in research it isn't revealed
direct dependences of factors of environment
with organization structure, the company
size, styles of adoption of administrativedecisions or information processing. It israther a fact of dependence of taxes andcorruption has macroeconomic character.
Increase of taxes on the income of natural
Hypothesis 8. The level of taxes is higher, persons and value added tax which want toenter since 2018 in Russia, can lead tothe corruption is higher.
growth of a corruption component and more
In our research parameters of level of intensive formation of already new schemes
taxes and corruption were included as the of evasion from payment.
Table 11. Power distribution among shareholders, collective decision-making, differentiationand corruption

Dependent Variable: VAR5

Table 12. Taxes and Corruption

Dependent Variable: VAR20

254

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

5. CONCLUSION
As a result of the analysis of theoreticaland methodological approaches to researchoforganizationalroutines
author's
interpretation of concept of organizationalroutine was given and its distinctive features
are offered:
1. The routine is a set of repeating actionsof the individual or group of individuals at
implementation of the professional activity
within one organization;
2. Routines are inherited signs which canbe transferred from one organization toanother through knowledge of individuals(obvious and implicit), information(personalized and not personalized) andprocesses (administrative, technological,
production, etc.);
3. The basic carrier of routine is theindividual.
As a result of the carried-out factorial
analysis parameters of organizational routine
as sets of information and administrative
routines, routines of the power of thefounder,
genetic,
institutional
anddevelopment routines were specified.
The carried-out correlation and regression
analyses showed conditionality of the size ofthe company and type of organizational
structures. It is revealed that the type oforganizational structure and power
distribution among shareholders/founders
has linear dependence. The power amongshareholders is more widely distributed, theit is more difficult organizational structuresof management.
It is shown that organizational structures
are closely connected with intensity ofprocessing of information streams and theorganization sizes. The size of theorganization and degree of intensity of
information processing has impact on a

choice of organizational structure. In theorganizations with simple organizational
structures and the small sizes processing, asa rule, oral and informal. In more formal andfunctional structures processing of
information is more difficult, directed oncommunications and efficiency. In thedecentralized organizational structures(matrix and divisional) information streams
are directed on adaptation to fast-changing
conditions of the market, and in divisions
simple and oral forms of interactions prevail.
In the companies with simple and functionalorganizational structures decision-making
process is concentrated at the top level ofbusiness hierarchy. Thus information streams
simple and oral. In the course of research wecame to a conclusion that decision-making
centralization at the top level oforganizational
hierarchy
leadstopreservation of the enterprise and orientationof the company to domestic policy. The
power among shareholders is more widelydistributed, the risk of short circuit of thecompany, and concentration only on thesolution of internal problems is lower.
It is revealed as change of approaches tomanagement of the organization can affect a
corruption component. The progressive
forms of government reduce risk of influenceof corruption. Than the power among owners
or shareholders is more widely distributed,
subjects one company smaller the corruption
component influences. At macroeconomic
regulation of the taxation in Russia it isnecessary to consider that the level of taxes
in the country is higher, the corruption ishigher.
In the future researches we will try toreveal more close relation between
organizational routines and life cycle of thecompanies. We will add quantitative
researches by the qualitative analysis (theO.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

focused interviews to key actors – heads ofthe innovative companies). The descriptionof institutes and intra corporate the practices,
organizationalroutines
influencing
formation and path dependent andinstitutional analyses in the researchcorporate
management
practicesincorporation can become the following step.

Acknowledgement
The author expresses gratitude andappreciation to the editor-in-chief of the
Serbian Journal of Management to professor
Zivan Zivkovich and dear anonymous
reviewers for remarks and offers. Also theauthor wants to express words gratitude to
dear colleagues for the offers stated during
the International conference on strategic
management of MKSM-2014, organized byTechnical faculty in Bor of the Belgrade
University.

255

References
Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N.J. (2008).
Building micro-foundations for the routines,
capabilities, and performance links.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 29,
489–502.
Adizes, I. (2008). Managing Corporate
Lifecycles.Adizes Institute.
Becker, M.C. (2005). A Framework for
Applying Organizational Routines in
Empirical Research: Linking Antecedents,
Characteristics and Performance Outcomesof Recurrent Interaction Patterns. Industrial
and Corporate Change, 14 (5), 817-846.
Chaild, J. (1972). Organizational
structure, environment and performance: therole of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1-22.
Chandler, A.D. (1962). Strategy and
Structure: Chapters in the History ofAmerican Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Coase, R.H. (1937). The Nature of theFirm. Economica, 4, 386-405.

ОРГАНИЗАЦИОНЕ РУТИНЕ У РУСКИМ КОМПАНИЈАМА:ПРАКТИЧНИ ПРИМЕРИ
Олга Валијева
ИзводРезултати првог стадијума истраживања, спроведеног током периода 2012-2013 супредстављени у овом раду. Истраживања су повезана са проучавањем трансформационог
процеса интракорпоративне администрације у пракси руских компанија и корелација сањиховом даљом институционализацијом. Прелиминарни резултати су показали да зависно одвремена од оснивања предузећа, праксе везане за прихватање и прилагођавање компаније
окружењу могу бити промењиве.Факторска анализа је показала шест типова рутина које утичуна активности компанија. Анализа је показала важност адаптивног типа организационе
структуре у управљању и функционисању компанија, прогресивном методу обраде и протока
информација, као и у принципима групног доношења одлука. Такође је анализиран и утицај
оснивача компаније на управљање.
Кључне речи: организационе рутине, институционални елементи, интракорпоративне
интеракције, животни циклус организације

256

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

Cohen, M.D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994).
Organizational Routines Are Stored as
Procedural Memory: Evidence from aLaboratory Study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554-568.
Donaldson, L. (1987). Strategy andstructural adjustment to regain fit andperformance: in defense of contingency
theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24(1), 1-24.
Duncan, R. (1979). What is theorganization structure. Organizational
Dynamics, 7 (3), 59-81.
Egelhoff, W.G. (1991). Informationprocessing theory and the multinational
enterprise. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 22 (3), 341–368.
Feldman, M.S., & Pentland, B.T. (2003).
Reconceptualizing organizational routines asa source of flexibility and change.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48,
94–118.
Felin, T., & Hesterly, W.S. (2007). The
knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity,and new value creation: philosophicalconsiderations on the locus of knowledge.
Academy of Management Review, 32,
195–218.
Felin, T., Foss, N.J., Heimeriks, K.H., &Madsen T.L. (2012). Microfoundations of
Routines and Capabilities: Individuals,
Processes, and Structure. Journal ofManagement Studies, 49 (8), 1351-1374.
Friesl, M., & Larty, J. (2013). Replicationof Routines in Organizations: Existing
Literature
andNew
Perspectives.
International Journal of Management
Reviews, 15, 106–122.
Gioia, D.A., & Poole, P.P. (1984). Scripts
in Organizational Behavior. Academy ofManagement Review, 9 (3), 449-459.
Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the Pathto the Modern Economy: Lessons from

Medieval Trade. Cambridge University
Press.
Guriev, S. (2014). Corruption ruined theRussian economy. Vedomosti.03.04.2014:
http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/2488
7961/sergej-guriev-korrupciya-razorilarossijskuyu-ekonomiku.
Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The
population ecology of organizations.
American Journal of Sociology, 82,
929–964.
Helfat, C., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W.,
Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J., &Winter, S.G. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities.
Understanding Strategic Change in
Organizations. Blackwell: Cambridge, MA.
Huber, G. (1982). Organizational
information systems: determinants of theirperformance and behavior. Management
Science, 28 (2), 138–155.
Klein, P.G., & Saidenberg, M.R. (2010).
Organizational structure and diversification
discount: evidence from commercial
banking. The Journal of Industrial
Economics, 58 (1), 127-155.
Ledeneva, A.V. (1998). Russia’s
Economy of Favours. Cambridge University
Press.
Ledeneva, A.V. (2006). How Russia
Really Works: The Informal Practices That
Shaped Post-Soviet Politics and Business.
Cornell University Press.
Ledeneva, A.V. (2013). Can Russia
Modernise? Sistema, Power Networks andInformal Governance.Cambridge University
Press.
Lester, D.L., Parnell, J.A., & Carraher, S.
(2003). Organizational Life Cycle: a fivestage empirical scale. The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11 (4),339-354.
Levin, M.I. (2008). Economics ofCorruption. FinancyiBiznes, 2, 52-71.

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

Limayem, M., Hirt, S.G., & Cheung,
C.M.K. (2007). How Habit Limits thePredictive Power of Intention: The Case ofInformation Systems Continuance. MIS
Quarterly, 31 (4), 705-737.
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977).
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal
Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American
Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340-363.
Meyer, J.W. (2008). Reflections on
Institutional Theories of Organizations, The
SAGE Handbook of Organizational
Institutionalism - SAGE Publications Ltd.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring oforganizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Nelson, R.R., & Winter, S.G. (1982). An
evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ortiz de Guinea, A., & Markus, M.L.
(2009). Why Break the Habit of a Lifetime?
Rethinking the Roles of Intention, Habit, andEmotion in Continuing Information
Technology Use. MIS Quarterly, 33 (3), 433444.
Oleinik, A. (2005). Constitution of theRussian Market. Institutional Economy: thetextbook. Under a general edition of A.
Oleynik. M, INFRA-M.
Oleinik, A. (2010). Market as a Weapon:
the Socio-Economic Machinery of
Dominance in Russia. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books.
Pentland, B.T., Feldman, M.S., Becker,
M.C., & Liu P. (2012). Dynamics ofOrganizational Routines: A Generative
Model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484-1508.
Teece, D.J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities:
routines versus entrepreneurial action.
Journal of Management Studies, 49 (8),1395–1401.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A.

257(1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management.
Strategic
Management
Journal, 18, 509–33.
Tolbert, P.S., & Zucker, L.G. (1983).
Institutional sources of change inorganizational structure: The diffusion ofcivilservicereform,1880-1935.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22-39.
Tushman, M.L., & Nadler, D.A. (1978).
Information processing as an integrating
concept in organizational design. Academyof Management Review, 3, 613–624.
Valieva, O. (2014). Rutinization ofmanagement practice: Evolution andInnovations in the Russian context/ The XV
April International Academic Conference on
Economic and Social Development (April 14, 2014, Moscow). / Editor-in-chief E.G.
Yasin; National Research University “Higher
School of Economy” with the assistance ofthe World bankand the IMF. - M.:
ID:http://regconf.hse.ru/uploads/2d0786f63a
99fd99431293f423ddf022e590a332.docx
Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit,
Attitude, and Planned Behaviour: Is Habit an
Empty Construct or an Interesting Case ofAutomaticity? European Review of Social
Psychology, 10, 101-134.
Winter, S.G. (2003). Understanding
dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management
Journal, 24, 991–995.
Winter, S.G. (2013). Habit, Deliberation,
andAction:StrengtheningtheMicrofoundations of Routines andCapabilities. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 27 (2), 120–137.
Williamson, O.E. (1985). The Economic
Institutions of Capitalism - N.Y.: Free Press.
Williamson, O.E. (2000). The New
Institutional Economics: Taking Stock,
Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic
Literature, 38 (3), 595-613.
Wood, W., & Neal, D.T. (2007). A New

258

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

Look at Habits and the Habit-Goal Interface.
Psychological Review, 114 (4), 843-863.
Zucker, L.G. (1983). Organizations as
Institutions. In Advances in Organizational
Theory and Research, ed. S.B. Bacharach. –Greenwich, 2, 1-43.
Zucker, L.G. (1987). Institutional
Theories of Organization. Annual Review ofSociology, 13, 443-464.

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

APPENDIX A
Questionnaire
We ask you to estimate degree of the importance of the following statements on a scale from 1 to 5:(1) – I absolutely not agree, (2) – I don't agree, (3) – it is neutral, (4) – I agree, and (5) – I completely
agree.
1. Our company is small both by the absolute size, and in comparison with our competitors
12345
2. We are larger, than the majority of our competitors, but we could be larger
12345
3. We – the company with the sprayed property, having board of directors
12345
4. In our company the power generally belongs to the founder12345
5. In our company the power is distributed among several owners/investors
12345
6. The organizational structure of our company can be characterized as simple
12345
7. Our structure, is founded on departments, by the functional principle and becomes more formal
12345
8. The structure in our company is divisional or matrix, and control systems very difficult
12345
9. Our structure centralized, is a little monitoring systems
12345
10. In our organization there is some specialization (for example, accountants, sales managers,
production) and we are gradually differentiated12345
11. Transfer of orders, exchange and information processing to the companies generally simple and
oral
12345
12. Transfer of orders, exchange and information processing are directed on monitoring of activityof the company and ensuring communications between departments
12345
13. Transfer of orders, exchange and information processing are rather formalized and difficult.
They are directed on the organization of effective process of production/rendering service and receiving
profit12345
14. Transfer of orders, exchange and information processing are difficult, are used for the bestcoordination of various actions necessary for fast reaction to market changes
12345
15. Decision-making process is centralized at the top level of the organization.
12345
16 . The majority of decisions in our company is accepted by group of the managers applying
methods of the system analysis, but in too time very courageous in the decisions
12345
17. The majority of decisions in our company is accepted by managers, target groups and design
teams which try to fix company growth by means of partnership and team work.
12345
18. The majority of decisions in our company is accepted by a small amount of managers with theconservative approach directed on domestic policy
12345
19. Activity of our company is influenced strongly by changes in the tax legislation
12345
20. Activity of our company is influenced strongly by a corruption component
12345

259

260

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

APPENDIX B

Total Variance Explained
Co
m.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Total
4.886
2.196
1.878
1.364
1.139
1.041
.949
.868
.783
.760
.703
.653
.561
.483
.376
.346
.332
.244
.240
.199

Extraction Sums of Squared
InitialEigenvalues
Loadings% ofCumulative% ofCumulative
Variance%%
Total Variance24.42824.428 4.886
24.42824.42810.97935.407 2.196
10.97935.4079.391
44.797 1.878
9.391
44.7976.818
51.615 1.364
6.818
51.6155.695
57.311 1.139
5.695
57.311
5.203
62.513 1.041
5.203
62.5134.746
67.2594.340
71.5993.916
75.5153.798
79.3133.514
82.8273.265
86.0922.805
88.8972.415
91.312
1.881
93.192
1.732
94.9241.658
96.5831.222
97.8051.202
99.007.993
100.000

Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings% ofCumulative%
Total Variance
4.164
20.81820.8182.106
10.53031.3481.644
8.220
39.5681.542
7.712
47.2801.538
7.692
54.9721.508
7.541
62.513Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square
df
Sig.

.730
590.534
190.000

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262

APPENDIXɋAPPENDIXС
PearsonPearson
Correlation
Correlation
Groups
1. Enterprise size

Variable(1). Small companies(2). Medium-sized and large companies

2. Structure ofproperty andformal power(3). The sprayed property having Council of
directors(4). Power of the founder(5). Powerisdistributed

3. Organizational
structure ofmanagement(6). Simple(7). Functional and more formal(8). Division/Matrix

4. Control,
specializationanddifferentiation(9). Centralization and less Control(10). Specialization

5. Processing of
information
streams in theorganization(11). Simple, oral

Values of correlation and variable
Positive correlation
Negative correlation,610(**) with (6)-,510(**)with (2),293(**)with (9)-,346(**)with (3),469(**)with (11)-,274(**)with (7)-,543(**)with (8)-,391(**)with (13)-,237(*)with (14),235(*)with (12)-,510(**)with (1),322(**)with (13)-,271(**)with (6)-,316(**)with (11),349(**)with (5)-,346(**)with (1),314(**)with (8)-,320(**)with (4),285(**)with (13)-,425(**)with (6)-,215(*)with (9)-,271(**)with (11)-,231(*)with (15)-,320(**)with(3)-,274(**)with(5),349(**)with(3)-,274(**)with(4),232(*)with (10)-,212(*)with(15),278(**)with (16)-,227(*)with(20),610(**)with(1)-,271(**)with (2),381(**)with (9)-,425(**)with (3),634(**)with (11)-,249(*)with (7)-,606(**)with (8)-,322(**)with (12)-,529(**)with (13)-,316(**)with (14),362(**)with (12)-,274(**)with (1),402(**)with (13)-,249(*)with (6),215(*)with (14)-,294(**)with (11),314(**)with (3)-,543(**)with (1),257(*)with (10)-,606(**)with (6),235(*)with (12)-,520(**)with (9),521(**)with (13)-,490(**)with(11),464(**)with (14),293(**)with (1)-,215(*)with (3),381(**)with (6)-,520(**)with (8),437(**)with (11)-,332(**)with (13),250(*)with (15)-,333(**)with (14)-,274(**)with (16),232(*)with (5),257(*)with (8),259(*)with (12),257(*)with (16),469(**)with(1)-,316(**)with (2),634(**)with (6)-,271(**)with (3),437(**)with (9)-,294(**)with (7)-,490(**)with (8)-,457(**)with (12)-,566(**)with (13)-,460(**)with (14)-,283(**)with (16)-,243(*)with (17)-,242(*)with (19)-,203(*)with (20)

261

262

O.Valieva/ SJM 9 (2) (2014) 241 - 262