Corps de l’article

Despite the abundance of studies investigating entrepreneurship in various age groups and demographic backgrounds, scholars of international management need to better understand the work practices of millennial entrepreneurs (born 1982-1998) to reveal “their idiosyncratic motives, behaviors, networking patterns, financing ability, and actual success rates” (Liu et al., 2019, p. 9). Millennials’ stand out from previous generations in their use of digital tools for interaction and communication (Moore et al., 2022). They pose an intriguing challenge for researchers by prioritizing meaningful work and serenity over money (Neuhart and Rupp, 2020) and having a strong focus on health and well-being (Liu et al., 2019), which is especially important for entrepreneurs (Adisa et al., 2019). In addition to being less risk-averse, Mohora, Soim and Capotescu (2020, p. 30) found the working styles of millennials to be “relaxed”, “creative”, “nonconformist” and “fun oriented”, consistent with self-development (Gusakovsky, 2019). Their reliance on technology for fostering a healthy work-life balance (Paulus, 2022) is relevant for understanding their entrepreneurial work practices.

Our knowledge of millennials in the workforce is derived from analyses of well-functioning and sustainable market economies (Mohora et al., 2020), neglecting regional differences in Eurasia (Jurkynas, 2021) where millennials face unique challenges in their entrepreneurial pursuits due to legacies of socialism and the cultural and institutional context in which they operate (Runst, 2013).

Much entrepreneurship research is dominated by studies on western and developed countries, even though the world’s economic growth is shifting from west to east (Liu et al., 2019), and cultures shift in response to interaction and communication with other cultures (Kasemsap, 2015). This questions the validity of existing frameworks, designed for developed markets, for explaining entrepreneurship in other markets (Lamotte and Colovic, 2015). Hence, Chepurenko (2015, p. 44) asks “are the approaches, concepts and the results in particular of such a ‘Western-centric’ theory relevant for other types of environments”?

There is therefore a gap in knowledge, calling for more research on millennial entrepreneurs, exploration of regional differences in Eurasia, and a re-evaluation of existing theories and frameworks to encompass diverse cultural and market contexts. To address this gap, we examine the work practices of millennial entrepreneurs in four of the seven most developed post-Soviet economies in Eurasia – Russia, Latvia, Lithuania and Kazakhstan. These countries have GDP per capita above the average of Europe/Central Asia (EIU, 2022), yet below-average for the Euro area (World Bank, 2022). Eurasia’s shared geography and history fostered economic exchange and cooperation shaping similar cultural orientations (Smith, 2008), some closer to autocracy than democracy (Kirkham, 2016). With the exception of Feiler and Garese (2007), few recent studies in anglophone literature have focused on millennial entrepreneurs in this cultural cluster.

Research undertaken in economies with collectivist orientation suggests that old-style Soviet decision-making (Ivlevs, Nikolova and Popova, 2021) and corruption (Arapović, Depken and Hadžikadić, 2017; Uberti, 2018) continue to limit the opportunities for entrepreneurs (Pathak, Xavier-Oliveira and Laplume, 2015). Generational change can prompt a shift in values and attitudes to transform informal institutions and foster entrepreneurial support (Estrin and Mickiewicz, 2011). However, millennials in collectivist cultures lack altruistic skills and are mistrustful of people outside the family circle (Nagaj and Szkudlarek, 2020). Scholars suggest that cultural context and generational belonging will shape entrepreneurial behaviour (Sauka and Chepurenko, 2017; Sieger et al., 2019) – from which the research question is developed:

How does cultural context influence millennial entrepreneurs’ work practices in Russia, Latvia, Lithuania and Kazakhstan?

Three streams of literature are reviewed: entrepreneurship theory, cultural dimensions and behavioural theories (see Figure 1 in appendices). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (1980) act as structural inspiration, with which we extend the understanding of millennial entrepreneurs in this specific context. The aim of this study, therefore, is to further the understanding of millennial entrepreneurs’ work practices in Russia, Latvia, Lithuania and Kazakhstan. The objective is to undertake a comparative study to provide actionable insights on how to manage (or collaborate with) these individuals. The paper continues with a review of literature, presentation of methodology, results and discussion, management implications, then concluding comments.

Theoretical underpinning

Entrepreneurship and post-Soviet economies

Entrepreneurship plays a pivotal role in driving growth and development (Castaño, Méndez and Galindo, 2015; Shirokova et al., 2016). It is an economic behaviour embedded in an institutional context filtered by cultural factors (Valliere, 2017) that affect an entrepreneur’s perception of new business opportunities (Castaño et al., 2015). Entrepreneurs stimulate the economy (Morrish and Jones, 2020) by combining different resources, people and ideas, handling uncertainty, developing new products and technology (Belitski et al., 2022). They can therefore contribute to overcoming economic crisis (Shirokova, Ivvonen and Gafforova, 2019) and recession (Sokołowski, 2021).

Climate of trust is a prerequisite for entrepreneurship (Fainshmidt and Frazier, 2017; Vasin et al., 2020). Yet, three decades after the fall of communism, informal networks still influence business practices (Ivlevs et al., 2021) which “shrinks the space available for legitimate businesses and productive entrepreneurial endeavours” (Pathak et al., 2015, p. 427). This space is occupied by ‘entrepreneurs of influence’ who invest their own money or social capital to build influence abroad in hopes of being rewarded by the government (Laruelle and Limonier, 2021). Entrepreneurs are often limited to non-market strategies, such as corruption (Arapović et al., 2017) which acts as a cultural barrier to development (Uberti, 2018) and a substitute for formal institutional support (Xie et al., 2019). Cultural values and social norms modify how individuals perceive entrepreneurship (Liñán and Chen, 2009) and how they self-develop (Cichocka et al., 2017; Roussillon Soyer, Balkin and Fall, 2022). With the exception of Lichy, Khvatova and de Oliveira (2022) who examined digital interaction and communication in BRIC countries, little is known about the ways in which national culture manifests in each generation, and how this can influence work practices.

Cultural aspects

Understanding how culture shapes entrepreneurial behaviour and outcomes is important because it exposes the unique challenges and opportunities that entrepreneurs face in different cultural contexts. Culture encompasses the shared psychological programming that differentiates one group of people from others (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Although critics such as McSweeney argue that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (1980) were limited by the reliance on narrow data sources, simplistic categories and lack of consideration for historical and political factors, Hofstede’s work remains influential in the field of international management and cross-cultural studies, and many researchers continue to use his ideas, a recap of which is provided in Table 1.

Prior studies confirmed that national cultures (i) influence business and entrepreneurial activities (Bogatyreva et al., 2019) and an individual’s beliefs about entrepreneurship (Valliere, 2017); (ii) are different or similar determined by average scores on cultural value dimensions (Hofstede, 2001); (iii) are shaped by globalisation (Sieger et al., 2019) and digital tools (Lichy et al., 2022).

Further, Hartšenko and Küttim (2019) argue that cross-cultural research is lacking in entrepreneurship studies due to publication bias – i.e., over-representation of western perspectives focusing on individualistic market-oriented cultures. By incorporating a cultural perspective into behavioural theories, we gain a more nuanced understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour and its drivers, which reveals how cultural values and norms influence risk-taking, innovation and resource mobilisation (Hassan, Shiu and Parry, 2016). Accordingly, behaviour theories provide a useful lens for understanding how attitudes, beliefs and motivations can influence work practices.

Behavioural theories

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is often used in entrepreneurship research to explain individual behaviour. It offers strong predictive utility for a wide range of human behaviours (Ajzen, 1991) including entrepreneurial activity (Lortie and Castogiovanni, 2015). Studies show that personal attitudes towards entrepreneurship, subjective norms imposed by the external environment and perceived behavioural control are positively related to an individual’s entrepreneurial intentions (Mirjana, Ana and Marjana, 2018), bound by social and cultural norms and educational experiences (Maheshwari, 2022). The way in which people think about and evaluate the potential outcomes of their behaviour is influenced by psychological distance, which refers to the perception of when an event occurs, where it occurs, to whom it occurs and whether it occurs (Trope and Liberman, 2010), and is relevant for entrepreneurial action (Chen et al., 2018) in terms of digital interaction (Norman, Tjomsland and Huegel, 2016) and communication in work teams (Moore et al., 2022). In contrast to the TPB, Sarasvathy’s (2001) effectuation theory, a more recent model of entrepreneurship, emphasises the role of the entrepreneur’s personal characteristics and their ability to create opportunities from existing resources. It may be useful for explaining the behaviour of entrepreneurs who operate in highly uncertain and unpredictable environments, such as post-Soviet economies (cf., Stark, 1996; Grabher and Stark, 1997a; Grabher and Stark, 1997b; Sedaitis, 1998).

Hassan et al. (2016) and Valliere (2017) explored how concepts of national culture and the TPB may be bridged. Hassan et al. (2016) suggested two of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, individualism and power distance, may moderate the TPB – since people in individualistic cultures exhibit emotional independence from “groups, organizations, or other collectivities” (Hofstede, 1980, p.221). People in collectivistic cultures prioritise the welfare of the group (Hui, Lee and Wang, 2015) and disregard their own needs in the interest of the collective (Tsai et al., 2019). Similarly, Valliere (2017) found high power distance cultures attach great importance to the influence of authority figures in shaping behaviour, while low uncertainty avoidance cultures will place more importance on perceived behavioural control. People in high power distance cultures often keep their emotions to themselves (Lim, 2016) and are reluctant to initiate actions, even if they have the ability to do so, due to cultural and social norms whereby the power to enact change lies with others of a higher status (Hassan et al., 2016; Ivlevs et al., 2021).

Insights from the Literature: Informing the Methodology

The four countries in this study have been shaped by the historical legacy of the Soviet Union, fostering a strong sense of collectivism that underscores the significance of social connections, familial ties and community bonds. Individuals place value on hierarchy and respect for authority, and have high uncertainty avoidance, which leads to a preference for rules, regulations and stability (Estrin and Mickiewicz, 2011; Pathak et al., 2015; Arapović et al., 2017; Uberti, 2018; Nagaj and Szkudlarek, 2020; Ivlevs et al., 2021) – see country scores and overall context in Tables 2 and 3.

Despite the cultural similarities, there are differences in how millennial entrepreneurs communicate, rationalise, behave and interact (Jurkynas, 2021). However, scant detail is available in the literature. Without further investigation, it is difficult to gain insights into their work practices. Indeed, Valliere (2017, p.252) argues that “culture measured at national level may be too coarse-grained to capture or reflect connections to individual subjective norms”. This implies other factors at a local level may influence work practices. It indicates the need to capture the variation in work practices through which millennial entrepreneurs contextualise cultural aspects. This contextualised response provides a rich framework for studying the impact of culture and generation belonging. Prior studies suggest that millennial entrepreneurship is specific to local context and social norms. The methodology to test this assumption is explained in the next section.

Methodology

Context of the study

Data were collected from a business incubator in Saint-Petersburg (Russia). Cerdeira (2022) describes Saint-Petersburg as digitally advanced with a thriving startup ecosystem. The government of Saint-Petersburg invests heavily in innovation, with projects such as Цифровой Петербург (Digital Saint-Petersburg) to develop infrastructure and promote entrepreneurship.

Since its inception in 1959 as a concept in the USA, business incubation has been a key part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Spigel, 2017). Business incubators emerged in Russia in the 2010s, with a focus on developing businesses that contribute to the country’s economic growth, supported by government funding and grants (Slesarev, 2022). The business incubator used in this study was set up in 2015 to provide co-working space, mentoring and access to financing. The language of communication is English. The incubator attracts young aspiring entrepreneurs from neighbouring countries, supported by Russia’s efforts to drive “Eurasian regionalism” (Smith, 2008, p.19) through socio-economic and political cooperation (Kirkham, 2016).

The director of the incubator was asked by the research team to identify prospective interviewees (i.e., entrepreneurs) for an exploratory study. A prerequisite for participating in the study was that respondents must be millennial entrepreneurs who had attended the incubator prior to launching their own business in one of the four countries in the past 5 years. The director drew up a list of 27 entrepreneurs aged from 22 to 42. Twenty of them (5 from each country) agreed to participate in one-to-one interviews via Teams, thus forming a random sample – see Table 4 for profiles. The interviewees were guaranteed anonymity and told that they could withdraw at any moment from the interview process. Copies of the interview guidelines (see Table 5) were made available before the interviews. Additional questions were prepared to probe for information but details surfaced without prompting, as the interviewees openly discussed their work. The interviews took place in May 2022, each lasting around an hour. Each interviewee was asked to discuss how they communicate, rationalise, behave and interact. The informal interview approach develops insights that enhance the data (Arnould and Price, 1993). The purpose was to reveal culture-specific aspects of millennial entrepreneurship, rather than their vision of their culture, in order to identify features of their work practices.

Data analysis

The interviews were recorded, transcribed, then manually analysed using Template Analysis (King, Horrocks and Brooks, 2018). The pre-defined codes (i.e., ‘template’), derived from Hofstede’s 6 cultural dimensions (see Table 1), were used to guide the analysis of the data and help identify patterns and themes that were relevant for addressing the research question. Equal attention was given to each recorded data item; transcripts were annotated to indicate potential themes and patterns in the data that characterise millennial entrepreneur work practices, paying attention to surrounding data so as to avoid downplaying context (Bryman, 2016). Multiple sources of data were used, including information available in the public domain such as the entrepreneurs’ websites and legislation/regulations surrounding setting up as an entrepreneur in each context. A final stage of analysis consisted of looking at the data holistically (Creswell, 2009).

Findings

Key findings are annotated below in line with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (1980), using verbatim excerpts to illustrate each theme and provide context. A summary of commonality and divergence relating to the cultural dimensions is presented in Table 6.

Power Distance

Power distance shaped communication and interaction with superiors, echoing Valliere (2017). In Russia, formal communication was preferred as a sign of respect for personal boundaries, while in Latvia, formal communication was used for showing deference, even if the superior initiated an informal style. Silence was also used to avoid openly discussing displeasure. In Kazakhstan, the workplace was characterised by a strict hierarchy and formal communication channels, leading to a dynamic power struggle among actors, which particularly disadvantages female entrepreneurs.

In Russia, the preference is for formal communication, in line with Lichy et al. (2022) for example:

“we use formal communication in recognition of a person who has achieved social status through acquiring life experience and wisdom, self-development, a level of earnings, social standing, self-realization, or has started a business…”

interviewee 6

In Latvia, social status equates to seniority, knowledge and authority to lead (cf., Feldberga and Griķe, 2015). One Latvian respondent who had been living in Russia for 5 years explained that high earnings provide the confidence to undertake financial transactions and “gain entry into circles of knowledge” (interviewee 3). The preference for formal communication is evident, thus:

“I adopt a relaxed style of communication because this is what the co-founder herself prefers, to be perceived as an equal… but it makes me uncomfortable”

interviewee 5

Silence is also used. Latvian respondents avoided openly discussing displeasure, claiming to prefer venting dissatisfaction with only close contacts rather than solve a problem by dialogue, thus:

“If there was something not right, I won’t talk directly to a person, I wouldn’t want to say the wrong thing… I’d share my discontent with my close friends later”

interviewee 2

A similar situation was found in Lithuania:

“I keep quiet and don’t communicate my new ideas publicly… customers don’t want to be challenged, so our personal opinions are not expressed”

interviewee 16

In Lithuania, respondents were comfortable speaking out, although this was not reported in the literature, thus:

“if I’m asked to do something that doesn’t suit me then I politely suggest an alternative way forward, rather than be blamed for not doing my job”

interviewee 19

In Kazakhstan, all respondents spoke of power struggle, as found by Knox (2021), for example:

“we have a patriarchy dressed as a democracy… entrepreneurship is being held back by petty corruption at all levels… Baiterek is just window-dressing… innovation is from foreign technology transfer”

interviewee 12

“entrepreneurs are stymied by politburo, it’s hard to set up without a senior sponsor… but people won’t say ‘no’, they keep quiet and agree to a proposal but they can’t deliver… it’s blatant corruption… we’re giving up and moving to Georgia…”

interviewee 13

Female entrepreneurs are especially disadvantaged:

“it’s doubly difficult for a female to set up business without a very senior, male, sponsor – you don’t know who to trust and corruption is rife…”

interviewee 14

Digital tools have neither reduced power distance, nor simplified or facilitated interaction and communication, thus refuting studies (Capotescu, 2020; Moore et al., 2022) that imply otherwise.

Collectivism/Individualism

In Russia, personal relationships and trust were important for business success, while in Latvia and Kazakhstan, individual effort and autonomy was observed. Respondents in Latvia focused more on self-development than family or group values, and Kazakhstan respondents emphasised individual effort. Trust issues within teams were also found, consistent with Hofstede’s findings, despite efforts to improve interpersonal communication. Millennial entrepreneurs prioritise work-life balance (cf., Paulus, 2022) and self-improvement (Gusakovsky, 2019) while valuing family, personal connections and trust (Nagaj and Szkudlarek, 2020).

In Russia, respondents saw relationships as critical for acquiring information, making valuable connections, initiating successful negotiations and navigating “life’s daily ups and downs” (interviewee 8), noting that “information needs to be personal, authentic and trustworthy” to focus on the task in hand and build a relationship with someone (interviewee 10).

In Latvia, respondents spoke of ‘close-knit family’ influence, efforts to self-develop, but limited collaboration among peers (cf., Feldberga and Griķe, 2015; Jurkynas, 2021), thus:

“we all work individually even when working in groups, either offline or online, everyone works alone towards their own final goals”

interviewee 1

In Lithuania, the tendency is to “work individually unless obliged to do otherwise” (interviewee 17), in contrast to the findings of Snaebjornsson et al. (2017) and Jurkynas (2021). Likewise, two Kazakhstan respondents explained that “autonomy is the norm” and “emphasis is on individual effort to achieve individual results” (interviewees 11 & 14), confirming the results of Ivlevs et al. (2021) and Tiittanen et al. (2021). The same was found in Russia; individuals can only trust and rely on themselves (cf., Fainshmidt and Frazier, 2017):

“…other people may let me down and not do the job properly, leaving the job unfinished or badly done but I can depend on myself at all times”

interviewee 8

Lack of trust is coupled with fear of being unable to control the progress and outcome of work.

In contrast, a Lithuanian respondent alluded to the benefit and complexity of teamwork:

“I didn’t realise until recently that you can do things faster as a team but only if everyone does their part… most of the time, I end up doing the work for another co-worker. It’s never easy to evenly distribute workload and responsibility”

interviewee 18

Although respondents in Latvia seemed open to the idea of working as a team (cf.,Snaebjornsson, et al., 2017; Jurkynas, 2021), they stressed the need to be able to rely on other team members, and the importance of the work environment, thus:

“A friendly, honest atmosphere is always good for doing teamwork, but not essential. I think a neutral working atmosphere is better for getting the job done”

interviewee 3

“I prefer working alone but if I have to work in a team then it’s most important for me that every team member is communicative and takes an active role”

interviewee 5

In Russia, respondents highlighted the value of selecting skilled co-workers and creating a friendly work environment with equal task distribution for effective teamwork; this was not reported in the literature, thus:

“I’ve revised our corporate values to accommodate individual needs… it helps our small team to work flexibly and is more compatible with the work-life balance”

interviewee 6

They also spoke of self-developing (Roussillon Soyer et al., 2022) and enabling interpersonal communication and interaction – but not collaboration. They strive for a harmonious work-life balance and self-improvement by being more self-centred and independent than reported in the literature, yet they uphold values related to family, personal contacts and trust.

Restraint/Indulgence

Although the collectivist cultural orientation leads to restraint in giving criticism or feedback to strangers outside of close circles of acquaintances (Hofstede, 1980), some respondents had taken steps to develop skills in offering constructive critique in order to improve relationships. There is still some awkwardness, but the respondents seemed more outgoing and less modest (than reported in the literature), with a greater focus on open communication and less fear of offending others, indicating a shift towards indulgence and individualism, thus:

“I’ll give feedback, but only very rarely, and only to close friends and family, not to co-workers. My relatives may criticise me, but only among us at home… I feel very awkward at the thought of giving feedback or criticism to a stranger or client”

interviewee 7

In Latvia, a respondent spoke of learning how to deliver actionable feedback, with the aim of sharing positive emotions, gratitude, and improving relationships, thus:

“I started actively communicating with different people in person and online to develop relationships. A close friend told me how to do it using certain techniques that she’d learnt in an online tutorial. I feel quite clumsy when I do it, but I’m mastering it”

interviewee 4

Similarly, in Lithuania a respondent commented:

“I post regular feedback to my business partner on VK [social network], and he really appreciates it… before, he had to ask me for feedback, but now I tell him”

interviewee 17

The efforts to embrace open dialogue between individuals online and offline, plus the desire for personal fulfilment and signs of individualism differ from the values stated in the literature.

Masculinity/Femininity

The respondents had a low tolerance for conflict and domineering behaviour, as it endangers the wellbeing of others and creates disharmony. Initiatives are taken to resolve disagreements, such as Russian respondents having a wide circle of acquaintances to safe-guard their own interests, thus:

“it’s vital to maintain a good working relationship with everyone who may be important or who we can turn to, not just family and best friends, but also colleagues and former classmates… you never know when you might need them”

interviewee 9

Two other Russians spoke of investing in self-improvement skills to develop ‘self-love’ (Cichocka et al., 2017) for establishing self-identity, understanding one’s own abilities, strengths and preferences (Gusakovsky, 2019). They explain:

“I make a point of working on a relationship with myself… I take care of myself first; I’ll no longer work at weekends to finish what hasn’t been done in the week… my body and mind needs to disconnect, relax and resource. Work can wait”

interviewee 10

Self-care and self-love are not commonplace in a collectivist culture (Cichocka et al., 2017), and may reveal a “post-modern cultural shift” (Terrén, 2002, p.167) to new values and behaviour.

The Latvian respondents spoke of efforts to avoid or reduce conflict in a relationship, and bring about calm or compromise to mend discord, neither of which was reported in the literature, thus:

“I make every effort to mitigate conflictual communication at work, or offer alternatives to arguing…but I would dodge conflict with my relatives and I always look for quick conciliation, even if it means personal sacrifice”

interviewee 5

Conflict is resolved by airing disagreements (cf., Tjosvold and Tjosvold, 2015). Collectivist cultures often use bottom-up communication (i.e., collaborative) when interacting with relatives and elders, but will use top-down communication (e.g., issuing information and instructions) with clients (cf., Hui et al., 2015). For example, one Lithuanian respondent explained:

“With my clients, I keep an equal dialogue, but sometimes it becomes bottom-up when I see the client has purposely done something that makes our work more complicated, I won’t hesitate pointing it out to them, politely but firmly”

interviewee 19

This comment reflects a communication approach that is assertive, direct and conducive to building entrepreneurial success, more masculine than feminine, yet consistent with collectivist cultural norms reported in the literature. Both genders take initiatives to resolve disagreements.

Short-term/Long-term orientation

Concerns were raised about the pressure to conform for maintaining relationships, highlighting the importance of balancing short-term needs with long-term planning for entrepreneurial success – more in line with TPB than Sarasvathy’s (2001) effectuation theory.

In Russia, respondents discussed how preparing for the future gives them reassurance:

“I like to plan ahead and develop lasting relationship with my business partners; it gives me an assurance to know who I work with and what I’ll do in future”

interviewee 8

Without a fixed timeframe, certain actions postponed or even forgotten:

“Some jobs have to be done immediately but if there isn’t a deadline, I feel like I have my whole life ahead of me to do it but then I forget all about it”

interviewee 10

In Latvia, respondents spoke of long-term planning for fostering a healthy work-life balance – reflecting the stability of the country and an evolutionary step in societal development, thus:

“I make monthly plans for business trips, training and meeting clients. I don’t usually pay much attention to daily or weekly planning. I also have a long-term career plan and lifelong personal development plan”

interviewee 4

The Kazakh respondents commented on how incentives are used to get work finished on time:

“we have a financial incentive system in place, so if a contractor handles a task on time, they receive a monetary reward, but if not, they can be heavily fined”

interviewee 12

There was clear evidence of a generational divide in planning ahead, borne out in prior studies:

“senior executives are stuck in Soviet thought-mode… they won’t change their work practices until the current system collapses and the younger generation moves in, those born after 1991 are more forward-thinking and agile”

interviewee 15

The long-term approach may facilitate financial security and professional/personal evolution but real change is being obstructed by senior executives who maintain bygone work practices.

In Lithuania, a respondent spoke of people hiding behind a metaphorical mask to ensure their long-term career prospects and friendships:

“People put up a filter to hide their true emotions… they want to please others and be liked; they’re afraid of losing customers and friends if they speak truthfully”

interviewee 20

Unreported in the literature, the uncertain business environment has inspired new work practices reflecting codified rules of social norms (cf., self-love) and unwritten rules of how people present themselves to others (cf., societal development), triggering a shift in cultural values.

Uncertainty avoidance

Uncertainty is managed in different ways. In Russia, respondents stoically recognised the effort needed to modify behaviour and core values (cf., Lichy et al., 2022). In Latvia, respondents adapted to unfamiliarity if it was within their reach. In Lithuania, respondents showed intrinsic motivation, relying on support from close acquaintances to adapt to new situations. In Kazakhstan, respondents spoke of tribal affiliations that hinder entrepreneurial actions (Özkan, 2018).

In Russia, there was “a sense of importance of each day, because there won’t be the same opportunities again later” (interviewee 7). Making an effort is seen as worthwhile, thus:

“I can take change on board… I work through my fears and try to support myself, but it takes massive effort to make these vital changes inside and out”

interviewee 6

In Latvia, respondents joked about pandemic-driven uncertainty: “When the mandatory social distancing of 2 meters was abolished, we returned to the usual distance of 5 meters!” They can adapt to unfamiliar situations, provided that it is not too far outside the comfort zone, for example:

“In a new or changed situation, I’m not fazed. I just need time to accelerate, understand the new state of affairs, and how much time I will need to adapt”

interviewee 1

In Lithuania, respondents conveyed intrinsic motivation and support from close acquaintances for adapting to new situations. For instance:

“My inner self and motivation, sense of duty and purpose helps me cope with unfamiliar conditions… I’m grateful for friends who support me in new ventures”

interviewee 18

“What really helps me is honest advice from close friends. If undecided, I send a query on Telegram [messaging app] to someone experienced who can advise me”

interviewee 20

In contrast, a Russian respondent exemplified the lack of initiative in action-taking:

“at the end of the day, if we haven’t finished the job, people rarely take the initiative to do overtime… we wait to be told how the task will be assigned”

interviewee 10

A Lithuanian respondent commented retrospectively, in line with Paulus (2022):

“the pandemic taught us that we need to dialogue more with others face-to-face as well as via social networks… we’re not good at sharing ideas to find solutions”

interviewee 17

The Kazakhstan respondents spoke of the strong influence of tribal affiliations (Özkan, 2018):

“tribal membership will decide your job, social circle, social status and social mobility – a person won’t be hired if he doesn’t belong, or doesn’t have a friendly zhuzh. Like corruption, we don’t talk about it but it affects every aspect of our being”

interviewee 13

“tribes are favoured over outsiders… at work cliques group up together, Atyrau Oblast vs Aktobe or Uralsk… recruiters hugely favour Atyrau… it’s the same favouritism is when they see your passport, it’s about knowing people who work the system”

interviewee 15

These comments show how tradition (mainly negative) has deep roots in the collective unconscious, hindering entrepreneurial intention (Mirjana et al., 2018). While this practice is not unique to Kazakhstan (Roberts, 2012), it manifests as a cultural crossroads between West, East and Middle Eastern values. Owing to the rich historical and cultural heritage of the Zhuzes, tribal affiliations play a major role in shaping the hierarchical structure of the workplace, society and politics – and especially cultural identity (Özkan, 2018). Within the collective unconscious, individuals exhibit a different behaviour, corresponding to their psychological distance (Trope and Liberman, 2010), which shapes how people mentally represent and process information, make decisions and regulate their emotions in different contexts.

Discussion

Insights from Interview Excerpts

The findings revealed how millennial entrepreneurs foster work practices that help them adapt to the environment, which may affect country scores on Hofstede’s cultural framework. The respondents revealed subtle differences in how millennial entrepreneurs communicate, rationalise, behave and interact – i.e., their planned behaviour. They appear inspired by and inspired to harness opportunities arising from digital interaction and communication, confirming Moore et al. (2022) with which they innovate work practices. Inspiration theory (Ki, Park and Kim, 2022) may explain why attitudes and beliefs are so critical to the success of entrepreneurial behaviour; inspiration produces a positive emotional response that shapes an individual’s attitudes and beliefs towards a particular behavior, such as starting a business. There is no specific theory of ‘planned entrepreneurial behaviour’ widely recognised in the literature, but these findings suggest that the TPB could be extended to incorporate inspiration theory, to develop a new reading of the TPB.

Although Hofstede et al. (2008) emphasised the challenges of replicating their study with samples of fewer than 20 participants, the present investigation successfully gathered data from a sample that satisfied the criteria of a homogeneous population of millennial entrepreneurs, enabling comparison. Our aim is not to undermine Hofstede’s study but to offer a fresh perspective by examining it in a different context and time. It is not unexpected that certain discrepancies emerged compared to Hofstede’s original findings, given the unique research setting and previous studies conducted by different scholars. Specifically, our findings confirm the pertinence of understanding power distance and uncertainty avoidance for gaining insights into work practices, noticeably communication and trust, but they also call into question the continued use of the cultural framework for cross-cultural business research.

Communication

All respondents discussed how (and how much) to communicate, including (in their own words) keeping quiet, avoiding speaking the truth, covering up for the dishonesty of others, lack of trust in others, working the system – typically associated with large power distance. However, there were different reasons for respecting the relationship between higher-ranking and lower-ranking individuals, depending on social status (in Latvia) or tribal affiliation (in Kazakhstan).

The importance of using formal communication was voiced by all respondents, both as a sign of respect and recognition, and also for keeping a distance. A Latvian respondent (relocated to Russia for 5 years) saw social status in terms of income security that gives the self-confidence to do business and network – but this view may be distorted by the respondent’s cultural assimilation which offers a ‘coarse-grained’ view, as suggested by Valliere (2017). Communication barriers may have been partially eased by digital tools (Laruelle and Limonier, 2021), enabling entrepreneurs to initiate actions (Hassan et al., 2016), bypass rigid social conventions and even thrive (Laine and Galkina, 2017). Even so, the findings lead us to deduce that while a cultural shift is underway, market-oriented entrepreneurship has not yet become a mass model in any of the four countries (Tiittanen et al., 2021; EY, 2021).

Trust

Climate of trust, lack of trust and building trust were also reported by the respondents as having a bearing on work practices, echoing Fainshmidt and Frazier (2017) and Vasin et al. (2020). Trust is an important concept in international management as business leaders are increasingly exposed to new relationship situations through virtual interaction, communication and collaboration across cultural boundaries. The widespread use of digital tools has reduced psychological distance (Trope and Liberman, 2010) and enabled entrepreneurs to initiate actions (Hassan et al., 2016) by creating continual co-presence, forcing users to remain connected and interact with a large number of different users (Norman et al., 2016; Moore et al., 2022). Respondents inferred that trusting others outside the family circle and close acquaintances is not commonplace among millennials, confirming the findings of Nagaj and Szkudlarek (2020). For example, Russian respondents spoke of needing trustworthy information and reliable co-workers, adding that “individuals can trust and rely only on themselves”. Kazakhstan respondents raised concerns of not knowing whom to trust. These comments reflect a wide spectrum of responses to the lack of trust, and suggest that more research is needed to better understand millennial entrepreneurs’ work practices in this context.

Questioning the validity of using the cultural framework

The respondents admit that the output from the collective effort is greater than the sum of individual efforts, yet the tendency to work autonomously hinders any real effort to develop a culture of working collaboratively. The collectivist culture in which “groups, organizations, or other collectivities” (Hofstede, 1980, p.221) takes priority over the ‘me’, therefore, does not extend to work practices and work-related communication. There was no evidence to show Latvians want to be distanced from Russia, as Jurkynas (2021) stated. This may be explained by exposure to diverse contexts online that inform and inspire the worldview of millennials (Moore et al., 2022).

The respondents spoke of taking inspiration from digital users (Ki et al., 2022) to innovate their work practices and pursue self-development (Gusakovsky, 2019) – this was not reported in the literature. The preference for working independently and trusting one’s own skills (Feldberga and Griķe, 2015) is not borne out by the Latvian respondents, who expressed an interest in working in teams, yet admitted lacking skills in managing teams. The respondents with experience of working in teams commented on its benefits, in line with Tjosvold and Tjosvold (2015).

The ways in which the respondents voiced disapproval (of workload or a co-worker) was not reported in the literature, which may suggest a cultural shift towards “something different and better” (Jurkynas, 2021, p.330). Also absent from the literature, one Lithuanian respondent believed that keeping quiet can stifle innovative thinking and urged co-workers to speak up.

Two distinct cliques are identified in this study: entrepreneurs of influence (Laruelle and Limonier, 2021) in Russia and Zhuzes in Kazakhstan (Roberts, 2012). Both act as barriers by preserving old-style Soviet decision-making (Ivlevs et al., 2021), which impedes the establishment of a market-oriented business culture (Tiittanen et al., 2021) that facilitates entrepreneurship (EY, 2021).

Finally, the excerpts offer anecdotal evidence that questions the continued relevance of the cultural framework for international business researchers and practitioners. A new TPB may be needed in entrepreneurship studies in post-Soviet economies as the cultural, economic and institutional contexts in these regions differ from those in western countries where the theory was developed. Many questions remain unanswered in cross-cultural research, despite calls for more thoughtful, thorough and unbiased exploration of cross-cultural business settings. This study suggests that a new reading of entrepreneurship relating to millennial entrepreneurs may lead to a major conceptual shift, as well as to new directions of research in other areas of international management linked to the health and well-being of this generation in decades to come. This knowledge can help managers (and researchers) establish effective communication channels, be culturally sensitive, identify business opportunities and effectively manage local stakeholders.

Management implications

For individuals/businesses intending to manage millennials in Russia, Latvia, Lithuania and Kazakhstan, it makes sense to treat these countries as one market cluster for digital interaction and communication. However, it is worth bearing in mind that differences will occur regarding interpersonal interaction – especially for relationship building, developing trust and respecting personal space. Also, the influence of distinct cliques must be taken into account when identifying the channels of communications and power holders.

The findings suggest millennial entrepreneurs are open to learning new skills, new behaviour and adapting to different patterns of work. Managers need to be aware of how millennials differ from older generations, how they are influenced and inspired, how they communicate, rationalise, behave and interact, the importance placed on work-life balance and self-development. Millennials tend to be a consensus-oriented cohort, unlikely to openly express dissatisfaction unless they need to admonish a client or co-worker. Maintaining communication with close acquaintances and next-of-kin is the norm, to the exclusion of giving/responding to feedback or networking with strangers. Engaging with entrepreneurs in this context may require some adjustment for westerners, for whom a set of guidelines is presented in Table 7. There is also an argument in favour of implementing measures to promote entrepreneurship, such as providing wider access to entrepreneurship training, financing, digital infrastructure, promoting awareness and networking, and endorsing anti-corruption policies – which can lead to various economic and social benefits.

Limitations and future research

Given the context, the findings cannot be generalised to other cohorts or other markets. Moreover, the perceptions of business travellers, tourists and expatriates may be different from the results of this study. It would be constructive to undertake further research (qualitative and quantitative) in other post-Soviet economies to gain insights into the characteristics and entry barriers for new entrepreneurial activity – which may lead to extending the TPB into a ‘theory of planned entrepreneurial behaviour’. Also, the study of entrepreneurs overlooks the entrepreneurial potential of an economy. Studies of entrepreneurs focus on people who have successfully started a business, excluding people who are facing enormous constraints and are unable to enter the market at all. Entrepreneurial intention offers a further research avenue to explore.

Conclusion

This study contributes to international management research by providing empirical data from millennial entrepreneurs in an understudied context, to serve in the future as a benchmark for cultural shift research. It illustrates not only the insufficiency of difference/similarities in cultural dimensions but also a need to contextualize them. The findings show that the four countries are at different stages of economic development, generating various opportunities and challenges for millennial entrepreneurs, and for managers working alongside or managing this cohort.

The findings indicate that Russian, Latvian and Lithuanian cultures are different on two of Hofstede’s dimensions (individualism/collectivism and restraint/indulgence), compared to Kazakhstan. This shows that a similar score of the same dimension fails to explain differences within countries regarding a particular aspect (i.e., trust and teamwork), underscoring the impact of context-specific differences on work practices regarding communication, rationalising, behaviour and interaction. The findings also contribute to a deeper understanding of the impact of generation belonging and cultural dynamics on entrepreneurship, and suggests a need to include inspiration theory in new versions of the TPB.