This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 28 October 2014, At: 01:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Resource DevelopmentInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20

Gender stereotyping and its impacton human capital development incontemporary RussiaElena K. Zavyalova a & Sofia V. Kosheleva aa Graduate School of Management, Saint Petersburg StateUniversity , RussiaPublished online: 23 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Elena K. Zavyalova & Sofia V. Kosheleva (2010) Gender stereotyping and itsimpact on human capital development in contemporary Russia, Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, 13:3, 341-349, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2010.483823

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.483823

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

PERSPECTIVES

Gender stereotyping and its impact on human capital development in

contemporary Russia

Elena K. Zavyalova* and Sofia V. Kosheleva

Graduate School of Management, Saint Petersburg State University, Russia

(Received 23 January 2010; final version received 14 March 2010)

This article starts with a brief overview of the role of women in the workforce inthe former USSR and contemporary Russia. Next, gender stereotypes in thehuman capital development practices of Russian companies are described. Thearticle then presents the results of a study of the gender aspects of human capitalpractices (including hiring, evaluation, training and development, and promotionpolicies) in 60 Russian companies from nine sectors of the economy. It thenreflects on some of the main features of gender issues related to human capitaldevelopment in Russia. Most are determined by socio-cultural and psychologicalbarriers in the social (public) and individual consciousness of managers andemployees.

Keywords: gender; gender stereotypes; gender discrimination; human capitaldevelopment; Russia

To remain competitive in the global economy, developing countries need totransition from industrial production-based to knowledge-based economies. Duringthe transition to a knowledge-based economy, human capital development becomesone of the central concerns for policy makers, business executives, and humanresource development experts. An important part of the overall human capitalstrategy is the development of policies, related to gender equality and the creation ofequal opportunities for participation in knowledge-intensive industries and jobs. InRussia, numerous traditional gender-related stereotypes and attitudes createasymmetries and barriers for women’s access to job and talent developmentopportunities. Russian scholars discussed two basic stereotypes that affect the genderpolicies of employers. The first relates to the view that the female labour force is less‘profitable’ and more expensive. This stereotype is partly reinforced by legal benefitsand safeguards granted to working women by the Russian government. The secondstereotype is based on the notion of ‘male’ and ‘female’ occupations associated withboth the biological and psychological characteristics of women that, supposedly,limit their performance in the workplace (Isakova 2007; Rimashevskaya 2007).

The purpose of this study is to analyze the gender dimension of human capitaldevelopment in contemporary Russia. The article identifies barriers to women’s

*Corresponding author. Email: kosheleva@som.pu.ru

Human Resource Development International

Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2010, 341–349

ISSN 1367-8868 print/ISSN 1469-8374 online

� 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2010.483823

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

41 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

access to better job opportunities and professional growth, and discusses the resultsof our related empirical study.

The role of women in the Russian workforce: a historical perspective

The state of women’s participation in the workforce and in human capitaldevelopment opportunities today is largely a result of historical changes thatunfolded over 70 years of Soviet power. During the very first years of the existence ofthe Soviet state the government issued laws, guaranteeing equality of men andwomen in all spheres of life. The decree on the formation of workers’ and peasants’government passed by the 2nd All-Russia Soviet Congress provided for theparticipation of female workers’ organizations in the management of state affairs.Women’s equal rights to men were secured by the first Soviet constitution (1918). Anumber of laws passed by the Soviet government in 1917–1918 fully equalizedwomen in rights with men concerning civil, family and conjugal and educationalissues. The Soviet government also took steps to protect women’s rights related towork, articulating the principle of equal payment for equal work. Women’s rightswere enshrined in Article 122 of the USSR Constitution.

As a result of these policies, women accounted for 51% of workers andemployees in the national economy in 1970 (compared to 24% in 1928). In 1963,women held 34% of managerial and specialist positions – general managers, chiefengineers, machine shop managers and their deputies, engineers, forepersons, etc.(Zhenschini v sostave nauchnih rabotnikov [Women as Scientists] 1971). In 1968,women constituted 52% of all specialists with higher education, and 63% of allspecialists with vocational education, the total number of women with higher orvocational education had increased 58 times compared to 1928. However, there isevidence that women were still facing the ‘glass ceiling’. For example, while the totalnumber of women working in science and education fields was high, their numberswere much lower at higher administrative positions and skill levels (Zhenschni vSSSR [Women in the USSR] 1970).

Women were provided with significant work-related benefits, aimed at improvingtheir chances of participating in full time employment. For example, a network ofpre-school institutions was created; in 1971 there were 9.5 million children in full-time kindergartens and creches (compared to 4500 in 1914). In 1956 maternity leavewas extended from 77 to 112 days. Efforts were made to improve women’s access toleadership positions in the government. Among the Deputies of USSR SupremeCouncil elected in 1970 there were 463 women, which constitutes 30.5% of alldeputies (Zhenschni v SSSR [Women in the USSR] 1970). However, the CommunistParty, which was the real controlling mechanism of the society, was composed of20.9% female members and 79.1% male members, and its supreme body – theCentral Committee – included only 2.8% of women.

Thus, under the Soviet regime, women constituted a large and skilled labourforce, and officially enjoyed equal rights with men. However, they encountered acertain ‘glass ceiling’ when trying to move up to executive positions both in thegovernment and in industry. In addition, some scholars point out that expandedopportunities for equal participation in the workforce were given to women basednot on genuine concern for their well being, but simply to address the socio-economic needs of the socialist state. For example, some authors emphasize thedemographic causes of women’s high labour participation: two World Wars resulted

342 E.K. Zavyalova and S.V. Kosheleva

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

41 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

in a huge imbalance (close to 20 million people) in the proportion of men and womenin the former USSR, and women had to fill many traditionally ‘male’ work positions(Pierre 1961; Norton 1966).

Gender issues in human capital development during the reform period

Following the introduction of private property rights during Gorbachev’s‘perestroika’ in the late 1980s, the foundations of socialist ideology and socialstructure started to collapse. These processes could not leave unaffected theemployment structure, gender positions and women’s roles in society. Members ofsociety received legal rights to appropriate the results of other people’slabour. Moreover, the state effectively revoked the guaranteed right to work.Along with the emergence of private property, the issue of gender equality in thedivision of labour came to the forefront. In market-based competition for well-paidpositions, women faced not only tough competition, but also discrimination. Themass media have widely asserted that women had become ‘outsiders’ of the reformprocess.

Statistical data show that the population of Russia is still characterized by largegender disproportions: the number of men in 2008 was 65.7 million, whereas thenumber of women was 76.3 million. Thus, there are 10.6 million (16%) more womenthan men in Russia today (Women and Men in Russia 2008). The overall level ofparticipation in productive economic activity amounted to 63% for women and 72%for men in 2007. By comparison, amongst 35 developed and developing countriesthis indicator is higher for women only in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and thelevel of women’s participation in the labour force in EU-27 was 58.3% (Eurostat2007). According to Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS), women’saverage wages compared to that of men were 70% in 1998, 63.2% in 2000, 63% in2001–2002, 64% in 2003, and now stand at 63%.

According to the census of 2002, women’s levels of education exceeded thecomparable figures for men. For example, among specialists with higher education,53% were women. Men were in the lead in having secondary (57%) andprimary (61%) education. In 2007 women had a considerable advantage in thetotal number of the employed in higher education and science (54% and 46%respectively). However, the employment structure in these spheres was characterizedmainly by women’s prevalence in the area of the ‘lower’ status and leadershippositions (Zhenschni i muzchini v Rossii [Women and Men in Russia] 2008; Pipiya2007).

It must be noted that, unlike most other European countries, undergoing thetransformation process, there were no gender inequalities in the unemploymentdynamics in Russia: the probability of losing their jobs was equal for men andwomen during the whole period of reforms (Kapelyushnikov 2001; Zavyalovaand Voronina 2005). The situation did not change even during the latest economiccrisis.

However, women’s employment structure underwent drastic transformations:they were forced out of the highly competitive sectors of qualified labour into low-skilled and low-paid segments, and also into ‘high risk’ areas (Maltseva and Roschin2006; Balabanova 2006; Zavyalova and Possokhova 2004). Women started toundertake entrepreneurial activities quite actively since the very beginning of thereforms. According to data provided by the Committee of Economic Development,

Human Resource Development International 343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

41 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Industry and Trade of the Administration of St. Petersburg, 31% of small andmedium enterprises (SME) in Russia were headed by women in 2006.

Despite some improvements in women’s prospects for achieving managerialpositions, women continue to face the ‘glass ceiling’. Thus, an annual survey byconsulting company PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) of heads of HR departments in40 large Russian and foreign companies from various sectors revealed that thenumber of female administrators in Russia grew from 30% to 40% in 2009compared to 2008 (PwC 2009). There was a parallel growth in the number of womenholding positions of CFOs – from 28% to 39%. However, no woman succeeded inobtaining the position of the president in any of the companies covered in the survey.The PwC research concluded that, compared to men, women in Russia have to becontent with more numerous but still less influential positions. Among the most‘female’ positions were chief accountants, HR directors, and marketing directors. Atthe same time, the PwC survey showed that in 58% of the companies women wereallowed to have flexible working hours, in 50% – to have a short week, and in 23% –to work from home. It is worth noting that 85% of the respondents said thatmaternity leave had no effect on career development.

Speaking about women’s employment, one should mention the problem of theirincreased involvement in performing household-related duties. The breakdown ofthe state social support system led to the situation when most of the work of caringfor children and family fell on the shoulders of women. The all-Russia surveys showthat in half of the Russian families the whole burden of caring for home and family isperformed entirely by women, resulting in the growth of their working day to 10–14hours (Vovk 2006; Zhenschna v novoy Rossii [Woman in the new Russia] 2007). Inthe media this phenomenon came to be known as ‘double employment’ or ‘socialfine’.

The study on social and economic rights conducted in 2002 in 15 regions and atthe federal level demonstrated that women suffer most from employmentdiscrimination. According to the regional human rights organizations women withchildren, pregnant women and women over 45 years old are most discriminated inRussia. The current legislation of the Russian Federation contains a number of rulesprohibiting discrimination in employment on grounds of sex, race, nationality,language, social origin, place of residence, attitude towards religion, convictions,membership of public associations, as well as other factors not related toqualifications of the employee. However, in reality there are multiple examples ofunjustified refusal to hire, and there have not been appeals to a court or other federalagencies for the protection of women’s rights (Doklad rossiyskih nepravitel’stvennihorganizaciy po sobludeniyu Rossiyskoy Federaciey Mezdunarodnogo Pakta obeconomicheskih, social’nih i kul’turnih pravah [Report of the Russian NGOsregarding the Russian Federation compliance to the International Pact on theeconomic, social and cultural rights] 2003).

In conclusion, it can be noted that women’s prospects for career advancementhave not changed much during the reform period, either qualitatively orquantitatively. Women are assigned the role of a relatively cheap and sufficientlyskilled workforce, they are virtually excluded from public administration, face the‘glass ceiling’ in promotion to executive positions in industry, and are forced to takethe entrepreneurship and self-employment route if they want to achieve higher levelsof independence and responsibility for their careers.

344 E.K. Zavyalova and S.V. Kosheleva

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

41 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Gender stereotypes in human capital management and development practices of

Russian companies

This section of the article reports the results of our empirical research, conducted toexplore the impact of gender stereotypes on human capital practices of Russiancompanies.

The study involved 60 managers (30 males and 30 females) of 60 private firmsfrom nine different industries. Half of the respondents were heads of HRdepartments, the second half – top managers. All the companies were small ormedium-sized businesses: below 100 people – 58.1%, 100 to 250 people – 18.7%,over 250 people – 23.2%. The sample included enterprises characterized byapproximately equal employment of men and women. The companies’ profilereflected the overall structure of small and medium-sized business in the NorthWestern region of Russia where industrial production accounts for about 28% andslightly over 70% is covered by the trade and service sectors. Sixty two percent of thecompanies had been operating in the market for over ten years, which proved theirviability and ability to develop, as well as the efficiency of their human capitalpolicies.

The survey contained nine groups of questions aimed at identifying genderstereotypes in such human capital management and development practices such asselection and recruitment, assessment and remuneration, training and careerdevelopment, dismissal procedures, and the assessment of professionally importantpersonal qualities.

Our study has found evidence of gender stereotyping, which was common formanagers of both sexes. Thus, managers do not consider women as candidates for‘male’ positions such as a loader, driller, installer, driver, security guard (74% to100% of respondents). At the same time, men are not considered as candidates forthe following ‘female’ positions such as a janitor, secretary, cloakroom attendant,office manager and accountant (73% to 100% of respondents).

Gender stereotypes were most evident in pay and dismissal practices concerningmale and female employees. Thus, 20% of male respondents answered that men get a40% larger salary than women in their companies, and 28% of female respondentssaid that men earn on average 15–30% more with the same qualifications andamount of work performed.

Clear gender stereotypes were found in perceived preferences for labourremuneration. Twenty percent of male respondents and 67% of female respondentsbelieved that men prefer pay-by-results payment, while women would prefer workingfor a fixed salary (67%), according to the managers of both sexes. This result reflectsa widely spread view about the priority of stability in the life of a working woman.

Answering about the preferences for hiring men or women, no gender preferencesamong managers were identified (8% give preference to men, 8% to women and84% are indifferent to the gender of the applicant).

The study did not find clear evidence of gender stereotypes related to careerdevelopment: 34% of respondents feel that men have the advantage in careerdevelopment, 27% believe that women have the advantage, and 39% consider thatthe chances are equal.

Gender differences in risk assessment for hiring men and women were alsoexamined in our research. The differences in managers’ evaluation are insignificant

Human Resource Development International 345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

41 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

by most risk factors. Most significant differences in risk assessment concerned men.Respondents considered that the following factors are more characteristic for men:health issues (49% for women and 80% for men), alcoholism and drug addiction(57% for women and 84% for men), violation of labour discipline (48% for womenand 66% for men).

Figure 1 shows the results of the managers’ assessment of personal qualitiesinfluencing the employees’ work behaviour. This issue was explored in our studysince, according to our analysis of the popular press, in Russian society there arewidely held popular beliefs that behaviour at work is a function of ‘feminine’ and‘masculine’ behaviour caused by a specific ‘female’ or ‘male’ psychology.

According to the survey women are assessed higher than men on most qualities,except for stress resistance. Qualities such as diligence and work accuracy are leastdependent on gender.

Of interest are the beliefs related to the expected tendency of men and women forconflict behaviour. Seventy two percent of respondents believe that women are moreprone to interpersonal conflict in the workplace.

Thus, the influence of stereotypes concerning ‘male’ and ‘female’ psychologymanifested itself only in the assessment of such features as resistance to stress andinclination to conflict. The assessment of other personal qualities was gender-neutral.

On the whole this study demonstrated that gender stereotypes had only partialimpact on human capital management and development practices. Prejudices weremost prominent in the respondents’ tendency to divide professions into specifically

Figure 1. Differences in assessment of the employees’ personal qualities (for men andwomen).

346 E.K. Zavyalova and S.V. Kosheleva

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

41 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

‘male’ and ‘female’, which confirms the findings of the earlier mentioned research byPwC (PwC 2009). In addition, women were stereotyped as more stability-oriented,less stress resistant and more inclined to engage in workplace conflicts.

At the same time, there was no evidence of the impact of gender stereotypes onthe assessment of most professionally valuable personal qualities of men and women.

Discussion

The socio-economic transformations which took place during the reforms haveexacerbated the problem of gender asymmetry in labour and employment. Over theyears of the Soviet regime the attitude to women as a fully fledged labour resourceformed a significant qualitative and quantitative potential, which could be used tocreate a new economic system. However, this did not happen. Over the past 20 yearsthe processes of vertical and horizontal gender segregation have intensified, thereappeared differentiation in labour remuneration and the problem of ‘doubleemployment’ has exacerbated. The measures taken by the state to address theseproblems can be evaluated as inefficient as the policy of egalitarianism as a basis forthe development of gender potential has rather a declarative character.

The historical and cultural development of Russia led to some specificity in theattitude of society towards the role of women: gender stereotypes exist but do nothave a significant impact on the regulation of labour relations. This conclusion wasbrought forward both by the present research and the results of our previousresearch (Zavyalova and Possokhova 2004), and also by the results of the surveyconducted by PwC (PwC 2009).

Russia’s women are highly educated, hardworking and ready to develop theirpotential. They are trying to get a good education in well-known business schools.Studies conducted by QS World MBA Tour revealed that the number of women,who choose the business environment and managerial positions increases annuallyby an average of 10–12%. Of the total number of Russian applicants forparticipation in the programme of the World MBA Tour, 40% were women in2004, 46% in 2005, and 55% in 2009 (Quacquarelly, Geraghty, and Gatuguta 2009).Special training and development programmes are very important to enhancewomen’s professional qualifications. The results of our earlier studies (Zavyalovaand Voronina 2005) demonstrate that there exist not only external but internalbarriers to active social behaviour of women allowing them full participation in thelabour process. These barriers manifest themselves in the absence of the ability toplan a career, lower requirements for pay, and refusal to engage in intensecompetition for high office positions. In Europe, the career forum ‘Women inLeadership’ has very popular seminars and training sessions such as ‘Choosing a firstjob’, ‘Professional community and networks as a tool for career development’,‘Leadership development’, and ‘Negotiation and positioning’, which help womenovercome internal barriers and develop skills in constructive labour behaviour (QS –Leading Global Career and Education Network 2009). One can recommend theinclusion of such courses in corporate training programmes.

An example of an innovative approach to the development of human resourcesthrough the use of gender-building is provided by Shell Company’s programme,which has received great public recognition. It is a systematic approach toinvolvement and professional development of all women working in the company,based on the interaction of HRM and HRD technologies: the optimal working

Human Resource Development International 347

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

41 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

conditions that allow women to combine careers with caring for the home and familywere created and special training was developed. Under this programme they createda website with the purpose of demonstrating a company’s desire to overcome thebarriers that prevent women realizing their potential (Shell Jobs & Careers 2009).The formation and implementation of such programmes can be considered long-term objectives of those Russian companies, for which the ability to manage talent isan important condition for achieving competitive advantage.

Conclusion

The present article only touched in some main features of gender issues as related tohuman capital development in Russia. Future research should deal with variousexternal and internal aspects of these problems in more detail. We attribute to theexternal aspects the region-specific regulation of employment associated with variouscultural traditions. We regard psychological barriers that block women’s activesocial behaviour which may allow them equal participation in labour processes asthe internal aspects. Detailed analysis of these issues will allow us to make moreinformed conclusions related to the ways to overcome gender asymmetries andprovide recommendations on human capital development, focused on the efficientuse of gender-building.

References

Balabanova, E. 2006. Economicheskaya zavisimost’ zhenschin: suschnost’, prichini iledstviya[Women’s economic dependency: essence, reasons and outcomes]. SotsiologicheskieIssledovaniya [Sociological Research] 4: 51–64.

Doklad rossiyskih nepravitel’stvennih organizaciy po sobludeniyu Rossiyskoy FederacieyMezdunarodnogo Pakta ob economicheskih, social’nih i kul’turnih pravah [Report of theRussian NGOs regarding the Russian Federation compliance to the International Pacton the economic, social and cultural rights]. 2003. Moscow: http://www.hri.ru/docs/?content ¼ doc&id ¼ 247 (accessed January 2010).

Eurostat. 2007. European Union Labour Force Survey-Annual results. Data in focus 27/2008European Catalogue number: KS-QA-08-027-EN-N Communities, 2008. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-08-027/EN/KS-QA-08-027-EN.PDF(accessed January 2010).

Isakova, E. 2007. Vliyanie gendernih stereotipov na trudovuyu deyatel’nost’. [Influence ofgender stereotypes on labour activity]. In Gendernie stereotipi v sovremennoy Rossii [GenderStereotypes in Modern Russia], ed. I.B. Nazarova, and N.M. Rimashevskaya, 61–72.Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publishers, MAX Press.

Kapelyushnikov, R. 2001. Rossiyskiy rinok truda: adaptaciya bez restrukturizacii [Russianla-bour market: adaptation with no restructuring]. Moscow: Higher School of EconomicPublishers.

Maltseva, I., and S. Roschin. 2006. Gendernaya segregaciya i trudovaya mobil’nost’ naRossiyskom rinke truda [Gender segregation and labour mobility on the Russian labourmarket]. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publishers.

Norton, T. Dodge 1966. Women in the Soviet economy. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.Pierre, A. 1961. Les femmes en Sovietique, Edition Spes. YMCA-press: Paris.Pipiya, L. 2007. Gender aspects in the Russian S&T – statistical trends. Paper presented at the

INWES regional symposium ‘Women Scientists and Engineers in New EU Countries andEastern Europe’. July 2–4 at the University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2009. Men as much as ever are running Russian business. In http://www.pwc.com/ru/en/press-releases/2009/men-are-running-russian-business.jhtml (accessedJanuary 2010).

QS – Leading Global Career and Education Network. 2009. Men as much as ever are runningRussian business. In http://www.qsnetwork.com/ (accessed January 2010).

348 E.K. Zavyalova and S.V. Kosheleva

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

41 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Quacquarelly, N., R. Geraghty, and S. Gatuguta. 2009. QS TopMBA.com Applicant Survey.In http://www.topmba.com/fileadmin/pdfs/MBA_applicant_survey_2009.pdf (accessedJanuary 2010).

Rimashevskaya, N. 2007. Gendernie stereotipi i logika social’nih otnosheniy. Vliyaniegendernih stereotipov na trudovuyu aktivnost’ [Gender Stereotypes and the Logic ofSocial Relations. Influence of Gender Stereotypes on Labour Activities]. In Genderniestereotipi v sovremennoy Rossii [Gender Stereotypes in Modern Russia], ed. I.B. Nazarova,and N.M. Rimashevskaya, 7–23. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publishers, MAXPress.

Shell Jobs & Careers. 2009. http://www.shell.com/home/content/careers/ (accessed January2010).

Vovk, E. 2006. Gendernaya asimmetriya i zhenskie roli v sovremennoy Rossii. [Genderasymmetry and women’s roles in Modern Russia]. Social’naya real’nost’ [Social Reality] 3:61–73.

Zhenschini v sostave nauchnih rabotnikov [Women as Scientists]. 1971. Vestnik statistiki[Statistics Herald] 1: 91.

Zhenschna v novoy Rossii [Woman in the new Russia]. 2007. Analiticheskiy doklad institutakomplexnih social’nih issledovaniy Rossiyskoy Akademii nauk [Analytical report of ComplexSocial Studies Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences]. http://www.owl.ru/win/research/docl7-9.htm (accessed January 2007).

Zhenschni v SSSR [Women in the USSR]. 1970. Moscow: Mysl’ Publishers.Zhenschni i muzchini v Rossii [Women and men in Russia]. 2008. Sociological – statistical

collection. In Federal’naya sluzba gosudarstvennoy ststistiki [Federal Statistics Service], ed.N.N. Sheptulina. http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/B08_50/Main.htm (accessed January 2010).

Zavyalova, E., and O. Voronina. 2005. Osobennosti pereobucheniya zhenschi v sferemenedzmenta [Peculiarities of retraining women in the management sphere]. Top-Manager. Business Women 3: 50–4.

Zavyalova, E., and S. Possokhova. 2004. Psihologiya predprinimatel’stva [Psychology ofEntrepreneurship]. St Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Press.

Human Resource Development International 349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

41 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014