University subcultures in the postSoviet era Andrey Shcherbenok

University (sub)-cultures in the post-Soviet era Andrey Shcherbenok Education Development Center Moscow School of Management SKOLKOVO

Empirically Observable Paradox 1 The universities we work with operate in a set of shared conditions § Same legal framework: state universities of federal jurisdiction; same legal norms and regulations, similar administrative structure, etc. ; § Same policies and evaluation criteria from the Ministry of Education and Science: system-wide + specific development programs for research universities (≈40); § Common history: former prestigious Soviet universities and institutes; § Similar budget structure. However, the ways they are practically governed are strikingly different Some underlying organizing force 2

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of culture as a concept is that it points us to phenomena that are below the surface, that are powerful in their impact but invisible and to a considerable degree unconscious. Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership 3

Positivist Typology of Organizational Cultures § § § 15. 09. 2020 A collegial culture: shared power and nonhierarchical relationships; high degree of personal interaction; decisions made through consensus, tradition and precedent. (Birnbaum) A bureaucratic culture: adheres to formal rules; a system of specified roles and reporting relationships; rationality and reduction of uncertainty and ambiguity. (Bergquist) A political culture: reliance on negotiation and bargaining among interest group; support of particular initiatives based on social exchange. (Birnbaum) An anarchical culture: an ‘‘organized anarchy”; vague and conflicting goals, transformation processes not clearly understood; fluid participation in decision making. (Birnbaum) A market culture: seeks competitive advantage; high priority on customer satisfaction; market analysis; leaders productivity oriented. (Smart and Hamm) An adhocracy culture: decisions made on an ad hoc basis; entrepreneurial behavior; boundary-spanning communication; innovation as a response to environmental change; leaders are risk takers. (Smart and Hamm) Московская школа управления СКОЛКОВО 4

Theoretical Models of Universities as Organizations RATIONALITY Collegial model (consensus, university saga, values, etc. ) Professional bureaucracy model (decentralized Weberian bureaucracy) “Garbage can” model (organized anarchy, irrational decision making process) Resource dependency theory (conflicting interests, political basis of decision making, competition for resources)

Examples of Russian U Dominant Organizational Cultures § Collegial culture (dominant) + political culture An old comprehensive U located in a city dominated by universities, with weak connection to local industries § Managerial culture + market culture An old polytechnic U located in a medium-sized city, with strong connection to regional industries § Political culture A federal U, created as a merger of two strong universities with influential administrative elites, located in a large city with diverse set of stakeholders § Anarchical culture A federal U, created as a merger of several weak universities in a medium-sized city without strong local stakeholders § Adhocracy culture A relatively young U being transformed from predominantly teaching U to research U, located in a medium-sized city with strong ties to regional government 15. 09. 2020 Московская школа управления СКОЛКОВО 6

Dominant Organizational Culture and University’s Susceptibility to Transformation? 15. 09. 2020 Московская школа управления СКОЛКОВО 7

Idealized Design* Transformation IDEAL SPACE OF PROJECT WORK ent University now pm o l e v e ive d t a m r o transf inert ial de velop men t t 15. 09. 2020 Московская школа управления СКОЛКОВО University’s Goal Model University’s “Natural” Future *) Russell Ackoff 8

Susceptibility to transformation § Collegial culture (dominant) + political culture An old comprehensive U located in a city dominated by universities, with weak connection to local industries § Managerial culture + market culture An old polytechnic U located in a city dominated by universities, with strong connection to regional industries § Political culture A federal U, created as a merger of two strong universities with influential administrative elites, located in a large city with diverse set of stakeholders § Anarchical culture A federal U, created as a merger of several weak universities in a medium-sized city without strong local stakeholders § Adhocracy culture A relatively young U being transformed from predominantly teaching U to research U, located in a medium-sized city with strong ties to regional government ? 15. 09. 2020 Московская школа управления СКОЛКОВО 9

Resistance to Top-Down Change in Organizational Cultures Ministry of Education and Science (political will & political limitations, multiple contradictory tasks, limited means of control) Schools Departments 15. 09. 2020 Московская школа управления СКОЛКОВО imitation and “work for the report” University’s Top Administration 10

Consequences for change management Since the susceptibility to transformation depends strongly on the university’s dominant organizational culture, the university with unconducive culture should either change it (usually by external administrative impact) or be left alone. 11

However: Empirically Observable Paradox 2 The universities possess strikingly different dominant administrative cultures that differ radically in their susceptibility to change However, this difference does not translate into basic processes There are other “underlying organizing forces” = cultures at work 12

U’s Double Structure* RATIONALITY Governance as mediation Basic Processes § open, flexible system § production of indeterminacy § loose coupling CULTURE 2 Bureaucratic core Official norms, regulations, strategy, organizational structure ● closed system ● minimalization of indeterminacy ● tight coupling CULTURE 1 *) J. D. Thompson, Organizations in action

Culture 2: Social Constructivist Approach A single dominant culture a number of coexisting subcultures The culture of a group can now be defined as a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership) Indeed, there are conflicting subcultures in Russian universities 14

Administration vs Faculty in Russian Universities § Unequal control of resources after the 1990 s radical university democracy § Emaciation of faculty’s human capital following two decades of negative selection § Involvement in administrative market vs immersion in a professional and “survival” departmental community (cf. Schein’s “basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration”) The contrast is weakest in dominant managerial and market cultures The contrast is strongest in dominant political culture The contrast is medium in dominant collegial and adhocracy cultures 15

Faculty vs. Faculty in Russian Universities § Professional or “unprofessional” subcultures; § Disciplinary subcultures, the divisions exacerbated by administrative structure of Russian U and the “educational tube” § Work ethics subcultures (cf. “honest education” as a brand) § Cosmopolitans vs. Locals* taking shape as “West-Side” vs. “East-Side” (importance of funding sources in the 1990 s) § Social sciences and the humanities: provincial vs indigenous scholarship *) Alvin Gouldner. Cosmopolitans and Locals 16

Provincial vs Indigenous* Faculty Subcultures Periphery Thematic core (50 people) Autonomous zone Communication indigenous scholarship provincial scholarship (exception: resources curse) metropolitan scholarship *) Mikhail Sokolov, Kirill Titaev, Provincial and Indigenous Scholarship

Consequences for change management Since § the university employees necessarily belong to different sub -cultures; § these sub-cultures are either conducive or irrelevant or detrimental to the university’s goals; § re-educating an employee into a sub-culture that explicitly contradicts their own is difficult or impossible, change management should entail strengthening conducive sub-cultures and getting rid of detrimental ones. 18

However: Empirically Observable Paradox 3 The universities are populated by groups characterized by distinct and conflicting subcultures However, in the course of intense challenging communication people’s positions are informed by their belonging to a subculture only to a limited extent 19

Self-Determination in the Integrated Program Change of collective: project team Change of context: SKOLKOVO TRANSFORMATIVE PROJECT Change of position: «responsibility for the entire university» Transformative self -determination Conditional gaming self-determination Social and titular self-determination 6 th module 1 st module 15. 09. 2020 Московская школа управления СКОЛКОВО 20

However: Empirically Observable Paradox 3 The universities are populated by groups characterized by distinct and conflicting subcultures However, in the course of intense challenging communication people’s positions are only to a limited extent informed by their belonging to a subculture There are other “underlying organizing forces” (= cultures) at work 21

Individual as a Point of Cultural Intersection § The same people employ different values and norms of conduct in different situations (cf. “insulation”*) *) "where insulation processes operate, cohesion results precisely because there is no common commitment to core values” (Michael Mann, Social Cohesion of Liberal Democracy) 22

Professional community Professional norms Social and Professional Norms Real Imagined University community department Professor 15. 09. 2020 Social norms Московская школа управления СКОЛКОВО 23

professional / disciplinary Norms Conflicting cases Individual grant Intradepartmental research collaboration social norms Research collaboration with “dead souls” Internal research grant to a needy person

(A postmodern) Individual as a Point of Cultural Intersection § Same people employ different values and norms of conduct in different situations § Cultures are inherently unstable and ambiguous Contrary to Schein: unlike the set of related terms (norms, values, traditions, behavioral patterns, rituals…) “the concept of culture implies structural stability, depth, breadth, and pattering or integration” “Culture formation, therefore, is always, by definition, a striving toward patterning and integration, even though in many groups, their actual history of experiences prevents them from ever achieving a clear-cut unambiguous paradigm” 25

Individual as a Point of Cultural Intersection § Same people employ different values and norms of conduct in different situations § Cultures are inherently unstable and ambiguous “you need to give up thinking of culture as an entity and trying to understand what it does. Instead, think of culture as a context for meaning making and interpretation” Mary Jo Hatch, Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives 26

Individual as a Point of Cultural Intersection § Same people employ different values and norms of conduct in different situations § Cultures are inherently unstable and ambiguous In Russia: § Tradition of “modal schizophrenia”*, radical ambiguity § Double-speak § Stagnation / Mobilization binary ** § “Foreignness” of the university as an institution § Russianness as the Subversion of the European § Post-Soviet traumatic subduction of the symbolic § …. *) Katerina Clark, History as Ritual **) Alexander Prokhorov, Russian Management Model 27

Consequences for change management Since § university subcultures are multiple, intersecting, ambiguous, and unstable; § the activities of employees are often loosely coupled not only with each other* but also with their underlying cultures, change management should entail rearrangement of tightly and loosely coupled elements in the cultural map *) Douglas Orton, Karl Weik, Loosely Coupled Systems 28

Change management example: BA curriculum development educational program Current BA curriculum problems § The program “belongs” to the department § The department is mainly interested in providing its members with sufficient teaching load § Insufficient pressure exists on the department to make their program more attractive for students 29

Change management example: BA curriculum development Solutions § Culture 1 approach: introduce market & bureaucratic dominant culture. E. g. the position of “educational program director”. But: departmental sabotage § Culture 2 approach: undermine social values-based departmental subcultures. E. g. abolish departments altogether. But: disciplinary communities are essential § Culture 3 approach: loose social coupling in the department; tighten couplings between professor and elements of the outside world. E. g. late choice of major and large number of electives. *) Douglas Orton, Karl Weik, Loosely Coupled Systems 30