Nowadays, higher education witnesses significant changes demonstrating gradual transition from «public welfare» organization model to corporate model. These changes are reflected in so-called «entrepreneurial university model» which combines features of an organization which performs social functions by training qualified specialists and a kind of competitive corporation with a wide range of stakeholders. For an organization of such type corporate culture is not only a social «glue» keeping together different staff groups and helping to find overall value basis, but also a strong leverage mechanism for improving competitiveness and successfulness of the company at the educational services market. This article provides justification for using D. Denison theoretical model for evaluating modern university corporate culture. Its peculiar feature is the possibility for evaluating current state of the organizational culture as compared to expected condition in future on the basis of the correlation between certain cultural characteristics and organizational efficacy. The main cultural characteristics of the model include evaluation of the mission; staff engagement and coherence; adaptation to changing environment (internal and external). Using one case, we demonstrate that this model developed for evaluating corporate culture of business companies can be successfully adapted for constructing the university corporate culture profile, as well as for identifying existing problem areas and existing resources for improving the situation.
Developing policies for enhancing the productivity of university-industry linkages has been a central issue on the political agenda for decades. However, as reality shows there are pro and cons of any policy applied. In this study, we explore these policies based on the "triple helix" (government-industry-university) respectively quadriple helix (government industry university-civil society) model and with a strong focus on the regional, country-specific and institutional context. In conclusion, our exploration suggests that the optimal shape of university-industry linkages portfolios is likely to vary across countries, regions, and institutions by setting different incentives and funding principles. Second, policies should use appropriate metrics to measure the performance of these linkages. Third, a precondition is a multi-level governance arrangement between ministries, higher education institutions, local and regional governments must define the respective roles of stakeholders. And finally, input of regional business leaders with a long term commitment to the region might be an important factor.
Innovation has become a frequently quoted and lived central missions of universities. This book demonstrates however that the mission is not constant. New challenges and opportunities emerge at different moments in history and there are currently a number of important strategic orientations that universities need to consider and balance. Universities face the challenge to balance their different activities and missions in order to ensure sustainable impact on innovation ecosystems at different levels. The authors argue that entrepreneurial universities as we know them today will change their thinking and activities from being purely demonstrable impact driven towards an activity portfolio approach. The latter considers ongoing institutional and governance change paired with a selected number of activities which provide demonstrable and visible impact but also continuing to invest into the free mind blue sky driven work typical for such institutions. Even beyond this the entrepreneurial university features risk taking by means of a research and innovation friendly internal climate and organization which is driven by rigor but not administration and performance indicators.
During the last decades the number of universities extending their initial education and teaching missions towards the triple helix and knowledge triangle paradigms, e.g. knowledge and technology transfer and innovation has increased substantially. In line with this evolution the term ‘entrepreneurial university’ became increasingly popular however until recently there is hardly a common understanding of ‘entrepreneurial universities’. The main perception of ‘entrepreneurial universities’ rests with a visible and measurable contribution of universities to innovation and entrepreneurship in a broader sense. Although this perception is plausible and convincing it raises many open questions which mainly point to university governance models. The innovation and entrepreneurial university paradigm requires a holistic view on university governance approaches which include the full set of universities missions and respective management routines. In this respect it’s of utmost importance that universities keep a “healthy balance” between their missions. This statement is frequently used in many instances yet thus far there is no clear indication what a “healthy balance” implies. The chapter provides first indications about entrepreneurial university governance and respective management approaches.
This chapter explains the entrepreneurial university concept and its place and role in the triple helix in its entirety. It further elaborates on its implications for university management, departments, faculty members and supporting organizations. Moreover it reflects the meaning of the entrepreneurial university for stakeholders, i.e., university boards, regional and national policy and administrative bodies, funding agencies, the business community, university ranking institutions and the global university community overall. The chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of the entrepreneurial university, which is increasingly important because stakeholders’ expectations towards universities are growing. This in turn leads to increased pressure on universities to move beyond their traditional roles and models towards taking responsibility for economic development, large scale basic education and targeted further education and the development of value from research. These expectations provide opportunities for universities, but impose threats on the existing models and practices. Recent literature on entrepreneurial universities is incomplete and mostly focused on the commercialization of research, technology transfer and the third mission of universities. The article expands the predominant thinking about entrepreneurial universities and gives a broader structured definition.
The monograph contains the results of theoretical analysis and empirical research of organizational culture and resistance to changes in two entrepreneurial - oriented universities – NNSU and HSE (Nizhny Novgorod). The presented analysis of empirical material is carried out using the typological model of culture by R. Goffi and G. Jones "double C Cube", the questionnaire by S. Ritchie and p. Martin "Motivational profile" and the author's methods of assessing the resistance to changes and value preferences of teachers in research activities. For researchers in the entrepreneurial University and the Universiletsky managers.
The modern university, and with it the academic profession itself, are facing new challenges: first, the increasing complexity of labor markets and globalization are undermining the structure of the academic profession, and secondly, the rise in cost of university research calls into question the autonomy of the university. The internationalization of the academic labor market encourages rethinking the structure of academic professions that have historically been focused on national (regional) contexts. The university is too expensive for the state and/or for students. One way to keep the autonomy of the university is to offer society, the state and businesses a wide range of services. Demin seeks to answer the following questions: can bureaucratic (self-)management effectively regulate the growing body of the university? Is it necessary to relinquish part of the university’s autonomy to a hired manager? Can “soft managerialism,” using economic instruments to reveal the possibilities of the university to society, become a new defense of university autonomy?
Institutions affect investment decisions, including investments in human capital. Hence institutions are relevant for the allocation of talent. Good market-supporting institutions attract talent to productive value-creating activities, whereas poor ones raise the appeal of rent-seeking. We propose a theoretical model that predicts that more talented individuals are particularly sensitive in their career choices to the quality of institutions, and test these predictions on a sample of around 95 countries of the world. We find a strong positive association between the quality of institutions and graduation of college and university students in science, and an even stronger negative correlation with graduation in law. Our findings are robust to various specifications of empirical models, including smaller samples of former colonies and transition countries. The quality of human capital makes the distinction between educational choices under strong and weak institutions particularly sharp. We show that the allocation of talent is an important link between institutions and growth.