Университеты в инновационном развитии экономики регионов
In work the possibility of an assessment of organizational culture of enterprise university by the model "A cube double C" of R. Goffi and G. Jones's is investigated. Selection of respondents consisted of 50 teaching staff of faculties of management and economy of the Nizhny Novgorod campus of Higher School of Economics: 31 women and 19 men; 5 professors, 27 associate professors and 18 senior teachers. Diagnostics like organizational culture was carried out by means of R. Goffi and G. Jones's questionnaire, studying of resistance to the changes which are carried out in higher education institution — by means of an author's questionnaire. In a research it is revealed that the Nizhny Novgorod campus of Higher School of Economics has communal type of culture that conforms to requirements of enterprise university; one of the psychological reasons of resistance of teachers to the changes which are carried out to the organizations is their discrepancy to the academic values; the weak organizational culture of a campus causes resistance to the carried-out organizational changes. The research has shown that the model of organizational culture "A cube double C" is the adequate tool of an assessment of culture of enterprise university
This article analyses the concept of entrepreneurial university and the role of culture in its formation. Theproblem of appropriate diagnostic method is being risen. The article discusses the findings of organizational culture assessmentby means ofdiagnostic methodof R.Goffee and G. Jones in the two universitiesof Nizhny Novgorod. The way ofdevelopment of congruent method of the university organizational culture diagnosis is being offered.
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?