The aim of implementing reform of the higher education in Russia is to turn promising Russian universities into bastions of innovative economy. There have been federal universities, national research universities and flagship universities during the last ten years in the country. The Ministry of Education and Science plans to increase the number of flagship universities up to 120. Thus, this type of universities – flagship universities – will be the most numerous in the country. These universities will become the basis of formation of academic clusters in Russian regions, the platform for hi-tech services providing. The problem is that the achievement of the desired results is almost impossible without the transformation of consciousness of teaching staff, since it is necessary to form the values that motivate the staff to change. The relevance of this research is in the fact that the tasks of flagship universities have not yet become the personal tasks of their potential executors; moreover, they are completely unaligned. It is impossible to state the necessity of increasing the research efforts and the number of publications indexed in the system of scientific quotation Scopus without changing the way of thinking of people that got used to the old ways of work. Because of this, there is need in measures that can lead into the creation of strong organizational culture in flagship universities. One of such possible measure is in active engagement of teaching staff in staging tasks for predetermined brief time periods and analysis of the best results of project groups after the expiration of these periods. The novelty of this applied research is in the exposure of traits of entrepreneurial organizational culture and the justification of several measures that will help it appear. In process of research the following methods were used: observation, material collection, questioning of flagship university’s teaching staff and students and the analysis of university’s documentation.The aim of this research is to specify the particularities of organizational culture of a flagship university and measures that will help create it what will lead to scientific activity stimulation of both teaching staff and talented students. The tasks are to discover the obstacles preventing the formation of new pace and quality of the university’s community; to define the values that should be formed in teaching staff and students of a flagship entrepreneurial university and to discover the methods of formation of organizational culture of a flagship university. In process of a research, there is a conclusion that consistent work is needed in order to form the organizational culture – the work with both the teaching staff and the students. Without such traits as initiativity, enthusiasm, the ability and willingness to promote one’s fruits of intellectual labour and risk tolerance, the university will find it hard to become the driver of a region. Frequently, the showings of knowledge use and demand of high-tech innovations in various specialties are catastrophically low in Russian regions, and it means that their formation is expected from a flagship university. In the end, the author writes that the formation of the organizational culture is the primary task of top-management of flagship universities, each of which should have clear inner communication politics. It is entrepreneurial organizational culture is able to unite the staff in the achievement of objectives of a flagship university.
flagship university, knowledge economy, regional innovative development center, organizational culture, mission, values, motivation system for teaching staff
1. Bazarov T. Yu., Human resource management psychology. Moscow: Iurait, 2015, 560p. (In Russ.)
2. Beliaev A., ,Corporate culture of the University: From theory to practice. Vyssheie obrazovaniie v Rossii, no. 11, 2007, pp. 62-65. (In Russ.)
3. Bim-Bad B.M., Pedagogical encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Bolshaiia rossiiskaia entsiklopediia, 2002, p.296. (In Russ.)
4. Gnezdilova N. K., Corporate culture of the teacher of higher school and his loyalty to higher education institution. Vektor nauki Toliattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia Pedagogika. Psikhologiia, no. 1, 2013, pp. 65-68. (In Russ.)
5. Davydov V. N., Corporate Culture as a way of social interaction and education in higher education institution. Obrazovaniie i nauka, no. 1, 2008, pp. 15-23. (In Russ.)
6. Dil T., Bolman L., Reframing organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. Moscow: Alpina Publisher, 2012, 626 p. (In Russ.)
7. Evzrezov D. V., Mayer B. O., “Education 2030» - call to the Education System. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, no. 2 (18), 2014, pp. 118-132 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1402.11(In Russ.)
8. Zankovskii A. N., Leadership psychology: from behavioural model to cultural and valuable paradigm. Moscow: Institut psikhologii RAN, 2011, 296 p. (In Russ.)
9. Individual and society in medieval West. St.Petersburg: Aleksandriia, 2009, 492p. (In Russ.)
10. Kazarina L. A., Ob Services in the field of scientific service. Servis plus, no. 2 (10), 2016, pp. 3-9. (In Russ.)
11. Kortunov V.V., «Culture and Civilization» as the central issue for sociology of culture. Servis plus, no. 1, 2014, pp. 6-15. (In Russ.)
12. Kochetkova A. I., Introduction to organizational behavior and organization modeling. Moscow: Delo, 2008, 944 p. (In Russ.)
13. Krylov A. N., Communication management. Theory and practice of interaction of business and society. Moscow: Ikar, 2015, 352p. (In Russ.)
14. Kuleshov V.V., Untura G. A., Markova V. D., Development of knowledge economy: Role of innovative projects in the program of region reindustrialization. Region: ekonomika i sotsiologiia. Novosibirsk: Publ. SO RAN, no. 3 (91), 2016, pp.28-54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15372/REG20160302 (In Russ.)
15. Neborskii E.V., Universities of USA. Edicational and scientific center. Monography. Saarbruecken: Publ. house ‘LAP Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH&Co. KG’, 2011, 180 p. (In Russ.)
16. Persikova T. N., Corporate Culture. Moscow: Logos, 2011, 454p. (In Russ.)
17. Novichkov N. V., Novichkova A.V., Malygina O.V., The role of corporate memory in the management of organizational innovations. Servis plus, no. 3 (9), 2015, p. 3-10. (In Russ.)
18. Rusanova I. P., Culture and art of medieval city. Moscow: Nauka, 1984, 159p. (In Russ.)
19. Sinenko V. Ya., Innovative management of education as key factor of its quality growth. Upravleniie kachestvom obrazovaniia: Teoriia i praktika effektivnogo administrirovaniia, no. 5, 2016, pp. 18-21. (In Russ.)
20. Soloveichik A. V., Loyalty of personnel and factors characterizing the organization. Izvestiia Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A. I. Gertsena, no. 125, 2010, pp. 93-98. (In Russ.)
21. Tarabaiieva V.B., Use of the regulating opportunities of corporate culture in management of the conflicts of innovative development of higher education institution. Nauchnyie vedomosti. Seriia Filosofiia. Sotsiologiia. Pravo, no. 12 (5), 2008, pp. 94-99. (In Russ.)
22. Three missions of the University. (In Russ.) Available at: https://3missions.ru/ (Accessed on July 17, 2017).
23. Chernysheva T. L., University as a driver of city development. Scientific and Pedagogical Review, no. 2, 2017, pp. 209-219. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23951/2307-6127-2017-2-209-219 (In Russ.)
24. Chernysheva T. L., Scientific tourism of universities student’s associations as way of activization of the country scientific potential. Biznes. Obrazovaniie. Pravo. Vestnik Volgogradskogo instituta biznesa, no. 1 (38), 2017, pp. 268-275. (In Russ.)
25. Shein E.Kh., Organizational culture and leadership. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2002, 336 p. (In Russ.)
26. Iaspers K., The idea of University. Minsk: BGU, 2006, 159p. (In Russ.)
27. Bartell M. Internationalization of universities: a university culture-based framework. Higher Education, vol. 45, 2003, pp .43–70.
28. Chatman C., Caldwell D., O’Reilly C., Doerr B., Parsing Organizational Culture: How to Norm for Adaptability influences the Relationship Between Culture Consensus and Financial Performance in High-technology Firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 35, 2014, pp. 785–808.
29. Dall’Alba, G. Re-imagining the University: Developing a Capacity to Care. pp. 112–122//Barnett, R. (ed.) The Future University: Ideas and Possibilities. New York and London: Routledge, 2012. 233 p.
30. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., The Value of Corporate Culture. Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 117, 2015, pp. 60–76.
31. Fegan, Barry Developing Your Company Culture: The Joy of Leadership. Oakland: Context Press, 2000, 389p.
32. Fralinger B., Olson V., Organizational Culture At The University Level: A Study Using The OCAI Instrument. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, vol. 11, November 2007, pp. 85–99.
33. Masschelein J., Simons M., The University: A Public Issue. pp. 165–177//Barnett, R. (ed.) The Future University: Ideas and Possibilities. New York and London: Routledge, 2012. 233 p.
34. O’Reilly C., Chatman J., Caldwell D., People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person – Organization Fit. The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, 1991, pp. 487–516.
35. Weerts D., State Governments and Research Universities: A Frame work for a Renewed Partnership. New York: Routledge, 2002, 182 p.