2408-9338Research result. Sociology and Management2408-933810.18413/2408-9338-2019-5-4-0-161864SOCIOLOGY OF MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIESUniversity as a specific type of organization, its functions and relationships with the external environmentUniversity as a specific type of organization, its functions and relationships with the external environmentShcherbinaVyacheslav V.ShcherbinaVyacheslav V.sherbina.vyacheslav@mail.ruPopovaElena PavlovnaPopovaElena Pavlovnaeppopova@hse.ru20195400

The relevance of the analyzed problem is associated with the need to determine the guidelines for the organizational development of universities. The source of organizational development is a dynamic external environment. The article analyzes the problems of the relationship of universities with the external environment. The authors consider various approaches to the interpretation of the organizational specifics of the university. Recreating organizational specifics, special attention is paid to the resulting product of the university. It is on the definition of the resulting product and its customers that the choice of optimal adaptation methods and, consequently, the guidelines for organizational development depends. Next, the forms of interaction of the organization with the external environment are analyzed. The authors do not doubt that the university can be considered as a specific type of formal organization. However, its specificity (activities, type of personnel, environmental characteristics, etc.) does not imply the development of flexible structures. Taking into account the tasks of the university – the training of specialists and the development of science – the possibility of using forms and methods of adaptation associated with customer orientation as the main factor in changing the content of educational programs is being questioned. Considering customers on the resultant product of the university’s activities, the authors believe that the university’s orientation toward the production of educational services and the client (consumer of these services) contradicts the fulfillment of the university’s most important social functions – the training of qualified specialists and the development of science.

The relevance of the analyzed problem is associated with the need to determine the guidelines for the organizational development of universities. The source of organizational development is a dynamic external environment. The article analyzes the problems of the relationship of universities with the external environment. The authors consider various approaches to the interpretation of the organizational specifics of the university. Recreating organizational specifics, special attention is paid to the resulting product of the university. It is on the definition of the resulting product and its customers that the choice of optimal adaptation methods and, consequently, the guidelines for organizational development depends. Next, the forms of interaction of the organization with the external environment are analyzed. The authors do not doubt that the university can be considered as a specific type of formal organization. However, its specificity (activities, type of personnel, environmental characteristics, etc.) does not imply the development of flexible structures. Taking into account the tasks of the university – the training of specialists and the development of science – the possibility of using forms and methods of adaptation associated with customer orientation as the main factor in changing the content of educational programs is being questioned. Considering customers on the resultant product of the university’s activities, the authors believe that the university’s orientation toward the production of educational services and the client (consumer of these services) contradicts the fulfillment of the university’s most important social functions – the training of qualified specialists and the development of science.

university as an organizationthe external environment of the universitythe result of the activities of universitiesuniversity as an organizationthe external environment of the universitythe result of the activities of universitiesСписок литературыZemtsov, S. P., Eremkin, V. A. and Barinova, V. A. (2015), “Factors of Attractiveness of the Leading Russian Universities. Overview of Literature and Econometric Analysis”, Voprosy obrazovaniya, (4), 201-233. (In Russian).Zubova, L. G., Andreeva, O. N. and Antropova, O. A. (2008), “Graduating College Students' Orientations toward Scientific Research Activity” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, (11), 119-213. (In Russian).Ivanova, N. L. and Popova, E. P. (2017), “Professionals and the Problem of Implementing Innovation in University”, Voprosy obrazovaniya, (1), 184-206. (In Russian).Carimova, A. B. (2016), “Latent functions of international educational rankings”, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, (6), 110-120. (In Russian).Kehm, B. M. (2016), “Universities’ ratings – the impact and unforessen side-effects”, Sociologicheskie issledovaniya, (8), 71-80. (In Russian).Kliatchko, T. L. (2016), “Higher education: bigger, better, or cheaper?”, Demoscope Weekly, January 1-24 [Online], available at: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2016/0669/print.php (Accessed 29 February 2016). (In Russian).Mintzberg, H. (2002), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Piter, Saint-Petersburg, Russia. (In Russian).Parsons, T. (2002), The Social System, Academic Prospect, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).Popova, E. (2012), “Efficiency as a criterion of the organizational development of universities and consumers of educational services”, Voprosy Upravleniya, (4), 171-176. (In Russian).Prigozhin, A. (2003), Methods of Organizational Development, MCFER, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).Pugh, D. S. and Hickson, D. J. (1994), Great Writers on Organizations, Link, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).Sherbina, V. V. and Popova, E. P. (2011), Organizational Development: Theory and Practice, Shkola izdatelskogo i media biznesa, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).Birnbaum, R. and Shuslok, Jr. F. (2001), “The ‘Crisis’ Crisis in Higher Education: Is that a Wolf or a Pussycat at the Academic Door?”, in Altbach, P., Gumport, P. and Johnstone, D. (eds.), In Defense of American Higher Education, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 59-84.Bok, D. (2003), Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961), The Management of Innovation, Tavistock, UK.Clark, B. (1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of Transformation, Pergamon, Oxford, UK.Dill, D. and Sporn, B. (1995), “The Implications of a Postindustrial Environment for the University: An Introduction”, in Dill, D. and Sporn, B. (eds.), Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly, Pergamon, Oxford, 128-141.DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, 48 (April, 2), 147-160.Dopson, S. and McNay I. (1996), “Organizational Culture”, in Warner, D.and Palfreyman, D. (eds.), Higher Education Management: The Key Elements, SRHE and Open University, Buckingham, 16-32.Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. (1989), Organizational Ecology, Cambridge, USA.Hardy, C. and Fachin, R. (1990), Managing Strategy in Academic Institutions: Learning fromBrazil, Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin and New York.Hawley, A. (1950), Human Ecology, Ronald, N.Y., USA.Kehm, B. M. (2013), “Universities as Specific and Incomplete Organizations? New Theories of ‘Universities as Organizations”, Presentation at the 4th International Conference “University Traditions: A Resource or A Burden?”, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).Krücken, G. and Meier, F. (2006), “Turning the University into an Organizational Actor”, in Drory, G. etc. (eds.), Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 241-257.Lawrence, P. R. aand Lorsch, J. W. (1967), Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration, Boston, USA.Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2011), “The Process of Change in University Management: From the «Ivory Tower» to Entrepreneurialism”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, (33 E), 124-149.Musselin, C. (2006), “Are Universities Specific Organizations?”, in Krücken, G., Kosmützky, A. and Torka, M. (eds.), Towards a Multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions, Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, Germany, 63-84.Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization, Sage Publications, London, UK.Ouchi, W. (1980), “Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (1), 129-141.Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965), “Social Structure and Organizations”, in March, J. G. (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago, USA.Thompson, J. D. (1967), Organization in Action, McGrow-Hill, New-York, USA.