The management of the university is carried out in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the Model Regulations on an educational institution of higher professional education (higher educational institution) and the Charter of the university on the principles of a combination of unity of command and collegiality.
The charter of a higher educational institution, amendments and additions to it are adopted by a conference of scientific and pedagogical workers, as well as representatives of other categories of employees and students of a higher educational institution by open vote and approved by the Ministry of Higher Education of the Russian Federation.
Conference of higher education institution:
1) adopts the Charter, amendments and additions to it;
2) elects the Academic Council of the higher education institution;
3) elects the rector of the higher education institution;
4) approves internal regulations;
5) the procedure for electing delegates, representation quotas and conference regulations are determined by the Academic Council of the university. At the same time, the representation of delegates from among scientific and pedagogical workers must be at least 70% of the total number of delegates.
General management of a higher education institution is carried out by an elected representative body - the Academic Council of a higher educational institution, the chairman of which is the rector of the university. The Academic Council of the university includes the rector (ex officio) and vice-rectors (ex officio). Other members of the Academic Council of the university are elected at the university conference by secret ballot on the representation of institute teams (as faculties) and other structural divisions. Candidates from among the administrative and managerial staff and educational and support staff to the Academic Council of the university are proposed by the rector. The decision on election to the Academic Council of the university is considered adopted if more than half of the delegates who took part in the voting voted for it, in the presence of a quorum equal to two-thirds of the list of conference delegates. The composition of the Academic Council of the university is announced by order of the rector. Meetings of the University Academic Council are held monthly. The work schedule is established by the Academic Council of the university.
The term of office of the University Academic Council is five years. The number of members of the University Academic Council is up to 20 people. Early re-elections are held at the request of at least half of its members.
Changes in the composition of the Academic Council of the university in the event of the departure of previously elected members are carried out according to the above procedure and are announced by order of the rector. If a member of the Academic Council of a university moves to another place of work, his membership in the Academic Council is automatically terminated.
Academic Council of the University:
1) submits to the conference proposals for changes and additions to the Charter of the university;
2) considers internal regulations;
3) considers the main issues of socio-economic development of the university;
4) determines the procedure for spending extra-budgetary funds;
5) hears annual reports of the rector and vice-rectors;
6) approves plans for scientific research, considers issues on granting sabbatical leave;
7) approves the structure of the university, except for branches, makes decisions on the creation, reorganization and liquidation of departments, institutes (with the rights of faculties) and other structural divisions (except for branches);
8) elects heads of departments;
9) determines the procedure for electing the rector, directors (as deans) of institutes (as faculties) and heads of departments;
10) coordinates the interaction of the university with the institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the field of scientific research and the educational process, determines the organizational principles of this interaction;
11) submits for the assignment of academic titles of professor, up to a cent, assigns the title of senior researcher;
12) assigns the titles “Honorary Professor of the University”, “Honorary Associate Professor of the University” and “Honored Worker of the University”, approves the honorary degree of “Doctor of the University”;
13) makes decisions on the introduction and awarding of personal scholarships at the expense of extra-budgetary funds;
14) nominates outstanding scientific works, scientific discoveries and inventions for the award of various prizes and other distinctions; represents university employees and supports requests from other universities and scientific institutions for awarding honorary titles;
15) nominates candidates of a higher education institution;
16) hear reports on the results of the work of departments, institutes (as faculties), research and other structural divisions of the university;
17) determines the procedure for awarding scholarships to students;
18) establishes the rules for admission to a higher educational institution, hearing a report on the results of the work of the university admissions committee.
The rector of the university appoints the Academic Secretary from among the elected members of the Academic Council.
A higher education institution has the right to create other councils, the provisions of which are approved by the Academic Council of the university.
Direct management of the activities of the university is carried out by the rector, who in his activities is guided by the Regulations on the status of the rector of a state higher educational institution of the Russian Federation of Federal subordination, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation on June 11, 1996 No. 695.
At least two months before the end of the term of election, he reports to the conference and is elected for a new term. The rector is considered elected to the position if at least two-thirds of the conference delegates took part in the voting and more than half of the votes were cast for his candidacy. If the rector does not receive more than 50% of the votes, or if there is a vacancy, he is elected on a competitive basis from among experienced and authoritative scientific pedagogical workers with experience in leading scientific and pedagogical work, an academic degree and an academic title.
The rector takes up his duties after being confirmed in office by the Ministry of Education RF.
Rector:
1) bears full responsibility for the results of the university’s work in accordance with current legislation;
2) represents the higher education institution in all domestic and foreign organizations;
3) manages the finances and property of the university, concludes contracts, issues powers of attorney, opens bank accounts in accordance with current legislation;
4) gives instructions and issues orders that are binding on all teachers, staff, students, workers and employees;
5) approves regulations on educational, scientific and production units included in the structure of the university;
6) concludes and terminates fixed-term employment agreements (contracts) with vice-rectors and scientific and pedagogical workers, hires and dismisses engineering, technical, administrative, economic, production, educational support and other employees;
7) decides on the establishment of allowances and bonuses for university employees, including vice-rectors and heads of departments, determines the powers of the university’s management staff, their duties and responsibilities, approves job descriptions and staffing schedules;
8) encourages employees, imposes disciplinary sanctions, and holds them accountable.
Direct supervision of educational, educational, scientific, methodological, administrative, economic and other types of work is carried out by the vice-rectors of the university.
Vice-rectors university students are accepted or transferred to work under a fixed-term employment agreement (contract). The expiration date of a fixed-term agreement (contract) concluded by the vice-rector with the rector of a higher educational institution coincides with the expiration date of the rector’s powers. The rector distributes responsibilities between vice-rectors. Vice-rectors are responsible to the rector for the state of affairs in the areas of work assigned to them. The positions of rector, vice-rectors, heads of branches and institutes, heads of departments can be occupied by persons under the age of 65, regardless of the time of conclusion of the employment agreement (contract).
Managerial employees who have reached the specified age are transferred to the appropriate positions with their consent.
The rector has the right to extend this period to 70 years upon the recommendation of the Academic Council of the university.
Upon the recommendation of the Academic Council of the university, the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation has the right to extend the term of office of the rector until he reaches the age of seventy years.
The university provides for positions of scientific and pedagogical (faculty, teaching staff, researchers), engineering, technical, administrative, production, educational support and other personnel.
TO teaching include the positions of dean of the faculty, head of the department, professor, associate professor, senior teacher, teacher, assistant. Filling of all positions of scientific and pedagogical workers at the university, with the exception of the positions of the director of the institute (with the rights of the dean of the faculty), the head of the department, is carried out under an employment agreement (contract) concluded for a period of up to five years. When filling positions of scientific and pedagogical workers, the conclusion of an employment agreement (contract) is preceded by a competitive selection. The regulations on the procedure for filling positions of scientific and pedagogical workers are approved by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.
The teaching load for members of the teaching staff is established by the university independently, depending on their qualifications and specific activities and cannot exceed 900 hours in an academic year (within the official salary).
Dismissal of teachers due to staff reduction at the initiative of the administration is allowed only at the end of the academic year.
Members of the teaching and research staff of the university have the right:
For a 36-hour shortened work week and extended paid leave of 56 calendar days;
At least every ten years of continuous teaching work at a university for an additional leave of up to one year by decision of the Academic Council of the university or the rector. IN
Depending on financial capabilities, vacation can be provided with pay, partial pay or without pay.
Leave is granted, as a rule, for writing textbooks and other scientific works on the recommendation of the department;
For the necessary logistical support for your personal activities;
Elect and be elected to the Academic Council of the university (institute, faculty);
Participate in the discussion of the most important issues of educational, scientific and production activities at the Academic Councils of the university;
Use free of charge laboratories, classrooms, classrooms, reading rooms, libraries, services of computer centers, educational and scientific departments of the university;
With the consent of the department, choose methods and means of teaching that best suit his individual characteristics and ensure high quality of the educational process;
Use the social, medical and other departments of the university, its premises and equipment; sports and recreation centers and facilities in the manner determined by the rector;
Participate in domestic and international discussions, conferences, symposiums, and in the development of international relations;
Contact the rector of the university and the Academic Council of the university in case of conflict situations.
The teaching staff of the university is obliged to:
Ensure high efficiency of the pedagogical process;
The university has autonomy and is responsible for its activities to each student, society and the state.
Autonomy refers to the degree of self-government that a university needs to effectively make decisions regarding its statutory activities.
The management of the university is carried out in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the charter of the university and the agreement concluded with the founder, on the principles of a combination of unity of command and collegiality.
The charter of the university and amendments to it are adopted by the general meeting (conference) of scientific and pedagogical workers, representatives of other categories of workers and students (hereinafter referred to as the general meeting (conference)) and approved by the founder.
The procedure for electing delegates to the general meeting (conference), which provides for the participation of all categories of employees, students and members of public organizations, is determined by the academic council of the university. At the same time, members of the academic council must be no more than 50% total number of delegates.
The university must create conditions for all employees and students to familiarize themselves with the university’s charter, proposals for amendments to it, and for free discussion of these proposals.
The university, as well as changes made to its charter, are subject to registration in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
The general management of the university is carried out by an elected representative body - the academic council of the university.
The academic council of a university includes the rector, who is its chairman, vice-rectors, the president, if such a position is provided for by the charter of the university, and also, by decision of the academic council of the university, deans of faculties. Other members of the academic council of the university are elected at the general meeting (conference) by secret ballot.
The number of members of the university academic council is determined at the general meeting (conference).
The norms for representation in the academic council of the university from the structural divisions of the university and students are determined by the academic council of the university.
Representatives of structural units and students are considered elected to the academic council of the university or recalled from it if more than 50% of the delegates present at the general meeting (conference) vote for them (if at least two-thirds of the list of delegates is present). The composition of the academic council of the university is announced by order of the rector.
In the event of dismissal (expulsion) from a university of a member of the academic council of the university, he automatically retires from the composition of this academic council.
The term of office of the academic council of a university cannot exceed 5 years. Early elections of members of the academic council of a university are held at the request of at least half of its members, as well as in cases provided for by the charter of the university.
A university can create boards of trustees and other boards in various areas of activity. The procedure for the creation and operation, composition and powers of these councils are determined by the charter of the university or regulations adopted by the academic council of the university.
The charter of a university being created or reorganized, before the formation of the academic council of the university, is approved by the executive authority or the executive administrative body of the city district under whose jurisdiction it is located, for a period of time not exceeding 1 year. The rector of such a university is hired by the relevant executive authority or the executive-administrative body of the city district under an employment contract for the same period.
The rector directly manages the activities of the university.
The rector, in the manner established by the university charter, is elected from among the candidates agreed upon with the certification commission of the relevant authorized executive body or the executive administrative body of the city district, by secret ballot at a general meeting (conference) for a period of time not exceeding 5 years, based on the results of discussion of the candidates’ (applicant’s) programs.
The procedure for nominating candidates for the position of rector, the timing and procedure for the election of the rector are determined by the academic council of the university. The procedure for nominating candidates for the position of rector must provide for the possibility of self-nomination. The date for the election of the rector is agreed upon with the executive body or the executive administrative body of the city district under whose jurisdiction the university is located. Candidates for the position of rector, who have been nominated in accordance with the charter of the university, are submitted for consideration to the certification commission of the relevant authorized executive body or executive administrative body of the city district operating on a voluntary basis.
After the election of the rector, an employment contract is concluded between him and the executive body or the executive administrative body of the city district, which is in charge of such a university, for a period not exceeding 5 years.
Repeated elections of the rector are held in the event of a violation of the procedure for electing the rector established by the legislation of the Russian Federation and (or) the charter of the university or in the event of recognition of the election of the rector as failed or invalid.
If there is a vacancy in the position of rector, the performance of his duties is assigned to someone determined by the executive authority or the executive and administrative body of the city district under whose jurisdiction the university is located.
The powers of the academic council of the university and the rector are determined by the charter of the university.
Combining the position of rector with another paid leadership position (except for scientific and scientific-methodological leadership) inside or outside the university is not permitted. The rector cannot perform his duties part-time.
The rector, within the limits of his authority, issues orders and regulations that are binding on all employees and students of the university.
Recommendations on the procedure for the election of rectors of educational institutions of higher professional education subordinate to Roseducation were communicated by letter of the Federal Agency for Education of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation dated September 21, 2006 No. 18-02-10/08.
If a university as a whole is deprived of state accreditation, the rector and vice-rectors, who are responsible within their competence for the quality of training of graduates, are relieved of their positions by the executive authority or the executive-administrative body of the city district under whose jurisdiction such a university is located.
In this case, elections of the rector are not allowed, and he is hired by the relevant body exercising management in the field of education under an employment contract for a period not exceeding 5 years.
The founder of the university or the body authorized by this founder that carries out management in the field of education, upon the proposal of the rector, approves the new composition of the academic council of the university.
After the renewal of state accreditation of the university, but not earlier than after 1 year from the date of deprivation of its state accreditation, an academic council is elected in such a higher educational institution in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
In a university, by decision of its academic council, agreed with the executive body or the executive administrative body of the city district under whose jurisdiction such a university is located, the position of president of the university may be established. At the same time, appropriate changes are made to the university charter in accordance with the established procedure.
A person filling the position of university president, as a rule, must have experience as a rector.
Combining the positions of rector and president of a university is not allowed.
The procedure for electing the president of the university and his powers are determined by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
After the election of the university president, an employment contract for a period not exceeding 5 years is concluded between him and the executive body or the executive administrative body of the city district, which is in charge of the university.
Termination of an employment contract concluded with the president of the university is carried out on the grounds established by the labor legislation of the Russian Federation, incl. on the grounds for termination of an employment contract with the head of the organization.
The rector, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, determines the job responsibilities of university employees.
Vice-rectors are hired under an employment contract, the expiration date of which coincides with the expiration date of the rector’s powers.
The distribution of responsibilities between vice-rectors and other senior officials is established by order of the rector, which is brought to the attention of the entire university staff.
In the structural divisions of the university By decision of the academic council of the university, elected representative bodies - academic councils (councils) can be created. The procedure for creation and activity, composition and powers of the academic council (council) of a structural unit are determined by the academic council of the university.
Faculty is headed by a dean, elected in the manner determined by the charter of the university, the academic council of the university or the academic council (council) of a structural unit, by secret ballot from among the most qualified and authoritative employees of the university who have an academic degree or title, and confirmed in office by order of the rector.
Department headed by the head, elected in the manner determined by the charter of the university, the academic council of the university or the academic council (council) of a structural unit, by secret ballot from among the most qualified and authoritative specialists of the relevant profile, who, as a rule, have an academic degree or title, and confirmed in the position by order of the rector.
In state and municipal universities, the positions of rector, vice-rectors, heads of branches (institutes) are filled by persons whose age does not exceed 65 years of age, regardless of the time of conclusion of employment contracts. Persons holding these positions and achieving age 65 years, are transferred with their written consent to other positions corresponding to their qualifications.
Upon the recommendation of the academic council of a state or municipal university, the founder has the right to extend the rector’s tenure in his position until he reaches the age of 70 years.
Upon the recommendation of the academic council of a state or municipal university, the rector has the right to extend the term of office of the vice-rector, head of the branch (institute) until reaching they are 70 years old.
As is known, the modern structure of university management bodies is determined by the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education”, the Law of the Russian Federation “On Higher and Postgraduate Education”, and the Model Regulations on an educational institution of higher professional education (higher educational institution). The article examines the management structure of a university, which consists of 2 structures with divisions of areas of responsibility and competence into issues of general management and direct management. An analysis of the practice of university management allows the authors to identify a number of “pain points” in the university management system that are causing problems now and are predicted in the near future. The article discusses some of them in detail.State of the university management system: key managerial deformations and tensions
As is known, the modern structure of university management bodies is determined by the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education”, the Law of the Russian Federation “On Higher and Postgraduate Education”, and the Model Regulations on an educational institution of higher professional education (higher educational institution).
In particular, Article 35 of the Law “On Education” states: “2. Management of state and municipal educational institutions is based on the principles of unity of command and self-government. The forms of self-government of an educational institution are the council of the educational institution, the board of trustees, the general meeting, the pedagogical council and other forms. The procedure for electing self-government bodies of an educational institution and their competence are determined by the charter of the educational institution.
3. Direct management of a state or municipal educational institution is carried out by a head, director, rector or other manager (administrator) of the relevant educational institution who has passed the appropriate certification.”
Article 12 of the Law “On Higher and Postgraduate Education” defines: “The management of a higher educational institution is carried out in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the standard regulations on an educational institution of higher professional education (higher educational institution) and the charter of a higher educational institution on the principles of a combination of unity of command and collegiality...
2. The general management of a state or municipal higher educational institution is carried out by an elected representative body - the academic council...
3. Direct management of a higher educational institution is exercised by the rector...”
Thus, the management structure of the university consists of 2 structures with areas of responsibility and competence divided into issues of general management and direct management. An analysis of the practice of university management allows us to identify a number of pain points in the university management system that are causing problems now and are predicted in the near future. Let's take a closer look at some of them.
1. Discrepancy between the legal and actual statuses of the bodies of the university management system
If the liberal Law “On Education” defined the management system in educational institutions as formed on the principles of unity of command and self-government, then the later Law “On Higher and Postgraduate Education” significantly revised the concept of organizing management in universities in the direction of reducing the importance of the academic council: from the level of the body self-government to the level of a collegial body. What are the key differences?
— Self-government bodies have a clearly defined sphere of competence, while collegiality is used to improve the quality and legitimacy of management decisions and, accordingly, extends only to the sphere of problem areas for a given organization.
— Self-government is not only procedures and forms of collective decision-making, but also the presence of mechanisms to ensure their implementation.
— Self-government is realized through direct or representative participation in management, while collegiality is ensured primarily through professional or expert representation.
— Self-government is implemented on the main issues of the organization’s life, while collegiality is in demand in situations of lack of managerial will.
— Self-government is characterized by the presence of functions at all stages of the management cycle, from planning to control functions, and collegiality is associated primarily with the stage of making management decisions.
The analysis of differences can be continued. However, it is significant that the current regulatory framework in terms of understanding the place and role of academic councils in the university management system provides unclear and contradictory guidelines that make it possible to design quite significantly different management systems.
Along with the vagueness of the current legislation in defining the academic council either as a self-government body or as a collegial body, there are a number of problems with the declared nature of the representativeness of this body. The representativeness of any elected body is realized through compliance with the principles of priority of the representative body over the executive bodies; electivity; the representative nature of elected self-government bodies; independence; responsibility of the representative body of self-government. An analysis of the practice of university management shows that these principles are applied very limitedly, leaving the issues of representativeness of academic councils in the field of declarations, good intentions and managerial populism.
3. Blurred distribution of powers
One of the key issues of management organization is complex and extremely confusing - the issue of distribution of competencies and responsibilities between management bodies. The competence and responsibility of an educational institution is defined in Article 32 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education”. Obviously, it is precisely this list of powers that is the object of differentiation between the council of the educational institution and the head of the educational institution. However, the existing legal framework does not contain any norms that fill the concepts of “general management” and “direct management” with specific content, and the Model Regulations on a University in paragraph 56 transfers the decision on the distribution of powers of the academic council and the rector to the level of the charter of a higher educational institution.
4. Uncompensated risks of electing the governing bodies of the university
The formation of university governing bodies occurs through an election procedure. Article 12 of the Law “On Higher and Postgraduate Education” states: “...The rector of a state or municipal higher educational institution, in the manner established by the charter of the higher educational institution, is elected by secret ballot at a general meeting (conference) for a term of up to five years and is confirmed in office by the body education management, which is in charge of a higher educational institution...” The election of higher education leaders in Russia has a long tradition. The first university charter in Russia was the “Project for the Establishment of Moscow University” approved on January 12 (25), 1755, according to which the university was subordinate to the Senate and managed by curators appointed by the supreme authority. The college of professors constituted an advisory body to the curators. In connection with the opening of new universities in Vilna, Kazan and Kharkov, on November 5 (18), 1804, the first general university charter was issued, according to which the university was headed by the Council of Professors, which elected the rector. On July 26 (August 8), 1835, a new university charter was introduced, according to which the management of universities passed to the trustees of educational districts subordinate to the Ministry of Public Education. Candidates for rectors were approved by the tsar, and professors - by the trustee. The university charter, adopted on June 18 (30), 1863, reintroduced the election of all administrative positions and professors. On August 23 (September 5), 1884, a charter was introduced that again eliminated the autonomy of universities. At the beginning of the Revolution of 1905–1907. the autonomy of universities was restored by the “Temporary Rules”, which actually lost force after the June 3rd coup d’etat in 1907. The university charter of 1884 was in force until February 1917. Apparently, by inertia, the position of university rector in a number of universities continued to be elective until the 30s . Then, over the course of decades, university rectors were appointed. Only the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education” restored the election of rectors of higher educational institutions.
Analysis of domestic and foreign history and modern practice of university management allows us to identify a number of models for organizing university management:
- The rector of the university is elected not directly by the professors and staff of the university, but by a representative body - the academic council, either from among the members of the Council or from a wider circle of people not limited by membership in the Council.
- Both the academic council and the head of the university are elected. At the same time, the functions of the representative body and the administration are clearly separated: the academic council carries out the function of representing the interests of the teaching staff, the function of rule-making and control. The university administration acts as an executive and administrative body of general competence. The representative body and the administration are organizationally independent and interact with each other through a system of checks and balances.
- The rector (president) of the university, elected by the entire staff of the university, combines the powers of the highest official of the university and the head of the academic council. The functions of the head of administration are performed by another person who fills his position under a contract. In this model, the rector as the head of the university is to a certain extent opposed to the administration as the executive body of the university. The strength of this model is that there is an attempt to establish guarantees against the unjustified concentration of all power in the hands of one official. But this model contains the possibility of a conflict between the administrator, who heads the implementation of executive and administrative functions, and the rector (president), who does not possess these functions.
- This model eliminates the organizational isolation of the representative bodies of the university by expanding the powers of the rector, who acts simultaneously in three persons: a) as the highest official of the educational institution; b) as the head of the executive body - the university administration; c) as the head of a representative body, of which he is a member ex officio as the head of the organization. The functional specialization of representative and executive bodies is preserved in this model. The expansion of the powers of the rector may also result in an expansion of the forms of his accountability both to the team that elected him and to the academic council itself. A similar model has developed in Russian universities. Despite a number of positive aspects, this model is not without a number of dangers that were not so obvious in the early 90s, but have become quite clearly evident in recent years:
— Within the framework of this model, the rector dominates over all other management and self-government bodies of the university, which creates opportunities for manipulating the power resources of the university and monopolizing power.
— The model is most optimal for universities that have long-standing democratic traditions and a special university corporate culture, while the majority of Russian universities are very young universities with a short history.
— The use of this model should be based on a well-developed and detailed legal framework that prevents all situations of incorrect redistribution of power, creating mechanisms that exclude the monopolization of power and nullifying the role of self-government bodies in the university. However, the legal field of Russian education is practically not “plowed”; legal gaps are very, very significant. The functioning of management systems in universities is largely carried out on the basis of established customs and traditions.
5. Organizational culture of universities, conflicting with the strategic guidelines of higher education
The government, in its program documents on the modernization and reform of higher education, has repeatedly announced the transition to a new principle of evaluating the activities of a university and its management based on the results achieved.
At the same time, studies of the organizational culture of universities show that it is not the “resultative” types of organizational culture that are predominant: clan and bureaucratic.
The market type of organizational culture, which most fully supports the organization’s orientation towards achieving its goals according to the most effective scenario, is rather poorly developed even in universities known for their entrepreneurial and innovative activity.
Organization of management in state autonomous institutions and non-profit organizations: main focuses
The need to improve university management systems is quite well understood by the university community. At the same time, it is obvious that the foci of change are determined by the interests of certain groups that form the corresponding expert assessments and recommendations. In 2004, the draft “Concepts for the participation of the Russian Federation in the management of state organizations operating in the field of education” was published. The developers of the Concept gave very strict assessments of the educational system and its management and proposed a number of mechanisms for managing the country's education, radically changing the organization of management activities, including in higher education.
What claims did the developers of the Concept make to the university management system?
1. Poor management of university structures, including their branch network, which led to a loss in the quality of training of specialists.
2. Rigidity and insufficient flexibility of the organizational structure of universities, which results in inefficient use of resources and does not allow customizing the system of educational services in accordance with global trends and consumer requirements.
3. A self-sufficient, weakly feedback-based system for setting goals and assessing the performance of universities without the main customers in the person of employers.
4. The isolation of university management on solving primarily the internal problems of the university, ignoring the new realities of the functioning of the university, the need to strengthen management activities in the external environment of the university, ranging from the development of relations with business, scientific organizations, ending with the identification of real demand in the labor market and employment of graduates of government organizations in the field education in acquired specialties and the development of systems for professional retraining of adults and continuous professional education in general.
5. Ineffective management of state property, characterized by the fact that in the education system as a whole, the degree of depreciation of fixed assets is more than 31%, the renewal rate of fixed assets (in comparable prices) is 1.0%. One of the mechanisms for overcoming a set of problems in organizing the management of universities, according to the developers of the Concept, in the future may be the transformation of state educational organizations, in the management of which the Russian Federation takes part, into other organizational and legal forms.
The following are considered the main forms into which state vocational education institutions can be transformed:
state autonomous institution (GAU);
state autonomous non-profit organization (education) - GANO.
Management structure in the State Autonomous Institution and the State Autonomous Observatory: predicted problems and risks
The management structure of universities operating within the framework of such organizational and legal forms as State Agrarian University and State Academy of Scientific Organizations is presented in Table 1.
Table 1
1. It is too universal and does not take into account the specifics of universities.
2. Needs a developed regulatory framework. The legislation on non-profit organizations is one of the most poorly developed in the general legislative system. Currently, at the level of laws in the field of education, a completely different design for organizing the management of educational institutions is being implemented. Such an element of the higher school management system as the board of trustees is only mentioned in the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education” and in the Law of the Russian Federation “On Higher and Postgraduate Professional Education”. It is quite obvious that the new organization of higher education management needs more comprehensive regulatory support. Legislation should guarantee the preservation and development of the best in the organization of university management, including a fairly broad framework of university autonomy, giving universities the opportunity to implement their model of autonomy, depending on the type of university, the degree of development of academic freedoms and values, traditions, organizational culture, history of the university, his ability to independently exercise key powers.
3. The immediate introduction of a new university management system without preliminary experimental testing is fraught with significant negative consequences, including the achievement of results opposite to those planned - a decrease in the efficiency of university management. The experience of Russian universities and the higher education system as a whole in organizing the management of universities with the participation of boards of trustees is very limited. In this regard, experimental sites that implement different models of organizing university management to accumulate experience in this area are advisable.
4. A very likely consequence of the complication of the university management system is the bureaucratization of management associated with an increase in the volume of reporting formalities and procedures. Preventive measures in this context should include actions to create and improve management procedures that minimize the inevitable effects of bureaucratization, primarily relying on the widespread use of democratic procedures for coordinating opinions, making key management decisions, the active use of conciliation procedures, various forms of accountability, transparency and control activities of the university. A number of procedures to ensure transparency and accountability can be transferred from business practice: mandatory annual publication of university reports, mandatory annual independent audit of universities, etc.
5. It is hardly justified to limit the State Autonomous Institution to forming only a sole executive management body. The key principle for the development of university management systems should be the principle of variability, the possibility of choosing various models of administrative structures of the university, since in the context of granting universities the powers of independent organizations, the requirements for management at the university level must necessarily change.
Distribution of management competencies in the State Agrarian University and the State Autonomous Observatory: probable problems and risks
An important issue in organizing management is the distribution of managerial powers. A possible solution to this problem is presented in Table 2.
table 2
| № | Competencies/legal forms | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Board of Trustees | Consideration of proposals for amendments and additions to the charter of an autonomous institution, for the reorganization and liquidation of an autonomous institution, for the creation of branches and representative offices, for the establishment (participation) of other legal entities; review of the financial and economic activity plan and reports on its implementation, annual balance sheet; approval of proposals from the head of an autonomous institution to carry out major transactions with the property of the institution, as well as transactions in relation to which there is a conflict of interest, the head of an autonomous institution to carry out transactions for the disposal of real estate and especially valuable movable property | Determining priority areas of the organization’s activities; making changes and additions to the organization’s charter or approving the organization’s charter in a new edition; reorganization and liquidation of the organization; appointment and early termination of powers of members of the collegial executive body, sole executive body; approval of the plan of financial and economic activities and the procedure for spending the organization’s funds, the annual report and the annual balance sheet; making decisions on the creation of branches and opening representative offices of the organization; approval of internal documents regulating the activities of the organization and its bodies; consideration and approval of proposals of the executive body to carry out major transactions and transactions in relation to which there is a conflict of interest |
| 2 | Executive agency | The competence of the head of an autonomous institution (director, general director, rector, chief physician, manager, etc.) includes all issues of the current management of the institution, with the exception of issues referred by law or the charter of the autonomous institution to the competence of the founder or board of trustees. The head of an autonomous institution organizes the implementation of decisions of the founder and the board of trustees of the institution, acts on his behalf without a power of attorney, including representing his interests and making transactions, approves the staffing table and other internal documents regulating the activities of the autonomous institution, issues orders and gives instructions mandatory for execution by all employees of the autonomous institution | Current management of government activities, with the exception of issues assigned by law or the organization’s charter to the competence of other bodies. Organization of implementation of decisions of the founder, board of trustees and collegial executive body. The collegial executive body exercises the powers assigned to its competence by the organization’s charter |
| 3 | Other governing bodies | Competence is determined by federal law and the institution’s charter | Competence is determined by federal law and charter |
Possible problems and risks of this option of distribution of powers:
1. Complex relationship between administrators and the board.
The experience of boards of trustees in the West shows that almost everywhere the relationship between this structure and administrative management is very complex. For Russian universities, this problem will be one of the key ones, primarily as a result of the lack of experience in managing a university within the framework of such a model.
2. The inability of the board of trustees to promptly respond to changes.
Obviously, since meetings of the board of trustees will have minimal regularity (once every 3 months), the speed of response to changes that abound in our generally unstable economic system will be quite low.
3. The inability of boards of trustees to provide themselves with adequate information to fulfill their task of controlling and monitoring the activities of the university.
Difficulties in providing information to members of boards of trustees arise not only due to the fact that any university is a very complex and multi-level system, but also because few universities in Russia today have a well-developed system for tracking, processing, storing and analyzing management information.
4. Insufficient level of competence of members of the board of trustees to make qualified management decisions.
This problem will be extremely significant, especially in the initial stages of the activities of boards of trustees. In a number of countries there is a special training program for members of boards of trustees.
5. Insufficient clarity in the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the governing bodies of the university.
Difficulties in this area traditionally accompany all such management models, including management in business organizations.
The procedure for forming governing bodies
Quite new for the practice of functioning of management bodies are proposals on the procedure for forming management bodies of the State Autonomous Institution and State Autonomous Okrug. Key points of this process are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
| № | Formation procedure/legal forms | State autonomous institution | State autonomous non-profit organization |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Supreme body | The highest body of an autonomous institution is the board of trustees, formed for a period of five years, consisting of no less than three and no more than eleven members. The board of trustees includes representatives of the federal executive body, the executive body of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the local government body in charge of the autonomous institution, representatives of the federal executive authorities, the executive authority of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation or local government bodies entrusted with management state or municipal property, and members of the public, including persons with merits and achievements in the relevant field of activity. The board of trustees may also include representatives of other state bodies and local governments | The highest body is the board of trustees, formed for a period of five years, consisting of no less than three and no more than eleven members. The board of trustees includes representatives of the federal executive body, the executive body of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the local government body, which is in charge of the state (municipal) non-profit autonomous organization, representatives of the federal executive authorities, the executive authority of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation or local government bodies who are entrusted with the management of state or municipal property, and representatives of the public, including persons with merits and achievements in the relevant field of activity. The board of trustees may also include representatives of other state bodies and local governments |
| 2 | Executive agency | The decision on the appointment and early termination of powers of members of the board of trustees of an autonomous institution is made by its founder. The powers of a member of the board of trustees of an autonomous institution can be extended for a new term an unlimited number of times. The chairman of the board of trustees is elected for the term of office of the board of trustees by members of the board of trustees from among them by a simple majority of votes from the total number of members of the board of trustees. The board of trustees has the right at any time to re-elect its chairman by a two-thirds majority vote of the total number of members of the board of trustees. The chairman of the board of trustees concludes an employment contract with the head of the autonomous institution on behalf of the autonomous institution, unless the law provides for a different procedure for concluding such an agreement | The decision on the appointment and early termination of powers of members of the board of trustees of a state (municipal) autonomous non-profit organization is made by its founder. The powers of a member of the board of trustees of a state (municipal) autonomous non-profit organization can be extended for a new term an unlimited number of times. The chairman of the board of trustees is elected for the term of office of the board of trustees by members of the board of trustees from among them by a simple majority of votes from the total number of members of the board of trustees. The decision on the appointment of a sole executive body is made by the board of trustees, unless federal law provides for a different procedure for appointing the powers of the head for the organization of the relevant field of activity. If the charter provides for the formation, along with the sole executive body, of a collegial executive body (board, directorate, etc.), members of such a body are appointed by the board of trustees of the organization in the number and for the period determined by the organization’s charter |
| 3 | Other governing bodies | In accordance with federal law and the charter of the institution |
Possible problems and risks of this management structure:
1. Unbalanced composition of boards of trustees: predominantly government representatives.
If the idea of boards of trustees contains the long-declared but practically unrealized principle of the state-public nature of higher education management, then this should be supported by norms that ensure a balance of representation between representatives of government agencies and communities, including the business community.
The global practice of forming boards of trustees is based not only on the appointment procedure, but also the election of representative offices assigned to certain organizations, quota representation, etc. The strong vertical dependence of members of boards of trustees can influence their positions in decision making.
3. Unreasonable restrictions on the number of members of the board of trustees.
Project proposals limit the number of council members from 3 to 11 people, which raises a number of objections:
— firstly, if the lower limit of the number is three people, then the quorum for key decisions is only 2 people;
— secondly, even the number of eleven people will not ensure effective representation of potential interested trustees, especially for large multidisciplinary universities;
— thirdly, this number does not create a critical mass for the breadth of approaches and opinions, and is fraught with the dominance of individuals.
In our opinion, one cannot go to the other extreme and maximize the number of boards of trustees, however, for the vast majority of universities, the composition of the board should start from 9 people and not exceed 25 people.
Opportunities and risks of new organizational and legal forms
in solving problems of university management
The introduction of new organizational and legal forms is one of the mechanisms for modernizing higher education. There is hardly any prospect of challenging a number of key modernization ideas contained in the Concept: optimization of the network of subordinate state organizations in the field of education (definition of principles and criteria for making decisions on maintaining the participation of the Russian Federation in the management of organizations in the field of education and maintaining them in federal ownership; determination of organizations transferred to others levels of state or municipal government; organizations subject to restructuring, etc.); increasing the efficiency of the activities of state educational organizations through the selection of the most appropriate organizational and legal forms, methods of financing, and evaluation of the results of their activities. At the same time, it is impossible not to take into account the experience of other countries in reforming higher education, not to see our own limitations and difficulties that will inevitably arise in the process of implementing the variability of organizational and legal forms of universities, as well as new problems generated by this process (see Table 4).
Table 4
| № | Management problems | Opportunities associated with changing organizational and legal forms | Risks associated with changes in organizational and legal forms |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Poor management of university structures | Increasing controllability by strengthening the federal and regional levels of management of higher education on the activities of the university | 1. Reduced controllability at the stage of introducing a new management system. 2. The emergence of a gap in the levels of university management, isolation and opposition of the top management of the university to its other levels |
| 2 | Rigidity and insufficient flexibility of the organizational structure of universities | There are no new opportunities that expand the rights of the university in organizational development in comparison with current legislation | Deformation of organizational structures due to a focus on solving operational problems |
| 3 | A self-sufficient, weakly feedback-based system for setting goals and assessing the performance of universities | Strengthening the connection and influence of the regional education system and labor market | 1. Strengthening centralization in making key management decisions. 2. Dismantling the existing market instruments for goal setting and evaluation of universities’ activities |
| 4 | The focus of university management on solving primarily internal problems of the university | A shift in the focus of activity of universities will be caused by changes in the mechanisms of financing higher education | Unpreparedness of university management for new operating conditions. The conflict between “budget” and “market” thinking |
| 5 | Ineffective management of state property | Increased control and transparency | Reduced administrative responsibility |
Summing up the analysis of the proposed new organizational and legal forms, it is necessary to note the following:
1. Of course, the very idea of the need to diversify the organizational and legal forms of conducting educational activities is positive, since the same type of design of an educational institution has long not met the needs of the development of higher education, limits the organizational development of universities, and prevents the emergence of new forms of educational institutions.
2. A significant part of innovations in the field of organizational design of universities reflects global experience and practice of university management, “embeds” the management concept of higher education into the general format of the global educational space.
3. At the same time, the lack of experience in managing universities within the framework of new organizational and legal forms creates very large risks for higher education in Russia, the minimization of which is possible as a result of pilot processing of these models at a limited number of universities, the development of a regulatory framework taking into account this experience and recommendations and only after this the application of new organizational and legal forms of conducting educational activities as a whole on the scale of higher education in the country.
Literature
1. Law of the Russian Federation “On Education” (as amended on January 13, 1996 No. 12-FZ with subsequent amendments and additions as of December 8, 2003).
2. Federal Law “On Higher and Postgraduate Professional Education” dated August 22, 1996 No. 125-FZ (with subsequent amendments and additions as of July 7, 2003).
3. The concept of participation of the Russian Federation in the management of state organizations operating in the field of education.
4. Draft Federal Law “On State (Municipal) Autonomous Non-Profit Organizations”.
5. Draft Federal Law “On State Autonomous Institutions”.
© A.K. Klyuev, 2004
Klyuev A.K. New models of university management: one step forward or two steps back? / A.K. Klyuev // University management: practice and analysis. - 2004. – No. 5-6(33). pp. 53-61.
University management. 2004. No. 5-6(33). pp. 143-151.
Mikhail Viktorovich Smirnov, Alexander Alexandrovich Starikov, Viktor Aleksandrovich Kolyasnikov
University management. 2005. No. 3(36). pp. 64-75.
1. Higher education institution management is carried out in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the standard regulations on an educational institution of higher professional education (higher educational institution) and the charter of a higher educational institution on the principles of a combination of unity of command and collegiality.
The charter of a higher educational institution (amendments to the charter and additions to it) is adopted by the general meeting (conference) of teaching staff, researchers, as well as representatives of other categories of employees and students of the higher educational institution (hereinafter referred to as the general meeting (conference)).
Higher educational institutions implementing military professional educational programs (military educational institutions) carry out their activities in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
2. The general management of a state or municipal higher educational institution is carried out by an elected representative body - the academic council.
The academic council includes the rector, who is the chairman of the academic council, and vice-rectors, as well as the president, if such a position is provided for in the charter. Other members of the academic council are elected by the general meeting (conference) by secret ballot.
The composition, powers, procedure for elections and activities of the academic council are determined by the charter of a higher educational institution on the basis of the standard regulations on an educational institution of higher professional education (higher educational institution).
Paragraphs four and five are no longer valid.
2.1. Boards of trustees are created at federal universities. The creation of boards of trustees in other higher educational institutions may be provided for by their charters.
Boards of trustees are created in order to assist in solving current and future development problems of higher educational institutions, attracting additional financial resources to ensure their activities in priority areas of development and monitoring their use.
The procedure for forming the board of trustees, its term of office, competence and procedure are determined by the charter of the higher educational institution.
2.2. To the extent not regulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation, the procedure for forming bodies management of a higher educational institution and their competence is determined by the charter of the higher educational institution.
3. Direct higher education institution management carried out by the rector.
Candidates for the positions of rectors of state or municipal higher educational institutions, nominated in accordance with their charters, are submitted for consideration by the certification commissions of the relevant authorized executive bodies or executive administrative bodies of city districts and municipal districts operating on a voluntary basis. The procedure for nominating candidates for the position of rector must provide for the possibility of self-nomination.
4. The provisions on certification commissions and their composition are approved by the relevant authorized executive authorities or executive and administrative bodies of city districts and municipal districts. The composition of such certification commission includes:
1) in the election of rectors of higher educational institutions under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation - representatives of federal government bodies (50 percent), representatives of public organizations and state-public associations in the system of higher and postgraduate professional education and representatives of government bodies of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, on whose territory higher educational institutions are located (50 percent);
2) in the election of rectors of higher educational institutions under the jurisdiction of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation - representatives of government bodies of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (50 percent), representatives of public organizations and state-public associations in the system of higher and postgraduate professional education (50 percent);
3) in the election of rectors of municipal higher educational institutions - representatives of local government bodies, respectively, of a city district or municipal district (50 percent), representatives of public organizations and state-public associations in the system of higher and postgraduate professional education (50 percent).
5. The rector of a state or municipal higher educational institution, in the manner established by the charter of such a higher educational institution, is elected from among the candidates agreed upon with the certification commission of the relevant authorized executive body or executive administrative body of a city district, municipal district, by secret ballot at a general meeting ( conference) for a period of up to five years. After the election of the rector, an employment contract for a period of up to five years is concluded between him and the executive body or the executive-administrative body of the city district, municipal district under whose jurisdiction such higher education institution is located.
Repeated elections of the rector are held in the event of a violation of the procedure for electing the rector established by this Federal Law and (or) the charter of the higher educational institution or in the event of recognition of the election of the rector as failed or invalid.
5.1. The rector of a federal university is appointed by the Government of the Russian Federation for a term of up to five years.
5.2. Rector of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov and the rector of St. Petersburg State University are appointed and dismissed by the President of the Russian Federation.
6. If a state or municipal higher educational institution as a whole is deprived of state accreditation, the rector of the higher educational institution and vice-rectors, who are responsible within their competence for the quality of training of graduates, are relieved of their positions by the executive authority or the executive-administrative body of the city district, municipal district, under whose jurisdiction such higher education institution is located. In this case, elections of the rector of a higher educational institution are not allowed, and he is hired by the relevant body exercising management in the field of education under an employment contract for a period of no more than five years. The founder of a higher educational institution or the body authorized by this founder that carries out management in the field of education, upon the proposal of the rector of the higher educational institution, approves the new composition of the academic council.
7. After the renewal of state accreditation of a higher educational institution (but not earlier than one year from the date of deprivation of its state accreditation), an academic council is elected in such a higher educational institution in the manner established by this Federal Law.
8. In a state or municipal higher educational institution being created or reorganized, before the election of the academic council, the charter of such higher educational institution is approved by the relevant executive authority or the executive administrative body of the city district, municipal district for a period of no more than one year. An employment contract is concluded with the rector of such a higher educational institution for a period of no more than five years.