umjУниверситетское управление: практика и анализUniversity Management: Practice and Analysis1999-66401999-6659Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»; Non-Commercial Partnership “University Management: Practice and10.15826/umpa.2019.01-2.006umj-996Research ArticleАГЕНТЫ И ЛИДЕРЫ ИЗМЕНЕНИЙ В УНИВЕРСИТЕТАХAGENTS AND LEADERS OF CHANGES IN THE UNIVERSITIESСПЕЦИФИКА ПРИНЯТИЯ УПРАВЛЕНЧЕСКИХ РЕШЕНИЙ В УНИВЕРСИТЕТАХ В УСЛОВИЯХ VUCA-МИРАUNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING IN UNIVERSITIES IN A VUCA-WORLDДруговаЕ. А.DrugovaE. A.

Другова Елена Анатольевна – кандидат философских наук, директор Центра кадровых технологий, Национальный исследовательский Томский государственный университет, член Ассоциации выпускников Университета Монаша (Университет Монаш, Веллингтон-Роуд, Клэйтон, 3800, Австралия)

634050, г. Томск, пр. Ленина 36

Elena А. Drugova – PhD (Philosophy), Director of the Centre of Personnel Technologies, National Research Tomsk State University, Member of the Monash Postgraduate Association (Monash University, Wellington Rd, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia)

36, Lenina ave., Tomsk, Russia 634050

e.a.drugova@gmail.comКалачиковаО. Н.KalachikovaО. N.

Клачикова Ольга Николаевна – кандидат педагогических наук, доцент

634050, г. Томск, пр. Ленина 36

Olga N. Kalachikova – PhD (Pedagogy), Assistant Professor

36, Lenina ave., Tomsk, Russia 634050

 

olgakalachikova@gmail.comНациональный исследовательский Томский государственный университетРоссияNational Research Tomsk State UniversityRussian Federation201908052019231-28192Copyright © Другова Е.А., Калачикова О.Н., 20192019Другова Е.А., Калачикова О.Н.Drugova E.A., Kalachikova О.N.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.umj.ru/jour/article/view/996

Принятие решений в институтах высшего образования реализуется в условиях VUCA-мира: нестабильности, неопределенности, сложности, неоднозначности, являющимися значимыми контекстами современной социокультурной и организационной реальности. Данная статья представляет собой кейс-исследование процесса проектирования и открытия новой образовательной программы в одном российском университете, представленного в виде цепи взаимосвязанных решений, анализ которых выявляет и объясняет специфику принятия управленческих решений в современных университетах. Исследование опирается на смешанные методы, включающие: пять глубинных интервью с наиболее важными стейкхолдерами; включенное наблюдение за этапами развития ситуации; интервью с остальными стейкхолдерами; анализ государственных регулирующих документов и стандартов; анализа университетских регулирующих документов и стандартов. Кейс был проанализирован с использованием теории ограниченной рациональности, теории организационной анархии; идей распределения власти и влияния в организациях; концепции избегания риска при принятии решений. Анализ кейса выявил наличие размытости границ власти вовлеченных сторон, неопределенность «правил игры», исключение некоторых важных заинтересованных сторон из процесса принятия решений, частичный недостаток опыта и экспертизы в новых ситуациях принятия решений, неоднозначность ряда востребованных организационных процедур. Представлен ряд стратегий, способных потенциально редуцировать уровень неопределенности и повысить качество принимаемых решений в университетах. К ним относятся: декомпозиция проблемной ситуации, применение техник анализа сложных решений, повышение роли участия и вовлеченности, управление распределением потоков информации, недопущение феномена группового мышления. Предложены меры по организации политических переговоров, повышению качества коммуникации, применению принципов самообучающейся организации. Статья содержит новый и мало представленный в российской научной литературе анализ теории и практики принятия управленческих решений, описанные стратегии призваны помочь формированию оснований для наиболее зрелых управленческих решений в университетском контексте.

Making decisions in higher education institutions is realized in the context of the VUCA-world – that is, in the conditions of instability, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, which are significant markers of today’s social, cultural, and organizational reality. The article is a case study of designing and implementing a new educational program in one Russian university. The analysis is shaped in a chain of interconnected decisions revealing the specifics of management decisions in modern universities. The study is based on mixed research methods, including five in-depth interviews with the most important actors involved; observation of the situation development stages; interviews with other actors involved; analysis of state regulatory documents and standards; analysis of university regulatory documents and standards. The case is studied via organized anarchy theory, power and authority in organization theory, risk avoidance and bounded rationality perspectives were used. The analysis of the case has identified the involved parties’ power boundaries blurring, the uncertainty of the «game rules», the exclusion of some important stakeholders from the decision-making process, the experience and expertise partially lacking in new decision-making situations, the ambiguity of several demanded organizational procedures. There are presented a number of strategies that can potentially reduce the level of uncertainty and improve the quality of decisions taken at universities. These include decomposing a problem situation, using techniques for analyzing complex decisions, increasing the role of participation and involvement, managing the distribution of information flows, preventing the phenomenon of group thinking. The article proposes measures of organizing political negotiations, improving the quality of communication, applying the principles of self-learning organization. The article contains a new and weakly presented in Russian scientific literature analysis of the theory and practice of decision-making management. The described strategies are designed to create solid background for mostly mature management decisions in universities.

принятие решенийвысшее образованиеуниверситетское управлениеуниверситетский менеджментнеопределенностьсложностьVUCA-мирdecision makinghigher educationuniversity managementuncertaintycomplexityVUCA-worldReferencesBazerman M. H. Judgment in managerial decision making (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley, 2006.Bazerman M. H. Judgment in managerial decision making (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley, 2006.Simon H. A. Invariants of human behavior, Annual Review of Psychology, 1990, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 1–19.Simon H. A. Invariants of human behavior, Annual Review of Psychology, 1990, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 1–19.Keeney R. L. Decision analysis: An overview, Operations Research, 1988, vol. 30, no. 5, p. 803–838.Keeney R. L. Decision analysis: An overview, Operations Research, 1988, vol. 30, no. 5, p. 803–838.Howard R. A. Decision analysis: Practice and promise, Management Science, 1988, vol. 34, no. 6, p. 679–695.Howard R. A. Decision analysis: Practice and promise, Management Science, 1988, vol. 34, no. 6, p. 679–695.Choo C. W. The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions (2nd ed.). UK: Oxford University Press, 2006.Choo C. W. The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions (2nd ed.). UK: Oxford University Press, 2006.Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. London, UK: Penguin, 2011.Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. London, UK: Penguin, 2011.Nandram, S., Bindlish, Puneet K., (editor). Managing VUCA through integrative self-management: How to cope with volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity in organizational behavior (Management for professionals). UK: Springer, 2017.Nandram, S., Bindlish, Puneet K., (editor). Managing VUCA through integrative self-management: How to cope with volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity in organizational behavior (Management for professionals). UK: Springer, 2017.Owens R. G. Organizational behavior in education (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1991.Owens R. G. Organizational behavior in education (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1991.Hart P. Irving L. Janis’ victims of groupthink, Political Psychology, 1991, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 247–278.Hart P. Irving L. Janis’ victims of groupthink, Political Psychology, 1991, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 247–278.Garvin D. A. What you don’t know about making decisions, Harvard Business Review, 2001, vol. 79, no. 8, p. 108–116.Garvin D. A. What you don’t know about making decisions, Harvard Business Review, 2001, vol. 79, no. 8, p. 108–116.Beach L. R., Connolly T. The psychology of decision making: People in organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.Beach L. R., Connolly T. The psychology of decision making: People in organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.Alvesson M., Spicer A. A stupidity-based theory of organizations, Journal of Management Studies. 2012, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 1194–1220.Alvesson M., Spicer A. A stupidity-based theory of organizations, Journal of Management Studies. 2012, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 1194–1220.Clemen R. T. Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press, 1996.Clemen R. T. Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press, 1996.Wallach M. A., Kogan N., Bem D. J. Group influence on individual risk taking, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, vol. 65, no. 2, p. 75–86.Wallach M. A., Kogan N., Bem D. J. Group influence on individual risk taking, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, vol. 65, no. 2, p. 75–86.Vlec C. What constitutes ‘a good decision’? A Panel Discussion among Ward Edwards, Istvan Kiss, Giandomenico Majone and Masanao Toda, Acta Psychologica, 1984, vol. 56, p. 5–27.Vlec C. What constitutes ‘a good decision’? A Panel Discussion among Ward Edwards, Istvan Kiss, Giandomenico Majone and Masanao Toda, Acta Psychologica, 1984, vol. 56, p. 5–27.Davis D., Cosenza R. M. Business research for decision making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993.Davis D., Cosenza R. M. Business research for decision making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993.Moorhead G., Ference R., Neck C. P. Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework, Human Relations, 1991, vol. 44, no. 6, p. 539–550.Moorhead G., Ference R., Neck C. P. Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework, Human Relations, 1991, vol. 44, no. 6, p. 539–550.Cohen M. D., March J. G., Olsen J. P. A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 1–25.Cohen M. D., March J. G., Olsen J. P. A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 1–25.Kotter J. P. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, 2007, vol. 73, no. 2, p. 96–103.Kotter J. P. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, 2007, vol. 73, no. 2, p. 96–103.Kerr J. L. The limits of organizational democracy. Academy of Management Executive, 2004, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 81–95.Kerr J. L. The limits of organizational democracy. Academy of Management Executive, 2004, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 81–95.Whyte W. H. The organization man. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1956.Whyte W. H. The organization man. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1956.March J. G. How decisions happen in organizations, Human-Computer Interaction, 1991, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 95–117.March J. G. How decisions happen in organizations, Human-Computer Interaction, 1991, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 95–117.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.