15
RUSSIAN WILDCARD IN INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT EDUCATION

Iya Churakova

 

 

Introduction

Management is a popular term in the Russian labor market today; indigenous companies and multinationals are dreaming about hiring competent professionals in the field of management. For example, in April 2011 the popular jobs directory Rabota.Ru counted the highest number of new jobs available per month was in specialist areas such as sales manager, business development manager, project manager, and PR manager. Among the top-ten offers with the best prospects, four are in the field of management, and two others, electrical engineer and accountant, also required managerial experience. In contrast, experts working in the newspaper “Trud” produced a ranking of the most popular professions in terms of expectations of prospective students. Management ranked fourth place, behind financial specialist, nanotechnologist, and programmer. Respondents characterized it as the profession in which they could fully realize their expectations and ambitions.

Russia has now reached a point where the economy and social sphere requires thousands of competent managers. At the same time, a huge number of applicants are ready to storm universities and business schools to become not just managers, but world-class specialists in the field of management science and international management. The reality is that it is not easy to find a competent leader, and the demand for young professionals is at an all-time low. Between 2008 and 2009, Russian companies were less active in hiring graduates than four to five years ago. What is going on with international management education in Russia?

Context of international management education

How does one become a top manager with international experience in Russia? The effort to formulate this process is like a child's kaleidoscope, where the glass pieces add up to dozens of different patterns for each movement. During the Soviet period, it was possible to become a manager by demonstrating excellence in professional activities. The directors of factories and plants were often ex-weavers, builders, and metallurgists who moved from the worker role to become a section chief at the top of the hierarchy. Education was another route. Many Russian universities focused on Soviet history had a management department that provided business managers with a specific industry diploma. Another way was the party career, in which the manager was appointed from outside, after appropriate training in party schools and institutes.

After the market reforms in the country, new ownership and new forms of business activities began to emerge; they demanded leaders with different skills and competencies. New educational institutions began to appear and often that process was organized on the site of existing institutions. Technical schools turned into high schools; institutes became academies and universities. Many political institutions became private in terms of ownership status, but its assets such as teachers and the format for teaching and learning remained the same. Management as a discipline did not exist in the new environment. As a result, the reputation of higher education in the early 1990s was extremely poor. Young people sought to make money fast, and companies were not interested in the quality of a diploma when making hiring decisions.

By 1995–6, the entry of MNEs into the Russian market created new demand for professionals. Higher education had become popular again, but existing high schools were not equipped with the skill sets to provide the high level of training to satisfy the demand. Today, higher education plays the role of social mobility, letting a person access the labor market of his/her choice. A high school diploma is the starting point of a career for most people. About 75 percent of school graduates plan to immediately enroll in universities and institutes. More than half of college students also proceed to higher education. Even jobs as mechanics or fitters are hard to get without a high school diploma. At the same time only 115 of 600 universities are attractive to academically endowed students, such as the winners of competitions in mathematics or social sciences. The remaining universities accept any applicant on the basis of availability of places and if no one else will teach him/her (Kuzminov, 2010).

School leavers can access higher education by a four-year undergraduate management program and then further education programs such as the two-year-based Master of Science or Master of Arts, as well as specialist training programs (usually five years). Higher education is a public expense guaranteed by the Constitution. The popular subject areas in universities and business schools with high ratings may allow organization of a paid department. Today there are many Economics and Management departments that specialize in programs for the management profession (both scientific and practical) and research and analysis. Training is conducted in full-time, part-time, and distance forms. By 2010, the quality rating of management programs among Russian universities, based on HSE (Center for International Education Higher School of Economics, Moscow), was in eighteenth place. They include the following Bachelor degree programs: Management, Economics and Management, Crisis Management, State and Municipal Administration, Human Resource Management, Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Organization Management, and Information Management.

Financial help has been given to applicants on management programs by 255 universities, out of a total of 348 universities. The average weighted score for the examination for these applicants was 68.9 (out of 100), The coefficient of variation of the average score for admission to the budget places was quite low: only 8.7 percent. Among the outliers, there were three high schools with the average score per exam lower than the lower limit (LF = 52.65). One high school, HSE, Moscow, obtained an average score that was higher than the upper limit (UF = 84.25). Among the 246 who gained admission to the department from HSE, 106 were set for a managerial career and included winners of competitions in mathematics or the social sciences.

What happens after school leavers join higher education institutions and become experts in the field of international management? An important and fundamental objective of higher education is personal development and direction of management. But often expanding personal horizons is the only result of management education.

On the development of managerial conceptual skills not much is known. Most often there is an approach that they are either there or not. In this way, the question put to the very idea of education in the field of management.

(Ponomarev, 2002)

In addition, many students studying management and economics are practical oriented. They might not know what kind of activities they will engage in, and some of them do not plan to work in their specialty from the start of the educational process. But they are determined to earn the qualifications because most job offers require higher education. Male students also use education as the reason for deferment from military service.

Universities have no great interest in the future careers of their students, focusing on the satisfaction of “the parental ambitions races” and short-term demand. The aforementioned HSE research, which examined the period between 1999 and 2006, showed that 36 percent of the graduates from Russian universities did not work in their specialty and 30 percent had not planned to work in their chosen specialty. Sixty percent of respondents were dissatisfied with their employment. In the same study, the authors created a portrait of “the average successful leader” and HSE graduate: 40 percent of the “successful leaders” were employed with the help of relatives or friends. Thirty-three percent did not look for a job, and simply opened their own business using their parents' capital. Half of the members of the group were the children of higher government officials and business leaders. These respondents also worked part-time during their time at university. They rarely used formal channels of recruitment, but often noted “business success” as a prerequisite for success in life (57 percent) (Balabanova and Efendiev, 2010). That is why, according to the newspaper Business Petersburg, unlike American managers, they are less focused on achieving financial results. The main thing for them is loyalty from senior management and demonstration of status. Also, for Russian managers, the problem of training a successor is virtually unimportant.

For many young people, special skills received during the educational process and skills necessary for future work prospects are different things that are not closely connected to each other. Employers also do not trust the institutions of higher learning. The situation has deteriorated. It was reported that universities did not cooperate with 50 percent of businesses some five years ago. This percentage had risen to 71 percent in 2010 (Kuzminov, 2010). Several practicing managers were asked: “What can a graduate of Bachelor of Management claim in indigenous Russian companies?” The results from the study are discussed below.

Svetlana, human resource director of the Russian machine-building company employing 400 people, noted:

We take newly graduated students with a Bachelor's degree in management only as clerks or call center staff, because most of them can't do anything. They have never seen a really functioning company and didn't imagine the process in total. If I need to find a production manager or IT manager, I would prefer to invite a specialist in the particular profession, which can be sent on courses to brush up management skills. As a result, the company gets an employee who understands the intricacies of the case, is interested in the result and can lead the business process, rather than an ambitious young man who simply wants to manage others but not interested in the responsibility and the consequences.

Sergey, head of the engineering department in a company specializing in construction, stated:

Our company gladly would have accepted the practice of third or fourth year undergraduate students, especially in the summer, when we employ temporary and seasonal staff. At the same time we try to sign a contract with architectural or technical universities, which can give us the people in theory familiar with construction. Several attempts to invite future managers to the practice ended poorly: they want to run the business which they do not know immediately, and they feel learning from scratch from experienced teachers shameful. Our universities are growing up “managers in general,” while it is unclear what area of the economy and social sphere, they may be needed, because they do not have particular knowledge of industries and technologies. The construction industry for example urgently needed leaders, but it wants leaders who know the construction business, not only general management.

Julia, chief financial officer of an audit firm, remarked:

It is much more important to see the potential of a future employee and his general cultural and psychological level, rather than specific financial experience. If a person is willing to learn and wants to work, then starting from scratch will be a good way to obtain managerial skills in a very short period of time.

Anatoly, a professor of management, commented:

For many years we have worked with large Russian enterprises, including in practical leadership training. But today, we abandoned programs with industrial practice and temporary placement, as students are not interested. They do not want to start from scratch, do not want to work for a modest salary and move to where they can quickly make a career. Among the reasons for future employment today, only 1 percent will say they want to do something that they are interested in, the other 99 percent will focus on status position and salary, industry. The actual tasks involved in the job paradoxically do not matter.

Roman, executive director of an asset management company, recalled:

On the eve of final examinations in the department, we were present and the representatives of banks offered the most capable graduates jobs. Most questions were asked in what area of finance the guys would like to work. When I said I wanted to be the boss, the director of the bank immediately struck my name from the list and did not ask me for an interview. It was a serious lesson and a reason to think about the future. My career, despite the honors, started as an assistant dealer in a major bank and this is good. You can only manage the business which you know well.

The Russian Managers Association (1999) and the Youth Movement (2009) were founded to change this lack of positive approach to young graduates interested in a management career and to improve the quality of educational services. The Russian Managers Association is a nationwide independent non-governmental organization. Its purpose is to provide comprehensive help to the Russian business community during the transitions to international standards and ethical standards of business conduct. It also aims to help the integration of Russia into the international economy, promote constructive dialogue between the government and businesses, and create a positive image for Russian businesses at home and abroad. The Youth Movement was established as a social program aimed at reducing the existing gap between the level of knowledge of graduates of leading universities in Russia and the requirements of the business community to the professional skills and competencies in the course of employment. Within just a few months of its activity, this community gathered a team of young and promising professionals. Up to early 2010, there were 500 people from six regions of the country in YM RMA. Its mission is to improve the business qualities of future generations of Russian managers. The Youth Movement's main activity is professional development promotion for young talent and modernization and improvement of the quality of education. Among the movement's academic partners are the country's leading universities and business schools (GSOM, Academy of National Economy under the Government of the Russian Federation, Russian State Humanities University, and many others), employees of consulting and recruitment companies (3R Recruitment Company, Business Communication Agency PR Inc./DDB, and others), and members of real sector companies (JSC “IL,” “Lukoil” and others). Within these frameworks the community organizes workshops, competitions, round tables, and creates a new global business environment.

As an important step to improve the quality of business education in Russia, one can assume the state will be involved in the standard of international management education. Regulations and standards used are conventionally called the first-generation (1997) and second-generation (2000) standards (Goldin, 2010). They had a number of disadvantages associated with the one-sided view of the problems of education.

The standardization process hasn't spared the education system from the most important drawbacks: educational programs for the most part give the knowledge and technology of yesterday, or, at best, the day when you should give knowledge which will be claimed tomorrow said Sergey Neizvestny, practicing projects manager.

(Neizvestny, 2008)

The first higher education standards for the first and second generations set the stage for excessive competition among universities and the dispersal of resources to different programs and areas. It did not provide balance to ensure the quality of services and did not lead to international comparability of programs (Baranov, 2010). Among the country's nine leading universities which developed standards for studying management required by the third generation between 2008 and 2009, St. Petersburg State University, National Research University—HSE, and Moscow State University played the most significant role. For example, the basic organization of the working group came under the Graduate School of Management in St. Petersburg State University. The transition to third-generation standards was associated with the task of ensuring the competitiveness of Russian higher education institutions and their graduates and supporting academic mobility of students. The outcomes of the implementation of standards should be the stratification of higher education in management and selection of different segments of educational services, and lead to greater comparability of price and quality of educational services (Baranov, 2010).

In the 1990s, the Soviet practice for metropolitan universities to select talented young people from regions led to the following: student hostels became too expensive for the student budget, the liberalization of prices and economic uncertainty did not allow young people to plan their future, and forced them to stay closer to their parents. The development of regional business schools in most major industrial centers became logical. The Graduate School of Economics and Management of Ural Federal University offers a wide range of educational programs in Economics, Management and Business Informatics in the Ural region, ranging from Bachelor degrees (since 1994), up to Master's programs (since 1998). GSEM is located in Ekaterinburg (GSEM URFU), a major center for the mining and processing industry in Russia.

The student-teacher-administration triangle and the evolution from the post-Soviet forms of learning

So far we have focused on business graduates. We will now examine the problematic student-teacher—administration relationship. The literature on the problems of Russian higher education is most often observed at the resource bases available to teachers and administrators to reach their goals of transforming the students into specialists.

Modern conditions vary in relations between employers and previous graduates and universities and businesses. In the 1990s when paid forms of training were officially permitted, educational institutions which were previously financed from the state budget had to adapt to the new conditions of the market economy. They provided special management training for professionals who wanted to change their career focus, and also recruited students who did not receive financial help from the state to the first grade of higher education. However, the desire of institutions to receive funding from paid admission led to a deterioration in the level of general knowledge among students. The same classroom had students of different abilities: successful students who entered the university after passing exams (getting places, paid from budget, and scholarships), and students with low scores who paid under contract. Students from the second group often assume that by paying for their studies, they should receive a diploma instead of an opportunity to gain knowledge. This firmly established “commodity” approach to education services has made students or their parents behave like consumers. They obtain the best higher education but often are not interested in the quality of knowledge, only in obtaining a diploma, perceiving it as a passport to climb the social ladder. But,

… no one school of business, regardless of its rating will not be able to sell you the knowledge and take the right decisions for you in the future. Such an approach to knowledge as a commodity indicates a lack of understanding of the essence of education and lack of student responsibility for their actions in the learning process.

(Ponomarev, 2002: 22)

Many management students begin their career during their studies at universities or business schools. They want to begin as early as possible knowing that employment is almost impossible without practical experience and skills. According to research into careers by the Department of Management, HSE, 36 percent of its alumni working as managers had a permanent job from the first year of their degree. By the end of their study, 85 percent of them were employed (Balabanova Efendiev, 2010). For them, paid work was important and came first. They could only afford to study in their spare time, and argued that practical skills were more valued in the labor market than theoretical knowledge. The quality of education in this case is reduced, because full-time working students do not have enough time and effort to carry out high-quality research work, projects, and home study tasks.

The problem was compounded by high school leavers'lack of necessary skills to successfully adapt to learning in higher education institutions and receive adequate international management education. Typical school leavers nowadays are characterized by the absence of the ability and willingness to work independently. Today, even strong pupils get into difficulties when they need to demonstrate systematic thinking ability (Salnikov and Burukhin, 2008). Facing a different level of knowledge requirement and lacking good fundamental knowledge of basic disciplines, first-year students do not know how to listen, analyze, and synthesize material. Even second- or third-year undergraduate students cannot easily identify the main idea in a text and make a concise report presentation. If you try to offer students a single task presented either as a text, table, or chart at several consecutive sessions, you will find that only one or two people in the group can see that this is the same task. The remainder, even when presented for the third time, will be pages in search of the correct textbook formula. “Many of today's students have one-click thinking,” said Olga, an associate professor, “they do not want to think and want cut and paste lecture materials to prepare an exam answer. The most active preparation for the exam usually includes the cribs creation; individual and independent work for the student turns into a truly impossible task.”

Overloading pupils with tutoring lessons could be observed throughout the school years. Even in elementary school, children take extra tuition in foreign languages, mathematics, computer skills; when they are in graduating classes, they are intensively trained for passing the final examination. These children grow up and require the same “individual coaching” from professors and lecturers. Of course, when classes are conducted for 100 to 150 people in the class it is not possible to organize individual coaching for every student. Nor is it necessary, because higher education requires, first and foremost, independent learning directed by the teacher. Teachers as far as possible try to pull the student up to the required level of perception, simultaneously eliminating the gaps in their knowledge, and listening to negative reviews. A particularly acute problem arises when the class contains students with different academic abilities. Those who are stronger academically are not satisfied that the teacher devotes so much time to basic concepts.

In many universities, we can speak about this phenomenon, as the desire of teachers “to make the course interesting for the uninterested”; to adapt courses to the interests and reactions of the “silent majority” of students. As a result, we have light versions of courses.

(Kuzminov, 2007)

Though segregating students by their level of knowledge is formal, students with high and low scores have equal access to elective courses and graduate course projects.

In Russian universities, as in their US counterparts, students choose their course options and research advisors. Past student evaluations, in theory, could help such choice. However, the vast majority of university students do not have access to information such as rating the teachers. For this purpose, students should have open access to the results of evaluation. On the one hand, this might reveal a situation where professors receive low scores because of the strict criteria used in the process. On the other hand, quantitative courses that require intensive individual work will always be valued less than courses that give students the chance to express their personal opinions and general knowledge. Finally, the choice of course is often mythical. The total number of students is divided among the lecturers, so that the evaluation does not affect the process. In the literature, the problem of the validity of evaluation is discussed extensively, but mostly it is the teacher's opportunism when professors are “buying” good reviews by giving high grades. There is a “ratings inflation” decline in educational standards, because the list of courses studied and the assessment of relevant disciplines are in last place in relation to graduate employment (Andruschak, 2007).

What about professors? How do they use student evaluations? It is assumed that the average score of the course should motivate lecturers to create richer, more interesting courses. The evaluation procedure is open to all students regardless of their achievement and the number of lectures they have attended. Students do not have any responsibility for “judgments” they made about courses. Therefore, teachers cannot receive useful information from these assessments for personal development and modernization of the course. Here is an HSE researcher opinion:

The formal access to information about the results of evaluation does not mean that teachers will use it. Even more than half of the HSE professors and lecturers know how their courses are evaluated, the information is not utilized by them. Up to a third of them say that the results of the evaluation do not actually have any value for them.

(Andruschak, 2007)

Some additional factors that hamper the smooth interaction between students and instructors include students and teachers having different motivations: students tend to take credit for achievement in the examination, and the teachers focus on deducting the required number of hours from their workload. A system of objective quality indicators for teaching work is just being formed (at the moment we can mention only the average score for the results of student surveys). In addition, students often do not feel comfortable communicating with people older than themselves. The level of psychological development of the current first- or second-year student is often at a juvenile stage, which itself gives rise to contradictions. Lecturers avoid informal contact with students or significantly restrict it for fear of breaking the boundaries of status, resulting in multiple problems. There can be emotional blackmail when students use informal contacts to improve personal assessments. Lecturers should be wary of being a psychologist on interpersonal communication without any special training.

According to a study conducted by the Ministry of Education in 2001, postgraduate education has been observed to display the following negative trends: the decline in scientific, technical, and human capacities of institutions (Kazantsev and Nikitina, 2004). Russian universities can be characterized by a situation where most of the young lecturers are former students of these universities, who often pass through all stages of the educational process (undergraduate degree/specialty training and postgraduate degree) in the same department. Often for graduates there are more attractive conditions for admission to the next level. Graduate students have no external criteria to evaluate their level of knowledge and skills. University staff do not enter the labor market. As for competition within the institution, it is usually a formality: “The lack of horizontal interactions between universities and mobility of teachers are responsible for local academic standards fixing within the university (and in fact, faculty and even department). The only source of academic standards for a young researcher and lecturer would be acquired from their advisers,” observed the head of HSE (Kuzminov, 2007). There are a lot of lecturers in institutions who have worked for years within the walls of their alma mater and cannot imagine what life is like outside those walls. Let us add here that promotion prospects are rather vague, depending on different factors (for example, the availability of positions, protection, administrative resources, etc.), not just on talent and experience. When applicants are asked in staff agencies: who do you see yourself as in ten years, lecturer or researcher?, the young applicant will never be able to answer this question. He really cannot imagine his career prospects!

Here are some results of research examining the quality of the teaching staff among the leading universities in the country. According to Russian expert opinions in the early 2000s, 80 percent of the science educational programs were not based on scientific research results. Only 16.2 percent of teachers were researchers. Up to 39 percent of the staff of various research institutions did not even have an undergraduate degree. The average age for teachers with a PhD was 53 years and 61 years for a full professor. Only one-third of graduate students successfully completed their studies (Gohberg, 2006). Five years later the average age for a lecturer was 49 years, with 26 percent of lecturers over 50 years old. A major problem is the lack of young people entering the profession. Most educational process is realized with the same teaching staff as 15 to 20 years ago. In addition, the low wages in higher education lead to a common problem of multiple employment—a combination of work at several schools, tutoring, and various kinds of small contracts, generally in non-professional areas. All this leads to a huge burden on those working as lecturers. This situation, of course, reduces their motivation (Salnikov and Burukhin, 2008).

The international management education scene in Russian

The field of opportunities for learning and management development is now greatly in demand because of the lack of management skills among Russian managers. Management experience is usually acquired by managers from practical work, paying a high price for mistakes. Though it is widely believed that leadership cannot be taught, many executives go back to the classroom to reconcile this inconsistency. Many Russian companies do not have leaders who have received at least minimal training in management or international management, and especially in the area of human resource management. Executives today sorely lack special training (Magura and Kurbatova, 2003). The lack of quality training programs for administrative staff also contributes to the fact that leaders believe such training is a waste of time.

Nevertheless, postgraduate professional education containing elements of international management is available for those with Master's degrees or specialist training, and they must possess at least two years of practical experience. The most recognizable programs are MBA (Master of Business Administration). The profile of applicants for studying management as a second profession (gaining a second diploma since 2000) are typically middle or senior managers. The popularity of these programs is growing in Russia, revealing the involvement of other countries in the process of global changes economically and socially. Russian MBA programs are quite different from their American and European counterparts, particularly in the area of quality standards of education, the diversity of education programs, and the level of state control. A required part or many US programs is practical experience in companies. Such practical experience is an exception in Russian programs and the diversity of those programs is not large. The duration of MBA programs in Russia is usually more than 1,000 lecture hours, and the programs may be organized on a full-time (1.5 years) or part-time (about 2 years) basis (Meshkova, 2003; Godin, 2006).

High prestige and the unavailability of a wide range of MBA programs led to a variety of modified training courses using the logos of popular MBA programs to attract applicants. A wide range of titles describe such programs—from “mini-MBA” to the “short MBA course.” Students of all skill levels are invited to explore management, finance, economics, marketing, human resource management, and new management technologies in just 21 hours. Students will learn the case method and make a business plan. It is impossible to expect to receive an adequate level of knowledge from such a program, but it is perfect for small companies to raise the general business acumen of staff.

Management training programs and open programs that are available to those without specific background offer short-term (up to 100 hours) courses and seminars on various aspects of international management. Such programs intend to update the knowledge of existing managers. They are often paid by companies interested in increasing the skills of its managerial personnel. Executive Development (500 hours or more) exists as a program for specialists with higher education qualifications and lets the practitioner orient professionally in what he does in practice. These programs are so-called Custom Programs, where content can be coordinated with the client. It should be noted that successful completion of the Custom Programs allows one to receive a certificate, but the certificate does not necessarily lead to entry to higher degrees (i.e., MBA or PhD). Management training proposals often describe the location of training, coffee breaks, and leisure activities rather than outlining the topics and learning outcomes to be achieved. In an effort to earn more, many training centers focus on tourism and entertainment, giving the applicant a relaxing holiday in good company.

Many leaders are willing to accept the fact that a manager should have business education, especially if they work in unusual situations or need to consolidate a business; wrong decisions can have an extremely high price. During 2010, the labor market for top managers with an MBA qualification offered average salaries that were higher than candidates' expectations. A study, conducted by the personnel firm Anchor in 2010 suggested that managers were enthusiastic about receiving an MBA degree, not so much for the prestige but for the acquisition of specific knowledge and the benefits of developing new business relationships within the MBA network. Business schools in the last two years were in demand for specific disciplines that provide practical skills (such as financial analysis and investment decision making). On average, 22 percent of Russian managers were MBA graduates although 53 percent of respondents believe that having an MBA is not necessary to build a successful career. Only 6 percent recognized the differences between Russian and Western business schools.

The Russian Association of Business Education (RABE) is the leader, initiator, and coordinator of educational programs for entrepreneurs and the business community. It has more than 150 members. The deans of Russian business schools, experts, and scholars of authority, as well as eminent professors, are drawn to the Association during the annual Russian and international conferences it organized. The conference covers current topics in management education, offers innovative seminars, and in-depth internships. The Association also publishes various reviews, research findings, and business education materials; the publication is always in demand and is of great value for the development of the Russian business system.

Rising stars in Russian IME

The Center for International Education Higher School of Economics

The Center for International Education Higher School of Economics was founded on November 27, 1992 by an Ordinance of the Government of Russia. The goal was to form a new corps of highly skilled professionals in the field of economics and social sciences in order to build a human resource base for an effective market economy. On October 7, 2009, the Evaluation Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science conferred upon HSE the status of National Research University.

HSE at a glance (October 1, 2010):

• 16,077 students (full-time education) in all departments, all branches;

• 11,375 students in HSE Moscow (including 2,659 graduate students in Master's programs); 587 graduate students in doctoral programs;

• Three branches in the most investment-attractive Russian cities: St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Perm;

• over 6.3 billion rubles from state financing and other sources in 2010;

• 28 faculties, 9 offices, 173 departments and over 120 further education programs (including MBA, DBA, EMBA), 22 research institutes and research centers, 35 laboratories.

HSE graduates are firmly entrenched in the top ranks of many highly rated Russian companies, such as Business Russia, Reuters, Finam, and Vseved. Today, HSE is involved in the process of developing a modern, science-based economy and society, and overcoming isolation from the world's national science institutes [HSE, official website materials].

The Graduate School of Management

The Graduate School of Management (GSOM) was founded in 2007 under the National Priority Project “Education” at the Faculty of Management (1993). GSOM is a subdivision of one of the most prestigious and world-renowned Russian universities — St. Petersburg State University. It develops a model of the university business school that is typical for the leading business schools worldwide. GSOM provides a diversified portfolio of business education programs (undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, Executive MBA, programs for leaders of social welfare organizations (e.g., schools and hospitals), and corporate and public training programs. Teams of GSOM students have won prizes in national and global professional competitions. All its Masters programs have been conducted in English since 1999 and its programs have adopted the European ECTS standard. GSOM is a member of AASCB, EFMD, CEMS, PIM, EABiS, GRLI, the Russian Association of Business Education, the Russian Managers Association, and the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia.

GSOM at a glance (September 1, 2010):

• 1,200 students and trainees;

• over 40 of the world's leading business schools and universities among its academic partners;

• the best among the Russian business schools (2008, 2009, and 2010 rated EDUNIVERSAL), as well as second place in the top three business schools in Eastern Europe (2010) criteria for professional recognition of business schools;

• over 4,000 graduates are members of the GSOM Alumni Association.

The school regularly hosts prestigious conferences (most notably with the participation of Nobel Laureates in economics:J. Nash, R. Aumann, R. Selten) and publishes leading academic journals.

GSEM URFU

GSEM URFU is one of the leaders in Russia, based on the examination results of entrance in the subject discipline of Economics (second place after the NIU HSE in the ranking of RIA Novosti,2010).

GSEM URFU at a glance (September 1, 2011):

• qualified full-time faculty is confirmed by international certificates and internships;

• system of visiting professors from leading international and Russian centers of education and research in economics, management, and business computing.

The school implemented joint programs with leading Russian and European leaders in the training of managers of high quality.

Moscow School of Management Skolkovo

Moscow School of Management Skolkovo, an international innovative school of the future, focused on the acquisition of unique leadership and communication skills necessary for a new kind of manager. It is designed to develop business leaders who intend to apply their professional knowledge in dynamic markets. It is expected that these leaders will be at the helm of their own business and will be recognized as the engine of economic development. Skolkovo is a joint project of the Russian and international business elite, created “from scratch” and not from an existing university. The basic forms of learning are projects that students carry out in teams of five to seven people; the results of the projects are evaluated by companies and outside experts (i.e., politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen). The educational process involves a wide range of consulting projects, training and simulation systems, case studies, workshops, consulting projects, and internships.

Conclusion

Some fundamental trends affecting Russian international management education can be observed based on the historical and recent developments discussed in this chapter. First, globalization and integration into the global system. Leaders in the field of international management education have demonstrated their involvement in the comparability of curricula, programs, standards of training, and student exchanges. Russian universities and business schools will strengthen their competitive advantage through more intensive international exchange of faculty, joint research, and the creation of an open professional labor market.

Second, international management education will help to create a market for professional middle-level managers or “crafters,” technically competent professionals who will work as manager assistants, sales managers, and so on. In other words, the managerial profession in Russia is evolving from “big boss” to “professional in management.”

Third, the replacement of scientific elites. The succession of scientific generations by young professionals, academics, and professors in international management education in Russia are real problems. To find young professionals and leaders who plan to develop by building a research career is not difficult. The most important part of the problem lies in the area of getting them relevant status, a decent salary, and a clear and well-structured system of rights protection at the administration level.

Fourth, future progress of market relations between business and educational institutions will need to be addressed. This process is progressing slowly due to the global crisis and often stops because of low student motivation and ongoing proprietary class formation in Russia. It is important to promote partnerships between enterprises and business schools and to foster corporate social responsibility that looks at the needs of all stakeholders.

Fifth, there will be more intensified competition in the international management education market as the Russian population reduces for demographic reasons, and strengthening of the position of leading foreign institutions in Russia. Recognized accreditation received from independent experts plays a positive role and sets high standards. Because of the narrowness of the international management education market in Russia and working to the high standards, applicants have to pay a high price for a brand name. This could be a problem for talented students without ample means, especially from the poorer regions. A special challenge for young business schools is to achieve international standards according to the assigned accreditation.

Sixth, students demand greater knowledge and skills. In Russian reality, the process goes from undergraduate to graduate and then to MBA, covering all elements of international management education.

Seventh, there has been and is a positive impact from the global economic crisis on international management education. As wrong decisions are expensive during a crisis, the quality of business education must rise to a new level. In the current situation, the cost of a wrong management decision impinges upon business survival. Due to the realities of the fast-changing Russian market, employees can and must allow managers to make their own decisions and be responsible for the results.

The dissection of the Russian educational institution in this chapter can create an impression of despair and hopelessness. From the standpoint of the author, the need for change due to exogenous and endogenous factors will be the driver for future development. This situation can call for the choice of an external model or a refinement of existing practice. In simple terms, we can use a metaphor for Russian international management education and see it as a “wildcard” in the global system with the potential for outstanding achievement.

Bibliography

Andruschak, G. 2007. System for evaluation of teachers by students: Management innovations in Russian universities. Economical Portal, available on http://institutiones.com/general/633-sistemi-ocenivaniya.html, accessed September 2012.

Balabanova, E. and Efendiev, A. 2010. Professional careers of management department graduates. Journal of Sociological Studies, 2: 100–110.

Baranov, I. 2010. The third generation standards and competition in business education. The Journal Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University Management Series, 1: 166–183.

Godin, V. 2006. Four models of business education in Russia. Educational Center Elitarium, available on http://www.elitarium.ru/, accessed September 2012.

Gohberg, L. 2006. Science and education in Russia: Integration routes. The Journal Vestnik of Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, 1–2: 71–77.

Goldin, A. 2010. Education 2.0: A fashionable term or new content?. Journal of Educational Studies, 2: 224–237.

Kazantsev, A. and Nikitina, I. 2004. National training system for increasing scientific qualification: Actual problems and development tendency. The Journal Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Management Series, 1: 135–163.

Kuzminov, J. 2007. Higher education: In what Russia is not America. Vedomosti, August 1: 141.

Kuzminov, J. 2010. Strengthen the economy with education. A report on the meeting of the Public Chamber of the “Education in Russia: A View 2010,” available on http://www.hse.ru/news/recent/24953235.html, accessed September 23, 2012.

Magura, M. and Kurbatova, M. 2003. What and how to teach managers? Journal of Education, 2(79): 52–54.

Meshkova, E. 2003. MBA programs in Russia, Europe and America. Management in Russia and Abroad Journal, 5: 112–118.

Neizvestny, S. 2008. On the standards of education in management. Magazine Project and Program Management, 2: 146–149.

Ponomarev, B. 2002. Manager's work and character of his education. Journal Management Today, 2: 21–27.

Salnikov, N. and Burukhin, S. 2008. Reforming of higher education: The current status and problems. Journal Higher Education in Russia, 8: 3–13.

Bibliography (in Russian)

Андрущак Г. ,., 2007. « Системы оценивания преподавателей студентами: управленческие инновации в российских вузах», Экономический портал, статья опубликована по адресу http://institutiones.com/general/633-sistemi-ocenivaniya.html.

Балабанова E.C., Эфендиев А. Г., 2010. «Профессиональная карьера выпускника факультета менеджмента», журнал «Социологические исследования», №2, 2010, c.100–110.

Баранов И. Н., 2010. «Стандарты третьего поколения и конкуренция в бизнес-образовании». Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета cep.8 вып.1, 2010, c.166–183.

Гохберг Л.H., 2006. «Наука и образование в России: пути интеграции», Вестник финансовой академии, № 1–2, 2006, c.71–77.

Годин B.B., 2006. «Четыре модели бизнес-образования в России», центр образования «Элитариум», www.elitarium.ru.

Казанцев A.Κ., Никитина И.А., 2004. «Национальная система подготовки научных кадров высшей квалификации: состояние и проблемы развития», Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета, серия 8 вып.1(№8), 2004, c.135–163.

Кузьминов Я.И., 2007. Высшее образование: в чем Россия не Америка. // Ведомости. 2007. № 141 (1915), 1 августа.

Кузьминов Я.И., 2010. «Укрепить экономику образованием», доклад на заседании Общественной Палаты «Образование в России: взгляд 2010», статья доступна http://www.hse.ru/news/recent/24953235.html.

Магура М.И., Курбатова М.Б., 2003. «Чему и как учить руководителей?», журнал Образование, 2(79)/2003, c.52–54.

Мешкова E.B., 2003. «Программы MBA в Америке, Европе и России», журнал Менеджмент в России и за рубежом, №5, 2003, c.112–118.

Неизвестный С.И., 2008. « О стандартах системы образования в менеджменте», журнал Управление проектами и программами, № 02 (14), 2008, c.146–159.

Пономарев Б, 2002. «Работа менеджера, особенности его обучения», журнал «Менеджмент сегодня», №2, 2002, c.21–27.

Сальников H.. Бурухин C., 2008. «Реформирование высшей школы: актуальное состояние и проблемы», «Высшее образование в России», №8, 2008, c.3–13.

Websites

GSEM URFU: www.gsem-urfu.com/

GSOM St. Petersburg State University: www.gsom.spbu.ru/

Higher School of Economics: www.hse.ru

Moscow School of Management Skolkovo: www.skolkovo.ru/public/en/

Russian Association of Business Education: www.rabe.ru

Russian Managers Association: www.amr.ru, www.mdamr.ru