Authors

Lidia Yatluk¹;  ¹ University of Groningen, Netherlands

Discussion

Think tank X is widely recognized for its educational programs and strategic sessions aimed at transforming the management of education and science in Russia. Operating within a business school and detached from university research laboratories, it promotes expertise across Russia. Its reports and marketing emphasize international practices, academic freedom, and the accountability of educational organizations. Yet media and social network analyses show that its activities often reinforce hierarchical governance, reduce faculty participation in decision-making, and increase precarity. This contradiction illustrates a classic case of organizational decoupling, where formal policies diverge from actual practices. 

Drawing on autoethnographic data from my 20 months (2021–2022) of work at think tank X, I examine how decoupling emerges and persists. My analysis integrates personal diaries, observations, conversations with colleagues, and public materials, employing focused coding to systematically explore values, norms, and practices. The use of multiple sources and focused coding facilitated reflexivity by addressing my emotions and positionality within the organization. 

The study identifies a decoupling mechanism that is unique to authoritarian contexts. The original vision was to change the system by developing new management practices and working in an open market that included Russian and foreign organizations. However, the organization sought quick legitimization and therefore began working not with small commercial products, but with government programs, which in authoritarian conditions quickly gain status and visibility. At the same time, the leaders of the organization were supporters of one set of norms and managerial practices (the pseudoscientific Moscow Methodological Circle), while other analytical and scientific approaches were selectively used to confirm their own approach. The reorientation from commercial projects to state projects and from international practices to the reproduction of an internal dogmatic approach was reinforced by the networks of state officials and business leaders tied to the Circle, creating a vicious cycle. 

These findings highlight the limits of authoritarian modernization in higher education and offer a nuanced understanding of how state orientation, internal ideologies, and networks bring back conservative legacies that preexisted the organization.