The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm JMD 39,1 No longer a family Employee perceptions of organizational culture of a Russian English-medium 82 instruction university Maria S. Plakhotnik and Natalia V. Volkova Received 29 December 218 National Research University - Higher School of Economics, Revised 12 April 2019 Amped 21 Quober 2019 Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation Abstract Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of a perceived organizational culture on organizational identification and commitment of employees of a Russian university that is transforming to become an English-medium instruction (EMI) university. Design/methodology/approach - Data were collected between February and March 2018, via an online survey that was disseminated among 115 new employees; 90 were completed and used for analyses. The survey included three scales. Findings - Employees of the EMI university perceived its culture as market, which is not a common characteristic of universities that usually have a clan culture. The study has also demonstrated a discrepancy between the perceived (market) and the preferred (clan) organizational culture. The study has also showed that a clan, and not a market, culture strengthens employee organizational commitment and identification. Originality/value - Most research has examined EMI universities from the perspectives of teaching and learning. This study contributes to the limited conceptual and theoretical base around these universities by examining their processes from a perspective of management. This paper suggests that the adoption of English as a medium of instruction requires organizational change that leads to change in organizational culture. Keywords Russia, Organizational culture, EMI, Employee organizational commitment, Employee organizational identification Paper type Research paper Introduction Globalization has "flattened" the world (Friedman, 2005, p. 8), increasing both competition and cooperation among countries, industries, organizations and individuals. Globalization has reached higher education and prompted the emergence of English-Medium Instruction (EMI) universities that could be defined as institutions of higher education that use "the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English" (Macaro et al, 2018, p. 37). Today, EMI universities could be found in every continent or region of the world and their numbers continue to grow. For example, in Europe, the number of EMI master's programs quadrupled between 2013 and 2014 and the number of undergraduate programs has grown to almost 3,000 in the past ten years (Sandstrom and Neghina, 2017). In Russia, several dozen leading universities have been receiving direct financial support from the government to develop and implement EMI programs (Block and Khvatova, 2017). In Morocco, at least 30 universities provide courses and programs in English (Minkara, 2013). Taiwan's Ministry of Education created the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council to provide quality assessment to over 100 EMI programs in the country (Hou et al, 2013). Journal of Management Development Research on EMI universities is still scarce, incomplete and conflicting (Airey and Linder, WL D Na. 1, 2120 Pp 32-96 2008; Breeze, 2014). Most literature around EMIs examines English language-related issues O Emerald Publishing Linked 0462-1711 around teaching and learning. For example, research has explored the effect of EMI DOI 10.1 109/JMD) 12-30148-0678 teaching on disciplinary learning (Airey and Linder, 2008; Joe and Lee, 2013; Kang, 2012),JMD Conclusions 39,1 The study showed that new employees at an EMI university in Russia perceive the university culture as market (Cameron and Quinn, 2006), which is not typical for institutions of higher education. Employees prefer a clan culture, which is common for colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, the study also showed that it is the clan, and adhocracy, culture that positively impacts employee organizational commitment and identification. 92 These results support our suggestion that universities undergo an organizational change as they transition to become EMI that leads to a change in their values and organizational culture. The study also suggests that after working for a year, new employees do not identify with the market culture and long for a traditional for institutions of higher education clan culture. This discrepancy hinders the connection between employees and the organization and warrants further investigation by researchers and attention from the university leaders and HR professionals. A recent seminal study (Giorgi et al, 2015) identified the juxtaposition of organizational culture and "the changing nature of organizations" (p. 34) as one of three promising lines of research on organizational culture. We suggest that EMI universities differ from universities that teach in the native language to native speakers. The study is first to examine organizational culture of EMI universities and has potential for research on organizational change, values, and organizational commitment and identification. Further research should examine more closely the interplay between the market culture and employee productivity, tenure and well-being. The study shows the importance of the alignment of the existing and preferred organizational culture. Further research should examine what organizational practices could help all employees buy into a new set of organizational values and bring all employees onboard. Limitations The study was limited to one state Russian university located in a mega-city. It may be difficult to generalize the findings to other EMI universities located in small cities in Russia or in other countries or to private universities. The participants were newly hired employees, so further research should be conducted to explore perceptions of organizational culture, organizational commitment and identification of those employed for longer periods of time. Also, such variables as faculty rank, department and tenure status as well as administrators' position type and level in the university were not addressed and could be included in future studies.student language skills, needs and use (Botha, 2013; Dubow and Gundermann, 2017), Employee student listening and coping skills (Breeze, 2014), and student satisfaction with and perceptions of attitudes toward EMI classes (Chun et al, 2017; Kim and Sohn, 2009, Keuk and Tith, 2013). Fewer researchers focus on faculty language needs, skills and challenges (Dubow and organizational Gundermann, 2017) or faculty attitudes toward teaching at EMIs (Annous and Nicholas, culture 2015; Doiz et al, 2011; Macaro et al, 2018). Some (Coleman, 2006; Hultgren, 2014) discuss the role EIMs play in decreasing cultural and linguistic diversity and the power and status of 83 the English language. Others (Block and Khvatova, 2017; Horta, 2009; Nguyen et al, 2016) also explore the connection between the emergence of EMI universities and regional and national policies. Surprisingly, researchers have not looked at these organizations and their process of transitioning to becoming EMI from a perspective of management. This article agrees with Bradford (2016) that "the adoption of EMI in higher education is not a matter of simply switching the vehicle of communication and continuing as usual" (p. 340). This article suggests that the adoption of EMI requires organizational change where universities implement organizational strategy set forth by university leaders (Child, 1972; Dunphy, 2000). During such change, these universities develop new mission, values and goals that lead to changes in their structure and size and require new sets of employee skills, attitudes, and knowledge, new stakeholder relationships, and changes to other processes (e.g. recruitment and selection, promotion, and evaluation). Organizations are likely to succeed in the implementation of such changes if they "have internal culture supportive of their strategies" (Smircich, 1983, p. 346). Organizational culture could be defined as "the underlying values, beliefs, and principles that serve as a foundation for an organization's management system as well as the set of management practices and behaviors that both exemplify and reinforce those basic principles" (Denison, 1990, p. 2). Employee values, attitudes and beliefs drive their behaviors, which could foster or impede organizational changes (Choi and Ruona, 2011; Denison, 1990, van den Heuvel et al, 2014). To contribute to the limited conceptual and theoretical base around EMIs (Keuk and Tith, 2013), this study examined the impact of a perceived organizational culture on organizational identification and commitment of employees of a Russian university that is transforming to become EMI. The research was guided by three questions: RQ1. What are employee perceptions of organizational culture? RQ2. How do their perceptions of culture impact their organizational identification? RQ3. How do their perceptions of culture impact their organizational commitment? Understanding how employees perceive organizational culture of EMI universities can help university leaders and human resource management professionals foster a connection between employees and organization and, hence, build organizational culture and ensure the alignment of HR and management practices with organizational culture. Change and EMI universities The emergence of EMI universities and programs is driven by a variety of factors, including national and regional policies related to higher education, student employability, faculty mobility, or market for international student (Coleman, 2006; Doiz et al., 2011). For example, Sandstrom and Neghina (2017) report internalization of higher education and a goal to be competitive as top two reasons universities in Europe offer EMI programs. Adoption of English helps universities become more globally competitive (Breeze, 2014; Doiz et al, 2011). This competition is propelled and measured by university rankings: Times Higher Education World University Rankings, Academic Ranking of World Universities and Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings (Barron, 2017; Lo, 2014). The adoption ofJMD English as the language of instruction enables universities to attract fee-paying 39,1 international students from other countries and to promote local student mobility. As a result, these universities compete for students globally and these students become their customers: "Universities are no longer institutions but brands" (Coleman, 2006, p. 3). At these universities, English becomes the language for instruction, class discussions, textbooks, exams and homework preparation at undergraduate and graduate levels 84 (Chun et al, 2017). Also, as universities adopt English as their default language, all their written materials (e-g. press releases, websites, booklets, reports) and oral communication leg. university events, career fairs, conferences and program descriptions) are also provided exclusively in English or in English and the homeland language. English has also become the language of faculty academic publications (Coleman, 2006) impacting university standings in the global rankings, faculty recruitment, remuneration, promotion and tenure (Horn, 2017; Hou et al, 2013; Rotuari, 2013), and research collaboration with faculty from other countries and institutions (Horta, 2009). These changes sometime lead to the introduction of a new faculty degree mandatory for promotion and tenure (e.g. Rotuari, 2013). To adopt EMI, universities reinvent their existing academic programs, curricular and individual courses and their syllabi. They also have to establish new EMI programs (e-g. Keuk and Tith, 2013) as well as new institutions, centers and teams to support these changes. For example, some of them establish centers and procedures to support English language teaching and to certify instructors who meet the standards to teach in English (Dubow and Gundermann, 2017). Universities develop new student recruitment and admission policies and seek for new funding sources (Horta, 2009; Sandstrom and Neghina, 2017). These universities have to revise their approach of graduate and doctoral programs and students because these students can assist in teaching, research and grant activities, networking locally and internationally (Horta, 2009). Organizational culture The concept of organizational culture was first introduced to managerial literature by Blake and Mouton (1964) and became popular in managerial research and practice in the 1980s (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Peters and Waterman, 1982). Organizational culture includes symbols, language, traditions, rituals and myths that communicate a company's ideology and beliefs (Ouchi, 1981; Pettigrew, 1979). Schein (1984) defined organizational culture as. A pattern of basic assumptions; invented, discovered, or developed by a given group; as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration; that has worked well enough to be considered valid; and, therefore is to be taught to new members; as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 7). For Schein (1984), the complexity and dynamics of organizational culture could be understood only when analyzed at three levels: artifacts, values and underlying assumptions. Artifacts include what people see, feel, or manipulate when experiencing a culture of an organization; artifacts also refer to people's behavior, traditions, language, and processes and activities in the organization. Values refer to principles or norms of an organization that predicate or explain artifacts. Underlying assumptions refer to the unconscious and taken-for granted beliefs that represent the source for values and actions within the organization. Many researchers (e.g. Ouchi, 1981; Schein, 1984, 1985) argue for the key role of organizational leaders in the creation and maintenance of organizational culture. Leaders make decisions about the company philosophy and values that are later included in formal statements of organizational mission and vision, building and workspace design, system of promotion and rewards, organizational structure, and other organizational systems and processes.Organizational culture helps create organization-wide consensus and minimize Employee ambiguity (Martin, 2002) Organizational culture is connected to organizational functioning perceptions of (e-g. leadership, control, norms and purpose) and provides a system of meanings that gives people a sense of reality and direction for actions (Pettigrew, 1979). A strong corporate culture organizational represents a potent force for guiding employee behavior by providing clear rules and creating culture a sense of belonging and pride that stimulate hard work (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). As such, organizational culture impacts employee and organizational performance and long-term 85 effectiveness (Cameron and Quinn, 2006; Denison, 1990). Cameron and Quinn (2006) introduced the Competing Value Framework (CVF) that suggests organizational effectiveness criteria along two dimensions. (1) Flexibility, discretion and dynamism vs stability, order and control. (2) An internal orientation, integration and unity vs an external orientation, differentiation and rivalry. These two dimensions form four quadrants that classify core values related to organization's performance and identify a profile of organizational culture. Each quadrant of the CVF corresponds to one of the following distinct cultural types: An adhocracy culture emphasizes flexibility and external focus. It can be defined as an agile, entrepreneurial and innovative environment with forward-thinking and risk-taking leaders and employees. A market culture puts emphasis on stability and external focus. It can be characterized as an outcome-driven organization with competitive and result- oriented employees and leaders. A hierarchy culture highlights stability and control with a focus on the internal environment. This is a very structured and formalized organization. A clan culture focuses on flexibility and the internal environment. It can be described as a supportive workplace where employees feel like being with an extended family. Organizational culture has been linked to many organizational processes and activities, including, for example, innovation (Naranjo-Valencia et al, 2011; Sanz-Valle et al, 2011; Satsomboon and Pruetipibultham, 2014), collaboration (Mitchell and Pattison, 2012), knowledge management (Patil and Kant, 2012; Tseng, 2010) and ethics (Small, 2006). Researchers have also explored the connection between organizational culture and workplace incivility and turnover (Simmons, 2009), job satisfaction (Zavyalova and Kucherov, 2010) and creativity (Martins and Terblanche, 2003). Others have examined the connection between organizational culture and individual, group and organizational learning (eg. Frochlich et al, 2014; Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Song et al, 2009). Organizational identification How individuals identify themselves within an organization represents an important component of their work life (Ashforth and Mael, 1989) and affects their behaviors, attitudes and feelings (Blader et al, 2007; van Knippenberg et al, 2007). Organizational identification is a form of group identification that "may provide one answer to the question, Who am I?" (Ashforth and Mael, 1989, p. 22). Organizational identification can also be understood as an extent to which employees think of themselves as members of an organization (van Knippenberg et al, 2007). An organizational identity is "self-definitional" (van Knippenberg et al, 2007, p. 461), employees choose how to define their membership with the organization. Organizational identification includes one's identification with organization-specific values and goals, perception of common path and future with the organization, willingness to sacrifice career goalsJMD for the welfare of the organization, and a deep feeling of loss when leaving the organization 39,1 (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). One's organizational identification is increased by the perceived group distinctiveness and prestige, notable presents of outgroup(s), and group formation factors (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Group distinctiveness refers to values and practices that separate the group from other groups and creates a perception of uniqueness. Group prestige, or a perceived 86 higher status among similar groups, indicates the group's winning or champion status or popularity that appeal to its members. The existence of outgroup(s) reinforces people's belonging to their group and awareness about the boundaries between their group and outgroup(s). Group formation factors that affect organizational identification include common goals, history, or threats, and interpersonal relationships, among others. As a result of organizational identification, members tend to engage in activities that are harmonious with the organizational identity, positively evaluate and provide support to the organization, and even stereotype themselves as members of the organization. "The more people identify with a group or organization, the more the group's or organization's interests are incorporated in the self-concept, and the more likely the individual is to act with the organization's best interest in mind" (van Knippenberg et al, 2007, p. 461). Organizational leaders' identities and philosophies serve as the foundation for the organization's cultural values and beliefs that span the organization (Pettigrew, 1979, Schein, 1985). Organizations that have a clear structure, identity, purpose and a set of shared values and beliefs can function as a mechanism to reduce uncertainty among their employees and, hence, increase their organizational identification (Hogg, 2007). A strong organizational identification has been related to employees' willingness to contribute to a public good, improved job performance, and readiness to perform tasks that go beyond the job description (van Knippenberg et al, 2007). Organizational commitment Organizational commitment refers to employee loyal behavior toward the organization that is manifested in their acceptance of the organization's values, pursuit of organizational goals and intention to continue their membership in the company (Porter et al, 1974; Robbins, 2003). Organizational commitment could be described as "the employee's psychological state with respect to his/her relationship with the organization" (Agarwal and Sajid, 2017, p. 125). Commitment "binds" an employee to the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990, p. 301). As a result, for example, committed employees are willing to accept organizational changes and are willing to stay in the organization even in difficult turbulent times (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Employees with high level of organizational commitment are more satisfied with their careers in the organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Organizational commitment includes affective, normative and continuance components (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment refers to the emotional attitudes of employee toward the organization that are based on their positive experiences with the organization. Normative commitment refers to employee perceived obligations toward the company, for example, to stay with the organization or to support leadership decisions. Continuance commitment is based on the perceived social and economic costs of contract termination. Organizational commitment has been studied since the 1970s (Mowday et al, 1979, Porter et al, 1974) and continues to be a needed topic for research (Agarwal and Sajid, 2017; Feizi et al, 2014; Marique and Stinglhamber, 2011; Thomas, 2015). Organizational commitment has been linked to various behavioral and attitudinal outcomes, including, for example, job satisfaction and performance (Agarwal and Sajid, 2017; Hunter and Thatcher, 2007), perceived organizational support (van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006), turnover intentions (Agarwal and Sajid, 2017; van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006), work engagement (Mangi and Amanat, 2013) and leadership (Feizi et al, 2014; Keskes et al., 2018; Lok and Crawford, 2004).Organizational commib'nent is not synonymsz to organizational identity (van Knippenberg and Sleebos, ME}. The former includes 'a relationship where individual and organization are separate entities psychologically\" while the latter \"implies psychologiml oneness with the organization" (p. 579]. In other words, organimtional commitment is about employees' peroeptiors about or attitudes toward the organization. {)rganizatirnal identity, however, is about the strength of ties between employees and the organization or the extent to which interests of the organization become interests ort employees. As such, organizational commitment has more influenoe on employee attitudes toward the job than organimtional identication (van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006]. Methodology Setting The study was conducted at a large urban university in the northeast part of Russia. The university participates in the 5100-2020 initiative of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation that aims to increase international visibility and reputation of a group of leading Russian universities by advancing their standings in global university rankings. To meet the goal of the initiative, the university has been undergoing strategic organizational changes since2014. For example, in 201 4, all faculties were merged into two mega-schools and all faculty units were merged into large departments. Four years later, in 2018, as the number oil main educational programs tripled, one mega'school was divided into two. The number of research centers has doubled, and a dozen other new administrative units and teaming centers have been established. The university introduced a new model of doctoral education and established colleges of continuing professional and business education Half of its undergraduate programs areoffered entirely or partially in English and a third of its master's programs is being offered in English. New administrative offices have been established for each undergraduate program to coordinate all student activities. The number of international faculty and students has increased by ten times since 2014. Faculty members must change their approach to teaching and adjust to teaching in English. A high level of English proficiency has become a key requirement for administrative staff and faculty, which resulted in a high turnover rate among faculty. A new incentive system was introduced to stimulate faculty publications in Soopus-'Web of Science journals and to teach in English Sample A total of 90 new full-time employees who had been working for the university for 812 months participated in the study. We decided to focus on this group of employees for three reasons. First, they were at the end (If the one-year onboarding prooess (Gupta at at, 2018} and, hence, had been introduced to the university values, goals, rules and policies as well as socialized 'il'llIl organizational culture (Caldwell and Peters, 2013; Watkins, 2013}. Second, they were likely to continue their employment because new employees typically decide to leave their companies within the first 90 days (Bauer, 2010; Karnmeyer-Mueller rt :11, 2013) or less (Adkins, 2015}. Third, they were likely to work at their full capacity, which newcomers usually reach at least six months after their employment [Ferrazzi and Davis, 2015}, 5:) they have enculturated into the organization. The sample consisted of ?0 (T73 percent, A! = 373', SD: 1.2.8} fernaleand 20 (Z2 peroent, M=3?3, SD: 11.61 male EHTPlOYEBS; almost half of them (46 percent] held faculty positions and another haltc [54 percent) held staff positions The man age of faculty members and administrative sta Ff were ill?! 2 (RD: 12 lanrl 353 [Full : 1241,1'es1'er'tively Almost halfnf the participants were under 35 {n 2 43,1. Employee perceptions of organizational culture 87' JMD Instruments and data collection and analyses 39,1 Data were collected between February and March 2018, via an online survey that was disseminated among 115 new employees; 90 were completed and used for analyses. The response rate of 78.3 percent is considered acceptable for mail surveys (Babbie, 2011). The participants were informed about the research purpose and confidentiality of their responses. The survey included demographics questions and three instruments. 88 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (Cameron and Quinn, 2006) available in Russian was used to measure employee perceptions of organizational culture. The instrument distinguishes four cultural types of culture: clan, adhocracy, hierarchy and market. The respondents identified perceived current and preferred organizational culture of the university. Instrument items are grouped under six dimensions of the organization: dominant characteristics, organizational leadership, management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphases and criteria of success. The Level of Organizational Identification Scale (Kreiner and Ashforth, 2004) adopted for a Russian audience was used to measure four dimensions of an expanded model of identification: (1) strong identification (SOID) indicates a psychological attachment between the company and the person; (2) disidentification (DOID) is about defining oneself as different from an organization; (3) ambivalent identification (AOID) indicates the presence of both identification and disidentification when a person accepts some elements of a company while disagreeing with other elements; (4) neutral identification (NOID) is a state of neutrality toward the company when a person neither identifies nor disidentifies with a company; and 5) this questionnaire includes 6 statements for each of the four dimensions and requires responses on a seven-point Likert scale ( from 1 - strongly disagree to 7 - strongly agree). The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Porter et al, 1974) adapted to a Russian panel was used. The questionnaire contains 15 items that measure the extent to which the employees know and understand company values and goals as well as their readiness to make extra efforts to contribute to the company success and continue their membership in the organization. To improve the reliability of this scale for university newcomers, some modifications were made and five statements were removed. The elimination of these items improved Cronbach's a that became 0.761. The seven-point Likert scale was applied ( from ] - strongly disagree to 7- strongly agree). The reliability of the questionnaires were tested using Cronbach's a with an acceptable level from 0.60 (Ponterotto and Ruckdeschel, 2007; Robinson et al., 1991) (see Table II). The statistical analyses were run using SPSS 20 statistical computer package. To measure the discrepancy between current and desired organizational culture, paired-sample t-test was run for each of the four cultural dimensions. Results As shown in Table I, the newcomers' perceptions of organizational culture differ significantly between the paired samples of clan culture ( (89)= -556, p