HR policy did not change much between 2014 and 2016, though the team of managers is close to a balanced condition now when nobody is leaving the organization or being hired or replaced. I give credit to the CEO in this situation for negotiating the salaries with the university. If the salaries were reduced, the staff turnover rate might have significantly risen again, as it was before the end of 2015.

An interesting fact is that the University and the staff of the incubator continue practicing the partnership model of the division of labor and responsibility between the university and the managers. In early 2016 the new 5-year strategy was developed for the BI HSE solely by the managers. What they have to do is only to present this strategy to the innovative block of the Higher School of Economics. The managers have got much responsibility for the organization as well as they have got lots of authority to implement strategic changes. The only requirement of the stakeholders is a couple of KPIs like providing a certain number of credits for students and being financially stable.

Overall, the actions of the incubator are characterized by a very proactive position during the crisis, which means that the managers try to forecast the possible difficulties and troubles that the organization might face in the nearest future. Additionally, they react quickly to the potential threats with active movements leaving the quality and the number of services unchanged. It totally corresponds with best practices of for-profit organizations during theeconomic recession. In the process of carrying out the present case study I revealed many collateral ideas about the adaptive strategies of the BI HSE that were not formulated in the research questions. However, I consider it to be a natural occurrence since the topic of the research is highly underdeveloped and needs further research. Any new ideas are welcome in this field as it might help researchers in their future studies.

The present research gives an understanding of how the Higher School of Economics business incubator reacts to the hostile economic environments in the country, though it is a very complex task to evaluate those actions and decisions of the incubator due to a vague theoretical base. It is useful to understand that any non-profit is in some aspects similar to a for-profit organization, and to some extent can use the patterns of adaptations that commercial firms elaborate. On the other hand, it is necessary to remember that certain limitations are imposed on non-profits including multiple stakeholders and objectives, which make the management of a nonprofit, even more complicated. Facing a threatening business environment, it is harder for a nonprofit like business incubator to choose the primary goal to attain, since it is overwhelmingly hard to pursue several goals in conditions of crisis. A general recommendation that is based on the experience of the BI HSE might suggest that other business incubators track any possible market signals and take a proactive position when facing the crisis.

Though it is hard to talk about thegeneralization of the results of the present study due to a single case analyzed and a strong local context, it probably will not be a mistake to say that Russian incubators today lack the toolkit for monitoring, analyzing and evaluating its performance and performance of their tenants. This fact hinders the organizations from effectively overcoming previous mistakes and making use of them in the future. Consequently, the major part of the incubator's decision can be classified as emergent ones, which are not based on a structured long-run strategy. The incubator at the HSE makes certain steps towards developing the written long-run strategy of practical use to the incubator staff and stakeholders, which makes me believe that the managers have distinguished the necessity to do it.

This study might be of particular value for the managers of the Russian business incubators since it aggregates the patterns and results of adaptations performed by the BI HSE in the 1.5-year period from the end of 2014 to the spring of 2016. The professionals will hopefully find new ideas to put into practice within their organizations and also will be able to escape common mistakes for a non-profit sector during the crisis.

REFERENCES

1. Долгопятова Т. Г., Ивасаки И., Яковлев А. А. Российский бизнес 20 лет спустя: путь от социалистического предприятия к рыночной фирме // Мир России: Социология, этнология. 2009. Т. 18. № 4. С. 89-114.

2. Проблемы и решения: бизнес-инкубаторы и технопарки России // Ernst&Young. - 2014. 28 p.

3. Седаков Д. М. Государственное финансирование бизнес-инкубаторов в России // Науковедение. - 2014. 7 p.

4. Adams T. Executive transitions: How boards and executives create their futures // Nonprofit World. - 1998. pp. 48-52.

5. Adkins D. A Report for the Japan Association of New Business Incubator Organizations (JANBO): Summary of the U.S. Incubator Industry // NBIA. - 2001.

6. Aerts K., Matthyssens P. and Vandenbempt K. Critical ole and screening practices of European business incubators // Technovation. - 2007. pp. 254-267.

7. Allen D.N. and McCluskey R. Structure, policy, services, and performance in the business incubator industry // Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. - 1990. pp. 61-77.

8. Allen D. and Bazan E. Value-added contribution of Pennsylvania's business incubators to tenant firms and local economies. - 1990.

9. Anheier H. Managing non-profit organisations: Towards a new approach // Civil Society Working Paper 1. - 2000. 18 p.

10. Autio E. and Klofsten M. A Comparative Study of Two European Business Incubators // Journal Of Small Business Management. - 1998. pp. 30-43.

11. Battisti M. and Deakins D. Managing under recession: perspectives from New Zealand small firms. - 2009. 35 p.

12. Bruneel, J. and Ratinho, T.F. and Clarysse, B. and Groen, A.J. The evolution of business incubators: comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations // Technovation, 32 (2). - 2012. pp. 110 - 121.

13. Chetkovich C. and Frumkin P. Balancing Margin and Mission: Non-Profit

14. Competition in Charitable Versus Fee-Based Programs. - 2002. 50 p.

15. De Ruijter P., Alkema H. and Stolk S. How strategic planning can help us through the present world crisis. - 2012. 12 p.

16. Deakin N. The perils of partnership: the voluntary sector and the state, 1945-1992. - 1995.

17. Dee N., Livesey F., Gill D. and Minshall T. Incubation for Growth: A Review of the Impact of Business Incubation on New Ventures with High Growth Potential // NESTA. - 2011. 54 p.

18. Dichter G., Reis G. and Marchand N. The Smart Guide to Innovation-Based Incubators (IBI). - 2010. 43 p.

19. Drucker P. Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Principles and Practices // Harper Collins. - 1990.

20. Grimaldi R. and Grandi A. Business incubators and new venture creation: an assessment of incubating models // Technovation. - 2005. pp. 111-121.

21. Hackett S.M. and Dilts D.M. A systematic review of business incubation research // The Journal of Technology Transfer. - 2004 pp. 55-82.

22. Hughes M., Ireland R.D. and Morgan R.E. Stimulating dynamic value: social capital and business incubation as a pathway to competitive success // Long Range Planning. pp. 154-177.

23. Intellectual capital in social service non-profit organizations // International Journal of Management Reviews. - 2008. pp. 281-299.

24. Janssen F. Role of regulation in facilitating entrepreneurship: a study of incubation in Belgium // Entrepreneurship and Small Business. - 2013. pp. 497 - 519

25. Kaplan R. Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Nonprofit

26. Kitching J., Blackburn R., Smallbone D., and Dixon S. Business Strategies and Performance during Difficult Economic Conditions. - 2009.

27. Kolbeinsson J. Crisis Incubation: A New Phenomenon? A comparative study // Master thesis. - 2014. 45 p.

28. Kong E. The development of strategic management in the non-profit context:

29. Kuna S. and Nadiv R. Organizational Development Dilemmas in Nonprofit Organizations in Difficult Economic Time // Organization Development Journal. - 2013. pp. 62-71.

30. Lowth G., Prowle M. and Zhang M. The impact of economic recession on business strategy planning in UK companies. - 2010. 12 p.

31. Marx J. and Davis C. Nonprofit Governance: Improving Performance in Troubled Economic Times // Administration in Social Work. - 2012. pp. 40-52.

32. Mian S. Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms // Research Policy. - 1996. pp. 325-335.

33. Nutt P. A Strategic Planning Network for Nonprofit Organizations // Strategic Management Journal. - 1984. pp. 57-75.

34. Organizations // International Journal of Management Reviews. - 2001. pp. 353-370.

35. Phan P., Siegel D. and Wright M. Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research // Journal of Business Venturing. - 2005. pp. 165-182.

36. Rogova E. The Effectiveness of Business Incubators as the Element of the Universities' Spin-off Strategy in Russia // TMSD. - 2014. pp. 265-281.

37. Salenborg E. and Stalered T. Recession-proofing. A case study of how small and medium-sized Enterprises remain resilient during times of recession. - 2013. 113 p.

38. Schumpeter J.A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy: New York: George Allen & Unwin. - 1994. 460 p.

39. Smilor R. and Gill M. The New Business Incubator Linking Talent, Technology, Capital, and Know-how // Lexington Books. - 1986.

40. Speckbacher G. The Economics of Performance Management in Nonprofit Organizations // Nonprofit Management & Leadership. - 2003. pp. 267-281.

41. Sternad D. Adaptive Strategies in Response to the Economic Crisis: A Cross-Cultural Study in Austria and Slovenia // Managing Global Transitions. - 2012. pp. 257-282.

42. Surviving the recession and the recovery: the SME story // ACCA and IMA. - 2013. 22p.

43. Theodorakopoulos N., Kakabadse N., McGowan C. What Matters in Business Incubation? A Literature Review and a Suggestion for Situated Theorizing // Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. - 2014. pp. 602-622.

44. Wenger E. Learning, Meaning and Identity // Cambridge University Press. - 1998.

Размещено на Allbest.ru