Academic Development and Career Plans of Teaching and Research Staff Across Different Age Groups

This article presents the findings of an empirical study conducted among academic staff at Russian universities. The aim of the work is to identify differences in the academic development and career plans of academic staff depending on age and level of engagement in university development programs. The methodological framework consisted of a questionnaire survey of 2776 academic staff from 15 Russian universities (October-December 2024). The results revealed high institutional loyalty among academic staff coupled with low mobility: 67% of respondents plan to remain in their current position at their university. Inter-university and inter-regional mobility are extremely low (less than 2%). Two primary career trajectories among academic staff were identified: a stability strategy (predominant among staff over 40 and highly engaged employees) and a mobility strategy (characteristic of younger respondents under 39, especially those with low engagement in academic development). The key factor for potential resignation among academic staff is low remuneration (reported by approximately half of the respondents). Early-career specialists are significantly more sensitive to material and career-related factors, while their senior colleagues exhibit greater loyalty and emphasize the organizational and ethical environment. The level of engagement in academic development positively correlates with the intention to remain at the university. Based on the results, we have formulated a paradox of personnel policy: the need to simultaneously retain loyal «stabilizers» (senior and highly engaged academic staff) and mobile «agents of change» (young and less engaged academic staff), who possess opposing motivational profiles. The practical significance of the study lies in the development of recommendations for a differentiated university personnel policy that considers the age-specific characteristics and motivational profiles of academic staff. 

1. Efimova G.Z. Management of academic development of academic staff through the lens of disciplinary sociological theories. Vestnik Universiteta. 2025;(5):217-232. (In Russ.) https://doi. org/10.26425/1816-4277-2025-5-217-232. (In Russ.)

2. Merton R.K. The Normative Structure of Science. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3609203/1cMerton-The-Normative-Structure-ofScience.pdf

3. Parsons T., Platt G.M. The American University, Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press, 1973. DOI: 10.4159/harvard.9780674423626

4. Caplow, T., McGee, R. J. The academic marketplace (4th ed.). Basic Books. 1958. 262 р.

5. Slaughter, S., Leslie, L. L. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. 1997. 276 p. https://yvesgingras.uqam.ca/wpcontent/uploads/sites/150/ACADEMICCAPITALISM.pdf

6. Vorobyova I.V. Russian scholars under the conditions of precarious employment. Management Issues, 2021; (1):131-142. (In Russ.)

7. Levecque K., Anseel F., De Beuckelaer A., Van der Heyden J., Gisle L. Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy. 2017; (46(4)):868-879. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008

8. Arthur M. B. The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organizational inquiry. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1994; (15):295- 306. DOI: 10.1002/job.4030150402

9. Dezhina I.G. Intersectoral Mobility Of The Scientific Staff - Global Trends And Russian Peculiarities. Public Administration Issues. 2014; (3):30-48. (In Russ.)