"Modern corporate universities are increasingly responsible for the quality of a company’s human capital"
Corporate universities in Russia: history
When can we talk about the emergence of the corporate business education market in Russia? Who were the pioneers?
The practice of corporate learning in its modern sense began to take shape in Russia in the 1990s alongside the formation of the market economy. It became evident that a professional management system was needed to successfully manage the development of large companies. At the time, there was a boom in the creation of corporate universities worldwide, and McKinsey published its famous report introducing the concept of the "war for talent." The new paradigm of advanced management was the realization that for big business to succeed, it was no longer enough to simply declare an intention to hire the best talent — it became necessary to build systems to support those ambitions. Corporate universities emerged as a response to the demand for structured and customized training and development activities tailored to the needs of specific companies and their leaders at all levels. Over time, many corporate universities also evolved into centers of expertise for training all company employees.
During these years, major Russian companies such as Gazprom, AvtoVAZ, VimpelCom, AFK Sistema, and MMK began creating their corporate universities. While some of them had previously had strong production-technical training centers, corporate universities were primarily designed to develop managerial talent capable of working in a market economy. For example, AvtoVAZ had a system of technical staff training dating back to the 1970s, but its corporate university focused on management development. Russian Railways (RZD), traditionally known for its strong sectoral education, launched its Corporate University in 2010 to target leaders at all levels. In 2012, Sberbank established its Corporate University — there had previously been a robust specialist training system, but little attention had been paid to modern management development. Another example is the NLMK Corporate University, launched in 2016 alongside the company’s previously established Technology University. Overall, the corporate learning market in Russia fully took shape during the 2010s, when dozens of leading national companies created and rapidly developed their own corporate universities, regardless of economic cycles.
What are the stages of development of corporate universities? Can they be identified?
Yes, today there is a professional consensus globally on the stages of corporate university development. This evolution consists of three strategic models. At the first stage, the corporate university acts as an internal provider of quality leadership training, responsible for the effectiveness of this learning. It becomes an internal center of educational expertise, deeply customized for the company’s industry and business specifics, rather than a traditional training department focused on processing requests and outsourcing programs to external providers. At the second stage, the corporate university typically develops its own growth strategy and becomes an important tool for implementing the parent company’s strategy, transforming its corporate culture, and improving business performance. The third stage is when the corporate university becomes one of the company’s key strategic assets — a driver of transformation and a proactive partner for top management in developing human capital.
A qualitative leap in the work of leading Russian corporate universities occurred in the mid-2010s, particularly in cases where business leaders recognized that developing a strong corporate university provided a unique and hard-to-replicate competitive advantage. Companies like Sberbank, RZD, Rosatom, NLMK, Sibur, Gazprom Neft, UGMK, and TMK are prime examples. Today, these and other companies’ corporate universities have transitioned or are transitioning to a new stage of evolution, where they are seen by leadership as drivers of strategic change and catalysts for business transformation.
Managing not production, but people and business
The fact that, despite various challenges, budgets for employee development and training are not being cut demonstrates both the high level of trust in corporate universities and the changing priorities of corporate learning.
One of the primary goals of corporate universities is to enhance and standardize the competencies of leaders and employees across the company. Today, at each management level, an employee is expected to possess specific knowledge, skills, and the ability to apply them — and managers at all levels are expected to "speak the same management language." In the past, however, employees could be promoted to leadership positions without completing training in people management, team leadership, or personal effectiveness. Similarly, HR professionals in senior roles sometimes lacked systematic business education and had no exposure to enterprise economics or finance.
This was common in many Russian industrial enterprises in the recent past. A typical production manager, for example, often had never studied business management or leadership methodologies. They managed production, but not people or business processes. Today, no one doubts that managing people effectively requires constant learning and skill updates, as well as a deep understanding of the company’s business. For this, companies must build internal training and development systems that cover all organizational levels.
Another important modern trend is the concept of "mass personalization" in corporate learning.
At first glance, personalization and scale seem incompatible.
In fact, they go hand in hand. Individual development plans for managers — now a standard HR practice — represent the first step toward mass personalization. Equally important is embracing new technologies early. Companies shouldn’t fall behind as late adopters; corporate universities must act as proactive leaders, ensuring participants master not only today’s management and production technologies but also tomorrow’s.
Since 2024, the RZD Corporate University has been actively developing professional retraining programs for railway specialists in partnership with company divisions and industry universities. Is this focus on developing professional competencies part of a broader trend?
Yes, professional competency development has always been a top priority in corporate training, both in general and within individual employee development plans. With the growth of corporate universities, there has been a strong emphasis on leadership development programs for different management levels, including talent pipeline programs for senior, mid-level, and frontline managers. Additionally, corporate universities have shifted focus toward enhancing soft skills and, more recently, digital skills. Today, the trend is to balance these three skill groups — leadership, soft, and digital — within program portfolios while also offering tiered leadership development tracks that integrate all three.
Another emerging trend is the integration of these skill areas into previously "single-focus" programs. For instance, it’s difficult to master digital skills without understanding interpersonal dynamics, and technical skills are increasingly taught alongside digital literacy. Moreover, corporate universities are becoming increasingly accountable to company leadership for the quality of human capital and are taking on a coordinating or partnership role in developing broader ecosystems of higher and professional education.
In this regard, RZD’s Corporate University is one of the best examples in the country. Russian Railways, historically linked with a strong network of industry-focused education, now operates an effective franchising system through its corporate university to support railway universities across Russia. Importantly, these efforts are highly customized to the company’s needs, ensuring educational and technological innovations are continuously updated.
Another notable example is the UGMK Technical University, which took the initiative to create its own master’s programs to address gaps in quality and quantity among existing industry-relevant programs at other universities.
The maturity matrix for corporate universities: self-assessment and benchmarking
At what point did it become clear that the corporate business education system in Russia required deep and systematic analysis?
Since 2022, the HSE Graduate School of Business has conducted annual monitoring of corporate universities’ operating models and best practices in Russia. This research project was initiated in response to demand from the professional community, which has reached a high level of maturity.
The idea of creating a typology of corporate university maturity levels emerged in summer 2023 during a discussion at the 2nd Forum of Corporate Learning Leaders of Russia, following our presentation of findings from the second wave of research. While the first wave captured profiles of 44 corporate universities, the second covered 51, and the third already includes 58. Such a large sample has provided a rich, comprehensive picture of the corporate learning landscape in Russia.
During that discussion, participants expressed the need for a benchmarking tool that would allow Russian corporate universities to compare not just individual practices or metrics but their overall models of maturity.
Such a typology serves two purposes. First, it distinguishes between traditional training centers and corporate universities operating under more advanced, strategic models. Second, it provides a tool for analyzing and selecting strategic alternatives for further development.
As part of the third wave of our "Corporate Universities of Russia — 2024" research, we invited participants to self-assess using the maturity-level methodology we developed. We received 31 responses from corporate universities across various industries — over 50% of all participants.
Overall, our multi-year research shows that there are about 60 corporate universities in Russia today, and many of them are now viewed by their parent companies as strategic development projects. Among them, around 30 stand out for their commitment to benchmarking, adopting best practices, engaging in systematic self-assessment, and sharing their experiences with peers, which gives them additional advantages in growth and innovation.
For example, we position the RZD Corporate University in the "National Beacons" quadrant of our typology, reflecting its role as one of the most advanced institutions within Russia’s corporate learning ecosystem.
Tell us more about your typology — the "Corporate University Maturity Matrix."
It’s important to note that comparability is essential in any typology, including ours. Initially, there was some skepticism from corporate university leaders about the possibility of creating such a framework, given that, unlike companies or business schools, each corporate university is uniquely tailored to its organization. There is no single comparable metric, such as annual revenue or graduate salaries. However, we were confident that maturity levels, defined by the development of corporate university models, provide a solid basis for comparison. This approach aligns with international accreditation and certification frameworks, such as EFMD’s CLIP (Corporate Learning Improvement Process) and the GlobalCCU.
Our original methodology identifies three evolutionary stages of both organizational and technological maturity. The resulting matrix includes nine quadrants, roughly corresponding to nine strategic positioning options for corporate universities.
Do you believe this matrix can become a guide for developing corporate universities?
Absolutely. Participants who conducted self-assessments using the matrix quickly realized that it can serve as a tool for setting strategic priorities. The top-right quadrant, which we call the "National Beacons," represents the highest stage of development. While this positioning carries certain expectations, it reflects the current stage of evolution and is both appropriate and justified. The challenge, of course, lies in maintaining this leadership position over time.
Corporate University Maturity Matrix
It’s not easy to stay at the top.
Exactly. It’s not enough to reach the top relative to others once — maintaining that status is equally important. Companies face a crossroads: they don’t necessarily need to fall behind, but in the next technological wave, they may choose to prioritize deeper technological advancement over organizational maturity, shifting focus without losing relevance.
Finally, a few words on the future of corporate business education in Russia. What do you see ahead?
On the one hand, we expect the strategic role of corporate universities to grow within companies where human capital is recognized as a key asset, and learning and development are embedded into corporate DNA. On the other hand, we are entering a period of radical transformation in learning models and methods, including corporate learning, driven by rapid advancements in online, hybrid, and blended education formats, educational marketplaces, peer-to-peer learning, self-education, and self-development, as well as new sources for content creation. The ability to innovate and experiment continuously is now the defining feature of the most progressive corporate universities.
Interview for RZD Corporate University magazine "HR-Partner," Issue № 1(12) / 2025