Post on 27-Jul-2015
1/15
Strategy formation in the middle management perspective: a case study in three Brazilian
research and technological institutes
Edison Fernandes Polo
Willy Hoppe de Sousa
Universidade de São Paulo - Brazil
Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares - Brazil
2/15
Content
• Main research questions• Conceptual framework• Methodology• Results• Conclusions
3/15
Main research questions
1.What are the main characteristics of the strategies formation process in Research and Technology
Institutes?
2.What has to be changed in the strategies formation process in Research and Technology Institutes?
4/15
Conceptual frameworkStrategy safari (Minztberg et al., 2000)
Design school
Planning school
Positioning school
Entrepreneur school
Cognitive school
Learning school
Power school
Cultural school
Environmental school
Configuration school
5/15
Methodology
6/15
Variables1.1. FormalityFormality of of thethe planningplanning processprocess
(formal versus informal)2.2. WhoWho is is responsibleresponsible for for thethe strategiesstrategies definitiondefinition
(superior management versus middle management team)3.3. HowHow thethe mainmain strategiesstrategies are are defineddefined
(they are based on facts and tendencies or based onintuition?)
2.2. Timing Timing betweenbetween definitiondefinition andand implementationimplementation of of thethe mainmainstrategiesstrategies
(definition happens before the implementation versus definition and implementation happens simultaneously)
3.3. PoliticalPolitical strenghstrengh for for thethe strategystrategy definitiondefinition(superior management versus middle management team)
4.4. OrganizationalOrganizational cultural cultural influenceinfluence underunder needneed to to changechange thethestrategiesstrategies
(favorable versus unfavorable)5.5. ExternalExternal environmentalenvironmental influenceinfluence
(reactive strategies versus proactive strategies)
7/15
Operacionalization aspects
• Each variable was measured using the semantic differentialconcept considering a 5 levels Likert scale plus a “I have no opinion” answer option
• Each variable was evaluated in terms of a present situationand a desired situation
• Significance tests were used to evaluate the differencesamong the RTI´s and the differences between the present anddesired situation
• Interviews were carried out in 06 Business Units (BU) of 03 Research and Technologies Institutes
• 01 BU manager + 02 subordinated managers
8/15
IPT CCDM IPEN
Main stakeholder Secretary of Science, Technology Economic Development and Tourism of São Paulo State
São Carlos Federal University
Ministry of Science and Technology –Federal Government
Foundation year 1899 1996 1956
Annual income/ budget, including fomentation agencies
US$ 17,13 million (2002) US$ 560.000,00 (2000) US$ 12, 45 million (2002)
Relation between income/budget without salaries / income/budget with salaries
55% (2002) 112% (2000) 33% (2002)
Size of the total working force
1474 (2002) 60 (2003) 1493 (2003)
Strategic units researched
Chemistry and Geology Metallic Material and Polymeric Materials
Chemistry and Environment Center and Radiation Technology Center
9/15
ResultsFor the question...
1.What are the main characteristics of the process of strategies formation in Research and Technology
Institutes?
10/15
Define primeiro e depois implementa
Present situation
-2,00
-1,00
0,00
1,00
2,00
formality
responsibility
information
process
politicalstrength
pro-changeculture
environmental
approach
one year
five years
ten years IPENCCDMIPTaverage
formal
informal
superiors
group
facts
intuition
superiors
group reactive
pro-active
Defines first and then implements
Defines and implementssimultaneously
*
*******
**
favorable
unfavorable
Kruskal Wallis asymptotic significance test difference among RTIs:* 0,068** 0,114*** 0,037**** 0,081
Strategy approach
11/15
Desired situation
-2,00
-1,00
0,00
1,00
2,00
formality
responsibility
information
process
politicalstrength
pro-changeculture
environmental
approach
one year
five years
ten years
IPENCCDMIPTAverage
formal superiors facts superiors pro-active
Defines first and then implements
favorable
informal group intuition group reactive Defines and implementssimultaneously
unfavorable
Kruskal Wallis significance test difference among RTIs:
asymptotic significance level is higher than 0,2 for all variables
Strategy approach
12/15
ResultsFor the question...
2.What has to be changed in the process of strategies formation in Research and Technology Institutes?*
*Variables with significance level lower than 12%
13/15
IPEN:• Responsibility: increase the involvement of the superiors in order to reach an equilibrated situation.• Pro-change culture: increase the favorability to change when changes are needed.
CCDM:• Formality: increase the formality of the planning process;• Environmental approach: search for an equilibrium between being pro-active and reactive.
14/15
IPT: • Formality: increase the level of formality: the planning process should be more formal than informal; • Responsibility: higher superiors involvement: an equilibrium between superiors and groups has to be reached; • Pro-change culture: organizational culture should be more favorable when changes are needed;• Environmental approach: strategies should be more be pro-active;• Five years strategy approach: intensify the
effort to define the strategy before its implementation.
15/15
Thank you!
Contact:Willy Hoppe de Sousawhsousa@ipen.brInstituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e NuclearesSão Paulo – Brazilwww.ipen.br