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