Exploring Strategy Formation Patterns in Manufacturing Firms - Role of Middle Managers and Decision-making Dynamics

Amidst an age marked by profound change, middle managers have risen to prominence as key actors in the dynamic arena of strategic decision-making. Research on the involvement of middle managers in this space remains a rich context for exploring strategizing. This study focuses on the multifaceted roles that middle managers assume in strategy formation and examines the personal characteristics and contextual factors that influence these roles.

Despite the recognition of middle managers’ involvement in strategy, there is a notable absence of a systematic literature review (SLR) that comprehensively summarizes all the roles, characteristics, and contextual factors associated with their involvement. This gap in the literature means that there is no comprehensive source that aggregates existing knowledge about the diverse yet overlapping contributions of middle managers and the various internal and external factors influencing their roles.

Moreover, there is a lack of studies that detail the specific roles middle managers play at different stages of the strategy formation. Current research does not sufficiently address how middle managers' roles evolve or how they contribute during the distinct phases of strategy development, such as initiation, consolidation, commitment, and realization. This oversight highlights the need for research that not only compiles and synthesizes current insights but also provides a detailed examination of middle managers' contributions across the entire strategy formation process. Such research would offer valuable insights into the dynamic and complex nature of middle manager involvement in strategic initiatives, to inform both theory and practice.

The study utilized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 to conduct the SLR. To ensure breadth of the review, all publications from 1982 to 2022 were included in the SLR. This period captures key developments in strategy and middle managers' roles in decision-making, encompassing foundational theories and empirical studies. It aligns with shifts in organizational structures and strategic management, providing a robust basis for analysis. To guide the study, the alternative strategy formation patterns model developed by Kiridena, Hasan, and Kerr (2009) was employed, that serves as a robust framework to explore the deeper structures of strategy formation in manufacturing organizations. The empirical part of the study used a qualitative methodology that used semi-structured interviews from 14 middle managers across six manufacturing organizations. Three of the organizations were from Australia, one from Canada, one from the UK and one from Pakistan. These interviews explored the middle managers’ involvement in the different stages of strategy formation and the personal attributes and contextual factors that impact on this involvement. Data analysis followed both inductive and deductive reasoning to identify core themes and develop conceptual schemas, aided by the qualitative data analysis software, NVivo 14.

Middle managers are identified to play a variety of roles in different stages of strategy processes. These roles include leadership and influencing, information management, facilitating action, execution and implementation, emotion work, and cross-functional collaboration. The nature and effectiveness of these roles are impacted by diverse personal characteristics of middle managers, such as their background and experience, along with personal attributes like working style, personality type and decision-making style. Additionally, contextual factors that influence middle managers' involvement in strategy include their networks and relationships, support from top management, organizational culture, and the availability of appropriate technology and training.

Overall, the study's findings align with the SLR that identified middle manager roles, personal attributes, and certain contextual factors. However, some distinctions emerged between the SLR and interview results. For instance, roles such as championing and advocating, facilitating adaptability, and passive non-compliance, highlighted in the SLR, did not surface in the interviews. Conversely, the interviews revealed a new role: facilitating action, which middle managers play in ensuring the completion of strategic initiatives.

For the personal characteristics, while the SLR emphasized the impact of perceptions and attitudes on middle managers' involvement in strategy, this aspect did not prominently emerge from the interviews. This difference could stem from the participants’ inclination to discuss practical aspects that influence their involvement in strategy, rather than underlying motivations.

For the contextual factors, the interviews did not explicitly highlight organizational procedures and support as critical for middle managers' involvement in strategy. This gap may be attributed to participants’ responses that focused more on cultural influences and personal experiences rather than detailed discussions on procedural support. However, interview participants highlighted the role of technology in enhancing middle managers' strategic involvement through improved communication, knowledge sharing, and training, whereas the SLR underrepresented technology as a contextual factor.

The findings from this study can help feed future research, leading to an increased understanding of middle manager involvement in strategy in different stages, and the impact of personal attributes and certain contextual factors on these roles. It will also help organizations and practicing managers to better understand and manage the middle manager involvement in strategy and to identify and nurture appropriate roles within specific organizational contexts, as well as the personal attributes of middle managers.