Abstract

In this research studies were carried out in two merging Public Administration institutions, one with a public labor regime and the other a private one, which aimed to analyze culture and intermediary leadership. Study conducted based on the action-research methodology, with (i) quantitative approach to analyze the organizational climate and motivation with 79 leaders of institutions A and B using SPSS Statistic software, (ii) content analysis of 62 interviews with leaders from different hierarchical levels about the merger process and the perception of middle managers, and (iii) narrative analysis of the main aspects of the merger process. In the first, quantitative study, the organizational climate is analyzed, highlighting the role of middle management as facilitators of change. The second, qualitative section interprets the results obtained in the interviews with the leaders, showing that the process, from the start, did not have any convinced objectors, and that if there were any divisions, it would be due to the conduct of the process and not to an option at the start. The third chapter recounts the most significant episodes of the merger and reveals that the project gradually lost its meaning and became a mere change by decree. A descriptive analysis is made of the diagnosis presented by a consulting company, whose results seem to point to the "groupthink" phenomenon, reinforcing the Administration's expectations.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.