So who needs a strategy? The case of Semco do Brasil
Case study questions:
Does Semco really not have a strategy: if it does-what is it? I think that Semco really does have a strategy and his strategy is simply not having a strategy. This means that he does not want to be committed to a fixed strategy with fixed goals and mission which in his opinion limits the employee’s creative thinking. His strategy was to encourage or somehow force his employees to depend on them to create their own goals and strategies to prove their existence in the company by finding ways to increase the company profits. Therefore, in fact his strategy was not to have a fixed strategy.
Why might Mr. Semler find it useful to claim not to have a strategy? Because he thinks that having a strategy will prevent the calcified thinking which in his opinion will encourage people to follow them like Pied Piper. He thinks that not having a strategy will allow people to find an interesting way of spending their life doing something useful and meets their needs. Also, he claims that by not writing strategic objectives down, employees are forced to always rethink about what they are doing. He said that when you declare or define what you firm do, then you put your employees into a mental straitjacket preventing them from thinking opportunistically.
What modes of strategy-making are apparent to Semco?
The most apparent strategy-making model at Semco is the rational one.
Who are the salient stakeholders at Semco?
The salient stakeholders at Semco are the one who prove their existence in the firm by their creative thinking and by their effective performance and who can achieve the growth, generate profits and survive in the long term.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of Semo’s system of corporate governance? How does it avoid principal-agent problems? The most important advantage in my opinion is the flexibility of working hours which put away the pressure of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document