Is it possible to find managerial innovation and people management practices focused on innovation in federal universities?

ADAUTO DE VASCONCELOS MONTENEGRO

Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) / Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia, Fortaleza - CE, Brazil

ANA PAULA MORENO PINHO

Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) / Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração e Controladoria, Fortaleza - CE, Brazil

ANTONIO CAUBI RIBEIRO TUPINAMBÁ

Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) / Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia, Fortaleza - CE, Brazil

RAQUEL LIBÓRIO FEITOSA

Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) / Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia, Fortaleza - CE, Brazil

Adauto de Vasconcelos Montenegro - Ph.D. in Psychology from the Postgraduate Program in Psychology at the Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC); Psychologist at the Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Ceará (IFCE). E-mail: adauto_montenegro@hotmail.com

Ana Paula Moreno Pinho - Ph.D. in Business and Administration; Professor at the Universidade Federal do Ceará in the Postgraduate Program in Administration and Accounting (PPAC-UFC) and Faculty of Economics, Administration, Actuary and Accounting (FEAAC-UFC). E-mail: ana.pinho@ufc.br

Antonio Caubi Ribeiro Tupinambá - Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology; Full Professor at the Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC). E-mail: acrtupinamba@gmail.com

Raquel Libório Feitosa - Ph.D. in Psychology from the Postgraduate Program in Psychology at the Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC); Psychologist at Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC). E-mail: raquel.feitoa@ufc.br

Construct	Dimensions	Cronbach’s alpha
PM practices aimed at innovation	Delegation	0,87
	Recruitment and retention	0,78
	Tangible and intangible incentives	0,79
	Training	0,88

Dimension	Items	Factors
		1	2	3	4
Delegation	1. In my organization, employees are allowed to make decisions.	-0.86	0.02	-0.04	-0.05
	2. Employees are authorized to suggest improvements in their activities.	-0.79	0.08	-0.15	0.19
	3. Employees’ opinions are valued by the organization.	-0.82	0.09	0.00	0.07
	4. Employees are involved in teams with a high degree of autonomy.	-0.88	0.02	0.08	-0.13
Recruitment and retention	1. Hiring is done in with criteria.	-0.07	0.80	-0.17	0.11
	2. Employees are selected based on the knowledge and skills necessary to carry out the activities.	0.08	0.85	0.05	0.04
	3. Employees have clear career paths within the organization.	-0.13	0.70	0.09	-0.02
	4. The organization prioritizes the internal promotion of current employees.	-0.24	0.41	0.34	-0.05
Tangible and intangible incentives	1. There is a clear link between performance and reward.	-0.27	0.00	0.64	0.00
	2. Remuneration is associated with sharing knowledge and/or suggesting improvements.	0.10	-0.01	0.87	0.00
	3. Remuneration is associated with improving skills and/or updating knowledge.	0.16	0.22	0.73	-0.04
	4. There is an exchange of information between employees from different areas.	-0.38	-0.04	0.42	0.17
	5. Employees have the possibility to work in other areas through job rotation.	-0.18	-0.14	0.62	0.18
Training	1. Employees participate in formal training.	-0.04	-0.08	-0.05	0.88
	2. Training policies and programs are comprehensive.	-0.04	0.08	-0.01	0.80
	3. There is training for new people hired.	0.09	0.03	-0.02	0.88
	4. There are trainings aimed at solving problem.	0.01	0.16	0.08	0.73

	Total Sample (n = 470)	Technician (n = 301)	Manager (n = 65)	Outsorced (n = 104)
Dimension	Média (DP)	Média (DP)	Média (DP)	Média (DP)
Delegation	3.23 (1.07)	3.19 (1.04)	3.65 (1.07)	3.11 (1.09)
Tangible and intangible incentives	2.36 (0.91)	2.31 (0.89)	2.56 (0.98)	-
Training	3.22 (1.13)	3.17 (1.06)	3.55 (1.06)	3.16 (1.34)
Recruitment and retention	3.14 (1.03)	3.07 (1.00)	3.44 (1.09)	-

Variable	Levels	Total Sample (n = 470)	Category
Variable	Levels	Total Sample (n = 470)	Technician (n = 301)	Manager (n = 65)	Outsourced (n = 104)
Has there been an MI in your organization in the past 3 years?	Yes.	262	161	41	60
	No.	208	140	24	44
At what level was MI adopted?	Institution-wide.	131	88	14	29
	Dean’s Office/Board of Directors/Management.	65	40	15	10
	Department/Sector.	52	25	9	18
	Project/Team.	14	8	3	3
What is your involvement with MI?	None, and my work was not affected.	43	14	1	28
	None, but my work was affected.	127	92	16	19
	I was a member of the team that implemented it.	66	40	16	10
	I was responsible for its implementation.	26	15	8	3
In general terms, has the adoption of MI been beneficial to the organization?	Yes.	247	154	41	52
	No.	15	7	0	8

Areas	Total sample		Category
	Total sample		Technician		Manager		Outsorced
	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%
People management	168	64,12	116	72,05	26	63,41	26	38,24
Planning, finance/budgeting	143	54,58	94	58,39	22	53,66	27	39,71
Student Affairs	92	35,11	60	37,27	18	43,90	14	20,59
Teaching	89	33,96	58	36,02	17	41,46	14	20,59
Research and graduate studies	75	28,62	55	34,16	9	21,95	11	16,18
Extension	64	24,42	44	27,33	11	26,83	9	13,24
Other	37	14,12	25	15,53	3	7,32	9	13,24

Brasil