Strategic thinking is hip, but does it make a difference?

Abstract

McCulty's pronouncements seem to be shared by a wide variety of writers, most notably those in strategic management , who converge on one dimension. The dimension is that no matter how we view the differing ways of achieving competitive advantage, thinking strategically enhances our corporate efficiency and effectiveness, especially when this mode of thinking is encouraged from middle managers and spread throughout the firm. This expectation has been gaining importance in recent years because of increasing organizational complexities, the contraction in numbers of mid-level positions, and the higher level of formal education of individuals holding those jobs. It is tempting to generate an attribute-based listing of characteristics of a strategic thinker from the literature. Such a listing would include such attributes as proactiveness/risk-taking (Miller and Friesen 1978), locus of control (Miller, Kets de Vries, and Toulouse 1982) and power relationships (Carter 1971). Researchers can then examine by means of questionnaires or some other medium the extent to which a sample population adheres to the list. However, such an attempt would be useless if the respondents, largely because of the intuitive appeal of the concept, answered in the way Noel Coward did when he was shifting his abode from England to Switzerland to avoid punitive tax rates. When reporters xnquired of his reasons for leaving his homeland, Coward responded with straight face, For chocolate, of course! The problem with using a questionnaire against such a trait-based list is that the list gets longer while the data remain superficial, thus inviting Coward-like answers! In this study, which was spread over 24 months, we examined the results of strategic thinking as reflected in the firm's (1) directionsetting processes, (2) managerial mindsets in managing the competi t ion-cooperation nexus, and (3) perceived linkages be tween the human resource function and corporate strategy. Our emphasis on the consequences of strategic thinking, rather than who was thinking strategically and who was not, will be particularly useful when the results are compared with the models proposed in the traditional literature.