Combining practice and theory to assess strategic thinking

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the process used to develop and test the Individual Behavioral Assessment Tool for Strategic Thinking. Design/methodology/approach The instrument was developed using literature that identifies practices in use in organizations to assess strategic thinking competency and recommendations of scholars and practitioners to define strategic thinking and suggest how it could be assessed. Processes defined in the literature to develop competency measurements, both generally and for leadership and strategic management concepts specifically, were applied. A Delphi panel of experts reviewed the initial draft of the instrument which, with their refinements, was administered to participants in an executive leadership program. Findings Cronbach’sαand principal component analysis indicated that the instrument is internally consistent and unidimensional. Rasch analysis suggested a possible reduction in items that maintains good overall instrument performance. Research limitations/implications The study provides methodology for developing a measurement tool that fuses practice and theory. Further applications of the instrument across organizational levels and in single sectors would enhance its generalizability. Practical implications The instrument provides a consistent tool for use by practitioners to identify gaps in their own or another’s strategic thinking behaviors, specify a job-specific competency model, and direct professional development. Originality/value The instrument fills a gap in the theoretical literature by extending the descriptions of strategic thinking to include a comprehensive set of required individual behaviors. As such, it is the first theoretically based instrument to detail the specific competencies required to think strategically.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.