What Do The Best Do? An explorative study of strategic thinking at Company X

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to improve our understanding of strategic thinking by identifying
patterns of cognitive elements in individuals perceived to be strong strategic thinkers.
Research Questions : in order to fulfill our purpose we formulated two research questions:
Research Question 1: What are the common traits and cognitive elements found in the perceived best
strategic thinkers?
Research Question 2: How do the perceived best strategic thinkers differ to the perceived non-best
strategic thinkers?
Approach and Method : A pragmatic, deductive approach was adopted to answer the research questions.
A quantitative method was utilised to conduct the study. We first created a Voting Questionnaire to
identify the perceived best strategic thinkers at Company X (in this study they have been classified as the
“test group”). Next, we tested the top voted individuals (the “test group”), as well as the rest of the
individuals in the study (classified as the “control group” - the non-best), using the Cognitive Process
Profile (CPP) ass essment tool. Lastly, we created a 360 Degree Feedback Survey to be completed by
three people (at the same company) per best perceived strategic thinker. Results from these data collection
tools were analysed and used as a basis for our discussion.
The CPP leverages a theoretical model created by M. Prinsloo (cited in Kleppestø, 2017) to monitor and
measure an individual’s information processing competencies, current level of work, and preferred
cognitive styles. The parameters of the 360 Degree Feedback Survey, on the other hand, were established
from concepts, traits and cognitive elements present in the literature we reviewed (these traits and
cognitive elements are presented in our literature review, Chapter 2). Together, along with the Voting
Questionnaire, these tools provided the data we analysed. With the use of SPSS, we looked for patterns
and significant and/or indicative similarities or differences within the test group and between the test
group and the controls group. In addition, the current level of work of Company X was compared to the
CPP results of a large and similar normative group (2662 individuals). This contextualised Company X
and allowed us to study the company from a new angle.
Limitations : This thesis was conducted in a limited time frame, restricting the possibility to explore in
more depth or to conduct the study under more ideal terms and conditions. For instance, the small number
of individuals at Company X (33), who took part in the study, were potentially too small to draw strong
indications or conjectures. Further, since we utilised methods based on perceptions/subjective opinions
(Voting Questionnaire and the 360 Degree Feedback Survey), the results may have been influenced by a
number of biases (such as hierarchy, motivation, etc.)
Findings : There were no strong conclusive results obtained from the analysis of the data. The individuals
of the test group (perceived best strategic thinkers) did not show striking similarities in terms of traits and
cognitive elements. Having said that, while the CPP showed that the test group work relatively well in
complex and unfamiliar environments, the 360 Degree Feedback Survey confirmed the same indication.
However overall, there were still no significant similarities overall. Further, when comparing the test
group to the rest of the company who were tested (the control group), no significant differences were
found - the current level of work of the two groups are very similar. Given these inconclusive results, we
decided to conduct one further comparison - comparing current level of wok of all the tested individuals
at Company X with a normative group (CPP results of a very similar group of individuals). From this, we
discovered that although Company X did not come across as highly strategic in their thinking, when
compared to a normative group, Company X demonstrated to be much more strategic.
Conclusions : there were no significant similarities between individuals of the test group (the best
perceived strategic thinkers) and no differences when compared to the control group (the non-best
perceived strategic thinkers). These conclusions were drawn from the CPP results and the 360 Degree
Feedback Surveys, which measured traits and cognitive elements. We believe that these results were
influenced by limitations and as such, weakened the potential for more conclusive, positive and true to
life results. We therefore suggest further studies to be conducted, in line with our recommendations which
we have shared in this thesis (See Chapter 7). Such recommendations could enable further studies to
provide more conclusive results and conjectures on strategic thinking.

• author: Donadoni, Alexandra and Lombardo, Giorgia
• supervisor: Stein Kleppestø
• organization: Department of Business Administration
• course: MGTN59 20181
• year: 2018
• type: H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
• subject: Business and Economics
• keywords: Cognition, Cognitive Process Profiling, CPP, Strategic Thinking, Strategy, Strategic Competencies, Work Environment
• language: English
• id: 8956144
• date added to LUP: 2018-09-26 12:48:08
• date last changed: 2018-09-26 12:48:08