Strategic thinking in Benetton
Abbas Monnavarian, Gita Farmani and Hajar Yajam
Abbas Monnavarian is an
Associate Professor based
at the Faculty of
Management, University of
Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Gita Farmani and
Hajar Yajam are based at
the International Kish
Campus, University of
Tehran, Kish, Iran.
DOI 10.1108/17515631111114868
1. Introduction
Bryson (1994) points out that strategic planning is no panacea. In his point-of-view, strategic
planning is simply a set of concepts, procedures, and tools designed to help leaders,
managers, and planners think, act, and learn strategically. Used in wise and skillful ways by
a coalition of interested parties, it can help organizations focus on producing effective
decisions and actions that create public value, further the organization’s mission, meet
organizational mandates, and satisfy key stakeholders. Mintzberg et al. (1998) note that:
‘‘effective strategy making connects acting to thinking which in turn connects
implementation to formulation. We think in order to act, to be sure, but we also act in
order to think’’ (p. 71) – and to learn, they might have added. Strategic planning is iterative,
flexible, and action-oriented and that is often precisely what makes it so attractive to public
and nonprofit leaders and managers (Bryson, 1994).
As Mintzberg (1994, p. 252) notes, ‘‘organizations function on the basis of commitment and
mindset.’’ Effective strategic thinking, acting, and learning seem to depend a great deal on
intuition, creativity, and pattern recognition, none of which can be programmed although
they may be recognized, facilitated, and encouraged (Mintzberg et al., 1998). Now, the
question is that what is strategic thinking, and what are its attributes.
2. Review of the literature
What is strategic thinking
The review of literature related to strategic management, indicates that there is no
agreement on what strategic thinking is. A number of authors have used strategic thinking
interchangeably with other concepts such as strategic planning or strategic management.
For example Wilson (1994) notes that:
This continuing search for improvement has profoundly changed the character of strategic
planning so that it is now more appropriate to refer to it as strategic management or strategic
thinking (p. 14, italics in original).
Other authors have focused on strategic management processes. Some of them stated
explicitly that good strategic planning contributes to strategic thinking (Porter, 1987); and
some assumed implicitly that a well designed strategic management system facilitates
strategic thinking within an organization (Thompson and Strickland, 1999; Viljoen, 1994).
Garratt (1995) defined strategic thinking as a process by which senior executives ‘‘can rise
above the daily managerial processes and crises’’ (p. 2) to gain a different perspective of the
organization and its changing environments. Heracleous (1998) suggests that strategic
thinking and strategic planning are interrelated and equally important for effective strategic
management. Thompson and Strickland (1999) concur and state that a well-designed
strategic management system facilitates strategic thinking within the organization.
VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011, pp. 63-72, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1751-5637 j BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES j PAGE 63
 Strategic planning normally takes place at the top of organizations (Ansoff, 1965; Porter, 1987;
Mintzberg, 1994) but emergent strategy can occur at all levels (Quinn, 1992, cited in Probst et
al., 1999; Mintzberg, 1994; Campbell, 1997). Emergent action at lower levels, if successful, is
usually adapted into strategic plans by senior management. Strategic thinking, however, can
be done by any member of the organization up and down the hierarchy at any time.

Distinction between strategic thinking and strategic planning

Mintzberg (1994) stated that ‘‘strategic planning is not strategic thinking’’ (p. 107) and
suggested a clear distinction between strategic thinking and strategic planning. In his view,
strategic planning focuses on analysis and deals with the articulation, elaboration and
formalization of existing strategies. Strategic thinking, on the other hand, emphasizes
synthesis, using intuition and creativity to create ‘‘an integrated perspective of the enterprise’’
(p. 108). He argued that each term focuses on a different stage in the strategy development
process. In his view, strategic planning is a process that should occur after strategic thinking.
Heracleous (1998) argued along similar lines. He made the distinction between strategic
planning and strategic thinking by an analogy to single-loop learning and double-loop
learning. The former, in his view, is analogous to strategic planning, the later to strategic
thinking. He claimed that single-loop learning involves thinking within existing assumptions
and taking actions based on a fixed set of potential action alternatives. Double-loop learning,
in contrast, challenges existing assumptions and develops new and innovative solutions,
leading to potentially more appropriate actions. Heracleous argued that like single-loop
learning and double-loop learning, strategic planning and strategic thinking is interrelated in a
dialectical process and equally important for effective strategic management.
Therefore, the ability to think strategically provides another dimension to the process of strategy
making. It recognizes that strategic thinking and planning are ‘‘distinct, but interrelated and
complementary thought processes’’ (Heracleous, 1998, p. 482), that must sustain and support
each other for effective strategic management. Heracleous (1998, p. 485) observes that
‘‘creative, ground-breaking strategies emerging from strategic thinking still have to be
operationalized through convergent and analytical thought (strategic planning).’’ Figure 1
depicts the distinct but complementary thought processes of strategic thinking and planning.

Strategic thinking at the individual or organizational level?

Bonn (2001, pp. 64-65) states that understanding strategic thinking requires a dual-level
approach that investigates the characteristics of an individual strategic thinker as well as the
dynamics and processes that take place within the organizational context in which the
individual operates. For instance, to obtain an accurate picture of the effects of differing
leadership styles on strategic thinking, we can look at their impact on individual managers
and on the way they influence the wider organizational climate, culture and structure. He
argues that, strategic thinking at the individual level comprises three main elements:
1. A holistic understanding of the organization and its environment.
2. Creativity.
3. A vision for the future of the organization.
Each of these elements will be addressed in the following sections.
The organizational level provides the context in which individual strategic thinking can occur.
Organizations need to create the structures, processes and systems that:
B foster ongoing strategic dialogue among the top team; and
B take advantage of the ingenuity and creativity of every individual employee.
On the other hand, Tavakoli and Lawton (2005, p. 157), believe that, strategic thinking is an
individual experience and takes place informally and without any decision or action
necessarily following. Planning, on the other hand, requires a degree of formality and
structure and generally entails some decisions and actions. ‘‘Bad planning’’ can conversely
discourage strategic thinking. Examples are, for instance, when strategy concepts and

j j
PAGE 64 BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011
Figure 1 Processes of strategic thinking and planning

models are used mechanistically; where inappropriate data is employed; where too much
analysis takes place; and where support staff, rather than line managers have the major role.

Attributes of strategic thinking

Liedtka (1998) posits five major attributes of strategic thinking:
1. Strategic thinking reflects a systems or holistic view that appreciates how the different
parts of the organization influence and impinge on each other as well as their different
environments.
2. Strategic thinking embodies a focus on intent. In contrast with the traditional strategic
planning approach that focuses on creating a ‘‘fit’’ between existing resources and
emerging opportunities, strategic intent intentionally creates a substantial ‘‘misfit’’
between these.
3. Strategic thinking involves thinking in time. Strategic thinkers understand the
interconnectivity of past, present and future.
4. Fourth, it is hypothesis driven. Hypothesis generating and testing is central to strategic
thinking activities. By asking the creative question ‘‘What if?’’ followed by the critical
question ‘‘If . . . then . . .?’’ strategic thinking spans the analytic-intuitive dichotomy that
Mintzberg refers to in his definition of thinking as synthesis and planning as analysis.
5. Strategic thinking invokes the capacity to be intelligently opportunistic, to recognize and
take advantage of newly emerging opportunities.
A number of other authors have mentioned other attributes. For example:
1. Napier and Albert (1990) referring to system thinking, thinking about long-term profits
rather than short-term benefits, identifying repetitive patterns in the events, choosing a
person responsible for strategic thinking, making use of past events to predict future,
using past knowledge to prepare appropriate model for decision making.
2. Bonn (2005) emphasizing on process approach, using cognitive concepts, ability in
finding different solutions for specific problems, interaction among strategies at different

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011 BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES PAGE 65
 levels and between different units of organizations, understanding the dynamics of
internal and external environment, understanding the situation of organizations within
bigger systems, visualizing future goals and most advantageous future, knowing new
competitive areas, capability of integrating different ideas into a new and fresh idea.
3. Graetz (2002) believes in attributes such as finding different solutions for the problems
simultaneously and considering external opportunities.
4. Collins et al. (2000) refer to considering necessary strategic and operational issues for
designing appropriate organizational structure.
5. Acur and Englyst (2006) posit following major attributes of strategic thinking:
B awareness about industry and rivals;
B understanding strengths and opportunities;
B awareness about strategic problems of organization;
B considering strategic priorities of top manager; and
B decision making by making use of flexible and effective processes.

3. Research methodology
Research questions
The research is designed to answer the following questions:
B What are the factors of strategic thinking?
B How much is the capability of Benetton’s managers related to thinking strategically?
B How much is the difference between ‘‘importance of the factors’’, and ‘‘present
situation of the factors’’, from employees and managers’ of Benetton point-of-views?

Development of instruments
The subjects of the study were 196 persons including managers, supervisors, and educated
employees of different branches of Benetton located in Tehran (capital city of Iran). A
double-sided questionnaire was prepared as the survey instrument of the study, comprising
51 questions in two parts. One part is about ‘‘importance of the factors’’, and the other side
related to ‘‘present situation of the factors’’; both side had the same scale.
The questionnaire was developed based on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from (1)
‘‘strongly low’’ to (4) ‘‘strongly high’’. Following the calculation of the descriptive measures for
the variables, a principal components factor analysis was performed with varimax rotation.
Content validity. To ensure about how representative and comprehensive the items were in
creating the scale, the survey instrument was assessed by examining the process. Our
questionnaire consisted of 51 items for determining the basic factors of strategic thinking.
These items were adapted from previous studies and scholarly articles, especially the study
done by Moshabaki and Khazaei (2009), Liedtka (1998), and Napier and Albert (1990). In
this study, context validity is used in order to examine validity of questionnaire. In this
method, quality and quantity of questions are examined by experts. Therefore, after
providing the questionnaire, we asked some experts to review the questionnaire and the
feedback provided led to minor wording changes in some of the items.

Internal consistency reliability. To measure the extent to which items of the test were
positively intercorrelated, we piloted the questionnaire on a sample of 25 members of the
sample. The scale reliabilities for this sample measured by Cronbach’s coefficient via SPSS
15 and output of 0.91 were obtained which demonstrates a high degree of reliability based
on the Cronbach Alpha coefficient.

j j
PAGE 66 BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011
Sample and data collection
We distributed 210 questionnaires with an overall response rate of about 90 percent, which
means 196 employees returned the questionnaires. Participants were informed of the main
objective of the study, and also were presented with a written definition of keywords to build
shared concept. They were encouraged to respond sincerely to all the questions and were
assured of absolute anonymity and confidentiality.

4. Analysis and results

Demographics and descriptive statistics
Table I illustrates the distribution of demographic statistics of respondents.

Data analysis
Factor analysis. To accumulate items of the questionnaire, a principal components factor
analysis was performed with varimax rotation. The results are shown in Tables II and III.
Table II implies 12 factors for strategic thinking in the company. Table III indicates the 12
factors and related items of strategic thinking in the company.

One sample T-test

In order to ensure accuracy of the results we ran a T-test. The results are presented in Table IV
that show that all 12 factors are significant.

Friedman test
The Friedman test, as a non-parametric test, is used to examine equality of priority (ranking)
of dependent variables by individuals. In this study, 12 factors were identified.
The Friedman test is used to prioritize these factors. Statistical hypothesis to use Friedman
test are:
H0. Priority of factors is equal.
H1. At least two priorities are different.

Table I Descriptive statistics of respondents

Item Frequency %

Gender
Male 129 66
Female 66 34

Age
22-29 77 39.3
30-40 69 35.2
41-50 32 16.3
$51 17 7.8

Work experience (year)

1-10 95 48.5
11-20 81 41.3
$21 16 8.2
Not mentioned 4 2

Education
Diploma and technician 66 337.2
Bachelor 110 56.1
Master and PhD 18 9.3

Job role
Manager 131 66.7
Non-manager 65 33.3

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011 BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES PAGE 67
Table II Rotated matrix of items
Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

C(24) 0.703
C(14) 0.636
C(15) 0.602
C(22) 0.597
C(23) 0.584
C(25) 0.494
C(26) 0.466
C(13) 0.393
C(12) 0.384
C(48) 0.734
C(49) 0.642
C(47) 0.529
P(46) 0.475
P(16) 0.460
P(50) 0.454
P(11) 0.424
P(30) 0.785
P(31) 0.778
P(32) 0.732
P(33) 0.523
P(40) 0.776
P(39) 0.752
P(38) 0.653
P(41) 0.557
P(10) 0.681
P(9) 0.610
P(21) 0.588
P(19) 0.768
P(18) 0.723
P(20) 0.659
P(17) 0.528
P(35) 0.704
P(36) 0.603
P(37) 0.580
P(34) 0.502
P(51) 0.380
P(28) 0.745
P(27) 0.741
P(29) 0.652
P(43) 0.772
P(44) 0.753
P(45) 0.561
P(42) 0.730
P(5) 0.706
P(4) 0.660
P(1) 0.785
P(2) 0.754
P(3) 0.394
P(7) 0.746
P(6) 0.589
P(8) 0.580

Results of Friedman test are as depicted in Table V. Since sig. , 0.05, H0 is rejected
(Table VI), the claim of equal priority of these 12 factors is not supported.
The most important factors are: environment analysis, intelligence, and creativity and
attention to the past, present and future. This prioritized listing is highlighted in Table V.

j j
PAGE 68 BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011
Table III Strategic thinking factors and related item
Factors
Creativity and attention to
the past, present
and future
Organic structure
organization
Environment analysis
Conflict management
Awareness of the
situation
Futuristic approach
Intelligence
Diversified mind pattern
Accountability
Organizational climate
and coordination
Systematic thinking
Process approach
Items Mean
Identification of repetitive patterns of events (trend analysis) 2.71
Identifying the valuable goals from employees point of view
Formulation and design of future situation of main processes of organization
Ability to select and use of appropriate patterns from organization’s background
Establishing connection among past, present and future
Benefiting from past events for future prediction
Using accumulated knowledge from past for finding appropriate models of decision
making
Discovering new competitive areas
Incarnation of desired goals and future of the organization
Development of structure supportive of change and development 2.69
Design of processes and mechanisms of promotion of change and development
Considering strategic and operational necessities for designing appropriate structure
Organic organizational structure
Shared vision resulted of internal and external analysis
Remuneration and reward systems
Considering value creation chain and comprehending interaction among different parts
Recognition of strategic issues of the organization 2.68
Organization’s internal and external analysis
Acquaintance of ambiguities and complexes for interpretation and evaluation of events
Considering opportunities
Unconformity and struggle among group members 2.54
Challenging existing components of job duties
Having different experience, skill and approaches toward organizational activities
Creation and keeping an effective and ethical organizational culture
Understanding the situation of organization within extended and complex systems, such
as markets, industries and international arena 2.63
Understanding diverse changes in internal and external environment of the organization
Finding diverse solutions for the problems
The ability to challenge the traditional mind-set and believes 2.64
Development of creative and unique solutions to achieve competitive advantage
Intuition (thinking based on personal capabilities and experiences)
Ability to develop new ideas
Awareness about organization’s strengths and weaknesses 2.68
Awareness about main areas of the organization which have difficulty
Understanding strategic priorities of top manager
Awareness about the situation of industry and competitors
Decision making through flexible and efficient processes
Ability to propose appropriate hypothesis about work environment and effective testing
of the hypothesis 2.65
Review of planned strategies and proposing new strategic options in case of new
environmental conditions
Making use of cognitive concepts (pictures, frames, mental maps, . . .) to conceptualize
and understand conflict information
Developing organizational culture aligned with creativity and change 2.51
Participation of middle managers in basic issues of organization
Choosing a person with strategic thinking responsibility
Creating a climate full of positive thinking, honesty and transparency 2.66
Considering the relation among strategies at corporate, SBU and functional level and
their relations with external environment
Thinking about vertical (top-down) relations within system
System thinking 2.26
Interest in ignoring short-term takings to achieve long-term profit
Recognition of the role of individual in bigger systems and understanding the effect of
his/her behavior on outputs
Process approach (thinking about whole company with focus on customers) 2.67
Considering the relation among different units and organizational duties
Changing dismantled way of thinking to systematic way of thinking
j j
VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011 BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES PAGE 69
 Table IV One sample T-test
95 percent confidence
interval of the
difference
t df Sig. (two-tailed) Mean Lower Upper

CREATIVI 52.161 195 0.000 2.7151 2.6124 2.8177

STRUCTUR 52.596 195 0.000 2.6894 2.5886 2.7903
ENVIRONM 39.266 195 0.000 2.6950 2.5596 2.8303
CONFLICT 40.487 195 0.000 2.5396 2.4159 2.6634
SITUATIO 40.978 195 0.000 2.6376 2.5106 2.7645
FUTURE 37.945 195 0.000 2.3416 2.2199 2.4633
INTELIGE 49.875 195 0.000 2.6844 2.5783 2.7906
MIND 38.521 195 0.000 2.6521 2.5163 2.7879
ACCOUNT 37.486 195 0.000 2.5167 2.3843 2.6492
CLIMATE 44.474 195 0.000 2.6666 2.5483 2.7848
SYSTEM 34.754 195 0.000 2.2648 2.1362 2.3933
PROCESS 41.184 195 0.000 2.6606 2.5332 2.7880

Table V Friedman test

Factors Mean rank

Creativity and attention to the past, present and

future 7
Organic structure organization 6.88
Environment analysis 7.11
Conflict management 6.24
Awareness of the situation 6.78
Futuristic approach 5.36
Intelligence 7.08
Diversified mind pattern 6.70
Accountability 6.21
Organizational climate and coordination 6.88
Systematic thinking 507
Process approach 6.69

Table VI Test statistics

n 196
Chi-square 77.695
df 11
Asymp. sig. 0.00

Note: Friedman test

Paired sample
Note: Test ¼0
valueT-test

As mentioned before, a double-sided questionnaire as the survey instrument of the study,

was prepared. To examine the difference between ‘‘importance of the factors’’, and the
‘‘present situation of the factors in Benetton, paired sample T-test was performed. Results of
the tests are as depicted in Table VII. The results indicate that in all 12 factors, the differences
are meaningful (sig. , 0.05).

5. Conclusion and recommendations

The findings of the research indicate that the relevant factors of strategic thinking are as
follows:

j j
PAGE 70 BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011
Table VII Paired sample T-test

Paired differences
95 percent
confidence interval of
the difference
Mean Std deviation Std error mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (two-tailed)

Pair 1 CREATIVI-CREATV2 20.4167 0.74992 0.05357 20.5224 20.3111 27.780 195 0.000
Pair 2 STRUCTUR-STRUCTUR2 20.4340 0.73512 0.05251 20.5376 20.3304 28.265 195 0.000
Pair 3 ENVIRONM-ENVIR2 20.4099 1.02056 0.07290 20.5537 20.2662 25.623 195 0.000
Pair 4 CONFLICT-CONFLICT2 20.5346 1.32956 0.09497 20.7219 20.3473 25.629 195 0.000
Pair 5 SITUATIO-SITUATI2 20.4205 0.96239 0.06874 20.5561 20.2849 26.117 195 0.000
Pair 6 FUTURE-FUTUR2 20.6202 1.12771 0.08055 20.7791 20.4614 27.700 195 0.000
Pair 7 INTELIGE-INTELIG2 20.4347 0.78608 0.05615 20.5455 20.3240 27.742 195 0.000
Pair 8 MIND-MIND2 20.3730 1.04808 0.7486 20.5207 20.2254 24.983 195 0.000
Pair 9 ACCOUNT-ACOUNT2 20.5517 1.20658 0.08618 20.7217 20.3818 26.402 195 0.000
Pair 10 CLIMATE-CLIMAT2 20.4488 1.00864 0.07205 20.5908 20.3067 26.229 195 0.00
Pair 11 SYSTEM-STSTM2 20.6518 1.02259 0.07304 20.7958 20.5077 28.923 195 0.000
Pair 12 PROCESS-PROCES2 20.4138 1.08011 0.7715 20.5659 20.2616 25.363 195 0.00

B Creativity and attention to the past, present and future.

B Organic structure organization.
B Environment analysis.
B Conflict management.
B Awareness of the situation.
B Futuristic approach.
B Intelligence.
B Diversified mind pattern.
B Accountability.
B Organizational climate and coordination.
B Systematic thinking.
B Process approach.
Strategic thinking ability is intrinsic to the mastery of strategic leadership. Strategic
leadership requires capability in strategic planning and strategic thinking.
If Benetton managers are willing to acquire acceptable market share in Iran, and lead the
organization strategically, they should consider all the factors of strategic thinking with
particular emphasis on: systematic thinking, accountability and conflict management.
Managers with developed strategic thinking capability are better strategic managers and
serve a useful function in their organization. Generally, due to the fact that they mostly are
involved in strategy formulation, become advocates of strategic planning and the selected
strategy; also they become committed to the strategy, can explain the reasons for the plan and
subsequent adoption, foster commitment from other members of the organization and tend to
increase the future orientation of the organization which is a benefit to overall strategic posture.

References
Acur, N. and Englyst, L. (2006), ‘‘Assessment of strategy formulation: how to ensure quality in process
and outcome’’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 69-91.
Ansoff, H.I. (1965), Corporate Strategy, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011 BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES PAGE 71
 Bonn, I. (2001), ‘‘Developing strategic thinking as a core competency’’, Management Decision, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 63-71.
Bonn, I. (2005), ‘‘Improving strategic thinking: a multilevel approach’’, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 336-45.
Bryson, J.M. (1994), Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to
Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Campbell, A. and Alexander, M. (1997), ‘‘What’s wrong with strategy?’’, Harvard Business Review, No. 5,
pp. 336-45.
Christensen, C.R., Andrews, K.R., Bower, J.L. and Hamermesh, R.G. (1982), Business Policy, Text and
Cases, 5th ed., Richard D. Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Collins, D.B., Lowe, J.S. and Arnett, C.R. (2000), ‘‘High-performance leadership at the organization
level’’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 2 No. 18, pp. 19-46.
Garratt, B. (1995), ‘‘Helicopters and rotting fish: developing strategic thinking and new roles for
direction-givers’’, in Garrat, B. (Ed.), Developing Strategic Thought – Rediscovering the Art of
Direction-giving, McGraw-Hill, London, pp. 242-55.
Graetz, F. (2002), ‘‘Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: towards understanding the
complementarities’’, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 456-62.
Heracleous, L. (1998), ‘‘Strategic thinking or strategic planning?’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 481-7.
Liedtka, J.M. (1998), ‘‘Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning’’, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 30-5.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), ‘‘The rise and fall of strategic planning’’, Harvard Business Review, pp. 107-14.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through the Wilds of
Strategic Management, Free Press, New York, NY.

Moshabaki, A. and Khazaei, A. (2009), ‘‘Designing the strategic thinking factors in Iranian
organizations’’, Business Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 105-18.
Napier, N.K. and Albert, M.S. (1990), ‘‘East Asian and American perspectives on thinking strategically:
the leopard and his spots’’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 40-50.
Porter, M. (1987), ‘‘The state of strategic thinking’’, The Economist, 23 May, pp. 19-22.

Probst, G.J.B., Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. (1999), Managing Knowledge: Building Blocks for Success,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Tavakoli, I. and Lawton, J. (2005), ‘‘Strategic thinking and knowledge management’’, Handbook of
Business Strategy, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 155-60.

Thompson, A.A. and Strickland, A. (1999), Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, 11th ed., Irwin
McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Viljoen, J. (1994), Strategic Management, 2nd ed., Longman, South Melbourne.
Wilson, I. (1994), ‘‘Strategic planning isn’t dead – it changed’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 12-24.

Further reading
Abraham, S. (2005), ‘‘Stretching strategic thinking’’, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 5-12.

Hussey, D. (1998), Strategic Management: From Theory to Implementation, 4th ed.,

Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Liedtka, J.M. (1998), ‘‘Strategic thinking: can it be thought?’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 120-9.

Corresponding author
Abbas Monnavarian can be contacted at: amonavar@ut.ac.ir

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
PAGE 72 BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES VOL. 12 NO. 2 2011
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.