See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337006327

The Strategic Thinking Questionnaire: Validation and Confirmation of

Constructs

Conference Paper · November 2011

CITATIONS READS

13 4,308

4 authors, including:

John Morris Gesulla Cavanaugh

Florida Atlantic University Nova Southeastern University
122 PUBLICATIONS   1,560 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Curriculum-Based VAM View project

The Lollipop Test View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Morris on 17 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
The Strategic Thinking Questionnaire: Validation and Confirmation of Constructs1

John Pisapia
Professor
Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology
Florida Atlantic University
Florida, USA
Tel: 561.297.3550 • Fax: 561.297.1069
Email: jpisapia@fau.edu

John D. Morris
Professor of Research Methodology
Florida Atlantic University

Gesulla Cavanaugh
Research Associate
Florida Atlantic University

Linda Ellington
Associate Professor of Business
Palm Beach Atlantic University

1
Presented at The 31st SMS Annual International Conference, Miami, Florida November 6-9, 2011.

Page 1 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation of Constructs

ABSTRACT

The study reviewed the development of the Strategic Thinking Questionnaire (STQ), and
employed item analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis on a data set of
1117 cases to confirm the constructs posited by Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, & Coukos-
Semmel in 2005. Factor analysis confirmed a three factor solution (systems thinking –
reflection – reframing). Results also indicated good internal reliability and
convergent/divergent properties among the subscales.

The Strategic Thinking Skills Framework

Pisapia (2009) frames the need for strategic thinking skills this way. At the center

of anything strategic is a purpose that needs to be fostered, enhanced, or nurtured. Thus,

when you hear the word strategic think purpose, priorities, strategies and the tactics you

use to achieve your purpose. Strategic thinking, as an organizational phenomenon, is

focused on defining purpose, priorities, strategies and tactics. As an individual

phenomenon, it requires that an individual possesses a strategic mindset which enables

them to suspend critical judgment; search for, and openness to, new ideas; recognize

patterns and perceive variation in the environment; examine new possibilities; dealing

with large chunks of information and pulling pieces together into a big picture. Pisapia

(2009) characterizes a strategic mindset as one which enables leaders to recognize

variation in their environment, continually learn, change when necessary, and encourages

the development of wisdom to know why, what, when, and how to change. Leaders with

a strategic mindset can understand the prevailing worldviews driving their context and

the themes emanating from it. It requires an appreciation for curiosity, creativity, and

innovation.

This paper describes the development and validation of a tool to assess an

individual’s possession of a strategic thinking mindset. In the management literature, it is

commonly agreed that strategic thinking in both forms distinguishes effective leaders

Page 2 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
from less effective leaders (Chilcoat, 1995; Leithwood & Steinback, 1992; Lord, de

Vader, & Alliger, 1986; Marta, Leritz & Mumford, 2005; Mumford, Campion, &

Morgeson, 2007; Mumford & Connelly, 1991; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs &

Fleishman, 2000). There is less clarity on its core elements. For instance, Liedtka’s (1998)

elements include system perspective, focused intent, thinking in time, hypothesis-driven,

and intelligent opportunism. O'Shannassy (2003) said: "...strategic thinking combines

creativity and analysis which facilitates a problem solving or hypothesis oriented

approach” (p.57). Bonn (2005) offered that the key elements of strategic thinking are

systems thinking, creativity and vision. Mintzberg (1994) and Pisapia (2009) suggest that

strategic thinking places a premium on synthesis and integration.

While the primacy of strategic thinking was supported by the literature,

assessment tools were not readily found to measure the leader’s ability to perform these

skills; hence they were not widely studied empirically (Bonn, 2001; Pisapia, Reyes-

Guerra & Coukos-Semmel, 2005; Daghir & Al Zaydi, 2005). Drawing on the theoretical

literature, Pisapia and his colleagues identified and described the three meta-cognitive

skills [found in Table 1] - systems thinking, reframing, and reflection – which enable

leaders to recognize patterns, interdependencies, and make consequential decisions (See

Argyris & Schön 1978; Baron 1994; Bolman & Deal 1994; Capra 2002; Cohen et

al.2000; Dewey, 1933; Halpren 1996; Kets De Vries 2001; March & Simon 1958; Marcy

& Mumford, 2010); Morgan 1987; Mumford, Connelly, & Gaddis, (2003). Schön 1983;

Senge 1990; Simon 1947; Weick 1996). These researchers also hypothesized that

effective leaders use these skills differently than less effective leaders, especially under

conditions of complexity [See Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, & Coukos-Semmel, 2005].

executing any given role (Jacobs & Jaques, 1990), implies that effective performance in

leadership roles will depend on cognition.

Page 3 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
[Table 1 about here]

Scale Development
Using these descriptions as their guide the team wrote statements describing the

skills required to think in systems, reflecting, and reframing terms. A panel of five

experts knowledgeable about strategic thinking reviewed the original 180 items they

created; then sorted them into the three categories. In an iterative fashion, the statements

were modified or discarded following lengthy discussions and repeated feedback sessions

between the panel and researchers. The result of this process of scale development was

the original version of the Strategic Thinking Questionnaire (STQv1) to measure the

theoretically identified constructs and relate their use to leader effectiveness, employee

engagement, and organizational/team productivity (see Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, &

Coukos-Semmel, 2005). At the end of each study or learning activity, the items were

reviewed, clarified, and additional items were added to strengthen the scale. Most studies

using the STQ instruments are presented as validated with reliable aggregated subscales.

While the original constructs remained consistent, STQ items have gone through

three iterations to strengthen the scale since 2005. The STQv1 44 item scale was used to

study 136 for-profit and nonprofit leaders’ effectiveness by Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, &

Yasin, (2006). The study was of limited applicability since the three subscales could not

be empirically derived and issues of self-reporting were not controlled. During this time

period, the STQv1 was also translated into Chinese and the three factors of system

thinking, reflecting, and reframing were empirically derived in a study of the use of

strategic thinking skills by 543 Hong Kong school leaders (Pang & Pisapia, 2007). These

data were later reanalyzed with new self-reporting control measures applied and a link to

leader effectiveness was found along with the importance of role and context in the use of

strategic thinking skills (Pang & Pisapia, 2012).

Page 4 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
Table 1
Descriptions of the Thinking Skills found in the Strategic Thinking Questionnaire
Strategic
Description
Thinking Skills
Systems thinking refers to the leader’s ability to see systems
holistically by understanding the properties, forces, patterns and
Systems
interrelationships that shape the behavior of the system, which
Thinking
hence provides options for action.

Reflecting refers to the leader’s ability to weave logical and

rational thinking, through the use of perceptions, experience and
Reflecting information, to make judgments on what has happened, and creation
of intuitive principles that guide future actions.

Reframing refers to the leader’s ability to switch attention

Reframing across multiple perspectives, frames, mental models, and paradigms
to generate new insights and options for actions.

Source: Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra & Coukos-Semmel (2005). [See original for full description of constructs]

Scale development continued. The STQv2 (48 items) was created, measures were

introduced to overcome the potential bias found in self reported data, and convergent

validity was established. In 2008, the STQv2 was validated in a multi-country study of

graduate students preparing for management positions. However, Pisapia, Pang, Hee, Lin,

& Morris (2009) only extracted two empirical factors: reflecting and systems thinking.

Using these two factors they found that use of these two skills was influenced by age,

experience and education level rather than by location and gender. During this time

frame, Zsiga (2008), working independently, correlated the STQv2 to a measure of self-

directed learning readiness and leader effectiveness in the executive directors of the

Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA). Zsiga extended the three constructs by

creating a fourth construct by combining all three scales into one called strategic thinking

orientation. He also introduced an objective measure of leader effectiveness; official

leader evaluations. His study provided evidence of a positive relationship between (a)

Page 5 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
strategic thinking orientation and leader effectiveness, and (b) a robust association of the

strategic thinking skills scale with the self directed learning scale. Raghavan, Shukla, &

Shaid, (2010) were able to validate the three original constructs and reduce the original

48 items to an empirically derived 20 items in a study of the impact of strategic thinking

on firm performance. They concluded that cognitive diversity and strategic thinking were

significantly related to the long term firm performance of return on equity but not short

term relative market share.

The STQv3 (53 items) was created by reviewing results and critiques from earlier

versions. This version sought clarification and ease of understanding of items with more

accessible language, and five new items were added to improve subscale performance.

STQv3 has been used in 7 studies. Brennan (2010) used the strategic thinking orientation

scale identified by Zigna to study the relationship between use of strategic thinking

skills, authentic leadership and transformational leadership. His conclusions from 806

cases of for-profit leaders were that (a) the relationship between authentic and

transformational leadership strategic thinking orientation significantly increases as the

degree of strategic thinking orientation leadership increases, and (b) strategic thinking

orientation predicted transformational leadership as measured by Bass’s MLQ. During

this same time frame, Penney (2010) investigated the relationship of strategic thinking

skills and the use of technology by 122 National Executive Fire Chiefs in the U.S.A.

She used the previously empirically derived subscales of systems thinking and reflection

and found that (a) education level, length of service, and age were positively associated

with higher use of strategic thinking skills, and that (b) age was a moderator of the

relationship of systems thinking and reflecting and Information and Computer

Technology comfort. Pisapia, Glick-Cuenot & Morris (2010), following up on earlier

studies suggesting a relationship of age and strategic thinking skills, applied the STQv3

Page 6 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
to entering freshman to determine if strategic thinking skills possessed by students

before they took university courses were related to grade point average and retention.

Pisapia and his colleagues also used the empirically derived subscales of systems

thinking and reflection and found significant correlations between systems thinking

orientation and grade point average (GPA). The study is longitudinal and ongoing to

determine if early GPA results hold, and if strategic thinking skills predict time to

degree.

Method

Archival data from three independent STQv3 administrations in the USA context

(Brennan, 2010, Penney 2010, and ongoing cases from development activities conducted

by Pisapia between 2008 and 2010) were combined and used to confirm the presence of

the subscales identified in 2005. The combined data base provided 1117 cases of subjects

holding leadership positions in the for-profit or nonprofit sectors in the USA.

Approximately 10% of the sample was female; 68% were employed in for-profit

organizations; 65% were White; 59% held masters’ degrees or less; 52% held

management positions and 33% held executive positions. The average age of the

participants was 46 with the youngest 33 and the oldest 62.

The instrument

The STQv3 (6 pages, 53 items) asked respondents to rate how often they used

these skills when confronted with problems, dilemmas, and/or opportunities on a Likert-

type scale, where 1 = rarely or almost never, 2 = once in a while, 3 = sometimes, 4 =

often, and 5 = frequently or almost always. A higher value represents greater use of a

cognitive skill. Average to above average scores on the STQ suggest that the respondent

is effective in using the strategic thinking skills; meaning that he or she is most likely to

Page 7 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
possess the skills to be a strategic thinker. An inability to be an effective strategic thinker

is suggested by low scores.

The STQ takes approximately fifteen minutes to complete and is capable of being

either self or electronically scored. The STQtm contains two indicators: (a) Omission

Rate (number of omitted responses), and (b) a Inconsistency Index (degree of response

inconsistency) to overcome validity issues with self report instruments. If scores on the

paired items deviated more than 1 point the case was eliminated from the analyses. It also

contains seven reverse scored items to reduce the danger of patterned answers.

Factor Structure

The 1117 cases were subject to empirical analysis in an iterative fashion to identify

latent factors, and their means and standard deviations. Communalities were estimated by

iteration from initial squared multiple correlations using the SPSS default. Principal axis

factor analysis was used to extract the common factors in the STQv3.The oblimin rotation

was selected because it allows the factors to correlate and STQ theory anticipates some

correlation among subscales. Factors were retained based on eigenvalues greater than 1.0.

The analysis revealed a three factor solution as seen in Table 3. The results supported the

construct validity of original STQ subscales. The strategic thinking scale that resulted

from the PCA is comprised of three subscales: systems thinking (5 items), reframing (5

items), and reflection (5 items).

[Table 2 about here]

Page 8 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
Table 2
Pattern matrix from the principal axis factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation for three strategic
thinking skills

1 2 3
ITEM
Sys Thinking Reframing Reflecting
I look for fundamental long-term corrective measures. .722 - -
I look for fundamental changes in the structure that could
.699 - -
lead to significant improvements?
I look at the “Big Picture” in the information available
before examining the details. .592 - -

I investigate the cause before taking action. -

.540 -
I try to understand how the facts in the situation are
related to each other. .474 - .172

I ignore my past experiences when trying to understand

situations presented to me. ®. - .705 .124
I ignore past decisions when considering current similar
situations. ® - .701 .119
I usually find only one explanation for the way things
work. ® - .592 -
I create a plan to solve a problem before considering other
viewpoints. ® - .561 -.103
I decide upon a point of view before I identify solutions to
a problem. ® - .439 -
I reconstruct an experience in my mind to understand
how I feel about it. -.101 - .663

I reconstruct an experience in my mind

- - .614
I consider how I could have handled the situation after it
was resolved. - - .593

I stop and think about why I succeeded or failed.

- - .577
I try to understand how a problem worked out after it was
resolved/ .178 - .560

% of Variance Explained 25.696 16.340 9.066

Reliability .762 .755 .734
Systems Thinking Correlation 1.0 .174 .527
Reframing Correlation .174 1.0 -.038
Reflecting Correlation .527 -.038 1.0
Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring. Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization Rotation Converged in 5 iterations.
Values less than .10 thresholds were suppressed.

Page 9 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
Following the identification of the three factors, means and standard deviations

were computed from the summed items and are displayed in Table 3

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients of the Subscales of the Strategic
Thinking Questionnaire.

Actions M SD N Alpha #Items

Systems Thinking 4.1678 .544 1117 .755 5

Reframing 3.6861 .739 1117 .734 5

Reflecting 3.8750 .676 1117 .762 5

As seen on Table 3 the rank order of skill usage are systems thinking (4.17),

reflection (3.88), and reframing (3.69). Reliabilities were assessed through Cronbach’s

alpha. Each scale performed above alpha of .70 which is considered a sufficient

reliability by psychometric authorities (Nunnally, 1978; Peterson, 1994).

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted apriori to allow us to determine the

factors and associated variables. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then used to

validate our proposed factor model and to test emergent factor solutions from the

exploratory factor analysis and to find a best fit model. Confirmatory factor analysis was

conducted using LISREL 8.72. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and

chi square statistics were calculated. The results for the confirmatory factor analysis are

in Table 4.

[Table 4 about here]

Multiple indices were referenced to determine model fit (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000).

First, model fit was assessed using the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic. A well-fitting

model would be expected to have a non-significant value of chi-square. In our case, chi-

Page 10 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
square was significant. However, the chi-square test can be problematic (Jöreskog, 1969).

When sample sizes are large, the chi-square statistic may be statistically significant even

though the model is substantially correct (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Thus, we

also used the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) as guides in

assessing fit. We followed Hu and Bentler’s (1999) recommendations in regards to fit

indices. They suggest that “an acceptable CFA fit model is characterized by the following

values: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) >.90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) <.10 and standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) <.08.” As seen

on Table 4, on these indices the model demonstrated a good fit to the data.

Table 4
Model fit for a priori single- and multilevel models

Model Χ2 df CFI RMSEA SRMR

335.91 75 0.97 0.056 0.035

x2 is statistically significant at 0.05. df=degrees of freedom, CFI=comparative fit index, RMSEA=root
mean square error of approximation, SRMR=standardized root mean square residual.

Discussion
The STQ, a self-report instrument, was designed to elicit individual preferences

and behaviors without influencing the respondent toward or away from any particular

selection. The reliability of using self-ratings as a measure in research studies has been

reviewed by a number of writers without reaching universal consensus on their

effectiveness (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Smither,

London, Vasilopoulous, Reilly, Millsap, & Salvemini, 1995; Yammarino & Atwater,

1997; Wiesband & Atwater, 1998). Despite Spector’s (1992) claim that such data are not

Page 11 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
as limited as commonly expected, and with the lack of a full consensus, there are still

indications of a tendency for self-reported data to be inflated.

The STQ contains safeguards identified in previous paragraphs to overcome the

effects of self-reporting. These safeguards (e.g. inconsistent reporting) were applied and

cases were removed before the data was analyzed. Given this limitation, we found no

problems with the convergent/divergent properties of the STQ subscales. Respondents

could distinguish among systems thinking, reflection, and reframing.

External generalizability. The STQ appears to be generalizable to a wide

spectrum of society. It has been administered and reported in six countries among

undergraduate and graduate students and leaders and managers in for-profit and nonprofit

organizations. In all but the earliest versions, essentially identical factor structures as

those reported here were found. Item responses do differ as age, education, organizational

role, and experience levels increase. Thus the instrument may perform differently based

on the population studied.

Internal reliability. The STQv3 produced good internal reliability. In 2005,

Pisapia et. al. suggested that “the overall scale reliability of .91 and the high reliabilities

for systems thinking, reflecting and reframing lead to the possibility that the scale is

measuring one construct instead of three… .” (p.22). They suggested that larger sample

sizes were necessary to perform a satisfactory factor analyses. Several such studies have

been done. Pang and Pisapia (2010) reported moderate alphas from .68 to .79. Similarly

Pisapia, Pang, Hee, Lin, and Morris (2008) reported alphas from .74 to .87. As seen on

Table 3 above, this study reports alpha’s from .73 to .7.6 across three factors. Rather

than measuring one construct as originally believed the new scale appears to be

measuring different strategic thinking skills.

Page 12 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
Overall, item analysis indicated good convergent/divergent properties for items

among the strategic thinking, reflection, and reframing subscales. Among these subscales,

items correlated lower across subscales than within suggesting they are measuring

individual constructs. We found no significant threats to reliability.

Convergent validity. Convergent validity was established between the strategic

orientation scale and Guglielmino (1977) self directed inventory and Bass’s (1998)

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire in previous studies (Zigna, 2008; Brennan 2010)

and was not tested in this study.

Construct validity. This study produced three subscales that match the theoretical

definitions posed by Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra and Coukos-Semmel in 2005. They defined

reflection as the ability to weave logical and rational thinking with perceptions and

experience to make judgments. The reflection subscale items reported above portray this

ability; i.e., listening to intuition; connecting the dots; what am I neglecting to ask; what

is so interesting, unique and important about this challenge. These items portray the

strategic thinker as looking beyond the facts and reasons in an inductive manner to see

‘invisible’ influences in a situation.

In 2005, Pisapia and his colleagues defined systems thinking as the ability to see

systems holistically, recognizing patterns and interrelationships. The systems thinking

subscale items portray this ability; i.e., understanding how facts and people are

connected; seeking underlying causes; extracting patterns; defining the entire problem

before breaking it into parts. These items portray the strategic thinker as looking at the

entire picture and then considering the important fundamental components.

In 2005, reframing was defined as the ability to switch attention across

perspectives, frames and paradigms. The reframing subscale items portray this ability;

Page 13 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
i.e., not ignoring past experiences and decisions when understanding current situations;

finding more than one explanation, suspending judgment; seeking different perceptions.

These items portray the strategic thinker reframing situations by looking at different

viewpoints as opposed to one viewpoint or group opinion.

Conclusions

Our research set out to examine the construct validity of the strategic thinking

questionnaire (STQ). This study suggests that the current version of the strategic thinking

questionnaire (STQ) validates the hypothesized version Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, and

Coukos-Semmel conceived in 2005.Internal consistency of the subscales was moderate.

The subscales produced correlations that indicate good divergent properties. Results from

confirmatory analysis are a good fit with the original three subscale model.

References
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership
perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?
Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-164.
Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 17 (1), 1-
10.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press. .
Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (1991) Leadership and management effectiveness: a multi-
Frame, multi-Sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30, 509-534.
Bonn, I. (2005). Improving strategic thinking: A multilevel approach. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 26 (5), 336-354.
Brennan, P. (2010). Pursuing success without scandal: Exploring the relationship
between transformational and Authentic Leadership. Unpublished dissertation,
Minneapolis, MN: Cappella University
Capra, F. (2002). The hidden connections. New York, NY: Doubleday..
Chilcoat, Richard (1995). Strategic Art: The new discipline for the 21st century. Carlisle,
PA: U.S. War College.

Page 14 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
Cohen, M, Thompson, B, Adelman, L. Bresnick, T., Shastri, L. & Riedel, S. (2000).
Training critical thinking for the battlefield: Basis in cognitive theory and
research. Ft. Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Research Institute.
Daghir, M., & Al Zaydi, K. (2005).The measurement of strategic thinking type for top
managers in Iraqi public organizations-cognitive approach. International Journal
of Commerce and Management, 15(1), 34-46.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: Heath.
Floyd, F. & Widaman K: (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of
clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3):286-299.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1978). ProQuest Digital
Dissertations, 38(11), 6467.
Halpren, D. (1996). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Harris, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and
peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-61
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M.(1999).Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-55.)
Jöreskog, K.G. (1969).A general approach to confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika,
34, 183-202.
Kets de Vries, M. (2001). The leadership mystique: A user’s manual for the human
enterprise. New York: Prentice Hall
Leithwood, K. A. & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem-solving expertise of
school administrators. Education and Urban Society, 24(3), 317-345.
Liedtka, J.M. (1998). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategy and
Leadership, 26(4), 30-35.
Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A Meta-analysis of the relation
between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity
generalization procedure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 402-410.
Marcy, R. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Leader cognition: Improving leader
performance through causal analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
March, J.G. & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York New York, Wiley.
Marsh, H., Balla, J. & McDonald, R. (1988). Goodness-of-Fit Indexes in Confirmatory
Factor Analysis: The Effect of Sample Size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391-
410.
Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and group
performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97–120.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving the roles for
planning, plans, planners. New York: Free Press.

Page 15 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills
strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The
Leadership Quarterly., 18, 154−166.
Mumford, M., Connelly, S., & Gaddis, B. (2003). How creative leaders think:
Experimental findings and cases. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 411–432.
Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leader performance and
problem solving in ill-defined domains. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 289–316.
Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Harding, F., Jacobs, T., & Fleishman, E. (2000). Leadership
skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 11–35.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Pychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
O'Shannassy, T. (2003). Modern strategic management: Balancing strategic thinking and
strategic planning for internal and external stakeholders. Singapore Management
Review, 25 (1), 53-67.
Pang, S. K. & Pisapia, J. (2007). The Strategic thinking capabilities of school
leaders in Hong Kong. Presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Education Research Association, Chicago, Il.
Pang, N.S. & Pisapia, J. (In Press). The Strategic Thinking skills of Hong Kong School
Leaders: Usage and Effectiveness. Educational Management Administration and
Leadership.
Penney, G. (2010). The use of strategic thinking skills and technology tools by
Fire Chiefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida Atlantic
University.
Peterson, R. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The Journal of
Consumer Research. 21(2), 381-391.
Pisapia, J., Glick-Cuenot, S. & Morris, J. D. (2010). Strategic Thinking Skills and
Undergraduate Student Academic Success. Paper presented to the 4th conference
of the American Institute of Higher Education. Williamsburg, Va. USA. March
18, 2010.
Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader: New tactics for a globalizing world. Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Press.
Pisapia, J., Pang, N.S.K., Hee, T. H. Lin, Ying, & Morris, J.D. (2009). A comparison of
the use of strategic thinking skills of aspiring school leaders in Hong Kong,
Malaysia, Shanghai, and the United States: An exploratory study. International
Journal of Educational Studies. 2(2), 48-58.
Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D. and Coukos-Semmel, E. (2005) Developing the leader’s
strategic mindset: establishing the measures. The Leadership Review, 5(1), 41-68.
Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D. and Yasin, M. (2006). Strategic thinking and leader
success. Paper presented at the Advances in Management Annual Meeting,
Lisbon Portugal.

Page 16 of 17
 Strategic Thinking Skills: Validation and Confirmation
2011
Raghavan, S., Shukla, A. & Shaid, S. (2010). Strategic thinking and its impact on
performance: An upper echelons perspective. Presented at the Society of Strategic
Management Conference. Finland
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A method for comparing completely
standardized solutions in multiple groups. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 292-
308.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Simon, H.A. (1947). Administrative behavior (1st ed.). New York: Harper and Row
Smither, J., London, M., Vasilopoulous, N., Reilly, R., Millsap, R., & Salvemini, N.
(1995). An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over time.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 1- 34.
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated Rating Scales. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sternberg, R. (2007). A systems model of leadership: WICs. The American Psychologist,

62(1), 34-42.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.
Weisband, S. & Atwater, L. (1990). Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to-
face groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 632-639
Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. (1997). Do managers see themselves as others see
them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources
management. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 35-44.
Zsiga, P. (2008). Leader effectiveness from self-directed learning and strategic thinking
International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management 2008 -
8(4), 306 – 317

Page 17 of 17

View publication stats