Description
Description tell about the cognitive style and strategic decisions of managers.
[ 541 ]
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
©MCB University Press
[I SSN 0025-1747]
The cogni t i ve st yl e and st rat egi c deci si ons of
managers
Ti i na Gal l én
University of Vaasa, Department of Management and Organization, Finland
Researchers have for a long
time attempted to understand
the concept of strategy. One
way to examine strategy is to
approach it through man-
agers. According to the the-
ory of cognitive style, there
are differences in the ways
people perceive things and
make judgements. Based on
these consistent differences,
it can be proposed that there
is consistent variation in the
ways managers see strategy.
Strong evidence of the rela-
tionship between cognitive
style and strategy can be
found in past research.
Makes propositions concern-
ing that relationship and
suggests some guidelines for
empirical research.
Int roduct i on
The i mportance of knowi ng oneself and one’s
competitors was already found to be extremely
i mportant i n anci ent war strategi es. More
than 2,000 years ago i t was sai d:
Know the enemy and know yourself; i n a
hundred battles you wi ll never be i n peri l.
When you are i gnorant of the enemy but
know yourself, your chances of wi nni ng or
losi ng are equal. I f i gnorant both of your
enemy and of yourself, you are certai n i n
every battle to be i n peri l (Sun, 1971, p. 84).
Si mi larly, organi zati ons should know them-
selves as well as thei r competi tors i n order to
succeed.
Many researchers have noti ced the i mpor-
tance of the CEO i n i n?uenci ng the strategi c
di recti on of a ?r m (e.g. Beatty and Zajac, 1987;
Mi les and Snow, 1978). The CEO’s characteri s-
ti cs such as age, educati on, tenure or soci o-
economi c roots have been proposed to have
an effect on strategi c choi ces as well as on
organi zati onal perfor mance (e.g. Hambri ck
and Mason, 1984; Rajagopalan and Datta,
1996; Thomas et al., 1991). However, as Haley
and Stumpf (1989) concluded, those parti cular
characteri sti cs seem unli kely to i n?uence the
di agnosi s and development of strategi c i ssues
di rectly. I nstead of concentrati ng on observ-
able characteri sti cs, they suggested that
personali ty i s the li nk between cogni tive
processes and strategi c deci si ons. I n a si mi lar
vei n, Hambri ck and Mason (1984, p. 203) men-
ti oned the i mportance of psychologi cal char-
acteri sti cs.
J ungi an psychologi cal types have been used
to provi de more i ntegrated vi ews of man-
agers’ behavi our i n some studi es (Haley and
Pi ni , 1994; Haley and Stumpf, 1989; Nutt, 1979;
Pollay, 1970; Stumpf and Dunbar, 1991). Hen-
derson and Nutt (1980) used J ungi an typology
i n thei r study of the i n?uence of deci si on
style on deci si on-maki ng behavi our. Chani n
and Schneer (1984) combi ned personali ty
di mensi ons wi th con?i ct-handli ng behavi our
(see also Ki lmann and Thomas, 1977). Stumpf
and Dunbar (1991) got results whi ch generally
supported the proposed relati onshi p between
personali ty-type preferences and the patter n
of choi ces made i n strategi c deci si on si tua-
ti ons.
Emphasi s has also been put on the ?t
between manageri al characteri sti cs and
strategy. I t has been found that di fferent CEO
pro?les are associ ated wi th di fferent strategi c
types (Herbert and Deresky, 1987; Thomas,
Li tschert and Ramaswamy, 1991; Wi ssema,
van der Pol and Messer, 1980). Hurst, Rush
and Whi te (1989) combi ned creative manage-
ment process, cogni tive mode and behavi ours
i n thei r creative management model. Thei r
model i s bui lt on the assumpti on that di ffer-
ent composi ti ons of top management teams
are needed i n organi zati onal renewal. They
also proposed li nks between J ungi an cogni -
tive modes and the strategi c archetypes of
Mi les and Snow’s (1978) typology. However,
thei r proposi ti ons have got only parti al
empi ri cal support (Saari maa, 1995).
The purpose of thi s arti cle i s to further
develop the i dea of the relati onshi p between
managers’ cogni tive style and strategi c deci -
si ons. I t i s assumed that i ndivi dual
managers’ way of gatheri ng i nfor mati on and
evaluati ng i t i s re?ected i n thei r strategi c
choi ces. The subject wi ll be studi ed theoreti -
cally by exami ni ng the phenomenon on an
i ndivi dual level. Further theoreti cal as well
as empi ri cal exami nati on of the topi c pro-
vi des deeper understandi ng of managers’
behavi our and di fferences i n strategi c deci -
si ons. Based on pri or research, proposi ti ons
concer ni ng the personali ty-strategy relati on-
shi p are made. Fi rst, research li nki ng man-
ageri al characteri sti cs to strategi es wi ll be
revi ewed.
Li nki ng manageri al charact eri st i cs
t o st rat egi es
Wi ssema, van der Pol and Messer (1980) pro-
posed classi ?cati ons of strategi es and of man-
agement archetypes. Thei r classi ?cati ons
were based on the assumpti on that leaders
can change thei r styles even though they may
be i n?exi ble i n doi ng so. The market si tua-
ti on (exter nal potenti al) and the si tuati on of
the company i n the market (i nter nal poten-
ti al) were used as starti ng poi nts for thei r
descri pti on of strategi es. Based on the li fe-
cycle theory, si x strategy types were i denti -
?ed: explosive growth, expansi on, conti nuous
[ 542 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
growth, consoli dati on, sli p strategy and con-
tracti on.
Manageri al characteri sti cs li ke creativi ty
and i ntui tive-i rrati onal thi nki ng were com-
bi ned wi th explosive growth strategy (Wi s-
sema et al., 1980). Expansi on strategy, whi ch
i s appli ed i n a saturated market, requi res a
conqueror type of manager, who i s descri bed
as creatively ori ented towards anythi ng new,
generali st and rati onali st. A soli d and sys-
temati c ruler wi th common sense and sound
judgment was suggested to be the type of
manager who corresponds to growth strategy.
Accordi ng to Wi ssema et al. (1980), consoli da-
ti on strategy (“ni l-growth on a stabi li zed
market”) sui ts a stable-stati c admi ni strator
well. An economi zer, whose behavi our i s
reactive and legali sti c, has the most adequate
set of capabi li ti es requi red for the reali zati on
of sli p strategy (the company has low i nter nal
potenti al). Contracti on strategy, whi ch has
negative growth, demands an i nsi stent di plo-
mat manager whose style of thi nki ng i s
descri bed as broad and many-si ded and who
takes others i nto account. I n the last case, a
?r m’s activi ty i s consi derably reduced or
ended.
Mi ller, Kets De Vri es and Toulouse (1982)
studi ed top executives’ locusof control and i ts
relati onshi p to strategy maki ng, structure
and envi ronment. They found the strongest
relati onshi p between locusof control and
strategy maki ng. I nter nal executives, who see
the outcomes of thei r behavi our as results of
thei r own efforts, were found i n i nnovative
?r ms and they tended to place greater empha-
si s on product desi gn. On the other hand,
exter nal executives, who thi nk that the
events i n thei r lives are beyond thei r control,
were typi cally found i n ?rms whi ch operated
i n more stable envi ronments. Exter nal execu-
tives made only i ncremental product modi ?-
cati ons. Support was found for personali ty-
based congruence (an executive’s personali ty
i n?uences hi s strategi es, whi ch i n tur n i n?u-
ence structure and envi ronment), parti cu-
larly i n small ?r ms.
Herbert and Deresky (1987) developed a li st
of i mportant manageri al requi rements for
generi c strategi es whi ch they named the
develop, stabi li ze, and tur naround strategi es.
Managers i mplementi ng develop strategy
were found to have ski lls i n marketi ng and
R&D. These managers were typi cally aggres-
sive, competi tive, i nnovative, creative and
?exi ble. I f the company had stabi li zed strat-
egy, managers had ski lls i n areas such as
producti on and engi neeri ng. Pri mary per-
sonal factors found were conservativeness,
carefulness and “quanti tativeness”. Tur n-
around strategy demanded managers wi th
abi li ty to handle cri ses, to make tough
deci si ons, to plan new di recti ons and to oper-
ate under condi ti ons of complexi ty and
uncertai nty. The personal factors of man-
agers were to be autonomous, ri sk- and chal-
lenge-ori ented. Accordi ng to Herbert and
Deresky (1987), managers’ percepti on and
means of i mplementi ng the company’s objec-
tives must be ali gned wi th the percepti on and
methods of top management.
Overall, the results suggest that creative,
active and competi tive managers are found i n
i nnovative ?r ms. On the other hand, stable
?r ms have managers who are more bureau-
crati c, conservative and stable than thei r
colleagues i n i nnovative ?r ms. Tur naround
strategy i s i mplemented by autonomous and
challenge-ori ented managers (Herbert and
Deresky, 1987). Wi ssema et al. (1980) also
de?ned contracti on strategy (negative
growth) whi ch i s best pursued by many si ded,
consi derate and human managers.
However, all of these studi es have some
li mi tati ons. Fi rst of all, Wi ssema et al. (1980)
based thei r typology not on emergent but on
possi ble busi ness strategi es. They also
i gnored the reasons why some managers
functi on badly i n a parti cular strategy. On the
other hand, Herbert and Deresky (1987) as
well as Mi ller et al. (1982) collected thei r data
from several i ndustri es. Thi s ki nd of data
collecti on can be defended by better general-
i zabi li ty, but as Mi les and Snow (1978) poi nted
out, i ndustry characteri sti cs play a certai n
role. Accordi ng to Mi les and Snow, patter ns of
behavi our begi n to emerge when competi ng
organi zati ons wi thi n a si ngle i ndustry are
observed. As a conclusi on, the manager-strat-
egy relati onshi p has been studi ed, but a
really comprehensive explanatory model,
whi ch could be further developed and tested
i n di fferent countri es and i ndustri es, seems
sti ll to be mi ssi ng. Next, a wi dely used
method of classi fyi ng managers’ behavi our,
Myers Bri ggs type i ndi cator, and the theory
on whi ch i t i s based i s presented.
Cogni t i ve st yl e i n cl assi f yi ng
behavi our
There are dozens of di fferent theori es of per-
sonali ty whi ch all have advantages as well as
di sadvantages. Even though J ung’s theory of
personali ty fai ls to meet many of the cri teri a
for the evaluati on of sci enti ?c theori es, the
evi dence for the vali di ty of hi s theory of psy-
chologi cal types has been consi stently sup-
portive (Ryckman, 1989). Myers Bri ggs type
i ndi cator (MBTI ) has been developed i n order
to make the theory of J ung’s psychologi cal
types understandable and useful i n people’s
lives (Myers and McCaulley, 1990). Despi te
[ 543 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
certai n li mi tati ons concer ni ng the use of
MBTI (e.g. Coe, 1992; Zemke, 1992), there are
studi es whi ch support i ts construct vali di ty
(Rosenak and Shontz, 1988) and use i n man-
agement research (Gauld and Si nk, 1985).
The core of the theory around the MBTI i s
that much seemi ngly random vari ati on i n
behavi our i s actually qui te orderly and con-
si stent. Accordi ng to the theory, people prefer
to use ei ther sensi ng (S) or i ntui ti on (N) for
percepti on. Sensi ng refers to percepti ons
observable through one or more of the ?ve
senses. Percepti on of possi bi li ti es, meani ngs,
and relati onshi ps by way of i nsi ght are typi -
cal of i ntui ti on-ori ented persons. Thi nki ng
(T) or feeli ng (F) are used for purposes of
judgement. Thi nki ng-ori ented people use the
logi cal deci si on-maki ng functi on. The feeli ng
type reli es on understandi ng values and i s
more subjective than the thi nki ng type.
Extroversi on (E) and i ntroversi on (I ) are seen
as complementary atti tudes or ori entati ons
to li fe. Extroverts tend to focus on people and
objects. I ntroverts are more i nterested i n
concepts and i deas. Ori entati on to the outer
world i s measured by a judgement (J )/ percep-
ti on (P) atti tude, whi ch i s a major contri bu-
ti on by Myers and McCaulley to the theory of
psychologi cal types (Lawrence, 1993; Myers
and McCaulley, 1990).
Everyone uses all the previ ously descri bed
functi ons (S/ N, T/ F) and atti tudes (E/ I , J / P),
but favours or more naturally adopts the
preferred ones. When di fferent ways of per-
cepti on and judgement are combi ned, four
cogni tive styles can be de?ned: ST (sensati on-
thi nki ng), SF (sensati on-feeli ng), NT (i ntu-
i ti on-thi nki ng) and NF (i ntui ti on-feeli ng).
Further, di sti ngui shi ng ei ght preferences
(E/ I , S/ N, T/ F, J / P), 16 MBTI types can be
i denti ?ed (for example ESTJ or I NFP). How-
ever, many researchers have selected cogni -
tive style i nstead of the whole type i n classi fy-
i ng managers’ behavi our (e.g. Haley and
Stumpf, 1989; Henderson and Nutt, 1980). Thi s
may be partly due to di ffi culti es i n data col-
lecti on: i t mi ght be di ffi cult to gather enough
extensive data on managers to cover all the 16
MBTI types. Naturally, selecti ng cogni tive
style can be defended when a deci si on-
maki ng process or i ts outcomes are the sub-
jects of the study.
Cogni tive style has been typi cally used i n
studi es of i nfor mati on processi ng i n order to
develop deci si on-maki ng systems. Among
many others, Maci ntosh (1985) poi nted out
the i mportance of understandi ng i ndivi dual
di fferences i n the way managers gather,
process and uti li ze i nfor mati on. Si mi larly,
Mason and Mi troff (1973) and Henderson and
Nutt (1980) based thei r studi es on cogni tive
style. I n addi ti on to descri pti ons of cogni tive
styles provi ded by Myers and McCaulley
(1990), some of these studi es of deci si on mak-
i ng have been selected for closer exami nati on
i n thi s paper i n order to make a revi ew of the
knowledge of managers’ actual behavi our.
Each cogni tive style i s presented i n the next
secti on.
The sensi ng-t hi nki ng t ype (ST)
ST people rely on sensi ng for purposes of
percepti on and on thi nki ng for purposes of
judgement. ST types deal best wi th concrete,
objective problems. They conserve valued
resources and protect practi ces that work and
?nd scope for thei r abi li ti es i n techni cal
ski lls wi th facts and objects. Thei r best
chances of success and sati sfacti on li e i n
?elds that demand i mpersonal analysi s of
concrete facts, such as economi cs, law, busi -
ness, accounti ng, producti on, and the han-
dli ng of machi nes and materi als (Myers and
McCaulley, 1990, pp. 33-5). Past research sug-
gests (Mi troff and Ki lmann, 1975) that, i n the
ST managers’ i deal organi zati on complete
control, certai nty and speci ?ci ty are empha-
si zed. Work roles are well de?ned. The i deal
organi zati on i s authori tari an and there i s a
well-de?ned hi erarchi cal li ne of authori ty.
Organi zati onal goals are reali sti c, down-to-
earth, li mi ted and narrowly economi c. Ki l-
mann and Herden (1976) argued that the ST
component of organi zati onal effectiveness i s
achi eved by i nter nal effi ci ency.
Because STs are supposed to be affected by
a bi as towards anchori ng functi ons, they may
fai l to alter thei r judgement suffi ci ently i n
the li ght of new i nfor mati on (Haley and
Stumpf, 1989). Functi onal ?xedness bi ases
refers to the reli ance of STs on certai n
problem-solvi ng methods (such as standard
operati ng procedures). The hypothesi s,
accordi ng to whi ch the acti ons of STs tend to
be qui ck-?x soluti ons to problems, i nvolve
low levels of ri sk, and re?ect standard operat-
i ng procedures, has not received support i n
the study made by Stumpf and Dunbar (1991).
However, i t has been found that the STs see
hi gh ri sk and are reluctant to adopt new pro-
jects compared to the SF executives who are
ri sk tolerant and more li kely to adopt such
projects (Henderson and Nutt, 1980; Nutt,
1986; 1990).
The sensi ng-feel i ng t ype (SF)
Relyi ng pri mari ly on sensi ng for percepti on
and feeli ng for judgement, the SF people
approach thei r deci si ons wi th personal
war mth. They li ke worki ng i n har moni ous,
fami li ar and predi ctable si tuati ons. They are
most li kely to succeed and be sati s?ed i n
work where thei r personal war mth can be
appli ed effectively to the i mmedi ate
[ 544 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
si tuati on, as i n nursi ng, teachi ng (especi ally
elementary teaching), social work and the
selling of tangibles (Myers and McCaulley,
1990, pp. 33-5). Instead of caring about theory
or general issues, SF types are concerned with
the detailed human relations in their organi-
zation (Mitroff and Kilmann, 1975). The physi-
cal work environment is important to SF
types. Their ideal organization is realistic.
Accordi ng to Ki lmann and Herden (1976),
i nter nal effectiveness and employee tur nover
and commi tment are consi dered i mportant
by SF types. Haley and Stumpf (1989) suggest
that one of thei r weaknesses i s avai labi li ty
bi as. Thi s refers to the SF types’ tendency to
pay more attenti on to people-ori ented i nfor-
mati on. They may restate vi ewpoi nts to
shape arguments used by others. They vi ew
people as dynami c and i nteresti ng and si tua-
ti ons as stati c and palli d i n themselves. The
SF types’ acti ons tend to confor m to soci ally
accepted nor ms and values, express soci al
approval, and sati sfy the wants of others
(Stumpf and Dunbar, 1991).
The i nt ui t i ve-feel i ng t ype (NF)
NFs possess the same personal war mth as SF
people not because thei r judgement i s based
on feeli ng, but because they prefer i ntui ti on
to sensi ng, they focus on possi bi li ti es. They
are both enthusi asti c and i nsi ghtful and may
excel i n adverti si ng, the selli ng of i ntangi -
bles, counselli ng, psychi atry, and wri ti ng
(Myers and McCaulley, 1990, pp. 33-5). Broad,
global themes and i ssues are typi cal of NF
managers (Mi troff and Ki lmann, 1975). The
i deal organi zati on for NFs i s organi cally
adaptive, personally i deali sti c and ?exi ble.
An NF organi zati on i s completely decentral-
i zed wi th no clear li nes of authori ty. The
emphasi s of NFs i s on the most general per-
sonal and human goals of organi zati ons. The
heroes of NF organi zati ons create new li nes
of di recti on (such as new products and objec-
tives) and give the organi zati on a new sense
of di recti on i n the human or personal sense.
The NF component of organi zati onal effec-
tiveness i s clai med to be exter nal effective-
ness (Ki lmann and Herden, 1976). Exter nal
effectiveness emphasi zes soci al responsi bi l-
i ty and sati sfacti on of the i nterested parti es.
Accordi ng to Haley and Stumpf (1989), NF
types may overesti mate the feasi bi li ty of
thei r plans based on vivi d data. A reasoni ng-
by-analogy bi as means that NFs enjoy cre-
ative problem solvi ng but may provi de
extremely si mpli sti c overvi ews of complex
si tuati ons. Stumpf and Dunbar (1991) pro-
posed that NF types engage i n acti ons whi ch
often i nvolve substanti al, radi cal changes
that affect the organi zati on-envi ronment
i nterface.
The i nt ui t i ve-t hi nki ng t ype (NT)
The NT people also use i ntui ti on but trust
thi nki ng when maki ng judgements. They are
most successful i n solvi ng problems i n ?elds
of speci al i nterest, whether sci enti ?c
research, electroni c computi ng, mathemat-
i cs, the more complex aspects of ?nance, or
any sort of development or pi oneeri ng i n
techni cal areas (Myers and McCaulley, 1990,
pp. 33-5). Mi troff and Ki lmann (1975) found
that the NTs’ i deal organi zati on i s i mper-
sonal but i nstead of bei ng reali sti c li ke an ST
organi zati on, i t i s i deali sti c. I mpersonally
conceptual, broad and i ll-de?ned macro-
economi c i ssues are found essenti al by NTs.
Thei r heroes are broad conceptuali zers who
take an organi zati on desi gned to accompli sh
a very speci ?c, li mi ted set of goals and create
new goals.
NT types see organi zati onal effectiveness as
a result of exter nal effi ci ency and ?nd new
product development i mportant (Ki lmann
and Herden, 1976). Accordi ng to Haley and
Stumpf (1989), NTs are affected by bi ases
emphasi zi ng perseverance. They may adhere
to thei r pri or beli efs and i gnore subsequent,
contradi ctory evi dence. Longer-ter m and
open-ended projects i nterest them. NTs tend
to seek opportuni ti es, focus on the posi tive
aspects of an opportuni ty, and i gnore the
ri sks or threats i nvolved i n i mplementi ng
some acti on (Stumpf and Dunbar, 1991).
As previ ously descri bed studi es con?r m,
there seem to be clear di fferences i n behav-
i our between managers of di fferent cogni tive
styles. Practi cal and matter-of-fact ST types
seem to di ffer qui te a lot from enthusi asti c
and i nsi ghtful NF types, who are at the other
end of the conti nuum compared wi th STs.
Si mi larly, logi cal and i ngeni ous NT types are
the exact opposi tes of sympatheti c and
fri endly SF types. I n the next secti on, the
Mi les and Snow (1978) typology and some of
the studi es con?rmi ng and extendi ng i t wi ll
be revi ewed.
Organi zat i on t ypol ogy
Accordi ng to Hambri ck and Mason (1984, p.
197), the envi ronment and growth of an i ndus-
try can affect the types of managers found i n
top posi ti ons. Because of the i mpact of such
i ndustry related factors, the Mi les and Snow
(1978) typology, whi ch concentrates on strate-
gi es wi thi n one i ndustry, i s chosen. Com-
pared for example wi th Mi ntzberg’s typology,
i t i s more wi dely used i n research (Segev,
1987, p. 574). The relati onshi p between strate-
gi c types and organi zati onal perfor mance has
been studi ed i ntensively (Conant, Mokwa and
Varadarajan, 1990; Dvi r, Seger and Shenhar,
[ 545 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
1993; Segev, 1987; Smi th, Guthri e and Chen,
1989). Banki ng (J ames and Hatten, 1995;
McDani el and Kolari , 1987) as well as hospi tal
care (Beekun and Gi nn, 1993; Hambri ck, 1981;
Shortell and Zajac, 1990) have been popular
subjects of pri or research. As Mi ller (1996)
stated, Mi les and Snow’s typology i s among
the most promi nent of strategi c typologi es.
Usi ng ?eld research i n several i ndustri es,
Mi les and Snow (1978) i denti ?ed a theoreti cal
framework whi ch consi sts of the adaptive
process and the organi zati on typology. I t i s
based on the assumpti on that organi zati ons
see what they want to see i n the exter nal
envi ronment and can be proactive deali ng
wi th i t. I t vi ews the organi zati ons as com-
plete and i ntegrated systems i n dynami c
i nteracti on wi th i ts envi ronment. Mi les and
Snow agree wi th many other researchers that
an organi zati on’s structure and process are
shaped by the management’s strategi c
choi ces. Accordi ng to Mi les and Snow, organi -
zati ons ali gn themselves wi th the envi ron-
ment by an adaptive process whi ch i ncludes
solvi ng entrepreneuri al, engi neeri ng and
admi ni strative problems.
Mi les and Snow (1978) found that there are
three generi c strategi es: defender, prospector
and analyser. Defenders are organi zati ons
that offer a stable set of products or servi ces
and compete pri mari ly on the basi s of pri ce,
quali ty, servi ce and delivery. Prospectors are
“?rst i n the market”, have a very broad prod-
uct-market de?ni ti on and focus on i nnova-
ti on and change. Analysers have characteri s-
ti cs from the defender and the prospector.
Analysers make fewer and slower product
and market changes than prospectors, and
they are somewhat less commi tted to stabi li ty
and effi ci ency than defenders. Any one of
these strategi es can be successful i n a given
envi ronment i f the ?r m acts consi stently i n
all areas of i ts operati on. I n addi ti on to three
vi able strategi es, Mi les and Snow (1978)
de?ned a “resi dual” reactor strategy. Reac-
tors make i nconsi stent entrepreneuri al, engi -
neeri ng, and admi ni strative choi ces.
Mi les and Snow (1978, pp. 116-29) suggested
that tradi ti onal and human relati ons man-
ageri al beli efs are more li kely to be found i n
defender and reactor organi zati ons. Poli ci es
i n the tradi ti onal management model de?ne
supervi si on and control as basi c manageri al
tasks. Detai led work routi nes and procedures
are needed. Accordi ng to the poli ci es of the
human relati on model, the manager’s basi c
task i s to make each worker feel useful and
i mportant. Subordi nates should be kept
i nfor med and thei r objecti ons to proposed
plans should be li stened to. On the contrary,
Mi les and Snow suggest that manageri al
beli efs i nvolvi ng human resources model wi ll
be found i n analyser and prospectors organi -
zati ons. The manager’s basi c task i s to make
use of hi s “untapped” human resources and
all members should be allowed to contri bute
to the li mi t of thei r abi li ty.
Prospectors’ strong marketi ng ori entati on
was supported i n the research on di sti nctive
marketi ng competence made by Conant et al.
(1990). McDani el and Kolari (1987) arrived at
si mi lar results i n thei r research i n the mar-
keti ng strategy i mpli cati ons of the Mi les and
Snow typology. Marketi ng offi cers of prospec-
tor and analyser banks were found to vi ew
new product development activi ti es and pri c-
i ng as bei ng more i mportant to organi za-
ti onal strategy than thei r colleagues i n
defender banks. Promoti onal activi ti es were
generally vi ewed as bei ng less i mportant by
defenders than by prospectors and analysers.
However, the most consi stent ?ndi ngs were
those related to personal selli ng activi ti es.
Prospectors and analysers were found to vi ew
personal selli ng i n general, telephone soli ci -
tati on, sales trai ni ng for employees and sales
managers to supervi se sales personnel as
bei ng more i mportant than defenders.
Accordi ng to Hambri ck (1982), strategi c
di fferences between prospectors and defend-
ers occur pri mari ly through i nter nal analy-
si s and poli ti cal processes and not through
unequal possessi on of i nfor mati on. Di sti nc-
tive competences are the results of propensi ty
and abi li ty to act on certai n i tems of envi ron-
mental i nfor mati on. Executives scan accord-
i ng to thei r own personal or functi onal i nter-
ests. The patter n of coupli ng between an
organi zati on and the exter nal envi ronment
has been found to be a functi on of strategi c
type and type of coupli ng (Beekun and Gi nn,
1993). I n the resource exchange and i nfor ma-
ti on domai ns prospectors were the most
ti ghtly coupled externally.
The CEOs of prospector ?rms have been
found to be si gni ?cantly younger than those
of defender ?r ms. Prospector ?rms have
CEOs wi th shorter tenure regardi ng both the
employment and posi ti on and wi th more
educati on than those i n thei r defender coun-
terparts. When organi zati onal perfor mance
was consi dered, ?r ms wi th a greater degree
of ali gnment between thei r strategy and the
pro?les of top managers, generally achi eved
superi or perfor mance outcomes (Thomas et
al., 1991). Accordi ng to Reponen, Pär ni stö and
Vi rtanen (1994), personali ty has a si gni ?cant
effect on strategy for mulati on. Si nce people
use and perceive the framework of strategi c
planni ng di fferently, those models alone can-
not solve problems of strategi c planni ng. I f
we want to support both i nnovativeness and
effi ci ency i n the strategy process vari ous
According to the policies of
the human relation model,
the manager’s basic task is
to make each worker feel
useful and important.
[ 546 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
types of personali ty should be i nvolved i n the
planni ng.
Towards a model of cogni t i ve st yl e
and st rat egy t ype
I n thi s secti on, theori es about cogni tive styles
and strategi c types wi ll be combi ned. Propo-
si ti ons are made based on si mi lari ti es
between managers of di fferent cogni tive
styles and strategi c types. Fi nally, a frame-
work whi ch could be used as a basi s for study-
i ng the personali ty manager relati onshi p wi ll
be presented.
The sensi ng-t hi nki ng t ype and t he defender
organi zat i on
Based on thei r studi es, Mi troff and Ki lmann
(1975) concluded that the i deal organi zati on
for ST people i s bureaucrati c and has central-
i zed well-de?ned authori ty. Si mi larly, Mi les
and Snow (1978) descri bed defender organi za-
ti ons whi ch have a tendency towards func-
ti onal structure and centrali zed control. ST
types as well as defender organi zati ons do not
usually want to run any ri sk i n busi ness
(Table I ). As descri bed i n Table I , ST compo-
nent and the defender’s vi ew of organi za-
ti onal effectiveness are achi eved through
effi ci ency. The focus i s on output and i nput,
and uni ts produced per work hour are mea-
sured. A certai n preference for stabi li ty i s
typi cal of ST types and defenders. The most
powerful members of the domi nant coali ti on
i n defender organi zati ons are ?nanci al and
producti on experts. Those are areas i n whi ch
STs are often i nterested too (Table I ). On the
basi s of the si mi lari ti es between the ST type’s
i deal organi zati on and the defender organi za-
ti on the followi ng proposi ti on i s made:
Proposition 1. ST managers tend to vi ew
defender strategy as vi able more often than
other managers.
The i nt ui t i ve-feel i ng Type and t he
prospect or 0rgani zat i on
Compared wi th the defender, the prospector
i s at the other end of the conti nuum, i n the
same way the i ntui tive-feeli ng (NF) type com-
pared to the sensi ng-thi nki ng (ST) type.
Mi troff and Ki lmann (1975) descri bed the NF
type’s i deal organi zati on as ?exi ble and adap-
tive. NF types li ke to seek new possi bi li ti es.
Si mi larly, the prospector organi zati on has a
broad and conti nuously developi ng product-
market domai n (Mi les and Snow, 1978) whi ch
could easi ly be mai ntai ned and developed by
the NF type. The structure typi cal of both the
NF type’s i deal organi zati on and the prospec-
tor i s decentrali zati on (Table I I ). I n prospec-
tor organi zati ons, perfor mance i s measured
agai nst i mportant competi tors and NF orga-
ni zati ons focus on exter nal effectiveness
(Table I I ). The ri sk i n NF organi zati ons and
the prospector i s connected wi th pro?tabi li ty.
Marketi ng i s found to be an i mportant area i n
both of them (see also McDani el and Kolari ,
1987; Segev, 1987). The followi ng proposi ti on
i s made:
Tabl e I
Some perceived and hypothesized combinations between ST type and defender strategy
ST Defender
1. Organi zat i on Bureaucratic, impersonally realistic, Narrow and stable product-market
detailed and factual domain
2. St ruct ure Well-de?ned authority Functional and line authority
3. Cont rol Centralized Centralized
4. Pl anni ng Operational problem solving Problem solving, completed before
action is taken
5. Goal s Realistic, down-to-earth, limited, Maintenance of domain, cost-efficient
narrowly economic technology
6. Organi zat i onal ef fect i veness Internal efficiency, focus on output Efficiency (do the things right),
and input, units produced per work performance measured against previous
hour years
7. Weaknesses May fail to incorporate new Ineffectiveness in responding to
qualitative data, action-averse and possible changes in market
risk-averse, preference for established environment, in?exible because of
practices and the status quo heavy technological investments
8. Domi nant areas Accounting, business, production and Finance and production experts
the handling of machines and material
Not es:
Statements about ST type: (1)-(5) Mitroff and Kilmann (1975); (6) Kilmann and Herden (1976); (7) Haley and
Stumpf (1989) and (8) Myers and McCaulley (1990, pp. 33-5)
Statements about defender: Miles and Snow (1978, pp. 31-48)
[ 547 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
Proposition 2. NF managers tend to vi ew
prospector strategy as vi able more often than
other managers.
The i nt ui t i ve-t hi nki ng t ype and t he
anal yser organi zat i on
The logi cal and i ngeni ous i ntui tive-thi nki ng
(NT) type’s i deal organi zati on i s matri x struc-
tured (Table I I I ) whi ch, accordi ng to Mi les
and Snow (1978), i s emi nently sui table for an
analyser too. NT types create new goals li ke
NF types but concentrate on a li mi ted set of
goals. A bargai ni ng posi ti on wi th the envi -
ronment i s i n the centre of the NT type’s ai m
to achi eve exter nal effi ci ency. NT types
emphasi ze new product development and cost
of capi tal (Table I I I ). NT types are a ki nd of
calculated followers of change just as analy-
sers are too. Even though they use i ntui ti on
for purposes of percepti on, thei r thi nki ng
Tabl e II
Some perceived and hypothesized combinations between NF type and prospector
NF Defender
1. Organi zat i on Organically adaptive, personally Broad and continuously expanding
idealistic and ?exible product-market domain
2. St ruct ure Delegation to decentralized units Product and/ or market oriented
3. Cont rol Decentralized Decentralized
4. Pl anni ng Long-range human goals Problem ?nding, comprehensive
5. Goal s New lines of direction (general and Find and exploit new opportunities
personal)
6. Organi zat i onal ef fect i veness External effectiveness, focus on Effectiveness (do the right thing right),
societal satisfaction, social performance measured against
responsibility important competitors
7. Weaknesses May overestimate feasibility and Risk of low pro?tability and
and implementability of plans on vivid overextension of its resources,
data, may not rigorously test their administrative system may underutilize
ideas and misutilize resources
8. Domi nant areas Advertising, selling of tangibles, Marketing and R&D
counselling
Not es:
Statements about NF type: (1)-(5) Mitroff and Kilmann (1975); (6) Kilmann and Herden (1976); (7) Haley and
Stumpf (1989) and (8) Myers and McCaulley (1990, pp. 33-5)
Statements about prospector: Miles and Snow (1978, pp. 49-67)
Tabl e III
Some perceived and hypothesized combinations between NT type and analyser
NT Anal ysers
1. Organi zat i on Impersonally conceptual broad and Segmented and carefully adjusted
ill-de?ned macro-economic issues product-market domain
2. St ruct ure Matrix Matrix oriented
3. Cont rol Centralized with formal liaison to key Moderately centralized
power centres
4. Pl anni ng Long-range strategic planning Comprehensive and intensive
5. Goal s A very speci?c, limited set of goals, Balance between stable and changing
create new goals domains
6. Organi zat i onal ef fect i veness External efficiency, focus on Effectiveness and efficiency
bargaining position with environment
7. Weaknesses May adhere to their prior beliefs and Inefficiency and ineffectiveness, it may
ignore subsequent, contradictory be difficult to balance the administrative
evidence or nuances of data system
8. Domi nant areas Scienti?c research, electronic Marketing, applied research, production
computing, more complex aspects of
?nance
Not es:
Statements about NT type: (1)-(5) Mitroff and Kilmann (1975); (6) Kilmann and Herden (1976); (7) Haley and
Stumpf (1989) and (8) Myers and McCaulley (1990, pp. 33-5)
Statements about defender: Miles and Snow (1978, pp. 68-80)
[ 548 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
may prevent them from bei ng the ?rst change
agents. The followi ng proposi ti on i s made:
Proposition 3. NT managers tend to vi ew
analyser strategy as vi able more often than
other managers.
The sensi ng-feel i ng t ype and t he react or
organi zat i on
Sympatheti c and fri endly sensi ng-feeli ng (SF)
types have descri bed thei r i deal organi zati on
as fami li ar and personally reali sti c (Table
I V). SF types ?nd parti ci pative deci si on mak-
i ng i mportant but li ke clear roles and work
rules (Table I V). Planni ng i s done mostly on a
dai ly basi s. The reactor strategy, whi ch i s
i nconsi stent and unstable, i s a result of
unsuccessfully pursui ng one of three stable
strategi es (Mi les and Snow, 1978, pp. 81-93).
An organi zati on can become a reactor one for
several reasons. The top management may
not have a clearly arti culated strategy or
there mi ght not be any ?t between structure,
process and strategy. Last, reactor strategy
may be due to changes i n the organi zati onal
envi ronment whi ch have not been taken i nto
consi derati on i n the strategy-structure rela-
ti onshi p. Si nce SF types concentrate on orga-
ni zati onal effectiveness through i nter nal
effectiveness (Table I V), they may fai l to take
envi ronmental changes i n strategy for mula-
ti on i nto account. Haley and Stumpf (1989)
found that SF types are the most ri sk tolerant
of all four types. They were more often wi ll-
i ng to adopt ri sky projects than others. More
often than i n busi ness, SF types are found i n
areas such as nursi ng and teachi ng whi ch are
the ki nd of areas where troubleshooters are
needed (Table I V). The followi ng proposi ti on
i s made:
Proposition 4. SF managers tend to choose
reactor strategy more often than other man-
agers.
Si mi lari ti es between descri pti ons of on the
other hand di fferent ways of perceivi ng and
judgi ng and on the other hand strategy types
were i denti ?ed. Defenders and prospectors
are the opposi te poles of a conti nuum as are
ST and NF. I n between there i s the analyser
strategy, whi ch i s suggested to be most li kely
to be chosen by NTs. SFs, whose type seems to
be most uncommon among managers (NF
managers 13 per cent, NT managers 37 per
cent, ST managers 40 per cent and SF man-
agers 10 per cent i n the USA accordi ng to
Haley and Pi ni (1994)), i s proposed to be the
type who most easi ly sli ps i nto reactor strat-
egy. Proposed relati onshi ps are summari zed
i n Fi gure 1.
Concl usi ons
The purpose of thi s arti cle was to theoreti -
cally develop the i dea of the connecti on
between a manager’s cogni tive style and hi s
strategi c deci si ons. Based on previ ous stud-
i es, a lot of si mi lari ti es between i deal organi -
zati ons of managers wi th di fferent cogni tive
styles and Mi les and Snow’s (1978) organi za-
ti on typology were found. Proposi ti ons of
relati onshi ps between cogni tive styles and
strategi c types were made. Fi nally, proposed
relati onshi ps were summari zed i n the model
of cogni tive style and strategy type.
Theoreti cally, thi s i s an i nteresti ng ?eld of
study because past studi es usi ng cogni tive
styles have often concentrated on deci si on
maki ng processes i nstead of on the content of
strategi c deci si ons. Demographi cally
Tabl e IV
Some perceived and hypothesized combinations between SF type and reactor
SF React or
1. Organi zat i on Familiar, personally realistic, human
qualities of speci?c people work roles
2. St ruct ure Clear-cut roles and rules of work Tight formal authority
3. Cont rol Participative decision making Loose operating design
4. Pl anni ng Day-to-day human relations Crisis oriented and disjointed
5. Goal s The organization is like home Stable strategy
6. Organi zat i onal ef fect i veness Internal effectiveness, employee
turnover and commitment
7. Weaknesses May concentrate on data about Perceptual instability, responds
people at the expense of ideas, do inappropriately to environmental change
what they think other want them to do and uncertainty
8. Domi nant areas Nursing, teaching, social work Troubleshooters
Not es:
Statements about SF type: (1)-(5) Mitroff and Kilmann (1975); (6) Kilmann and Herden (1976); (7) Haley and
Stumpf (1989) and (8) Myers and McCaulley (1990, pp. 33-5)
Statements about defender: Miles and Snow (1978, pp. 81-93)
[ 549 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
observable characteri sti cs such as age,
soci oeconomi c background or educati on have
been used when there have been attempts to
explai n strategi c choi ces. However, based on
these observable characteri sti cs, i t has not
been possi ble to fully explai n di fferent strate-
gi c choi ces managers make based on i denti -
cal i nfor mati on. The cogni tive style of a man-
ager seems to be a possi ble mi ssi ng li nk when
di fferences i n strategi c choi ces are explai ned.
Studi es of manager-strategy ?t have not
been able to bui ld a framework whi ch could
easi ly be used and tested i n di fferent organi -
zati ons and cultures around the world. Si nce
Mi les and Snow (1978) only suggest possi ble
connecti ons between management theori es
and strategi c types, thi s ki nd of research can
extend the knowledge of manager-strategy ?t
and provi de a basi s for i ncreasi ng number of
studi es i n the area. Thi s research also pro-
vi des a chance to extend the upper echelons
perspective (Hambri ck and Mason, 1984) to
di scover i n more detai l the psychologi cal
characteri sti cs of managers. I f the relati on-
shi p i s con?rmed at the i ndivi dual level, the
model can be extended to group levels too.
That could help top management teams i n
commi tti ng themselves to strategi c choi ces. I f
a manager understands hi s own way of mak-
i ng deci si ons as well as the di fferent vi ews of
other people, i t would be easi er to reach a
consensus on and better commi tment to
strategi c i ssues.
Thi s arti cle emphasi zes the i mportance of
the self-understandi ng of the managers. I t i s
clai med that di fferences i n strategi c deci -
si ons are not due to di fferent i nfor mati on but
di fferent i nterpretati ons whi ch managers
make accordi ng to thei r cogni tive style. Espe-
ci ally for practi si ng managers, i t i s i mportant
to be able to i denti fy the basi c patterns i n
thei r behavi our. When you know yourself, i t
i s easi er to understand others, too. I n thi s
way managers can lear n to see thei r own bi as
i n deci si on maki ng and be able to extend
thei r way of thi nki ng. On the other hand, i t i s
i mportant to noti ce manager’s effect on strat-
egy when a new member enters the top man-
agement team. Problems may ari se parti cu-
larly i f the new manager has cogni tive style
whi ch has not before been represented i n the
top management team. However, problems
must be solved because the success of the
company comes from i ndivi duals. Managers
are the i ndivi duals who matter the most –
they make deci si ons whi ch di rect the future
success of the company.
The development today i s fast, and usually
deci si ons have to be made qui ckly. Some man-
agers seem to be able to make more successful
and pro?table deci si ons than others. Under-
standi ng thei r deci si ons extends our knowl-
edge of di fferences i n the strategi c behavi our
of ?r ms. Naturally, there are sti ll many ques-
ti ons whi ch cannot be answered i n thi s arti -
cle. One mi ght doubt usefulness of the cogni -
tive style or Mi les and Snow typology i n thi s
connecti on. Despi te some li mi tati ons, testi ng
the model of cogni tive style and strategy type
wi ll give us new i nfor mati on about manager’s
deci si on-maki ng behavi our.
When empi ri cal testi ng i s done, i t must be
carri ed out so that managers are asked ei ther
to descri be the best future strategy for a ?rm
or choose from descri pti ons the one whi ch
they ?nd the most promi si ng. Otherwi se, i t i s
possi ble that they do not dare to choose the
strategy whi ch best corresponds wi th thei r
vi ew of vi able i deal strategy because of li mi -
tati ons of the present si tuati on i n thei r orga-
ni zati on. I f the study i s done usi ng quali tative
strategy descri pti ons, ri cher i nfor mati on
about managers’ vi ew could be received.
Then the effect of the atti tude to li fe (extra-
versi on or i ntroversi on) and to outer world
(judgement or perception) on decision-making
behavi our could also be taken i nto consi dera-
ti on i f needed. Behavi oural si mulati on as
well as parti ci pant observati on for example
could be used to shed more li ght on manager-
strategy relati onshi p i n the future.
References
Beatty, R.P. and Zajac, E.J . (1987), “CEO change
and ?r m perfor mance i n large corporati ons:
successi on effects and manager effects”,
Strategic Management J ournal, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 305-17.
Beekun, R.I . and Gi nn, G.O. (1993), “Busi ness
strategy and i nterorgani zati onal li nkages
wi thi n the acute care hospi tal i ndustry: an
expansi on of the Mi les and Snow typology”,
Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 11, pp. 1291-318.
Chani n, M.N. and Schneer, J .A. (1984), “A study of
the relati onshi p between J ungi an personali ty
Fi gure 1
Proposed model of the relationship between
cognitive style and strategy type
NT NF
ST SF
Prospector Analyser
Reactor Defender
[ 550 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
di mensi ons and con?i ct-handli ng behavi or”,
Human Relations, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 863-79.
Coe, C.K. (1992), “The MBTI : potenti al uses and
mi suses i n personnel admi ni strati on”, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 511-
22.
Conant, J .S., Mokwa, M.P. and Varadarajan, R.P.
(1990), “Strategi c types, di sti nctive marketi ng
competenci es and organi zati onal
perfor mance: a multi ple measures-based
study”, Strategic Management J ournal, Vol.
11, pp. 365-83.
Dvi r, D., Segev, E. and Shenhar, A. (1993), “Tech-
nology’s varyi ng i mpact on the success of
strategi c busi ness uni ts wi thi n the Mi les and
Snow typology”, Strategic Management J our-
nal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 155-62.
Gauld, V. and Si nk, D. (1985), “The MBTI as a
di agnosti c tool i n organi zati on development
i nterventi ons”, J ournal of Psychological Type,
Vol. 9, pp. 24-9.
Haley, U.C.V. and Pi ni , R. (1994), “Blazi ng i nterna-
ti onal trai ls i n strategi c deci si on-maki ng
research”, Conference Proceedings: The Myers-
Briggs Type I ndicator and Leadership: An
I nternational Research Conference, pp. 19-29.
Haley, U.C.V. and Stumpf, S.A. (1989), “Cogni tive
trai ls i n strategi c deci si on maki ng: li nki ng
theori es of personali ti es and cogni ti ons”,
J ournal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 477-97.
Hambri ck, D.C. (1981), “Strategi c awareness
wi thi n top management team”, Strategic
Management J ournal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 263-79.
Hambri ck, D.C. (1982), “Envi ronmental scanni ng
and organi zati onal strategy”, Strategic Man-
agement J ournal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 159-74.
Hambri ck, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper
echelons: the organi zati on as a re?ecti on of
i ts top managers”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206.
Henderson, J .C. and Nutt , P.C. (1980), “The I n?u-
ence of deci si on style on deci si on-maki ng
behavi or”, Management Science, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 371-86.
Herbert, T.T. and Deresky, H. (1987), “Should
general managers match thei r busi ness
strategi es?”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 40-51.
Hurst, D.K., Rush, J .C. and Whi te, R.E. (1989),
“Top management teams and organi zati onal
renewal”, Strategic Management J ournal, Vol.
10, speci al i ssue, Summer, pp. 87-105.
J ames, W.L. and Hatten, K.J . (1995), “Research
notes and communi cati ons: further evi dence
on the vali di ty of the self-typi ng paragraph
approach: Mi les and Snow strategi c arche-
types i n banki ng”, Strategic Management
J ournal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 161-8.
Ki lmann, R.H. and Herden, R.P. (1976), “Towards a
systemati c methodology for evaluati ng the
i mpact of i nterventi ons on organi zati onal
effectiveness”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 87-98.
Ki lmann, R.H. and Thomas, K.W. (1977), “Develop-
i ng a force-choi ce measure of con?i ct-han-
dli ng behavi or: the “mode” i nstrument”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 309-25.
Lawrence, G. (1993), People Types and Tiger
Stripes, Center Appli cati ons of Psychologi cal
Type, Gai nesvi lle, FL.
McDani el, S.W. and Kolari , J .W. (1987), “Marketi ng
strategy i mpli cati ons of the Mi les and Snow
strategi c typology”, J ournal of Marketing,
Vol. 51 No.4, pp. 19-30.
Maci ntosh, N.B. (1985), The Social Software of
Accounting and I nformation Systems, J ohn
Wi ley & Sons, New York, NY.
Mason, R.O. and Mi troff, I .I . (1973), “A program for
research on management i nfor mati on sys-
tems”, Management Science, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp.
475-87.
Mi les, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational
Strategy Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hi ll,
New York, NY.
Mi ller, D. (1996), “Con?gurati ons revi si ted”,
Strategic Management J ournal, Vol. 17 No. 7,
pp. 505-12.
Mi ller, D., Kets De Vri es, M.F.R. and Toulouse, J .-
M. (1982), “Top executive locusof control and
i ts relati onshi p to strategy-maki ng, structure,
and envi ronment”, Academy of Management
J ournal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 237-53.
Mi troff, I .I . and Ki lmann, R.H. (1975), “Stori es
managers tell: a new tool for organi zati onal
problem solvi ng”, Management Review, J uly,
pp. 18-28.
Myers, I .B. and McCaulley, M.H. (1990), Manual: A
Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-
Briggs Type I ndicator, Consulti ng Psycholo-
gi st Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Nutt, P.C. (1979), “I n?uence of deci si on styles on
use of deci si on models”, Technological Fore-
casting and Social Change, Vol. 14, pp. 77-93.
Nutt, P.C. (1986), “Deci si on style and strategi c
deci si ons of top executives”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 30, pp. 39-
62.
Nutt, P.C. (1990), “Strategi c deci si ons made by top
executives and mi ddle managers wi th data
and process domi nant styles”, J ournal of
Management Studies, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 173-94.
Pollay, R.W. (1970), “The structure of executive
deci si ons and deci si on ti mes”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, December, pp. 459-71.
Rajagopalan, N. and Datta, D.K. (1996), “CEO
characteri sti cs: does i ndustry matter?”, Acad-
emy of Management J ournal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp.
197-215.
Reponen, T., Pär ni stö, J . and Vi rtanen, J . (1994),
“Personali ty and cogni tive mappi ng as an
explanatory devi ce for executive deci si on
maki ng processes”, unpubli shed study, Uni -
versi ty of Turku, Turku.
Rosenak, C.M. and Shontz, F.C. (1988), “J ungi an
Q-sorts: demonstrati ng construct vali di ty for
psychologi cal type and the MBTI ”, J ournal of
Psychological Type, Vol. 15, pp. 33-45.
[ 551 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
Ryckman, R.M. (1989), Theories of Personality,
Brooks/ Cole Publi shi ng Company, a divi si on
of Wadsworth, I nc.
Saari maa, T. (1995), J ohtoryhmän kokoonpanon
vaikutus yrityksen strategiaan, (The effect of
the top management team on ?rm’s strategy),
unpubli shed Master’s thesi s, Universi ty of
Vaasa, Vaasa.
Segev, E. (1987), “Strategy, strategy-maki ng, and
perfor mance i n a busi ness game”, Strategic
Management J ournal, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 565-77.
Shortell, S.M. and Zajac, E.J . (1990), “Perceptual
and archival measures of Mi les and Snow’s
strategi c types: a comprehensive assessment
of reli abi li ty and vali di ty”, Academy of Man-
agement J ournal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 817-32.
Smi th, K.G.,Guthri e, J .P. and Chen, M.-J . (1989),
“Strategy, si ze and perfor mance”, Organiza-
tional Studies, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 63-81.
Stumpf, S.A. and Dunbar, R.L.M. (1991), “The
effects of personali ty type on choi ces made i n
strategi c deci si on si tuati ons”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 22, pp. 1047-69.
Sun, Tzu (1971), The Art of War (S. B. Con?tt trans-
lati on), Oxford Universi ty Press, New York,
NY.
Thomas, A.S., Li tschert, R.J . and Ramaswamy, K.
(1991), “The perfor mance i mpact of strategy
manager coali gnment: an empi ri cal exami na-
ti on”, Strategic Management J ournal, Vol. 12
No. 7, pp. 509-22.
Wi ssema, J .G. , van der Pol. H.W. and Messer, H.M.
(1980), “Strategi c management archetypes”,
Strategic Management J ournal, Vol. 1,
pp. 37-47.
Zemke, R. (1992), “Second thoughts about the
MBTI ”, Training, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 43-7.
Appl i cat i on quest i ons
1 Categori ze yourself accordi ng to the four
cogni tive styles.
2 Descri be the most vi able strategy for your
company i n your poi nt of vi ew.
3 What ki nd of si mi lari ti es can you ?nd
between your descri pti on and the combi -
nati ons proposed i n thi s paper? What
about di fferences?
doc_182263632.pdf
Description tell about the cognitive style and strategic decisions of managers.
[ 541 ]
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
©MCB University Press
[I SSN 0025-1747]
The cogni t i ve st yl e and st rat egi c deci si ons of
managers
Ti i na Gal l én
University of Vaasa, Department of Management and Organization, Finland
Researchers have for a long
time attempted to understand
the concept of strategy. One
way to examine strategy is to
approach it through man-
agers. According to the the-
ory of cognitive style, there
are differences in the ways
people perceive things and
make judgements. Based on
these consistent differences,
it can be proposed that there
is consistent variation in the
ways managers see strategy.
Strong evidence of the rela-
tionship between cognitive
style and strategy can be
found in past research.
Makes propositions concern-
ing that relationship and
suggests some guidelines for
empirical research.
Int roduct i on
The i mportance of knowi ng oneself and one’s
competitors was already found to be extremely
i mportant i n anci ent war strategi es. More
than 2,000 years ago i t was sai d:
Know the enemy and know yourself; i n a
hundred battles you wi ll never be i n peri l.
When you are i gnorant of the enemy but
know yourself, your chances of wi nni ng or
losi ng are equal. I f i gnorant both of your
enemy and of yourself, you are certai n i n
every battle to be i n peri l (Sun, 1971, p. 84).
Si mi larly, organi zati ons should know them-
selves as well as thei r competi tors i n order to
succeed.
Many researchers have noti ced the i mpor-
tance of the CEO i n i n?uenci ng the strategi c
di recti on of a ?r m (e.g. Beatty and Zajac, 1987;
Mi les and Snow, 1978). The CEO’s characteri s-
ti cs such as age, educati on, tenure or soci o-
economi c roots have been proposed to have
an effect on strategi c choi ces as well as on
organi zati onal perfor mance (e.g. Hambri ck
and Mason, 1984; Rajagopalan and Datta,
1996; Thomas et al., 1991). However, as Haley
and Stumpf (1989) concluded, those parti cular
characteri sti cs seem unli kely to i n?uence the
di agnosi s and development of strategi c i ssues
di rectly. I nstead of concentrati ng on observ-
able characteri sti cs, they suggested that
personali ty i s the li nk between cogni tive
processes and strategi c deci si ons. I n a si mi lar
vei n, Hambri ck and Mason (1984, p. 203) men-
ti oned the i mportance of psychologi cal char-
acteri sti cs.
J ungi an psychologi cal types have been used
to provi de more i ntegrated vi ews of man-
agers’ behavi our i n some studi es (Haley and
Pi ni , 1994; Haley and Stumpf, 1989; Nutt, 1979;
Pollay, 1970; Stumpf and Dunbar, 1991). Hen-
derson and Nutt (1980) used J ungi an typology
i n thei r study of the i n?uence of deci si on
style on deci si on-maki ng behavi our. Chani n
and Schneer (1984) combi ned personali ty
di mensi ons wi th con?i ct-handli ng behavi our
(see also Ki lmann and Thomas, 1977). Stumpf
and Dunbar (1991) got results whi ch generally
supported the proposed relati onshi p between
personali ty-type preferences and the patter n
of choi ces made i n strategi c deci si on si tua-
ti ons.
Emphasi s has also been put on the ?t
between manageri al characteri sti cs and
strategy. I t has been found that di fferent CEO
pro?les are associ ated wi th di fferent strategi c
types (Herbert and Deresky, 1987; Thomas,
Li tschert and Ramaswamy, 1991; Wi ssema,
van der Pol and Messer, 1980). Hurst, Rush
and Whi te (1989) combi ned creative manage-
ment process, cogni tive mode and behavi ours
i n thei r creative management model. Thei r
model i s bui lt on the assumpti on that di ffer-
ent composi ti ons of top management teams
are needed i n organi zati onal renewal. They
also proposed li nks between J ungi an cogni -
tive modes and the strategi c archetypes of
Mi les and Snow’s (1978) typology. However,
thei r proposi ti ons have got only parti al
empi ri cal support (Saari maa, 1995).
The purpose of thi s arti cle i s to further
develop the i dea of the relati onshi p between
managers’ cogni tive style and strategi c deci -
si ons. I t i s assumed that i ndivi dual
managers’ way of gatheri ng i nfor mati on and
evaluati ng i t i s re?ected i n thei r strategi c
choi ces. The subject wi ll be studi ed theoreti -
cally by exami ni ng the phenomenon on an
i ndivi dual level. Further theoreti cal as well
as empi ri cal exami nati on of the topi c pro-
vi des deeper understandi ng of managers’
behavi our and di fferences i n strategi c deci -
si ons. Based on pri or research, proposi ti ons
concer ni ng the personali ty-strategy relati on-
shi p are made. Fi rst, research li nki ng man-
ageri al characteri sti cs to strategi es wi ll be
revi ewed.
Li nki ng manageri al charact eri st i cs
t o st rat egi es
Wi ssema, van der Pol and Messer (1980) pro-
posed classi ?cati ons of strategi es and of man-
agement archetypes. Thei r classi ?cati ons
were based on the assumpti on that leaders
can change thei r styles even though they may
be i n?exi ble i n doi ng so. The market si tua-
ti on (exter nal potenti al) and the si tuati on of
the company i n the market (i nter nal poten-
ti al) were used as starti ng poi nts for thei r
descri pti on of strategi es. Based on the li fe-
cycle theory, si x strategy types were i denti -
?ed: explosive growth, expansi on, conti nuous
[ 542 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
growth, consoli dati on, sli p strategy and con-
tracti on.
Manageri al characteri sti cs li ke creativi ty
and i ntui tive-i rrati onal thi nki ng were com-
bi ned wi th explosive growth strategy (Wi s-
sema et al., 1980). Expansi on strategy, whi ch
i s appli ed i n a saturated market, requi res a
conqueror type of manager, who i s descri bed
as creatively ori ented towards anythi ng new,
generali st and rati onali st. A soli d and sys-
temati c ruler wi th common sense and sound
judgment was suggested to be the type of
manager who corresponds to growth strategy.
Accordi ng to Wi ssema et al. (1980), consoli da-
ti on strategy (“ni l-growth on a stabi li zed
market”) sui ts a stable-stati c admi ni strator
well. An economi zer, whose behavi our i s
reactive and legali sti c, has the most adequate
set of capabi li ti es requi red for the reali zati on
of sli p strategy (the company has low i nter nal
potenti al). Contracti on strategy, whi ch has
negative growth, demands an i nsi stent di plo-
mat manager whose style of thi nki ng i s
descri bed as broad and many-si ded and who
takes others i nto account. I n the last case, a
?r m’s activi ty i s consi derably reduced or
ended.
Mi ller, Kets De Vri es and Toulouse (1982)
studi ed top executives’ locusof control and i ts
relati onshi p to strategy maki ng, structure
and envi ronment. They found the strongest
relati onshi p between locusof control and
strategy maki ng. I nter nal executives, who see
the outcomes of thei r behavi our as results of
thei r own efforts, were found i n i nnovative
?r ms and they tended to place greater empha-
si s on product desi gn. On the other hand,
exter nal executives, who thi nk that the
events i n thei r lives are beyond thei r control,
were typi cally found i n ?rms whi ch operated
i n more stable envi ronments. Exter nal execu-
tives made only i ncremental product modi ?-
cati ons. Support was found for personali ty-
based congruence (an executive’s personali ty
i n?uences hi s strategi es, whi ch i n tur n i n?u-
ence structure and envi ronment), parti cu-
larly i n small ?r ms.
Herbert and Deresky (1987) developed a li st
of i mportant manageri al requi rements for
generi c strategi es whi ch they named the
develop, stabi li ze, and tur naround strategi es.
Managers i mplementi ng develop strategy
were found to have ski lls i n marketi ng and
R&D. These managers were typi cally aggres-
sive, competi tive, i nnovative, creative and
?exi ble. I f the company had stabi li zed strat-
egy, managers had ski lls i n areas such as
producti on and engi neeri ng. Pri mary per-
sonal factors found were conservativeness,
carefulness and “quanti tativeness”. Tur n-
around strategy demanded managers wi th
abi li ty to handle cri ses, to make tough
deci si ons, to plan new di recti ons and to oper-
ate under condi ti ons of complexi ty and
uncertai nty. The personal factors of man-
agers were to be autonomous, ri sk- and chal-
lenge-ori ented. Accordi ng to Herbert and
Deresky (1987), managers’ percepti on and
means of i mplementi ng the company’s objec-
tives must be ali gned wi th the percepti on and
methods of top management.
Overall, the results suggest that creative,
active and competi tive managers are found i n
i nnovative ?r ms. On the other hand, stable
?r ms have managers who are more bureau-
crati c, conservative and stable than thei r
colleagues i n i nnovative ?r ms. Tur naround
strategy i s i mplemented by autonomous and
challenge-ori ented managers (Herbert and
Deresky, 1987). Wi ssema et al. (1980) also
de?ned contracti on strategy (negative
growth) whi ch i s best pursued by many si ded,
consi derate and human managers.
However, all of these studi es have some
li mi tati ons. Fi rst of all, Wi ssema et al. (1980)
based thei r typology not on emergent but on
possi ble busi ness strategi es. They also
i gnored the reasons why some managers
functi on badly i n a parti cular strategy. On the
other hand, Herbert and Deresky (1987) as
well as Mi ller et al. (1982) collected thei r data
from several i ndustri es. Thi s ki nd of data
collecti on can be defended by better general-
i zabi li ty, but as Mi les and Snow (1978) poi nted
out, i ndustry characteri sti cs play a certai n
role. Accordi ng to Mi les and Snow, patter ns of
behavi our begi n to emerge when competi ng
organi zati ons wi thi n a si ngle i ndustry are
observed. As a conclusi on, the manager-strat-
egy relati onshi p has been studi ed, but a
really comprehensive explanatory model,
whi ch could be further developed and tested
i n di fferent countri es and i ndustri es, seems
sti ll to be mi ssi ng. Next, a wi dely used
method of classi fyi ng managers’ behavi our,
Myers Bri ggs type i ndi cator, and the theory
on whi ch i t i s based i s presented.
Cogni t i ve st yl e i n cl assi f yi ng
behavi our
There are dozens of di fferent theori es of per-
sonali ty whi ch all have advantages as well as
di sadvantages. Even though J ung’s theory of
personali ty fai ls to meet many of the cri teri a
for the evaluati on of sci enti ?c theori es, the
evi dence for the vali di ty of hi s theory of psy-
chologi cal types has been consi stently sup-
portive (Ryckman, 1989). Myers Bri ggs type
i ndi cator (MBTI ) has been developed i n order
to make the theory of J ung’s psychologi cal
types understandable and useful i n people’s
lives (Myers and McCaulley, 1990). Despi te
[ 543 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
certai n li mi tati ons concer ni ng the use of
MBTI (e.g. Coe, 1992; Zemke, 1992), there are
studi es whi ch support i ts construct vali di ty
(Rosenak and Shontz, 1988) and use i n man-
agement research (Gauld and Si nk, 1985).
The core of the theory around the MBTI i s
that much seemi ngly random vari ati on i n
behavi our i s actually qui te orderly and con-
si stent. Accordi ng to the theory, people prefer
to use ei ther sensi ng (S) or i ntui ti on (N) for
percepti on. Sensi ng refers to percepti ons
observable through one or more of the ?ve
senses. Percepti on of possi bi li ti es, meani ngs,
and relati onshi ps by way of i nsi ght are typi -
cal of i ntui ti on-ori ented persons. Thi nki ng
(T) or feeli ng (F) are used for purposes of
judgement. Thi nki ng-ori ented people use the
logi cal deci si on-maki ng functi on. The feeli ng
type reli es on understandi ng values and i s
more subjective than the thi nki ng type.
Extroversi on (E) and i ntroversi on (I ) are seen
as complementary atti tudes or ori entati ons
to li fe. Extroverts tend to focus on people and
objects. I ntroverts are more i nterested i n
concepts and i deas. Ori entati on to the outer
world i s measured by a judgement (J )/ percep-
ti on (P) atti tude, whi ch i s a major contri bu-
ti on by Myers and McCaulley to the theory of
psychologi cal types (Lawrence, 1993; Myers
and McCaulley, 1990).
Everyone uses all the previ ously descri bed
functi ons (S/ N, T/ F) and atti tudes (E/ I , J / P),
but favours or more naturally adopts the
preferred ones. When di fferent ways of per-
cepti on and judgement are combi ned, four
cogni tive styles can be de?ned: ST (sensati on-
thi nki ng), SF (sensati on-feeli ng), NT (i ntu-
i ti on-thi nki ng) and NF (i ntui ti on-feeli ng).
Further, di sti ngui shi ng ei ght preferences
(E/ I , S/ N, T/ F, J / P), 16 MBTI types can be
i denti ?ed (for example ESTJ or I NFP). How-
ever, many researchers have selected cogni -
tive style i nstead of the whole type i n classi fy-
i ng managers’ behavi our (e.g. Haley and
Stumpf, 1989; Henderson and Nutt, 1980). Thi s
may be partly due to di ffi culti es i n data col-
lecti on: i t mi ght be di ffi cult to gather enough
extensive data on managers to cover all the 16
MBTI types. Naturally, selecti ng cogni tive
style can be defended when a deci si on-
maki ng process or i ts outcomes are the sub-
jects of the study.
Cogni tive style has been typi cally used i n
studi es of i nfor mati on processi ng i n order to
develop deci si on-maki ng systems. Among
many others, Maci ntosh (1985) poi nted out
the i mportance of understandi ng i ndivi dual
di fferences i n the way managers gather,
process and uti li ze i nfor mati on. Si mi larly,
Mason and Mi troff (1973) and Henderson and
Nutt (1980) based thei r studi es on cogni tive
style. I n addi ti on to descri pti ons of cogni tive
styles provi ded by Myers and McCaulley
(1990), some of these studi es of deci si on mak-
i ng have been selected for closer exami nati on
i n thi s paper i n order to make a revi ew of the
knowledge of managers’ actual behavi our.
Each cogni tive style i s presented i n the next
secti on.
The sensi ng-t hi nki ng t ype (ST)
ST people rely on sensi ng for purposes of
percepti on and on thi nki ng for purposes of
judgement. ST types deal best wi th concrete,
objective problems. They conserve valued
resources and protect practi ces that work and
?nd scope for thei r abi li ti es i n techni cal
ski lls wi th facts and objects. Thei r best
chances of success and sati sfacti on li e i n
?elds that demand i mpersonal analysi s of
concrete facts, such as economi cs, law, busi -
ness, accounti ng, producti on, and the han-
dli ng of machi nes and materi als (Myers and
McCaulley, 1990, pp. 33-5). Past research sug-
gests (Mi troff and Ki lmann, 1975) that, i n the
ST managers’ i deal organi zati on complete
control, certai nty and speci ?ci ty are empha-
si zed. Work roles are well de?ned. The i deal
organi zati on i s authori tari an and there i s a
well-de?ned hi erarchi cal li ne of authori ty.
Organi zati onal goals are reali sti c, down-to-
earth, li mi ted and narrowly economi c. Ki l-
mann and Herden (1976) argued that the ST
component of organi zati onal effectiveness i s
achi eved by i nter nal effi ci ency.
Because STs are supposed to be affected by
a bi as towards anchori ng functi ons, they may
fai l to alter thei r judgement suffi ci ently i n
the li ght of new i nfor mati on (Haley and
Stumpf, 1989). Functi onal ?xedness bi ases
refers to the reli ance of STs on certai n
problem-solvi ng methods (such as standard
operati ng procedures). The hypothesi s,
accordi ng to whi ch the acti ons of STs tend to
be qui ck-?x soluti ons to problems, i nvolve
low levels of ri sk, and re?ect standard operat-
i ng procedures, has not received support i n
the study made by Stumpf and Dunbar (1991).
However, i t has been found that the STs see
hi gh ri sk and are reluctant to adopt new pro-
jects compared to the SF executives who are
ri sk tolerant and more li kely to adopt such
projects (Henderson and Nutt, 1980; Nutt,
1986; 1990).
The sensi ng-feel i ng t ype (SF)
Relyi ng pri mari ly on sensi ng for percepti on
and feeli ng for judgement, the SF people
approach thei r deci si ons wi th personal
war mth. They li ke worki ng i n har moni ous,
fami li ar and predi ctable si tuati ons. They are
most li kely to succeed and be sati s?ed i n
work where thei r personal war mth can be
appli ed effectively to the i mmedi ate
[ 544 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
si tuati on, as i n nursi ng, teachi ng (especi ally
elementary teaching), social work and the
selling of tangibles (Myers and McCaulley,
1990, pp. 33-5). Instead of caring about theory
or general issues, SF types are concerned with
the detailed human relations in their organi-
zation (Mitroff and Kilmann, 1975). The physi-
cal work environment is important to SF
types. Their ideal organization is realistic.
Accordi ng to Ki lmann and Herden (1976),
i nter nal effectiveness and employee tur nover
and commi tment are consi dered i mportant
by SF types. Haley and Stumpf (1989) suggest
that one of thei r weaknesses i s avai labi li ty
bi as. Thi s refers to the SF types’ tendency to
pay more attenti on to people-ori ented i nfor-
mati on. They may restate vi ewpoi nts to
shape arguments used by others. They vi ew
people as dynami c and i nteresti ng and si tua-
ti ons as stati c and palli d i n themselves. The
SF types’ acti ons tend to confor m to soci ally
accepted nor ms and values, express soci al
approval, and sati sfy the wants of others
(Stumpf and Dunbar, 1991).
The i nt ui t i ve-feel i ng t ype (NF)
NFs possess the same personal war mth as SF
people not because thei r judgement i s based
on feeli ng, but because they prefer i ntui ti on
to sensi ng, they focus on possi bi li ti es. They
are both enthusi asti c and i nsi ghtful and may
excel i n adverti si ng, the selli ng of i ntangi -
bles, counselli ng, psychi atry, and wri ti ng
(Myers and McCaulley, 1990, pp. 33-5). Broad,
global themes and i ssues are typi cal of NF
managers (Mi troff and Ki lmann, 1975). The
i deal organi zati on for NFs i s organi cally
adaptive, personally i deali sti c and ?exi ble.
An NF organi zati on i s completely decentral-
i zed wi th no clear li nes of authori ty. The
emphasi s of NFs i s on the most general per-
sonal and human goals of organi zati ons. The
heroes of NF organi zati ons create new li nes
of di recti on (such as new products and objec-
tives) and give the organi zati on a new sense
of di recti on i n the human or personal sense.
The NF component of organi zati onal effec-
tiveness i s clai med to be exter nal effective-
ness (Ki lmann and Herden, 1976). Exter nal
effectiveness emphasi zes soci al responsi bi l-
i ty and sati sfacti on of the i nterested parti es.
Accordi ng to Haley and Stumpf (1989), NF
types may overesti mate the feasi bi li ty of
thei r plans based on vivi d data. A reasoni ng-
by-analogy bi as means that NFs enjoy cre-
ative problem solvi ng but may provi de
extremely si mpli sti c overvi ews of complex
si tuati ons. Stumpf and Dunbar (1991) pro-
posed that NF types engage i n acti ons whi ch
often i nvolve substanti al, radi cal changes
that affect the organi zati on-envi ronment
i nterface.
The i nt ui t i ve-t hi nki ng t ype (NT)
The NT people also use i ntui ti on but trust
thi nki ng when maki ng judgements. They are
most successful i n solvi ng problems i n ?elds
of speci al i nterest, whether sci enti ?c
research, electroni c computi ng, mathemat-
i cs, the more complex aspects of ?nance, or
any sort of development or pi oneeri ng i n
techni cal areas (Myers and McCaulley, 1990,
pp. 33-5). Mi troff and Ki lmann (1975) found
that the NTs’ i deal organi zati on i s i mper-
sonal but i nstead of bei ng reali sti c li ke an ST
organi zati on, i t i s i deali sti c. I mpersonally
conceptual, broad and i ll-de?ned macro-
economi c i ssues are found essenti al by NTs.
Thei r heroes are broad conceptuali zers who
take an organi zati on desi gned to accompli sh
a very speci ?c, li mi ted set of goals and create
new goals.
NT types see organi zati onal effectiveness as
a result of exter nal effi ci ency and ?nd new
product development i mportant (Ki lmann
and Herden, 1976). Accordi ng to Haley and
Stumpf (1989), NTs are affected by bi ases
emphasi zi ng perseverance. They may adhere
to thei r pri or beli efs and i gnore subsequent,
contradi ctory evi dence. Longer-ter m and
open-ended projects i nterest them. NTs tend
to seek opportuni ti es, focus on the posi tive
aspects of an opportuni ty, and i gnore the
ri sks or threats i nvolved i n i mplementi ng
some acti on (Stumpf and Dunbar, 1991).
As previ ously descri bed studi es con?r m,
there seem to be clear di fferences i n behav-
i our between managers of di fferent cogni tive
styles. Practi cal and matter-of-fact ST types
seem to di ffer qui te a lot from enthusi asti c
and i nsi ghtful NF types, who are at the other
end of the conti nuum compared wi th STs.
Si mi larly, logi cal and i ngeni ous NT types are
the exact opposi tes of sympatheti c and
fri endly SF types. I n the next secti on, the
Mi les and Snow (1978) typology and some of
the studi es con?rmi ng and extendi ng i t wi ll
be revi ewed.
Organi zat i on t ypol ogy
Accordi ng to Hambri ck and Mason (1984, p.
197), the envi ronment and growth of an i ndus-
try can affect the types of managers found i n
top posi ti ons. Because of the i mpact of such
i ndustry related factors, the Mi les and Snow
(1978) typology, whi ch concentrates on strate-
gi es wi thi n one i ndustry, i s chosen. Com-
pared for example wi th Mi ntzberg’s typology,
i t i s more wi dely used i n research (Segev,
1987, p. 574). The relati onshi p between strate-
gi c types and organi zati onal perfor mance has
been studi ed i ntensively (Conant, Mokwa and
Varadarajan, 1990; Dvi r, Seger and Shenhar,
[ 545 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
1993; Segev, 1987; Smi th, Guthri e and Chen,
1989). Banki ng (J ames and Hatten, 1995;
McDani el and Kolari , 1987) as well as hospi tal
care (Beekun and Gi nn, 1993; Hambri ck, 1981;
Shortell and Zajac, 1990) have been popular
subjects of pri or research. As Mi ller (1996)
stated, Mi les and Snow’s typology i s among
the most promi nent of strategi c typologi es.
Usi ng ?eld research i n several i ndustri es,
Mi les and Snow (1978) i denti ?ed a theoreti cal
framework whi ch consi sts of the adaptive
process and the organi zati on typology. I t i s
based on the assumpti on that organi zati ons
see what they want to see i n the exter nal
envi ronment and can be proactive deali ng
wi th i t. I t vi ews the organi zati ons as com-
plete and i ntegrated systems i n dynami c
i nteracti on wi th i ts envi ronment. Mi les and
Snow agree wi th many other researchers that
an organi zati on’s structure and process are
shaped by the management’s strategi c
choi ces. Accordi ng to Mi les and Snow, organi -
zati ons ali gn themselves wi th the envi ron-
ment by an adaptive process whi ch i ncludes
solvi ng entrepreneuri al, engi neeri ng and
admi ni strative problems.
Mi les and Snow (1978) found that there are
three generi c strategi es: defender, prospector
and analyser. Defenders are organi zati ons
that offer a stable set of products or servi ces
and compete pri mari ly on the basi s of pri ce,
quali ty, servi ce and delivery. Prospectors are
“?rst i n the market”, have a very broad prod-
uct-market de?ni ti on and focus on i nnova-
ti on and change. Analysers have characteri s-
ti cs from the defender and the prospector.
Analysers make fewer and slower product
and market changes than prospectors, and
they are somewhat less commi tted to stabi li ty
and effi ci ency than defenders. Any one of
these strategi es can be successful i n a given
envi ronment i f the ?r m acts consi stently i n
all areas of i ts operati on. I n addi ti on to three
vi able strategi es, Mi les and Snow (1978)
de?ned a “resi dual” reactor strategy. Reac-
tors make i nconsi stent entrepreneuri al, engi -
neeri ng, and admi ni strative choi ces.
Mi les and Snow (1978, pp. 116-29) suggested
that tradi ti onal and human relati ons man-
ageri al beli efs are more li kely to be found i n
defender and reactor organi zati ons. Poli ci es
i n the tradi ti onal management model de?ne
supervi si on and control as basi c manageri al
tasks. Detai led work routi nes and procedures
are needed. Accordi ng to the poli ci es of the
human relati on model, the manager’s basi c
task i s to make each worker feel useful and
i mportant. Subordi nates should be kept
i nfor med and thei r objecti ons to proposed
plans should be li stened to. On the contrary,
Mi les and Snow suggest that manageri al
beli efs i nvolvi ng human resources model wi ll
be found i n analyser and prospectors organi -
zati ons. The manager’s basi c task i s to make
use of hi s “untapped” human resources and
all members should be allowed to contri bute
to the li mi t of thei r abi li ty.
Prospectors’ strong marketi ng ori entati on
was supported i n the research on di sti nctive
marketi ng competence made by Conant et al.
(1990). McDani el and Kolari (1987) arrived at
si mi lar results i n thei r research i n the mar-
keti ng strategy i mpli cati ons of the Mi les and
Snow typology. Marketi ng offi cers of prospec-
tor and analyser banks were found to vi ew
new product development activi ti es and pri c-
i ng as bei ng more i mportant to organi za-
ti onal strategy than thei r colleagues i n
defender banks. Promoti onal activi ti es were
generally vi ewed as bei ng less i mportant by
defenders than by prospectors and analysers.
However, the most consi stent ?ndi ngs were
those related to personal selli ng activi ti es.
Prospectors and analysers were found to vi ew
personal selli ng i n general, telephone soli ci -
tati on, sales trai ni ng for employees and sales
managers to supervi se sales personnel as
bei ng more i mportant than defenders.
Accordi ng to Hambri ck (1982), strategi c
di fferences between prospectors and defend-
ers occur pri mari ly through i nter nal analy-
si s and poli ti cal processes and not through
unequal possessi on of i nfor mati on. Di sti nc-
tive competences are the results of propensi ty
and abi li ty to act on certai n i tems of envi ron-
mental i nfor mati on. Executives scan accord-
i ng to thei r own personal or functi onal i nter-
ests. The patter n of coupli ng between an
organi zati on and the exter nal envi ronment
has been found to be a functi on of strategi c
type and type of coupli ng (Beekun and Gi nn,
1993). I n the resource exchange and i nfor ma-
ti on domai ns prospectors were the most
ti ghtly coupled externally.
The CEOs of prospector ?rms have been
found to be si gni ?cantly younger than those
of defender ?r ms. Prospector ?rms have
CEOs wi th shorter tenure regardi ng both the
employment and posi ti on and wi th more
educati on than those i n thei r defender coun-
terparts. When organi zati onal perfor mance
was consi dered, ?r ms wi th a greater degree
of ali gnment between thei r strategy and the
pro?les of top managers, generally achi eved
superi or perfor mance outcomes (Thomas et
al., 1991). Accordi ng to Reponen, Pär ni stö and
Vi rtanen (1994), personali ty has a si gni ?cant
effect on strategy for mulati on. Si nce people
use and perceive the framework of strategi c
planni ng di fferently, those models alone can-
not solve problems of strategi c planni ng. I f
we want to support both i nnovativeness and
effi ci ency i n the strategy process vari ous
According to the policies of
the human relation model,
the manager’s basic task is
to make each worker feel
useful and important.
[ 546 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
types of personali ty should be i nvolved i n the
planni ng.
Towards a model of cogni t i ve st yl e
and st rat egy t ype
I n thi s secti on, theori es about cogni tive styles
and strategi c types wi ll be combi ned. Propo-
si ti ons are made based on si mi lari ti es
between managers of di fferent cogni tive
styles and strategi c types. Fi nally, a frame-
work whi ch could be used as a basi s for study-
i ng the personali ty manager relati onshi p wi ll
be presented.
The sensi ng-t hi nki ng t ype and t he defender
organi zat i on
Based on thei r studi es, Mi troff and Ki lmann
(1975) concluded that the i deal organi zati on
for ST people i s bureaucrati c and has central-
i zed well-de?ned authori ty. Si mi larly, Mi les
and Snow (1978) descri bed defender organi za-
ti ons whi ch have a tendency towards func-
ti onal structure and centrali zed control. ST
types as well as defender organi zati ons do not
usually want to run any ri sk i n busi ness
(Table I ). As descri bed i n Table I , ST compo-
nent and the defender’s vi ew of organi za-
ti onal effectiveness are achi eved through
effi ci ency. The focus i s on output and i nput,
and uni ts produced per work hour are mea-
sured. A certai n preference for stabi li ty i s
typi cal of ST types and defenders. The most
powerful members of the domi nant coali ti on
i n defender organi zati ons are ?nanci al and
producti on experts. Those are areas i n whi ch
STs are often i nterested too (Table I ). On the
basi s of the si mi lari ti es between the ST type’s
i deal organi zati on and the defender organi za-
ti on the followi ng proposi ti on i s made:
Proposition 1. ST managers tend to vi ew
defender strategy as vi able more often than
other managers.
The i nt ui t i ve-feel i ng Type and t he
prospect or 0rgani zat i on
Compared wi th the defender, the prospector
i s at the other end of the conti nuum, i n the
same way the i ntui tive-feeli ng (NF) type com-
pared to the sensi ng-thi nki ng (ST) type.
Mi troff and Ki lmann (1975) descri bed the NF
type’s i deal organi zati on as ?exi ble and adap-
tive. NF types li ke to seek new possi bi li ti es.
Si mi larly, the prospector organi zati on has a
broad and conti nuously developi ng product-
market domai n (Mi les and Snow, 1978) whi ch
could easi ly be mai ntai ned and developed by
the NF type. The structure typi cal of both the
NF type’s i deal organi zati on and the prospec-
tor i s decentrali zati on (Table I I ). I n prospec-
tor organi zati ons, perfor mance i s measured
agai nst i mportant competi tors and NF orga-
ni zati ons focus on exter nal effectiveness
(Table I I ). The ri sk i n NF organi zati ons and
the prospector i s connected wi th pro?tabi li ty.
Marketi ng i s found to be an i mportant area i n
both of them (see also McDani el and Kolari ,
1987; Segev, 1987). The followi ng proposi ti on
i s made:
Tabl e I
Some perceived and hypothesized combinations between ST type and defender strategy
ST Defender
1. Organi zat i on Bureaucratic, impersonally realistic, Narrow and stable product-market
detailed and factual domain
2. St ruct ure Well-de?ned authority Functional and line authority
3. Cont rol Centralized Centralized
4. Pl anni ng Operational problem solving Problem solving, completed before
action is taken
5. Goal s Realistic, down-to-earth, limited, Maintenance of domain, cost-efficient
narrowly economic technology
6. Organi zat i onal ef fect i veness Internal efficiency, focus on output Efficiency (do the things right),
and input, units produced per work performance measured against previous
hour years
7. Weaknesses May fail to incorporate new Ineffectiveness in responding to
qualitative data, action-averse and possible changes in market
risk-averse, preference for established environment, in?exible because of
practices and the status quo heavy technological investments
8. Domi nant areas Accounting, business, production and Finance and production experts
the handling of machines and material
Not es:
Statements about ST type: (1)-(5) Mitroff and Kilmann (1975); (6) Kilmann and Herden (1976); (7) Haley and
Stumpf (1989) and (8) Myers and McCaulley (1990, pp. 33-5)
Statements about defender: Miles and Snow (1978, pp. 31-48)
[ 547 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
Proposition 2. NF managers tend to vi ew
prospector strategy as vi able more often than
other managers.
The i nt ui t i ve-t hi nki ng t ype and t he
anal yser organi zat i on
The logi cal and i ngeni ous i ntui tive-thi nki ng
(NT) type’s i deal organi zati on i s matri x struc-
tured (Table I I I ) whi ch, accordi ng to Mi les
and Snow (1978), i s emi nently sui table for an
analyser too. NT types create new goals li ke
NF types but concentrate on a li mi ted set of
goals. A bargai ni ng posi ti on wi th the envi -
ronment i s i n the centre of the NT type’s ai m
to achi eve exter nal effi ci ency. NT types
emphasi ze new product development and cost
of capi tal (Table I I I ). NT types are a ki nd of
calculated followers of change just as analy-
sers are too. Even though they use i ntui ti on
for purposes of percepti on, thei r thi nki ng
Tabl e II
Some perceived and hypothesized combinations between NF type and prospector
NF Defender
1. Organi zat i on Organically adaptive, personally Broad and continuously expanding
idealistic and ?exible product-market domain
2. St ruct ure Delegation to decentralized units Product and/ or market oriented
3. Cont rol Decentralized Decentralized
4. Pl anni ng Long-range human goals Problem ?nding, comprehensive
5. Goal s New lines of direction (general and Find and exploit new opportunities
personal)
6. Organi zat i onal ef fect i veness External effectiveness, focus on Effectiveness (do the right thing right),
societal satisfaction, social performance measured against
responsibility important competitors
7. Weaknesses May overestimate feasibility and Risk of low pro?tability and
and implementability of plans on vivid overextension of its resources,
data, may not rigorously test their administrative system may underutilize
ideas and misutilize resources
8. Domi nant areas Advertising, selling of tangibles, Marketing and R&D
counselling
Not es:
Statements about NF type: (1)-(5) Mitroff and Kilmann (1975); (6) Kilmann and Herden (1976); (7) Haley and
Stumpf (1989) and (8) Myers and McCaulley (1990, pp. 33-5)
Statements about prospector: Miles and Snow (1978, pp. 49-67)
Tabl e III
Some perceived and hypothesized combinations between NT type and analyser
NT Anal ysers
1. Organi zat i on Impersonally conceptual broad and Segmented and carefully adjusted
ill-de?ned macro-economic issues product-market domain
2. St ruct ure Matrix Matrix oriented
3. Cont rol Centralized with formal liaison to key Moderately centralized
power centres
4. Pl anni ng Long-range strategic planning Comprehensive and intensive
5. Goal s A very speci?c, limited set of goals, Balance between stable and changing
create new goals domains
6. Organi zat i onal ef fect i veness External efficiency, focus on Effectiveness and efficiency
bargaining position with environment
7. Weaknesses May adhere to their prior beliefs and Inefficiency and ineffectiveness, it may
ignore subsequent, contradictory be difficult to balance the administrative
evidence or nuances of data system
8. Domi nant areas Scienti?c research, electronic Marketing, applied research, production
computing, more complex aspects of
?nance
Not es:
Statements about NT type: (1)-(5) Mitroff and Kilmann (1975); (6) Kilmann and Herden (1976); (7) Haley and
Stumpf (1989) and (8) Myers and McCaulley (1990, pp. 33-5)
Statements about defender: Miles and Snow (1978, pp. 68-80)
[ 548 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
may prevent them from bei ng the ?rst change
agents. The followi ng proposi ti on i s made:
Proposition 3. NT managers tend to vi ew
analyser strategy as vi able more often than
other managers.
The sensi ng-feel i ng t ype and t he react or
organi zat i on
Sympatheti c and fri endly sensi ng-feeli ng (SF)
types have descri bed thei r i deal organi zati on
as fami li ar and personally reali sti c (Table
I V). SF types ?nd parti ci pative deci si on mak-
i ng i mportant but li ke clear roles and work
rules (Table I V). Planni ng i s done mostly on a
dai ly basi s. The reactor strategy, whi ch i s
i nconsi stent and unstable, i s a result of
unsuccessfully pursui ng one of three stable
strategi es (Mi les and Snow, 1978, pp. 81-93).
An organi zati on can become a reactor one for
several reasons. The top management may
not have a clearly arti culated strategy or
there mi ght not be any ?t between structure,
process and strategy. Last, reactor strategy
may be due to changes i n the organi zati onal
envi ronment whi ch have not been taken i nto
consi derati on i n the strategy-structure rela-
ti onshi p. Si nce SF types concentrate on orga-
ni zati onal effectiveness through i nter nal
effectiveness (Table I V), they may fai l to take
envi ronmental changes i n strategy for mula-
ti on i nto account. Haley and Stumpf (1989)
found that SF types are the most ri sk tolerant
of all four types. They were more often wi ll-
i ng to adopt ri sky projects than others. More
often than i n busi ness, SF types are found i n
areas such as nursi ng and teachi ng whi ch are
the ki nd of areas where troubleshooters are
needed (Table I V). The followi ng proposi ti on
i s made:
Proposition 4. SF managers tend to choose
reactor strategy more often than other man-
agers.
Si mi lari ti es between descri pti ons of on the
other hand di fferent ways of perceivi ng and
judgi ng and on the other hand strategy types
were i denti ?ed. Defenders and prospectors
are the opposi te poles of a conti nuum as are
ST and NF. I n between there i s the analyser
strategy, whi ch i s suggested to be most li kely
to be chosen by NTs. SFs, whose type seems to
be most uncommon among managers (NF
managers 13 per cent, NT managers 37 per
cent, ST managers 40 per cent and SF man-
agers 10 per cent i n the USA accordi ng to
Haley and Pi ni (1994)), i s proposed to be the
type who most easi ly sli ps i nto reactor strat-
egy. Proposed relati onshi ps are summari zed
i n Fi gure 1.
Concl usi ons
The purpose of thi s arti cle was to theoreti -
cally develop the i dea of the connecti on
between a manager’s cogni tive style and hi s
strategi c deci si ons. Based on previ ous stud-
i es, a lot of si mi lari ti es between i deal organi -
zati ons of managers wi th di fferent cogni tive
styles and Mi les and Snow’s (1978) organi za-
ti on typology were found. Proposi ti ons of
relati onshi ps between cogni tive styles and
strategi c types were made. Fi nally, proposed
relati onshi ps were summari zed i n the model
of cogni tive style and strategy type.
Theoreti cally, thi s i s an i nteresti ng ?eld of
study because past studi es usi ng cogni tive
styles have often concentrated on deci si on
maki ng processes i nstead of on the content of
strategi c deci si ons. Demographi cally
Tabl e IV
Some perceived and hypothesized combinations between SF type and reactor
SF React or
1. Organi zat i on Familiar, personally realistic, human
qualities of speci?c people work roles
2. St ruct ure Clear-cut roles and rules of work Tight formal authority
3. Cont rol Participative decision making Loose operating design
4. Pl anni ng Day-to-day human relations Crisis oriented and disjointed
5. Goal s The organization is like home Stable strategy
6. Organi zat i onal ef fect i veness Internal effectiveness, employee
turnover and commitment
7. Weaknesses May concentrate on data about Perceptual instability, responds
people at the expense of ideas, do inappropriately to environmental change
what they think other want them to do and uncertainty
8. Domi nant areas Nursing, teaching, social work Troubleshooters
Not es:
Statements about SF type: (1)-(5) Mitroff and Kilmann (1975); (6) Kilmann and Herden (1976); (7) Haley and
Stumpf (1989) and (8) Myers and McCaulley (1990, pp. 33-5)
Statements about defender: Miles and Snow (1978, pp. 81-93)
[ 549 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
observable characteri sti cs such as age,
soci oeconomi c background or educati on have
been used when there have been attempts to
explai n strategi c choi ces. However, based on
these observable characteri sti cs, i t has not
been possi ble to fully explai n di fferent strate-
gi c choi ces managers make based on i denti -
cal i nfor mati on. The cogni tive style of a man-
ager seems to be a possi ble mi ssi ng li nk when
di fferences i n strategi c choi ces are explai ned.
Studi es of manager-strategy ?t have not
been able to bui ld a framework whi ch could
easi ly be used and tested i n di fferent organi -
zati ons and cultures around the world. Si nce
Mi les and Snow (1978) only suggest possi ble
connecti ons between management theori es
and strategi c types, thi s ki nd of research can
extend the knowledge of manager-strategy ?t
and provi de a basi s for i ncreasi ng number of
studi es i n the area. Thi s research also pro-
vi des a chance to extend the upper echelons
perspective (Hambri ck and Mason, 1984) to
di scover i n more detai l the psychologi cal
characteri sti cs of managers. I f the relati on-
shi p i s con?rmed at the i ndivi dual level, the
model can be extended to group levels too.
That could help top management teams i n
commi tti ng themselves to strategi c choi ces. I f
a manager understands hi s own way of mak-
i ng deci si ons as well as the di fferent vi ews of
other people, i t would be easi er to reach a
consensus on and better commi tment to
strategi c i ssues.
Thi s arti cle emphasi zes the i mportance of
the self-understandi ng of the managers. I t i s
clai med that di fferences i n strategi c deci -
si ons are not due to di fferent i nfor mati on but
di fferent i nterpretati ons whi ch managers
make accordi ng to thei r cogni tive style. Espe-
ci ally for practi si ng managers, i t i s i mportant
to be able to i denti fy the basi c patterns i n
thei r behavi our. When you know yourself, i t
i s easi er to understand others, too. I n thi s
way managers can lear n to see thei r own bi as
i n deci si on maki ng and be able to extend
thei r way of thi nki ng. On the other hand, i t i s
i mportant to noti ce manager’s effect on strat-
egy when a new member enters the top man-
agement team. Problems may ari se parti cu-
larly i f the new manager has cogni tive style
whi ch has not before been represented i n the
top management team. However, problems
must be solved because the success of the
company comes from i ndivi duals. Managers
are the i ndivi duals who matter the most –
they make deci si ons whi ch di rect the future
success of the company.
The development today i s fast, and usually
deci si ons have to be made qui ckly. Some man-
agers seem to be able to make more successful
and pro?table deci si ons than others. Under-
standi ng thei r deci si ons extends our knowl-
edge of di fferences i n the strategi c behavi our
of ?r ms. Naturally, there are sti ll many ques-
ti ons whi ch cannot be answered i n thi s arti -
cle. One mi ght doubt usefulness of the cogni -
tive style or Mi les and Snow typology i n thi s
connecti on. Despi te some li mi tati ons, testi ng
the model of cogni tive style and strategy type
wi ll give us new i nfor mati on about manager’s
deci si on-maki ng behavi our.
When empi ri cal testi ng i s done, i t must be
carri ed out so that managers are asked ei ther
to descri be the best future strategy for a ?rm
or choose from descri pti ons the one whi ch
they ?nd the most promi si ng. Otherwi se, i t i s
possi ble that they do not dare to choose the
strategy whi ch best corresponds wi th thei r
vi ew of vi able i deal strategy because of li mi -
tati ons of the present si tuati on i n thei r orga-
ni zati on. I f the study i s done usi ng quali tative
strategy descri pti ons, ri cher i nfor mati on
about managers’ vi ew could be received.
Then the effect of the atti tude to li fe (extra-
versi on or i ntroversi on) and to outer world
(judgement or perception) on decision-making
behavi our could also be taken i nto consi dera-
ti on i f needed. Behavi oural si mulati on as
well as parti ci pant observati on for example
could be used to shed more li ght on manager-
strategy relati onshi p i n the future.
References
Beatty, R.P. and Zajac, E.J . (1987), “CEO change
and ?r m perfor mance i n large corporati ons:
successi on effects and manager effects”,
Strategic Management J ournal, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 305-17.
Beekun, R.I . and Gi nn, G.O. (1993), “Busi ness
strategy and i nterorgani zati onal li nkages
wi thi n the acute care hospi tal i ndustry: an
expansi on of the Mi les and Snow typology”,
Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 11, pp. 1291-318.
Chani n, M.N. and Schneer, J .A. (1984), “A study of
the relati onshi p between J ungi an personali ty
Fi gure 1
Proposed model of the relationship between
cognitive style and strategy type
NT NF
ST SF
Prospector Analyser
Reactor Defender
[ 550 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
di mensi ons and con?i ct-handli ng behavi or”,
Human Relations, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 863-79.
Coe, C.K. (1992), “The MBTI : potenti al uses and
mi suses i n personnel admi ni strati on”, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 511-
22.
Conant, J .S., Mokwa, M.P. and Varadarajan, R.P.
(1990), “Strategi c types, di sti nctive marketi ng
competenci es and organi zati onal
perfor mance: a multi ple measures-based
study”, Strategic Management J ournal, Vol.
11, pp. 365-83.
Dvi r, D., Segev, E. and Shenhar, A. (1993), “Tech-
nology’s varyi ng i mpact on the success of
strategi c busi ness uni ts wi thi n the Mi les and
Snow typology”, Strategic Management J our-
nal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 155-62.
Gauld, V. and Si nk, D. (1985), “The MBTI as a
di agnosti c tool i n organi zati on development
i nterventi ons”, J ournal of Psychological Type,
Vol. 9, pp. 24-9.
Haley, U.C.V. and Pi ni , R. (1994), “Blazi ng i nterna-
ti onal trai ls i n strategi c deci si on-maki ng
research”, Conference Proceedings: The Myers-
Briggs Type I ndicator and Leadership: An
I nternational Research Conference, pp. 19-29.
Haley, U.C.V. and Stumpf, S.A. (1989), “Cogni tive
trai ls i n strategi c deci si on maki ng: li nki ng
theori es of personali ti es and cogni ti ons”,
J ournal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 477-97.
Hambri ck, D.C. (1981), “Strategi c awareness
wi thi n top management team”, Strategic
Management J ournal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 263-79.
Hambri ck, D.C. (1982), “Envi ronmental scanni ng
and organi zati onal strategy”, Strategic Man-
agement J ournal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 159-74.
Hambri ck, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper
echelons: the organi zati on as a re?ecti on of
i ts top managers”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206.
Henderson, J .C. and Nutt , P.C. (1980), “The I n?u-
ence of deci si on style on deci si on-maki ng
behavi or”, Management Science, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 371-86.
Herbert, T.T. and Deresky, H. (1987), “Should
general managers match thei r busi ness
strategi es?”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 40-51.
Hurst, D.K., Rush, J .C. and Whi te, R.E. (1989),
“Top management teams and organi zati onal
renewal”, Strategic Management J ournal, Vol.
10, speci al i ssue, Summer, pp. 87-105.
J ames, W.L. and Hatten, K.J . (1995), “Research
notes and communi cati ons: further evi dence
on the vali di ty of the self-typi ng paragraph
approach: Mi les and Snow strategi c arche-
types i n banki ng”, Strategic Management
J ournal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 161-8.
Ki lmann, R.H. and Herden, R.P. (1976), “Towards a
systemati c methodology for evaluati ng the
i mpact of i nterventi ons on organi zati onal
effectiveness”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 87-98.
Ki lmann, R.H. and Thomas, K.W. (1977), “Develop-
i ng a force-choi ce measure of con?i ct-han-
dli ng behavi or: the “mode” i nstrument”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 309-25.
Lawrence, G. (1993), People Types and Tiger
Stripes, Center Appli cati ons of Psychologi cal
Type, Gai nesvi lle, FL.
McDani el, S.W. and Kolari , J .W. (1987), “Marketi ng
strategy i mpli cati ons of the Mi les and Snow
strategi c typology”, J ournal of Marketing,
Vol. 51 No.4, pp. 19-30.
Maci ntosh, N.B. (1985), The Social Software of
Accounting and I nformation Systems, J ohn
Wi ley & Sons, New York, NY.
Mason, R.O. and Mi troff, I .I . (1973), “A program for
research on management i nfor mati on sys-
tems”, Management Science, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp.
475-87.
Mi les, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational
Strategy Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hi ll,
New York, NY.
Mi ller, D. (1996), “Con?gurati ons revi si ted”,
Strategic Management J ournal, Vol. 17 No. 7,
pp. 505-12.
Mi ller, D., Kets De Vri es, M.F.R. and Toulouse, J .-
M. (1982), “Top executive locusof control and
i ts relati onshi p to strategy-maki ng, structure,
and envi ronment”, Academy of Management
J ournal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 237-53.
Mi troff, I .I . and Ki lmann, R.H. (1975), “Stori es
managers tell: a new tool for organi zati onal
problem solvi ng”, Management Review, J uly,
pp. 18-28.
Myers, I .B. and McCaulley, M.H. (1990), Manual: A
Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-
Briggs Type I ndicator, Consulti ng Psycholo-
gi st Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Nutt, P.C. (1979), “I n?uence of deci si on styles on
use of deci si on models”, Technological Fore-
casting and Social Change, Vol. 14, pp. 77-93.
Nutt, P.C. (1986), “Deci si on style and strategi c
deci si ons of top executives”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 30, pp. 39-
62.
Nutt, P.C. (1990), “Strategi c deci si ons made by top
executives and mi ddle managers wi th data
and process domi nant styles”, J ournal of
Management Studies, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 173-94.
Pollay, R.W. (1970), “The structure of executive
deci si ons and deci si on ti mes”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, December, pp. 459-71.
Rajagopalan, N. and Datta, D.K. (1996), “CEO
characteri sti cs: does i ndustry matter?”, Acad-
emy of Management J ournal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp.
197-215.
Reponen, T., Pär ni stö, J . and Vi rtanen, J . (1994),
“Personali ty and cogni tive mappi ng as an
explanatory devi ce for executive deci si on
maki ng processes”, unpubli shed study, Uni -
versi ty of Turku, Turku.
Rosenak, C.M. and Shontz, F.C. (1988), “J ungi an
Q-sorts: demonstrati ng construct vali di ty for
psychologi cal type and the MBTI ”, J ournal of
Psychological Type, Vol. 15, pp. 33-45.
[ 551 ]
Tiina Gallén
The cognitive style and
strategic decisions of
managers
Management Decision
35/ 7 [1997] 541–551
Ryckman, R.M. (1989), Theories of Personality,
Brooks/ Cole Publi shi ng Company, a divi si on
of Wadsworth, I nc.
Saari maa, T. (1995), J ohtoryhmän kokoonpanon
vaikutus yrityksen strategiaan, (The effect of
the top management team on ?rm’s strategy),
unpubli shed Master’s thesi s, Universi ty of
Vaasa, Vaasa.
Segev, E. (1987), “Strategy, strategy-maki ng, and
perfor mance i n a busi ness game”, Strategic
Management J ournal, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 565-77.
Shortell, S.M. and Zajac, E.J . (1990), “Perceptual
and archival measures of Mi les and Snow’s
strategi c types: a comprehensive assessment
of reli abi li ty and vali di ty”, Academy of Man-
agement J ournal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 817-32.
Smi th, K.G.,Guthri e, J .P. and Chen, M.-J . (1989),
“Strategy, si ze and perfor mance”, Organiza-
tional Studies, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 63-81.
Stumpf, S.A. and Dunbar, R.L.M. (1991), “The
effects of personali ty type on choi ces made i n
strategi c deci si on si tuati ons”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 22, pp. 1047-69.
Sun, Tzu (1971), The Art of War (S. B. Con?tt trans-
lati on), Oxford Universi ty Press, New York,
NY.
Thomas, A.S., Li tschert, R.J . and Ramaswamy, K.
(1991), “The perfor mance i mpact of strategy
manager coali gnment: an empi ri cal exami na-
ti on”, Strategic Management J ournal, Vol. 12
No. 7, pp. 509-22.
Wi ssema, J .G. , van der Pol. H.W. and Messer, H.M.
(1980), “Strategi c management archetypes”,
Strategic Management J ournal, Vol. 1,
pp. 37-47.
Zemke, R. (1992), “Second thoughts about the
MBTI ”, Training, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 43-7.
Appl i cat i on quest i ons
1 Categori ze yourself accordi ng to the four
cogni tive styles.
2 Descri be the most vi able strategy for your
company i n your poi nt of vi ew.
3 What ki nd of si mi lari ti es can you ?nd
between your descri pti on and the combi -
nati ons proposed i n thi s paper? What
about di fferences?
doc_182263632.pdf