The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
MD
44,5
598
Received October 2005
Revised February 2006
Accepted February 2006
Management Decision
Vol. 44 No. 5, 2006
pp. 598-614
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
DOI 10.1108/00251740610668860
Designing the strategic planning
process: does psychological
type matter?
David Jennings and John J. Disney
Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the empirical literature concerning the
design of the strategic planning process and its relationship to environmental, organizational, strategic
and psychological factors. The paper aims to focus on psychological type and its relationship to
planning preferences.
Design/methodology/approach A study of 187 managers profiling their psychological type
(using a short version of the MBTI, Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and their preferences towards
configuring the strategic planning process. A review of the literature finds inconsistent conclusions.
The results of a study of the relationship between psychological type and planning preferences are
reported.
Findings The study finds some inconsistent evidence for the importance of psychological type but
greater support for the conclusion that the characteristics of strategic situations, rather than a
managers psychological type, determine configuration of the strategic planning process.
Research limitations/implications The existing bias towards examining the environmental,
organizational and strategic context of organizations appears to be the more appropriate path for
developing explanations of strategic planning design.
Practical implications For managers involved in the practice of planning the literature review a
basis is provided for reviewing their own planning process. Educators and trainers using the MBTI in
planning simulations should be aware of the lack of its reliability in predicting preferences concerning
planning.
Originality/value The article reviews contextual studies that have implications for the design of
the strategic planning process and develops understanding of a comparatively neglected contextual
factor, psychological type.
Keywords Design, Organizational planning, Psychology, Type testing
Paper type Research paper
Strategic planning
Strategic planning is a commonly used management process, employed by managers
in both the private and public sector to determine the allocation of resources in order to
develop financial and strategic performance. A survey of USA and European
companies by Bain and Co. (2003) finding that strategic planning was used by eighty
nine per cent of the sampled companies.
There appears to be general agreement among strategic planning researchers that
the process consists of three major components: formulation (including setting
objectives and assessing the external and internal environments); evaluating and
selecting strategic alternatives; implementation and control (Hopkins and Hopkins,
1997).
 Within its use as a resource allocation process the strategic planning process can Designing the
serve a number of organizational roles. Enabling organization-wide response to strategic
environmental change. Protecting core technologies through helping to recognize and
address uncertainties. Providing an integrative device to address potential synergies planning process
and acting as a basis for divisional and business control (Grant, 2003, Lorange and
Vancil, 1995). The development of strategy is an ongoing and often dispersed process.
The strategic planning process forms a part of the administrative context established 599
by corporate management, the formal planning and control system acting to bound,
encourage and shape the emergent aspects of strategy development (Chakravarthy and
White, 2002; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996). The effective use of planning review
also helps to develop and share intelligence, challenge and develop assumptions and
hence inform the strategy process (Kaplan and Beinhocker, 2003).

Designing the strategic planning process

The relevance of these roles varies between organizations and for a particular
organization may change over time. To accommodate such variation the stages that
comprise the formal strategic planning process can be configured and organized in a
variety of ways to emphasize particular roles. The balance of such design elements as
centralization/decentralization (the commonly made distinction between top down
and bottom up planning processes), can be used to enable corporate control and the
integration of business unit activities (centralization) or to encourage business unit
innovation and adaptation (through decentralization) (Chakravarthy, 1987). A large
number of empirical studies have established associations between the characteristics
of planning processes and a range of environmental and organizational characteristics.
As such these studies provide guidelines for designing the strategic planning process.
The contextual factors that appear relevant to configuring the strategic planning
process can be sub divided into those which describe the organizations environment
and those concerning the organization and its strategy. Table I provides a summary of
the relationships between those factors and configuration of the strategic planning
process.

The organizations environment and planning process design

A number of studies have examined the relationship between the organizations
external environment and characteristics of the planning process. Planning systems in
more complex environments have been found to be more flexible, with plans reviewed
more frequently and with shorter horizons. Greater environmental complexity may
also increase the number of decision areas to which strategic planning is applied and
planning stages undertaken (Kukalis, 1991). Greater environmental complexity has
also been associated with increased planning formality in an attempt to guide
organizational action (Bantel, 1993). However the effect of environmental factors upon
planning characteristics is more strongly related to senior management perceptions of
the environment than to objective measures of complexity or uncertainty (Odom and
Boxx, 1988; Rhyne, 1985).
Stable environments appear to require less planning activity, unstable
environments increased planning capability and comprehensiveness and greater
planning flexibility (Brews and Hunt, 1999). The need for flexibility in order to address
unpredictable business environments has been associated with reduced planning
MD
Managers perception of the organizations environment
44,5 More complex environment More frequent review of plans, shorter horizons,
more pervasive planning activity and formality
More uncertain environment Require greater planning capability,
comprehensiveness and planning flexibility, less
formality, greater delegation of planning to
600 business level managers, shorter plan horizon
Organizational and strategic characteristics
Initiating diversification and/or narrow business Centralized, top-down planning process
scope
Entrepreneurial orientation More intense scanning of the environment,
flexibility, greater participation, controls more
strategic in nature
Low-cost orientation Greater size and sophistication of planning
activity, control of internal processes and
anticipation of environmental conditions
Complexity (diversity and seeking integration of Increased scope and formality of planning process
business unit activities)
Core technology, inflexibility in use/prolonged Greater planning effort and sophistication
time required to implement
Perceived performance pressure for
Strategic adaptation/development Participative process, reduced emphasis on
financial targets
Table I. Shorter-term financial performance Increased centralization of goal setting, financial
The strategic planning emphasis
process and its context Performance volatility Increased planning formality

formality, greater delegation of strategic planning to business unit managers and

shorter time horizons (Grant, 2003; Jennings, 2000). Some of these relationships also
appear in highly competitive environments, such environments being associated with
shorter planning horizons and greater involvement of top management teams to
promote anticipation of environmental conditions (Yasai-Ardekani and Haug, 1997).

Organizational and strategic characteristics and planning process design

Centralized initiatives and the top-down setting of goals are necessary to initiate
diversification (Chakravarthy, 1987) and a centralized approach to planning is
consistent with a single or narrow range of businesses (Rumelt, 1974). The
organizations strategic orientation (Miles and Snows generic archetypes, Prospector,
Analyser, Defender and Reactor) has been associated with strategic planning system
characteristics. Prospectors reporting greater market research competence, innovation
and personnel involvement and planning implementation than Defenders (Veliyath
and Shortall, 1993). Further relationships between strategic orientation and planning
process characteristics are identified by Barringer and Bluedorn (1999), finding
positive relationships between corporate entrepreneurship and the intensity of
environmental scanning activity, planning flexibility, high levels of employee
participation in planning activity and an emphasis on strategic controls. An emphasis
upon a low-cost orientation appears to be associated with greater size and
sophistication of planning effort, greater control of internal processes as well as Designing the
anticipation of environmental conditions (Yasai-Ardekani and Haug, 1997). strategic
Organizational complexity (diversity and interdependence between business units)
may partly determine the need for corporate planning (Houlden, 1985) and may be planning process
critical to the extensiveness of the planning process (Yasai-Ardekani and Haug, 1997).
For organizations structured by divisions strategic planning can act as an integrative
device (Kukalis, 1988), with planning systems having greater scope and formality 601
within diversified, divisionally structured, companies (Grinyer et al., 1986).
The nature of the organizations core technology is also an important consideration.
The vulnerability of the core technology, through length of investment gestation period
and / or technological inflexibility, has been associated with higher planning effort and
sophistication (Kukalis, 1991). The planning process acting to protect core technologies
from environmental perturbations (Yasai-Ardekani and Haug, 1997).
Central managements perception of the type of performance improvement that is
needed (strategic v. more immediate financial) can be expected to affect the
characteristics of the planning system. Chakravarthy and Lorange (1991) propose that
a firms planning system needs to achieve a balance between adaptation (promoting
creativity and the identification of environmental threats and opportunities) and
integration (emphasising control and the co-ordination of internal resources). Pressure
for strategic development requires a planning system characterised by an adaptive
approach, financial pressure requires integration. An adaptive orientation requires a
participative approach to goal setting and a loose link between long-term financial
plans and business unit budgets. Integration, for example to emphasize financial
performance, is typified by a top-down approach to goal setting, an emphasis upon
operating rather than strategic budgets. For a particular organization integrative and
adaptive orientations need not be mutually exclusive. A balanced approach has been
found to be associated with greater long term financial success (Rhyne, 1987).
Volatility in performance has been associated with increased formal strategic planning
processes, possibly as an action to communicate an impression of the apparent ability
of senior management to achieve control (Bantel, 1993).

Psychology and the planning process

The role given to strategic planning can be seen as an aspect of an organizations
corporate management style, which in turn may be determined by factors that include
the personality of the CEO, senior management skills, the financial condition of the
organization and the shape of the portfolio of businesses (Goold and Campbell, 1987)
The psychology (need for achievement) of an organizations CEO has been identified as
having a strong impact on an organizations decision-making process and structures
(Miller and Droge, 1986). Continuity of CEO may be critical to sustaining the corporate
management style and the role and significance of planning (Liberatore and Titus,
1990)
The composition of the top management team may also affect planning systems.
Bantels study relates a number of top management team characteristics to strategic
planning formality. Teams composed of managers with relatively high tenure within
the firm tended to adhere to greater formality and inflexibility in the planning process.
Functionally heterogeneous teams were associated with more formal strategic
planning processes.
MD A number of psychological factors have implications for the configuration of the
44,5 strategic planning process. The extent of cognitive diversity among upper-echelon
executives (variation in beliefs concerning goals for the organization and suitable
competitive tactics) act to inhibit rather than promote extensive planning (Miller et al.,
1998). Miller et al. (1982) have addressed the implications of the locus of control concept
finding that the more internal the orientation of the CEO the more scanning devices
602 were used and the greater the use of longer-term planning. In addition the future time
perspectives of individuals (concerning future important events in the respondents
personal life) has been related to preferences concerning planning horizons (Das, 1987).
Within the study of psychological characteristics psychological type theory,
founded upon the work of the psychologist C.G. Jung (1923) and the development of a
psychometric instrument the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), provides a set of
contextual factors that may have relevance for design of the planning process.

Psychological type and planning

Psychological type theory examines an individuals predisposition to four preferences
which, under Jungs theory, direct the use of perception and judgement. Descriptions of
each preference are presented below (from Gardner and Martinko, 1996). Three of the
preferences have been discussed in the literature of psychological type as having
implications for strategic planning
The Extraversion-Introversion (E, I) preference refers to the direction in which
attention and energy are most easily drawn. Extraversion implies wishing to
experience things in order to understand them. Preferring the outer world of people
and things to reflection. Introversion implies wanting to understand something before
trying it and reflection rather than action. The Extraversion-Introversion dimension of
personality has little mention in the literature concerning psychological type and
planning.
Sensing and Intuition (S, N) refer to two ways of gathering information and
understanding situations. Sensing implies a focus upon data, a step-by-step approach
to understanding, an orientation towards the present. Intuition implies a focus on the
connections between data, being drawn to the possibilities, patterns or theoretical
explanations that will put specific data into context. A liking to see the overall
situation, an orientation towards the future.
Thinking and Feeling (T, F) are two ways in which to organize and structure
information and come to a conclusion. Thinking implies a preference for applying
analytical and logical principles to make objective decisions, following clear and
consistent principles. Those who prefer Feeling (F) may prefer to make decisions by
reference to their own and others values, tending to encourage participation and
consensus in decision making.
The implications of psychological type are often examined by reference to pairs of
preferences. Combinations of the Sensing-Intuition (S, N) and Thinking-Feeling (T, F)
preferences have been examined for their association with non-operations based
planning. Hellriegel and Slocum (1980) and Mitroff and Kilmann (1975) propose that an
NT problem solving style is congruent with the role of long-range strategic planner.
Haley and Stumpf (1989) also propose that NTs tend to emphasize longer-range plans
and new possibilities, while often seeming more interested in planning than in
implementation. In contrast individuals with a preference for Sensing-Thinking (ST)
behaviours may tend to focus upon short-term problems as may Sensing-Feeling (SF) Designing the
orientated individuals (Hellriegel and Slocum, 1975). strategic
The fourth preference, Judging and Perceiving (J, P), refers to how individuals
prefer to organize their external environment. Judging implies a preference for planning process
organization and structure and an environment that is orderly or planned with
goals and issues decided and settled. Perceiving implies flexibility and spontaneity,
wanting decisions to emerge while deciding at the last minute. The 603
Judging-Perceiving (JP) component of psychological type appears to have
relevance for choices concerning planning. Kirbys (1997) review of the MBTI
literature concludes that those who prefer Judging (J) prefer to plan, both
long-range and short-term. Those individuals with a preference for Perceiving (P)
prefer to keep their environment as open and unstructured as possible, trusting
their ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances.
An empirical study of strategic planners by Lang (1997) supports the conclusion
that strategic planners may tend to a specific profile of psychological type. For a
sample of fifty three strategic planners ENTJ was the modal type. Extraversion and
Introversion were evenly divided. Intuition was preferred to Sensing 2.5 to 1. Thinking
over Feeling nearly 4 to 1 and Judging over Perceiving about 2 to 1. Lang concludes
that many strategic planners have NTJ preferences, with Sensing more apparent for
those whose planning roots are operational and in planners responsible for both
planning and implementation.
In addition to professional planners the psychological type of other participants in
the planning process may also be relevant. From an early study of planning and
psychological type Nutt (1976) concludes that managers initiating planning should be
concerned with the acceptability of planning methods to members of the planning
group, the wider set of individuals who participate in the planning process. Nutt
advised that to avoid conflicts over methodology preferences concerning planning
should be investigated before a planning effort is initiated. Planning processes may
need to be consistent with the psychological types of the participants involved in
planning (Nutt, 1979).
A number of authors have suggested approaches to counter and capitalize upon the
biases that different individuals are expected to bring to the planning process.
Concerning the generation of strategy, rather than design of the planning process,
Hurst et al. (1989) refer to Miles and Snows typology proposing that the dominant
coalitions of organizations should be composed to reflect the orientation necessary to a
particular business strategy. For example Intuitives and Feelers may be appropriate to
organizations with a Prospecting orientation. Thinkers and Sensors to Analysing. A
mix of Intuitives, Feelers, Thinkers and Sensors for Renewal. Alternatively, rather than
seeking a mixed team approach Lang (1997) argues for individuals to develop
flexibility to counter the type based biases they bring to planning situations.

Psychological type and planning-related activities

The wider literature concerning psychological type provides further insights into the
relationship between psychological type and preference towards the planning process.
That literature also brings into question the significance of the relationship. A number
of studies question whether situational factors may act to counter and even dominate
the effect of psychological type.
MD Forms of organization
44,5 Organization is an aspect of the design of planning processes, in particular the use of
centralization to further integration and control and decentralization to facilitate
adaptation. A number of authors describe a strong association between psychological
type and organizational form. Mitroff and Kilmann (1975, pp. 20, 24) on the basis of
experience with hundreds of managers providing stories describing their ideal
604 organization conclude that managers of the same psychological type have the same
concept of an ideal organization which is drastically different to that of managers of
opposing personalities. For example the ideal organization of the ST manager is
described as impersonal and authoritarian with a well-defined hierarchical line of
authority. NF managers describe an ideal organization that is the exact opposite of
STs, an organization that is flexible, completely decentralized, the epitome of organic,
adaptive institutions.
While there is evidence that psychological type is associated with particular
descriptions of ideal organizational forms a number of studies provide evidence that
situational effects may mitigate and even dominate the effects of psychological type.
Evidence that psychological type does not strongly affect the acceptability of
particular organizational forms in which managers are working is provided by
Kleiners (1983) study of managers perceptions of their work unit. Only modest
relationships were found between psychological type and the acceptability (quality of
working life, motivation) of the organization implied by each type. Cowan (1991)
exploring the relationship between psychological and organizational structure warns
that type is only one contingency factor and that depending on situation may be
constrained or dominated in its effect.

Goal orientation
Psychological preferences have been associated with particular goal orientations. A
number of descriptions of the goal orientations of particular psychological types show
substantial agreement. For example, ST individuals are described as associated with
narrowly economic goals and an emphasis upon financial aspects of performance. In
contrast the goals of NF and SF individuals serve the personal and social needs of
stakeholders, for SFs the concern is for individuals (Haley, 1997; Nutt, 1979; Mitroff
and Kilmanns, 1975).
Psychological type has also been associated with the time horizon of goals, Haley
and Stumpf (1989) propose that both STs and SFs tend to focus on short-term problems
and goals, NTs and NFs emphasizing longer term plans and goals.
While the above consideration of type, largely based upon managers accounts of
ideal organizations, appears to provide a set of contrasting goal orientations, Hoy and
Hellriegels (1982) study of business managers failed to find a relationship between
psychological type and the rating by managers of a range of organizational goals.

The use of information and analysis

From a review of the literature of psychological type Nutt (1979) concludes that
psychological type is associated with preferences towards decision making. Nutt
proposes that ST decision makers prefer data and logical analysis, often using
standard procedures to solve problems. NT decision makers also prefer logical analysis
but are described as vitally concerned about contextual factors, taking a broad view of
their effect upon the definition of the task. Those with NF preferences may have a Designing the
disdain for data, relying on non-verbalized hunches with analytical models viewed as strategic
unable to capture the complexity of most important decisions.
The Thinking-Feeling scale appears to be associated with preferences for different planning process
types of data. In a study of graduate students who were found to be Intuitive (N) in
their information preferences, Thinkers (NT) requested more quantitative information
than subjects with a preference for Feeling (NF). This is possibly due to Thinkers (T) 605
tendency to rely on logical structures to clarify particular situations (Kerin and Slocum,
1981). From a review of available research Walck (1996) concludes that Intuitive types
appear to seek information more widely, Sensing types appear satisfied with less
information, Thinking types demonstrating a preference for quantified and well
structured data.
Preferences concerning Sensing and Intuition may have implications for the use of
management techniques. From a study of small business owners and managers
Carland et al. (1997) concluded that those with a Sensing (S) preference had a tendency
to approach the conduct of a business with an understanding of management tools and
techniques. Intuitives (N) were less likely to use such tools and techniques, having a
stronger tendency to explore the implications of situations. However, as suggested
with other planning related activities, the effect of psychological type may depend
upon situational factors. Blaylock and Reess (1984) study of a simulated merger
situation (1984) concluded that while cognitive style influenced the decision makers
preference for different sets of information those preferences varied with the dynamics
of the situation and the receipt of feedback. In Schweiger and Jagos (1982) study ,
based upon subjects matching a choice of decision style to decision making scenarios,
psychological type accounted for 10 per cent of variance, the characteristics presented
by situations 30 per cent. Variations in contextual cues may dominate the effect of
psychological type and act to specify appropriate managerial behaviour (Ruble and
Cosier, 1990). Walck (1996) reviewing thirty years of MBTI research concludes that
task type appears to be more important than psychological type in determining
information choice and decision process

The study
To further develop understanding of the relationships between psychological type and
strategic planning preferences a study was conducted based upon a sample of one
hundred and eighty seven managers attending postgraduate courses in management.
Each respondent completed a sixty item version of the MBTI and a separate
questionnaire asking them to define (by Likert scales) how they would prefer to
organize planning activity in each of three distinct situations briefly presented by case
studies. The three situations were based upon Miller and Friesens (1977) archetypes,
empirically derived sets of organizational and strategy-making variables. The three
situations present the respondents with a diverse range of strategic situations for
which to consider the preferred configuration of planning processes. For this study the
indicators of associated scanning and decision making behaviour were removed from
each of the archetypes to provide 40 to 50 word cases. The three cases are summarized
as follows:
(1) innovation, an organization that is run by an entrepreneur, highly changeable
environment, proactive organization;
MD (2) diversified, an organization that provides products for a wide variety of
44,5 markets, complex and changing environment; and
(3) dominates, the strongest organization in its market, the organizations external
environment is not particularly challenging.

Using seven point Likert scales respondents described how they would prefer to
606 organize planning in each situation as they addressed the following eight planning
choices, based upon single item scores derived from the strategic planning literature
(reviewed above):
(1) strategic development to follow precise plans widely accepted throughout the
organization/Evolve strategic development through trial and error;
(2) a planning process following an agreed schedule with written plans/Informal
planning activity with unwritten plans;
(3) centralization/decentralization of goal setting;
(4) centralization/decentralization of strategy formulation;
(5) frequency of monitoring strategic plans (monthly/yearly or less often);
(6) the basis for controlling business units: strict adherence to profit
budget/strategic milestones;
(7) basing strategy upon the companys internal resources/trends and events in the
external environment; and
(8) the importance of management techniques when developing plans
(Essential-Unimportant).

(Points 3-8 assume a formal planning process is followed.)

Respondents were instructed to express their own preferences concerning planning
activity, not the approach followed or advocated by their employment organization. In
order to avoid the respondents course biasing responses the questionnaires were
administered at the start of each course. The ordering of the three cases in each
questionnaire was varied to counter order bias when addressed by the respondents.

Survey results and discussion

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) provides a score for each of the four
preferences that constitute psychological type.
In their reviews of the literature concerning type Kirby (1997) and Walck (1996)
refer to the common use of function pairs (ST, NT, SF, NF) and single preferences (S-N,
T-F, J-P) by psychological type studies. They conclude that function pairs, defined as
preferences for information gathering (S, N) and information evaluating (T, F) can be
linked to cognition and strategic decision making rather more readily than the more
global meaning implicit in psychological type. Consequently analysis followed the use
of correlation based upon single preferences (S-N, T-F and J-P) and paired comparisons
based upon combinations of the SN, TF preferences. The Extraversion-Introversion
dimension of psychological type has little mention in the reviewed literature and is
comparatively rarely used in management research (Gardner and Martinko, 1996) and
is consequently omitted from the analysis.
 The profile of psychological type test scores for the samples respondents was as Designing the
follows: Sensing (S) 97; Intuition (N) 90; Thinking (T) 37; Feeling (F) 150; Judging (J) strategic
139; Perceiving 48.
From a number of studies Byrne (1997) concludes that a bias towards STJ and SFJ planning process
occurs in both the UK and the USA general population, while the most common profile
for mangers is STJ. In the present studys sample the high incidence of a preference for
Judging may indicate that the sample of mangers is biased towards a preference for 607
planning
An analysis for correlation was conducted based upon the two series of scores;
psychological type (each of the three preferences, SN, TF, JP, provided a test score of
0-10) and the seven point scores for the planning choices. Following exploratory data
analysis using graphical techniques a two-tailed test for correlation (using Pearsons
product moment correlation coefficient) was found to be appropriate, the test was
based upon the respondents average scores for the three strategic situations. The
Judging-Perceiving (JP) preference had a significant positive correlation (0.157, 0.05
significance level) with higher planning formality (a planning process that follows an
agreed schedule with written plans) and also with greater centralization of strategy
formulation (0.171). Both results are consistent with the (above) description of
psychological types that Judging implies a preference for order and structure. The
Sensing-Intuition (SN) preference provided significant negative correlations between
Sensing-Intuition and the frequency with which strategic plans should be monitored
(2 0.157) and also the importance of management techniques (2 0.153). The negative
correlations appear inconsistent with the expectation from type theory. Perhaps more
importantly the significant correlations explain less than 3 per cent of the variation in
response to the planning questionnaire, this is shown by the coefficient of
determination which was at best 0.029.
Table II presents the mean values and standard deviations for each of the factors
included in the study; psychological type and situation. Table III presents the results
for Tukeys test for multiple comparisons, a test for differences in sample means. For
multiple pair wise comparisons, Tukey, Bonferroni and Sidak methods are available.
Of these methods, Tukeys is generally the more powerful and is used here to compare
responses for all possible pairs of the psychological type preferences (SN and TF) and
the three case situations (Innovation, Diversified, Dominates). A family error rate of
0.01 is used to control the rate of Type I error, bearing in mind that when making
multiple comparisons the probability of a Type I error for a series of comparisons is
greater than the error rate for an individual comparison alone.
For psychological type comparison of the means for preference pairs (ST, SF, NT,
NF) finds significant differences (0.01 significance level) for goal centralization,
monitoring frequency and the importance of techniques when developing plans.
Respondents demonstrating a preference for Sensing-Thinking (ST) have a
comparative preference for goal centralization, with scores significantly different
from those with Intuitive-Thinking type preferences. Respondents with an
Intuitive-Thinking (NT) preference demonstrate a comparative preference for goal
decentralization, significantly so compared to Intuitive-Feeling (NF) respondents.
Those managers identified as having an Intuitive-Feeling (NF) preference have a mean
score that indicates more frequent monitoring of strategic plans; significantly so when
compared to Sensing-Feeling (SF) respondents. They also attribute more importance to
 MD
44,5

608

Table II.

scale rating)
situation. Mean rating
and standard deviation
Psychological type and

(based on 7-point Likert

Personality type Situation
ST SF NT NF Innovation Diversified Dominates
Variable Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard

Planning intention 3.41 1.78 3.25 1.72 3.76 1.75 3.45 1.81 4.39 1.69 3.14 1.68 2.63 1.43
Planning formality 3.13 1.52 2.84 1.39 3.19 1.53 2.86 1.58 3.78 1.62 2.56 1.25 2.38 1.17
Goal centralization 3.43 1.42 3.98 1.49 4.45 1.43 3.74 1.48 3.76 1.57 4.02 1.47 3.76 1.41
Strategy centralization 3.52 1.39 3.75 1.54 4.31 1.67 3.65 1.54 3.71 1.56 3.88 1.55 3.57 1.51
Monitoring frequency 2.85 1.48 3.27 1.72 2.90 1.76 2.66 1.59 2.39 1.36 2.55 1.44 3.87 1.74
Control type 4.00 1.46 4.01 1.56 3.98 1.69 4.17 1.62 4.10 1.56 4.19 1.51 3.92 1.67
Focus of analysis 4.49 1.68 4.65 1.63 4.93 1.63 4.72 1.69 5.09 1.48 5.22 1.33 3.72 1.73
Technique importance 2.91 1.38 2.67 1.29 2.69 1.51 2.35 1.29 3.00 1.51 2.21 1.14 2.49 1.21
Notes: ST Sensing/Thinking (23); SF Sensing/Feeling (74); NT Intuition/Thinking (14); NF Intuition/Feeling (76); Innovation (187); Diversified (187); Dominates
(187)
 Designing the
Personality type Situation
Variable ST SF NT NF Innovation Diversified Dominates strategic
Planning intention Diversified * Innovation * Diversified *
planning process
Dominates * Dominates * Innovation *
Planning formality Diversified * Innovation * Innovation *
Dominates * 609
Goal centralization NT * ST * NT *
NF *
Strategy centralization
Monitoring frequency NF * SF * Dominates * Dominates * Innovation *
Diversified *
Control type
Focus of analysis Dominates * Dominates * Innovation *
Diversified *
Technique importance NF * ST * Diversified * Innovation * Innovation * Table III.
Dominates * Psychological type and
situation, multiple
Notes: ST Sensing/Thinking; SF Sensing/Feeling; NT Intuition/Thinking; NF Intuition/Feeling; comparison of means
*p value #0.01 (Tukey)

management techniques when developing plans, significantly so compared to those

having ST preferences. These results were confirmed by analysis of the confidence
intervals generated by the Tukey method.
Again the results appear mixed in their consistency with the expectation from the
descriptions of psychological types. The preference of ST respondents for goal
centralization can be seen as consistent with their psychological type description,
however the association between NF preferences and greater importance being
attributed to management technique is inconsistent. Also, and particularly
inconsistent, is the comparatively low rating for the importance of management
techniques provided by ST respondents. The results for psychological type identify
some significant differences in managers choices for configuring the strategic
planning process, however there are inconsistencies with the behaviour implied by
type descriptions.
The results of the Tukey test comparing responses for the three strategic situations
(Innovation, Diversified, Dominates) show significant variation in planning
preferences for five of the eight planning variables. All three situations have
significant differences in response concerning planning intention, the choice between
following precise plans and an emergent approach. For planning formality there are
significant differences between the responses for the Innovation situation when
compared to the Diversified and Dominates situations. Similarly there are significant
differences between situations for the items concerning monitoring frequency, focus of
analysis (resources external environment) and the importance of management
techniques when developing plans.
Overall the study provides some slight but conflicting evidence to support an
association between planning preferences and managers psychological type. Stronger
support is found for the conclusion that managers psychological type is of less
significance than the characteristics of the specific situation they are considering in
determining preferences towards the design of the strategic planning process. Similar
MD conclusions concerning the predominant importance of situational factors are found by
44,5 Schweiger and Jagos (1982) study and Ruble and Cosier (1990).

Conclusions
Psychological type appears to be of less importance than the characteristics of specific
610 strategic situations in determining design of the strategic planning process. It is likely
that within an organizational setting the role of psychological type would be further
limited. The present study is based upon the use of case situations that necessarily lack
the pervasive effects of context and history present in organizational settings. Such
effects can be expected to further limit the relevance of psychological type in the design
of the planning process. Training may also act as a constraint, Catford (1987) finding
that previous training predicts the problem solving approach adopted more than
psychological type.
The study and literature review reported in this article provide conclusions for
planning practitioners and also for academic researchers and educators.
In the literature of psychological type numerous studies (reviewed by Myers and
McCaulley, 1985) have established distinct psychological type profiles for particular
professional groups. Langs (1997) study of those engaged in strategic planning as their
profession is consistent with that body of study. Lang identified a modal psychological
type for professional strategic planners, (NTJ). The implication is that type can be used
as a psychometric instrument to select candidates for this professional role. The
present study indicates that due to the importance of situational factors this conclusion
must be treated with caution. In addition Byrne (1997) points to both the possibility of
the wrong type in a profession being an unhappy misfit and the possibility of such an
individual making an unusual contribution to the profession. Management tasks may
be practiced in a number of ways with the possibility of each approach being effective.
A useful direction for further research concerning psychological type may be found in
studying the planning preferences of those planners whose psychological type is at
variance with that expected for their professional role.
The implications of psychological type differences for the acceptability of a
particular configuration of the planning process appear to be slight and may not be
consistent with expectations based upon psychological type theory. Such differences
may be better addressed by participants aiming to develop flexibility in their
preferences rather than by attempting to establish planning teams with particular
mixtures of members based upon psychological type characteristics. Planning
practitioners should accept a contingency based view towards the design of strategic
planning processes, attempting to achieve consistency of the planning process with the
wider, and changing, environmental, organizational and strategic context.
The study reported in this article is consistent with the conclusion that the
characteristics of strategic situations, rather than mangers psychological type,
determine the configuration of the planning process. Strategic situations are dynamic
and hence require reconfiguration of the planning process (Grant, 2003, Jennings, 2000).
Such reconfiguration invites further study of how both planning professionals and the
wider group of managers engaged in planning learn to plan (Brews and Hunt, 1999),
and to revise their planning approach in order to maintain a correspondence between
the planning process and the changing strategic situation.
 The study also has implications for educators and trainers who use the Myers Designing the
Briggs Type Indicator with students and managers to profile psychological type and strategic
thence to form teams for exercises such as simulations. On the basis of the literature
review and the study the MBTI does not appear to provide a reliable indicator of planning process
preferences towards the task of planning and may not be useful for selecting teams
taking part in planning orientated simulations nor interpreting team performance.
611
References
Bain and Co. (2003), Bain study reveals how firms are using three main analytical tools,
Financial Times, 4 September.
Bantel, K. (1993), Top team, environment, and performance effects on strategic planning
formality, Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 436-58.
Barringer, B.R. and Bluedorn, A.C. (1999), The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship
and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 421-44.
Blaylock, B.K. and Rees, L.P. (1984), Cognitive style and the usefulness of information,
Management Science, Vol. 15, pp. 74-91.
Brews, P.J. and Hunt, M.R. (1999), Learning to plan and planning to learn: resolving the
planning school/learning school debate, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20,
pp. 889-913.
Byrne, R. (1997), The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Critical Review and Practical Guide, Stanley
Thornes (Publishers) Ltd, Cheltenham.
Carland, J.W., Carland, J.A.C. and Busbin, J.W. (1997), Nurturing entrepreneurship:
reconsiderations for competitive strategy, Advances in Competitive Research, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 85-105.
Catford, L.R. (1987), Creative problem-solving in business: synergy of thinking, intuitive,
sensing and feeling strategies, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA.
Chakravarthy, B.S. (1987), On tailoring a strategic planning system to its context: some
empirical evidence, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 517-34.
Chakravarthy, B.S. and Lorange, P. (1991), Adapting strategic planning to the changing needs
of a business, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 6-18.
Chakravarthy, B.S. and White, R.E. (2002), Strategy process; forming, implementing and
changing strategies, in Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (Eds), Handbook of
Management and Strategy, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 182-205.
Cowan, D.A. (1991), The effect of decision making styles and contextual experience on
executives descriptions of organizational problem formulation, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 463-83.
Das, T.K. (1987), Strategic planning and individual temporal orientation, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 203-9.
Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D.C. (1996), Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects
on Organizations, West Publishing, St Paul, MN.
Gardner, W.L. and Martinko, M.J. (1996), Using the Myers Briggs Type Indicator to study
managers: a literature review and research agenda, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 45-83.
Goold, M. and Campbell, A. (1987), Strategies and Styles: The Role of the Centre in Managing
Diverse Corporations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
MD Grant, R.M. (2003), Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 491-527.
44,5
Grinyer, P., Al-Bazzaz, A. and Yasai-Ardekani, M. (1986), Towards a contingency theory of
corporate planning: findings in 48 UK companies, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7,
pp. 3-28.
Haley, U.C.V. (1997), The MBTI and decision-making styles: identifying and managing
612 cognitive trails in strategic decision making, in Fitzgerald, C. and Kirby, L.K. (Eds),
Developing Leaders, Davies-Black, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 187-224.
Haley, U.C.V. and Stumpf, S.A. (1989), Cognitive trails in strategic decision making: linking
theories of personalities and cognitions, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 477-97.
Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W. (1975), Managerial problem-solving styles, Business Horizons,
Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 29-37.
Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W. (1980), Preferred organizational designs and problem solving
styles: interesting companions, Human Systems Management, Vol. 1, pp. 151-8.
Hopkins, W.E. and Hopkins, S.A. (1997), Strategic planning financial performance
relationships in banks: a causal examination, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18
No. 8, pp. 635-52.
Houlden, B.T. (1985), Survival of the corporate planner, Long Range Planning, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 49-54.
Hoy, F. and Hellriegel, D. (1982), The Kilmann Herden model of organizational effectiveness
criteria for small business managers, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 308-22.
Hurst, D.K., Rush, J.C. and White, R.E. (1989), Top management teams and organizational
review, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 87-105.
Jennings, D.R. (2000), PowerGen: the development of corporate planning in a privatized utility,
Long Range Panning, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 210-19.
Jung, C.G. (1923), Psychological Types, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Kaplan, S. and Beinhocker, E.D. (2003), The real value of strategic planning, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 71-6.
Kerin, R.A. and Slocum, J.W. (1981), Decision making and acquisition of information: further
exploration of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Psychological Reports, Vol. 49, pp. 132-4.
Kirby, L.K. (1997), Introduction: psychological type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,
in Fitzgerald, C. and Kirby, L.K. (Eds), Developing Leaders, Davies-Black, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 3-32.
Kleiner, B.H. (1983), The interrelationship of Jungian modes of mental functioning with
organizational factors, Human Relations, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 997-1113.
Kukalis, S. (1991), Determinants of strategic planning systems in large organizations:
a contingency approach, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 143-60.
Kukalis, S. (1988), Strategic planning in large US corporations a survey, Omega, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 393-404.
Lang, R.S. (1997), Type flexibility in processes of strategic planning and change, in
Fitzgerald, C. and Kirby, L.K. (Eds), Developing Leaders, Davies-Black, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 487-512.
Liberatore, M.J. and Titus, G.J. (1990), A comparison of strategic planning processes in US Designing the
industrial corporations, in Dean, B.V. and Cassidy, J.C. (Eds), Strategic Management:
Methods and Studies, Vol. 18, Elsevier Publishers, North Holland. strategic
Lorange, P. and Vancil, R.F. (1995), Tailor-making the corporate planning systems design, planning process
in Lorange, P. (Ed.), Strategic Planning and Control: Issues in the Strategy Process,
Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Miller, C.C., Burke, L.M. and Glick, W.H. (1998), Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon 613
executives: implications for strategic decision processes, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 19, pp. 39-58.
Miller, D. and Droge, C. (1986), Psychological and traditional determinants of structure,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, pp. 539-60.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1977), Strategy making in context: ten empirical archetypes,
Journal of Management Studies, October, pp. 253-80.
Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M.F.R. and Toulouse, J.M. (1982), Top executive locus of control and its
relationship to strategy making structure and environment, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 237-53.
Mitroff, I.I. and Kilmann, R.H. (1975), Stories managers tell: a new tool for organizational
problem solving, Management Review, July, pp. 18-28.
Myers, I.B. and McCaulley, M.H. (1985), Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Nutt, P.C. (1976), User preference as a basis to select a planning method, AIDS Proc., Vol. 8,
November, p. 351.
Nutt, P.C. (1979), Influence of decision styles on use of decision models, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 14, pp. 77-93.
Odom, R.Y. and Boxx, W.R. (1988), Environment, planning processes and organizational
performance of churches, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 197-205.
Rhyne, L.C. (1985), The relationship of information usage characteristics to planning system
sophistication; an empirical examination, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6,
pp. 319-37.
Rhyne, L.C. (1987), Contrasting planning systems in high, medium and low performance
companies, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 363-85.
Ruble, T.L. and Cosier, R.A. (1990), Effects of cognitive styles and decision setting on
performance, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 46,
pp. 283-95.
Rumelt, R. (1974), Strategy, Structure and the Financial Performance of the Fortune 500, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schweiger, D.M. and Jago, A.G. (1982), Problem solving styles and participative decision
making, Psychological Reports, Vol. 50, pp. 1311-16.
Veliyath, R. and Shortall, S.M. (1993), Strategic orientation, planning system characteristics and
performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 359-81.
Walck, C.L. (1996), Management and leadership, in Hammer, A.L. (Ed.), MBTI Applications:
A Decade of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press
Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
Yasai-Ardekani, M. and Haug, R.S. (1997), Contextual determinants of strategic planning
processes, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 729-68.
MD Further reading
44,5 Hammer, A.L. (1996), MBTI Applications: A Decade of Research on the Myers Briggs Type
Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Taggart, W. and Robey, D. (1981), Minds and managers: on the dual nature of human
information processing and management, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 187-95.
614
Application questions
(1) Strategic planning is a common management activity, but it involves a lot of people and
time. Looking at the organizational roles which planning may serve (page 1) can you
clearly identify what the planning process in your organization is intended to achieve?
(2) From a study of six hundred organizations Brews and Hunt (1999) conclude that it
typically requires a period of four years for an organization to learn how to plan, how to
adapt the planning process so that planning improves organizational performance. If
there are doubts about the effectiveness of your own planning process is that due to a
failure to learn how to plan?
(3) Managers need to design their planning processes to fit their organizations
environmental and organizational context. On the basis of Table I is your planning
process consistent with the context it operates in?
(4) Some indication of our own psychological type can be found by reflecting on our own
preferences and behaviour. Page 5 lists some of the characteristics associated with the
four preferences that constitute psychological type (Extraversion-Introversion,
Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, Judging-Perceiving). While this article questions
the significance of the relationship between psychological type and choices concerning
the planning process the concept of psychological type may be useful in prompting us to
attempt to develop those preferences which are relatively neglected. For example if, like
perhaps the majority of managers, you tend to emphasize Sensing, Thinking and
Judging could you set out to also foster Intuition, Feeling and Perceiving. Each has a
valuable role in our work as managers. Within Jungs theory developing our range of
preferences is a necessary part of our self development.

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

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