SUMMER 2007
V O L . 4 8 N O. 4
Ellen F. Goldman
Strategic Thinking
At the Top
Please note that gray areas reflect artwork that has been
intentionally removed. The substantive content of the
article appears as originally published.
REPRINT NUMBER 48418
Leadership
Strategic Thinking
At the Top
S
trategic thinking is generally considered important to a company’s performance.1 Indeed, some have advocated for companies to develop the
strategic thinking of their executives as a core competency. But how exactly
should organizations accomplish this? Past studies on the subject have been
limited, typically focusing on singular teaching methods, experiences or planning processes.2 As such, the research has yielded little insight into the broader
picture of how individuals tend to acquire expertise in strategic thinking.
What types of work experiences, for example, are more important than others,
and do they need to follow any specific chronology?
To answer these and other questions, I conducted a study that identified
executives who were considered the top strategic thinkers in their industry.3
(See “About the Research,” p.76.) The study then investigated the totality of
experiences (educational, job related or other) that contributed to the high
ability of those individuals. In addition, the research investigated the different
ways in which the executives acquired their expertise in strategic thinking — a
process that typically took more than a decade.
The data showed that strategic thinking arises from 10 specific types of
experiences — for instance, spearheading a major growth initiative or dealing
with a threat to organizational survival. Moreover, executives appear to gain
their expertise in strategic thinking through one of three developmental patterns. These findings help demystify the process by which strategic thinking is
learned, offering important implications for management development and
the practice of strategy.
Defining Strategic Thinking
First, though, what exactly is “strategic thinking”? Although numerous books
and articles purport to cover the subject, they typically deal more with strategic
planning and strategic management. According to Henry Mintzberg, the management guru, “Many practitioners and theorists have wrongly assumed that
strategic planning, strategic thinking and strategy making are all synonymous,
at least in best practice.”4 To avoid any confusion, my study used the following
definition: Strategic thinking is a distinctive management activity whose purpose is “to discover novel, imaginative strategies which can rewrite the rules of
Ellen F. Goldman is a visiting assistant professor of human and organizational learning
in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at George Washington
University. She is also the principal of Growth Partners, a Reston, Virginia-based consultancy that specializes in strategic thinking. Comment on this article or contact the author
through smrfeedback@mit.edu.
sloanreview.mit.edu
Expertise in strategic
thinking is not the
product of innate
ability and pure
serendipity. It arises
from specific experiences
(personal, interpersonal,
organizational and
external) which occur
over 10 or more years.
Ellen F. Goldman
SUMMER 2007
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
75
Leadership
the competitive game; and to envision potential futures significantly different from the present.”5 Furthermore, strategic thinking
was specified as being conceptual, systems-oriented, directional
(linking the future with the past) and opportunistic.6
A related question is whether strategic thinking is an innate
skill or one that can be acquired. This question is at the heart of
every discussion of individual abilities. But even those leadership
theorists who believe in inherent mental processing capabilities7
note that such abilities must be enhanced as part of management
development. My study was concerned with identifying the experiences that contributed to the development of expertise in
strategic thinking, not with measuring any levels of cognitive
functioning. As such, the nature-versus-nurture argument was
moot to this research. Interestingly, the study participants volunteered views that spanned the nature/nurture spectrum, with
most falling somewhere in the middle. It should be noted, however, that even the individual with the strongest pronature view
felt that experiences were still necessary to develop a person’s
strategic thinking ability. And most participants felt that without
some “hard-wiring,” learning to think strategically would be
more difficult but not impossible.
Ten Contributing Experiences
The study identified 10 experiences that contributed to the development of a person’s ability to think strategically, and those
experiences represented four levels of interaction: personal, interpersonal, organizational and external. (See “Ten Experiences
That Contribute to the Ability to Think Strategically.”) Every executive did not benefit from all 10 experiences, and no two
executives had the same set of experiences. But each individual
About the Research
The goal of this study was to identify how
expertise in strategic thinking develops.
Given the complexity of the process, the
research was limited to one industry —
healthcare — and to only the provider
segment within that industry. A technique
known as “social labeling”i was used to
select the referral sources, who were experienced healthcare strategy
consultants and leaders of professional
organizations. The sources were then
asked to identify two or three individuals
with whom they had worked and who met
the study’s specific definition of an expert
strategic thinker.
A pool of 36 potential executives was
generated, from which 10 were ultimately
selected to participate. The individuals
were all CEOs and were representative of
the general demographics of U.S. healthcare CEOs with respect to geographic
region, setting of the organization (urban
versus suburban), type of organization
(teaching versus community) and gender
(male versus female). The professional
work experience of the participants
ranged from 23 to 40 years.
The Seidman phenomenological interviewing techniqueii was utilized to
gather data. The process consisted of
three 90-minute interviews with each
participant. The first interview established the context for the participants’
experiences; the second focused on the
reconstruction of their experiences and
their developmental process; and the
third encouraged reflection on the
meaning of that process. The interviews, which were all audiotaped,
utilized a semistructured protocol, and
Seidman’s criteria of sufficient numbers
to reflect the range of participants and
saturation of information was reached
at 10 participants.
Based on the comments provided by
the participants, graphic maps of their
experiences were prepared. The figures
were used in subsequent interviews in a
manner similar to the way in which cognitive maps are used in research on
strategic decision making: to focus people’s attention, trigger their memory,
reveal gaps in information, highlight key
factors related to their experiences and
enhance the understanding and importance attached to those experiences.iii
The mapping process also provided the
participants with the opportunity to
work collaboratively with the researcher
during the discovery process, and it produced a tangible product that resulted
from the time the participants invested
in the study.
The interviews were transcribed, and
the resulting 15,000 pages of data were
analyzed, first by reducing the volume of
information to what was most important
and interesting, then by capturing the essence of the entire experience of
becoming an expert strategic thinker for
the different participants (through the
preparation of individual profiles), and finally by identifying thematic connections
across all the data.iv Numerous steps
helped ensure the trustworthiness of the
study, including researcher epoche, a
prolonged engagement with the participants, triangulation of data, member
checks, peer debriefing, peer code checking and the establishment of an audit-like
trail.v
i. J. Shanteau, “Psychological Characteristics and Strategies of Expert Decision Makers,” Acta Psychologica 68 (September 1988): 203-215; and R.J. Sternberg, “Cognitive Conceptions of
Expertise,“ International Journal of Expert Systems 7, no. 1 (1994): 1-12.
ii. I. Seidman, “Interviewing As Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences,” 2nd ed. (New York: Teachers College Press, 1998).
iii. C.M. Fiol and A.S. Huff, “Maps For Managers: Where Are We? Where Do We Go From Here?” Journal of Management Studies 29, no. 3 (May 1992): 267-285.
iv. C. Moustakas, “Phenomenological Research Methods” (Thousand Oak, California: Sage Publications, 1994).
v. Y.S. Lincoln and E.G. Guba, “Naturalistic Inquiry” (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1985).
76
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
SUMMER 2007
sloanreview.mit.edu
described at least one experience at
each of the four levels of interaction.
Family Upbringing/Education “Family upbringing” and “education” are grouped
together because the study participants
discussed them interchangeably; the
two types of experiences typically occurred simultaneously, reinforcing one
another. One aspect noted was the
value of exploring different perspectives, for example, through travel and
exposure to different cultures as well as
through debate training and practice of
the Socratic method.
Ten Experiences That Contribute to the Ability to Think Strategically
Expertise in strategic thinking arises from the contributions of 10 experiences that
can be grouped into four levels of interaction: personal, interpersonal, organizational and external. Every executive in the research study did not benefit from all
10 experiences, but each individual reported at least one experience at each of the
four levels of interaction.
Level of Interaction
Experience
Personal
Family Upbringing/Education
General Work Experiences
Becoming a CEO
Interpersonal
Being Challenged By a Key Colleague
Organizational
General Work Experiences The participants cited experience in a variety of
organizational types and locations,
External
which provided exposure to numerous
strategic issues and familiarity with a
breadth of strategies. The most important factor here was the responsibility
for significant projects (for example, implementing the merger of
two organizations, evaluating a business for sale or turning around
an organization that was facing bankruptcy) and the freedom to
make most, if not all, of the decisions related to those initiatives.
Becoming a CEO This experience is somewhat paradoxical. Many
boards want individuals who already have expertise in strategic
thinking as their CEOs. But many of the study participants cited
becoming a CEO as important to the development of their strategic thinking because, with that promotion, they gained access
to important information (for instance, the views of important
external parties) which enabled a “big picture” view of their business. [Note: All the individuals that the study identified as experts
in strategic thinking were CEOs, even though this attribute was
not a criterion in the selection process.]
Being Mentored Many executives have mentors, but not all mentors help others to develop their strategic thinking. Those who do
are individuals who are in frequent contact with the executive (at
least once daily), providing immediate feedback. Moreover, their
influence starts early in an executive’s career, within a few years of
that individual’s first job, perhaps as a first boss.
Being Challenged By a Key Colleague Colleagues played an important role by challenging the thinking of the executives.
Individuals performing this role worked very closely with the
executive, for example, as his boss, board chairman or organizasloanreview.mit.edu
Being Mentored
Monitoring Results/Benchmarking
Doing Strategic Planning
Spearheading a Major Growth Initiative
Dealing With a Threat to Organizational Survival
Vicarious Experiences
tion’s vice president of planning. In general, the interactions
were private and spontaneous, with a wide range in tone from
relaxed, informal conversations to highly aggressive, confrontational exchanges.
Monitoring Results/Benchmarking The participants cited the importance of their involvement in monitoring the operational and
market performance of their organizations. Such efforts were
usually extensive and fairly sophisticated. Market data, for example, were often segmented by geography and demographics,
with information on purchaser preferences and use, and views of
competitors detailed by the various market segments. Other key
data tracked each market segment’s stated preferences in relation
to the actual behavior of those customers.
Doing Strategic Planning The development of strategic thinking
ability is enhanced by participation in strategic planning processes with three characteristics. The first is having planning
sessions with management teams on a regular basis, often monthly
or quarterly. The second is preparation for these sessions, such as
the required reading of materials that help focus people’s thinking and provide a sense of the meeting’s purpose. The third is the
formal output of the planning process: often an overall plan followed by business-unit goals and tactical plans. But even less
structured output — establishing a general direction and immediate next steps, for example — can help develop an executive’s
strategic thinking.
SUMMER 2007
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
77
Leadership
Spearheading a Major Growth Initiative These projects must involve significant complexity, be both capital and labor intensive
and require at least a year to complete. Examples include establishing a new program (developing the business case, obtaining
regulatory approval, overseeing facility construction and recruiting staff), acquiring an organization (identifying, negotiating
with and acclimating the new group) and building a new facility
(that is, overseeing its construction). As with the category of
general work experiences, the freedom to make important decisions makes these projects valuable to the development of
strategic thinking ability.
years with a wide range of frequency: The interaction could occur
monthly for a few hours, quarterly for one day or three days twice
annually. In many cases, the regular contact is enhanced by small
group interactions and social time, for example, a monthly professional meeting of CEOs that includes sessions in which people
break into smaller groups (perhaps geared toward specific topics)
followed by dinner with ample time for networking opportunities. The study participants also noted the benefit of vicarious
experiences gained through indirect means, such as by reading
business publications.
Generally speaking, each of the 10 experiences took place over
a significant period of time, often in excess of one year, and reDealing With a Threat to Organizational Survival The types of threats
quired considerable responsibility on the part of the executive
that most contribute to the development of strategic thinking are
— usually the individual had to perform tasks that were materithose that involve attempts at control by another entity, which
ally new to him. Some of the experiences catalyzed others, but
occur repeatedly and that could have a severe impact on the exthey did not occur in any specific order (except for the obvious
ecutive’s organization. Such experiences typically force a major
categories of “family upbringing/education,” “being mentored,”
rethinking of issues that strike at the core of the individuals inand “becoming a CEO”).
volved, substantially sharpening their focus.
In addition to the 10 experiences, the study identified two
other important factors. The first was personal characteristics,
Vicarious Experiences This category includes interactions with
specifically, being methodical, balanced, goal-oriented, curious,
others in similar roles, with the frequency of contact being an
receptive to criticism, detail-oriented, a perfectionist and a mavimportant factor. Usually, the contact is maintained for several
erick. The second was a supportive work environment, including
the presence of a strong management team that
frees up the CEO’s time to focus on strategic issues
and contributes to his thinking. Also of imporPattern 1: The Development of Understanding
tance was the attitude of the board, particularly
regarding failure. As one executive explained,
In this developmental pattern, expertise in strategic thinking arises from
“When you do … make a mistake, they’re worried
the culmination of various experiences (small ovals) which provide new
about fixing the problem, not fixing the blame.”
and different perspectives. The experiences occur over years, and each
Neither of these factors is sufficient to develop
is fueled by the individual’s natural curiosity (large oval). This figure is a
strategic thinking ability without the requisite exreproduction of the actual map created during interactions with one
periences described earlier, but they may amplify
executive in the study who best exemplified this particular pattern of
the value of those experiences.
development.
Significant
Alone Time
Past
Colleagues
Planning
Retreats
The Overall Developmental Process
Avid
Reading
Participation
in Professional
Organizations
Natural
Curiosity
Observation of
Other Leaders
Meetings with
Other Executives
Father’s
Approach
to Life
78
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
General Work
Experience
SUMMER 2007
The development of an executive’s ability to think
strategically develops gradually over a considerable
amount of time. Most participants in the study
said they took more than 10 years to acquire their
expertise, and during that time their confidence
grew as they became more comfortable dealing
with increasing levels of business complexity and
ambiguity. Interestingly, the executives described
their development in a manner consistent with one
of three distinct patterns. The patterns, which can
best be understood through graphic maps that
were created with the participants, provide valuable insights into how expertise in strategic
thinking is acquired.
sloanreview.mit.edu
Pattern 2: The Practice of Rational Planning
In this developmental pattern, expertise in strategic thinking is the result of the executive continually asking the same three
questions (large ovals): Where are we going? How are we getting there? Are we executing efficiently? The arrows denote the flow
of knowledge from the various experiences (small ovals) to the three questions. Note that an experience can provide value to
more than one of the questions. This figure is a reproduction of the actual map created during interactions with one executive in
the study who best exemplified this particular pattern of development.
Data
Monitoring
Benchmarks
Question
of Legacy
Best
Practices
Desired
Metrics
Problems/
Complaints
Where
Going?
(Vision)
Community
Views
General
Business
Knowledge
(Standards)
Boss
Mentors
Logical
Evaluation of
Alternatives
Time
Use
Past
Successes
(Models)
Dialogue
with Team
How Getting
There?
(Strategies)
Methodical
Thinker
Sense of
Ownership
Mistakes
Beta
Groups
After-the-Fact
Critique
Is Execution
Efficient?
(Implementation)
Pattern 1 The first pattern reflects a repetitive process of using
past experiences to consider alternative perspectives. (See “Pattern 1: The Development of Understanding.”) One executive
described the process this way: There’s a solution to every problem, and if you can’t come up with it, you need to look at the
problem from a different angle. The key ingredient here is a natural curiosity that fuels the executive’s search for greater
understanding, thus expanding his ability to think strategically.
The result: The executive learns to see all sides of an issue and is
able to alter the angle from which he views a problem to search
for a better solution. In this manner — through the exploration
of different perspectives repeatedly over time — the executive
develops expertise in strategic thinking.
Pattern 2 This pattern includes the three major steps of a logical
planning process — understanding where you are, determining
where you want to be and detailing how to get there — with each
step informed by information, experience (both actual and vicarious) and discussion. (See “Pattern 2: The Practice of Rational
Planning.”) Key features include the use of data to fuel thinking
sloanreview.mit.edu
and the repeated application of the three steps, no matter how big
or small the issue, with expertise in strategic thinking acquired
after years of honing the practice.
Pattern 3 The final developmental pattern is portrayed as the
tackling of bigger and bigger business challenges, with the executive’s ability to think strategically growing continuously over
time. (See “Pattern 3: The Completion of a Hierarchy of Challenges,” p. 80.) Key features include modest initial activity followed
by a step-like progression. The catalysts to movement can be either positive or negative: opportunities to build new services as
well as pressures from financial losses, takeover attempts and
other challenges to survival. Expertise in thinking strategically is
acquired by meeting and effectively dealing with the challenges,
with each experience improving the executive’s ability.
The three patterns reflect how executives described the ways
in which they learned to think strategically. They illustrate both
what occurred (specifically, the 10 experiences) and how the executives approached those experiences (namely, by considering
different perspectives, by using a planning model or by just divSUMMER 2007
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
79
Leadership
Pattern 3: The Completion of a Hierarchy of Challenges
Community
Involvement
In this developmental pattern, expertise in strategic thinking
results from the executive tackling increasingly difficult challenges over the course of years. During this time period, the
upward direction of the red line (from left to right) indicates
the individual’s increasing ability to think strategically, and the
arrows show how the different experiences (ovals) influence each
other. This figure is a reproduction of the actual map created during interactions with one executive in the study who best
exemplified this particular pattern of development.
Political
Exposure
Organizational
(Structure) Change
New
Boss
Scenario
Evaluation
Payment
Change
Dialogue with
External Parties
Doing a
Master Plan
Being
Mentored
General
Experience
Observation
Improving Strategic Thinking
The study results have a number of implications for companies
in their efforts to improve the strategic thinking of their executives. The important thing to remember, though, is that any
development program must be highly individual because no
two people will absorb the same experience in exactly the same
way. Nevertheless, some general guidelines do apply. Experiences that contribute most to the development of strategic
thinking tend to take place over a year or more and require
significant responsibility on the part of the individual — usually the performance of a task that is materially new to that
person. Moreover, it’s crucial to remember that the development of expertise in strategic thinking takes at least a decade,
during which time many of those experiences must be continually repeated. With all this in mind, the following approaches
should benefit companies in their efforts to develop the strategic thinking of their managers.
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Trade
Organizations
Evaluating an
Acquisition
ing in and doing what was needed). The salient point here is that
all the executives in the study described their development in a
manner that was consistent with one of the three patterns.
80
Executive
Education
SUMMER 2007
Team and
Community
Dialogue
Board
Interactions
Consultants’
Questions
Include Strategic Thinking As a Formal Component of Management
Development Programs One of the most remarkable findings of the
study was the tacit expectation that an executive would, all of a
sudden, think strategically upon becoming a CEO. But, clearly, if
companies want expertise in strategic thinking they must take the
necessary steps to nurture this ability. Management development
programs should identify specific experiences (spearheading a
growth initiative, for instance) and target their inclusion in the
careers of high-potential executives. Although individual in nature, such experiences should, taken together, cross all four levels
of interaction: personal, interpersonal, organizational and environmental. Moreover, each experience should contain the
necessary attributes (being mentored, for example, must include
frequent contact and immediate feedback). Finally, the experiences should be preceded by a briefing on strategy theory and
vocabulary (if needed) to ensure that the executive understands
key concepts that will help him obtain the maximum benefits
from those experiences.
Require Executives to Develop the Strategic Thinking of Their Subordinates Because strategic thinking develops gradually over a
sloanreview.mit.edu
long period of time, and because general work experiences and
being mentored are two important experiences during this
growth, superiors are in a key position to influence their subordinates’ development. As such, companies should include
this responsibility as a part of an executive’s performance review: What projects and roles have you given your subordinates
to develop their strategic thinking? Are these assignments of
sufficient size, and have your subordinates been given the requisite freedom to act? And have your efforts resulted in noticeable
improvements in their strategic thinking, however subjectively
determined?
Encourage Early Participation in Strategic Planning and Benchmarking
Activities These two experiences contribute significantly to important procedural knowledge related to strategic thinking.
Without this knowledge, executives can waste considerable time
by attempting strategy development or implementation in inefficient or inappropriate ways. Of course, companies will find it
impractical for all their managers to be involved in every strategic
planning activity. Nevertheless, executives can also be encouraged
to participate in strategic planning with other organizations, for
example, with subsidiaries, professional associations, community
groups or small, local businesses.
Support Activities That Incorporate Experiential Learning Interestingly, with respect to the development of strategic thinking, the
study participants attributed little value to graduate professional
programs. Thus, when managers do undertake such programs,
the curriculum should incorporate experience in addition to the
teaching of theory, for example, through the inclusion of opportunities to do strategic planning and benchmarking, discussion
of vicarious experiences (perhaps by having experts mentor novices) and assignments that broaden an individual’s perspective
through observation, dialogue and debate.
Maximize the Benefits of Strategic Planning Sessions Companies
should hold strategic planning sessions on a regular basis
(monthly or quarterly, for example), and those meetings should
have a high degree of process regularity, with an emphasis on
preparation: reviewing materials and thinking about specific
questions that are provided in advance. In addition, the meetings should include content that expands people’s perspectives
(for example, comparative market information from another
industry or the viewpoint of a constituency that is seldom
heard). During these sessions, the company should ensure that
the participants (not the planning staff or outside consultants)
perform the information synthesis and interpretation. After all,
the firm wants to develop the strategic thinking of the participants and not necessarily that of the staff or consultants. Staff
members could, however, provide valuable input into managesloanreview.mit.edu
ment development plans, because they might be able to identify
specific aspects of strategic thinking that are lacking in individual executives.
in management
education and development have vigorously debated how best
to teach strategy to future leaders. Some experts have questioned whether the topic should be taught at all — or at least
whether it should be taught to managers. Often missing from
the debate, however, has been any in-depth discussion of how
individuals learn to think strategically in the first place. What
specific experiences are important and how do they contribute?
Moreover, what are the different ways in which people absorb
those experiences to develop the ability to think strategically?
Without adequate answers to these questions, it’s no wonder
that schools have had trouble teaching strategy to students —
and that many companies have difficulty developing the
strategic thinking of their executives.
business schools and others interested
REFERENCES
1. J. Mason, “Developing Strategic Thinking,” Long Range Planning 19,
no. 3 (June 1986): 72-80; N.B. Zabriskie and A.B. Huellmantel, “Developing Strategic Thinking in Senior Management,” Long Range Planning 24,
no. 6 (December 1991): 25-32; I. Bonn, “Developing Strategic Thinking
As a Core Competency,” Management Decision 39, no. 1 (2001): 63-71;
and E. Essery, “Reflecting On Leadership,” Works Management 55, no. 7
(2002): 54-57.
2. M. Easterby-Smith and J. Davies, “Developing Strategic Thinking,”
Long Range Planning 16, no. 4 (August 1983): 39-48; D.L. Bates and J.E.
Dillard, “Generating Strategic Thinking Through Multi-Level Teams,”
Long Range Planning 26, no. 5 (October 1993): 103-110; and P.M.
Senge, “Mental Models,” Planning Review 20, no. 2 (March/April 1992):
4-10, 44.
3. E.F. Goldman, “Becoming an Expert Strategic Thinker: The Learning
Journey of Healthcare CEOs” (Ph.D. diss., George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development, 2005),
Dissertation Abstracts International UMI No. 3181551.
4. H. Mintzberg, “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning,” Harvard Business Review 72, no. 1 (January 1994): 107-114.
5. L. Heracleous, “Strategic Thinking or Strategic Planning?” Long
Range Planning 31, no. 3 (June 1998): 481-486.
6. H. Mintzberg, “Patterns in Strategy Formation,” Management Science
24, no. 9 (May 1978): 934-948; P. Hanford, “Developing Director and Executive Competencies in Strategic Thinking,” in B. Garratt (ed.)
“Developing Strategic Thought: Rediscovering the Art of DirectionGiving” (London: McGraw-Hill, 1995): 157-186; and J.M. Liedtka,
“Strategic Thinking: Can It Be Taught?” Long Range Planning 31, no. 1
(February 1998): 120-129.
7. E. Jacques and S.D. Clement, “Executive Leadership: A Practical
Guide to Managing Complexity” (Arlington, Virginia: Cason Hall & Co.,
1991).
Reprint 48418. For ordering information, see page 1.
Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007. All rights reserved.
SUMMER 2007
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
81
PDFs ■ Reprints ■ Permission to Copy ■ Back Issues
Electronic copies of MIT Sloan Management Review
articles as well as traditional reprints and back issues can
be purchased on our Web site: sloanreview.mit.edu or
you may order through our Business Service Center
(9 a.m.-5 p.m. ET) at the phone numbers listed below.
To reproduce or transmit one or more MIT Sloan
Management Review articles by electronic or mechanical
means (including photocopying or archiving in any
information storage or retrieval system) requires written
permission. To request permission, use our Web site
(sloanreview.mit.edu), call or e-mail:
Toll-free in U.S. and Canada: 877-727-7170
International: 617-253-7170
Fax: 617-258-9739
e-mail: smrpermissions@mit.edu
MIT Sloan Management Review
77 Massachusetts Ave., E60-100
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
e-mail: smr-orders@mit.edu
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.