Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci., Vol(4), No (1), January, 2015. pp.

1-7

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences

www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2306-7276

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

The Study of the Effect of Organizational Intelligence on Strategic

Thinking of Social Welfare Organization Employess in Yazd Province
Masoud Pourkiani
Department of management, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran.

Mohammad Ali Pourroostaei *

Department of management, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran.

*Corresponding author: f_shab2007@yahoo.com

Keywords

Abstract

Strategic thinking in individual level,

Organizational intelligence,
Strategic thinking dimensions

Purpose of this research is investigating the relationship between organizational intelligence and dimensions
of strategic thinking among employees of sofical welfare organization in Yazd province. This is a
descriptive-correlation study and organizational intelligence was considered as independent variable and
strategic thinking as dependent variable. Statistical population of this research includes all 1500 employess
of social welfare organization and sample size was determined using Cochrane formula as 310. Two
organizational intelligence questionnaires Albrecht questionnaire and researcher-constructed questionnaire
of strategic thinking were used to gather data. Reliability of the questionnaires with Cronbach alpha was
0.87 and 0.86, respectively. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used in order to analyze data and
SPSS 16 software, Pearson correlation coefficient test and regression analysis were used for data analysis.
Main research hypothesis i.e. the relationship between organizational intelligence and strategic thinking was
confirmed and there was a relationship between organizational intelligence and creative, critical, system and
prospective thinking but there was no relationship between organizational intelligence and value-focused
thinking.

1.

Introduction

There are two major theories about the strategic thinking. Some believe that strategic thinking is identical with concepts like strategic
management and strategic planning and other believe that strategic planning focuses on the analysis and deals with the regulation of strategy
while strategic thinking emphasizes on the combination and by using intuition and creativity, creates an integrated view of organization.
Therefore, strategic planning occurs after strategic thinking [11].
Ralph Stacy (2005) identifies strategic thinking as planning based on learning. Strategic thinking causes the understanding of existing condition
and realizing opportunities and this understanding helps in identifying realities of organization and governing rules and new and value-focused
solutions invented for responding to this question.
Strategic thinking enables manager to identify effective factors in achieving goals and find that how these factors create value for customers.
This thinking forms through correct understanding of rules and creative responding to it which is very important in the modern vague business
world because without strategic thinking, attempts of organization to achieve set strategies will not be effective [12]. Regarding theories
presented by Karl Albrecht (2002) in relation with the effect of organizational intelligence on strategic thinking and by considering its definition
which is complex, accumulated and coordinated sets of human and machine intelligence of organization as a whole. Based on this, in present
research, organizational intelligence is considered and studied as independent organizational factor effective on individual strategic thinking.

2.

Research literature

2.1 Strategic thinking

During 1980s, inefficiency of strategic management process guided the practitioners in this field to emphasis on the necessity of strategic
thinking.
In 1990, strategy paradigm evolved more with the emergence of strategic thinking to help strategic planning and strategic management and
facilitate them. Evolution of strategy paradigm from strategic planning to strategic management and then to strategic thinking is a reflection of
economic, technology and social changes which flourished during 1950s and especially 1984 with higher level of instability in environment and
faced strategy process in organization with new needs.
In early 1990, Mintzberg made distinction between strategic thinking and concepts like strategic thinking and argues that each word refer to
different stages of strategic development process. Form his view, strategic thinking focuses on the analysis and deals with determining and
setting strategies while strategic thinking emphasizes on the mix and creates an integrated attitude by using intuition and creativity. From his
viewpoint, strategic planning is a process that occurs after strategic thinking.
Gareth (1995) have the same reasoning like Mintzberg and defines strategic thinking as a process by which managers can think beyond crisis and
routine managerial processes to obtain a different attitude of organization and its varied environment.
Heraclus (1998) comparing single-loop and two-loop learning, distinguishes between strategic planning and strategic thinking. Form his view,
single-loop learning is similar to strategic planning, and two-loop learning is like strategic thinking. He argues that single-loop learning includes
thinking in existing assumptions frame and acting based on the fixed set of potential alternative actions. In contrast, two-loop learning challenges
the current assumption and develops new and innovative solutions that lead to suitable potential actions. Regarding above discussions, we can
classify strategic thinking in three individual, group, and organizational level [2].
In this section of research literature, some explanations about effective factors on individual strategic thinking are referred. According to the
definitions, strategic thinking is an intellectual skill or virtue of organization strategic architecture which has 10 features that should be observed
in individual and organizational level based on creative thinking, critical thinking, systemic thinking, prospective thinking, value-focused

Masoud Pourkiani, Mohammad Ali Pourroostaei *

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (1), January, 2015.

thinking, mixed thinking, continuous search of potential benefits, macro attitudes, result-orientation and imbalanced feature. Among above 10
features, first 5 features have direct effect on the individual level components of strategic thinking of an organization that this research studies
the effectiveness and importance of these elements in shaping individuals with strategic thinking capacity in the organization.
2.2 Strategic thinking in individual level
Strategic thinking in individual levels includes following elements:
1. Creative thinking
Creative thinking is the best weapon for fighting with the problem. Creative humans consider negative attitude towards problems as surrendering
before war because they believe the problem is not only a disruption but also it is a combat for discovering solution. Creative thinking can learn
human that if even we encountered with undesirableevent, how to change our bad and negative feelings to good and positive feeling.
One of the most complete definitions presented for creative thinking is a skill that individual by combining problem solving skills and decision
making obtains new thoughts or relations and achieves power of discovering and selecting new solutions [11].
Guilford (1950) divides thinking into two convergent and divergent classes:
Creative thinking has direct relation with divergent thinking. Individuals with divergent thinking try not to accept easily the phenomena and
problems as they are but they have a different look and take distance from identical thinking frames; in other words, they see phenomena with
other eye and view. But in convergent thinking, there are less new thoughts and individuals see and accept problems and phenomena as they are
(ibid).
2. Critical thinking
Despite consensus of experts on the importance of attention to critical thinking and nurturing it, there are various ideas about definition and
nature of thinking [13] [5]. One of the reasons for this diversity of ideas is that critical thinking is a complex concept and has sophisticated
intellectual activity and process. Therefore, description and measurement of it is not easily feasible [14] [3].
Snyder (2008) defines critical thinking as process of thoughtful regulation, active and skillful conceptualization, application, analysis,
combination, and evaluation of gathered data to produced data by observation, experience, thinking, reasoning, or communication as a guide for
theory and action.
In another definition, critical thinking is a documented and logical thinking for studying and reviewing ideas, thoughts, actions, and decisions
about them based on reasons and evidences and correct and logical results that are their consequences [4].
3. System thinking
Since the behavior of human has roots in his intellectual system, one with system thinking treats problems as system and in his behaviors, seeks
to identify constituent elements of subject, and links among these elements. In this regard, one with system thinking is not only seeking a set of
features but system thinking helps him to have comprehensive look to problems.
Major feature of system thinking is attention to relations and interactions. In system thinking, using mind is more necessary than using eye for
seeing. This means that through eye and looking, only one object or material is seen while with mind and looking, there is power of observation
and understanding relations; therefore, those who select system thinking are required to observe based on the understanding and it is clear that
this needs more attempt.
Regarding passing 6 decades of emerging system thinking as an applied-theoretical approach, it is necessary to provide a ground for flourishing
this effective thinking in managing society and organization by managers and decision makers [8].
4. Value-focused thinking
I value-focused thinking, it is emphasized that in each decision situation, values have fundamental importance and alternatives are considered
because they are an instrument for realizing values. Therefore, when thinking about problems and decision opportunities, we should focus on
values not alternatives that realize those values.
Kini believes that value thinking is essentially consists of two activities:
First, decisions about what are the wants and second, how to realize them.
It should be known that modern business provides a new picture of organization that with this new attitude, organization is set of processes that
their goal is creating value for customer and needs creating value for customer and value creation in organization [13].
5. Prospective thinking
Prospective thinkers try to create new picturesof future, possible discoveries and perspectives, results ofsystemic studies, likely futures, and great
evaluations of future. Prospective thinkers through this method identify change factors and processes in different fields like politics, economy,
and society in order to analyze, design, and future engineering. Discovering the opportunities, increasing hope for future and national unity will
lead to awareness in society level. Futurism like any other field is built on particular assumptions. These assumptions are based on the modern
conception of universe and the role of the human; therefore, if a society has another conception of world, it will have different premises in this
study field.
This point shows the native feature and value of futuristic studies. However, entering this scope needs attention to these assumptions:
Linear conception of time, uncertainty of future and possibility of changing it and conception of utopia that reaching it is the ultimate goal of all
futuristic activities are considered as futuristic principles [10].
2.3 Organizational intelligence
From McMaster view (1996) organizational intelligence is the capacity of an organization which as a whole, it is defined as increasing
information innovating general knowledge and effective act based on creating knowledge.
Matsuda (1992) is one of the founders of organizational intelligence theory, considers organizational intelligence as a mix of human intelligence
and machine intelligence. Organizational intelligence model that Matsuda introduces, leads to integrity of human knowledge and machine
knowledge in solving the problem.
Albrecht bases his definition on this argument that when intelligent individuals gather in the organization they tend to the low collective
intelligence and organizational intelligence is defined as the skill and capacity of activating intellectual ability and concentration on this activity
on the mission of organization [9].
2.4 Components of organizational intelligence from Albrecht view
Six components of organizational intelligence of Albrecht are:

The Study of the Effect of Organizational Intelligence on Strategic Thinking of Social Welfare Organization Employess in Yazd Province
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (1), January, 2015.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Strategic perspective or strategic vision: it is the capability of creation, induction, and statement of the goal of an organization.
Common fate: when all individuals are involved in the organization, they know what is the mission and duty of organization, they have
common goal and all individuals understand the success of organization.
Tendency to change: change shows challenge, obtaining new and exciting experiences and in other words, it is a chance for beginning
new work and activity.
Homogeneity and coordination: individuals and groups should organize themselves for realizing mission and duty of organization,
divide responsibilities, and jobs and impose a set of rules for communicating with each other and encountering with environment.
Using knowledge: today, actions that lead to victory or failure in an organization depend upon acquired knowledge, constant correct
decisions, judgment, and intelligence, and common sense, competencies of individuals and accuracy of applied information which are
mixed with structure of an organization.
Performance pressure: in an intelligent organization, each of administrators should have their certain administrative position. But this
will have the highest effect when they were under a set of self-imposed mutual expectations and operational requirements for success.

Albrecht says that an organization that is moving in his path should develop in all key dimensions for comprehensive development [1].

3.

Research hypothesis

Major hypothesis
There is a relationship between organizational intelligence and individual strategic thinking of social welfare organization employees.
Sub hypothesis
1. There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of creative thinking in social welfare organization
employees.
2. There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of critical thinking in social welfare organization
employees.
3. There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of system thinking of social welfare organization
employees.
4. There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of futuristic thinking of social welfare organization
employees.
5. There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of value-focused thinking development of social welfare
organization employees.

4.

Research methodology

The method of this research is descriptive-correlation that aims to study the relationship between organizational intelligence and dimensions of
individual strategic thinking. This research studies the present condition and describes features and examines the relationship between variables.
In this research, the relationship between variables is analyzed based on the purpose of analysis. Statistical population of research is 1500
individuals of social welfare organization personnel in Yazd province and statistical sample was determined as 310 with Cochrane formula. In
order to gather data, two questionnaires Albrecht organizational intelligent and researchconstructed strategic thinking questionnaire were used.
Reliability of questionnaires was obtained using Cronbach alpha 0.87 and 0.86, respectively. Cronbach alpha of components after eliminating
weak questions shoed that value of Cronbach alpha for all components is higher than 0.75 which shows reliability of components.

5.

Data analysis

Main hypothesis
There is relationship between organizational intelligence and strategic thinking in social welfare organization employees.
H0 : there is no relationship between organizational intelligence and individual strategic thinking in social welfare organization employees.
H1 : there is a relationship between organizational intelligence and strategic thinking of social welfare organization employees.
Table 1. Organizational intelligence regression coefficient
Variables
Organizational intelligence

R
0.294

R Square
0.086

Adjusted R Square
0.067

Table 2. Testing main hypothesis

Description
(Constant)
Organizational intelligence

Std. Error
0.006
0.000

0.028
0.00026

t
4.899
2.127

Sig
0.000
0.039

Table 3. Analysis of variance

Variation sources
Variation caused by regression
Variation caused by error
Total variation

DF
1
48
49

Sum of Squares(SS)
0.002
0.018
0.020

Mean Squares(MS)
0.039
0.002
0.000

F
4.526

Sig

As seen in table (3), because sig (0.039) is lower than (0.05); therefore, H0 is rejected (lack of relationship) and H1 is accepted (relationship).
Individual strategic thinking=0.028+0.00026 (organizational intelligence)
Sub hypothesis

Masoud Pourkiani, Mohammad Ali Pourroostaei *

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (1), January, 2015.

1. There is a relationship between organizational intelligence and development of creative thinking in social welfare organization employees.
H0 : there is no relationship between organizational intelligence and development of creative thinking in social welfare organization employees.
H1 : there is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of creative thinking in social welfare organization employees.
Table 4. Organizational intelligence of regression coefficient
Variables
Organizational intelligence

Correlation coefficient R
0.513

R Square
0.263

Adjusted R Square
0.247

Table 5. Testing first sub hypothesis

description
(Constant)
Organizational intelligence

Std. Error
0.018
0.000

0.166
0.002

t Coefficient
9.362
-4.095

Sig
0.000
0.000

Table 6. Analysis of variance

Variation sources
Variation caused by regression
Variation caused by error
Total variation

DF
1
47
48

Sum of Squares(SS)
0.060
0.167
0.227

Mean Squares(MS)
0.060
0.004

F
16.769

Sig
0.000

As seen in table (6), because sig (0.000) is lower than (0.05); therefore, H0 is rejected (lack of relationship) and H1 is accepted (relationship).
Creative thinking=0.028+0.00026 (organizational intelligence)
2. There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of critical thinking of social welfare organization employees.
H0 : There is no relationship between organizational intelligence and development of critical thinking of social welfare organization employees.
H1 : There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of critical thinking of social welfare organization employees.
Table 7. Organizational intelligence regression coefficient
Variables
Organizational intelligence

R
0.145

R Square
0.021

Description
(Constant)
Organizational intelligence

coefficient
0.005
1.937

Adjusted R Square
0.000

Table 8. Testing second subhyothesis

Std . Error
0.001
0.000

Coefficient t
5.956
1.005

Sig
0.000
0.0005

Table 9. Analysis of variance

Variation source
Variation caused by regression
Variation caused by error
Total variation

DF
1
47
48

Sum of Squares(SS)
0.000
0.000
0.000

Mean Squares(MS)
0.000
0.000

F
1.009

Sig
0.0005

As seen in table (9), because sig (0.0005) is lower than (0.05); therefore, H0 is rejected (lack of relationship) and H1 is accepted (relationship).
Creative thinking=0.0005+1.937 (organizational intelligence)
3. There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of system thinking of social welfare organization employees.
H0 : There is no relationship between organizational intelligence and development of system thinking of social welfare organization employees.
H1 : There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of system thinking of social welfare organization employees.
Table 10. Organizational intelligence regression coefficient
Variables
Organizational intelligence

Correlation coefficient
0.513

R Square
0.263

Adjusted R Square
0.247

Table 11. Testing third sub-hypothesis

Description
(Constant)
Organizational intelligence

Correlation coefficient
0.166
0.002

Std . Error
0.018
0.000

Coefficientt
9.362
4.095

Sig
0.000
0.000

Table 12. Analysis of variance

Variation source
Variation caused by regression
Variation caused by error
Total variation

DF
1
47
48

Sum of Squares(SS)
0.060
0.167
0.227

Mean Squares(MS)
0.060
0.004

F
16.769

Sig
0.000

As seen in table (16), because sig (0.000) is lower than (0.05); therefore, H 0 is rejected (lack of relationship) and H1 is accepted (relationship).
System thinking=0.166+0.002 (organizational intelligence)

The Study of the Effect of Organizational Intelligence on Strategic Thinking of Social Welfare Organization Employess in Yazd Province
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (1), January, 2015.

4. There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of prospective thinking of social welfare organization employees.
H0 : There is no relationship between organizational intelligence and development of prospective thinking of social welfare organization
employees.
H1 : There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of prospective thinking of social welfare organization employees.
Table 13. Organizational intelligence regression coefficient
Variables
Organizational intelligence

R
0.530

R Square
0.281

Adjusted R Square
0.265

Table 14. Testing fourth sub-hypothesis

Description
Constant
Organizational intelligence

Std. Error
0.022
0.000

0.185
0.002

t
8.318
4.281

Sig
0.000
0.000

Table 15. Analysis of variance

Variation source
Variation caused by regression
Variation caused by error
Total variation

DF
1
47
48

Sum of Squares(SS)
0.103
0.265
0.369

Mean Squares(MS)
0.103
0.006

F
18.330

Sig
0.000

As seen in table (15), because sig (0.000) is lower than (0.05); therefore, H0 is rejected (lack of relationship) and H1 is accepted (relationship).
Prospective thinking=0. 185+0.002 (organizational intelligence)
5. There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of value-focused thinking of social welfare organization
employees.
H0 : There is no relationship between organizational intelligence and development of value-focused thinking of social welfare organization
employees.
H1 : There is relationship between organizational intelligence and development of value-focused thinking of social welfare organization
employees.
Table 16. Organizational intelligence regression coefficient
Variables
Organizational intelligence

R
0.053

R Square
0.003

Adjusted R Square
-0.018

Table 17. Testing fifth sub-hypothesis

Description
Constant
Organizational intelligence

Coefficient
0.622
0.152

Std. Error
0.036
0.001

t
17.377
0.356

Sig
0.000
0.717

Table 18. Analysis of variance

Variation source
Variation caused by regression
Variation caused by error
Total variation

DF
1
47
48

Sum of Squares(SS)
0.002
0.685
0.687

Mean Squares(MS)
0.002
0.015

F
0.133

Sig
0.000

As seen in table (18), because sig (0.717) is lower than (0.05); therefore, H 0 is rejected (lack of relationship) and H1 is accepted (relationship).

6.

Discussion and conclusion

Main hypothesis
Regarding table (2), we can conclude that there is a significant relationship between organizational intelligence and individual strategic thinking.
Because the coefficient is positive (0.00026); therefore, we can say that the relationship between organizational intelligence and individual
strategic thinking is direct. Organizational intelligence, by relying on the human intelligence, is an infinite source of intellectual capitals that if it
identified and managed correctly, increases organization flexibility in conformity with native, national and local needs. Organizational
intelligence causes that organizations considered as live creatures studying their strengths and weaknesses permanently in internal conditions,
opportunities and threats in market and in surrounding space and by conforming these two with each other, they try to reduce their weaknesses
and on the other hand, by using opportunities, they try to change threats to opportunity and facilitate development of organization.
First sub-hypothesis
Based on table (5), we can infer that there is relationship between organizational intelligence and creative thinking and because the gradient of
regression equation line is positive, this relationship is positive. The relationship between organizational intelligence and creativity is in their
origins. Organizational intelligence encompasses widespread domain of managerial activities in relation with creativity and innovation,
organizational development and strategies and administrative priority and leads to saving in time and other resources in the organization. These

Masoud Pourkiani, Mohammad Ali Pourroostaei *

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (1), January, 2015.

two features are hidden in organizational cells i.e. human resources that are the main factors of success in the organization and their role and
effect in promoting organization and achieving goals is considerable.
Second sub-hypothesis
Regarding table (7) and results of correlation test, there is significant relationship between organizational intelligence and critical thinking of
employees. Therefore, H0 is rejected and H1 is verified. In other words, organizational intelligence has positive effect on the amount of critical
thinking of employees. According to Albrecht theory, one of the components of organizational intelligence is strategic perspective or strategic
vision which is ability of creation, inference, and statement of the purpose of an organization. It is seen that goals of critical thinking and
organizational intelligence have overlap.
Third sub hypothesis
Regarding table (11) it can be concluded that there is significant relationship between organizational intelligence and system thinking and
because is positive (0.002); therefore, we can say that the relationship between organizational intelligence and system thinking is direct.
Therefore, H0 is rejected and H1 is confirmed. In other words, organizational intelligence has positive effect on system thinking of employees.
These results are consistent with T.Matsuda theories. T.Matsuda s one of the founders of organizational intelligence theory considers
organizational intelligence as combination of human intelligence and machine intelligence which act in one system. According to him,
organizational work is in fact a system work which includes both human factor and machine factor in a system perspective.
Forth sub hypothesis
Regarding table (14) we can conclude that there is significant relationship between organizational intelligence and prospective thinking. Because
is positive (0.002); therefore, we can say that there is a relationship between organizational intelligence and individual prospective thinking.
Therefore, H0 hypothesis is rejected and H1 is confirmed. On the other hand, regression equation shows the dependence of prospective thinking
to organizational intelligence. If we want to consider the real position of prospective thinking in organization planning, we should say that the
position of prospective thinking is in strategic thinking. But strategic thinking is an abstract product that is done by using intuition, creativity,
and prospective thinking for setting an integrated future or perspective that organization should reach to it. According to Albrecht, prospective
thinking has mutual and close relationship with strategic perspective and strategic vision.
Fifth sub hypothesis
Based on table (17) and sig =0.717, we can infer that there is no relationship between organizational intelligence and value-focused thinking of
employees. Ralph. L. Kini, theorists of value-focused thinking defines value as this: value means what is important for decision maker. It should
be noted that current business domain creates a new picture of organization that by this new attitude, organization is a set of processes that their
purpose is creating value for customer and the requirement of creating value for customer is value creation in organization. Based on Kini
definition, institualization this thinking has close relationship with the attitude and values governing organization and employees and achieving
this thinking is not possible except in the framework of an intelligent organization.

7.

Suggestions

1. Designing model of effective factors on strategic thinking in individual level

It should be mentioned that basic concepts used in this research are based on Lidka and Boun strategic thinking model which are somehow
domesticated and in the case of using opinions of other strategic thinking theorists; this model has acceptable flexibility and can extend to other
organizations because of using basic concepts of strategic thinking.
2. Identifying the influence of organizational intelligence on individual strategic thinking
In this research, from various important and effective factors on individual strategic thinking including organizational structure, organizational
culture, and leadership and like, organizational intelligence was selected.
The reason of selecting organizational intelligence as an effective independent variable on individual strategic thinking was:
First, about the implications of this factor in Iran, there were no widespread studies and it was neglected.
Secondly, in this era which is the close competition era, we cannot ignore the effect of organizational learning on the strategic thinking and
organizational intelligence is one of the components of learner organizations. Generally, these organizations are pioneer in programs related to
the implementing strategic thinking.
3. Identifying the effect of demographic factors on strategic thinking
The effect of demographic factors in research about human is indispensable. An important point is that because of the nature of social welfare
organization and need to use expert human forces in all fields, there is no possibility to measure the effect of education major on research
laments. For this reason, in researches like this, this factor can be ignored.
4. Identifying and enhancing effective factors on the skills of strategic thinking in individual level
One of the important purposes of this research is identification and enhancement of the factors that have major effects on the emergence of
strategic thinking skills in individual level in organization and enhancing these factors that based on the results of research, it was identified as
the most important element and enhancement locus of this thinking were identified.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

Albrecht, K. (2002). Organizational intelligence and Knowledge management the executive perspective.Retrieved, 2006, from. http://www.karl
Albrecht.com
Aqazade, H. (2004). Strategic thinking.Tadbir journal. 149,
Athari, Z., Nematbakhsh, M., Babamoammadi, H. (2009).Evaluation of critical thinking skills and its relationship with the rank in university entrance
exam in medical sciences university of Isfahan.Iranian journal of education in medical sciences. (1)9. 12-5.
Hashemian Nejad, F. (2001). Presenting a theoretical framework about curriculum based on critical thinking in elementary schools with the emphasis on
the curriculum of social studies course. PH. D. thesis.Islamic Azad University.Science and Research Branch. Tehran.
Jones, A. (2007). Multiplicaticities or manna from heaven? Critical thinking and the Disciplinary context.University of Melbourne. Australian Journal of
Education, 5(11), 84-103.
Kini, R.L. (2002). Value-focused thinking, a way toward creative decision making.Translated by VahidVahidimotalq.Karaneh Elm publication.
Michael, A.(2001).CusumanoConstantions c. markides, Strategicthinhking, jossy bass, 2.

The Study of the Effect of Organizational Intelligence on Strategic Thinking of Social Welfare Organization Employess in Yazd Province
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (1), January, 2015.

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

Mokhtari, Q. (2012). An introduction on system thinking.Fifth edition.

Mirzade, L., Mirzade, A., Falahatkar, M.H. (2011). Organizational intelligence: crossing three epistemological views and presenting a new perspective.
Police human resource development journal.8(36). 45-60.
Pedram, A. (2009). Futurism, governing tradition for future researches.Future discovery site.www.futuresdiscovery.com.
Shokrchi, T. (2009).Creative thinking, a skill for achieving new solutions.Itellat Newspaper.
Simon, W. (1997). Strategic Thinking: A Nine Step Approach to Strategy and Leadership for Managers and Marketers.Kogan Page US, Strategic
planning.
Vacek, E.J. (2009). Using a conceptual approach with concept mapping to promotecal thinking. MSN, RN. 48(1).
Wilgis, M., McConnell, J. (2008). Concept mapping: an educational strategy to improve graduate nurses critical thinking skills during a hospital
orientation program. Thejournal of continuing education in nursing.l39(3).