姝 Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2007, Vol. 6, No. 2, 167–185.

........................................................................................................................................................................

Understanding and Measuring

Linear–NonLinear Thinking
Style for Enhanced
Management Education and
Professional Practice
CHARLES M. VANCE
Loyola Marymount University

KEVIN S. GROVES
California State University-Los Angeles

YONGSUN PAIK
Loyola Marymount University

HERB KINDLER
Kindler & Associates

Various past studies compete and seemingly contradict one another in their presentation
of valuable alternatives to rational and logical thinking for improving decision making
and problem solving. We contribute here to an integration of past research and propose
and test a multifaceted construct of thinking style based on two primary dimensions:
linear thinking (e.g., rationality, logic, analytic thinking) and nonlinear thinking (e.g.,
intuition, insight, creativity). We present and validate in four separate studies a self-
report diagnostic instrument (Linear–Nonlinear Thinking Style Profile or LNTSP) for
measuring an individual’s linear and nonlinear thinking style profile. Validation study
results across student, professional, and managerial samples reveal a 4-factor model of
linear and nonlinear thinking style involving the manner in which individuals attend to
a particular kind of information source (internal vs. external) and subsequent linear
versus nonlinear processing of that information. The results also indicate that the LNTSP
has acceptable convergent validity vis-à-vis two commonly used and conceptually
related instruments, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Cognitive Style Index, as
well as external validity and face validity across students from different academic major
programs (e.g., liberal arts vs. business and engineering), individuals from distinctly
different professional careers (i.e., professional actors and accountants), and managerial
and professional workshop participants. We discuss implications of these results for future
research, as well as possible beneficial use of the LNTSP for management education and
business practice.
........................................................................................................................................................................

Effective thinking, planning, and problem solving (Siggelkow & Rivkin, 2005). This reach must also
in our complex, turbulent, unpredictable, and un- include alternate thought patterns of intuitive and
certain global business environment require man- emotional assessments, creativity and lateral
agers and professionals to reach beyond merely a thinking, holistic and total systems appraisal, in-
linear thinking platform of rules, rationality, anal- tegrative and synergistic thinking, perceptual flex-
ysis, logic, reason, and cause– effect predictability ibility, imagination and visualization, and insight
167
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.
168 Academy of Management Learning & Education
(Dane & Pratt, 2006; Sadler-Smith & Shefy, 2004;
Maani & Maharaj, 2004; Regine & Lewin, 2003; Zac-
caro, 2002; Sternberg, 2002; Buenger, Daft, Conlon,
& Austin, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Damasio,
1994; DeBono, 1992). Although the importance of
these alternate patterns of thought has been em-
phasized, their judicious use in tandem with more
traditional linear forms of thought is necessary to
cope with the challenges of today’s business envi-
ronment (Nadler, 2004; Hussey, 2001; Katz, 1997;
Senge, 1990). At present the conceptualization of
these alternate patterns of thought to linear think-
ing is fragmented at best. Their collective identifi-
cation and efficient measurement, along with pat-
terns of rational and logical thinking, could
provide potentially helpful diagnostic and devel-
opmental feedback for managers and profession-
als interested in enhancing personal thinking style
flexibility and versatility in more effectively meet-
ing the demands of our challenging business en-
vironment.
The primary purposes of this research are to
develop a unifying construct for these alternate
patterns of thought and integrate them with tradi-
tional linear thinking style within a more compre-
hensive conceptual model for enhanced problem-
solving and decision-making effectiveness. In this
process we also present and test a self-assessment
thinking style instrument that reflects a person’s
propensity to utilize linear and alternate thinking
style approaches. Finally, we discuss the implica-
tions of this instrument, including the importance
of balance and flexibility in its associated dimen-
sions, for future research and practice related to
management education and organizational perfor-
mance improvement.
In Search of a Unified Counterpart to Linear
Thinking Style
Thinking style has been defined as one’s preferred
manner of using mental abilities to govern daily
activities, including understanding and solving
problems and challenges. At least partially social-
ized, thinking styles may vary depending on the
conditions and demands of a given situation
(Sternberg, 1997, 1994, 1988). The thinking style of
people in Western society is greatly influenced by
a worldview grounded in the Newtonian reduction-
ist, determinist, and equilibrium-oriented tradition
in which any system is composed of divisible
parts. In this often-termed “linear reductionist”
perspective relying on an analytical methodology
(from the Greek “analyein” meaning “to break up”),
a system is equal to the sum of its parts that can be
analyzed and understood separately and added
June
together to form an understood and predictable
whole system. We continually search for new
methods to objectively measure and predict the
proportional cause-and-effect relationships of the
system components in the complex social and or-
ganizational phenomena around us (Waldrop,
1992; Wheatley, 1992). Extending this prevailing
scientific perspective to management education
and practice assumes that the relationships be-
tween variables are unidimensional and linear,
presenting the rational goal of predicting and con-
trolling human behavior and organizational out-
comes (Lichtenstein & Mendenhall, 2002; Capra,
1996). Extensions of the analytical methodology in-
clude such cognitive processes of reason, logic,
and rationality, still based on the assumptions of
linear reductionism. However, this strictly linear
thinking style is less useful for understanding
complex and unpredictable nonlinear systems
where the behavior of the whole is not necessarily
equal to the sum of the parts (Shelton & Darling,
2003; Waldrop, 1992).
Despite the above predominance of a rational,
linear style of thinking, a distinction has long been
made between rational and nonrational human
thought (Sloman, 1996). Several theorists and re-
searchers have proposed differing yet demonstra-
bly useful alternatives to this general linear think-
ing style leading to dramatically enhanced
performance in viable idea generation, decision
making, and problem solving (Dane & Pratt, 2006;
Sadler-Smith & Shefy, 2004; Skordoulis, 2004;
Runco, 2004; Peters, 1998; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996;
DeBono, 1992; Segal, 2004; Nadler, 2004; Gibb, 2004;
Goleman, 1995). Some alternative perspectives em-
phasize the importance of intuition; others focus on
creativity and flexibility, holistic insight, and emo-
tion; and yet others involve a combination of these.
At first these alternative perspectives may appear
as a motley array of thinking styles that are not
associated with linear analytic reasoning and
logic, or that merely share the common character-
istic of being “not linear.” However, research evi-
dence suggests that they have much more in com-
mon in their different but highly interrelated
potential contributions to coping with the nonlin-
ear dynamical nature and associated challenges
of today’s organizations within the competitive,
uncertain context of our global business environ-
ment. These alternative thinking style approaches
may help us in various ways to address the unique
demands of highly complex nonlinear systems.
We therefore argue that these heretofore appar-
ently diverse alternatives to a general linear think-
ing style dimension characterized by logic and
reason can be appropriately grouped within a
2007 Vance, Groves, Paik, and Kindler
more comprehensive thinking style dimension of
“nonlinear.” Although these various approaches
occasionally have been associated with nonlinear
thinking (e.g., intuitive and creative thinking often
are erroneously treated as synonyms rather than
subsets of nonlinear thinking), and new nonlinear
general thinking approaches and mental models
increasingly have been called for based on con-
ceptual applications of advanced mathematics
and new science theories of chaos, complexity, and
quantum mechanics (Shelton & Darling, 2003;
Parker & Stacey, 1998; Horgan, 1989), we are un-
aware of any concerted effort to build a case for
combining the above alternate perspectives much
more comprehensively under the unified, multifac-
eted construct of nonlinear thinking style. We now
briefly examine four cognate approaches of intu-
ition, insight, creativity, and emotion that often are
separately presented as counterparts to linear
thinking, and consider how they may commonly
contribute as interrelated forms of nonlinear think-
ing to better address the demands of a nonlinear
world.
Nonlinear Thinking: Toward a Comprehensive
Construct
Nonlinear dynamical systems are highly complex
and often rapidly changing, where a multitude of
interrelated and interdependent parts contribute to
outcomes that are very difficult to predict. Where
complex decisions need to be made under a tight
deadline and in the midst of an overwhelming
mass of information, successful managers often
rely on intuitive judgment based on experience
(Dane & Pratt, 2006; Miller & Ireland, 2005; Sadler-
Smith & Shefy, 2004). Defined as a holistic hunch or
judgment derived from a subconscious synthesis of
information across one’s diverse experiences, intu-
ition has gained broad support for its utility in
executive decision making. Holistic in nature, in-
tuition is often the result of an automatic and un-
conscious assessment of the interrelated parts of a
nonlinear system that scans the integrated “big
picture” to point to appropriate decisions and new
directions, rather than getting delayed and lost in
the detailed analysis of a huge set of data (Clax-
ton, 2001). Miller and Ireland (2005) recently noted
that intuitive decisions involve “novel approaches,
changes in directions, and/or actions that run
counter to prevailing thinking or data” (p. 21), and
are often described as “gut feelings.” We argue
that effective decision making in a highly complex
and turbulent business environment requires both
linear thinking and reliance on formal data
sources as well as intuition and other forms of
169
nonlinear thinking. Indeed, even critics of using
intuition in executive decision making (e.g., Bona-
beau, 2003; Miller & Ireland, 2005) over traditional
linear approaches and associated tools (e.g., deci-
sion trees, system dynamics, agent-based model-
ing, etc.) acknowledge the need for intuition and
other complementary nonlinear thinking forms.
Nonlinear systems are highly unpredictable,
where seeming chaos eventually emerges into
new patterns of order (Holland, 1998; Gregersen &
Sailer, 1993). As a fitting thinking style for nonlin-
ear systems, creativity is characterized by sponta-
neity and flexibility, with a balanced integration of
rational analytic and unconventional imaginative
processes (Skordoulis, 2004; Runco, 2004; Katz,
1997), and where individuals in a highly focused
state of consciousness take new perspectives and
reassemble interrelated parts of a system in novel
and unusual ways leading to viable solutions (Pe-
ters, 1998; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; DeBono, 1992).
The use of metaphors also can be helpful in in-
creasing flexibility by bringing a comparison of a
problem with a seemingly unrelated object or sys-
tem, providing new perspectives for gaining better
understanding of complex systems, and generat-
ing multiple creative solutions (Aupperle & Kari-
malis, 2001; Aupperle, 1996; Tsoukas, 1991; Morgan,
1987).
Insight is the result of a conscious and often
frustrating unsuccessful rational analysis of vari-
ables of a complex nonlinear system comprising a
problem, often followed by a period of inattention
to the problem-solving task, at least in terms of
discernable activity (Yaniv & Meyer, 1987). Accord-
ing to some studies, this break in attention primar-
ily provides a productive diversion of attention,
releasing the person from a restrictive mind-set
and erroneous set of assumptions and allowing
fresh new perspectives and organizing assump-
tions upon returning to the problem (Segal, 2004).
Other studies and several anecdotal accounts pro-
pose an incubation phenomenon that automati-
cally follows in the break from the initial but fruit-
less rational problem-solving effort, with an
unconscious processing of information and data
and their mutual causality in nonlogical and non-
rational ways—more easily allowed by the sub-
conscious— until a solution suddenly emerges and
is realized in a “eureka!” moment (Gibb, 2004; Dorf-
man, Shames, & Kihlstrom, 1996; Simon, Newell, &
Shaw, 1979). Whereas intuition yields a sense of
direction and knowledge without a clear ability to
explain and to rationally justify (Miller & Ireland,
2005), insight ultimately is conscious and explica-
ble—an enlightened solution to a previous state of
quandary and uncertainty. And whereas intuition
170 Academy of Management Learning & Education
may involve using integrated and holistic thinking
on an unconscious basis (e.g., Sadler-Smith &
Shefy, 2004), insight is gained by initially examin-
ing in a consciously holistic manner as many rel-
evant parts of a system as possible, eventually
followed by a rushing together of the pertinent
parts or variables in a conscious “big picture” of
understanding (Nadler, 2004).
Considerable evidence exists that feelings and
emotions can affect thinking and decision making
at unconscious and conscious levels, both of which
are potentially useful to managers as they face
complex challenges within a seemingly endless
array of data and probabilities in nonlinear sys-
tems (Sadler-Smith & Shefy, 2004; Goleman, 1998;
Damasio, 1994; Simon, 1987). Impaired emotional
functioning can lead to continual search and anal-
ysis of data and their myriads of permutations,
with the inability to make a decision in a timely
manner and move on by being “satisfied” with an
acceptable level of uncertainty (Goleman, 1995).
The brain’s limbic system, much older in evolution-
ary development and playing a major role in hu-
man emotion, may exercise complete control over
our actions before the younger and higher cogni-
tive centers of the brain are fully aware and take
conscious control (LeDoux, 1996). These feelings-
based mental processes may scan an otherwise
overwhelming presentation of data from a nonlin-
ear system and predispose an individual to focus
attention more deeply on a more realistic amount
and arrangement of data. In addition, our con-
sciousness of raised feelings, whether positive or
negative, resulting from a broad preconscious
scan of the data also can influence our decision to
reject a proposed direction, to accept the direction
and move forward with confidence, or to delay in
the interest of gathering additional evidence. Fi-
nally, recent work on appreciative inquiry and pos-
itivity in organizations suggests that feedback and
other activities in organizations that promote pos-
itive emotions can lead from moribund inactivity to
confident and measured risk taking, realistic en-
thusiasm, and creativity to more effectively ad-
dress a complex, chaotic, and turbulent world that
demands constant adaptation and innovation
(Losada & Heaphy, 2004; Cameron, Dutton, &
Quinn, 2003; Cooperrider, Sorensen, Whitney, &
Yeager, 2000; Seligman, 1998).
Measuring Linear and Nonlinear Thinking Style
If, as suggested earlier, the employment of both
linear and nonlinear thinking styles is a valuable
goal for effective management education and de-
velopment, an important initial step would likely
June
be to develop an instrument that accurately mea-
sures these thinking styles. With this diagnostic
information, instructional and developmental ap-
proaches may be designed, implemented, and
tested for building flexibility and capability in us-
ing these complementary styles. Consistent with
2-part definitions from the literature of general
thinking style and modes of thinking that involve
(1) attending to an information source, and (2) pro-
cessing that information for subsequent decision
making (Zhang, 2002; Sternberg, 1997, 1994; Stern-
berg & Grigorenko, 1995), we further define linear
thinking style as a preference for attending to ex-
ternal data and facts, and processing this informa-
tion through conscious logic and rational thinking
to form knowledge, understanding, or a decision
for guiding subsequent action. We also further de-
fine nonlinear thinking style as a preference for
attending to internal feelings, impressions, intu-
ition, and sensations; and for processing this infor-
mation (both consciously and subconsciously) to
form insight, understanding, or a decision for guid-
ing subsequent action.
Although we are unaware of an instrument that
effectively measures an individual’s overall linear
and nonlinear thinking style profile, we are famil-
iar with several instruments that have possible
applicability. Likely the most well known, espe-
cially in management education and development,
is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). This in-
ventory assesses four personality types or orienta-
tions (extroversion vs. introversion, judging vs. per-
ceiving) and four functions (sensing vs. intuition,
thinking vs. feeling). The four function dimensions
relate most directly to our concept of linear versus
nonlinear thinking styles, with external data sens-
ing versus intuition, as we have characterized,
dealing with how people prefer to attend to or take
in information, and the thinking versus feeling di-
chotomy dealing with how people process and
make decisions (Myers, 1998; Hirsh & Kummerow,
1998). However, recent studies have questioned the
validity of the MBTI, particularly its criterion-
related and construct validity (e.g., McCrae &
Costa, 1989; Garden, 1991; Sipps & DiCaudo, 1988),
its use far beyond the original theoretical intent
and framework developed by Jung, and the poten-
tial confusion and interaction across scales related
to determination of dominant, auxiliary, tertiary,
and inferior functions and their conscious versus
unconscious states (James, 2003; Walck, 1996; Gard-
ner & Martinko, 1996). In addition, with its focus on
intuition and feelings, the MBTI presents a rather
limited range of approaches within the nonlinear
style dimension.
Additional measures somewhat related to our
2007 Vance, Groves, Paik, and Kindler
notion of linear versus nonlinear thinking style
include the Styles of Learning and Thinking (SO-
LAT) measure (Torrance, McCarthy, & Kolesinski,
1988), Index of Learning Style (ILS; Felder & Silver-
man, 1988), Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ;
Honey & Mumford, 1992), Kolb Learning Style In-
ventory (LSI; Kolb & Kolb, 2005), and Cognitive
Style Index (CSI; Allinson & Hayes, 1996). The SO-
LAT instrument, originally intended to assess the
previously popular notion of right- versus left-
brain dominance before further research dis-
counted the touted independence of the two hemi-
spheres (e.g., Zalewski, Sink, & Yachimowicz, 1992),
now is considered a useful measure for assessing
analytic versus holistic thinking modes (Zhang,
2002). The ILS and LSQ include scales that tap
dimensions similar to linear and nonlinear think-
ing styles, such as sensing-intuitive and activists-
theorists, respectively. Furthermore, the LSI is
based upon experiential learning theory (e.g.,
Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2005), which states that
learning is achieved through the creative tension
among grasping experience modes (concrete expe-
rience and abstract conceptualization) and trans-
forming experience modes (active experimentation
and reflective observation). Although these modes
are also similar to our notion of attending to an
information source and processing such informa-
tion for subsequent decision making, experiential
learning theory and the LSI comprise all human
adaptive processes such as problem solving, cre-
ativity, and decision making, while the focus of our
model and measure is centered more specifically
on thinking style and its proximal impact on deci-
sion making. The CSI is a psychometrically sound,
unifactorial measure of the intuition-analysis di-
mension of cognitive style, and has proved valid
for differentiating general managers from entre-
preneurs (Allinson, Chell, & Hayes, 2000). However,
some empirical evidence (Hodgkinson & Sadler-
Smith, 2003) suggests that analytical and intuitive
cognitive styles may not fall along a bipolar con-
tinuum of information processing, as the CSI pos-
tulates. In addition, as with the MBTI and SOLAT
instruments, the scope of the CSI is focused on the
constructs of intuition and feelings and does not
assess a broader assortment of nonlinear thought
or address the multidimensional nature of thinking
style. We concur with Hodgkinson and Sadler-
Smith (2003) and other scholars (e.g., Leonard &
Straus, 1997; Leonard, Scholl, & Kowalski, 1999) ad-
vocating relatively complex, multidimensional
theories and measures of thinking style.
Therefore, failing to identify an instrument that
measures an individual’s composite picture of lin-
ear and nonlinear thinking style, we elected to
171
develop our own measure, the Linear–Nonlinear
Thinking Style Profile (LNTSP). The process that we
used for validating the instrument involved estab-
lishing the LNTSP’s psychometric properties, in-
cluding its factor structure, scale reliability esti-
mates, convergent validity estimates with well-
established and conceptually related instruments,
external and face validity, and relative factor sta-
bility across several student and managerial sam-
ples. This thorough process is consistent with es-
tablished procedures for psychometric test
validation (Hoyle, Harris, & Judd, 2002; American
Education Research Association, 1999; Judd, Smith,
& Kidder, 1991). The following section will detail
four separate studies that involved developing the
LNTSP’s factor structure with a sample of univer-
sity students, confirmatory factor analyses across
a managerial sample, comparisons of the LNTSP,
MBTI, and CSI across a separate business student
sample, and a final study of LNTSP differences
across a sample of professional actors and accoun-
tants. Our overarching goal was to develop a rel-
atively short, multidimensional thinking style
measure that (1) accurately reflects an individual’s
propensity for using linear and nonlinear ap-
proaches, and (2) can aid management educators
and business professionals in their efforts to diag-
nose and shape thinking style toward improved
managerial problem solving and decision making.
METHODS
Study 1
Sample
The initial sample consisted of 293 undergraduate
students at a medium-sized private university in
Southwestern United States. The sample repre-
sented a range of academic majors, including mar-
keting (n ⫽ 44, 18%), engineering (n ⫽ 42, 17%),
management (n ⫽ 35, 14%), psychology (n ⫽ 20, 8%),
finance (n ⫽ 18, 7%), and international business
(n ⫽ 18, 7%). One hundred forty-five students
(49.5%) were female, and the ethnic breakdown of
the sample was as follows: Caucasian (n ⫽ 125,
43%), Asian-American (n ⫽ 52, 18%), Hispanic/Lat-
in-American (n ⫽ 35, 12%), African-American (n ⫽
13, 5%), and Multiracial American (n ⫽ 18, 6%).
Instrument and Procedure
In developing the LNTSP instrument we first as-
sembled 37 item pairs (74 total items) across two
item sets in a forced-choice format similar to that
of the MBTI. Linear items emphasized reason,
logic, analytic thinking, deduction, and assess-
172 Academy of Management Learning & Education
ment of external facts and data. Nonlinear items
were associated with the previously described in-
terrelated approaches of creativity (e.g., spontane-
ity, flexibility, open-ended), intuition (e.g., inner
knowing, instinct, hunch); insight (e.g., bring to-
gether, all-at-once, experience, connect); and emo-
tion (e.g., gut feeling, heartfelt, empathy). The
items were generated a priori by the authors based
on a review of related theory and research, and
then presented to a 7-person independent expert
panel in a series of iterations involving item revi-
sion, feedback, and face validity assessment. In-
strument revisions to promote clarity also were
made based on feedback from executives and
other professionals attending workshops where
the instrument was employed. Overall, the over-
whelming majority of workshop participants re-
ported that the items indeed measured one’s linear
and nonlinear thinking style preferences, thereby
establishing evidence of the LNTSP’s face validity.
The first set of forced-choice items included 15
pairs of statements describing alternative behav-
iors. Using a Likert-type scale (3 ⫽ “very often,” 2 ⫽
“moderately often,” 1 ⫽ “occasionally,” and 0 ⫽
“rarely or never”), respondents were asked to allo-
cate exactly three points across each pair of alter-
native statements according to how frequently
they perform such behaviors. An example pair of
statements included, “I primarily rely on logic
when making career decisions” and “I primarily
rely on feelings when making career decisions.”
The second set of forced-choice items included 22
paired words or phrases that influence behavior
and decision making. Using a Likert-type scale
(3 ⫽ “very strong influence on how I behave,” 2 ⫽
“strong influence on how I behave,” 1 ⫽ “moderate
influence on how I behave,” and 0 ⫽ “little or no
influence on how I behave”), respondents again
were asked to allocate exactly three points across
each pair of alternative words or phrases. Example
item pairs included “Feelings” and “Facts,” “Inner
Knowing” and “Logic,” and “Felt Sense” and “Rea-
son.”
All respondents in the first study were adminis-
tered the LNTSP as part of their coursework. Stu-
dents were asked to participate in the study on a
voluntary basis and were recruited from classes in
their academic major. In an effort to make cross-
disciplinary comparisons to assess instrument ex-
ternal validity, students were recruited from
classes in business, engineering, psychology, and
fine arts. Respondents were told that the LNTSP
was a self-assessment instrument designed to
measure how individuals engage in decision-
making processes.
June
Analysis and Results
Since the multidimensionality of the LNTSP had
not been established by previous research, the fac-
tor structure of the instrument was assessed using
exploratory factor analysis (Gorsuch, 1983). Several
criteria were used to determine the factor structure
underlying the LNTSP, including eigenvalues of
greater than 1 and solutions that explain approxi-
mately 60% of the total variance (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1998). Principle component anal-
ysis was utilized for factor extraction, and the Va-
rimax rotation method was used to transform the
final factor solution into a simple solution for in-
terpretation. Previous research has shown the Va-
rimax rotation to be superior to other methods for
achieving a clear separation of factors and a fun-
damentally simple factor structure (Kaiser, 1970,
1974).
Beginning with the original 37 item pairs of the
LNTSP instrument, principle component analysis
initially revealed a 4-factor solution. This result
was evident by a significant change in the ex-
tracted eigenvalues at four and five factors, as
well as significant improvement in the total per-
centage of explained variance. We utilized the fol-
lowing criteria to determine whether an item ade-
quately represented a given factor: (1) a factor
loading of greater than .45, (2) item cross-loadings
on other factors that were less than .30 (Gorsuch,
1983), and (3) the theoretical contribution of the
item to a model of linear–nonlinear thinking style.
Given our primary interest in arriving at a brief
instrument that may be readily used for manage-
ment education, research, and practice, we set out
to retain only those items that satisfied all three
criteria.
Overall, 26 items representing four factors met
all three criteria above and were retained for fur-
ther analysis (see Table 1). The first factor con-
tained eight linear items, which generally re-
flected external sources of information, data, and
influences that guide an individual’s decision
making and behavior. The second factor also con-
tained eight items, however of a nonlinear nature,
representing inner or internal information sources
such as feelings, sensations, and impressions that
influence an individual’s decision making and be-
havior. The third factor included five nonlinear
items that reflected the processing of internal
sources of information for the purpose of subjective
decision making and subsequent action. The
fourth and final factor contained five linear items
that represented the mental processing of external
sources of information, including verifiable facts,
analytical reasoning, and objective factors, for the
2007 Vance, Groves, Paik, and Kindler 173

TABLE 1
Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis for Study 1

Factor Names and Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

External Information Sources (EIS)

Concepts .65 ⫺.02 .18 ⫺.01

Rationality .51 ⫺.11 .07 ⫺.08
Reason .52 ⫺.21 .11 .06
Logic .62 ⫺.09 .10 .03
Facts .73 ⫺.18 .12 ⫺.15
Proof .56 ⫺.02 .20 ⫺.08
Data .71 ⫺.25 .09 ⫺.10
Deduction .51 ⫺.17 .07 .02
Inner Information Sources (IIS)

Instincts ⫺.04 .68 ⫺.07 .10

Empathy ⫺.08 .48 ⫺.13 .23
Felt Sense ⫺.04 .67 .02 .12
Inner Knowing ⫺.12 .68 ⫺.09 .13
Feelings ⫺.08 .51 ⫺.17 .17
Heartfelt ⫺.04 .50 ⫺.05 .18
Hunch ⫺.08 .56 ⫺.08 .28
Intuition ⫺.06 .46 ⫺.02 .12
Linear Decision Making (LDM)

I primarily rely on logic when making career decisions .15 ⫺.09 .53 -.12
I primarily weigh quantitative factors when making a decision about a large purchase .13 .05 .46 -.30
or investment, such as my age, budget needs, or future earnings
When making important decisions, I pay close attention to when a number of people .19 ⫺.01 .56 -.26
with well-justified expertise give me the same advice
The most important factor in making life-altering changes is knowing that the change .22 .09 .75 .01
is based on objective, verifiable facts
When my analysis and intuition are in conflict, I give precedence to my analytical .12 .01 .72 -.08
reasoning
Nonlinear Decision Making (NDM)

I primarily rely on my feelings when making career decisions .05 .12 ⫺.27 .56
I primarily weigh qualitative factors when making a decision about a large purchase ⫺.12 .09 ⫺.09 .67
or investment, such as my gut feelings or a sense that the decision is right for me
When making important decisions, I pay close attention when I experience a ⫺.01 .20 ⫺.25 .54
“knowing in my bones,” chills, tingling or other physical sensations
The most important factor in making life-altering changes (such as a career change, .06 .14 ⫺.16 .58
marriage, or major relocation) is feeling it is right for me
When my analysis and intuition are in conflict, I give precedence to my intuitive .03 .23 ⫺.03 .50
insights

Eigenvalue 3.56 3.54 3.23 2.45

% of Variance Explained 15.67% 15.61% 14.44% 11.43%

purpose of rational decision making and subse-
quent action. The eigenvalues were 3.56 (factor 1),
3.54 (factor 2), 3.23 (factor 3), and 2.45 (factor 4),
which explained 57.15% of the total variance. The
factors were named external information sources
(EIS), inner information sources (IIS), linear deci-
sion making (LDM), and nonlinear decision making
(NDM), respectively. This resulting 4-factor model
comprised of two nonlinear factors (IIS and NDM)
and two linear factors (EIS and LDM) is consistent
with the previously mentioned 2-part definitions of
general thinking style involving information
source and decision-making processes (Zhang,
2002; Sternberg, 1997, 1994; Sternberg & Grigor-
enko, 1995).
The means, standard deviations, reliability coef-
ficients, and intercorrelations among the four fac-
tors are presented in Table 2. The external (EIS)
and inner (ISI) information source dimensions
demonstrated a significant negative relationship
(r ⫽ -.47, p ⬍ .01), as well as the linear (LDM) and
nonlinear (NDM) decision-making dimensions (r ⫽
-.43, p ⬍ .01). Furthermore, EIS was related to LDM
(r ⫽ .32, p ⬍ .05) while IIS was associated with NDM
174 Academy of Management Learning & Education
TABLE 2
LNTSP Subscale Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study 1
M SD
1 EIS (8 items) 1.45 .44
2 IIS (8 items) 1.74 .41
3 LDM (5 items) 1.68 .54
4 NDM (5 items) 1.54 .55
Notes: N ⫽ 293; Numbers in parentheses are coefficient alphas.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
(r ⫽ .29, p ⬍ .05). These results are expected in that
the LNTSP presents respondents with forced-
choice items across the four dimensions such that
an individual’s preference for linear decision mak-
ing produces a lower score for nonlinear decision
making. Thus, respondents with high scores on EIS
and LDM will obtain low scores on IIS and NDM,
respectively.
To examine differences between various subsets
of student respondents who are generally known to
favor linear and nonlinear thinking styles for the
purpose of providing initial tests of external vali-
dation, we conducted several post hoc analyses
across the LNTSP dimensions. Consistent with pre-
vious empirical research on gender differences
across emotional intelligence measures (e.g.,
Schutte et al., 1998; Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Ar-
gyle, 1990) and social– emotional communication
skills (Riggio, 1986), there were significant differ-
ences between men and women’s scores across the
LNTSP dimensions. Specifically, women scored
significantly higher on the nonlinear LNTSP di-
mensions, IIS (F (1, 262) ⫽ 3.26, p ⬍ .05) and NDM (F
(1, 262) ⫽ 3.77, p ⬍ .01), than their male counter-
parts. In addition to gender, student major pro-
duced significant differences across the LNTSP
subscales. A comparison of business quantitative
majors (finance, accounting, and computer infor-
mation systems); engineering majors, and busi-
ness qualitative majors (management, marketing,
and international business) produced significant
mean differences across the LNTSP dimensions.
Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test
indicated that business qualitative majors scored
significantly higher on IIS (Mean Difference ⫽ .12,
p ⬍ .01) and NDM (Mean Difference ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .01)
than engineering students. Furthermore, ANOVA
tests comparing engineering and marketing stu-
dents produced significant differences for EIS (F (1,
84) ⫽ 3.55, p ⬍ .05), with engineering students scor-
ing higher than their marketing counterparts,
while marketing students scored significantly
higher on NDM (F (1, 84) ⫽ 4.60, p ⬍ .05). Although
preliminary and certainly in need of further vali-
June
1 2 3 4
(.87)
⫺.47** (.84)
.32* ⫺.05 (.70)
⫺.02 .29* ⫺.43** (.71)
dation studies on different groups, these results
appear to corroborate the findings of prior research
on gender and academic program differences with
respect to decision-making styles and preferences
(e.g., Abdolmohammadi, Read, & Scarbrough, 2003;
Geary & Rooney, 1993; Ponemon & Glazer, 1990).
Study 2
Sample
A follow-up study was conducted with a manage-
rial sample to cross-validate the exploratory re-
sults that were reviewed above. The sample con-
sisted of 139 managers recruited from a large,
multinational snack manufacturing company (n ⫽
29) and a fully employed MBA program composed
of managers from the aerospace, defense, telecom-
munications, and financial services industries (n ⫽
110). The sample included 84 men (60%) and 55
women (40%). The ethnic breakdown of the sample
was as follows: Caucasian (n ⫽ 77, 55%), Asian-
American (n ⫽ 18, 13%), Hispanic/Latin-American
(n ⫽ 17, 12%), African-American (n ⫽ 10, 7%), Na-
tive-American (n ⫽ 1, 1%), and Other (n ⫽ 16, 12%).
The mean age, years of overall work experience,
and years of managerial work experience of this
sample was 37.38 (SD ⫽ 10.74), 16.20 (SD ⫽ 10.14),
and 8.86 (SD ⫽ 6.63), respectively.
Instrument and Procedure
Managers from the snack food manufacturing com-
pany were administered a questionnaire consist-
ing of the LNTSP and demographic items as part of
a management development workshop. All 29
managers attending the workshop agreed to par-
ticipate in the study. Participants from the fully
employed MBA program (n ⫽ 110) were recruited
through faculty member announcements in core
classes and follow-up e-mails requesting volun-
tary completion of the questionnaire, which con-
sisted of the LNTSP and demographic items.
2007 Vance, Groves, Paik, and Kindler 175

Analysis and Results TABLE 3

Measurement Model Parameter-Level Results of
Confirmatory factor analysis using Amos software
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) was conducted to estab-
lish cross-validation support for the LNTSP factor Maximum Likelihood
structure results of Study 1. A measurement model LNTSP Factor Error Estimate
was created to assess the construct validity of the
External Information Source
four LNTSP subscales: external information
sources (EIS), inner information sources (IIS), linear EIS-1 .20 .66
decision making (LDM), and nonlinear decision EIS-2 .19 .77
making (NDM). In our postulating that each item EIS-3 .18 .80
EIS-4 .21 .71
would load significantly onto its associated scale, EIS-5 .10 .83
the measurement model was tested according to EIS-6 .35 .52
the following conventional indicators of fit: chi- EIS-7 .30 .67
square (X2), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted EIS-8 .23 .71
GFI (AGFI), root-mean-square of approximation Inner Information Source
(RMSEA), incremental fit index (IFI), and compara- IIS-1 .18 .70
tive fit index (CFI). On the basis of these conven- IIS-2 .21 .67
tional standards, the model demonstrated a mod- IIS-3 .23 .76
IIS-4 .25 .71
erate level of fit (X2 ⫽ 327 [df ⫽ 293, p ⬍ .01], GFI ⫽
IIS-5 .11 .85
.88, AGFI ⫽ .86, RMSEA ⫽ .09, IFI ⫽ .86, CFI ⫽ .85). IIS-6 .36 .57
Although prior research suggests that these results IIS-7 .33 .78
demonstrate a minimally acceptable level of fit IIS-8 .22 .73
(Kenny, 2000), Bollen (1989) asserts that fit indexes Linear Decision Making
greater than or equal to .85 are acceptable for mod- LDM-1 .31 .62
els, such as the present research, that attempt to LDM-2 .38 .70
open new directions in a substantive field. Table 3 LDM-3 .24 .88
LDM-4 .52 .77
illustrates the measurement model’s parameter-
LDM-5 .27 .52
level results, including the error terms and maxi- Nonlinear Decision Making
mum likelihood estimates for each item. The range
of maximum likelihood estimates across the four NDM-1 .35 .65
NDM-2 .45 .75
factors was .52 to .88, suggesting that the items NDM-3 .25 .86
loaded satisfactorily onto their respective scales. NDM-4 .49 .65
Overall, these results suggest that the factor struc- NDM-5 .32 .67
ture of the LNTSP derived in Study 1 demonstrates
reasonable stability across a managerial sample. Notes: X2 ⫽ 327 (df ⫽ 293, p ⬍ .01), GFI ⫽ .88, AGFI ⫽ .86,
RMSEA ⫽ .09, IFI ⫽ .86, CFI ⫽ .85.
Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and
correlations across the LNTSP subscales are pre-
sented in Table 4. Similar to the results from Study ethnic background of the sample was as follows:
1, EIS and IIS factors demonstrated a significant Caucasian (n ⫽ 39, 49%), Hispanic/Latin-American
negative relationship (r ⫽ -.46, p ⬍ .01), as did LDM (n ⫽ 14, 18%), Asian-American (n ⫽ 4, 5%), African-
and NDM factors (r ⫽ -.42, p ⬍ .01). Furthermore, IIS American (n ⫽ 4, 5%), Native-American (n ⫽ 1, 1%),
was related to LDM (r ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .05) while IIS was and Other (n ⫽ 18, 22%).
associated with NDM (r ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .05).

TABLE 4
Study 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among
LNTSP Subscales for Study 2
Sample
M (SD) 1 2 3 4
In order to assess convergent validity estimates for
the LNTSP, another follow-up study was conducted 1. EIS 1.97 (.44) (.87)
with a sample of 80 undergraduate business ad- 2. IIS 1.16 (.46) ⫺.46** (.87)
ministration students in a medium-sized private 3. LDM 1.82 (.47) .25* ⫺.18 (.75)
4. NDM 1.29 (.49) ⫺.12 .28* ⫺.42** (.74)
university in the Southwestern United States. The
sample included 33 men (40%) and 47 women (60%), Notes: N ⫽ 78. Numbers in parentheses are coefficient alphas.
and the mean age was 20.55 years (SD ⫽ .83). The * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
176 Academy of Management Learning & Education June

Instrument and Procedure Analysis and Results

Students were asked to participate in the study on
a voluntary basis and were recruited by faculty
members from business administration classes.
Participants were informed that the study was de-
signed to help clarify how individuals engage in
decision-making processes and the factors that are
more important when making critical decisions. In
order to demonstrate the LNTSP’s convergent va-
lidity, participants were asked to complete a ques-
tionnaire consisting of the LNTSP, dimensions of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers,
1998), Cognitive Style Index (CSI; Allinson & Hayes,
1996), and demographic items. The utilization of
the MBTI and CSI was intended to measure the
extent to which respondents’ LNTSP scores are suf-
ficiently distinct from theoretically similar mea-
sures. The MBTI’s preference dimensions for gath-
ering data (Sensing or Intuitive) were measured to
assess the empirical relationships with the IIS and
EIS dimensions. The MBTI’s preference dimensions
for information processing (Feeling or Thinking)
were also measured to examine the empirical re-
lationships with the LDM and NDM dimensions.
The MBTI’s extraversion–introversion dimension
was excluded from our analysis because of its em-
phasis on an individual’s social interaction needs
and work environment preferences rather than think-
ing style and decision-making preferences (Gardner
& Martinko, 1996). Finally, the CSI was utilized for
convergent validity estimates given its conceptual
similarity to the LNTSP, specifically its focus on an-
alytical and intuitive cognitive styles of information
processing. High scores on the unidimensional CSI
indicate a preference for analytical, logical, and
data-driven decision making while low scores indi-
cate a preference for intuitive, emotional, and feel-
ing-based decision making.
To provide factor structure results from a second
cross-validation sample, we conducted a confirma-
tory factor analysis of the LNTSP using AMOS (Ar-
buckle & Wothke, 2003). Again postulating that
each item would load onto its respective dimen-
sion, the measurement model fit the data reason-
ably well (X2 ⫽ 368 [df ⫽ 293, p ⬍ .01]) according to
the following fit indices: GFI (.93), AGFI (.89), IFI
(.92), CFI (.92), and RMSEA (.06). Furthermore, max-
imum likelihood estimates across all four dimen-
sions ranged from .44 to .80, suggesting that each
item loaded significantly onto its respective scale.
The descriptive statistics and correlations among
the LNTSP subscales, MBTI, and CSI are presented
in Table 5. The pattern of relationships among the
LNTSP dimensions was similar to Study 1 in that
the EIS–IIS and LDM–NDM relationships demon-
strated significant negative correlations. The pat-
tern of correlations among the LNTSP subscales,
MBTI dimensions, and the CSI suggests that the
three measures share a moderately significant
amount of variance. The average correlation be-
tween the LNTSP subscales and the MBTI dimen-
sions was .30 and ranged from -.35 to .39. The rela-
tionships among the LNTSP and MBTI dimensions
were in the expected direction, as EIS and LDM
were positively correlated with MBTI-Sensing and
MBTI-Thinking, while IIS and NDM were positively
correlated with MBTI-Intuitive and MBTI-Feeling.
Similarly, the range of correlations among the
LNTSP subscales and CSI was -.35 to .37, and all
were in the predicted direction such that EIS and
LDM were positively associated with the CSI while
IIS and NDM were negatively associated with CSI
scores. These results suggest that although the
LNTSP dimensions share variance with competing
instruments that measure similar constructs,

TABLE 5
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Measures for Study 3
M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. EIS 1.48 (.38) (.81)

2. IIS 1.52 (.38) ⫺.45** (.81)
3. LDM 1.70 (.39) .32* ⫺.12 (.72)
4. NDM 1.30 (.39) ⫺.10 .30* ⫺.42** (.72)
5. MBTI-S 14.89 (6.38) .37** ⫺.35** .07 ⫺.10 ⫺
6. MBTI-N 10.93 (4.67) ⫺.30* .34** ⫺.17 .13 ⫺.86** ⫺
7. MBTI-F 9.80 (4.58) ⫺.25** .37** ⫺.35** .39** .02 .05 ⫺
8. MBTI-T 12.19 (7.47) .30* ⫺.20* .31** ⫺.37** .06 ⫺.10 ⫺.82** ⫺
9. CSI 43.67 (11.69) .31** ⫺.25** .37** ⫺.35* .48** ⫺.45** .05 ⫺.02 (.78)

Notes: N ⫽ 80. Numbers in parentheses are coefficient alphas.

* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
2007 Vance, Groves, Paik, and Kindler
thereby providing evidence of convergent validity,
the LNTSP does not completely overlap such mea-
sures. Thus, the LNTSP subscales appear to tap
unique dimensions of thinking style preferences.
Study 4
Sample
The final cross-validation sample consisted of 63
professional actors (n ⫽ 33, 52%) and accountants
(n ⫽ 30, 48%), who were targeted as an additional
sample given their expected differences across the
LNTSP dimensions. Specifically, we expected ac-
tors to score significantly higher across the nonlin-
ear LNTSP dimensions (e.g., see Pinard & Allio,
2005; Moshavi, 2001; Bromage, 2000) while accoun-
tants were expected to report a preference for the
linear LNTSP dimensions (e.g., see Abdolmoham-
madi, Read, & Scarbrough, 2003; Smith, 1999; Har-
ris, 1994). The sample included 31 men (49%) and 32
women (51%), and the mean age was 35.25 years
(SD ⫽ 13.47). The ethnic background of the sample
was as follows: Caucasian (n ⫽ 37, 58%), Hispanic/
Latin-American (n ⫽ 12, 19%), Asian-American (n ⫽
3, 5%), African-American (n ⫽ 1, 2%), Native-Amer-
ican (n ⫽ 3, 5%), and Other (n ⫽ 7, 11%). The actors
(M ⫽ 12.43, SD ⫽ 11.94) and accountants (M ⫽ 8.52,
SD ⫽ 11.33) had been fully employed in their re-
spective fields for a considerable number of years.
Instrument and Procedure
The actors were recruited through contacts made
at the Southern California office of the Screen Ac-
tors Guild (SAG) and at two SAG-sponsored meet-
ings. Professional accountants were recruited
through alumni contacts at large accounting firms
in Southern California and through contacts made
through the Southern California Chapter of the
Institute of Management Accountants. The ques-
tionnaire for this sample included the LNTSP, de-
mographic items, and the previously used compa-
rable measure of thinking style, the Cognitive
Style Index (CSI; Allinson & Hayes, 1996), to further
establish the convergent validity of the LNTSP with
a professional sample.
Analysis and Results
To provide further cross-validation support for the
model, we conducted a final confirmatory factor
analysis of the LNTSP using AMOS (Arbuckle &
Wothke, 2003). The measurement model fit the data
reasonably well (X2 ⫽ 267 [df ⫽ 293, p ⬍ .01]) ac-
cording to the following fit indices: GFI (.92), AGFI
(.88), IFI (.91), CFI (.90), and RMSEA (.06). Further-
177
more, maximum likelihood estimates across all
four dimensions ranged from .49 to .83, suggesting
that each item loaded significantly onto its respec-
tive scale. The descriptive statistics and correla-
tions among the LNTSP subscales and the CSI are
presented in Table 6. Similar to the results from
Studies 2 and 3, the external (EIS) and inner (IIS)
information source dimensions demonstrated a
significant negative relationship (r ⫽ -.48, p ⬍ .01),
as well as the linear (LDM) and nonlinear (NDM)
decision-making dimensions (r ⫽ -.40, p ⬍ .01). Fur-
thermore, EIS was related to LDM (r ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .05)
while IIS was associated with NDM (r ⫽ .32, p ⬍
.01). Demonstrating additional convergent validity,
the range of correlations among the LNTSP sub-
scales and CSI was -.29 to .34, suggesting that the
measures share a moderate amount of variance
but appear to tap conceptually differentiated con-
structs. As expected, the actors scored significantly
higher on the ISI (t ⫽ 3.65, p ⬍ .01) and NDM (t ⫽
5.47, p ⬍ .01) than the accountants, while the ac-
countants scored significantly higher on the EIS
(t ⫽ 3.65, p ⬍ .01) and LDM (t ⫽ 5.47, p ⬍ .01) than the
actors. Furthermore, the accountants scored signif-
icantly higher on the CSI (t ⫽ 2.47, p ⬍ .05) than the
actors, suggesting that the accountants preferred
an analytical, logical, and data-driven decision-
making style while the actors preferred an intui-
tive, emotional, feeling-based decision-making
style. Overall, these results are very consistent
with those of Study 1, which found that students in
the more quantitative accounting, finance, and en-
gineering academic programs significantly fa-
vored the linear LNTSP dimension compared to
“softer” management, marketing, and interna-
tional business students, who preferred the nonlin-
ear LNTSP dimension.
Overall Analyses of Linear–Nonlinear Thinking
Style Profiles
While studies 1– 4 provide empirical evidence of
the LNTSP’s psychometric properties, they do not
TABLE 6
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among
Measures for Study 4
M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5
1. EIS 1.54 (.58) (.92)
2. IIS 1.46 (.58) ⫺.48** (.92)
3. LDM 1.45 (.57) .28* ⫺.14 (.78)
4. NDM 1.55 (.57) ⫺.08 .32** ⫺.40** (.78)
5. CSI 38.41 (13.89) .30* ⫺.22* .34** ⫺.29* (.88)
Notes: N ⫽ 78. Numbers in parentheses are coefficient alphas.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
178 Academy of Management Learning & Education June

describe the multidimensional nature of the par-
ticipants’ thinking style profiles and implications
thereof. A series of simple post hoc analyses were
performed to describe all possible thinking style
profiles of participants across the four samples
(n ⫽ 575). Specifically, we calculated the quartiles
across the mean scores of each LNTSP dimension.
For example, the quartiles for the overall mean
LDM score were as follows: 1.43 (25th), 1.77 (50th),
and 2.00 (75th). The following descriptors were
used to characterize each level of LDM: 2.01–3.00
(“High Linear”); 1.78 –2.00 (“Medium Linear”); 1.44 –
1.77 (“Medium Nonlinear”); and 0 –1.43 (“High Non-
linear”). The same analyses were performed
across the other three dimensions (EIS, IIS, NDM) to
arrive at a matrix of all possible LNTSP profiles.
Table 7 presents all sixteen LNTSP profiles and the
frequency of each profile across the full sample
(n ⫽ 575). The results show that an almost identical
number of participants possess an extreme profile
(n ⫽ 170, 29.6%) as those reflecting a more bal-
anced, medium profile of scores across all dimen-
sions (n ⫽ 169, 29.39%). An extreme profile is de-
fined as either high on both EIS and LDM (cell 1) or
high on both IIS and NDM (cell 16), while a more
balanced profile reflects medium scores across all
dimensions (cells 6, 7, 10, & 11). In addition, it is
interesting to note that there are very few partici-
pants who fit extreme mixed linear–nonlinear pro-
files of high EIS and high NDM (cell 4), and high IIS
and high LDM (cell 13), contrary to what we would
expect if participant responses were simply ran-
dom.
DISCUSSION
Our primary purpose in this research was to de-
velop and test a comprehensive thinking style
model that accurately reflects a person’s propen-
sity to rely on linear and nonlinear sources of in-
formation and processes to guide subsequent ac-
tion. Our resulting model of linear and nonlinear
thinking style, supported by factor analyses and
multiple-sample comparison results, involves the
manner in which individuals attend to a particular
kind of information source (internal vs. external)
and the subsequent mental processing of that in-
formation. Furthermore, in the course of this model
conceptualization, our purpose was to develop and
validate an instrument that may be used to mea-
sure an individual’s tendency to use linear and
nonlinear thinking styles. This validated instru-

TABLE 7
Frequencies of all Possible LNTSP Information Source/Decision-Making Profiles for the Overall Sample
(N ⴝ 575)

High LDM/Low NDM Medium LDM Medium NDM High NDM/Low LDM

High EIS/Low IIS Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4

High External High External High External High External
Information Source & Information Source & Information Source & Information Source &
High Linear Decision Medium Linear Medium Nonlinear High Nonlinear
Making (n ⫽ 85, 14.8%) Decision Making Decision Making Decision Making
(n ⫽ 32, 6.09%) (n ⫽ 6, 1.04%) (n ⫽ 7, 1.22%)
Medium EIS Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
Medium External Medium External Medium External Medium External
Information Source & Information Source & Information Source & Information Source &
High Linear Decision Medium Linear Medium Nonlinear High Nonlinear
Making (n ⫽ 41, 7.13%) Decision Making Decision Making Decision Making
(n ⫽ 39, 6.78%) (n ⫽ 38, 6.61%) (n ⫽ 8, 1.39%)
Medium IIS Cell 9 Cell 10 Cell 11 Cell 12
Medium Internal Medium Internal Medium Internal Medium Internal
Information Source & Information Source & Information Source & Information Source &
High Linear Decision Medium Linear Medium Nonlinear High Nonlinear
Making (n ⫽ 7, 1.22%) Decision Making Decision Making Decision Making
(n ⫽ 29, 5.04%) (n ⫽ 63, 10.96%) (n ⫽ 46, 8.00%)
High IIS/Low EIS Cell 13 Cell 14 Cell 15 Cell 16
High Internal High Internal High Internal High Internal
Information Source & Information Source & Information Source & Information Source &
High Linear Decision Medium Linear Medium Nonlinear High Nonlinear
Making (n ⫽ 3, .52%) Decision Making Decision Making Decision Making
(n ⫽ 26, 4.52%) (n ⫽ 60, 10.43%) (n ⫽ 85, 14.8%)

Note: Profiles were developed by calculating the quartiles across the mean scores for the four LNTSP dimensions and designating
appropriate low, medium, and high descriptors.
2007 Vance, Groves, Paik, and Kindler
ment then would be useful for future research that
examines the importance of linear–nonlinear
thinking style balance—the notion that linear and
nonlinear thinking styles represent valuable com-
plementary approaches that together can enhance
the quality of management education outcomes
and professional practice, ultimately leading to
improved organizational productivity.
The results of this multiple-study investigation
provide preliminary support for our 4-factor model
of linear and nonlinear thinking style. Exploratory
and confirmatory factor analyses revealed a sim-
ple structure of four LNTSP factors that represent
our theorized components of linear and nonlinear
thinking styles, consistent with past 2-part models
of general thinking style involving information
source and decision-making process (Zhang, 2002;
Sternberg, 1997, 1994; Sternberg & Grigorenko,
1995). Namely, linear thinking style can be mea-
sured by an individual’s preference for considering
external data and facts and the processing of this
information through rational thinking to guide
subsequent action, while nonlinear thinking style
can be assessed by an individual’s preference for
attending to internal sources, such as feelings and
intuition, and using inner processes such as feel-
ings, hunches, and insight to inform and guide
subsequent action. We also found the participants
in our research to possess relatively strong think-
ing style consistency, with little tendency for indi-
viduals to have a mixed linear–nonlinear thinking
style profile (e.g., high internal source of informa-
tion and high linear decision-making approach, or
high external source of information and high non-
linear decision-making approach).
We noted external validation support for our in-
strument in its ability to distinguish individuals
who are generally known to possess relatively
high nonlinear thinking styles (e.g., women, mar-
keting majors, professional actors) from individu-
als who are generally known to possess relatively
high linear thinking styles (e.g., men, engineering
majors, accountants). Furthermore, we established
preliminary evidence of the LNTSP’s construct va-
lidity vis-à-vis intercorrelations with established
personality type and thinking style measures, the
MBTI and CSI. Our results suggest that while the
three measures share a modest amount of variance
in thinking style, the LNTSP appears to tap unique
dimensions of the information sources and pro-
cesses that individuals utilize for making deci-
sions. We believe that our conceptual model rep-
resents a distinctive approach to understanding
thinking styles and that the LNTSP provides poten-
tially useful diagnostic feedback on the degree to
which individuals tend to use linear and nonlinear
179
approaches in their thinking styles. Furthermore,
our research provides initial conceptual and em-
pirical support for a more comprehensive and mul-
tifaceted construct and measure of nonlinear
thinking style that overcomes theoretical and prac-
tical limitations of other instruments.
Implications for Management Education
Professionals in management education, includ-
ing professors, human resource practitioners, and
executive development specialists, may utilize our
LNTSP instrument for a range of management ed-
ucation applications. Given evidence that manag-
ers and other professionals must apply both linear
and nonlinear approaches to clarify objectives, un-
cover hidden opportunities, systematically investi-
gate and resolve stubborn problems, and reach
difficult decisions complicated by a variety of
stakeholders (Nadler, 2004; Katz, 1997; Csikszentmi-
halyi, 1996; Senge, 1990), the LNTSP measure may
provide such individuals with valuable insight
concerning their flexibility and degree of balance
in using linear and nonlinear thinking style di-
mensions. For example, the LNTSP measure may
suggest that an individual utilizes linear and non-
linear thinking style balance and flexibility (e.g.,
cells 6, 7, 10 and 11 in Table 7 indicating medium
levels of IIS, EIS, NDM, and LDM), or that the indi-
vidual tends to favor a linear or nonlinear thinking
style approach (cells 1, 2, 5 or 12, 15, 16). We assert
that when managers consistently favor one dimen-
sion over the other, they are not addressing the
above highly demanding activities with full
strength and flexibility, and organizational perfor-
mance will inevitably suffer. The challenge for
professors and other management educators is to
accurately diagnose individuals’ thinking style
profiles and provide development opportunities
that address their less preferred thinking modality
to achieve a synergistic pattern that fully utilizes
the strengths of both styles.
While linear and nonlinear thinking styles de-
velop through many years of use and are influ-
enced by traits and personality variables (Stern-
berg, 1997), they can be changed through conscious
and willful developmental effort to improve think-
ing style flexibility and versatility. In our work-
shops for building thinking style flexibility and
versatility, participants complete the LNTSP and
are provided immediate feedback on the nature of
their linear–nonlinear thinking style profile. We
then work with participants across three diagnos-
tic groups (linear-dominant, nonlinear-dominant,
and balanced) to understand and practice comple-
mentary perceptual and decision-making pro-
180 Academy of Management Learning & Education
cesses in specific organizational scenarios utiliz-
ing a style that they normally would not employ.
For example, a group of managers for whom the
LNTSP has indicated a predominantly linear think-
ing style would be provided a vignette represent-
ing a realistic work-related problem situation,
which calls for a nonlinear approach for optimal
decision making. After participants individually
and collectively reach a decision for the vignette
using their primarily linear approach, we present
several alternative nonlinear approaches for ana-
lyzing the problem situation and generating solu-
tions. We also provide training in dealing with
ambiguity, holding problems in abeyance for ef-
fective incubation, full use of the senses and feel-
ings for expanded perceptiveness, and relaxation
techniques for enhanced mental preparation to re-
ceive insights. In subsequent vignettes we ask par-
ticipants to practice using new nonlinear ap-
proaches to problem solving and decision making.
For participants whose LNTSP scores point to a
predominant nonlinear style, we provide training
in rational, critical thinking skills involving a sys-
tematic process of analysis in problem solving.
Participants practice solving various organiza-
tional vignettes using different criteria or lenses
for analysis—including technical, economic, so-
cial–psychological, political, and legal– ethical
perspectives—and systematically applying each
lens for analysis before coming to a solution for the
vignette. We also involve in the aforementioned
training those participants for whom the LNTSP
instrument demonstrates a balance in linear and
nonlinear thinking to increase their self-aware-
ness, help maintain and reinforce this balance,
and model their thinking style flexibility for the
benefit and learning of other participants. In fact,
we have found that through effective sharing and
interaction among participants in our training pro-
cess, those with predominant nonlinear styles can
help the linear thinkers build greater awareness
and thinking style flexibility, and vice versa. The
active participant interaction and sharing also
clearly lead to a greater affirmation and appreci-
ation for others possessing a predominant comple-
mentary thinking style.
Limitations and Future Research
As with any preliminary validation study, there
are a number of limitations that should be consid-
ered and addressed in future LNTSP research.
First, the use of forced-choice item pairs may have
introduced method bias among the LNTSP factors
in that an individual’s high or low scores across
EIS and LDM produce corresponding low or high
June
scores across IIS and NDM, respectively. And while
some researchers have criticized the use of these
ipsative, forced-choice items and exploratory fac-
tor analysis to extract a measure’s dimensions
(e.g., Baron, 1996; Cornwell & Dunlap, 1994), others
have successfully utilized such items and analysis
strategy to produce sound factors and control for
biased responses due to social desirability (e.g.,
Wong, Law, & Wong, 2004; Chan & Bentler, 1993;
Saville & Willson, 1991). Furthermore, Chan and
Bentler (1996) have shown that maximum likeli-
hood estimation in confirmatory factor analysis
may be effectively utilized with ipsative data and
that the resulting test statistics are consistent with
that of nonipsative data sets. More fundamentally,
in the present study the inherent dependence of
the two choices for each item is consistent with the
two general types (linear and nonlinear) of infor-
mation processing systems in human beings pre-
sented by the literature (e.g., Epstein, 2002; Goll-
witzer & Bayer, 1999; Sloman, 1996), where a
decision toward a more linear approach consti-
tutes a corresponding move away from nonlinear,
and vice versa. Furthermore, scores on the infor-
mation source dimensions identified in this study
are independent of the scores on the decision-
making dimensions, since it is possible, for exam-
ple, for individuals high in IIS or EIS to also be high
in LDM or NDM (refer to Table 7). Thus, despite the
ipsative nature of our instrument, the exploratory
results of Study 1 and confirmatory results of Stud-
ies 2, 3, and 4 appear to provide preliminary sup-
port for the LNTSP’s factor structure.
In addition, the present study did not address the
LNTSP’s predictive validity or its incremental va-
lidity beyond that of competing measures. More-
over, the LNTSP’s predictive validity should be es-
tablished vis-à-vis behavioral performance
outcomes to assess the dimensions’ proximal effect
on actual performance measures. Future research
would do well to establish the percentage of
unique variance that the LNTSP explains in effec-
tive managerial behavior beyond the MBTI, CSI,
and other factors, such as cognitive ability, mana-
gerial experience, and leadership style. Also, the
present study did not address the LNTSP’s consis-
tency over time; thus, future investigations need to
compare respondents’ scores over time to establish
test–retest reliability estimates. Finally, future
LNTSP research would benefit from cross-cultural
studies to further establish the measure’s external
validity and stability across diverse populations.
There are a range of very interesting and poten-
tially fruitful avenues for future research on the
LNTSP and linear–nonlinear thinking styles. First,
given the basic assertion here that a flexible and
2007 Vance, Groves, Paik, and Kindler
balanced use of both linear and nonlinear thinking
styles is associated with effective professional per-
formance in organizations, future concurrent valid-
ity research using the LNTSP should examine the
link between level of linear–nonlinear thinking
style balance (e.g., high linear vs. balanced linear–
nonlinear vs. high nonlinear thinking style) and
various measures of professional and managerial
effectiveness. The predictive validity of the LNTSP
and the underlying notion of linear–nonlinear
thinking style balance also could be tested by
measuring new employee thinking style balance
and assessing the instrument’s ability to predict
future employee success measures, such as sales
or overall performance appraisal scores.
In addition, future studies may pursue the pos-
sible link between an individual’s flexible reliance
on both linear and nonlinear sources of informa-
tion and decision-making processes and perfor-
mance in such critical areas as “moral imagina-
tion” (Werhane, 1999; Ciulla, 1998), ethical or
socially responsible behavior (Groves, Vance,
Paik, & Kindler, 2005; Klein, 2002; Pennino, 2002),
and strategic management (Miller & Ireland, 2005).
Given the recently publicized accounting scandals
in many U.S. businesses, ethical behavior is a par-
ticularly poignant issue for managers and execu-
tives in critical decision-making positions as well
as business school faculty and professionals in
management education. Also, further research is
needed to understand the importance of balanced
linear–nonlinear thinking style according to man-
agement level and an individual’s career progres-
sion. Indeed, Katz’s (1974) popular model of three
core managerial skills, which include technical,
human or interpersonal, and conceptual, suggests
that managers at the highest organizational levels
require mostly conceptual and human skills, while
lower level managers require mostly technical and
human skills. More recently, empirical research
has supported the notion that significantly higher
levels of intuitive, nonlinear thinking styles are
associated with greater levels of seniority (e.g.,
Allinson & Hayes, 1996), while lower level employ-
ees are characterized by greater levels of linear,
analytical thinking (e.g., Hodgkinson & Sadler-
Smith, 2003). The LNTSP instrument may be used to
assess the extent to which conceptual thinking,
strategic thinking, and decision making require an
effective balance of linear (external) and nonlinear
(internal) sources of information and thought pro-
cesses.
Another particularly interesting avenue of future
research is the value of flexible and balanced lin-
ear–nonlinear thinking styles for effective leader-
ship behavior. Much of the last 20 years of leader-
181
ship theory and research has addressed the
efficacy of transformational and charismatic lead-
ership models (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002), as
well as the relationship between social– emotional
intelligence and transformational– charismatic
leadership behavior (e.g., Sosik & Dworakivsky,
1998; Cooper & Sawaf, 1996). However, the in-
creased attention devoted to examining emotional
intelligence as a predictor of exemplary leader-
ship suggests that the field of leadership theory
and research may need a new look at the corre-
lates of effective leadership. We recommend that
future research on leadership behavior, transfor-
mational or otherwise, examine the relative contri-
bution of balanced and flexible linear and nonlin-
ear thinking as a strong predictor of exemplary
leadership, as suggested by Rowe’s (2001) model of
“strategic leadership,” involving a balance of vi-
sionary (i.e., nonlinear) and managerial (i.e., lin-
ear) leadership efforts for creating value in orga-
nizations.
The LNTSP may have important implications for
enhancing creativity and innovation in organiza-
tions and requires further study. Effective creative
performance may rely primarily upon nonlinear
thinking skills, but the most effective problem-
solving behavior might require both linear and
nonlinear thinking skills for testing and evaluat-
ing creative alternatives for selection (Nadler, 2004;
Katz, 1997; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). In addition, be-
sides creative idea generation, the effective calcu-
lated and planned implementation of creative
ideas and directions for organizational innovation
and change might also require complementary lin-
ear skills (Rowe, 2001). Furthermore, there are use-
ful research applications at the group and organi-
zation level. To create a context or working
environment that effectively supports creativity
and innovation, a workforce that is composed of
individuals with strong thinking style balance
might provide a more supportive context than one
where some employees are high in linear thinking
while others are high in nonlinear thinking—yet
still on average reflecting a similar thinking style
balance across the workforce.
Finally, where the value of linear–nonlinear
thinking style balance and flexibility is clearly
demonstrated by subsequent research in various
educational and organizational contexts, an addi-
tional compelling prescriptive research direction
would be on methods of management education
and training that are the most effective in building
linear skills or building nonlinear skills—which-
ever is diagnosed by the LNTSP as being low—
toward greater balance and flexible use. There
might also be differing optimal developmental ap-
182 Academy of Management Learning & Education
proaches for the different dimensions within each
style. For example, within the nonlinear style, the
most effective approach for developing creative
thinking skills may differ from the most effective
approach for developing inner feeling aware-
ness. Thus, subsequent research on the most
cost-effective approaches for achieving linear–
nonlinear thinking style balance and flexibility
could be very beneficial.
REFERENCES
Abdolmohammadi, M. J., Read, W. J., & Scarbrough, D. P. 2003.
Does selection-socialization help to explain accountants’
weak ethical reasoning? Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1):
71– 81.
Allinson, A.W., Chell, E., & Hayes, J. 2000. Intuition and entre-
preneurial behaviour. European Journal of Work and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 9(1): 31– 43.
Allinson, A.W., & Hayes, J. 1996. The Cognitive Style Index: A
measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research.
Journal of Management Studies, 33: 119 –135.
American Education Research Association. 1999. Standards in
educational and psychological testing: American Education
Research Association (AERA), American Psychological As-
sociation (APA), & National Council on Measurement in
Education (NCME). Washington, DC: American Education
Research Association.
Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. 1999. AMOS 4 user’s reference guide.
Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.
Argyle, M. 1990. The psychology of interpersonal behavior. Har-
mondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Aupperle, K. E. 1996. Spontaneous organisational reconfigura-
tion: A historical example based on Xenophon’s Anabasis.
Organization Science, 7(4): 445– 460.
Aupperle, K. E., & Karimalis, G. N. 2001. Using metaphors to
facilitate cooperation and resolve conflict: Examining the
case of Disneyland Paris. Journal of Change Management,
2(1): 23–32.
Baron, H. 1996. Strengths and limitations of ipsative measure-
ment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 69: 49 –56.
Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables.
New York: Wiley.
Bonabeau, E. 2003. Don’t trust your gut. Harvard Business Re-
view, May: 116 –123.
Bromage, N. 2000. No business without show business. Manage-
ment Accounting, 78(3): 52–53.
Buenger, V., Daft, R. L., Conlon, E. J., & Austin, J. 1996. Competing
values in organizations: Contextual influences and struc-
tural consequences. Organization Science, 7(5): 557–576.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. 2003. Foundations of
positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E.
Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Schol-
arship: 3–13. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Capra, F. 1996. The web of life. New York: Anchor Books.
Chan, W., & Bentler, P. 1993. The covariance structure. Sociolog-
ical Methods & Research, 22(2): 214 –247.
June
Chan, W., & Bentler, P. 1996. Covariance structure analysis of
partially additive ipsative data using restricted maximum
likelihood estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
31(3): 289 –312.
Ciulla, J. B. 1998. Imagination, fantasy, wishful thinking, and
truth. Business Ethics Quarterly, Special Issue #1: 99 –107.
Claxton, G. 2001. The anatomy of intuition. In T. Atkinson & G.
Claxton (Eds.), The intuitive practitioner: 32-52. Bucking-
ham, UK: Open University Press.
Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. 1996. Executive EQ: Emotional intel-
ligence in leadership and organizations. New York: Gros-
set/Putnam.
Cooperrider, D., Sorensen, P., Whitney, D., & Yeager, T. (Eds.)
2000. Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization
toward a positive theory of change. Champaign, IL: Stipes
Publishing.
Cornwell, J., & Dunlap, W. 1994. On the questionable soundness
of factoring ipsative data: A response to Saville & Willson
(1991). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 67: 89 –100.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the psychology
of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins Pub-
lishers.
Damasio, A. R. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the
human brain. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. 2006. Exploring intuition and its role in
managerial decision-making. Academy of Management
Review (in press).
DeBono, E. 1992. Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral
thinking to create new ideas. New York: HarperCollins Pub-
lishers.
Dorfman, J., Shames, V. A., & Kihlstrom, J. F. 1996. Intuition,
incubation and insight: Implicit cognition in problem solv-
ing. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Implicit cognition: 257–296. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. 2002. A meta-analysis
of transformational and transactional leadership correlates
of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension.
Transformational and Charismatic Leadership, 2: 35– 66.
Epstein, S. 2002. Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personal-
ity. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive hand-
book of psychology, Vol. 5: 159 –184, Personality and social
psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. 1988. Learning styles and teach-
ing styles in engineering education. Engineering Educa-
tion, 78: 674 – 681.
Garden, A. 1991. Unresolved issues with the Meyers-Briggs Type
Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 22: 3–14.
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. 1996. Using the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator to study managers: A literature review and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 22: 45– 82.
Geary, W., & Rooney, C. 1993. Designing accounting education
to achieve balanced intellectual development. Issues in
Accounting Education, 8(Spring): 60 –70.
Gibb, S. 2004. Imagination, creativity, and HRD: An aesthetic
perspective. Human Resource Development Review, 3(1):
53–74.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter
more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
2007 Vance, Groves, Paik, and Kindler
Goleman, D. 1998. Emotional intelligence at work. New York:
Bantam.
Gollwitzer, P., & Bayer, U. 1999. Deliberative versus implemen-
tal mindsets in the control of action. In S. Chaiken & Y.
Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology:
403– 422. New York: Guilford Press.
Gorsuch, R. L. 1983. Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gregersen, H., & Sailer, L. 1993. Chaos theory and its implica-
tions for social science research. Human Relations, 46(7):
777– 802.
Groves, K., Vance, C., & Paik, Y., & Kindler, H. 2005. Linking
linear/nonlinear thinking style balance and managerial
ethical decision-making. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, HI.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. 1998.
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Harris, P. 1994. Can management accountants make decisions?
Management Accounting, 72(7): 14.
Hirsh, S., & Kummerow, J. 1998. Introduction to type in organi-
zations. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Hodgkinson, G., & Sadler-Smith, E. 2003. Complex or unitary? A
critique and re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive
Style Index. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 76: 243–262.
Holland, J. 1998. Emergence: From chaos to order. Redwood City,
CA: Addison-Wesley.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. 1992. The manual of learning styles
(3rd ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: Peter Honey Publica-
tions.
Horgan, J. 1989. Nonlinear thinking. Scientific American, 260(6):
26 –27.
Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J., & Judd, C. M. 2002. Research methods
in social relations. Fort Worth, TX: Wadsworth.
Hussey, D. 2001. Creative strategic thinking and the analytical
process: Critical factors for strategic success. Strategic
Change, 10(4): 201–213.
James, M. 2003. Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator as a tool
for leadership development? Apply with caution. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(1): 68.
Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. 1991. Research methods
in social relations. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanov-
ich, Inc.
Kaiser, H. F. 1970. A second-generation little jiffy. Psy-
chometrika, 35: 410 – 415.
Kaiser, H. F. 1974. Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational & Psychology
Measurement, 34: 111–117.
Katz, R. L. 1974. Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard
Business Review, Sept./Oct.: 90 –102.
Katz, A. 1997. Creativity in the cerebral hemispheres. In M.A.
Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook: 203–206.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Kenny, D. A. 2000. Measuring model fit. Retrieved from www.ad-
venergy.com/⬃dakenny/causalm.htm.
Klein, S. 2002. The head, the heart, and business virtues. Journal
of Business Ethics, 39: 347–359.
Kolb, D. A. 1984. The process of experiential learning. In D. A.
183
Kolb (Ed.), Experiential learning: 20 –38. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. 2005a. The Kolb learning style inven-
tory—version 3.1: Technical specifications. Boston, MA: Hay
Resources Direct.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. 2005b. Learning styles and learning
spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher educa-
tion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2):
193–212.
LeDoux, J. 1996. The emotional brain. New York: Touchstone/
Simon & Schuster.
Leonard, D., Scholl, R. W., & Kowalski, K. B. 1999. Information
processing style and decision-making. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 20: 407– 420.
Leonard, D., & Straus, S. 1997. Putting your company’s whole
brain to work. Harvard Business Review, July/August: 111–
121.
Lichtenstein, B., & Mendenhall, M. E. 2002. Non-linearity and
response-ability: Emergent order in 21st century careers.
Human Relations, 55(1): 3–32.
Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. 2004. The role of positivity and con-
nectivity in the performance of business teams: A nonlinear
dynamics model. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6):
740 –765.
Maani, K. E., & Maharaj, V. 2004. Links between systems think-
ing and complex decision making. System Dynamics Re-
view, 20(1): 21– 48.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P.T. 1989. Reinterpreting the Meyers-
Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five factor
model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57: 17– 40.
Miller, C., & Ireland, D. 2005. Intuition in strategic decision
making: Friend or foe in the fast-paced 21st century. Acad-
emy of Management Executive, 19(1): 19 –30.
Morgan, G. 1987. Images of organization, (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Moshavi, D. 2001. “Yes and ” . . . : Introducing improvisational
theatre techniques to the management classroom. Journal
of Management Education, 25(4): 437– 449.
Myers, I. B. 1998. Introduction to type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Nadler, G. 2004. Taking a holistic path. Industrial Management,
46(6): 26 –31.
Parker, D., & Stacey, R. 1998. Chaos management and econom-
ics: The implications of non-linear thinking. London: The
Institute of Economic Affairs.
Pennino, C. 2002. Is decision style related to moral development
among managers in the U.S.? Journal of Business Ethics, 41:
337–347.
Peters, T. F. 1998. How creative engineers think. Civil Engineer-
ing, 68(3): 48 –51.
Petrides, V., & Furnham, A. 2000. Gender differences in mea-
sured and self-estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex
Roles, 6: 449 – 461.
Pinard, M. C., & Allio, R. J. 2005. Innovations in the classroom:
Improving the creativity of MBA students. Strategy & Lead-
ership, 33(1): 49 –51.
Poneman, L., & Glazer, A. 1990. Accounting education and eth-
ical development: The influence of liberal learning on stu-
184 Academy of Management Learning & Education
dents and alumni in accounting practice. Issues in Account-
ing Education, 5(2): 195–208.
Regine, B., & Lewin, R. 2003. Third possibility leaders: The in-
visible edge women have in complex organizations. The
Learning Organization, 10(6): 347–352.
Riggio, R. E. 1986. Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 649 – 660.
Rowe, W. G. 2001. Creating wealth in organizations: The role of
strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive,
15(1): 81–94.
Runco, M. A. 2004. Creativity. Annual Review of Psycyhology, 55:
657– 687.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Shefy, E. 2004. The intuitive executive: Un-
derstanding and applying “gut feel” in decision-making.
Academy of Management Executive, 18(4): 76 –91.
Saville, P., & Willson, E. 1991. Journal of Occupational Psychol-
ogy, 64: 219 –238.
Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Hall, E., Haggerty, D., Cooper, J., Golden,
D., & Dornheim, L. 1998. Development and validation of a
measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 25: 167–177.
Segal, E. 2004. Incubation in insight problem solving. Creativity
Research Journal, 16(1): 141–148.
Seligman, M. E. P. 1998. Learned optimism: How to change your
mind and your life (2nd ed.). New York: Pocket Books.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the
learning organization. London: Random House.
Shelton, C. D., & Darling, J. R. 2003. From theory to practice:
Using new science concepts to create learning organiza-
tions. The Learning Organization, 10(6): 353–360.
Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. 2005. Speed and search: Designing
organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization
Science, 16(2): 101–123.
Simon, H. A. 1987. Making management decisions: The role of
intuition and emotion. Academy of Management Executive,
1(1): 57– 64.
Simon, H. A., Newell, A., & Shaw, J. C. 1979. The process of
creative thinking. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Models of thought:
195–214. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sipps, G. J., & DiCaudo, J. 1988. Convergent and discriminant
validity of the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator as a measure
of sociability and impulsivity. Educational and Psycholog-
ical Measurement, 48: 445– 451.
Skordoulis, R. T. 2004. Strategic flexibility and change: An aid to
strategic thinking or another managerial abstraction? Stra-
tegic Change, 13(5): 253–258.
Sloman, S. A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of rea-
soning. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 3–22.
Smith, M. 1999. Personality issues and their impact on account-
ing and auditing. Managerial Auditing Journal, 14(9): 453–
460.
Charles M. Vance teaches graduates and undergraduates in the area of human resources at
Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Much of his research and consulting has
focused on the design and management of university curriculum and corporate learning
systems in the United States and abroad. He recently completed dual Fulbright appointments
in China and Austria. Vance enjoys exercising his nonlinear creative side with his quarterly
editorial cartooning in his final “Out of Whack” section of the Journal of Management Inquiry.
He also occasionally sings and yodels for his students to potently illustrate a point in class.
June
Sosik, J. J., & Dworakivsky, A. C. 1998. Self-concept based as-
pects of the charismatic leader: More than meets the eye.
Leadership Quarterly, 9: 503–526.
Sternberg, R. J. 1988. Mental self-government: A theory of intel-
lectual styles and their development. Human Development,
31: 197–224.
Sternberg, R. J. 1994. Thinking styles: Theory and assessment at
the interface between intelligence and personality. In R. J.
Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Intelligence and personality:
169 –187. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. 1997. Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. 2002. Successful intelligence: A new approach to
leadership. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo
(Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership: 9 –28. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. 1995. Styles of thinking in the
school. European Journal for High Ability, 6: 201–219.
Torrance, E. P., McCarthy, B., & Kolesinski, M. T. 1988. Style of
learning and thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing
Service.
Tsoukas, H. H. 1991. The missing link: A transformational view
of metaphors in organizational Science. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 16(3): 566 –585.
Walck, C. L. 1996. Management and leadership. In A. L. Hammer
(Ed.), MBTI applications: A decade of research on the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator: 55–75. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press, Inc.
Waldrop, M. M. 1992. Complexity: The emerging science at the
edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Werhane, P. H. 1999. Moral imagination and management deci-
sion-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wheatley, M. 1987. Leadership and the new science. San Fran-
cisco: Barrett-Koehler.
Wong, C., Law, K., & Wong, P. 2004. Development and validation
of a forced choice emotional intelligence measure for Chi-
nese respondents in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 21: 535–559.
Yaniv, I., & Meyer, D. E. 1987. Activation and metacognition of
inaccessible stored information: Potential bases for incu-
bation effects in problem solving. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13: 187–205.
Zaccaro, S. J. 2002. Organizational leadership and social intel-
ligence. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.),
Multiple intelligences and leadership: 29 –54. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zalewski, L. J., Sink, C. A., & Yachimowicz, D. J. 1992. Using
cerebral dominance for education programs. The Journal of
General Psychology, 119: 45–57.
Zhang, L. 2002. Thinking styles similar to modes of thinking:
Thinking styles and modes of thinking: Implications for
education and research. The Journal of Psychology, 136(3):
245–261.
2007 Vance, Groves, Paik, and Kindler 185

Kevin S. Groves (PhD, Claremont Graduate University) is assistant professor of management

and director of the PepsiCo Leadership Center at California State University, Los Angeles. His
research and consulting interests include managerial thinking styles, ethical decision mak-
ing, executive leadership development and succession planning systems, charismatic lead-
ership, and leader emotional intelligence. He teaches undergraduate, MBA, and doctoral-level
classes across a range of management, organizational behavior, and leadership subjects. Dr.
Groves’ recent research has been published in such journals as the Journal of Management,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
and the Journal of Management Development.

Yongsun Paik (PhD, international business, University of Washington) is professor of interna-

tional business and management in the College of Business Administration, Loyola Mary-
mount University. His primary research interests focus on international human resource
management, global strategic alliances, and Asia Pacific business studies. Paik has recently
published articles in Journal of World Business, Management International Review, Journal of
International Management, Business Horizons, International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement, Journal of Management Inquiry, and Human Resource Management Journal, among
others.

Herb Kindler (PhD), is emeritus professor at Loyola Marymount University and director of Herb
Kindler & Associates, a firm that conducts training programs on clear and creative thinking,
managing disagreement constructively, stress management, and leadership skill building.