Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the competency models used by organizations to assess the strategic thinking ability of their leaders, managers, and other employees. Design/methodology/approach - A basic interpretive study was conducted with human resource executives across a broad range of large organizations. Participants were interviewed, and competency models in use were shared, reviewed, and discussed. The model development process was also explored in depth. Findings were verified via member checks and triangulation. Findings - Models in use either identify strategic thinking as a stand-alone competency, or embed it under three different areas. Most cover one or more executive levels, stating varying expectations for strategic thinking by job title or level, or differentiating strategic thinking performance levels. The models include descriptions of strategic thinking behaviors that cross seven categories of strategy development, implementation, and organizational alignment. Research limitations/implications - The study provides indications of potential generalizations that should be considered with more organizations across sectors. Practical implications - The findings provide practitioners with format and content examples to enhance the assessment of strategic thinking in existing competency models, as well as process considerations for model development/revision. The findings also identify how competency model components are used across the spectrum of talent management activities. Originality/value - The study fills a gap in the literature by providing empirically based identification of the strategic thinking behaviors organizations consider essential competencies and how they are assessed. In so doing, the study provides a glimpse of how strategic thinking is used in practice and across a range of strategic management activities. In addition, the study links strategic thinking to the competency development literature, illustrating details of competency model development for strategic thinking, and identifying opportunities for related theory development in both domains.
