����������

When CEOs make strategic decisions such as where to compete, what to prioritize or how to grow, many rely on instinct—that gut feeling often credited for Steve Jobs’ success at Apple. But a new study of hundreds of CEOs shows that it’s a structured decision-making process, not intuition, that drives success.

Mu-Jeung (MJ) Yang

“CEOs who are most effective start by identifying the real problems, consider multiple possible solutions, and then test their assumptions with evidence,” said��Mu-Jeung (MJ) Yang, co-author of the study and assistant professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at the Leeds School of Business. “They use a structured process, very much like how a scientist approaches a problem.”

Why CEO strategy is hard to study

Understanding how CEOs make strategic decisions has long been elusive in management research. “Whenever we study successful companies like Apple or Nvidia, it’s tempting to list all the reasons they succeed—hindsight makes it look obvious,” Yang said. “But leaders don’t have a clear view of the future when they make decisions. If the key factors for success were that obvious, everyone would follow them and the competitive advantage would disappear.”

Most research, he added, looks backward at outcomes rather than at the decision-making process itself. And because CEOs are difficult to reach and strategy discussions are often confidential, large-scale research on how they actually make choices has been rare.

To address this blind spot, Yang and his colleagues surveyed 262 Harvard Business School alumni currently serving as CEOs across the U.S., U.K., and Canada, spanning industries from manufacturing to tech to health care. The study, published in��in September 2025, offers a look into how top executives make strategic calls that can influence a company’s health.

The researchers, including Michael Christensen of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School; Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University; and Raffaella Sadun and Jan Rivkin of Harvard Business School, asked CEOs to describe recent strategic changes—such as entering new markets or launching products—and how those decisions were made and tested. Using structured interviews modeled on the World Management Survey, they scored responses on a continuum from intuitive, reactive styles to structured, evidence-based ones. “We wanted to understand the process, not just the outcomes,” Yang said. “How do great strategies actually come to be?”

Structure pays off

The study found that CEOs who used more structured, analytical approaches tended to lead larger and faster-growing companies. Over time, their firms’ performance improved, which points to the advantages of systematic decision-making, Yang said.

Structured strategic thinking shares much with critical thinking and the scientific method, he added. “It starts with identifying problems proactively, not just reacting when something goes wrong,” he said. “Then you cultivate multiple possible solutions, spell out what would have to be true for each to succeed, and test those assumptions with evidence.”

He added that structure doesn’t mean getting bogged down with bureaucracy and pointed to Procter & Gamble under former CEO A.G. Lafley as an example. Instead of endless PowerPoint presentations, Lafley and consultant Roger Martin focused discussions on core questions such as where to invest and what assumptions must hold true for success.

Business school matters

The study also found that business education can have a lasting influence on how executives think. Looking at changes in Harvard Business School’s strategy curriculum, the researchers traced differences in CEOs’ strategic styles back to their exposure to the decision-making frameworks of Michael Porter, a Harvard Business School professor and economist known for his influential research on business strategy.

“Whatever we teach in business education will stay with students for a long time and may even shape how they interpret the world,” Yang said. “At the same time, we should move away from only explaining why some firms did well in the past toward giving tomorrow’s leaders tools to come up with great strategies going forward.”

The future of strategic thinking

Yang believes that tools like artificial intelligence could eventually enhance CEO decision-making. “AI can be an opportunity to improve strategic decision-making if deployed correctly,” he said. “It can’t replace expert decision-makers, but it can be a thought partner that boosts critical thinking and helps avoid costly mistakes.”

Whether CEOs are aided by AI or not, Yang stressed that strategic decisions work best when they’re approached systematically and thoughtfully.

“It’s about being proactive, consistent and hypothesis-driven—making decisions by testing assumptions, not just by going with your gut,” he said.