The Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Quinn, 1984, 1988; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) is a widely used framework, developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), based on paradoxical tensions in organizations. The methodology has been elaborated by Quinn (1988), Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) and Howard (1998). The CVF includes competing values that exist in any human system, in particular the tension between stability and change and, between an internal and external focus (Denison &
Spreitzer, 1991). This model highlights contradictory yet complementary elements that must be balanced in order to enhance organizational effectiveness. The CVF model sheds light on differences along the dimensions of flexibility versus control and internal versus external focus. Four quadrants and eight leadership roles are represented in a circular pattern based on the two underlying dimensions (Quinn, 1988) (see Figure 5.4).
Figure 5-4: Competing Values Framework (Quinn, 1988)
7KH UHVHDUFK WHVWLQJ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 4XLQQảV RULJLQDO &9) RIIHUV VRPH VXSSRUW IRU WKH PRGHO (Belasen & Frank, 2008; Hartnell et al., 2011). Denison et al. (1995), using multidimensional scaling, reported strong support for a four-quadrant model , but found that the location of the eight roles was
Hierarchy culture
Clan culture
Market culture Adhocracy
culture
64
different from the original hypothesis when they used a test of convergent-discriminant validity. From their circumplex model they reported that for more effective managers the facilitator and mentor needed to exchanges places, as did the coordinator and monitor. That is, the monitor was found to fall closer to the stability axis than did the coordinator and the mentor was found to fall closer to the internal focus axis than did the facilitator (see Table 5.3 for the behavioral items corresponding to the eight roles (Quinn, 1988)).
Table 5-3: Roles and behavioral items of Competing Values Framework (Quinn, 1988)
Clients are missing
The CVF did not fully fit the strategic leadership model as conceptualized based on the literature review. At first instance, the Exploitation- Environment quadrant seemed to fit the CVF quadrant
³PD[LPL]DWLRQRIRXWSXW´Yet, the roles included in the ³maximization of output´ quadrant, producer and director, reflect more internally focused behaviors. The producer role comprises the behaviors
³FRPSOHWHV WDVNV DQG LV ZRUN IRFXVHG´ ³PRWLYDWHV EHKDYLRU´ DQG VHHNV FORVXUH´ 7KH GLUHctor role includes WKHEHKDYLRUV³VHWVJRDOVFODULILHVUROHVDQGHVWDEOLVKHVFOHDUH[SHFWDWLRQV´7KHVHbehaviors
65 are aimed at members inside the organization. There is no mentioning of clients in this quadrant.
Likewise, Hooijberg and Choi (2000), using a 360-degree feedback approach with 252 managers and their staff from public utilities, argued that there are six rather than eight roles. Using confirmatory factor analysis, they found that high intercorrelations existed among producer, director and coordinator. This suggested to them the existence of a second-order factor, underlying these three UROHVZKLFKWKH\ODEHOHG³JRDODFKLHYHPHQW´
Yet, in the competitive landscape of today customer sovereignty (Bishop & Hoel, 2008; Harris &
Ogbonna, 1999) is increasingly important. The long-term success of organizations depends on whether organizations deliver client-perceived value. The required external orientation to deliver client value, however might interfere with the focus on the internal organization. This might be the reason why organizations have so much difficulty to do both (Paulin et al., 2000).
Innovation at different levels of analysis
It seems that the CVF is mixing levels of analysis. Whereas the mentor role is aimed at follower behavior ³LVDZDUHRILQGLYLGXDOQHHGVDQGIDFLOLWDWHVGHYHORSPHQW´³OLVWHQVDFWLYHO\´DQG³LVIDLU´
the facilitator role ³H[SUHVVHV RSLQLRQV´ ³VHHNV FRQVHQVXV´ DQG ³QHJRWLDWHV FRPSURPLVH´ PD\
influence the organizational climate. Hartnell et al.ảV(2011) meta-analysis demonstrated a positive relationship between the human commitment quadrant with employee attitudes. Conceptually, managers can affect employee behavior and organizational innovation in several different ways.
/HDGHUV FDQ GLUHFW HPSOR\HHVả LQGLYLGXDO Dnd joint efforts towards innovative work processes and outcomes (Amabile, 1996). And leaders can significantly boost organizational creativity, by creating and sustaining an organizational climate and culture that nurtures creative efforts and facilitates diffusion of learning (Yukl, 2002). These behaviors are aimed at different levels of analysis. The CVF models seems to implicitly combine these.
Despite its reported content validity and widespread use in research and practice, there has been little thorough assessment of the theoretical foundation of the CVF (Hartnell et al., 2011). In general, empirical results provide support for the two-dimensional model (flexibility versus stability and internal versus external focus) (Buenger et al., 1996; Kalliath et al., 1999; Lawrence et al., 2009).
Given the objective of this research to clearly identify differences of leadership aimed at different levels of analysis and the misfit (of roles and content of the quadrants) of the CVF and the strategic model as conceptualized earlier, a new model has been developed to conceptualize strategic leadership. In this model the axes are similar to the CVF (with slightly different names), yet the
66
quadrants are labelled differently. The model for strategic leadership to be tested in this dissertation consists of four quadrants along the dimensions, Organization-Environment and Exploration- Exploitation, i.e. Client centricity (Environment Exploitation), Operational efficiency (Organization Exploitation), Organizational creativity (Organization Exploration) and Business development (Environment Exploration) (see Figure 5.5).
Figure 5-5: Strategic leadership model