Competing Value Framework - Research Paper Example

Competing Value Framework Introduction In current era where organizations are competing to strive for global economy, business needs to redefine their strategic vision and themselves. In this regard there are various ingenuities that are found to be unsuccessful in the organization due to aggregation of organization’s cultural values factors. It is also found that, when Competing Value Framework (CVF) is used with organization’s strategic planning, the chances of success increases for business. Similarly other tools like Managerial Behavioral Instrument and Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument gives a concrete path to analyze the organization’s position, and defines where it should have to be, and assists in rearranging the business from entire the culture of the organization to individual level (Yu & Wu, 2009). Discussion Confucius defined his techniques which are also known as The Great Learning regarding development of great nation is that one must focus and incline toward his state; to build the a great nation; you need to incline towards your family initially; and to develop a great family; first you need to nurture yourself; for nurturing oneself; one needs to dictate towards learning (Blocker & Starling, 2001). These techniques were written in 5th century B.C. for aspiring leaders and it is accepted till today and accredited. Therefore, if someone wants its organization to compete effectively globally, then the relevant and appropriate culture for the organization is needed to execute effective strategies. Therefore, we need to consider ourselves before entering into this type of transformation effectively. It is a fact that the Competing Values Framework is an essential and effective tool to use which assists in determining culture not only at the individual level but also at organizational level. It also assists in developing path for change in organizational culture that is important for strategies going to be implemented (Cameron, 2006). Common models of leadership have divided this popular area of leadership among different comparing categories. There are various examples regarding comparison of leadership from literature of leadership, for instance task theory versus socio-emotional; Theory X versus Theory Y; transactional leadership versus transformational leadership; and participative leadership versus autocratic leadership (Van & Suino, 2012). It is also found that these theories cannot be used in larger comparison and there is no other such work that compares large mixtures to examine or analyze towards defining the required leaders behavior and to what extent it is required in leaders (Hart & Quinn, 1993). It is also to mention here that these traditional models just make us to think over such leadership and it shows limits of these models which further leads to inefficiency in defining the leadership effectively (Bensimon et al., 1989). However, Robert Quinn was among those who were in argument of saying that leadership effectiveness needs simultaneous and balancing mastery of likely paradoxical or contradictory abilities; reflectiveness and decisiveness; incremental adjustments and bold moves; and people orientation as well as performance (Hart & Quinn, 1993). It is to mention here that Quinn’s model is based on CVF for analysis of organizations. Initially it was developed from a research that was conducted for identifying the factors of effective organizations. Quinn and Rohrbaugh in 1983 identified two main dimensions essential for effectiveness of organization based on their statistical outcomes. The first dimension refers to focus of organization, from focusing internally on the individual’s development and wellbeing in the organization towards external or outside focus on organization’s development and wellbeing. On the other hand second dimension distinguishes the preference of the organization towards structure in view of flexibility and change and control and stability. After theses values are compared a three dimensional model appeared (Quinn &Rohrbaugh, 1983). With these two dimensions the model develops four quadrants and each quadrant defines different sets of personal and organizational effectiveness indicators. It is also to mention here that each quadrant structure outlines and define one among four major models of management and organizations theory (Quinn, 1988). In addition to this, Quinn implemented his CVF of effectiveness of organization on organizing it to literature of leadership (Quinn, 1984). There are eight categories in Competing Value Framework of leader role or behavior that he found after reviewing the literature. Later in this discussion included is a figure (See Appendix) that is representing all eight roles in the framework of current competing value framework. It can be said by viewing above picture that CVF is majorly based on two value dimensions which are; internal-external and flexibility-control. It is also observable that each quadrant represents different sets of main management skills. In each quadrant, two roles represent characteristics or quality of each four major management model of management and organizational theory as explained below: First quadrant or upper left quadrant, it represents human relation model and refers to two leadership roles that are: a role of facilitator that encourages cohesiveness and team or group work, and also have an ability to resolve conflicts at interpersonal level. The other role in association with the model is mentors role which is approachable and helpful, and it involves in people development via care, and is oriented empathically (Belasen, 2000). The upper right quadrant or second quadrant refers to open systems model, pinpoints two additional roles of leadership. The role of innovator which refers to creativity and acceptance to change. The other role present here is role of broke, which is smart in politics, have influence over others, powerful and persuasive, and this role is more concerned with external focus on legal issues and acquisition of external resources (Warner, 2003). Third or lower right quadrant which is related to model of rational goal, also represents two roles of leadership associated with the model. One among them is role of producer which is more oriented towards task and more focused on its work, and this role also motivates others members of team for increasing productivity and to attain defined goals. On the other hand role of director is more focused on goal setting and planning, defining clear expectations and setting objective for teams (Quinn, 1988). Last quadrant or fourth quadrant which is at lower left of the framework referred with interpersonal process model, also have two leadership roles related with it. The role of the coordinator is to maintain schedules, structure, coordinates and organizes staff efforts, and also pay attention to housekeeping and logistical issues. The second role related to this model explains the role of monitor who checks performance and also caters paper work (Belasen, 2000). Scholar argues that effective leader should play all roles simultaneously on demand set by the framework effectively. After self-assessment, there are significant good results in first quadrant of the assessed person. It explained that the person is a good facilitator in most of times that shows that the person has a good ability in playing the role of facilitator. In the same quadrant there is another role which is mentor’s role and the assessed person got maximum number in that role which describes the leadership skills that are require for first quadrant are found good in that person. This refers to the conclusion that the assessed person possesses good leadership skills in human relations. The second quadrant of CVF represents the role required for open system model and the assessment shows an average result of the person in this area. We can say that the person is a bit reluctant in change process and occasionally opt for creativity and innovation in this regards. Assessment shows that the person having average leadership skills that are required for rational goal model. Roles required for rational goal model are: producer’s role and the assessed person got average skills of producer; and other is the role of director and average scores are assessed for the role producer. In the last quadrant, which is internal process model, it is found that the assessed person is having good skills required for the role of coordinator and average skills for the role of mentor. In addition to this the person is having lowest scores for the role of mentor in the CVF. The assessment shows that the person is having good leadership skills that are required according to the CVF and is a good leader. The person maintains balance in utilizing all the roles in different scenarios as required. Therefore after self-assessment this can be concluded that the assessed person is having good leadership skills and furthermore he is a good leader. References Belasen, A. T. (2000). Leading the learning organization: communication and competencies for managing change. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Bensimon, E. M. (1989). Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The" L" Word in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 1, 1989. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Dept. RC, Washington, DC 20036-1183. Blocker, H. G., & Starling, C. L. (2001). Japanese philosophy. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Cameron, K. S. (2006). Competing values leadership creating value in organizations. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar Publication. Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs, behavioral complexity, and firm performance. Human Relations, Vol. 46 No.5, pp. 543-574. Quinn, R. E. (1984). Applying the competing values approach to leadership: Toward an integrative framework. Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership, pp. 10-27. Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management science, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 363-377. Van Wart, M., & Suino, P. (2012). Leadership in public organizations: An introduction. ME Sharpe. Warner, M. (2003). Culture and management in Asia. London: Routledge. Yu, T., & Wu, N. (2009). A review of study on the competing values framework. International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 7, P37. Appendix Read More