The Competing Values Framework

Adapted from the book Beyond Rational management by Robert Quinn, Jossey Bass, 1988

You now have completed the Competing Values Self-Assessment, scored the r esults, and plotted your profile. Before we discuss your scores for each of the eight roles, it is important that you understand the Competing Values framework. This will help you to interpret and understand your scores. The Competing Values framework integrates four models of organizations that have been popular in the last hundred years of organizational theory and practice. Each organizational model contains beliefs and assumptions that people hold when they think about what "good" management is. These models are not simply academic abstractions about organizing; they are powerful mind sets that affect every aspect of life in an organization. We will describe each of these organizational perspectives in turn, leading to a discussion of how the Competing Values framework shows the similarities, contrasts, and paradoxes found among the four models. The Responsive Adhocr acy. This concept of organizing has emerged in the last fifteen years. The central strength of an adhocracy is that it fosters adaptability and change. There is great emphasis on innovation and creativi ty, that is, on doing things that have never been done befor e. Here people are not controlled but are inspired. They are part of a collective attempting to do something of great importance and are highly motivated. People feel fully committed and fully cha llenged. If they succeed in implementing a new vision, considerable external recognition and resources will follow. Adhocracies function best when the task is not well understood and when there is great urgency about completing it. Other terms sometimes used to describe this model are organic system, flat system, loosely coupled system, matrix, and temporary system. The Rational Firm. One of the most common notions of organizing is that of the firm. Here the system is seen as a rational economic tool, with the major emphasis on profit or the bottom line. The rational firm assumes that clear goals result in productive action. Tasks are clarified, objectives are set, and action is taken. Here people are instructed by a decisive authority figure and are rewarded financially if they per form well. If they do not, they are asked to leave. Organizations with this rational culture value clarity and short time horizons. The Stable Hierarchy. Perhaps the oldest and most well -known notion of organization is that of a hierarchy. The strength of this model is that a hierarchy provides stability and predictability. In a hierarchy there is great emphasis on measurement. People are given well-defined roles and are expected to follow rules that outline what they should do. The major reward for their efforts is job security. Organizations with a hierarchical structure seem to function best when the task to be done is well understood and when time is not an important factor. The Cooperative Team. With the team approach to organizing, the emphasis is on human resources and the development of commitment, information sharing, and participative decision making. People are seen not as isolated individuals but as cooperative members of a common social system with a common stake in what happens. This group culture is characterized by a strong sense of affiliation and belonging. The relationships among the four models can be described in terms of two axes. In the figure on the right, the vertical axis ranges from flexibility at the top to control at the bottom. The hori zontal axis ranges from an internal organization focus at the left to an external organization focus at the right. Each model fits in one of the four quadrants. As is evident in the figure, each model has an opposite. The Cooperative Team stands in complete contrast to the Rational Firm. In the Team, people are valued for what they are. In the Firm, people are valued for what they contribute to goal attainment. The Responsive Adhocracy runs opposite the Stable Hierar chy. The Adhocracy is concerned with adapting to a changing environment, while the Hierarchy emphasizes maintaining stability and continuity in the system. As a manager, you can use this framework as a tool to broaden your thinking and increase your effec tiveness by: 1. 2. 3. Appreciating both the strengths and weak nesses of each of the four models Acquiring and using the competencies associated with each model Dynamically integrating the competencies from each of the models with the particular managerial situa tions that you encounter

We turn now to an examination of these competencies in greater detail.

Eight Mana gerial Lea dership Role s In addition to describing some of the values and effectiveness criteria associated with different organizational perspectives, the Competing Values framework suggests the conflicting roles that managers must play. The figure on the pr evious page describes different models of organization or work-unit effectiveness. The figure shown at the right is similar, but it focuses on dimensions of leadership effectiveness. These are the competing roles that managers experience. The four organizational models are arranged around the circle. Models that appear opposite each other possess domi nant values and processes that stand i n contrast to one another. Each organizational model has been subdivided into two pie-like slices in the figure to show the managerial roles suggested by each. The framework does not suggest that a com pany or organization cannot contain elements of each of these four models; rather it suggests that we tend to view the criteria, values, and assumptions associated with the models as opposite in our minds. Opposites can be difficult to conceptualize, but understanding the competing relationships among these models and the demands they subsequently place on a manager can serve to increase your productivity and effectiveness. Since each of these models embodies different dominant values and criteria for effectiveness, each suggests different roles that managers must fulfill. Furthermore, the models help explain how managers can be required to play roles that are in apparent conflict with one another. For example, we want our managers to be sensitive, caring, and supportive to their subordinates, yet we also want them to be hard-driving and oriented to the bottom line. The names and descriptions of the eight roles are given in boxes at the right. The Me ntor . Here the leader is expected to treat each individual in a caring way, to be empathetic, to listen carefully, to show concern for the needs of individuals, and to help people grow and develop. The strengths of mentors are the abilities to inspire high commitment and loyalty in employees and to be successful at employee development. W eaknesses that migh t result from too much emphasis on this role are extreme permisiveness and a lack of concern for the organization. Problems that might be caused by too little emphasis on this role are serving as a poor role model and ignoring employee development. The Facilit at or . Here the leader is expected to practice participation and team-building skills, to facilitate consensus building by helping people to express differences of opinion, to work through the differences, and then come to a common framework. The primary strength of the facilitator is the ability to manage conflict and build teamwork through open discussion and participative decision making. Weaknesses that might result from too much emphasis on this role are holding too many meetings and relying excessively on unproductive group decision making. Problems that might result from underemphasis are group conflict, demotivated employees, and poor communication. The Monitor . Here the leader is expected to keep track of what is going on in the unit, to monito r progress on assigned tasks and objectives, to develop measures and checkpoints, and to hold regular reviews. The monitor collects information and maintains high expertise. The principal strengths of the monitor role are having appropriate measurement sys tems in place and using state-of-the-art management for keeping track of employees and projects. Too much emphasis on this role might result in inappropriate measurement and sterile, procedural management practices. Too little emphasis on this role might

result in inadequate information available to make decisions and measure progress. The Coor dinat or . Here the leader is expected to bring a sense of order into the unit by helping people to plan, schedule, and organize. The leader anticipates workflow probl ems and coordinates so that the organizational structure is maintained. The strength of this role is the ability to provide stability, control, and continuity. Too much emphasis on this role might resu lt in maintaining the status quo even though it is time to change. Too little emphasis on this role could lead to chaotic and inefficient workflows. The Innovator. Her e the leader is expected to come up with inventive ideas, to experiment with new concepts, to do problem solving in creative ways, to continually search for innovations and improvements, and to gener ally envision needed changes. The primary strengths of the innovator are adaptability and creativity. Too much emphasis on this role might lead to impractical change efforts that are never implemented. Too little emphasis on this role might lead to overly conservative policies that ignore changing external factors. The Broker . Here the leader is expected to exer t upward influence by getting access to higher -ups, to persuasively sell ideas, and to gen erally influence decisions made at higher levels. By doing these things, the broker acquires needed resources. The strengths of the broker are the abilities to influence, negotiate, and acquire resources. Overemphasis on this role may result in politically expedient actions of low ethical quality. Too little emphasis on this role might result in inadequate resources for the unit. The Producer . Here the leader is expected to get people to complete tasks and reach objectives by creating a climate of productive accomplishment and establishing an achievement orientation or a set of "can do" attitudes. The producer gets people to take action. The strengths of this role are the abilities to accomplish goals, make profits, and initiate action. T oo much emphasis on this role may lead to exhaustion from overwork and failure to produce. Too little emphasis on this role may lead to low productivity. The Director . Here the leader is expected to provide direction, to clarify priorities, and to communicate the unit's vi sion in a meaningful way. The primary strengths of this role are the abilities to plan, prioritize, clarify, and provide structure. Weaknesses that might result from too much emphasis on this role are overregulation and a lack of concern for the needs of employees. Too little emphasis on this role may result in indecisiveness and unclear company policies.