Content area
Full Text
Keywords
Leadership, Management learning, Management development, Individual behaviour, Effectiveness
Abstract
The Competing Values Framework (CVF) has been used in numerous settings to explain the various roles that managers need to display if they are to be effective. However, the original model lacks a role that represents how managers develop and learn by critically observing their current managerial behaviour and by reflecting on their effectiveness with a view to developing into more effective managers. The authors have developed an additional role, the integrator, to explain how managers might enhance their effectiveness in this regard. A total of 100 middle managers participated in a 360 feedback program that sought responses from 530 of their significant others. The results indicated that the integrator was a pivotal role for managers. This role was also found to be a strong predictor of effectiveness. The implications for managers are that they need to develop their ability to observe critically their own behaviours and to reflect on their observations in order to develop and improve on their managerial effectiveness
The Competing Values Framework (CVF)
Development of the CVF
Robert Quinn initially developed the Competing Values Framework (CVF) to explain the various managerial roles required for personal effectiveness in complex environments (Faerman and Quinn, 1985; Faerman et al., 1987; O'Neill and Quinn, 1993; Quinn et al., 1990; Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, and McGrath, 1990, 1996; Quinn and McGrath, 1982; Quinn, 1988; Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991). Since then the model has been applied in a number of settings, as indicated in Table II.
The CVF model
Quinn argues that there are two key dimensions to effective management - a flexibility-stability dimension and an external-internal focus dimension. He uses these two dimensions to create a four quadrant model comprised of eight operational roles, which form the basis of the CVF (see Figure 1). For each quadrant there are different organisational outcomes, as shown in Figure 1. For example, the organisational outcomes for quadrant 1 are expansion and adaptation.
The model should not be regarded as the representation of something that is static. Quinn intended it as an explication of a very dynamic process involving managers moving from one quadrant to another very quickly, perhaps on an incident-by-incident basis, or hour by hour. It emphasises...