The Competing Values Framework

This is a framework put forward by several authors, but notably Cameron and Quinn (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

The concept developed initially as a way of considering the way companies

communicated internally. The basic position being that an organization’s management would see certain values as important to the organization, and in communications those values would be emphasized. The degree of emphasis of particular values would to some extent also be guided by the purpose of the communication. Thus an operational

instruction would emphasize such points as technical correctness; rigorous, precise and disciplined processes; being focused and logical; and practical informative realistic and instructive. On the other hand an address to employees would seek to be innovative; insightful; interesting and stimulating (Quinn et al., 1991). Such a model is set out in Figure 3.1: Figure 3.1 is extracted from

http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/Programs/BMC/CompetingValues.htm (2005) (University of Michigan Business Management Course) The diagram was, however, designed using Quinn et al. (1991) as its source. It should be noted that this diagram used a 7 point scale

along each spoke (or ray) of the model. The scale was a modified likert scale which ranked each spoke in terms of the strength with which the aims of each spoke were achieved by the particular communication. The spokes (or rays) each represented certain key aims that are found in communications.

The original purpose was to study the concepts behind communication within an organization, however it was realized by Cameron and Quinn (1999) that the same approach could be used to facilitate the study of organizational culture.

Figure 3.1

One advantage of the competing values framework is that it recognizes that an

organization’s behaviour will not be totally driven by a single aimed position, in that it may weight as important particular sets of aims that on initial examination would seem contradictory. The probability that the level of weighting of contradictory aims will be identical is, however, considered to be remote. To explain by example; a clannish

organization would not totally ignore the market it is serving, otherwise it would rapidly cease to exist. It would therefore express some interest in serving its customers (or orientation towards its market), while at the same time remaining clan-orientated. Thus if it was asked to allocate values to its clan orientation and values to its market orientation, it would allocate some value to both orientations, simply (because it is a clan) a higher value to its clan orientation than its market orientation. The problem with the

Ouchi/MacIntosh model set out above is that the model declares an organization to be a clan or a market driven entity, not a mix of competing ideals (MacIntosh, 1985, Ouchi, 1981). Cameron and Quinn (1999) recognizes that the existence of this competition between values, will not always lead to an outright winning value. Shades of grey do exist.

The resultant plot of the weightings (1 to 7) given to each of the different values will be generally consistently interpreted by the members of any particular organization. This gave a way of analyzing the intentions of the communications of the organization in terms of the particular aims that may be linked with a particular aspect of the culture of the organization.

Cameron and Quinn (1999) recognized the fact that this method of analysis could go beyond considering just the nature of communication within an organization, and could be used to study the nature of the culture of an organization. Just as communications may appear to contain elements that are in internal conflict with one another, so organizations cannot be considered as culturally perfect.

Cameron and Quinn’s (1999) study started with a recognition that, while the existing model of cultural absolutes was useful to describe management communications

processes, it did not directly translate to a cultural model that recognized the complexities of culture. Like all models it was a simplification of reality. Quinn et al. (1991)

considered the model was too simple. For one thing, Quinn et al. (1991) considered that within an organization, the management would use communications that emphasized different aspects of the cultural model to achieve different aims. Thus there would be an element of competition between the different cultural attributes of the organization. These attributes could be considered as values. The question that Cameron and Quinn (1999) set out to answer was; what would be the types of values the spokes (or rays) of a competing value of culture model be labeled as representing.

The outcome of their studies was that they found what they considered as four primary identifiers of the culture of an organization. Paraphrasing Cameron and Quinn (1999), these are:

1. The extent to which an organization’s members were able to make ad-hoc

decisions in response to problems as they arose. This could almost be summarized as decisions on the run. They called this ray adhocracy.

2. The opposite to that was considered to be the extent to which the organization was bound by rules or was a hierarchical or a bureaucratic structure. They called this opposing ray hierarchy.

3. The extent to which the organization behaved as an extended family towards its members. This ray was called clan.

4. The extent to which the market or desire to achieve in the market was a driving motivation of the organization. This ray was known as market.

(Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

Thus to Cameron and Quinn, the culture of an organization could be measured by the extent to which the members considered each ray important. In the earlier model, Quinn et al. (1991) used a 7 point Likert scale. In the later model Cameron and Quinn (1999) used an allocation of 100 points across each of four options in six questions. Subjects were supposed to allocate the points on the basis of their perception of the weighting of each of the four answers to each of the six questions. Thus they allocated 600 points in all.