Tourism and Hospitality: Competing Values Framework Analysis Report

This report examines the tourism and hospitality industry through the lens of the Competing Values Framework (CVF). The report begins with an overview of the CVF, its dimensions (internal vs. external focus, and flexibility vs. stability), and its application in assessing organizational culture and effectiveness. The analysis uses the CVF to evaluate the student's strengths in various roles, including the innovator, broker, monitor, coordinator, director, producer, facilitator, and mentor roles. The report highlights the student's strengths in the facilitator and mentor roles and weaknesses in the innovator and broker roles. The report also includes references to relevant academic literature supporting the analysis and application of the CVF in organizational settings. The report concludes with an overview of the CVF framework and its applications to the tourism and hospitality industry.

Running head: TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY
Tourism and Hospitality
University Name
Student Name
Authors’ Note

2
TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY
The competing values framework can be considered to be one of the most utilized and
effective framework for the purpose of assessing culture of the organization and
organizational dynamics (Adams et al. 2017). The CVF essentially emerged from research
for identification of effectiveness criteria of organization. In addition to this, effectiveness
criteria that were observed to present a difference were the dimensions of internal and
external, along with stability-flexibility. As such, CVF identifies the underlying dimensions
of arranging that subsist in majority of all human as well as organizational actions.
In the present case, the CVF reflects the four different quadrants in a spider web that are not
necessarily equal and two diverse dimensions. The first effectiveness dimension of a
corporation has an internal orientation concentrating on development, integration of actions,
coordination and collaboration (Lindquist and Marcy 2016). The second dimension focuses
on effectiveness of organization as well as culture that essentially affects both stability and
flexibility.
The spider web hereby framed as per the responses to the survey questions contains two
different areas of strength and two areas for weaknesses. The innovator as well as broker
roles depend on both creativity as well as skills of communication to undertake change. In
this section, there is lower score in my case. However, the monitor along with coordinator
roles can be considered to be pertinent for management of system and assimilation and call
for project management and skills of supervision (Grabowski et al. 2015). In my present case,
the score is relatively higher in comparison to the innovator and broker role (Saxena 2016).
Again, director along with producer roles are necessarily geared towards attainment of goal
and in this area there is moderate score as per CVF framework presented below. Also,
facilitator along with mentor roles is primarily aimed at producing a motivational work force
that is driven by higher levels of commitment along with engagement. In the current case,
there is highest score in this section reflecting my greatest strength in this area.

3
TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY
Figure based on CVF survey

4
TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY
References
Saxena, S., 2016. Understanding Organization culture for Acquiring Bank using Quinn’s
Competing Value Framework-An Empirical Study.
Grabowski, L., Neher, C., Crim, T. and Mathiassen, L., 2015. Competing values framework
application to organizational effectiveness in voluntary organizations: A case
study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(5), pp.908-923.
Lindquist, E. and Marcy, R., 2016. The competing values framework: Implications for
strategic leadership, change and learning in public organizations. International Journal of
Public Leadership, 12(2), pp.167-186.
Adams, C., Dawson, A. and Foureur, M., 2017. Competing Values Framework: A useful tool
to define the predominant culture in a maternity setting in Australia. Women and Birth, 30(2),
pp.107-113.