CVF Analysis Report: Leadership, Management, and Hospitality

This report provides a detailed analysis of leadership and management within the context of the tourism and hospitality industry, utilizing the Competing Values Framework (CVF). The analysis explores the strengths and weaknesses of different leadership roles, including innovator, broker, director, facilitator, and mentor. The report examines the scores obtained for each role, highlighting areas of proficiency and those needing improvement. The report also references the relevance of the roles of monitor and coordinator for project management and supervision. The report is based on the survey responses, which are used to assess the organizational culture and dynamics. The report also includes references to academic literature, such as Cameron et al. (2006) and Iqbal (2011), to support the findings and analysis. Overall, the report provides valuable insights into the application of the CVF in assessing leadership effectiveness and organizational culture within the hospitality sector.

TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
City/State
Date

Tourism and Hospitality Management
The competing value framework is referred to as one of the most used and effectual structure that
can help in assessment of organizational culture and dynamics. In essence, CVF arose from
thorough study of recognition of efficacies of corporation. Furthermore, the effectiveness criteria
were witnessed to present a variance of internal and external metrics, together with stability-
flexibility (Iqbal, 2011).
In the present case, the CVF replicates four quadrants in a spider web that are not essentially
equal and two different dimensions. The first dimension in the CVF framework includes
effectiveness that refers to internal orientation emphasizing on development, assimilation of
activities, synchronization and collaboration (Iqbal, 2011). Again, the second dimension
concentrates on efficacies of operations along with culture that necessarily exerts impact on
stability as well as flexibility.
In essence, the spider web presented according to the responses of the present survey questions
comprises of two different areas where one highlights the strength and the other one the
weakness. The roles of innovator and broker rely on creativity along with communication skills

to undertake transformations. As per the framework presented, my score in innovator and broker
is recorded to be 4.2 and 3.7 that is comparatively poor in comparison to other areas. Therefore,
it indicates my weakness as a broker as innovator. Again, role of monitor and coordinator can be
regarded to be relevant for proper administration of system and integration programs and have
the need for acquirement of skills and competency of project management and supervision
(Cameron et al., 2006). In my case, the score in this specific area is recorded to be 5.5 and 5.6,
replicating better score than the role of broker and innovator. Further, roles of director and
producer are in essence geared for the acquirement of objective and in this particular area the
score is 6.0 and 5.4 according to the CVF framework presented above. Scores in these
dimensions are comparatively superior in comparison to role of director. Moreover, role of a
facilitator and mentor is mainly aimed at developing and maintaining a motivational workforce
that is chiefly driven by higher commitment levels and greater engagement (Iqbal, 2011).
Particularly, in my current case, score obtained in this area is 7.0 and 5.2 replicating my strength
in this particular area.

Reference List
Cameron, K. S, Quinn, R. E, and Thakor, A. V. (2006) Competing values leadership: Creating
value in organizations. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Iqbal, T. (2011) The impact of leadership style on organizational effectiveness. Germany: GRIN
Verlag.