This chapter has two parts: a management theory part of leadership and the competing values framework that puts the topic of research in context; and the second part provides a background insight on the applied field of research which is newspapering in Yemen.
This part of the literature review chapter represents an attempt to dive into the ocean-deep literature on leadership is exerted to provide a theoretical background on this heavily studied domain in management. This argumentative collection and discussion of leadership literature will attempt to provide a quick overview of leadership different definitions and the associated theories that enrich leadership literature. A quick reference to the most important models and tools used in leadership studies will be made and discussed. From the various models, the selected theoretical framework of leadership the (Competing Values for Leadership) by Quinn (1983, 1993, 2006) will be subject of more focused presentation and discussion. The reasons of selecting this model – not any other – will be explained. This part concludes with reference to “effective leadership” and the role of leadership in the overall organizational effectiveness.
2. 2.2. Leadership
18.104.22.168 Leadership as an Area of Research
Due to the extensive attention, leadership is one of the most extensively researched areas in organizational contexts for the significance role leadership play in organizations or at a larger scale in nations.
Early studies and theories of leadership provided theoretical frameworks which were used as basis for the following eras of studies. Historically, leadership was studied from different perspectives and the following chronology of major studies and resulted theories: the Personality Traits (1841-1927); the Power and Influence of a Leader (1928-1956); the Behavioral Leadership (1955- 1983), where famous Managerial Grid Model was first presented by Blake and Mouton in 1964; the Situation theory (1943-1978) with a new research model: Open-Systems Model presented by Kats and Kahn in 1978; the Contingency approach to leadership (1964-1989) during which the situational theory presented by Hersey and Blanchard, 1969-1977); the Transactional model (1958-1979);and finally the Transformational approach (1977-1989). This volume of theoretical work is categorized under four generational groups. These are in chronological order: Trait theories, Behavioral theories, Contingency theories, and Transformational theories.
Across sectional, leadership becomes an interdisciplinary field with contributions from political science, psychology education, history, agriculture, public administration management, community studies, law, medicine anthropology, biology, military sciences, philosophy and sociology. In many of these disciplines, leader ship is now an established subfield (Goethals, et al., 2004 p. xxxiv).
These different approaches to leadership across management and organizational literature particularly the researches made in the second half of last century call for different leadership styles, and competencies. However, Hofstede (1980) argued that most “process” leadership theories share a common factor which is their advocacy for “â€¦participation in the manager’s decisions by his/her subordinates ‘participative management’” (Hofstede, 1980 p. 56).
As referenced above, the past century witnessed a remarkable change in the field of leadership research and the major in-depth wave of studies started in seventies and eighties. “Two features stand out when the current situation is compared to that of today. These two features are the greater optimism about the field and its greater methodological diversity (Bryman, 2004).”
However, the evolution of leadership theories did not stop at this stage, a new era emerged in which researchers attempt to develop a more integrated approach to leadership (Vilkinas, et al., 2006). One of the most important theoretical advancement toward this result is the Competing Values Framework (CVF) for leadership (Quinn, et al., 1981, 1983), (Denison, et al., 1993), (Cacioppe, 1998), (Vilkinas, et al., 2006).
22.214.171.124 Definition of leadership
Different scholars come up with different theories and consequently introduce their definition to the term “leadership” based on their respective areas of study. Leadership’s guru, Bernard M. Bass (1990) for instance, considers leadership as one of the world’s oldest preoccupations and that its understanding has figured strongly in the quest of knowledge.
Leaders of organizations or nations who were described as effective leaders did not have necessarily the same traits, which poses a challenge to the traits theory, especially when it come to the secondary attributes. Researchers traced the lives of these leaders and came up with general characteristics that distinguish leaders from subordinates.
John Gardner, in his book “On Leadership” by Free Press in 1989, studied a large number of North American organizations and leaders and came to the conclusion that there were some qualities or attributes that did appear to mean that a leader in one situation could lead in another. These characteristics included: Physical vitality and stamina; Intelligence and action-oriented judgment; Eagerness to accept responsibility; Task competence; Understanding of followers and their needs; Skill in dealing with people; Need for achievement; Capacity to motivate people; Courage and resolution Trustworthiness; Decisiveness; Self-confidence; Assertiveness; and finally Adaptability/flexibility (Doyle, et al., 2001).
On the contrary, leadership gurus Bass and Stogdill conceive leadership as the focus of group processes, as a matter of personality, as a matter of inducing compliance, as the exercise of influence, as particular behaviors, as a form or persuasion, as a power relation, as a instrument to achieve goals, as an effect of interaction, as a differentiated role, as initiation of structures, and as many combinations of these definitions. Under each phrase above, scholars define leadership, and the handbook defines leadership as “â€¦ an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves a structure or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations of the members. Leaders are agents of change-persons whose acts affect other people more than other people’s acts affect them, (Bass, 1990 pp. 20-21)”
Bass and Stogdill (1990) present above a competency-based definition, which comes after an extensive digest of the various concepts and approaches of organizational leadership. This definition goes along with Chemers’ (200) who defines leadership as “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task (Chemers, 2002).”
As leadership is a process not a person; involves influence; occurs in groups; and involves a common goal, Northouse (2010) defines leadership as “â€¦ a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2010 p. 3). Following the same path yet in a wider scope, John W. Gardner (1993) defines leadership as “â€¦the process of persuation or example by which an individual (leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leaderand his/her followers (Gardner, 1993 p. 1)
Another example of the process perspective leadership is found in Burns’ book “Leadership” (1978), in which he introduced two types of leaders: transformational leader and transactional leader, presenting a new approach to leadership literature. Burns (1978) said, “â€¦ transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and the led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both.” (Homrig, 2001). However, these two types are deemed as modern leadership styles in the organizational contexts.
The argumentative set of definitions brought above are built on the interaction between a leader and follower, rather than the personality traits or behaviors of a leader, although leadership traits approach suggests otherwise. This approach suggests that if these traits are truly present in a person, they will manifest themselves almost without regard to the situation in which the person is functioning (Gardner, 1993 p. 6).
The researched confidently can argue that a leader is identified by followers/subordinates as well as an organization or any collective effort with a common goal that provides situational context in which he/she practices leadership. However, having those traits identified in a person, but without people of context, the traits will make of him/her a leader just for the sake owning them.
In conclusion, it can be inferred that leadership is process of complex behavior whereby a person is set to inspire, and motivate his/her followers toward achieving common goals that are not effectively achievable otherwise.
126.96.36.199 Leadership vs. Management
Both “leadership” and “management” are used in organizational context with little sensitivity to the terms especially when the right balance is maintained among all organizational elements that include people, processes, design, system, and technology. However, Doyle, et al. (2001), argued that not all managers, for example, are leaders; and not all leaders are managers.
An attempt to make a distinction between managing and leading, one risk of this separation is that management is pushed into the background. Technically there is an overlap of domains and activities between management and leadership and thus in literature you will find managerial leadership (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003). Although leadership is not confined to management, there is wide agreement that the most successful organizations have strong, effective leaders. Most organizations contain both formal and informal leaders, some of which are in management positions, some are not (Albarran, 2006).
To lead is to take risks on behalf of purpose and the greater good. To manage is to mitigate risk on behalf of the bottom line. A successful organization does both as well as a successful executive. A valuable employee at any level of the organization does both too (McBride, 2010). Although Gardner (1993) believes that leaders perform managerial jobs, he made several points to differentiate managers from leaders. “The manager is more tightly linked to an organization than is the leader. Although he stresses on the interchangeable roles of leaders and managers, he argues that leaders do not necessarily have organizations and used Ghandi who was a leader before he had an organization (Gardner, 1993 p. 4). This leads to the term “managerial leadership” which is more practical in terms of leadership development and training.
188.8.131.52 Leadership Models and Tools
As highlighted above, leadership has been studied extensively and dimensionally for more than a century (Seters, et al., 1990). The remarkable change and dimensional development in leadership research resulted in the introduction of several models and frameworks on leadership.
Some researchers combine more than one theoretical framework to come up with a unique approach based on the scope of their studies. Yet, each approach is based on a theoretical framework whether it examines leaders’ personality traits, and behaviors or examine leadership as a process of interaction.
Numerous tools and instruments have been developed to examine, study, and evaluate the impact of leadership in search of developing effective leaders (Ladyshewsky, 2007). Over the last decade the 360-degree review process has become a very popular tool in evaluating the impact of Leadership Development programs. The 360-degree assessment is now replacing the traditional performance appraisal (Toegel, et al., 2003). Despite its growing popularity, is not without its weaknesses. Some of these weaknesses include collusion to promote self-interests and selection of raters who will influence results positively. This reduces the value of the 360-degree review because the opportunity for receiving accurate feedback is lessened. Managers, peers and subordinates may also ground their responses using different perspectives because of their relationship to the ratee. These tools give a comprehensive understanding of the roles, and behaviors of leaders/managers
One of the recent popular tools is The Leadership Circle Profile (TLCP), which contributes effectively to major advances on the best 360 instruments. As a validated tool, TLCP is designed to measure a battery of key leadership competencies. The Leadership Circle Profile is designed to integrate many of the best theoretical frameworks from the leadership, adult development, psychological and spiritual bodies of knowledge. Few, if any, 360 tools have a theoretical framework to complement their research base. TLCP has a rich and integrated theory base. This allows practitioners to use multiple frameworks that help the client connect the data to deeper insight (Anderson, 2006).
Bryman (2004) concludes that leadership research is dominated by a single kind of data gathering instrument-the self-administered questionnaire. The field is replete with countless studies that employ questionnaires within the context of experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal designs. The Ohio State LBDQ scales, Fiedler’s LPC scale, and more recently the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), which exemplify respectively the style, contingency and new leadership phases of the field’s development, are emblematic of this feature. The questionnaire has become the instrument of choice for researchers working in a variety of different theoretical traditions and within different research designs. The Full Range Leadership Development Theory provides the backbone for analyzing the leadership style of each manager by using the MLQ (Saad, 2008).
The different tools and models create more confusion for organizations, leaders/managers, and researchers which is more valid or more appropriate as each assumes and defines different set of competencies (Cacioppe, et al., 2000). Regardless of the confusion between these models and framework in the leadership literature, none can argue if one particular framework to be right while others are wrong. Rather, the most appropriate frameworks should be based on empirical evidence, should capture accurately the reality being described (in other words, they should be valid), and should be able to integrate and organize most of the dimensions being proposed (Cameron, et al., 2006).
One of the most popular leadership-management assessment instruments that integrates several aspects of leadership and previous models is the Competing Values Framework (CVF) introduced by Quinn and colleagues in 1981 and 1983. The CVF has been the subject of several organizational studies ever since. In all previous studies, it achieved high level of reliability and validity (Yu, et al., 2009) based on all empirical studies structured around the concept of organizational effectiveness (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983; Quinn et al., 2003; Belasen, et al., 2008; (Cameron, et al., 2006); (Denison, et al., 1993) (Ladyshewsky, 2007) (Quinn, 2006) (Vilkinas, et al., 2006) (Vilkinas, et al., 2009).
The CVF instrument is developed to study the behavioral complexity of leaders (Denison, et al., 1993) and a later stage the CVF, which was developed in the early 1980s as a tool to examine the organizational culture and its variables was introduced as a framework of leadership effectiveness (Cameron, et al., 2006) (Belasen, et al., 2008).
2.1.3 The Competing Value Leadership
184.108.40.206 Theory and Definition
The Competing Values Framework was developed initially from research conducted on the major indicators of effective organizations (Cameron, et al., 2006, p 33). It was developed as a result of empirical research on the question of what makes organizations effective (Quinn, et al., 1981) followed by studies of culture, leadership, structure, and information processing (Denison, et al., 1995) (Cameron, et al., 2006). Those conducting the preliminary research asked certain key questions like: What are the main criteria for determining if an organization is effective or not? What key factors define organizational effectiveness? When people judge an organization to be effective, what indicators do they have in mind?
A spatial model was developed from the judgment data. It indicated that three value dimensions, focus (task–people), structure (control–flexibility), and time (short-term–long-term) underlie conceptualizations of organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, the model suggested some fundamental criteria of organizational effectiveness that differentially reflect these three value dimensions (Quinn, et al., 1981).
However, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) conducted further analysis and came up with two major dimensions; (a) one that “differentiates a focus on flexibility, discretion, and dynamism from a focus on stability, order, and control”; and (b) a second that “differentiates a focus on an internal orientation, integration, and unity from a focus on an external orientation, differentiation, and rivalry” (Cameron, et al., 2006, p 34).
Figure 1: The Competing Values Framework
Together these two dimensions form four quadrants, with four different organizational cultures. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships of these two dimensions to one another. What is notable about these four core values is that they represent opposite or competing assumptions: flexibility versus stability and control, internal versus external.
The upper left quadrant, for example, identifies values that emphasize an internal, organic focus, whereas the lower right quadrant identifies values that emphasize an external, control focus. Similarly, the upper right quadrant identifies values that emphasize an external, organic focus, whereas the lower left quadrant emphasizes internal, control values. The competing or opposite values in each quadrant give rise to the name for the model, the Competing Values Framework.
The resulted quadrants are labeled to distinguish their most notable characteristics-clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy, which were derived from the scholarly literature. They also match key management theories about organizational success, approaches to organizational quality, leadership roles, and management skills (Cameron, et al., 2006, p 35-37).
220.127.116.11 The Competing Values Approach to Leadership
The Competing Values Framework (CVF) has been named as one of the forty most important models in the history of business (Cameron, 2010). The framework was developed as a result of extensive empirical researches focusing on organizational effectiveness (Quinn, et al., 1983). It predicts that balancing the full range of leadership roles should help managers perform their job effectively; yet, limited cognitive and emotional resources constrain employment of the full range of roles (Belasen, et al., 2008).
18.104.22.168 The CVF Leadership Quadrants
In keeping with the emphasis of this model on behavioral complexity and leadership as a portfolio of capabilities, the eight roles in the model are defined in terms of a set of skills necessary to perform each role (Denison, et al., 1993 p. 6).
The figure 2 below highlights the rights managerial leadership roles.
Figure 2 – Eight CVF roles of managerial leadership (Denison, et al., 1993 p. 6 & 27)
Figure 2 suggests a spatial model with eight separate roles presented in terms of two underlying dimensions, with a specific set of relationships among these roles. The roles should take the form of a “circle” within these two dimensions, such that some pairs of roles (such as the monitor and the coordinator) should be very closely related, while other pairs of roles (such as the mentor and the producer) should be far less closely related. Opposite roles are presumably more “contradictory” and adjacent roles are more similar. One might expect, for example, that a leader who was highly proficient as a mentor would also have facilitator skills in their behavioral portfolio, but might be somewhat less likely to be highly proficient as a director or producer (Denison, et al., 1993 p. 9).
22.214.171.124 The CVF Leadership Roles
As we have seen above the CVF has four quadrants with four types of cultures, the Competing Values leadership model divides each of its four quadrants into two leadership roles (Quinn, et al., 1983), (Denison, et al., 1993), (Cameron, et al., 2006), (Belasen, et al., 2008), (Cameron, 2010). The CVF leadership quadrants and roles are explained below (Denison, et al., 1993, pp. 6-8).
The upper-right quadrant, which the effectiveness framework links to open-systems theory and the process of adaptation to the organization’s external environment, defines two leadership roles:
The innovator is creative and envisions, encourages, and facilitates change.
The broker is politically astute, acquires resources and maintains the unit’s external legitimacy through the development, scanning, and maintenance of a network of external contacts.
Moving clockwise to the lower right quadrant, labeled the rational goal model in the effectiveness framework, two more leadership roles are specified. These roles emphasize the rational pursuit of goals external to the group, and the leader’s role in defining and motivating the attainment of those goals.
The producer is the task-oriented, work-focused role. The producer seeks closure, and motivates those behaviors that will result in the completion of the group’s task.
The director engages in goal setting and role clarification, sets objectives, and establishes clear expectations.
The lower left quadrant is referred to in the effectiveness framework as the internal process model and places primary emphasis on internal control and stability. Two additional leadership roles are specified in that quadrant.
The coordinator maintains structure, does the scheduling, coordinating, and problem solving, and sees that rules and standards are met.
The monitor collects and distributes information, checks on performance, and provides a sense of continuity and stability.
The upper left quadrant is referred to in the framework as the human relations quadrant, placing primary emphasis on human interaction and process. Two final leadership roles are defined within that quadrant.
The facilitator encourages the expression of opinions, seeks consensus, and negotiates compromise.
The mentor is aware of individual needs, listens actively, is fair, supports legitimate requests, and attempts to facilitate the development of individuals.
126.96.36.199 Leadership Effectiveness
Extensive research by management scholars has identified critical competencies that characterize the most effective leaders and the most effective organizations worldwide. Quinn and Cameron (2006) introduced an instrument that assesses 20 key areas of leadership competency based on the Competing Values Framework. The leadership skills being assessed were not arbitrarily selected, but were derived from more than a dozen studies of leadership effectiveness.
Figure 3 The Competing Values Framework – culture, leadership, value drivers, and effectiveness.
The focus of this study is to identify the competing values leadership roles of the chief editors of the participant newspapers, rather than assessing their competencies. Therefore, the suggested leadership competency assessment by Quinn, et al. (2006) will not be used in this study. However, it is of paramount significance to get a comprehensive view of the CVF different instruments.
The congruence of leadership competencies and organizational culture leads to effectiveness, according to Quinn and Cameron (2006). To create value, managers’ competencies must be congruent with their organization’s dominant culture. Demonstrating leadership competencies in the quadrants that dominate the organization’s culture is associated with higher levels of success for the leader (Cameron, et al., 2006, p. 160).
The management guru, Drucker (2006) in his book “Effective Executive” argued that effective executives should be able to manage time; choose what contributed to the organization; know where and how to mobilize strength for best effect; setting the right priorities; and knitting all of these together with effective decision-making.
188.8.131.52 CVF Model Application
Though the framework is most often thought of as a leadership tool it has shown to have many important advantages. The CVF can be used for all aspects and levels in organizations. For example, It can be applied to personal style, yet the same framework can also be used to assess communication, leadership, organizational culture, core competencies, decision making, motivation, human resources practices, quality, employee selection, organizational capabilities, organizational change patterns, strategy, financial performance and many others (Cameron, 2010).
The CVF is an approach to thinking – that is, to interpreting or making sense of complex phenomena – as well as to developing a repertoire of competencies and strategies that address the complexities being encountered (Cameron, et al., 2006).
Criticism & Development of the CVF Model
Beyond the organizational effectiveness, the CVF has been studied and tested in numerous organizations for the past 25 years by scholars and professional experts not only in the United States but also in China (Vilkinas, et al., 2009); Australia (Vilkinas, et al., 2006); Malaysia (Yiing, et al., 2009); Yemen (Al-Marhadhi, 1996) and elsewhere. As a tool, the CVF is not only used in academic research, but also in as an assessment tool in the service industry (Degraff, et al., 2010).
Although the model has been widely used in management and leadership research and development, it receives some criticism and further development by other researchers. Hooijberg (1996) questioned the two dimensions of the CVF model and some of the questionnaire items that measure the leadership role distributed across the model. According to Cacioppe et al (2000), who reference the work of Hooijberg (1996) the CV framework, for instance, does not adequately capture “vision” or “customer orientation” roles or competencies that are fundamental to many models of leadership and management. As a result, Cacioppe and Albrecht developed a framework that used several of the aspects of the CV model supported by research with modifications to a number of roles and question items (Cacioppe, et al., 2000).
Further application and empirical testing of the CVF led to further advancement. In response to developing researches, Quinn and colleagues developed the model further. In Australia, for instance, the Integrated Competing Values Framework (ICVF) was approached by Vilkinas and her co-authers who introduced the Integrator, as the ninth leadership role (Vilkinas, et al., 2006).
Why the CVF?
The Competing Values Framework provides a theory of effective leadership through managing tensions, which is the subject of this research. “It includes predictions that congruence among disparate elements in organizations leads to success, paradoxical management is required for effectiveness, and comprehensive strategies and tactics representing all parts of the are needed to create value.” (Cameron, et al., 2006, p.158-159).
The selection of the CVF as a framework for this research is not because it is the best model or framework, but rather because of the significance it has left on leadership and organizational effectiveness, through hundreds of studies around the world. Moreover, the simplicity of the model; and its relevance to the internal and external competing environments of newspapering in Yemen represent supportive factors for selection.
Besides, the CVF as a model can be applied as a multi-purpose model to assess leadership effectiveness; leadership managerial competencies, organizational culture, and overall organizational effectiveness. The abundance of literature on CVF, its measurement tools, research questionnaires, and analysis frameworks contribute positively to be the chosen model for this research.
The CVF has been adopted in various organizational contexts as an assessment as well as a development tool. According to Quinn and Cameron (2006), the CVF is valid and significant for organizational and personal contexts alike.
Chapter II: Literature Review
Part 2 – Yemeni Newspaper Industry
This part of the literature review is dedicated to the newspaper history, background and industry in general. A discussion of the environment, newspapers exist is given with examples and citations from existing literature. The overall part aims to present a comprehensive view of newspapering in Yemen with existing merits and challenges.
The Republic of Yemen embarked on democracy, political plurality and public freedoms in 1990 after northern and southern parts of the country were reunified. The reunification gave birth to a national constitution which guarantees political and social rights and public freedoms including freedom of the press.
The emerging democracy in Yemen and plurality of the political system necessitated the plurality of media as one of the main pillars of a healthy democracy. Although the state continues to control the broadcast media including TV and radio until today, a wide spectrum of print media outlets exists. Although, Yemen has known journalism as early as 1872 when the Turks established a printing press and issued “Yemen” and then “Sana’a” newsletters in both Arabic and Turkish (The Evolution and Development of Journalism in Yemen, 2008)
Free press plays a key role in sustaining and monitoring a healthy democracy, as well as in contributing to greater accountability, good governance, and economic development. People need to be able to watch the performance of their government and public authorities through a free and independent coverage of relevant news and events. Media as an educational tool is supposed to contribute to raise peoples’ awareness about their rights and duties.
It is assumed that the news media can best fulfill its functions in a democracy if there is a rich and pluralistic information environment that is easily available to all citizens. There is a large body of American literature which suggests that if TV has taken over from the press as our main source of news this may limit our capacity to learn about public affairs; newspapers are believed to be far more effective than television at conveying detailed information necessary to understand complex and detailed policy issues (Norris, Fall 2000).
In Yemen today, there are three major types of media: broadcast (TV and Radio); print (newspapers and magazines); and electronic (internet).
2.2.3 Classification of Print Media in Yemen
The print media, which includes newspapers and magazines, in Yemen is categorized into three categories from ownership perspective: public or state-run newspapers, political or partisan newspapers, and privately owned newspapers (Al-Asaadi, 2007, Raja, 2010). However, Hassan Mansour (2009) added a fourth category that includes newspapers published by civil society organizations or trade unions, which I believe shoul