are aimed at members inside the organization. There is no mentioning of clients in this quadrant.
Likewise, Hooijberg and Choi (2000), using a 360-degree feedback approach with 252 managers and
their staff from public utilities, argued that there are six rather than eight roles. Using confirmatory
factor analysis, they found that high intercorrelations existed among producer, director and
coordinator. This suggested to them the existence of a second-order factor, underlying these three
UROHVZKLFKWKH\ODEHOHG³JRDODFKLHYHPHQW ́
Yet, in the competitive landscape of today customer sovereignty (Bishop & Hoel, 2008; Harris &
Ogbonna, 1999) is increasingly important. The long-term success of organizations depends on
whether organizations deliver client-perceived value. The required external orientation to deliver
client value, however might interfere with the focus on the internal organization. This might be the
reason why organizations have so much difficulty to do both (Paulin et al., 2000).
Innovation at different levels of analysis
It seems that the CVF is mixing levels of analysis. Whereas the mentor role is aimed at follower
behavior ³LVDZDUHRILQGLYLGXDOQHHGVDQGIDFLOLWDWHVGHYHORSPHQW ́³OLVWHQVDFWLYHO\ ́DQG³LVIDLU ́
the facilitator role ³H[SUHVVHV RSLQLRQV ́ ³VHHNV FRQVHQVXV ́ DQG ³QHJRWLDWHV FRPSURPLVH ́ PD\
influence the organizational climate. Hartnell et al.¶V(2011) meta-analysis demonstrated a positive
relationship between the human commitment quadrant with employee attitudes. Conceptually,
managers can affect employee behavior and organizational innovation in several different ways.
/HDGHUVFDQ GLUHFW HPSOR\HHV¶LQGLYLGXDO Dnd joint efforts towards innovative work processes and
outcomes (Amabile, 1996). And leaders can significantly boost organizational creativity, by creating
and sustaining an organizational climate and culture that nurtures creative efforts and facilitates
diffusion of learning (Yukl, 2002). These behaviors are aimed at different levels of analysis. The
CVF models seems to implicitly combine these.
Despite its reported content validity and widespread use in research and practice, there has been little
thorough assessment of the theoretical foundation of the CVF (Hartnell et al., 2011). In general,
empirical results provide support for the two-dimensional model (flexibility versus stability and
internal versus external focus) (Buenger et al., 1996; Kalliath et al., 1999; Lawrence et al., 2009).
Given the objective of this research to clearly identify differences of leadership aimed at different
levels of analysis and the misfit (of roles and content of the quadrants) of the CVF and the strategic
model as conceptualized earlier, a new model has been developed to conceptualize strategic
leadership. In this model the axes are similar to the CVF (with slightly different names), yet the