Competing Values Framework as Decoding Tool: Signature Pedagogy in Teaching Business Communication

Abstract

This article explicates the operationalization of a theoretically robust framework in the teaching of business communication at an institute of higher learning. This article reimagines the design of a business communication course that focuses on the coalescence of both decoding and encoding processes of messages as a unified pedagogical approach in teaching business communication. This approach is in contrast with more conventional approaches in designing communication courses, which tend to prioritize one process over the other. Participants in the study acknowledged the instrumentality in the course design in promoting communicative values with real-world impact.

Keywords

competing values framework signature pedagogies decoding tool

Shulman (2005)argues for a reimagination of pedagogical designs according to “fundamental ways in which future practitioners are educated for their new professions” (p. 52). In theory, this suggests that learners are trained not only to think and perform as insiders in their future field(s) of work but also to conduct themselves ethically and professionally. In this regard, Shulman’s conceptualizations of surface, implicit, and deep structures have proved useful to researchers in interrogating this pedagogical misalignment more systematically (Heinert, 2017). According toShulman (2005),surface structure(p. 54) refers to the operational aspects in classroom discourse whileimplicit structure(p. 55) points to the moral aspect in the classroom discourse. As fordeep structure(p. 55), it relates to the construction of domain knowledges and assumptions in framing pedagogical thinking.

In other words, a signature course is one that socializes learners to the sociocultural practices of the trade that it is designed for. While the integration of all three structures are of equal importance in constructing a course that is signature, that is, grounded in signature pedagogy, the authors of this article argue that it is perhaps the aspect of deep structure that bears further interrogation in the context of designing business communication courses at the tertiary level. This premise is based on the view that once the deep structure, undergirding the course is rightly oriented, clarity in curriculum design thinking would in turn shape approaches in managing both operational (i.e., surface structure) and moral (i.e., implicit structure) concerns in classroom discourse cohesively.

As defined earlier, deep structure is concerned with domain knowledges and assumptions. Theoretically, in the context of communication courses, the notions of audience centeredness and contextual relevance constitute enduring principles that are unequivocal in the minds of communication practitioners. Yet, in praxis, the realization of these ideals may not always appear cogent to learners. For instance, in the conventional design of most communication courses, one of two trends seems to prevail. On the one hand, there are communication courses that seem to place disproportionate emphasis on the way a sender packages messages and insufficient attention on how a recipient processes messages. On the other hand, there are courses that conceptually afford equal emphasis on both sender packaging and recipient processing; yet in the teaching of both components, there appears to be a lack of integration between the two parts. In both instances, while learners may arrive at the understanding that both aspects are crucial in establishing meaningful communication, pedagogically, they may not be able to appreciate the symbiosis that binds sender and recipient in a communication relationship. In other words, they may not be able to unpack the ambiguity (e.g., nuances, sociocultural conventions, power dynamics) that is often hidden in any communication exchange. In light of this, it would then be logical to reason that in the design of a signature communication course, not only should there be a simultaneous emphasis on both processes involving the sender and recipient in a communication exchange; pedagogically, there should also be in place a unified framework that reifies the symbiosis between sender and recipient in a communication in a concrete, cogent, and seamless manner from the perspective of learners.

Before we put forth a proposed framework that lends itself to a differentiated communication course, let us problematize the concerns with typical course designs through the lens of the classical communication model more closely. As mentioned, what appears central in the design of most business communication courses is providing feedback on the way the sender in a communication model encodes his or her messages, for example, focusing on the 3Vs—visual, vocal, and verbal—to encode one’s message during an oral presentation, in a typical communication model (seeFigure 1).

Figure 1.

Basic elements in a classical communication model.

Theoretically, the feedback loop in the communication model addresses the aspects of audience centeredness and context relevance since the perspectives of audiences (e.g., mentors, peers) are incorporated at this point; yet, as elaborated earlier, typical communication courses may not integrate this aspect cohesively in the course design. Even if the provision of feedback is incorporated in the course curriculum in a timely manner, learners may cognitively register the importance of incorporating recipient’s feedback but may still be unable to make the transformation in practice. This is because the concern goes beyond giving timely or even quality feedback. In any typical communication classroom, the burden of pedagogical duty is to provide feedback usually for a singular input (e.g., eye contact for oral presentation) so that learners may focus on specific areas of improvements. Yet, in authentic real-world communication, senders have to respond to myriad demanding inputs. Accordingly, the traditional approach of giving in-depth feedback alone is untenable since it does not prepare learners to process complex, multifaceted and sometimes competing input that are embodied in authentic communication. In sum, it is therefore insufficient that our feedback be solely timely, specific, and focused; they also need to be broad-based (yet unified) so as to adequately prepare our young learners to be skilled communicators in real life.

Pedagogically, this gap could be explicated as the lack of robust decoding tools that are efficacious in unpacking the feedback provided. Without an appropriate decoding tool, learners are ill-equipped to scaffold the deconstruction of their communication performance(s) accurately and independently. Conversely, if learners were to have access to effective decoding tools that aid them in breaking down feedback with greater precision, they would gain richer insights into the context-dependent dynamics between sender and recipient in a communication exchange.

In order to address this pedagogical gap, this article proposes the adoption of a robust decoding tool that works in tandem with the teaching of various encoding resources (e.g., 3Vs) to reimagine a unified pedagogical approach for a business communication course. To this end, the authors propose the competing values framework (Quinn et al., 1991) as a plausible decoding tool in the design of a signature business communication course at the tertiary level that more effectively integrates Shulman’s deep structure.

Decoding Communication Messages: The Competing Values Framework Approach

Thecompeting values framework(CVF) is a classical theory often invoked in the scholarship of management and organization (Quinn et al., 1991). Developed through the lens of leadership communication as competing or paradoxical in complex organizational structures, CVF has, over the years, been developed as a decoding tool for the profiling of human resources at the workplace (Ikramullah et al., 2016), a framework in understanding both leadership challenges (Lindquist & Marcy, 2016) and an approach in interrogating shifts in leadership communication styles (Belasen & Frank, 2010), among others. While the theorization of CVF has contributed extensively to the scholarship of management and organization, it has received little attention, as intended byQuinn et al. (1991), as a communicative model among communication scholars and educators.

Given the nature of managerial communication in the late 20th century as increasingly more complex, multilayered and demanding,Quinn et al. (1991)reshaped an organizational effectiveness framework developed byQuinn (1988)that documented the attendant organizational values as competing and somewhat paradoxical (seeFigure 2). In this framework, the four quadrants (i.e., open systems model, human relations model, rational goal model, and internal process model) and the two axes (i.e., internal/external focus and control/flexibility) depict the “conflicts or competing values of organizational life” (Quinn et al., 1991, p. 217).

Figure 2.

A competing values model of organizational effectiveness.

From this framework,Quinn et al. (1991)developed a similar model to describe organizational communication (seeFigure 3). The CVF depicts four quadrants (i.e., transformational communication, relational communication, instructional communication, and informational communication), and two axes (i.e., instrumental logic vs. relational awareness and conventional structure vs. dynamic content) that mirror the organizational aspects in the earlier model (seeFigure 2). Furthermore, within each quadrant, there are three strands with descriptors that further express a particular trait of any communicative task or performance (e.g., being expressive, credible, and aware are traits associated with the relational communication strand). With the coalescence of the more broad-based descriptions of communication foci (i.e., the different quadrants—transformational communication, relational communication, instructional communication; and informational communication) and the more fine-combed descriptors (e.g., credible, believable, plausible, and conceivable being the descriptors for one strand under the quadrant relational communication), the CVF not only delineates an extensive range of 12 traits and 46 descriptors to describe a communicative performance in a nuanced manner, it affords a linguistic register that is unique to the context of the working world. In sum, given that any act of authentic communication is always organic and multidimensional (i.e., that it involves more than one communicational aspect), the CVF framework is therefore sufficiently robust to map out any business communicative performance in four broad communicational dimensions.

Figure 3.

A competing values model of managerial communication.

While the merits of CVF appear sound as a theoretical model that responds toShulman’s (2005)deep structure in the context of designing a business communication course at the tertiary level, a significant challenge lies in instrumentalizing the theory as a meaningful pedagogical approach. In the context of this article, the authors describe the operationalization of an adapted CVF as a decoding tool to a business communication course so that learners can decode feedback from the standpoint of the recipient to reshape communication approaches purposefully (seeFigure 4).

Figure 4.

An example of the proposed competing values framework (CVF) approach in the teaching of business communication at the tertiary level.

In the following sections, we first contextualize the business communication course and introduce the research participants, then state the processes in adapting CVF as a decoding tool. Thereafter, we describe the operationalization of the CVF approach over the 13-week course before we exemplify the instrumentality of the CVF approach in the form of feedback for one communication task in the case of one learner. Finally, we examine the reception of the CVF approach, by way of a survey instrument, from the lenses of learners, tutors, and the authors in the same semester.

An Empirical Case: CVF as Decoding Tool in the Teaching of Business Communication

Course Overview: Business Communication for Leaders

Business Communication for Leaders is a four-credit foundational course for students enrolled in the bachelor of business administration program at the National University of Singapore. It contributes to the leadership core that comprises two other courses: (1) Leadership and Decision Making Under Uncertainty and (2) Strategic Management. The course is a 4-hour weekly course taught over 13 weeks (i.e., 52 hours). It has a 3-hour weekly face-to-face contact time and an (average) of 1-hour weekly online component. Face-to-face contact time constitutes what is normally associated as regular tutorial time while online time is usually devoted to activity-based learning such as the self-directed learning from select topical resources and the carrying out of collaborative work (e.g., peer reviews) over the Google Docs online environment.

Insofar as to prepare learners for the rigors of business communication in the working world within the limitations of a traditional classroom, the course learning environment is contextualized as the simulated workplace environment of Company X (see Supplemental Material Appendix A, available online;Drury-Grogan & Russ, 2013;Garay, 1995;Ismail & Sabapathy, 2016). In Company X, learners meet over weekly professional development workshops (i.e., the classroom face-to-face contact time) and perform the role of trainees in a management development program that provides intrapreneurhsip opportunities for proposing innovative ideas to help Company X gain a competitive advantage or fuel its further growth (Deloitte Digital, 2015). Tutors in the course act mainly as mentors, among other roles, to facilitate learners’ learning. This move to contextualize workplace learning not only shapes the interactional patterns among various stakeholders in the traditional classroom (i.e., learners performing as coworkers and business associates during assessments and tutors as mentors), it allows for the appropriation of contemporary thought leadership concepts (Deloitte Digital, 2015) as well as the design of authentic workplace communicative tasks as assessments (i.e., individual pitch, concept proposal writing, team presentation and Q&A, negotiation and performance appraisal; see Supplemental Material Appendix B, available online).

While the merits of a workplace-simulated course design are acknowledged in acquainting learners to the communicative demands in the business world, the course designers (authors) also anticipated possible cognitive dissonance among select learners in making sense of a pedagogical approach that is unlike dominant educational practices (e.g., lecture-tutorial model). As such, the framing of a workplace-learning approach along with the concept of Company X is introduced and reiterated at various junctures through different platforms at the start of the semester (see Supplemental Material Appendix C, available online) so as to reduce the mental load for learners to assimilate to the demands of the course.

Research Participants: Students and Tutors

The research was implemented over one semester in academic year 2017-2018. One hundred and ninety-four students enrolled in this course, which was divided into 12 smaller groups of between 14 and 18 students per tutorial group. Each tutorial group was taught by one of six tutors, including the authors of this article. The bulk of the students were from postsecondary pathways in the country’s mainstream education system while a handful were international students. All students were deemed to have adequate English proficiency to handle the demands of university-level education in an English-medium university. Students who had been identified as requiring foundational English would have passed a Basic English course prior to taking the business communication course. As for the tutors, all have at least a masters’ degree in applied linguistics, TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), or a communication-related field and are experienced in teaching communication courses to university-level students. All tutors have taught the business communication course for one semester before the study was carried out.

CVF as a Pedagogical Approach

While CVF has historically been used as a decoding tool for profiling purposes in various business functional contexts (Adams et al., 2016;Tong & Arvey, 2015), it has not been used as an evaluative instrument for grading students’ communication performances. In this research study, the objective was to appropriate CVF pedagogically both as an evaluative and decoding tool. As iterated, CVF as an evaluative tool was for the purpose of measuring students’ performances while CVF as a decoding tool was for the purpose of describing or profiling communicative performances (e.g., facilitating classroom activities and giving feedback on students’ performances). The conversion of the tool undertaken in this study involved a systematic process comprising the following steps.

Modifying CVF for Pedagogical Consideration

Prior to converting CVF into a measurement tool, it was relabeled in three ways for pedagogical consideration. First, the four communication quadrants in CVF were relabeled (seeTable 1). One of two changes is in the use of the label “aspect,” as opposed to “communication,” to underscore the competing or organic nature in communication exchanges. The other change is the adoption ofRogers and Hildebrandt’s (1993)replacement of “instructional” with “promotional” in order to underpin the notion of persuasion in business communication more succinctly. Second, the 12 strands are identified alphabetically (seeFigure 5) for clarity of instructional communication. Third, followingRogers and Hildebrandt (1993), numbered scales (i.e., 1 to 7) are applied to all 12 strands in order to establish CVF as a measurement tool (seeFigure 5).

Table 1.

Relabeling COMPETING Values Framework (CVF).

Original CVF labels (Quinn et al., 1991, p. 225)	Modified CVF labels
Relational communication	Relational aspect
Transformational communication	Transformational aspect
Instructional communication	Promotional aspect
Informational communication	Informational aspect

Figure 5.

A modified competing values framework (CVF) as a pedagogical tool.

Establishing Model CVF Profiles for Identified Communication Tasks

In order for CVF to function as an evaluative tool, model CVF profiles for the identified communication tasks (see Supplemental Material Appendix B, available online) were agreed upon between the authors of the article and shared with tutors and students in the respective assessment documents for all five assessments. These model CVF profiles would describe traits commonly ascribed to an expert communicator in the specific contexts of the different communication settings.

For example,Figure 6depicts a model CVF profile of effective communication in the context of a 3-minute pitch by a new management trainee to a team of senior managers (about 14 to 18) in their third week of an internship program. The aim of the pitch is to moot a new project idea (see Supplemental Material Appendices A and B, available online). In this context, not only does the speaker have to consider sociocultural appropriateness in the presentation, he or she has to meet the content requirements specified in the assessment document as well.

Figure 6.

A model competing values framework (CVF) profile of effective communication for an individual pitch.

InFigure 6, all except three traits are considered salient (i.e., rated as 7 for mastery of the features) for this communicative task, while three traits are deemphasized: B—expressive, open, candid, honest; D—strongly worded, emphatic, forceful, powerful; and L—technically correct, conventionally sound. The deemphasis of traits B and D are premised on the role of the students as new management trainees in Company X. Given the relative lack of power of a newcomer in any business setting, a reticent approach in presenting one’s idea may be an acceptable social convention in this business environment. Likewise, trait L is argued as nonconsequential since the focus of the pitch is on the creativity of ideas rather than specificities in terms of idea execution. Accordingly, in the cases of B, D, and L, the rating of 4 (the mid-point) denotes mastery in achieving a perfect balance in the demonstration of such features for the communication task.

While it is not exemplified inFigure 6, it is necessary to account for communication situations where the rating of 1 is considered model or ideal. A likely example is that of a washing machine manual. In this context, demonstration of traits B, C, D, and E should be kept to a minimum (i.e., rating 1) given that the purpose of a washing machine manual is highly instructional in orientation, thus demanding precision and control in one’s linguistic expression. As such, demonstration of B, C, D, and E are not expected in the communication of a washing machine manual. In fact, an active demonstration of B, C, D, or E would be deemed inappropriate for this communication context.

Formulating CVF Profile Ratings as Scores

As exemplified in the section before, given that there are three optimal rating possibilities (i.e., 7, 4, and 1) for any of the 12 strands, there are also three corresponding sets of rubrics and conversion schemes to convert these rating schemes into scores for the grading of students’ assessments.Tables 2to 4 denote the rubrics that describe socially accepted moves for each of the three scoring schemes as well as the conversion of ratings into scores. InTable 2where a rating of 7 is ideal, ratings of 6 to 7 indicate mastery of this feature and conversion from ratings to scores is not needed given that ratings and scores bear a direct relationship. InTable 3, where a rating of 4 means a perfect balance in demonstrating this feature, a rating of 4 is converted to the maximum score of 7 and every one rating away from the rating of 4 bidirectionally would attract a deduction of one score (e.g., both ratings of 3 and 5 would be converted to a score of 6). InTable 4where a rating of 1 means that the demonstration of this feature is not expected in the communication task, there is an inverse relationship between ratings and scores (e.g., rating of 1 is converted to the score of 7).

Table 2.

Competing Values Framework (CVF) Rubrics and Scores With 7 as Ideal.

Profile rating	Descriptors
6-7	Demonstrates this feature of the communication aspect exceptionally well for this communication task. There is minimal or no further improvement that can be suggested. A rating of 7 indicates mastery of this feature.
3-5	Demonstrates this feature of the communication aspect, but there is still room for improvement in this area to significantly enhance this aspect of communication for the communication task.
1-2	No or very weak demonstration of this feature of the communication aspect expected in this communication task.
Conversion of CVF ratings into scores
CVF rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Score	1	2	3	4	5	6	7

Table 3.

Competing Values Framework (CVF) Rubrics and Scores With 4 as Ideal.

Profile rating	Descriptors
6-7	Exaggerated demonstration of this feature of the communication aspect, that is, it is overdone for the communication task, for example, being too forceful when presenting the idea to higher management, or being too strong in presenting a certain viewpoint in a discussion
3-5	Demonstrates this feature of the communication aspect without overdoing or underdoing it for the communication task. A rating of 4 indicates a mastery in achieving the perfect balance in the demonstration of this feature for the communication task.
1-2	No or very weak demonstration of this feature of the communication aspect expected in this communication task.
Conversion of CVF ratings into scores
CVF rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Score	4	5	6	7	6	5	4

Table 4.

Competing Values Framework (CVF) Rubrics and Scores With 1 as Ideal.

Profile rating	Descriptors
6-7	Totally inappropriate demonstration of this feature of the communication aspect for this communication task, for example, being mind-stretching and visionary for a washing machine manual.
3-5	Demonstrates this feature of the communication aspect to a significant extent when it is not a feature of this communication task.
1-2	No or minimal demonstration of this feature of the communication aspect, which is highly appropriate. This is NOT a feature that is expected in this communication task.
Conversion of CVF ratings into scores
CVF rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Score	7	6	5	4	3	2	1

Operationalizing CVF as a Decoding Tool in the Business Communication Classroom

Overview

CVF as a decoding tool was first introduced to students in week 1 of the semester through a class activity that required students to rank the importance of the 12 CVF traits for a variety of communication tasks (e.g., a washing machine manual, a press conference over an airline crash incident, the pitching of a new project idea by a junior staff member to higher management). In small groups, students plotted the CVF on enlarged copies ofFigure 5after which they presented and offered reasons for the differences in the way each group had indexed the model CVF profiles for the assigned tasks. Through this negotiation process, students surfaced numerous implicit sociocultural considerations (e.g., power inequality, cultural conventions, situational demands of tasks at hand) that might implicate the way communication exchanges are framed using the labels of the 12 traits and four quadrants (relational, transformational, promotional, and informational) in the CVF. For example, students appreciated why the relational aspect would be higher when one engages the media/press after an airline crash than in the context of writing a washing machine manual since empathy toward audience (especially traits B and C) is of a greater consideration in the earlier task. Likewise, they also understood why the transformational aspect would be generally viewed as more salient in pitching a new project idea to higher management than it is in the writing of a washing machine manual, since the appeal of a fresh idea or an insightful perspective (especially traits E and F) is of more significance in a project pitch.

At the end of this activity, tutors expounded on the dynamism of communication with the aid ofFigure 4and explicated that while students would learn about various relevant encoding tools specific to the five communication tasks assessed in this course (see Supplemental Material Appendix B, available online), the CVF framework (seeFigure 5) would be used in tandem as an evaluation tool for all assessments and all classroom discussions so as to raise their awareness to situational demands in various communication tasks and to help them adjust their encoding strategies purposefully for various contextual demands.

Subsequent Applications

After the initial introduction of CVF as described above, the CVF was routinely used as a decoding tool in all classroom activities involving communication demonstrations (e.g., role-plays, peer and self-evaluations, presentation practices, drafts) and documented in all relevant course resources (e.g., student handouts, assessment documents).

Student Handouts

While it was the intention of the course designers (authors) to expose students to CVF as a decoding tool in deconstructing communication performances in classroom activities, they were cognizant not to inundate the learners with the complexity of CVF as an evaluative tool in converting ratings to scores (i.e., information inTables 2,3, and4were not provided). As such, only CVF as a decoding (or profiling) tool (seeFigure 5) was included in all student handouts and used routinely as a key schema and the metalanguage in this course.

Assessment Documents

The respective assessment documents include evaluation-related information peculiar to the specific communication task to orient students to be mindful of the way they encode their messages in consideration of how the messaging could be decoded or assessed by the intended audiences (seeFigure 4). Taking the same example of a 3-minute pitch by a new management trainee to a team of senior managers in an internship program referred to earlier, the documents as represented inFigure 6along withTables 5and6(excluding information under Student Profile Rating and comments under Description) present relevant evaluative information for the task.

Table 5.

Communication Strategies for Encoding of Messages in the Context of Individual Pitch.Evaluation Framework: Communicative Strategies for Individual Pitch as a Communication Task.

Evaluation frameworkCommunicative strategies for individual pitch as a communication task
Communicative strategies/tools(This serves as a guide and is not meant to be prescriptive.)
Visual: Maintains consistent eye-contact with all sections of the audience as a way to engage and connect with the audience and demonstrate genuine interest in them; displays appropriate facial expressions to demonstrate a friendly and approachable nature (e.g., smiling at the audience); displays an open, confident and relaxed posture (e.g., avoiding folding arms across body); purposefully uses symbolic gestures to complement or accentuate the verbal message (e.g., gesturing with fingers as a way to list items—1, 2, 3, raising your hand to show increment or growth).
Vocal: Speaks clearly (e.g., clear voice projection and clear articulation) and in a way that demonstrates interest and conviction (e.g., good pace, appropriate pitch, and energetic not monotonous tone). Pauses are inserted appropriately for effective message delivery and/or emphasis.
Verbal: Uses appropriate vocabulary, expressions and rhetorical tools to craft intentional messages (e.g., expressing appreciation for the audience’s time if the intention is relational; using vivid and descriptive words to help the audience visualize the positive outcome of an idea’s implementation).
Responding: Reacts appropriately to the audience’s reception of the message (e.g., paraphrases or provides an example if the audience clearly shows that they are lost.

Table 6.

Example of Feedback Using CVF Framework for Individual Pitch.

Communicative aspects	Model		Name of student
Communicative aspects	Module profile rating	Description	Student profile rating	Description
Relational aspect		Employs communicative strategies/tools appropriately to demonstrate speaker credibility and a genuine desire to connect with the audience and align with their/organization’s interests while being sensitive to the speaker-audience relationship. Exercises caution in being overly candid or expressive		VisualPosture: Shifts forward and backward. The pacing doesn’t get to a point of “being too much” but this is subjective. Some may find it excessive. In this case, I find the pacing as fitting the persona you’re cultivating—someone who’s authoritative, commanding. So, while the pacing is in line with the style, the question is if an authoritative style is suitable in this context since you’re speaking with senior managers.Eye contact and gestures: Gestures are big, purposeful, and energized; and they complement the use of eye contact as an engagement tool nicely. Eye contact is inclusive of all sections of the audience, pretty consistent and sustained.
(A) Credible, believable, plausible, conceivable	7		5
(B) Expressive, open, candid, honest	4		5
(C) Awareness, discerning, sensitive, perceptive	7		4
Average	6
Weighted average (%)	24
Transformational aspect		Employs communicative strategies/tools appropriately to demonstrate ability to offer a visionary and creative out-of-the-box solution to take advantage of a business opportunity that can gain a competitive advantage for the company. Avoids sounding too strong or forceful in order not to come across as aggressive
(D) Strongly worded, emphatic, forceful, powerful	4		6
(E) Insightful, expansive, mind stretching, visionary	7		4
(F) Innovative, creative, original, fresh	7		4
Average	6
Weighted average (%)	24
Promotional aspect		Employs communicative strategies/tools appropriately to stimulate the audience and compel them to action with an implementable solution
(G) Interesting, stimulating, engaging, absorbing	7		4
(H) Conclusive, consequential, decisive, action oriented	7		4
(I) Practical, informative, realistic, instructive	7		4
average	7
Weighted average (%)	28
Informational aspect		Employs communicative strategies/tools appropriately to present a pitch that is adequately researched, clear in argumentation, and easy to follow in structure. Follows convention but is not overly concerned with mundane technicalities		VocalVocal quality: Good pace, loud, clear, generally good articulation and pronunciation. Good word stress and energy. Generally fluent.VerbalAttention grabber: “Just another transport . . . that’s what Uber is.” A negative statement that definitely catches the attention of the audience. But is it attracting the attention in the right way? A negative statement is generally to jolt the audience to action and it’s probably to be “proved wrong” during the presentation. But in your case, it feels that it’s to reinforce how Uber is “really nothing but another transport company,” which is quite brutal for senior managers to hear (in those words).Impression: “Do we really value our drivers?” “What we really care about is growth”: Appears to be lecturing senior management. While passion is certainly evidenced in the presentation, we could be aware of the impression that we may be communicating.Solution: Not concrete. Focused on root cause(s) but did not shift toward implementable solutions.
(J) Focused, clear, logical, organized	7		4
(K) Rigorous, precise, disciplined, controlled	7		4
(L) Technically correct, conventionally sound	4		4
Average	6
Weighted average (%)	24
Total mark	100

Note.CVF = competing values framework.

InFigure 6, the model CVF profile for the communication task is presented. Supplemental Material Appendix D, available online, includes the information presented inFigure 6as well as the averages and weighted averages of the four communication aspects and further description. The averages and the weighted averages of the four areas denote the relative importance of any one area over the others. In this regard, while all four areas seem highly important in the context of the assigned task, the promotional aspect is most highly regarded (weighted average of 28 as compared with 24 equally for the other three areas). The information under Description not only connects the deployment of encoding tools (3Vs + 1R) holistically with each of the four communicative aspects but also underscores the saliency of subtlety in various aspects of communication. For instance, in the context of the 3-minute pitch to higher management, given that it was earlier established that traits B, D, and L that correspond with the areas of relational, transformational, and informational, respectively, are not salient (i.e., rating of 4 and the lower weighted averages in these three areas as compared with promotional), information under Description in these three areas are qualified to articulate the sense of nuance that one should consider when encoding messages for a particular impression. For example, under relational, the need to establish genuine connection should bear the consideration of power dynamics or social rapport (or distance) between speaker and audience. In the aspect of transformational, being perceived as visionary should not be socially misaligned with the notion of being outwardly powerful or aggression. Likewise, in the informational aspect, to be viewed as organized and systematic should not be construed as being legalistic or stiff.

InTable 5, the communicative strategies/tools indexed under Description are further unpacked to aid students in correlating encoding strategies in more detail in Supplemental Material Appendix D, available online. With the distribution of the assessment documents at appropriate junctures during the semester, tutors would also take time during face-to-face contact hours to ensure clarity in understanding the requirements of each assessment.

Competing Values Framework Feedback

Beyond the utility of the CVF framework as a schematic and evaluative tool in the course, it was also used as a feedback tool in three ways: peer-to-peer, mentor-to-learner, and for self-evaluation. InTable 6a mentor-to-student feedback using the CVF framework in the context of the 3-minute individual pitch was used to exemplify the way feedback were given in this implementation.

The feedback template is largely similar to Supplemental Material Appendix D, available online. Two additional columns were added to the right: Student profile rating and a description (or comments) column. In this particular instance, the student being evaluated presented a solution to Uber, a ride-hailing company (i.e., Company X). As can be seen from student’s profile rating, the student was not rated well in most categories. The tutor concerned (one of the authors) not only organized the feedback according to the encoding tools (i.e., 3Vs: visual, vocal, and verbal) that were taught in class, she was selective in providing only salient feedback that had affected the student’s performance.

Among all three Vs, the aspect of vocal appeared least problematic in this feedback. The student also received positive feedback in the use of eye contact and gestures to establish rapport with the audience. Though the feedback form was not designed to directly reflect the competency of students in demonstrating the 3Vs but to correlate the demonstration of the encoding tools to impressions that the recipient (tutor) may have of the sender (student), the positive demonstrations in the vocal aspect and in the use of eye contact and gestures did lend some credence to the student’s scores for traits A (i.e., credible, believable, plausible, and conceivable) and G (i.e., interesting, stimulating, engaging, and absorbing).

However, in the areas of posture and in the framing of the verbal message, the feedback given were qualified not only to acknowledge student’s choices in encoding the message in certain ways (e.g., “I find the pacing fitting the persona you’re cultivating—someone’s who’s authoritative, commanding,” “A negative statement that definitely catches the attention of the audience.”) but also to problematize the choices made in light of audience’s perception:

So while the pacing is in line with the style, the question is if an authoritative style is suitable in this contextsince you’re speaking with senior managers.

But is it attracting attention in a right way? A negative statement is generally to jolt the audience to action and it’s probably to be “proved wrong” during the presentation. But in your case, it feels that it’s to reinforce how Uber is “really nothing but another transport company,” which isquite brutal for senior managers to hear(in those words).

“Do we really value our drivers?” “What we really care about is growth.”:Appears to be lecturing senior management. While passion is certainly evidenced in the presentation, we could be aware of the impression that we may be communicating.

From the perception of the tutor in the role as senior manager, these two aspects had negatively affected her impression of the student as a management trainee mostly in the relational aspect. Finally, it was also noted in the feedback that the solution “was not concrete” (i.e., “focused on root cause(s) but did not shift towards implementable solution.”). As a result, this directly and negatively affected the dimensions of transformational, promotional, and informational.

Beyond the provision of tutor’s feedback for this assessment, students also received feedback using the same feedback form from peers (i.e., teammates) who also performed the roles of senior managers. From the collection of these feedback, students would then corroborate the input given in order to reflect on the ways they had communicated certain dominant impressions. Students were instructed to focus only on recurrent feedback on the same aspects. Once students had time to assimilate the bigger picture in the way they were perceived and could relate the impressions with how they could have encoded the messages, they were invited to arrange for consultation sessions with the tutor for further insights.

This feedback system would then be repeated for the next three assessments (see Supplemental Material Appendix B, available online). In order to ensure that students benefited from the CVF-based feedback, the final assessment (i.e., performance appraisal) required the students to communicate their growth, specifically as a communicator, in the 13-week course. This was the capstone to ensure that students take a more sustained approach toward self-evaluation in a community-based feedback loop that was theoretically robust and mutually beneficial.

Findings: The Utility of CVF as a Pedagogical Approach

In order to evaluate the efficacy of the CVF pedagogical approach in the study that was described earlier, two sets of postcourse evaluations were conducted. Fifty-four students responded to the survey while three tutors responded to the postcourse focus group discussion, respectively. The survey administered to students asked about their experience with the various pedagogical functions of the CVF on the course, the efficacy in which the CVF was adapted and used on the course, and their suggestions for improvement (see Supplemental Material Appendix E, available online). Focus group questions asked of tutors can be found in Supplemental Material Appendix E, available online. They include tutors’ perception of the extent to which the CVF with its focus on the four communication aspects (relational, transformational, promotional, informational) was effective in developing students’ business communication skills as a young leader, the extent to which the CVF was effective as a communication model and an evaluative tool, and the ease of its use.

Overall, students generally felt that the use of the CVF as a pedagogical tool “is ultimately a step in the right direction” (one student’s comment). In particular, when asked in Question 1 of the survey about various pedagogical functions of the CVF, and the extent to which the CVF was a robust schema in evaluating communication competence), students’ responses were decisively positive. More specifically, over 83% of respondents selected ratings from 4 (agree) to 6 (strongly agree) for how the introduction of the CVF and discussion of the profiles for different communication tasks in the first lesson was a helpful induction to the framework as a communication model and an evaluative tool (1a), how the four communication aspects (relational, transformational, promotional, and informational) covered in the CVF provided a good guide on key areas for them to focus on in developing their business communication skills as young leaders (1b), how having the same evaluation framework for all assignments was helpful in providing them with a common language to discuss and evaluate their performance (1c), how having the CVF evaluations from their peers/tutor helped them see more clearly the disparity between others’ and their perceptions of their communication (1d), and how by the time they finished the course, they knew their strengths on the four communication aspects of the CVF and the specific areas they needed to work on to better project themselves as an aspiring young leader in their communication (1e).

As for the perception of CVF both as a schematic framework and a decoding tool (Question 2a); 92.7% of the respondents rated 4 (agree) to 6 (strongly agree), thus indicating that this approach was helpful. One particular open-ended comment from a student summed up the pedagogical intent of the authors in framing the course design well: “[3Vs + 1R and the CVF] is effective as it allows me to understand how the 3Vs & 1R affects the 4 communication aspects of CVF.”

In a similar vein, the responses from the tutors was largely positive in how CVF was effective in “highlighting students’ strengths and weaknesses . . . [thereby steering them to develop] their skills in communication . . .” (Tutor A). In this sense, it “frames communication as a holistic skill” (Tutor B). Tutor C elaborated on the potentials of the CVF in response to Question 2:

Certainly useful. Oftentimes, when we look at leadership skills, there is a tendency to focus on good communication skills like speaking and writing skills, coming up with sound ideas and being organized. All these are necessary leadership skills. The CVF includes components not usually regarded in communication rubrics. This CVF tool allows students to understand the value of being open and engaging in their communication as well as the importance in being able to convey information that is insightful, refreshing and transformative (both verbally and in writing). This tool compels the students to go the extra mile to provide their audience with more than just facts and research—to make a connection with the audience and have the audience/readers trust what they say. The Relational and Transformative aspects in particular are key to helping students develop leadership skills such as gaining and maintaining trust, establishing and maintaining rapport, being engaging, offering insightful information while being original and creative.

From the above, the CVF has potential to focus learners’ attention to “make a connection with the audience” (Tutor C) in a concrete yet organic orientation (i.e., the 12 traits and the four quadrants). This qualifies CVF relationship as deep structure (Shulman, 2005) in a communication course since it directs the attention of learners beyond the mundane task of managing others’ impressions to the more meaningful purpose of cultivating social sensitivities and values as young leaders.

While the receptivity of the CVF as a pedagogical approach and a decoding tool has been largely positive, the implementation of the CVF as an evaluative tool for assessments was raised as a concern by both student respondents and tutors. This perception can be traced to two factors. First, almost 50% (rated 4 to 6) of the students surveyed felt “certain aspects of the CVF unclear” (Question 2d) and rated these aspects 4 to 6. One student clarified that “there were many overlaps and it is unclear which category the details fall under” while Tutor C felt that “the components of Rigorous, Precise, Disciplined and Controlled under Informational aspect were confusing. Perhaps they could be clearer in description.”

Second, respondents found the “numeric ratings of each strand rather subjective” (Question 2c), and 83.3% of the students rated 4 to 6 in this aspect. One student summarized it as follows:

I think there could be an element of subjectivity. For example, getting a 4 for vocal as opposed to a 5, what is the difference that caused this variation? Is it solely to the discretion of the assessor? It would be better if it were more defined.

This sense of subjectivity was echoed by tutors who felt that the CVF as an evaluative tool needed more rigorous fine-tuning to reduce subjectivity in marking (Tutor A) and to “better capture the needed skills under each [diverse] assignment” (Tutor C). In fact, Tutor A suggested that the CVF could be more meaningfully kept as a decoding or profiling tool (as opposed to an evaluative tool):

The CVF is good in profiling students’ strengths and weaknesses, highlighting areas which they are good at or need improvement. It is also good because it provides a framework which acts as a guide in some aspects of communication.

Based on the survey findings reported, it is surmised that the introduction of the CVF as a decoding tool was perceived by students and tutors as positive on three levels. First and most significant was the heightened sense of self-awareness among students in the way they performed various communication tasks. Through the rigorous system of feedback (a contingent process in this empirical study), students received multiple decoded input in a consistent manner (i.e., CVF profile-based feedback). The input helped them adjust the way they would encode further messages. In this repeated iteration, students eventually developed the habit of self-evaluation and situational awareness when they communicate. More significantly, beyond the instrumentality of CVF as a mere communication decoding tool, the deployment of the framework as a pedagogical approach was well-positioned to develop the broad-based communication competency of the learners as young leaders. Through the numerous cycles of constructive and targeted quality feedback, dominant communication gaps as well as successes unique to respective students were singled out so as to challenge them to make sense of their growth not just for the sake of their assessments and grades but as leader-communicators in the long term.

Second, with the use of the CVF as a unified schema, students were more focused in making targeted adjustments in the way they adjusted encoding tools when they communicated in various tasks. This is because the metalanguage used in giving feedback was specific in terms of attributes (e.g., visual—more sustained eye contact to improve relational impact) yet broad-based in terms of range (e.g., the 3Vs). Third, the use of CVF improved the depth of conversation in the democratic classroom since it was a stable schema that both students and tutors could draw on to ensure common understanding.

Authors’ Reflections and Calibrations of CVF as a Decoding Tool

Authors’ Reflections

From this empirical study, both authors acknowledge the merits of CVF as a robust decoding or profiling tool. Not only did the CVF implementation raise learners’ awareness to the decoding of messages and to aspects of communication impact (i.e., relational, transformational, promotional, informational) in various communication exchanges, its more significant contribution was in affording the young learners a systematic approach to hone their leadership-communication skills.

While the CVF lends itself well as a decoding (profiling) tool, the authors also attribute the success of the CVF implementation to the systematic way in which the redesign of the course was carried out. Incidentally, the systematicity in operationalizing the course design falls withinShulman’s (2005)notion of surface structure, which indexes the operational aspects in managing classroom discourse. This included the way the CVF was conceptualized, introduced and reinforced in all classroom activities, assessment documents and in the administration of feedback.

Given the signature design of the course and the utilization of the CVF, which deviate from conventional teaching of communication courses, selection and the training of tutors were also paramount in ensuring the successful runs of this course. In the selection of tutors, the authors (full-time lecturers) have been privileged to have the support of a strong and relatively stable team of six to nine part-time tutors over the 3 years of the study. In sum, in this operational aspect of curriculum planning and execution, the authors were thankful for the strong support that they had from program management in selecting quality tutors to participate in the teaching of this course.

However, the authors also acknowledged that CVF as an evaluative tool was not tenable for several reasons. First, as pointed out in the findings presented in the earlier section, the complexity in ascribing scores based on ratings of three rating scales (i.e., where 7, 4, and 1 could be optimal) and in rating communication performances based on a variable point system could understandably be perceived as unnecessarily complicated, somewhat arbitrary, and possibly subjective.

Second, while the conversion of the CVF as an evaluative tool seemed to work for the assessment of individual tasks, its utility for the evaluation of team-related tasks was problematic. For example, for a team pitch where each team member handled one part of the pitch, an evaluation using the CVF must recognize that different parts of the pitch lend themselves more readily to the demonstration of certain communication traits and not others. For example, traits such as being insightful, expansive, mind-stretching, and visionary are likely to be demonstrated in the description of the proposed idea; while traits such as being practical, realistic, and instructive are likely to be demonstrated in the discussion of the project’s implementation.

Third, while it was the intention of the authors to provide model profiles for all identified communication tasks so that students, who had little full-time work experience, could be oriented toward dominant business norms and expectations in the Asian business landscape, the perception among students might have been different. Some might argue that, given the open-ended nature of most communication in the 21st century, the ascription of a model might have invariably commodified all communication possibilities to one iteration, and hence reduce agentic opportunities for them to question nuanced and ever-shifting power relations in Asian business social practices and to construct their own communication possibilities. Paradoxically and in mitigation, it is the very nature of robust workplace communication in today’s disruptive economy that demands a model that reflects the multifaceted nature in real-world communication. Hence, it is perhaps not the instrumentality of the model that could be problematic with students. It is possibly the approach in which some tutors could have used it in a prescriptive manner that might have been the underlying concern.

Calibrations of CVF as a Decoding Tool

As established in this article, the deployment of CVF as a unified approach not only attest to the potentials of CVF as being robust; its utility as a decoding tool serves the appropriate need to augment the traditional communication model to profile communication performances.

Accordingly, based on the findings from the survey presented earlier and further discussions among the tutors, the authors of the article proceeded to further simplify the CVF as a decoding tool in subsequent runs of the course. The intention was to retain the essence of CVF while simplifying its use. In a significant shift from the CVF version presented in this article, not only are rating scales (i.e., 1 to 7) removed, the 12 traits are collapsed to an exemplification of descriptors for each of the four quadrants (seeFigure 7). Each quadrant contains three descriptors shortlisted from three traits. The final selection of the descriptors was agreed on by the authors based on two considerations. First, it was in response to a feedback comment from the survey that highlighted the perceived overlap in some of the descriptors that are found across traits. For instance, the descriptors in trait K (i.e., rigorous, precise, disciplined, controlled) are not clearly differentiated from those in trait J (i.e., focused, clear, logical, organized). Second, the authors found some descriptors not particularly useful for purpose of evaluation (e.g., expansive, clear). In the end, three descriptors for each of the four quadrants are retained as they provide sufficient breadth (as a foundational course) for pedagogical reasons.

Figure 7.

A modified competing values framework (CVF) as a decoding tool used in future iterations.

In keeping to the intended instrumentality of CVF to unpack nuances in communication performances, numeric ratings were removed. Instead, extensive qualitative feedback leveraging on the use of CVF labels (i.e., relational, transformational, promotional, informational) are highly encouraged. This adoption of the metalanguage, or a common language, is to orient learners to reflect on their communication performances in broad terms that are accessible to all stakeholders (e.g., learners, tutors, administrators) in the course. Also, it is to steer the attention of learners who are often fixated on scores and ratings toward growth as leader-communicators. In addition to providing feedback in this manner, the authors are also, at the time of this writing, deliberating on the plausibility of providing the option to indicate the extent to which learners are perceived as adequately or inadequately relational, transformational, promotional, informational for each communication task. The key consideration is in moderating the provision of appropriate and sufficient scaffolds that aid learners in making sense of feedback given without inundating them with an overload of information.

In the same token, model CVF profile for each assessment (seeFigure 6) andTables 5and6(excluding information under Student Profile Ratings and comments under Description) were also removed. For the purpose of scoring, tutors score according to observed demonstrations of encoding tools deployed (e.g., 3Vs). Three bands (i.e., expert, developing, beginning) with specific descriptors are then used to rate communication performances based on the demonstration of specific communication features or encoding tools taught. As for assessments that involve students working in teams (e.g., group business proposal, team pitch), CVF-based feedback is further distilled between feedback given at the team and individual level. For example, feedback on a team pitch might highlight that the team has done well on the transformational aspect based on an innovative and insightful project idea presented while also pointing out that the individual speaker’s utilization of the visual and vocal tools (e.g., eye contact and intonation) contributes to the intended audience’s positive perception of the speaker on the relational aspect.

In going forward, the authors are keen to refine the CVF further and to undertake research to update the currency of the CVF in the 21st century. Given that the CVF was first developed before the emergence of the internet age, it is probable that the new social changes in today’s digital economy have rendered some of CVF descriptors obsolete (i.e., 12 traits and four quadrants).

In summary, given the attendant orientation of the CVF framework toward business communication impact (i.e., relational, transformational, informational, promotional) in praxis, it serves the pedagogical gap that is observed in many typical communication courses taught at the tertiary level. This gap is best described as a lack of a unified schema that allows learners to simultaneously correlate the way they encode messages and the way recipients formulate impressions. However, beyond the merits of CVF as a tool to hone leadership-communication skills of future young leaders, the theory of CVF embodies much potentials to be reimagined as a fresh curriculum approach that is geared toward establishing deeper understanding between sender and recipient in business communication settings.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-bcq-10.1177_2329490620985909 – Supplemental material for Competing Values Framework as Decoding Tool: Signature Pedagogy in Teaching Business Communication

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-bcq-10.1177_2329490620985909 for Competing Values Framework as Decoding Tool: Signature Pedagogy in Teaching Business Communication by Hoi-Yi Katy Kan and Norhayati Ismail in Business and Professional Communication Quarterly

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study received approval from the Institutional Review Board of National University of Singapore, where the research was conducted (S-18-137E). All students’ comments from the Google Survey and tutors’ feedback are anonymous and reproduced by permission.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hoi-Yi Katy Kan

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Hoi-Yi Katy Kanis a lecturer in the Centre for English Language Communication at the National University of Singapore. She has taught, coordinated, and designed communication courses for business students at two universities and two polytechnics. Her research interests include critical pedagogy, communication education, and politics humor.

Norhayati Ismailis a senior lecturer in the Centre for English Language Communication at the National University of Singapore. She has taught and designed communication courses for business, computing, engineering, and real estate students. Her research interests include effective course design and meaningful classroom interactions and feedback.

References

Adams

Dawson

Foureur

(2016).Competing values framework: A useful tool to define the predominant culture in a maternity setting in Australia.Women and Birth,30(2),107-113.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2016.09.005

Belasen

Frank

(2010).A peek through the lens of the competing values framework: What managers communicate and how.Atlantic Journal of Communication,18(5),280-296.https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2010.521475

Deloitte Digital. (2015).Five insights into intrapreneurship: A guide to accelerating innovation within corporations. [White paper].Deloitte.https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/technology/Intrapreneurship_Whitepaper_English.pdf

Drury-Grogan

M. L.

Russ

T. L.

(2013).A contemporary simulation infused in the business communication curriculum: A case study.Business Communication Quarterly,76(3),304-321.https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569913493923

Garay

M. S.

(1995).Meeting workplace needs in an introductory business writing course: A tale of a classroom corporation and a “boss” instructor.Business Communication Quarterly,58(1),35-41.https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999505800109

Heinert

(2017).Peer critique as a signature pedagogy in writing studies.Arts & Humanities in Higher Education,16(3),293-304.https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022216652767

Ikramullah

van Prooijen

J.-W.

Iqbal

M. Z.

Ul-Hassan

F. S.

(2016).Effectiveness of performance appraisal: Developing a conceptual framework using competing values approach.Personnel Review,45(2),334-352.https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2014-0164

Ismail

Sabapathy

(2016).Workplace simulation: An integrated approach to training university students in professional communication.Business Communication Quarterly,79(4),487-510.https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490616660814

Lindquist

Marcy

(2016).The competing values framework: Implications for strategic leadership, change and learning in public organizations.International Journal of Public Leadership,12(2),167-186.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-01-2016-0002

10.

Quinn

R. E.

(1988).Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance.Jossey-Bass.

11.

Quinn

R. E.

Hildebrandt

H. W.

Rogers

P. S.

Thompson

M. P.

(1991).A competing values framework for analyzing presentational communication in management contexts.Journal of Business Communication,28(3),213-231.https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369102800303

12.

Rogers

P. S.

Hildebrandt

H. W.

(1993).Competing values instruments for analyzing written and spoken management messages.Human Resource Management,32(1),121-142.https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930320107

13.

Shannon

C. E.

Weaver

(1998).The mathematical theory of communication.University of Illinois Press. (Original work published 1949)

14.

Shulman

L. S.

(2005).Pedagogies in the professions.Daedalus,134(3),52-59.https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526054622015

15.

Tong

Y. K.

Arvey

R. D.

(2015).Managing complexity via the competing values framework.Journal of Management Development,34(6),653-673.https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-04-2014-0029

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB