Traditional models have divided the increasingly popular domain of leadership into contrasting, either/or categories

Traditional models have divided the increasingly popular domain of leadership into contrasting, either/or categories. The vast majority of examples from the leadership literature create dichotomies of leadership (e.g., Theory X vs. Theory Y; task vs. socioemotional; participative vs. autocratic; transactional vs. transformational). There has been little effort to combine the existing dichotomies into a larger synthesis or examine the extent to which multiple forms of leader behavior are required (Hart & Quinn, 1993). Using any one of these dichotomous models exclusively can lead to either/or thinking, which is a limited and ineffective way of conceptualizing leadership (Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 1989). Robert Quinn is among those authors that have recently begun to argue that effective leadership requires a balancing and simultaneous mastery of seemingly contradictory or paradoxical capabilities-decisiveness and reflectiveness, broad vision and attention to detail, bold moves and incremental adjustment, and a performance as well as people orientation (Hart & Quinn, 1993). Quinn's model of leadership is based on the Competing Values Framework for organizational analysis. The Competing Values Framework (CVF) was developed initially from research conducted on the major indicators of effective organizations. Based on statistical analyses of a comprehensive list of effectiveness indicators, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) discovered two major dimensions underlying conceptions of effectiveness. The first dimension is related to organizational focus, from an internal emphasis on the well-being and development of people in the organization to an external focus on the well-being and development of the organization itself. The second dimension differentiates organizational preference for structure and represents the contrast between stability and control and flexibility and change. When these value dimensions are juxtaposed, a spatial model emerges (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Together the two dimensions form four quadrants,