Competing Values in Healthcare: Balancing the (Un)Balanced Scorecard‪.‬

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Facing a complex environment driven by two decades of dramatic change, healthcare organizations are adopting new strategic frameworks such as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) to evaluate performance (Kaplan and Norton 1992). The BSC was not originally developed as a performance management tool, however. Rather, it was designed as a tool to communicate strategy and, as such, provides little guidance when actual outcomes fall short of desired outcomes. In addition, although the BSC is an improvement over exclusively financial measures, it has three conceptual limitations that are especially problematic for evaluating healthcare organizations: (1) it underemphasizes the employee perspective, (2) it is founded on a control-based management philosophy, and (3) it emphasizes making trade-offs. To address these limitations, we propose using the Competing Values Framework (CVF), a theoretically grounded, comprehensive approach to understanding and improving organizational and managerial performance by focusing on four action imperatives: competing, controlling, collaborating, and creating. The CVF pays particular attention to the employee perspective, is consistent with a commitment-based management philosophy, and emphasizes transcending apparent paradoxes to identify win-win solutions. Rather than focusing on customer satisfaction or employee satisfaction, the CVF looks for ways to satisfy customers and employees while still addressing financial constraints and growth opportunities. The CVF also can be used to assess both the culture of the organization and the competencies of individual managers, thereby providing a clear link between strategy and implementation.