Multi-Frame Approach by Bolman and Deal, Contingency Theory - Coursework Example

Change Management Ass 2 Introduction: Organizations especially the larger ones are complex entities. The human mind is complex and one of the primary components of organizations is its employees. Many factors affect the thinking and behaviour of employees within an organization. It will depend on the management, the organizational politics, and other internal and external factors that are able to influence this thinking and behaviour. The complexity is even more in today’s highly globalized environment. Free trade and globalization has resulted in a large number of companies expanding overseas in order to be competitive. This has resulted in a multi-racial and multi-cultural workplace. Moreover the mergers and acquisitions have caused diverse organizational cultures to come together resulting in a clash of cultures. Bolman and Deal state that "managers regularly face an unending barrage of puzzles or "messes." To act without creating more trouble, they must first establish an accurate picture of what is happening. Then they must proceed to a deeper level, asking, "What is really going on here?" This important step in reading a situation is often overlooked. As a result, managers may form superficial analyses and leap on solutions nearest at hand or most in vogue. Market share declining? Try strategic planning. Customer complaints? Put in a quality program. Profits down? Time to reengineer or downsize” (Bolman & Deal 33). Taking hasty decisions in the name of adaptability and dynamism through superficial analysis can cause negative consequences especially in the long run. This paper reviews organizational change with reference to the multi-frame approach to organizational diagnosis. The consequences of superficial analysis will be done first. This will be followed by the multi-frame approach for understanding organizations. A contingency approach to change and the sociological matrix of organizational culture by Goffee and Jones will also be reviewed. a few examples of organizations with regard to the multi-frame approach will also be provided. Consequences of superficial analysis in change management: Bolman and Deal argue that even apparently brilliant managers act in dumb ways in change management scenarios. They are of the view that such many of these problems are caused not because the managers are stupid or inexperienced, but due to other (mostly personal) factors. This attitude is referred to as the ‘self-destructive intelligence syndrome’. Referring Feinberg and Tarrant who coined the phrase, the authors state that “people act stupid because of personality flaws – things like pride, arrogance, and unconscious needs to fail” (Bolman & Deal 6). Other factors may include lack of experience, inefficiency lack of required capability in managing. Bolman and Deal calls this the ‘curse of cluelessness’. The organizations especially large ones seen today are complex entities. Factors industrial revolution, advances in communication technologies, and globalization has, to a large extent made redundant the concept of pure organized activity. It is not easy to understand the diverse factors that exist within organizations for its smooth functioning. Change can influence or affect all these factors, but managers often try to bring in changes without taking them into account. Whatever may the causes, change management through superficial analysis has consequences, some serious and other that can be corrected. In both cases, the organization will lose resources in terms of money, time, and job losses. In the most serious instances, the organization itself may cease to exist. The following cases will illustrate the consequences of poorly managed change. One of the biggest corporate disasters in US history was the collapse of the energy giant Enron. The Company was once considered a leader in radical management practices. Their ‘asset light’ strategy was hailed as a concept of remarkable ingenuity. But the company and thousands of other stakeholders had to pay the price due to its collapse because its management practices (once praised by the business world) led to its downfall. Another instance is the change management practices brought in by Robert Nardelli in Home Depot. Nardelli whom Jack Welch considered to be a superb operations manager had little clue about the running of a retail organization like Home Depot. According to an article published by Wharton titled ‘Home Unimprovement: Was Nardelli's Tenure at Home Depot a Blueprint for Failure?’, “He did not know the retailing business and mistakenly thought that what had worked at GE could be readily transplanted to Home Depot's more freewheeling, entrepreneurial culture” (Home Unimprovement: Was Nardelli's Tenure at Home Depot a Blueprint for Failure?). The culture at GE where Nardelli was previously employed was strictly based on performance. He actually revamped the friendly and informal culture at Home Depot into a command and control one. The high level of freedom enjoyed by managers was replaced by strong control from above. Managers and staff were judged by performance and metrics. In fact most managers were replaced by ones whose background was the military. Initial results were promising and profits increased dramatically. But in the long run employee morale dropped and the quality of customer service was badly affected. Soon the company ranked last in customer satisfaction surveys. Bolman and Deal analyse the situation as follows regarding Nardell’s change management policies – “He was a victim of one of the most common afflictions of leaders; seeing an incomplete or distorted picture as a result of overlooking or misrepresenting important signals” (Bolman & Deal 5). Organizational culture clash can happen in case of mergers and acquisitions. The 1994 merger of Snapple Beverages with Quaker Oats proved to be a disaster as a result of superficial analysis of the situation. According the Thomas, in his article titled ‘Mergers & Acquisitions: Irreconcilable Differences, the cause was “a clash of cultures in which Quaker grossly underestimated the differences between its highly focused, mass-market operating style and Snapple's quirky, entrepreneurial and distributor-oriented style” (Thomas). Three difference consequences of poor or superficial analysis for managing organizational change has been provided here. In the worst case, the organization can go bankrupt as in the case of Enron. In the case of Home Depot, Nardelli was eventually replaced. Quaker Oats had to sell off Snapple in 1997. The lesson to be learnt here is that “All change requires investment. Structural changes are especially expensive. Managers are well-advised to avoid doctrinaire initiatives based on current trends or superficial analysis” (Change Management at Options Appraisal Stage 8). Multi-frame approach: Bolman and Deal have conceptualized an organization as having multiple frames in order to have a deeper understanding of its complexity. According to Gallos and Schein, “the images result from their work to synthesize and integrate the major traditions in organizational theory into four distinct areas:  theories about structuring organizations, human resource-related issues, political dynamics, and symbolic concerns” (Gallos & Schein 345). The authors refer to these four areas or frames as machines, families, jungles, and theater respectively. Gallos and Schein analyses the complexity of the organization using the four frames as follows (Gallos & Schein 347): The structure of the organization is referred to as the machine frame and its theoretical roots are from the fields of sociology, economics and psychology (mainly industrial psychology). The basic managerial skills needed are formal relationships and rational thinking. Organizations are entities with goals and hence an organized structure which is managed through rational thinking is necessary. Any issues that come up can be resolved through analysis and re-structuring. Specialization and coordination among different tasks and departments are necessary. The human resource frame is referred to as family probably because it requires relationships on a more personal basis. It requires the understanding of such areas as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. This is an important function since managing employees is complex, but very necessary. It involves balancing (and often conflicting) organizational and employee goals. Managers need to see that the job is done and goals achieved and at the same time see to it that employees are satisfied and well looked after. Training, hiring, retaining, downsizing, job allocation etc are the tasks involved in managing this frame. The political frame is rightly referred to as jungle. The root theory that is needed to be applied here is political science. Knowledge of other behavioral sciences also helps. Organizational politics is bound to exist in all types of organizations big and small. Only its level and intensity will differ. It is influenced by power and power groups, both formal and informal. It can also be influenced by external factors like the political affiliations of employees. Trade unionism is also a factor in influencing politics within organizations. Hawkins and Miller state that “like many of the stereotypes about politics, it remains the ‘dark, smoke-filled room’ of organizational behavior” (Vigoda-Gadot & Drory 328). Personal interests that override organizational ones, values and belief systems are other factors that influence this state of affairs. In many cases, resources like time and money may be scarce. Different departments will fight for these scarce resources to be allotted to them using various tactics including political pressure. Managers have to be proficient in the art of bargaining, negotiating, and managing conflict. The scarce resources have to be allocated in such a way that they are managed efficiently and also see to it that different groups are satisfied or pacified. The symbolic frame is intangible and is referred to as theatre. This area primarily deals with the emotions and feeling of employees. Stadtländer, while reviewing ‘Reframing Organizations’ purports that “the Symbolic Frame (metaphors: Carnival, temple, or theater) sees organizations as cultures, propelled more by rituals, ceremonies, stories, heroes, and myths than by rules, policies, and managerial authorities” (Stadtländer 48). In short this frame deals with and manages the organizational culture. Theories of psychology, sociology, and anthropology are useful here. Managers should create a shared vision (between employees and the management) and positive atmosphere within the organization. Bolman and Deal conclude the chapter by saying that successful managers “reframe until they understand the situation at hand. They do this by using more than one frame, or perspective, to develop both a diagnosis of what they are up against and strategies for moving forward” (Bolman & Deal 15). Contingency theory Contingency theories are generally those that explain a connection with a firm’s external and internal environments. According to the theory, the external environment faced by the firm has a strong bearing on its internal policies, structures, and other related factors (Contingency theories). According to a paper titled ‘Scanning the Business Environment: some conceptual issues’, “this approach arrives at the conclusion that the external environment within which an organization chooses to function, determines the internal structure” (Kourteli 407). The paper cautions managers to be extra vigilant in scanning and understanding the external environment mainly due to its dynamism and complexity. These factors directly affect the internal factors which require constant modifications and tunings so that it can match the external environment. Managers often fail to use information that is relevant even if they have it. In many cases, managers are unable or incapable of gathering relevant and useful information. This includes the inability to gather relevant information that is required to fix the long term goals of the organization. The culture map developed by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones is a matrix that can identify the existence of difference in organizational culture between two organizations. The matrix as developed by the two economists is given below. The two main factors that are considered are solidarity (X axis) and sociability (Y axis). The level from high to low moves from left to right in the case of solidarity and moves from bottom to top in the case of sociability. Solidarity refers to the level of closeness or bonding with the employer while the sociability refers to the warmth (high or low) that exists among employees. Source: (Thomas 31) The bottom left hand grid (fragmented) presents the worst scenario for any company. The employees concern with regard to each other and for the company is low. The top left hand grid (networked) is a situation where employees have a good relationship among each other, but concern for the company is low. The bottom right hand grid (mercenary) presents a goal oriented and highly competitive environment. Employees can be selfish with regard to colleagues and winning at any cost for achieving company goals (and achieving personal targets) is the norm. The top right hand grid (communal) is the ideal situation where concern for the company and colleagues is high. The company will be competitive and efficient and the working atmosphere will be good. Examples of multi-frame approaches: Structural frame: Bolman and Deal had extensively studies various corporations and other organizations while developing their multi-frame approach. McDonald’s structure allows little discretion about doing their jobs. It is highly standardized and does not require any creativity (Bolman & Deal 57). For example, a hamburger from the company’s outlets will taste the same whether it is in London or New York. It is true that the Mac does bring in some allowances with regard to cultural and religious beliefs in some counties. But on the whole, the level of standardization is high. Any manager who tries to change this will cause problems. Human resources frame: There may be many organizations that integrate good HR practices into their management. Hence, the examples given here are based on excellence in HR practices awarded to companies by a competent national body or organization (in this case, the Australian HR Awards 2008). The Adaps Award for Best HR Strategic Plan went to Ecolab, The LINK Recruitment Award for Innovation in Recruitment and Retention went to Deloitte, The Adcorp Award for Best Employer Branding Strategy went to Vodafone and The Pollak Learning Alliance Award for Best Learning & Development Strategy went to National Australia Bank (The Australian HR Awards 2008) Political frame: The FBI and CIA, the two major investigating agencies in the United States had vied with each other with the Federal Government for international reach in investigation. Each organization had their own political (power) reasons for doing so. President Roosevelt ultimately gave this status to the CIA. The internal politics within the two organizations also prevents close association between the two. Bolman and Deal states that “at a number of major junctures in American history (including the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Iran - Contra scandal, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks), each agency held pieces of a larger puzzle, but coordination snafus made it hard for anyone to see all the pieces, much less put them together” (Bolman & Deal 14). Symbolic frame: The passion created by Starbucks among its employees can be cited as an example of symbolic frames. The five basic principles that employees are bound to adopt is symbolic of the culture that pervades the organization. They are ‘make it your own, everything matters, surprise and delight, embrace resistance, and leave your mark’ (Michelli 16). Conclusion: Understanding complexity of organizations is challenging and managers often look for the easy way out by a superficial analysis. Bolman and Deal provides a multi-frame approach by which managers can avoid this pitfall. This is especially true in times of organizational change. They can also look at the contingency theory (external influencers), and the Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones matrix for better understanding of the complexity. What managers should take notice is that superficial analysis for managing change (especially if it has long term repercussions) is sure to backfire often requiring the company to revert back to its original ways. Works Cited Bolman, Lee G & Deal, Terrence E. Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership. Illustrated 3rd edn: John Wiley and Sons, 2003. “Change Management at Options Appraisal Stage”. Community Housing Task Force: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 26 June 2009 < http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138442.pdf> Gallos, Joan V & Schein, Edgar H. Organization development: a Jossey-Bass reader. Illustrated Edition: John Wiley and Sons, 2006. “Home Unimprovement: Was Nardelli's Tenure at Home Depot a Blueprint for Failure?” Knowledge@Wharton, January 10, 2007. 26 June 2009 < http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/printer_friendly.cfm?articleid=1636> Kourteli, Liana. “Scanning the business environment: some conceptual issues”. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 7. 5 (2000): 406-413. Michelli, Joseph A. The Starbucks experience: 5 principles for turning ordinary into extraordinary. McGraw-Hill Professional, 2006. Stadtländer, Christian T. K.-H. “Book Review: Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership”. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies. 12. 1 (2007): 48-49. 21 June 2009 < http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol12_no1_pages_48-49.pdf> “The Australian HR Awards 2008”. The HR Leadership Awards, 2009. 26 June 2009 Thomas, RJ. “Irreconcilable Differences”. Outlook. no.1: 28-35. 21 June 2009 < http://www.accenture.com/NR/rdonlyres/2BDB27CD-0E02-42E9-B8C1-A10B888C14C3/0/maa2.pdf> Thomas, RJ. “Mergers and Acquisitions: Irreconcilable Differences”. Outlook. no.1: 2000. 26 June 2009 Vigoda-Gadot, Eran & Drory, Amos. Handbook of organizational politics. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006. Read More