Systematic Investigation of Bolman and Deals Four Frame Model of Organizational Leadership - Coursework Example

Running header: Employee motivation Student’s name: Instructor’s name: Subject code: Date of submission: Abstract Motivating the employees is very important for all the organizations since a motivated workforce will mean that they will be highly productive. This will help the organization in achieving its goals and hence every organization ought to aim at motivating its employees if it is to achieve its goals and objectives. It worth noting that the organizational leadership has a great role to play in motivating the followers (employees) in their bid to achieve the organizational goals and objectives. In their bid to motivate employees, it will be important for them to understand what motivates their employees if they are to effectively motivate them. Bolman and Deal came up with four frames of leadership at which organizational leaders view the organization and hence adopt them in leading the organization and hence end up motivating their employees in different ways. But how does each of Bolman and Deal’s four frames view employee motivation and how do they achieve employee motivation differently? This essay performs a systematic investigation of Bolman and Deal’s four frame model of organizational leadership in a bid to establish how each views employee motivation as well as how employee motivation is achieved using each of the four frames. In so doing, each frame’s views are related to the applicable theories of motivation. Thus, the essay focuses on how motivation is conceptualized by each frame and how the frame suggests that employee motivation be handled. In addition, the essay highlights the blind spots that each frame might have. The essay starts with the introduction of the importance of employee motivation in the organization as well as the relationship between employee motivation and organizational leadership. Each of the four frames is then discussed in detail with regard to the above issues. In conclusion, the essay recommends that organizational leaders be flexible enough to apply different frames at different times as situations may demand. This way, they will be ensured of effectively motivating the employees and hence ensure effective organizational performance. Introduction Employee motivation is a key factor in ensuring that organizations perform effectively and as expected and for maximum productivity. This is because motivation is a force that accounts for the direction, level and persistence of an employee’s effort expended at work. In other words, the more motivated an employee is the more effort he or she expends at work and the less motivated the employee is, the less effort will be expended at work. Various factors determine the level of employee motivation and to a large extent their level of job satisfaction and hence the degree to which the organization performs effectively (Vahida, 2006). In an attempt to explain the reason behind different levels of individual/employee motivation, various theories of motivation have been developed. Such theories include the Maslow’s hierarchy theory, acquired needs theory, equity theory and Herzberg’s two factor theories among others. It is also worth noting that the kind of leadership adopted in the organization also greatly determine the level of employee’s motivation and hence effectiveness. In an attempt to explain the role of leadership in employee motivation in an organization, Bolman and Deal (2003) came up with four leadership frames that approach employee motivation differently. These frames include the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame and the symbolic frame. This essay aims at reviewing each of the above frames with regard to how they suggest approaching employee motivation. In so doing, the essay relates each of the frame’s views to theories of motivation while highlighting the blind spots of each frame. In conclusion, the essay states that no single frame is suitable for all situations that prevail in an organization. As such, it is advisable that organizational leaders employ different frames of organizational leadership for differing organizational situations. The four frames and employee motivation a) The structural frame With a metaphor of machine or factory, the structural frame focuses on the organization’s architecture including structure, goals, roles, technology relationships and their coordination. In this regard, the leader designs and manages the organizational tasks closely supervising subordinates and direction being given from top to down. The structural theory approaches motivation from a number of perspectives. According to the frame, organizations exist to achieve goals and objectives. However, it seems that the frame goes against various theories of motivation including Maslow’s needs theory since according to the frame; things work best when rationality prevails over human needs. However, employees will be more motivated in real sense when their needs are prioritized and adequately met. The frame also views motivation as arising from assigning roles using specialization and division of labour (Ariely and Wertenbroch, 2002). In addition, it views coordination and control being vital for individuals to work together in meeting organizational goals and hence problems arise out of poor structure. This frame therefore sees employee motivation as being largely extrinsic with little room for intrinsic motivation. For the structural frame, employee motivation and hence satisfaction and productivity is a quality of strong leadership that provides transformational leadership hence increasing the employee’s motivation, performance and satisfaction through influencing their beliefs, desires and values. In other words, as long as the leader provides a conducive environment for performance, the employee will remain motivated and hence effective. The structural frame would thus be largely related to the Herzberg’s two factor theory whereby the leader is solely responsible for employees’ motivation by ensuring that he/she provides both the hygiene factors and motivator factors in accordance to the employees’ needs. As long as the leader has ensured that the factors are in place therefore, the employee remains motivated and will perform effectively owing to job satisfaction. It is worth noting that the structural frame lacks in a number of respects as explained below; first, the frame assumes that the employees have no need for growth or self-actualization as put forward by Maslow’s theory of motivation. In other words, employees who work under the structural frame will find it difficult to put forth innovative ideas. On the other hand, such employees will always have to accept one sided decisions and this may have the effect of decreasing their motivation to work harder in the work place. This would also result in sub optimization where individuals and units would emphasize on achievement of individual or unit goals as opposed to organizational goals. Failing to prioritize employees’ needs together with those of the organization may also lead to demoralized employees thus leading to demotivation and hence poor performance. b) The human resources frame The frame has a metaphor of family. The implication of this is that the human resources frame emphasizes on the leadership understanding people and their relationships. It relates to the Maslow’s motivation theory in that it recognizes that employees do have needs, fears, feelings, development opportunities as well as skills. Thus, it approaches motivation from focusing and understanding the fit between the employees and the organization. In other words, when the organization has met the needs of the employees and trained them, the employees will be motivated to effectively meet the needs of the organization (Khalid etal. 2015). In other word, the human resources frame prioritizes employee’s needs. Thus, organizations ought to meet employees’ needs effectively in motivating them since when people feel good about themselves and their work; they will get the job done. Leaders therefore motivate employees by being supportive and accessible while involving them in decision making. Motivation also results from equity, fairness and justice as well as focusing on employee’s growth in line with the Maslow’s motivation theory. It should however be noted that the human resources frame has its own blind spots as explained below. The frame is not adequate for employee motivation in the diverse environment and its concepts are largely likely to only benefit smaller and more flexible environments and it hence becomes difficult for managing and motivating employees in a formally structured environment with many employees. The frame also lacks focus on the organization’s vision as well as overall responsibilities owing to focusing its commitment and interest to the organization’s members. In other words, it becomes difficult to look at everyone’s needs at all times if work has to be done effectively at all times. c) The political frame The political frame has the metaphor of the jungle, contests or arenas emphasizing power, competition as well as winning scarce resources. The frame views motivation as resulting from diverse values, interests, beliefs, skills and behaviour that provide a rich ground for allocation of both power and resources. In the organization, individuals set agenda, negotiate and bargain, build coalition and compromises while coercing and managing conflicts. There are competing interests, struggling for power and competition for resources. Organizational politics act as sources of motivation resulting in creativity and innovation but they can also be toxic (Deci, 1971). The political frame relate to the acquired needs motivation theory as motivation in this case is seen as being driven by need for achievement, need for affiliation and need for power. To motivate the employees therefore, there need to be effective management and leadership capable of guiding the proper power disbursement of power and influence hence ensuring organizational effectiveness. The political frame has its own blind spots including the fact that it fails to incorporate enough room for personal development and it fails to recognize that employees would also be motivated by having a free hand in what they do in the organization. The frame fails to allow for a great deal of flexibility and honest communication. The frame is more or less autocratic in nature though globalization demands more modern form of leadership which is not autocratic in nature. It is likely to result in demotivation of employees and hence resistance. It is worth noting that employees will always be motivated and hence display high levels of commitment where the level of organizational politics is low and where leaders offer considerably high levels of social support. d) The symbolic frame The symbolic frame views the organization as drama, theatre or carnival. It focuses on meaning and faith and sees motivation as emanating from engaging the heart and head of the employees. For it, meaning matters more than results with events and processes having more expression compared to production. Motivation results from the faith built up and meaning shared by members. This infuses creativity, passion and soul. Organizational rules, managerial authority and policies have less meaning in symbolic frame. However, culture, spirit and symbols play a great role in motivation according to this frame as they provide the pathway to the organization’s effectiveness. Thus, the frame views employee motivation as depending on the ability of the leadership to create and maintain beauty, faith and meaning (Carol etal. 2015). This is in line with Expectancy theory and equity theory of motivation since motivation in this case emanate from past experiences and hence future expectations. This is because employee motivation is based on the values and senses which undergird the organization’s life with the culture guiding the employees regarding what is expected of them and what to expect from the organization. Thus, to motivate employees, leaders have to have a sense of charisma while instilling passion in employees in a bid to shape culture for a shared mission. It is however worth noting that the symbolic frame has been criticized for being overly abstract, vague and elusive concept whose practical use ion the organization is doubted. The frame can easily be manipulated while it gives no room for personal growth, creativity and innovation since it advocates sticking to the organizational culture. The drama and over-emphasized meaning are likely to occur at times. Though organizations do have bonds and secret aspects that may be attractive to many, the same secrecy could alienate fraternal organizations from others. This is not desirable in the present era of involvement and collaboration among organizations and it can also be problematic as it can result in rebellion and dissatisfaction among employees who want to grow. Conclusion As can be seen above, each of the four frames views employee motivation differently and could be effective in motivating the employees at different times and circumstances. However, it has also been demonstrated that different frames have different blind spots thus calling for their careful application. Leaders ought to be flexible enough to switch among and even combine different frames and this should depend on the situation at hand (Ryan and Deci, 2000). For instance, the structural frame will be most preferable during the business initial startup since the business then needs objective analysis and experimentation in defining organizational goals as well as implement effective business strategies. However, during times of financial difficulties, a symbolic frame may be applicable in helping the leader motivate the employees thus boosting their morale. In other words, the organization should consider applying more than three frames at any given time instead of relying on just a single frame if they are to effectively motivate the employees thus ensuring that the organization functions properly. Annotated bibliography Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, Deadlines and performance: Self-control by Precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3), 219-224. This paper looks at the role played by intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in situations of self-control problems that arise in an environment of inconsistent preferences across context or time. The authors start by introducing different circumstances where there may be self-control problems and where the concerned individuals may result to different strategies in a bid to overcome the self-control problem. One such strategy is using self-imposed deadlines for achieving a certain target or task within a specified time limit. Thus, the authors use a number of studies in a bid to establish a number of issues including whether people self-impose costly deadlines on tasks where procrastination may impede performance and whether the deadlines are effective in improving performance. In addition, the paper investigates whether people optimally set deadlines for maximum performance enhancement. The first studies involves an experimental group being given a free hand in choosing the deadline within which to submit tasks but with consequences if one fails to meet the deadline. For the control group, the deadlines are set by the experimenter. The second study is about proofreading with the earnings depending on hitting the deadline and the quality of proof reading. For the experimental group, one is given the freedom to choose own deadline but with monetary penalties if one fails to hit the deadline. The control group has the deadline set by the experimenter. The results of both the studies indicate that people impose deadlines on themselves at times though they may lead to penalties. The deadline does enhance performance though they do not set deadlines optimally. The authors have thus clearly demonstrated the role that intrinsic and extrinsic motivators can play in having deadlines met and can hence be used as a pointer towards employees’ motivation in the workplace. Khalid, A, Arooj, S., & Yasir, A. (2015). Impact of leadership styles on followers’ job satisfaction: A four Frame Model Approach. International Journal of Business and management invention, 4(1), 77-84. In this paper, the authors seek to examine the relationship between different leadership styles including structural frame, human resource frame, political frame and symbolic frame and employees satisfaction and hence motivation. The paper explains each of the four frames as styles of leadership going in great details concerning their respective strengths and weaknesses. Thus, they postulate that job satisfaction could be influenced by the styles or frames and this could contribute to the individual’s contentment with their job. As such, a research involving 160 respondents is conducted. The results indicate that the leadership styles are likely to affect an individual’s job satisfaction by up to 45%. The research also finds structural leadership frame to be strongly related to job satisfaction than any other frame. The paper concludes by stating that the leadership frame followed in a certain organization has a strong bearing on the employees’ job satisfaction. The conclusion also tries to explain why a certain leadership style may be more preferred than the other in certain situations. Thus, the authors urge that organizational leaders demonstrate differing leadership frames depending on the situation at hand if the employees are to remain motivated and hence ensure organizational effectiveness. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 18(1), 105-115. The author of this paper has thoroughly investigated the claim that externally mediated rewards have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. This has been done through the use of two laboratory experiments and one field experiment in investigating the effect of external rewards on intrinsic motivation in performing an activity. In all the three experiments, the subjects perform activities in three sessions. During each of the second sessions, external rewards either monetary or verbal reinforcement is given. However, no reward is given to the control groups in each case. The results of the experiments give rise to a number of observations. In the experiments involving monetary rewards, it is discovered that intrinsic motivation declines when the monetary reward is withdrawn during the third session though the intrinsic motivation had increased when the monetary reward was introduced in the second session. However, it is observed that intrinsic motivation increases when verbal reinforcement involving positive feedback is used in the second session and continues to increase even in the third session. In concluding, the author argues that money leads to decline in intrinsic motivation owing to its connotation and use in his culture meaning it acts as a stimulus that leads the subjects to cognitive revaluation of the activity from one that is intrinsically motivated to one that is primarily motivated through expectations of financial rewards. Hence, he says that money buys off one’s intrinsic motivation for a given activity thus leading to a decline in intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, the author argues that rewards involving social approval do lower one’s intrinsic motivation as one does not view such a reward as a control mechanism. Carol, H, Karl, L, Michelann, Q&, Jeff, S2015, Framing change, A new approach to change management analysis, Journal for Quality and Participation, vol. 22, 25-31. In this article, the authors define the four frames on organizational leadership as postulated by Bolman and Deal (2003) as the new approach to organizational change management. However, the authors suggest that the four frames should not be used in isolation but rather they should be combined if the organization is to effectively tackle any challenges that may confront it on a day to day basis. The authors define the four frames to include structural, human resources, political and symbolic frame. Each of the frames is seen as playing a different role in employee motivation and hence producing different levels of organizational success when applied independently. In gauging the effectiveness of the four frames in organizational change management and hence employee motivation, a survey is conducted. The survey involves two perspectives including individual frame preference and organizational frame preference. The results of the survey indicate that both organizations and individuals prefer structural leadership style followed by human resources frame, political and symbolic frame respectively. The authors acknowledge that the application of any frame affects creativity, communication flow and trust and hence this has an effect on employee motivation and hence the need to combine their application depending on the circumstances. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions, University of Rochester, Academic Press. This article gives a detailed distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic types of motivation including the factors that cause each. Intrinsic motivation is seen as an important construct that reflects the natural human propensity to learn and assimilate. On the other hand, the authors view extrinsic motivation as varying considerably in its relative autonomy as to reflect external control or true self-regulation at times. In the article, a number of theories have been used including the self-determination theory in distinguishing the different motivation types that are based on differing goals or reasons giving rise to an action. Intrinsic motivation is for instance shown as doing something owing to its being inherently interesting or enjoyable while extrinsic motivation is presented as doing something for its leading to a separable outcome. The articles is divided into two broad sections with the first section discussing intrinsic motivation as doing something for its inherent satisfactions and not for some separable consequences . In other words, intrinsic motivation is not seen to originate from external pressures. This section also highlights the various issues that lead to intrinsic motivation and the factors that affect it. The second section is used to define extrinsic motivation as largely being determined by external forces as well as the factors that affect it. In conclusion, the authors have successfully used the self-determination theory in distinguishing intrinsic motivation as being driven by desire to satisfy innate psychological needs for competence and autonomy. Internalization and integration have been shown as the processes through which extrinsically motivation is seen as more determined. Vahida, B2006, A framework for managing people, AMEP Conference, Perth. The author presents a framework that new managers as well as coordinators should use in analyzing situations from different organizational viewpoints if they are to succeed in their new managerial roles. In this framework, Bolman and Deal’s four frame model is presented. The framework presented also includes the challenges for managers who decide to employ each frame as their leadership style. The paper then presents a scenario over which each and every frame would be effectively applied. The author has successfully done this by presenting situations (plays) that mimic real life situations. The authors then suggest how all these frames ought to be applied by new managers and coordinators in the education sector in a bid to overcome all the challenges that might result from dissatisfied subjects or followers. The author has thus effectively shown how each of the frames can effectively be applied in real life situations. The authors then conclude by recommending that managers ought to analyze the situation first before deciding to apply any leadership frame. For the author, no one leadership frame is best suited for all situations. Read More