Bolman and Deals Four-Frame Model - Essay Example

Bolman & Deal's Four-Frame Model of the Name of the Concerned Professor October 11, 2008 Bolman & Deal's Four-Frame Model "Multiframe thinking is challenging and counterintuitive. To see the organisation simultaneously as a machine, family, jungle, and theatre requires the capacity to think in several ways at the same time about the same thing. Like surfers, leaders must ride the waves of change. If they move too far ahead, they will be crushed. If they fall behind, they will become irrelevant. Success requires artistry, skill, and the ability to see organizations as organic forms in which needs, roles, power, and symbols must be integrated to provide direction and shape behaviour. The power to reframe is vital for modern leaders. The ability to see new possibilities and to create new opportunities enables leaders to discover alternatives when options seem severely constrained. It helps them find hope and faith amid fear and despair. Choice is at the heart of freedom, and freedom is essential to achieving the twin goals of commitment and flexibility (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p.433)." In the contemporary times, change within the organizations is an expected and normal phenomenon, though the pace of chance has been manifold accelerated by the IT revolution and the digitization of the economies. Corporate organizations more then often consist of a highly complex framework that can make the task of managing change really challenging and unpredictable. Every organization undergoing a change represents a unique scenario that may have multiple facets such as the popping up technical challenges, existing political framework and the rampant cultural ethos (Tichy, 1983, p.17). The multiple dimensions inherent in the functional efficiency of the organizations call for astute management responses and seasoned administrational efficacy. Also the attitude of the employees towards the inbuilt values and ethical moorings within the organizations more then often gives way to immense resistance from within and without (Lewin, 1947). Thus the complexity involved in managing change may further be aggravated due to a friction between the gamuts of opposing elements within the organizations (Charles, Bastein & Hostages, 1991). In such a scenario, the top leadership within the organizations often gets bifurcated into managers who insist on the relevance of existing maintenance procedures and the managers who aspire to play a leadership role in facilitating the inevitable change (Zaleznick, 1977). Change management undeniably calls for a visionary perspective on the part of a leader and demands an ability to visualize the overall process of change from a vantage point that is seldom distracted by the humdrum of everyday activities (Bums, 1978, p.42). The ability of a leader to visualize change in the context of multiple frames facilitates a linkage of the experiences of the people working within an organization with the requisite transformational behaviour (Avolio, 1994). These intrinsic connections between experience and behaviour yield the stimulating driving force that transforms organizations (Schuster, 1994). Hence Bass was not wrong in tracing a direct correlation between the ability of a leader to visualize change from multiple perspectives and team effectiveness (1985). The ability of a leader to dissect the predominant influences within an organization into constituent frames helps in unravelling the vision, beliefs, assumptions and goals that aught to be dealt with on a priority basis to facilitate change (Schein, 2004, p.22). Over the years there has occurred a sea change in the way managers and administrators are expected to visualize change within organizations. From the anachronistic perspective of seeing change as a monolithic phenomenon, managers today are encouraged to visualize change from a multi-frame perspective. In this context, a plethora of questions spring up that demand the curiosity and attention of managers, leaders, administrators and the students of management the world over. Why is it imperative to visualize change from a multi-frame perspective Is this approach more effective in managing change Is the concept of multi-frame perspective more conducive in effecting change within organizations Does this make easier for managers to transform organizations in the face of rapid change and alteration A suitable analysis of these questions calls for understanding the logic behind dealing with change in the context of a multi-frame perspective. In the 21st century organizations constitute an integral part of the human existence. The very simplicity of the fact that organizations are inhabited and run by people accounts for the complexities inherent within them. As every individual is endowed with a unique temperament and mindset, which gets further complicated in a group scenario, it gets often impossible to predict the ultimate response of an organization to a situation of change. The problems existing within the modes of communication within the organizations further compound the challenges associated with change. The communication within any thriving and growing organization is more then often vulnerable to being misunderstood, misinterpreted or wrongly conveyed. Thus an effective leader is one who can act decisively and confidently amidst the confusion, chaos and ambiguity surrounding him/her (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p.51). It is the moral and professional duty of a successful leader to develop an ability to visualize the changes within an organization from multiple vantage points and perspectives (Weiss, 2007). Bolman and Deal consider the ability of a leader to consider a change from variegated perspectives as indicative of the inherent flexibility and pliability within one's personality (2003, p.26). This flexibility comes in handy so far as the task of ensuring the overall viability of an organization in a fast changing scenario is concerned and may ultimately determine an organizations existence or failure. The primary duty of a leader in any organization is to deal with the upcoming issues and problems and any failure or slip on the part of a leader to assess the nature of a challenge or an adversity unleashed by any issue may prove to be disastrous or counterproductive in the long run. Leaders who are apt at analyzing problems from multiple vantage points do enjoy higher rates of success as compared to their more stagnant counterparts. Evaluating tasks from multiple vantage points facilitates identification of the emerging problems, legitimation of the hidden issues, communication of the chalked out guidelines, coordination of the different departments and development of the relevant strategies (Davies, 1997, p.135). Though Havelock and Zlotolow (1995) aptly recognized that organizational changes are more then often accompanied by multiple external and internal pressures, and the resulting responses do not often trace a linear or straightforward path, it is impossible to understand the true nature of the ensuing responses in the organizations without affecting some sort of multidimensional evaluation. Bolman and Deal's multi-frame model helps in evolving frames to meet the rapidly emerging situations and aid the managers in calibrating and controlling the intensity of conflict and ambiguity accompanying a challenge, thereby ensuring a better allocation of resources and efforts. Their advise that, "change agents who look through only one or two lenses misread or miss entirely the unanticipated consequences of their actions (1991, p.370)" do deserves special attention. The major issues that are faced by organizations today are often intertwined and conflicting that call for more creative and systematic approaches towards change management and organizational growth (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p.2).Any inability or delay to do so make organizations the unsung victims of past habits, archaic ceremonies, hero worship or senseless rituals. Considering the wide variety and range of private and public sector organizations, Bolman and Deal gave a four frame perspective of looking at change within organizations, which are structural, human resource, political and symbolic. Each frame represents a unique way of looking at and evaluating organizations. By the term 'frames' Bolman and Deal intend to refer to "both windows on the world and lenses that bring this world into focus (1991, p.11)." As per their model, the structural frame "emphasizes the formal roles and relationships (1991, p.15)." All the organizations work within a well organized framework that includes often overlapping and multiple communication systems, detailed procedures, agreed upon goals, tiers of authority and coordination mechanisms. Thus from the structural point of view, the nature of the roles within the organizations and the interplay of these roles within the overall structure of an organization constitute a major bulwark on which rests the sustenance and effectiveness of any organization (Lueddeke, 1999). The values and ethics acceptable in any organization, ensuing from these roles play an important role, so far as the overall quality of leadership in that organization is concerned. Thus the major challenge before any growing and competitive organization is to decide upon the nature and quality of the appropriate structures that are to be or should be adopted by it. Any mistake or slip in this context can mar the overall sustenance of an organization. In the words of Bolman and Deal, "the structural frame reflects a belief in rationality and a faith that the right formal arrangements minimizes problems and increase quality and performance (1991, p.39)." The structural perspective is primarily focused at the way structures develop within the organizations in response to the established tasks and the overall environment in an organization (Thompson, Kevin & Donna, 2008). The change leaders continually need to keep an eye on the structural aspects of a business. The unprecedented change in the leadership structure of Kodak under Mary Jane Hellyar in 2006 in response to the emergence of nascent digital technologies and substitutes aptly symbolizes the sensitivity of the change leadership within an organization from a structural perspective (M2 Presswire, 2006). Each of the four frames given by Bolman and Deal is based on a unique set of assumptions about the organizations and proposes different strategies and possibilities (Rica & Harris, 2003). The Human Resource Frame peculiarly deals with tailoring "organizations to people (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p.15)." It is always the people associated with an organization that are primarily responsible for its success and sustainability. Bolman and Deal do give due recognition to the human element existing within and without the organizations and the situations arising because of the interplay between the people and organizations. The skills, enthusiasm and ideas possessed by the employees working in an organization are its primary asset. Hence it is imperative for a leader to understand and recognize the basic needs and instincts of the people working within the organization so as to ensure a stimulating, energizing and conducive work environment. The response of a leader to change does mostly have a direct impact on the initiative and morale of the people working in the organization. The basic assumption behind the frame under consideration is that the relationship between people and organizations is always symbiotic. This frame owes a lot to Maslow's (1954) theory of motivation. Many of the top notch Japanese firms like Sony do extend more then average importance to the Human Resource Frame to ensure the effectiveness and cooperation of their employees in response to the ultra competitive market for digital gadgets. Such an approach unfolds a positive environment within the organizations and makes employees and customers feel a part of the overall decision making process. The Structural Frame undeniably reveals the impact of goals and political affiliations, percolating down from the top echelons of power within the organizations. The Human Resource Frame unearths the possibility of organizational malfunctioning due to a mismatch between the organizational goals and human needs. The Political frame focuses on the authority in organizational management as one of the predominant forms of power (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p.76). Existence of politics within organizations is a universally accepted fact. However, the critical question is that what the ramifications of such politics are in an organizational context Organization members develop political affiliations and constitute interest groups to vie for resources that may give way to conflicts. Hence it is the duty of a change leader to imbue the politics within an organization with positive and noble values that are acceptable to all the interest groups and ultimately facilitate the achievement of the desired goals. Infact this very ability enabled Lee Iacocca to bring Chrysler back from the brink of disaster and turn it into a symbol of integrity and quality (Iacocca, 1986). According to Bolman and Deal, the Symbolic Frame visualizes organizations as, "cultures that are propelled more by rituals, ceremonies, stories, heroes, and myths then by rules, policies and managerial authority (1991, p.15-16). Organizational culture is no doubt a highly powerful force and no effective leader can afford to ignore it. Thus one major task before any leader is to understand the significance of the symbols that bring meaning to the chaos and disharmony prevailing within organizations. It is imperative for a leader to grasp the meaning that the organization members ascribe to a symbol as it is often the cohesive force that binds an organization. Thus a successful change leader is one who has the ability to meticulously visualize the overall framework and culture within an organization from a multidimensional perspective. Such an endeavour facilitates a leader with remarkable facts and information that definitely go a long way in customizing the change strategies and decisions in consonance with the realities prevailing within an organization. This may require a leader to rapidly shift the vantage points from which one analyzes an organization and may require ample motivation and drive. However, there is no denying the fact that such an effort is undeniably fraught with many propitious possibilities and rewards. Total Words: 2040 . References Avolio, B.C. (1994). The "natural". Some antecedents to transformational leadership. International Journal of Public Administration, 17, 1559-1581 Bass, B. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 26-40 Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1991). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, choice choice and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bums, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Collins Charles, M., Bastein, D., & Hostages, T. (1991). Executive leadership during organizational change: A bi-cycle mode. Human Resource Planning. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-12493137.html Davies, J. (1997). The evolution of university responses to financial reduction. Higher Education Management, 9(1), 127-140 Havelock, R.G., with Zlotolow, S. (1995). The Change Agent's Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Iacocca, L. (1986). # 1 Iacocca. New York: Bantam Books Kodak Streamlines Film and Photofinishing Group. M2 Presswire. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com.doc/1G1-156138454.html Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations. 1. pp.4-41 Lueddeke, G.R. (1999). Towards a constructivist framework for guiding change and innovation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 70(3), 235- 250 Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row. Rice, D & Harris, M.M. (2003). Leadership in Community Schools: A Frame Analysis. Redeeming Children and Youth, 11(4), 216-224. Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Schuster, J. (1994). Transforming your Leadership Style. Association Management, 46(1), L39-L43. Thompson, D.F., Kevin, C. & Donna, G. (2008). Identifying Perceptions of Professionalism in Pharmacy using a Four-Frame Leadership Model. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Retrieved October 12, 2008 , from http://www.highbeam.com/DocPrint.aspxDocId=1P3:1552280121 Tichy, N.M. (1983). Managing Strategic Change. New York: Wiley Weiss, S. (2007). Pastor-principal relationship in the parish school. Catholic Education. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com/ DocPrint.aspxDocId=1G1:181227611 Zaleznick, A. (1997). Managers and Leaders: Are they Different. Harvard Business Review. May-June. pp. 67-78 Read More