Organizational Frames - Essay Example

ORGANIzATIONAL FRAMES Catherine Noonan ORGL 500 Organizational Leadership November 24, 2005 ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMES I. Introduction Organizations are tools or instruments to meet goals and objectives, and to carry out tasks (Johnson, 2003). As such, structures in achieving calculable rational results as well as precision, stability,   discipline, and reliability are in order (Max Weber, cited in Johnson, 2003). Frames or windows, for instance, filter and order the world, providing a structure from which to view things. In my role as an Organizational Analyst for the City of San Jose, I had recommended the merger of two small community centers that were less than two miles apart and were providing a similar range of programs and services. The recommendation was carried out and was considered in the City’s proposed operating budget. The concept, however, was poorly handled by the Parks and Recreation Department where the Department’s managers had decided not to release information about the potential merger to center staff or to the community prior to publication of the proposed operating budget. The Alma community therefore was shocked to find that their Center was slated for closure and the Alma employees were upset to learn that their jobs would be impacted. Recovering from the initial shock, participants from the Alma Center protested the closure and eventually convinced the City Council to drop the proposal. In this paper, I will examine the situation from each of five organizational frames propounded by Carey (1999) and interpret how a manager operating from a single frame would view the proposed closure of Alma Center. Then, I will discuss the ineffectiveness of doing such. I will look into the Alma and Gardner Centers per frame. Finally, I will discuss how an effective manager might integrate the five frames to achieve a more balanced solution. II. Five Organizational Frames In the 1980s, Bolman and Deal (1991) developed one of the most useful organizational typologies for viewing and studying leadership. Synthesizing existing theories of leadership and organizations into four traditions, they came up with a taxonomy labeled as “frames.” Frames are considered to be both windows on the world and lenses that bring it into focus by helping to order experience and allowing people to gather information and to make judgments. The four frames of leadership, as described by Bolman and Deal (Ibid.) are the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. Carey’s (1999) five frames are actually a modification of Bolman and Deal’s (1991) taxonomy where the former added rational frame to refer to a principle that “there is a best possible structure and process.” A. Rational Frame. The rational frame focuses on the achievement of organizational goals and the impact of organizational structure on achieving those goals. The premise of this frame is that the organization is an instrument for the achievement of specific goals (Johnson, 2003). A manager therefore, operating solely from the rational frame would see merging the two Centers as a reasonable approach to achieving the Department’s goal of meeting their budget target, and that the resulting impacts on the community and Center employees are of little consequence. Another key principle of the rational frame is that “for every organization there is a best possible structure and process” (Carey, 1999). With resulting impacts on the community and Center employees deemed as less important than achieving organizational goals, this can lead to dehumanization of staff and clients, lowering the morale of employees and discouraging participation in the programs provided (Reyes, 2004) B. Human Frame. The human frame takes the opposite approach of the rational frame, with the belief that the organization is a conduit for realizing human needs and that organizations and individuals co-exist (Carrey, 1999). A manager operating solely from this perspective would be opposed to the closure of either Center, but if forced to accept the closure, would be concerned about minimizing the impacts to employees and program participants. From this viewpoint a manager, believing in the integration of people-organization needs in order for both to be productive, might use Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (described in Clark 1997). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Ibid.) states that a person can not meet higher level needs such as belongingness and self-actualization until lower level needs have been met. While the human frame focuses on the satisfying the needs of the individual, it fails to address the needs of the organization. Ignoring organizational goals such as productivity and cost savings could eventually lead to the collapse of the organization itself. C. Systems Frame. The systems frame takes a different approach, focusing neither on the organization nor the individual, but rather on the ability of the organization to adapt to changing environment. The prime tenet of the systems frame is the organization’s being an open system existing within a network of systems (Carey, 1999) and therefore the organization must be adaptable to a constantly changing environment. The systems frame does not hold that there is an optimal path to achieve organizational goal, but rather that outputs (decisions) are based on inputs (available information) and then evaluated in light of changes in the environment. The limitation of this frame is that outcomes are achieved in an organic manner and often take the path of least resistance. This reactive behavior fails to recognize that some decisions essential for the survival of the organization may meet with resistance because they are in conflict with the needs of employees or clients. D. Political Frame. The political frame views conflict as a natural part of an organization because an organization is bounded by the allocation of scarce resources (Carrey, 1999). Also, it holds that organizations are made up of coalitions composed of individuals and interest groups with different values, preferences, and beliefs. In this frame, organizational goals and behavior emerge from ongoing processes of exchange and negotiation. Power and influence are therefore critical to a manager operating solely in the political frame. A drawback to the political frame is that powerful managers may have a personal agenda conflicting with the needs of the organization. When power is consolidated in the hands of a single or few individuals, the potential for abuse is high. E. Cultural Frame. The cultural frame differs from the four previous frames in that it does not focus on the achievement of organizational or individual goals, but instead views the organization as a culture through which meaning is constructed for its participants (Carey, 1999). Parker J. Palmer (1998) corroborates this with the thought that “reality is a web of communal relationships, and we can know reality only by being in community with it.” Organizational behavior patterns and values are shaped by shared experiences over an extended period of time, leading individuals within a group to think or react in a similar fashion. These basic assumptions and beliefs are learned responses to a group’s problems of survival in its external environment and its problems of internal integration and they come to be taken for granted on account of their readiness in solving problems reliably (Ibid.). III. The Five Frames on Alma and Gardner Each of the five frames takes a different approach to decision making with limited success. An effective leader will take a more integrated approach using all or multiple frames to create a solution while remaining conscious of the political, cultural, and environmental factors needing to be addressed. A review of the situation by the frames is in order. Rational frame. Closing Alma Center would save for the Department nearly half a million dollars per year and would increase utilization of services at the more modern Gardner Center. Gonzaga University Vice President of Diversity Richard Reyes summarizes the disadvantages of the rational frame in this manner - “We live in a culture where time is money and hence many times it is prudent for a leader to be autocratic …. it appears that it is best, when the bottom line is at stake, to make a decision and engage in a top-down relationship with those that are to be managed. But ultimately what goes around comes around and if you want to dance that way, you will have to pay the fiddler.” Human frame. The leader may look on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in integrating the needs of employees and participants with the Department’s need to close Alma Center. Employees, displaced by the proposed closure and potentially deprived of their income, are likely to be concerned about satisfying basic survival and safety needs. The human frame manager would recognize this need and meet with the affected staff to discuss alternative placement options, human resource services, and severance benefits. Program participants are likely to be concerned about belongingness. The human frame manager might address these needs through discussions at community meetings and by developing some activities that would allow both Alma and Gardner participants to get to know each other prior to the merger of the two Centers. Systems frame. In the case of Alma, the Department’s decision to close the Center (output) was based on the need to reduce the budget and the fact that both Alma and Gardner served the same geographic area (inputs). The decision was then revised based on the reaction of the community (feedback) and alternative savings proposals were used to meet the Department’s budget target. A manager operating solely in the systems frame would view this as a normal operating cycle and thus find the solutions acceptable. Political frame. Yukl (2005) describes several types of power used by managers to achieve a desired outcome: legitimate power or that stemming from formal authority over work activities, reward power or the perception by the target person that an agent controls important resources and rewards desired by the target person, coercive power or power based on the authority over punishments, referent power derived from the desire to please others or to please an agent to whom they have strong feelings of affection, admiration, or loyalty, expert power or task-relevant knowledge and skill, information power or access to vital information and control over its distribution to others, and ecological power or control over the physical environment, technology, and organization of the work. The Parks and Recreation Department used legitimate and expert power in deciding to reallocate scarce funding resources by closing Alma Center. Information power was used to control the public release of the information. Cultural frame. Part of the external culture of the City has been for the Council to react favorably to resident concerns, especially when expressed by large numbers of individuals in a public forum. Alma participants successfully used their past experiences to develop a course of action that would achieve their desired outcome. Although culture plays an important role in an organization, a manager operating solely in the cultural frame is likely to have difficulty in achieving goals or innovation outside the current organizational culture. In a global environment where change is constant, the cultural frame manager is likely to be left behind. IV. Integration and Conclusion A leader using an integrated approach to merging Alma and Gardner Centers might utilize all five frames in the following manner – The leader would move forward with the proposal to close Alma Center in order to increase efficiency and achieve the Department’s budgetary goal (rational frame). Recognizing that the City Council has the power to finally approver the budget, the leader would meet with each Council member to outline the benefits of the planned closure and to address any Council concerns prior to the public release of the proposal (political frame). The leader would also ensure that the proposal is made public early enough to gather feedback from the community (systems frame). Expecting resistance from the community based on previous history (cultural frame), the leader would bring together participants from both centers for a joint planning session to identify which of the needs of participants can be met in the merger, in a program held at a larger, more modern facility (human frame). Combining the strengths of each frame provides a leader better decisions that compensate for the disadvantages of any single frame because he sees a wider view of the organization (Bolman and Deal, 2003). How a leader behaves is truly contingent upon the situation, emphasizing the importance of situational factors and the nature of the external environment (Bryman, 1996). As a tool for the leader, frames have gone a long way to equipping one in understanding the intricacies of organizations and their needs. References Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30, (4), 509-534. Bolman, L.G. and T.E.Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, 3rd Edition [E-Book]. ISBN: 0-7879-7255-X. November 2003. Retrieved November 27, 2005, from, http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-078797255X.html. Bryman, A. (1996) Leadership in organizations, in Handbook of Organizational Studies (Edited by. Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W.R., 276-292.) London: Sage Publications. Retrieved November 27, 2005 from, http://www.sagepub.com/printerfriendly.aspx?pid=6041&ptype=B. Carey, M.L. (1999).  Part two: The five frames. In Heraclitean fire: Journeying on the path of leadership by Carey, M.R. [Electronic version]. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Clark, D. (1997). “Maslows Hierarchy of Needs.” Leadership & Human Behavior. Updated June 24, 2005. Retrieved November 26, 2005 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadhb.html. Johnson, G. (2003, January 13). Organizational Theory.   Winter 2003. www.otcore. Retrieved November 27, 2005 from http://academic.evergreen.edu/j/johnsong/otcore.ppt.(html version). Palmer, P.J. (1998). The courage to teach. (1st Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reyes, R. (2004). Diversity and servant-leadership [Recorded by Gonzaga University]. On Mentor gallery [CD]. Gonzaga University. Yukl, G. (2005). Leadership in organizations. (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Read More