Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY ANALYSIS REPORT 1

ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY ANALYSIS REPORT 17

M7 A2: LASA - Organizational Theory Analysis Report B7438 Holistic Management in Organizations

Britiney Spann

Argosy University

M7 A2: LASA - Organizational Theory Analysis Report B7438 Holistic Management in Organizations

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of writing this assignment is to conduct a literature review of the Bolman and Deal model of four frameworks for leadership (1997) and also to analyze Celestial Corporation case. Organizations today are facing challenges and opportunities due to the constantly changing world of business (Padma & Nair, 2009). Meyer and Allen (1997) states that the biggest challenge for the researchers will be to determine how commitment is affected by the many changes such as increased global competition, re-engineering and downsizing that are occurring in the world of work. Bolman and Deal sifted through the complex theories and literature and combined with their own analyses, theories and experience devised a four-frame model as a way of understanding organizations and leadership within organizations (McCabe, 2003). The model’s design depends upon multi-frame thinking and application. Each frame is an important piece of an organization or organizational life. Bolman and Deal (2007) suggest that each individual has personal as well as preferred frames that they use for information gathering, making judgments and to explain behavior.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Four Frame Model

The Four Frames outlined by Bolman and Deal are: Structural, Human Resource, Political and Symbolic.

The Structural frame focuses on the architecture of the organization. The structural frame is a task-oriented frame, considered as more traditional approach to manage and design organizations. This approach is thought to be most useful when goals and information are clear, when cause-effect relations are well understood, when technologies are strong and there is little conflict, low ambiguity, low uncertainty, and a stable legitimate authority (Bolman & Deal, 2007).

The Human Resource (HR) frame is more about understanding people and their relationships. The HR frame examines the interplay between organizations and people (Zolner, 2010). This approach purports that organizations may be highly productive, creative and energizing places. The leader who operated from this perspective empowers people through participation and makes possible attempts to satisfy people’s need to do a job well.

The Political frame emphasizes power, competition, scarce resources; and sees organizations as jungles. The political leader should be able to deal with political reality of organizations.

The Symbolic frame assumes that humans will create and use symbols to make meaning out of chaos, clarity out of confusion and predictability out of mystery (Zolner, 2010). This frame focuses on meaning and faith.  This context engages the heart and head of the members and it focuses on ritual, ceremony, story, play and culture (Defoe, 2013).

Maslow's Theory

According to Maslow, a person's needs are the main motivator that drives a human. The original hierarchy of needs five-stage model includes (McLeod, 2007):

1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear.

3. Social Needs - belongingness, affection and love, - from work group, family, friends, romantic relationships.

4. Esteem needs - achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, self-respect and respect from others.

5. Self-Actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.

Maslow’s theory could be aligned with the Human Resource frame from ‘Four Frame Model’ proposed by Bolman and Deal.

Herzberg's Theory

According to Herzberg there are two factors that cause motivation and demotivation in an organization. Herzberg’s theory referred motivation as the job enrichment factor, and demotivation as hygiene factors. Hygiene factors are referred to as work conditions, policies, administrative efficiency, style of supervision, and relationship between employees. According to Herzberg, hygiene factors are demotivators (Furnham et al., 2009).

Four Frame Model Analysis

As Bolander (2011) explains, there is not an organization on earth (or space for that matter) that does not have to deal with politics. Organizational politics is often equated with the devious, the underhand, the cunning, and the manipulative. Political activity has thus been viewed by some as a field of "dirty tricks," to be avoided and eradicated, and not as an aspect of organizational behavior to be incorporated systematically into theoretical perspectives (Buchanan & Badham, 1999).

Claver-Cortés et al. (2012) examined the characteristics of organizational structure that relate to hybrid competitive strategies. They found out that hybrid competitive strategy influences firm performance in a positive manner. Mintzberg argues that organizations display eight structural configurations and corresponding coordinating mechanisms. Matheson (2009) stated “Such structural configurations are shaped by a variety of contingency factors, especially power and environmental ones.”

Freeman (2011) provided alternatives to the economic man image of human behavior and incorporated those alternative images which are based on motivational needs into utility analysis. McClelland & Burnham (2003) researched that power is essential to good management. People who want power only to further their own careers, rather than the goals of the organization, tend to have subordinates who are loyal to them but not to the company, making them less effective on the whole (McClelland & Burnham, 2003). Padma & Nair (2009) suggested that creating a strong culture in an organization where employees could be more committed, leads to a successful organization.

Bolman and Deal’s four frame model also supports and used the work of Douglas McGregor (1960) to develop theory of the Human Resource Frame. McGregor focused on the manager’s assumptions about their subordinates.  He translated these and developed “Theory X” and “Theory Y” .  These two different theories show different ways of thinking about workers, their relationship with the organizations, and how that relationship gets the organization’s work accomplished (Defoe, 2013). The Human Resource Frame involves human personality and its relation to management practice.

Bolman and Deal (2007) view organizations as machines, families, jungles, and theater. Bolman & Deal’s frames can be used at the planning stage of a change initiative to help diagnose organizational needs, to identify institutional challenges and contexts, and to devise appropriate actions (McLeod, 2007). The four frame model can also be used to revisit and reframe unsuccessful initiatives. A combination of these four perspectives is very important while implementing a change initiative. Finally, each frame can be understood as a unique set of central tensions that must be reconciled in making choices about structure, people, politics, and symbols (Gallos, 2006). The four frame model offers knowledge to individuals about alternative perspectives, appreciation for their potential contribution, opportunities to practice looking at the same situation through multiple lenses, and strategies for cross-frame diagnosis and reflection.

CELESTIAL CORPORATION CASE

Baba et al. (2004) defines Globally Distributed Team as an interdependent work group comprised of culturally diverse members based in two or more nations who share a collective responsibility for making or implementing decisions related to a firm’s global strategy. The focus of this paper is cognitive convergence in a globally distributed team (GDT), defined as the process by which cognitive structures of distributed team members gradually become more similar over time.

Baba et al. (2004) analyzed Celestial Corporation (fictitious name) as a Fortune 500 firm that manufactures and sells products for consumer markets all over the world. During the 1990s, Celestial experienced increasing pressure from rising global competition in its markets around the world. Threatened with declines in market share and profits for some of its major brands, the company engaged in rethinking its strategy. A key outcome of this process was a plan for global restructuring, called ‘Global 2020.’ This plan would transform the firm’s traditional geographical and functional structures to make them fully global with respect to product manufacturing, marketing, and services (Baba et al., 2004).

Structural frame Analysis

Virtual (Globally Distributed) team challenges

The biggest disadvantage that any virtual team can suffer from is the lack of efficiency in communication, partly due to constraints in virtual communication mediums. This is also primarily due to the fact that humans communicate better when they are able to communicate with their body language. Inevitably, virtual teams may face obstacles due to restrictions of the Internet which in turn may lead to incorrect assumptions if a message is not laid out clearly. Failure to properly communicate and clearly address messages or emails could lead to frustration and eventually failure.

Poor leadership can result in the failure of any team, whether virtual or not; however, it becomes a much more prominent problem in virtual teams. Messages must be sent across accurately and clearly. Inability to effectively communicate to members of the team can all greatly affect a project.

Virtual teams should only consist of competent and experienced team members due to the distance factor which can overtly affect the timing and completion date of a project. Projects are more likely to fail if the team consists of individuals who are lazy or lack sufficient knowledge to complete their assigned tasks. It only takes one incompetent team member to have a negative effect on the rest of the team (Pinjani, 2007).

The Problems with Virtual Teams in Celestial Corporation

Baba et al. (2004) observed that “globally distributed work often utilizes a team format versus another type of small group arrangement specifically because of the need to bring together knowledge from disparate sources.” One component of the plan involved the globalization of Celestial’s major customer relationship teams, including the Voila-dedicated team. This team would be transformed from one that was essentially Franco-centric to one that was global both in terms of the composition and location of the core team, and its scope of responsibility.

There was a communication problem to communicate virtually. An important difference between the original team and the new globally distributed team was the fact that the former did business following the French model, while Morris expected the latter to follow the American business model. The French tend to rely on long-term, personal relationships and networks for the conduct of daily business, and generally respect the organizational hierarchy for purposes of communication and coordination (Hall, 1990).

The trust factor was also an issue in mentioned scenario while dealing with virtual team. Previously, members of the original team in Paris relied on their French team leader’s personal contacts within Voila to carry out many business tasks. U.S. businesspeople tend to be action-oriented and thus focused pragmatically on getting the job done; the organizational hierarchy may be more or less salient, depending upon corporate culture and the conditions at hand (Stewart, 1991).

Lack of direction was also noted for the newly merged Celestial Voila–Jardin global team. In the meantime, there were proprietary restrictions on information that could be shared between the companies while they were still separate legal entities. This created an awkward situation in which it was not clear exactly who at Celestial should be speaking with whom at the customer companies about what. This ultimately resulted into less productivity.

Human Resource Frame Analysis

Effective use of cross cultural teams can provide a source of experience and innovative thinking to enhance the competitive position of organizations. However, cultural differences can interfere with the successful completion of projects in today’s multicultural global business community. To achieve project goals and avoid cultural misunderstandings, project managers should be culturally sensitive and promote creativity and motivation through flexible leadership. Two leading studies of cross-cultural management have been conducted by Geert Hofstede and Fons Trompenaars (Anbari et al., 2004). Both approaches propose a set of cultural dimensions along which dominant value systems can be ordered. These value systems affect human thinking, feeling, and acting, and the behavior of organizations and institutions in predictable ways. The two sets of dimensions reflect basic problems that any society has to cope with but for which solutions differ. They are similar in some respects and different in others. The dimensions can be grouped into several categories (Anbari et al., 2004):

1) Relations between people. Two main cultural differences have been identified. Hofstede distinguishes between individualism and collectivism. Trompenaars breaks down this distinction into two dimensions: universalism versus particularism and individualism versus communitarianism.

2) Motivational orientation. Societies choose ways to cope with the inherent uncertainty of living. In this category Hofstede identifies three dimensions: masculinity versus femininity, amount of uncertainty avoidance, and power distance.

3) Attitudes toward time. Hofstede distinguishes between a long-term versus a short-term orientation. Trompenaars identifies two dimensions: sequential versus synchronic and inner versus outer time.

Cultural diversity creates additional challenges. Basic concepts about the nature and meaning of work (Lipnack, & Stamps, 1999). Members from different cultural backgrounds may demonstrate divergent preferences for social interaction norms, which can create difficulties in executing processes related to task integration (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).

Each of the two factions on the global team was bolstered by its proximity in space to two distinctive but roughly equivalent centers of power: one in Paris near the Voila headquarters and one in the United States at the Celestial headquarters. In each case, the factional leader had strong historical and cultural ties to his respective power center, and these leaders used their power center affiliations to create what we call power clusters - concentrations and/or networks of people and resources tied together by linguistic, cultural, and historical ties which the leaders manipulated in support of their own interests. Couture’s power cluster was concentrated in Paris and included links to Voila; he mobilized Francophone allies within this cluster to advance his interest in maintaining authority. Morris’s cluster was distributed across the U.S., Asia, and Paris, and he likewise utilized his authority to establish and maintain linkages among these Anglophone colleagues as a means to overpower Couture and further his own agenda.

It is significant that the successful negotiation of a consensus on means–end interdependence took place largely in the absence of the two key leaders. Couture left the team (and the company) after the crisis, and Morris then stayed out of the way. The resulting reduction in competition between power holders whose personal struggle did so much to foster distrust on the team also may have facilitated the negotiation of task interdependence.

Political Frame Analysis

Celestial executive, James Morris and his team implemented a new merchandising methodology known as Product Family Management (PFM) with the customer. PFM is an innovative system of management practices that creates a strategic business plan around specific families of products. The introduction of PFM required Morris to reorganize not only the customer relationship, but also the internal relations on his own customer team. Study of the situation at Voila convinced Morris that PFM was the solution for improving relationships with that retailer as well. In 1998, his recommendations for reorganizing the work of Celestial’s Voila customer team were approved by Celestial’s corporate leadership, and Morris was named head of Celestial’s new global customer team for Voila.

Morris used his power to recruit Cathleen Drummond, who had previously worked with him at Americart and was highly skilled at implementing PFM and a talented member of the organizational development group at corporate headquarters, who had a wealth of experience leading organizational change at Celestial, Geraldine (Gerry) Hanover.

Another change required by PFM involved day-to-day customer interface. Just as Henri Couture controlled access to Voila’s top management, each functional manager on the Celestial customer team had a more or less exclusive relationship with his or her functional counterpart at Voila.

Leadership of the PMF effort posed another threat. As a PFM expert with eight years experience implementing the new technique, Cathleen Drummond would become prominent in directing the multifunctional team. In the past, only Henri Couture held the director title, and he was accustomed to being the undisputed authority. Having two directors on the team seemed to him like a loss of face, and potentially status and power as well.

Cathleen Drummond had her 8 years of experience with PFM to draw upon, and Morris had led the Celestial– Americart team during implementation of PFM at that retailer. But the French team members in Paris claimed to have equally valuable knowledge of the Voila organization and the French consumer. Also, James Morris ordered French nationals in Paris to work with Drummond to figure out how to link their two projects together, and he gave team members a short deadline for reaching an agreement.

Each of the two factions on the global team was bolstered by its proximity in space to two distinctive but roughly equivalent centers of power: one in Paris near the Voila headquarters and one in the United States at the Celestial headquarters. In each case, the factional leader had strong historical and cultural ties to his respective power center, and these leaders used their power center affiliations to create what we call power clusters - concentrations and/or networks of people and resources tied together by linguistic, cultural, and historical ties which the leaders manipulated in support of their own interests.

Symbolic Frame Analysis

Collectivist societies will have more emotional dependence of members on their organizations, when in equilibrium - organization is expected to show responsibility on members. Extreme individualism is seen in the US; in fact in US collectivism is seen as "bad". Other cultures and societies than the US will therefore seek to resolve social and organizational problems in ways different from the American one. Hofstede brings that society's expectations of Individualism/Collectivism will be reflected by the employee inside the organization.

As we discussed earlier, the trust factor was also an issue in mentioned scenario while dealing with virtual team. Previously, members of the original team in Paris relied on their French team leader’s personal contacts within Voila to carry out many business tasks.

In order to decrease the tension between Celestial and Voila, The French and American management should come together and work together to achieve clearly defined goals. The French and Americans now were able to work out a substantive agreement, with concrete activities and goals, for merging their two approaches under a new name - Produits Exemplaires - a negotiated term that brought together elements from both the French and American perspectives. Roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined and organizational learning should be motivated in order to avoid any miscommunication or misinterpretation of organizations’ clearly defined goals.

REFRAMING ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE (STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT FOR A PROBLEMATIC ISSUE)

Structural frame analysis explained number of issues with Celestial Corporation including poor leadership, lack of technology, lack of proper communication, lack of trust between team members, lack of direction, unclear roles and responsibilities and overall poor management. To be successful means knowing how to use your talent and resources to best advantage, and it's very difficult to "win" if you don't have this game plan in place.

In order to solve problematic issues, a detailed strategic plan needs to be developed. A good strategy will take into account existing barriers and resources (people, money, power, materials, etc.). It will also stay with the overall vision, mission, and objectives of the initiative. Often, an initiative will use many different strategies--providing information, enhancing support, removing barriers, providing resources, etc. to achieve its goals. Objectives outline the aims of an initiative; what success would look like in achieving the vision and mission. By contrast, strategies suggest paths to take (and how to move along) on the road to success. That is, strategies help you determine how you will realize your vision and objectives through the nitty-gritty world of action.

Celestial Corporation needs to write vision and mission statements and to set objectives, developing strategies involves brainstorming and talking to community members. Making meetings a place where all members feel that their ideas are listened to and valued, and where constructive criticism may be openly voiced. To help meet these goals, you might post some "ground rules" so people feel free to express themselves. Ground rules might include:

· One person speaks at a time

· No interrupting each other

· Everyone's ideas are respected

Celestial Corporation’s targets of change include all of the people who experience (or are at risk for) this issue or problem addressed by your initiative. Remember to be inclusive; that is, include everyone who is affected by the problem or issue or whose action or inaction contributes to it. It is helpful to review your mission, vision, and objectives to ensure that your strategies are all aligned with the goals expressed in your previous work.

Business Ethics and Social Responsibilities

Celestial Corporation can manage ethics in their workplaces by establishing an ethics management program. Some business ethicists disagree that codes have any value. Usually they explain that too much focus is put on the codes themselves, and that codes themselves are not influential in managing ethics in the workplace. Many ethicists note that it's the developing and continuing dialogue around the code's values that is most important.

The ethics program is essentially useless unless all staff members are trained about what it is, how it works and their roles in it. The nature of the system may invite suspicion if not handled openly and honestly. Social responsibility and business ethics are often regarding as the same concepts. However, the social responsibility movement is but one aspect of the overall discipline of business ethics. Businesses have developed a system of social responsibility that is tailored to their company environment. If social responsibility is maintained within a company than the employees and the environment are held equal to the company’s economics. Maintaining social responsibility within a company ensures the integrity of society and the environment are protected.

KEY FINDINGS AND SUMMARY

1) In case study there appear to be two distinct periods of performance in terms of team effectiveness criteria. The first period runs from Morris’s construction of the global team through the point at which the Voila executives rejected the PFM pilot, resulting in the ‘videoconference from hell’. The second period begins with the aftermath of the videoconference through the end of the case study.

2) During each of these performance periods there were distinctive patterns of cognitive convergence and divergence.

3) Americans were too fast in implementing and forcing PFM even though Voila wasn’t ready for PFM.

4) Technical as well as physical resources were not available for professional communication.

5) ‘Video conference from hell’ was a great lesson learned for Celestial Corporation.

6) The video crisis proved that their partisan struggle did not ‘work’ (i.e., it did not lead one side to be declared the winner, and instead made them all losers). Both parties learned this lesson simultaneously, not through knowledge sharing, but through parallel participation in a crisis experience that helped to create similar cognitive structures across the team.

7) Morris redefined the task as one that Drummond could direct more or less on her own; Couture resisted this power move by also redefining the task as one that would be done with Voila, but not the Americans.

8) Much of our knowledge, whether represented as declarative, procedural, or evaluative; is cognitively connected to beliefs whose external validation is based upon personal experience, inter-subjective agreement, and/or social construction

9) Evidence of successful efforts to share and/or acquire declarative and procedural knowledge about PFM and its context were evident throughout the case.

10) Much of our knowledge begins as personal belief that is validated through culturally appropriate processes.

11) Many organizational pr actices that are transferred globally reflect combinations of knowledge and belief that are not easily separated.

12) The meanings of declarative and procedural knowledge shift when crossing cultural boundaries, so that things that appear objective or ‘accurate’ in one context may take on a subjective complexion or be considered ‘wrong’ in another.

13) Evaluative knowledge (phronesis) may have a significant influence on the sharing and conversion of declarative and procedural knowledge in a cross-cultural context. Phronesis reflects a judgment about choices, given certain interests.

14) Eventual collaboration between Americans and French to create a single unified phronesis produced better results than were realized when this schism existed.

15) In cross-cultural contexts the factors that are relevant to the sharing of knowledge in global work should be expanded to include evaluative knowledge, or phronesis, and the beliefs upon which it is founded.

LASA Rubric

Four Frame Model Analysis

Britiney Spann

B7438 A01: Holistic Management in Organizations

Argosy University

Four Frame Model Analysis

This evolving world is steadily increasing in its complexity and so leaders and managers must strive to become effective and understanding of the different layers comprising their organization. This includes, but not limited to, understanding their organizations from many perspectives. These perspectives include the use of structures within the organization to enhance the mission and vision of the organization as a whole. The ability to view the organization in a multifaceted approach increases awareness of the culture within the work environment. McGregor (1960) suggests we seek first to understand and then to be understood. To no avail, managers and leaders fail on an organizational level by misunderstanding and misdiagnosing.

Misinterpretation, assumptions, and an erroneous assessment of a problem, leaders make the wrong decision fearful of being labeled political. In our attempt to make sense of issues we often are “clueless” to what may really be happening (Bolman and Deal, 2009). Due to the desire to correct the issue which is occurring within the organization, leaders tend to assess the motivations, values, and attitudes of the employees. The challenge is to appropriately and accurately assess and intervene in organizational issues while reflecting on past occurrences and interventions conducted. The reflection may include a past failed effort in an attempt to rectify an issue and where it went wrong. Managers and leaders should explore the use of reframing, the perspective that organizations can be viewed from more than one angle (Bolman and Deal, 2009). An organization can be complex and so to view it from different perspectives will assist in its success. Acknowledging the complexity of the organization, including structural and power issues and inherent issues, will assist in the goals, needs, and desires in the organization for success. By ignoring the human dynamics, which are in continual interplay with our organizational goals, is basically denouncing the power of relationship. Bolman and Deal (2009) view organizations through four frames: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Bolman and Deal (2009) believe that a manager who is able to use multiple frames to solve a conflict within an organization will be effective leaders. The four frame models suggests that if a leader is capable of viewing the organization using different perspectives then the effectiveness of responding to organizational and management conflicts will increase with compassion, creativity, and flexibility. There is no “right” perspective in which to solve challenges which allows managers to utilize a vast range of options.

Four Frame Model Synthesized

Bolman and Deal (2009) have identified four frames, the structural (factories), human resource (families), political (jungle), and symbolic (theatre) in their book Reframing Organizations. All four of these frames allow leaders to view organizational challenges from different perspectives. Frame analysis is important because organizations are complex. Bolman and Deal (2009) explain how, “…explosive technological and social changes have produced a world that is far more interconnected, frantic, and complicated” then it once was (Bolman and Deal, 2009, P. 6). A valuable skill of framing and reframing is the ability to view challenges through a multiple lens.

According to Bolman and Deal (2009), “a frame is a mental model – a set of ideas and assumptions – that you carry in your head to help you understand and negotiate a particular ‘territory.’ A good frame makes it easier to know what you are up against and ultimately what you can do about it, according to Bolman and Deal (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 11). Encompassing frame analysis to ultimately make a decision on overlapping complex issues depends on an artistic point of view of issues in order to understand the core of the problem and take the best action necessary. There are other ways to solve problems in a more traditional way. Bolman and Deal (2008) explain how frame analysis is similar to art, and that, “art is not replacement for engineering, but an enhancement” (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 21). The multiple frames assist leasers to sift through the complex issues and find the root of the problem to make the best decision in rectifying the situation.

The structural frame is influenced by Max Weber’s studies on structure within organizations and Fredrick Taylor’s work on “scientific management”, according to Bolman and Deal (Bolman & Deal, 2008, P. 48). Both employee productivity and morale is accounted for formal structure. Bolman and Deal stated that Moeller’s study proved that a school faculty with higher structure had higher morale than a school with a less strict structure, in 1968 (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 50). Structure will only be a success if it is the right type of structure being used for the organization. The structure, “…need not be machine like or inflexible,” and it can become a less positive impact if viewed as bureaucratic (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 51). When an organization grows, this primarily happens, according to Bolman and Deal (2008) (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 62). Furthermore, a company that depends mostly on a structural frame can promote individual interests and gain instead of interests and gain for the company. The not so good side of the structural frame is that it, “risks ignoring everything that falls outside the rational scope of tasks, procedures, policies, and organization charts” (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 339). A company can become less resilient and have a negative influence on innovation if it relies heavily on the structural frame. According to Bolman and Deal (2008), a manager becomes a tyrannical or bureaucratic when ineffective and an architect or analyst when effective and depending on a structural frame (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 356). In order for leaders and managers to avoid potential negatives, they have to know the positives as well as the negatives within the structural frame.

A company who has used the structural frame and has been successful is United Parcel Service (UPS). UPSs’ employees are more productive due to the structural culture and technology which helps them succeed. Micromanaging and bureaucracy are known by UPS to be its only threat due to the understanding and use of the structural frame. Leaders and managers are able to foresee and prevent issues because of their awareness of the negatives. UPS is able to thrive by using the structural frame because it is not negotiable or flexible (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 50).

The next frame is the human resource frame which assumes all employees within an organization ultimately want to be successful and help their organization achieve their goals. Working within this frame allows employees to feel like owner-operators which are important for the organization because it keeps the employees goals adhered with the company’s goals (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 128). In the human resource frame, managers and leaders are considered to be servants and catalyst when they are effective, and considered a pushover and weak if ineffective (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 356). When managers and leaders disregard the human resource frame at times they tend to cut costs, which compromises safety. Safety goals have to be achieved in order for the human resource frame to be effective. These basic Maslow hierarchy of needs have to be met for the employees to feel secure within the company. A negative impact of the human resource frame is that it often relies on a, “romanticized view of human nature in which everyone hungers for growth and collaboration” (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 339). A company that operates using a human resource frame can promote the aspects of power, even though the political frame incorporates it much better, when having committed employees willing to be loyal to the company. An example of a successful human resource framed company is FedEx. “People-Service-Profit”, is how FedEx’s culture is explained.

FedEx website focuses on, “take care of our people; they in turn, will deliver the impeccable service demanded by our customers, who will reward us with the profitability necessary to secure our future” (FedEx Culture). FedEx is considered one of the most admired organizations to work for which is a notable achievement. A business will succeed with a motivated employee and the use of the human resource frame despite taking in account control like the structural frame work does. FedEx has grown believing that employees will do what’s right to help the business grow and do not need to be micromanaged. Keeping an employee satisfied is the basis of the human resource frame when companies are making decisions. This concept will keep the moral of the employees at a high, which will ultimate lead to satisfied customers.

Bolman and Deal explains the political frame by linking it with power and how it influences relationships. The political frame allows a leader to key in on the politics of the company and who has the power to get things done. In order to comprehend the needs and expectations of different parties within a political frame, leaders and managers must make decisions using this frame work. A relationship whose priorities are not at all times compatible is shareholders and management. A shareholder may want the organization to cut the budget in order to improve profitability, while management wants quality improvement. The requirements to manage a company can be demanding for a leader or manager, however, to be successful all demands have to be addressed. Ineffective leaders and managers who operate within a political frame are unsuccessful by acting like a thug, corrupt, or con artist when they are actually advocates and negotiators (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P.356). Collaboration is what a leader should focus on when using the political frame instead of issues and disloyalty (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 339). The political and human resource frames are similar because of the emphasis that employees want to do the right thing.

The final frame Bolman and Deal discuss is the symbolic frame, which emphasize on organizations mostly being judged on appearance as well as the outcomes. In order to reinforce the goal, companies stress symbolic culture like rituals, myths, ceremonies, and stories (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 254. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) becomes a cultural leader within in the symbolic frame and can be effective and viewed as a poet or prophet. If they are ineffective they will be seen as charlatan and fanatic (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 356). Rituals are effective in a symbolic frame is the employees believe the ritual and it is not just gestures mimicked as a tradition. Manipulation is a tactic that is sometimes used; however, in order to not be misinterpreted, a leader must be careful when using the stories and rituals. A manager or leader can be successful and effective if they use multiple frame work to increase the positives and decrease the negatives.

Bolman and Deal explained why using a multiple frame is best by asking one question, “Is the technical quality important”? It’s acceptable to use the structural frame when a technical quality must be met; however, it is necessary to view other resolutions like the human, political, and symbolic frame when making decisions (Bolman and Deal, 2008, P. 318). A leader can make an assumption decision when using one frame, instead of using multiple frames which can have a negative impact on the organization. All frames intertwined with each other so using a multiple lens is imperative to solve issues allowing isolation. While all frames are not always needed to solve an organizational challenge, it will yield better outcomes by knowing how to properly utilize each frame according to the situation.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.

San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2009). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th

ed.). Jossey-Bass.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

FedEx Culture. (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.fedexcareers.com/culture/indexeng.html

Freeman, K. B. (2011). Human needs and utility maximization. International Journal of Social

Economics, 38(3), 224–236.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-

analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–96, pg.

381.