Leadership Styles and Leaders

¶ … Frame Model

Introduction and Background of the Four-Frame Model

The multi-frame model developed by Bolman and Deal provides a useful approach for organizational leaders to gain an improved understanding of their respective roles, as well as providing the ability for them to gain new insights into complex organizational situations to facilitate their decision-making (Roddy, 2010). For instance, Monahan, Shah, Bao and Rana (2015) report that, "Bolman and Deal (1991) defined these frames that assist decision-making with regard to the specific situation" (p. 1). The four-frame model was developed by Bolman and Deal is based on the findings that had emerged from a wide range of leadership theory studies and identified four fundamental frames: (a) the structural frame (relates to hierarchy and formal rules), (b) the human resource frame (focuses on the people in the organization), (c) the political frame (views organizations as arenas where participants compete over resources, power, influence, and interests), and (d) the symbolic frame (focuses on the ceremonies, culture, and myths within an organization) (Monahan et al., 2015).

Although a number of popular leadership theories concentrate of relationships and tasks, they do not necessarily advocate evaluating an organization from several different perspectives (Andrade, 2011). To help overcome this limitation, Bolman and Deal's four-frame model uses the relationships and tasks elements as well as others (Monahan et al., 2015). In this regard, Monahanet al. (2015) report that, "The Bolman and Deal model consists of four leadership styles: the No-style, Single, Paired and Multi-styled. Leaders using a single style predominantly use one style. Similarly, leaders using a paired style predominately utilized two leadership styles and those using the multi-style utilize three or more leadership styles" (2015, p. 2). So-called "No-style" leaders tend to "freewheel" their leadership without subscribing to any of the four leadership styles in which these frames are situated by Bolman and Deal (1990); however, leaders tend to perform more effectively when they apply a multi-frame leadership style (Monahan et al., 2015).

Purpose of the Literature Review

There are three main purposes for conducting a literature review: (a) to learn what others have written about an issue of interest, (b) to provide a viable framework for and establish the importance of a study, and (c) to identify existing gaps in the body of knowledge (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2001).

Analysis

The theoretical model developed by Bolman and Deal's (1991, 1997) has demonstrated utility in helping leaders develop a better understanding concerning the complexity of their circumstances and a growing body of research indicates that managers and leaders who apply a multi-frame approach are most effective (Thompson, 2000). This was a significant contribution because organizations are typically highly complex entities that demand consistent and effective leadership to gain and sustain a competitive advantage (May, Li, Mensel & Huang, 2014; Wong-Kam, 2015). The multi-frame model developed by Bolman and Deal was originally presented in their text, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations (1984) which introduced the authors' integrated approach to gaining an improved understanding of organizational behavior based on many of the prevailing leadership theories at the time as well as studies in political, cultural and anthropological sciences (Amsler, 1994).

In sum, Bolman and Deal maintain that evaluating organizational situations from different perspectives provides leaders with the ability to develop novel alternatives and strategic responses (Andrade, 2011). Each of the four frames includes its own respective assumptions and concepts. For example, Andrade (2011) notes that, "The human resource frame focuses on involvement and participation as well as training and investing time and money in employees to help them develop needed skills" (p. 218). By contrast, the structural frame developed by Bolman and Deal focuses on "developing appropriate patterns and policies, establishing roles and responsibilities, and aligning new and old systems to create feelings of security" and the symbolic frame "is related to institutional culture, values, rituals, myths, stories, and ceremonies" (Andrade, 2011, p. 218).

From Bolman and Deal's perspective, most organizational leaders routinely use one or two frames at the most, an individual approach that they termed a "personalistic perspective" that is directly related to the unique values and characteristics of the people who comprise an organization (Amsler, 1994). As shown in Table 1 below, though, the structural, human resource, political and symbolic frames encompass the full range of issues that organizational leaders face on a regular basis when confronted with difficult decisions.

Table 1

Overview of Bolman & Deal's four-frame model

Frame

Structural

Human Resource

Political

Symbolic

Metaphor for organization

Factory or machine

Family

Jungle

Carnival, temple, theater

Central concepts

Rules, roles, goals, policies, technology, environment

Needs, skills, relationships

Power, conflict, competition, organizational politics

Culture, meaning, metaphor, ritual, ceremony, stories, heroes

Images of leadership

Social architecture

Empowerment

Advocacy and political savvy

Inspiration

Basic leadership challenge

Attune structure to task, technology, environment

Align organizational needs and human needs

Develop agenda and power base

Create faith, beauty, meaning

Source: Farnsworth, 2013

The overarching objective of Bolman and Deal's four-frame model is to provide leaders with a systematic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of their leadership style as well as the effectiveness of their organizations by identifying their most significant strengths and weaknesses (Amsler, 1999). Moreover, this diagnostic analysis can extend to staff members as well. For example, Amsler (1994) reports that, "This [multi-frame] tool is designed to be used at the beginning of a restructuring effort as a way of creating in staff a common understanding of their culture" (p. 3). The multi-frame theory is regarded as a diagnostic tool since it motivates staff members to evaluate the effectiveness of their organization from a holistic perspective that includes both internal and external forces (Amsler, 1994).

According to Monahan et al. (2015), leaders and staff can use the multi-frame model to better evaluate situations from various perspectives, a process that allows them to gain new insights and an improved understanding of the existing situation in ways that a single or dual perspective cannot. In this regard, Monahan et al. (2015) report that, "Reframing, or changing your vantage point to view issues enables the leader to view, analyze, and develop solutions from one or more different perspectives" (p. 2). Indeed, rather that limiting themselves to just one or two of the four frames identified by Bolman and Deal, the most effective leaders tend to apply at least three or four to identify opportunities for improvement and potential solutions (Monahan et al., 2015). These are important issues because leaders are frequently confronted with complex situations that require more than one perspective to fully understand (Sahbudak, Korkmaz & Bekcp, 2015).

Interestingly, Bolman and Deal's four-frame model can also be used to determine what types of leadership styles are most likely to be used by future leaders (Monahan et al., 2015). To date, much of this type of research has been applied to educational settings to identify what types of leadership styles will likely be used by university administrators such as deans and presidents (Monahan et al., 2015). The findings that have emerged from this research support the foregoing assertions that leadership who apply a multi-frame analytical approach are more effective than their counterparts that rely on one or two frames. Moreover, these findings also indicate that leaders tend to learn how to apply additional frames as they gain experience in their professions. For instance, according to Monahan et al. (2015), "These studies have found the balance of leadership frames is influenced by experience. New university leaders have been found to use a single leadership frame, while more experienced leaders use paired and multiple framed methods" (p. 3).

Irrespective of the organizational setting in which the four-frame model is applied, though, this analytical tool also has proven efficacy in helping organizations (a) clarify purpose, (b) evaluate goals, (c) implement change, and (d) regularly reexamine themselves (Andrade, 2011, p. 217). An important point made by Andrade (2011) concerns the need for leaders to use as many of the four frames as possible to ensure they do not overlook issues that may be key to the constraints they are experiencing and the solutions they need to resolve them. Likewise, Thompson (2008) also emphasizes that Bolman and Deal's "research showed that leaders who viewed situations through only one or two such frames were often not successful. [They] cite case after case of leaders who determinedly adhered to a single frame and, as a result, failed to lead their organizations to success" (Thompson, 2008, p. 37). By evaluating different situations using the four-frame model developed by Bolman and Deal, Thompson (2008) and like-minded authorities maintain that all stakeholders but most especially leaders gain a tactical advantage by virtue of this enhanced analytical perspective.

Synthesis

The key finding that emerged from all of the reviewed studies concerned the need for leaders to apply more than a casual analysis to their current situations and the internal and external factors that are contributing to or constraining their success. Although this key finding appears intuitive on its face, the research was consistent in showing that far too leaders and managers are willing or able to move beyond their "comfort zone" to apply new analytical views to their decision-making processes. While the research also showed that leaders can gain this ability with experience, many leaders remain less effective due to their unwillingness or inability to apply the multi-frame model developed by Bolman and Deal.