Bolman and Deal's Four-Frame Model of Leadership

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 the ability to gain new insights into complex organizational situations in order to facilitate 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 developed by Bolman and Deal is based on findings that 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 ceremonies, culture, and myths within an organization) (Monahan et al., 2015).

Although a number of popular leadership theories concentrate on 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 incorporates the relationships and tasks elements as well as others (Monahan et al., 2015). In this regard, Monahan et 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 predominantly utilize two leadership styles, and those using the multi-style utilize three or more leadership styles" (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).

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). This review addresses each of these purposes as they relate to Bolman and Deal's four-frame model.

The Four Frames: Concepts and Assumptions

The theoretical model developed by Bolman and Deal (1991, 1997) has demonstrated utility in helping leaders develop a better understanding of the complexity of their circumstances. 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, Mencl & Huang, 2014; Wong-Kam, 2015). The multi-frame model was originally presented in Bolman and Deal's 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).

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," while 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 most—an individual approach 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, the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames together 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

Structural Frame — Metaphor: Factory or machine. Central concepts: Rules, roles, goals, policies, technology, environment. Image of leadership: Social architecture. Basic leadership challenge: Attune structure to task, technology, and environment.

Human Resource Frame — Metaphor: Family. Central concepts: Needs, skills, relationships. Image of leadership: Empowerment. Basic leadership challenge: Align organizational needs and human needs.

Political Frame — Metaphor: Jungle. Central concepts: Power, conflict, competition, organizational politics. Image of leadership: Advocacy and political savvy. Basic leadership challenge: Develop agenda and power base.

Symbolic Frame — Metaphor: Carnival, temple, theater. Central concepts: Culture, meaning, metaphor, ritual, ceremony, stories, heroes. Image of leadership: Inspiration. Basic leadership challenge: Create faith, beauty, and 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 and their organizations by identifying their most significant strengths and weaknesses (Amsler, 1999). Moreover, this diagnostic analysis can extend to staff members as well. 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 because it motivates staff members to evaluate the effectiveness of their organization from a holistic perspective that includes both internal and external forces (Amsler, 1994).

Applications and Research Findings

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 existing situations in ways that a single or dual perspective cannot provide. 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). Rather than 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 considerations 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). 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 assertion that leaders who apply a multi-frame analytical approach are more effective than their counterparts who 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. 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, this analytical tool has also demonstrated 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 understanding the constraints they are experiencing and the solutions needed to resolve them. Likewise, Thompson (2008) 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, 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.

References

Amsler, M. & Kirsch, K. (1994). Diagnostic tools for the systemic reform of schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Andrade, M. S. (2011). Managing change — engaging faculty in assessment opportunities. Innovations in Higher Education, 36, 217–233.

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., & Deal, T. (1990). Leadership orientations (self). Brookline, MA: Leadership Frameworks.

Farnsworth, T. J. (2013, May). Understanding the structural, human resource, political and symbolic dimensions of implementing and sustaining interprofessional education. Proquest UMI Number: 3571462.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2001). Educational research: A guide to the process. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

May, D. R., Li, C., Mencl, J. & Huang, C-C. (2015). The ethics of meaningful work: Types and magnitude of job-related harm and the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 651–669.

Monahan, M., Shah, A., Bao, Y. & Rana, J. (2015, May). Does the field of study influence the choice of leadership? A cross cultural comparison of business vs. non-business majors. Research in Higher Education Journal, 28, 1–19.

Roddy, T. P. (2010). Frame analysis of the self-perceived leadership orientations of headmasters of the Independent Schools Association of the Southwest, Southern Association of Independent Schools, and the Association of Independent Schools of Greater Washington member schools. Proquest LLC, Ph.D. Dissertation.

Sahbudak, E., Korkmaz, M. & Bekcp, M. (2015). A study on developing a scale directed to the professional attitude and social perceptions of employees. International Refereed Academic Social Sciences Journal. doi:10.17364/IIB.20152013537.

Thompson, D. & Farmer, K. C. (2008, August). Identifying perceptions of professionalism in pharmacy using a four-frame leadership model. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(4), 37–41.

Thompson, M. D. (2000). Gender, leadership orientation, and effectiveness: Testing the theoretical models of Bolman & Deal and Quinn. Sex Roles, 42(11/12), 969–992.

Wong-Kam, J. C. (2015, January). Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices. Proquest LLC, Ed.D. Dissertation.