Bolman and Deal's Four-Frame Model of Leadership
This paper reviews the literature on Bolman and Deal's four-frame model of organizational leadership, which encompasses the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames. The review examines the model's origins, theoretical foundations, and practical applications in diverse organizational settings. Key findings indicate that leaders who apply multiple frames consistently outperform those who rely on only one or two, and that experience plays a significant role in expanding a leader's analytical repertoire. The paper synthesizes evidence from educational, healthcare, and business contexts to argue that the multi-frame approach provides leaders with a more complete, holistic understanding of complex organizational challenges, enabling better decision-making and more successful outcomes.
- Introduction and Background of the Four-Frame Model: Origins and overview of Bolman and Deal's model
- The Four Frames: Concepts and Assumptions: Core concepts and assumptions of each frame
- Applications and Research Findings: Research on multi-frame leadership effectiveness
- Synthesis of the Literature: Key cross-study findings and leadership gaps
- Importance of the Four-Frame Model for Effective Leadership: Why multi-frame analysis improves leadership decisions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds its claims in a consistent set of cited sources, using direct quotations alongside paraphrase to balance evidence with analysis.
- The inclusion of a summary table (Table 1) gives readers a clear comparative overview of all four frames—a practical organizational device that strengthens comprehension.
- The synthesis section explicitly draws together the key finding across all reviewed studies, showing the writer can evaluate the body of literature rather than merely report it.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective literature synthesis: rather than summarizing each source in isolation, it threads multiple citations through a single analytical argument—that multi-frame leadership is more effective than single-frame leadership. This is reinforced by the explicit "Synthesis" section, which evaluates consistency across studies and acknowledges a practical gap between what research recommends and what leaders actually do.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with background on the model's origins and a statement of purpose for the literature review. It then analyzes each frame's concepts and assumptions, drawing on Andrade, Monahan et al., and Amsler. A synthesis section consolidates findings before a concluding section argues for the model's practical importance in management and leadership decision-making. The reference list follows APA format throughout.
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.
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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.