This paper examines the four core properties of modern organizations — complexity, uncertainty, deceptiveness, and ambiguity — as described by Bolman and Deal in Reframing Organizations, and discusses the management implications each property carries. The paper then outlines the challenges these properties create for managers and explains the importance of framing as a managerial tool. Each of the four frames — structural, human relations, political, and symbolic — is analyzed in terms of its underlying assumptions and practical applications. Together, these frameworks offer managers a multi-lens approach to diagnosing and resolving organizational problems.
The paper demonstrates effective use of a theoretical framework as an organizational scaffold. Rather than presenting ideas loosely, the student anchors every section to an established framework (Bolman and Deal's four frames), then applies supporting literature to each node of that framework. This technique — framework-first, evidence-second — is a reliable approach for analytical essays in management and organizational studies.
The paper opens by introducing four organizational properties, devotes a section to each property's management implications, consolidates challenges in a unified section, and then transitions to framing theory. The four frames are covered in two paired sections (structural/human relations, then political/symbolic), each built around stated assumptions and practical applications. The Works Cited page follows APA-adjacent formatting.
In their book Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal describe organizations as having four distinct properties: complexity, uncertainty, deceptiveness, and ambiguity. Each of these properties requires different management strategies in order to ensure the smooth operation of an organization (Bolman and Deal).
Organizations have become very complicated. They consist of employees belonging to different cultures, countries, and backgrounds, making the workplace a setting where people hold widely varying views. As a result, management becomes more difficult. Managers should exercise care when analyzing situations, because in complex organizations, situations that appear similar are rarely the same. Therefore, every situation requiring managerial action needs thorough analysis before action is taken (Richardson).
Management of complex organizations also requires the agreement of all, or at least most, employees with key decisions. If employees are excluded from the decision-making process, problems are likely to arise because they may hold different views of the situation. Taking the perspective of the majority also helps identify the best course of action (Richardson).
Moreover, management must keep in mind that even the most carefully considered decisions carry a margin of error. The complexity of organizations makes decision-making more difficult, as many factors must be weighed before taking action. If decisions prove unsuccessful, managers should be prepared to adapt with time rather than remain rigid (Richardson).
Uncertain outcomes are common in organizations and can arise from many causes. Efficient management is needed to minimize their negative effects, and a mindful management team is better equipped to deal with anomalies (Eastburn).
One key step is to update and create categories and departments on a regular basis. When departments and employee roles are refined to meet current needs, management is better positioned to handle unexpected results (Eastburn). Additionally, information related to a process or decision should be welcomed from all sources, as it signals likely outcomes. This openness in gathering and interpreting information leads naturally to another implication: respecting everyone's point of view. When information from all employees is accepted, management is effectively incorporating diverse input to avoid unexpected outcomes as much as possible. Lastly, management should prepare in advance for uncertain events so they are ready to respond when they occur (Eastburn).
Organizations sometimes resort to unwanted means to hide mistakes that caused accidents, transferring blame to others in order to preserve the organization's integrity. The primary managerial implication is that managers must detect and eliminate deception and corruption as soon as it begins. This can be accomplished through monitoring systems that evaluate employee conduct. Reducing incentives — or applying penalties — when deception is discovered also discourages dishonest behavior. Finally, increasing the frequency of internal audits helps surface anomalies as soon as they emerge (Fleming and Zyglidopoulos).
The properties described above collectively make organizations ambiguous. Complexity, uncertainty, and deceptiveness all contribute to equivocal decision-making, so management must be vigilant about this problem as well. To reduce ambiguity, management must be clear about the organization's goals and its future direction. Taking decisions that are supported by employees also helps reduce further ambiguity (Lewis).
Because of these properties, modern management faces significant challenges. The complexity of the system makes it difficult to reach decisions in tough situations. A diverse workforce brings new problems as well as new perspectives, and management faces the challenge of choosing the best course of action without harming anyone's interests (Richardson).
Unexpected negative outcomes also present a serious challenge. Such outcomes can shock management and push them toward poor decisions. As the number of people and operations in an organization grows, the organization becomes more complex and connected to numerous external factors. Management must therefore prepare and plan for the unexpected negative outcomes associated with all those factors (Eastburn).
The challenge is further compounded by deceptiveness within the organization. Managers must also counter dishonesty and corruption, which disrupts the smooth flow of decision-making. When deception, complexity, and uncertainty combine, the entire organization becomes ambiguous, leaving managers without a clear, unequivocal view of any given situation (Fleming and Zyglidopoulos).
Framing refers to focusing on a selected set of ideas and using interpretive skills to make sense of a given situation. To frame something means choosing one interpretation over others in order to benefit the organization. Frames are particularly useful for breaking down complex problems because they recognize patterns in the way problems occur and seek links among them (Bolman and Deal).
Framing helps management concentrate on the specific factors and elements that may be causing a problem, rather than attempting to address the entire problem at once. According to Bolman and Deal, a manager's ability to use multiple frames is directly related to their effectiveness. The use of frames helps management navigate the complex maze of organizational problems. With these frames, managers can assess where they stand in a particular situation and match that position to a mental map, then work their way toward a solution (Bolman and Deal).
Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Print.
Eastburn, Ronald W. Making Sense of Surprise Outcomes: Implications for Managing the Unexpected. 1st ed. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, 2009. Web. 10 Aug. 2014.
Fleming, Peter, and Stelios C. Zyglidopoulos. "The Escalation of Deception in Organizations." Journal of Business Ethics 81.4 (2008): 837–850. Print.
Lewis, David. "Non-Governmental Organizations, Business and the Management of Ambiguity: Case Studies of 'Fair Trade' from Nepal and Bangladesh." Nonprofit Management and Leadership 9.2 (1998): 135–152. Print.
Richardson, Kurt A. "Managing Complex Organizations: Complexity Thinking and the Science and Art of Management." Emergence 10.2 (2008): 13–26. Print.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.