2004 A Managers Frame of Reference.doc
Download as DOC, PDF0 likes31 views
The document discusses the importance of a manager's dominant frame of reference as a foundational skill that enhances their effectiveness in leadership roles. It outlines four frames—structural, human resource, political, and symbolic—each offering distinct perspectives on management that can lead to improved organizational performance when integrated. The paper emphasizes the necessity of reframing to address issues and enhance decision-making, suggesting that reliance on a single frame can limit managerial capabilities.
2004 A Managers Frame of Reference.doc
- 1. A Managers Frame of Reference is his/her most enabling asset Introduction A managerputsin place a processto achieve anorganization’sgoalsthroughhuman,financial and technical resources(Baird1990, p. 3) and are now an essential partof organizations. “Managers”moving throughorganizationstructureswasrare outside the militaryorcivil serviceuntil recently. Mintzberg’s conceptpresupposesthatmanagersmove intothe strategicapex (Boland2003, p. 73), because theymade the “right decisions”,have knowledgeandexperience. Managers once planned,organized,directedandcontrolledthe organization(Fayol,1949). Mintzberg identifiedthatmanagershad10 rather thanfour roles(1973). Kotteridentifiedthatmanagerssetgoal, strategies,monitoredactivities,obtainedinformation,cooperatedandsupportedsupervisors,obtained cooperationfromothergroups,motivate,control andmanage conflict(1982). Luthansidentifiedfourbroad managerial roles:communication,traditional management(planning, decisionmaking),networkingandhumanresource management(1988). Managersare now leaders, communicatorsandnetworkers. Managers occupypositionsbecause of experiences,whichmoulds theiroutlookor“frame of reference”. A “frame of reference”isa perspective(Bolman2003,p. 15) or “mental model”(Senge1994, p. 174) of how we considermatterstakingaccountof experiencesinsimilarsituations(Bolman2003,p. 12). There are fourframesof reference:structural,humanresource,political andsymbolic(Bolman2003, p. 13). An “enablingasset”isanessential skillthatpermitsthe ownertoachieve otherskills. Thispaperconsiders whetheramanager’sdominantframe of reference isaskill thatunderpinsall othersskillsinenablingthem to effectivelyoperate asamanager. Structural Frame The structural frame isthe traditional perspectiveof managementandhasits genesisinthe needto improve the efficiencyandeffectivenessof organizations(Bolman2003, p. 45) through specialization, divisionof labourandhierarchies(Bolman2003, p.46). Thisframe considers that“…clear,well understood rolesandrelationshipsandadequate coordinationare key…”to organizational performance (Bolman2003, p. 44). This frame isgoal orientedanddesignsavarietyof formal structures (Flamholtz1998: pp. 183-188), rulesandpolicies(Bolman2003,p. 18). Hierarchiesasessentialtoensure thatcontrol isexercisedand rulesandpoliciesensure proceduresaddresssituationsconsistently:to achieve organizationalefficiency and effectiveness. The right structure isdependentoncompatibilitywith organizational goals,strategiesandsize, the operatingenvironmentanduse of technologyorprocesses(Bolman2003, pp.58-63). The new business environmentrequires new structures,teams,networksandotherscanvassedbyDunford(1997, p. 40) and Bolman(2003, pp.93-109). A limitationof the structural frame isflexibility andinappropriatestructures. While organizationsare adept atreinventing,re-engineeringandrestructuring(Bolman2003,pp. 82-91), some finditdifficulttoadjustandadapt. Structuresand strategyare sometimes immutable because organizational processesensuresthatstrategyflowsfromananalytical processwhichconsidersall eventualities:hencethe organizationisblindtoemergingrealitiesbecause itdoesnotfititsperspective of howmatters where to evolve. The structural frame alsomissesothercritical aspectsthatare observed throughotherframes:the appropriate use of these wouldmake amanagermore successful.
- 2. 2 Human ResourcesFrame The human resource frame ismore “progressive”thanthe structural perspective and considers “…people’s skills,attitudes,energy,andcommitmentare vital resourcesthat canmake or breakan organization…” (Boland2003, pp.113-114). This frame addressesemployee concerns(therebyreducingthe needfor unionsandlowersstaff turnover),throughintegratedstrategiesonremuneration,conditionsandjob security(Boland2003, p. 129). Managementtheoryisawashwithconceptsfor the human resources:Senge considersthe learning organization(Senge1994), Semleradvocatesrotationalleadership,upwardsappraisal etal (Semler1994), othersconsiderteams,jobredesign,industrialdemocracy,employee share ownership. Anoverriding feature is the identificationandmeldingof personal andorganizational goalstoenhance commitmentto the organization(Lee SooHoon,p.65). A humanresources focushas“humanized”management,removingabhorrent practices andrecognizing that employeescanmake a valuable contribution. Thisframe iseffective inreducing organizational costs (ie absenteeism,accidents, disputation andturnover),butitsapplicationalsoresultsinthe introductionof new,andoftenlaboursaving, technology,increasedcasualisationof work(hence less jobsecurity) andnew workarrangements toenhance productivity(Bolman2003, pp.137-139). Jack Welch’usedhuman resources(throughperformance management) to know whothe bottom10 per centof staff was in GE so theybe fired(Ghahremani 2001). The human resource frame canignore the importance thatstructuresbringthoughstabilityandgoal orientation(Bolman2003, p. 332). Inappropriatelydesignedhuman resourcesstrategiescan alsoresultin the recruitmentof “organizational man”:ie cloneswhoare similarinattitudes/outlook,upbringingand intolerantof “difference”anddiversity. A heavyfocusbythe organizationonpeople thatsuitit maymean there islittle chance tounderstandandacceptnew ways of doingbusinessorappreciate the exercise of power(Bolman2003, p.192). Political Frame The political frame isthe processof makingdecisionsandallocating scare resources whenthere is divergentinterests(Bolman2003, p.181) throughbargaining, andnegotiation(Bolman2003,p. 186). The mainfunctionisthe distributionanduse of power(Bolman2003, p.188) whichcan be derived froma range of sources (Bolman2003, pp.195-196). Thisframe doesnot considerthe resolution,butthe management,of conflict(unlike the structural and humanresourcesframes),throughstrategyandtactics(Bolman2003, p. 197). Organizationshave been “saved”by politics: ie in1944 whenHenryFordII removedhisgrandfather’scronies andintroduced anew managementteam,turningaround Fordwhich hadmade lossesforthe previous20 years(Drucker1995, p. 5). A challenge forthe political frame isthe misuse of poweranditseffects. Moral hazard andethical considerationsare oftenignoredinthe processtoachieve the required outcome. The inwardfixationon the dynamicsof politicswithinandbetweenorganizations,tendsto alsooverdramatize itscontributionto organizational success. Participants becometotallycommittedtoexploitinganygivensituation,because the endjustifiesthe means,mistrustothersandindoingsominimizethe chance thatalternatives,including conflictresolutionorcollaboration,mighthave (Bolman2003,p. 332).
- 3. 3 SymbolicFrame The symbolicframe concernsthe creationof values,rituals, beliefsand rulestoforma “culture”whichis usedto hold organizationstogether. Deal andKennedynote thatculture isbasically“…the waywe do thingsaroundhere…”(Bolman2003, p. 243). Organizationswill have differentculturesdependingon theirevolution, use of technology,educationallevels,markets,etal:forexamplethe differentcultures betweenMicrosoft(Herbold2002, pp.73-79) and Nordstrom(Bolman2003, pp.244-246). The symbolicframe can be usedto determine anoganization’sculture:a“negative”culture includesdouble standards,external recruitmentof managerswithoutcorporate knowledge, executive diningrooms,fear, coercion(see Bolman2003, p. 250). The change froma negative toapositive culture,whileinitially distrusted,will leadtogreatercommitmenttothe organization. A positiveculture mayemphasize openness,egalitarianism,sharedvaluesetal. Like the humanresource frame,the symbolicframe isusedto enhance one’scommitmenttoanorganizationthroughthe manipulationanddevelopmentof “culture”. The symbolicframe isoften difficulttodefine, withtrue meaningshiddenormisunderstood(Bolman2003, p. 332). Cultural change isthe panaceapanderedby manyconsultantsredefining anorganization: unfortunately,theyoftenmissthe existinginformal andunwrittenexpressions of itand the empty symbolismcanbe why an organization isnoteffective. Reframing It isimportantfor managerstoappreciate theirdominantframe of reference and “reframe”andtake a “multi frame”perspective. By“reframing”amanagercan fullyunderstandandanalyse anorganization fromfour essential perspectivessince “…preconceivedtheoriesandimages determine whatwe see,what we do, andwhat we accomplish. Narrow oversimplified,perspectivesbecome fallacies,thatoftencloud, rather thanilluminatemanagerialaction...”(Bolman2003, p. 40). Reframingcanalsomeanthat a situation,whenconsideredfromanotherperspective,couldhave adifferentmeaning(Watzlawick1974, p. 95). In analyzingmanagementcourses,DunfordandPalmerfoundthat“...teachingmanagementframeshad significantpositiveeffectsoverboththe shortrunand the long- infact, 98 percent of theirrespondents ratedreframingas helpfulorveryhelpful,andabout90 percent feltthatitgave thema competitive advantage..”(DunfordandPalmer1993 and Dunfordand Palmer1995 in Bolman2003, pp. 17-18). Unfortunately,most managerstendtoexclusivelyrelyontheirowndominantframe of reference,rather than considerall framesavailable tothem. Itrequiresaconsciousefforttoappreciate one’sowndominant frame(s) andtodeliberatelyconsiderotherstoensure thatacomplete perception andanalysis canbe made. Boland notes that using one or two frames may be sufficient for a manager to become middle management, but questionswhetheritisenoughto aspire to seniorpositions (2003,p. 333). This isreinforcedby Luthanswho foundthat“…middle andlowerlevelmanagersspentalmostto-thirdsof theirtime on structural activities…aboutone fifthon“humanresource management”…andaboutone fifthon “networking…”(Boland2003, p.317). Otheracademics (includingBolmanandGranell 1999) foundthat “…effectivenessasamanager wasparticularlyassociatedwiththe structural frame,whereasthe symbolic and political framestendedtobe the primarydeterminantsof effectivesasaleader…”(Bolman2003, p. 318). The applicationof the fourframesand reframingisanessential partof organizational analysisanddesign. Reframingiscritical totransformorganizationswithpoorhealth. The RobertFKennedyHighSchool case studyofferssome of the complex issuesfacing managers(Bolman2003,pp. 409-431). Inthisexample the analysisof the desperate situationfromeachof the fourframesandreframingenabledthe School Principal
- 4. 4 to more clearlyappreciate andunderstandthe dynamicsinorganizationthathe wasleading. Thisanalysis alsoprovidedhimwiththe opportunitytodevelopresponsestothe keyeventsthatwere shapingthe structural,humanresources,political andsymbolicproblemsatthe school. Throughintegratingthose responsesinreframing,the School Principalwasable tomapout a processthat may eventuallyprovide the solutionsthathe requires. If he didnotapplythe fourframesand didnotreframe,the School Principals responsestothe keyeventsatthe school maywell have beenpiecemealandmissedkeyclues. Academicshave noted thatorganizationchange from reframingisnotguaranteedtosucceedif an organizationdoesnotreframe appropriately. PalmerandDunfordnotedthere were fourlimitsonreframing:“…cognitive limits,frame dominance and the limitsof language,conceptionsof actionandtheirlimitsonreframingandknowledgeandpower..” (PalmerandDunford1996, p.22). Kotternotesthat eightmistakes are commonlymade intransformingthe organization followingthe reframingprocess include:“notestablishingasense of urgency”,“lackingavision”and undercommunicatingthe vision”(Kotter1995, p.61 and PalmerandDunford 1996, p.21). Some have alsoquestionedwhetherframesandreframingare necessaryarguingthatotherfactorssuchas skillsandexperience are more important(PoracandRosa 1996, p.35-42) Conclusion Thispaperhas consideredthe fourframes:the structural frame isgoal orientedandconsidersformal structures,rules,rolesandpolicies:hierarchiesare essential toensure control isexercised. The human resourcesframe focusesonthe individual andthe integrationof humanresourceswithorganizational strategy,to enhance commitmenttothe organization. The political frame isthe processof making decisions,allocatingresourcesandappreciatesthatcompetinginterests,differencesandgoalsare resolved throughpower. The political frame doesnotconsiderthe resolutionof conflictbutonitsmanagement. The symbolicframe concernsthe creationof culture withinanorganizationand canbe usedto enhance commitment. Reframingiswhere the managerintegratesandperceivesthe organizationthroughthe prismof four frames. Most managerstendto relyontheirowndominantframe of reference, ratherthanconsiderall framesavailable tothem. Where amanageris able toinclude otherframesorperspectivesinlookingat the environment,theirowninformationgapsandblindspotstoevolvingeventswilldecrease. Most managers,unwittingly,use one ortwoframesasmanagers. In doingso,theycan not maximize the applicationof theirmanagement,leadershipandanalyticalskillsforthe organization. Accordingly, formost managers,theirinitial frame of referenceisnotan enablingasset. Where amanagercan reframe and applythe perspectivesof structure,humanresources,politicsandsymbolism, asinthe case studyof the RobertJ KennedyHighSchool, thenthe manager’s broadened frame of reference willbe anenablingasset.
- 5. 5 References Baird,L., Post,J. andMahon, J. (1990) Management:Functionsand Responsibilities,HarperCollins Publishers,New York. Bolman,L. andDeal,T. (2003) Reframing Organizations:Artisty,Chioceand Leadership, JohnWileyandSonsInc, San Francisco. Drucker,P. (1995) Peopleand Performance,Butterworth-HeinemannLtd, Oxford. Dunford,R.and Palmer,I.(1993) ‘IsReframingUseful toManagers?’ in Training and Developmentin Australia (December) pp.22-34. Dunford,R.and Palmer,I. (1997) ‘OrganisingforHyper-Competition:New Organizational Formsfor a new age’in New Zealand Strategic Management,Summer1997. Fayol,H. (1949) General and IndustrialManagement,Pitman,London. Flamholtz,E.G. and Randle,Y. (1998) Changing theGame:Transformationsof thefirst,second and third kinds,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork. Ghahremani,Y. (2001) ‘Enterprise Management:Gone WithThe Wind’,in Asia Week, 23 November2001. Hoon,L.S. (undated) ‘A Managerial Perspective of the Objectivesof HRM PracticesinSingapore:AnExploratoryStudy‘in Singapore ManagementReview,Singapore,undated. Kotter,J. (1992) The General Manager,The Free Press,New York. Kotter,J.(1995) ‘LeadingChange:WhyTransformationEffortsFail’in Harvard BusinessReview (March-April),pp.59-67. Luthans,F.R.,Hodgetts,M.andRosenkrantz,S. (1988) Real Managers,Ballinger,Cambridge. Mintzberg,H. (1973) The Natureof ManagerialWork,Harper andRow,New York. Nadler,D.A.andTushman,M. (1997) Competing By Design:The PowerOf Organisational Architecture,OxfordUniversityPress. Palmer,I.AndDunford,R.(1996) ‘Reframingandorganizationalaction:the unexploredlink’, inJournalof OrganizationalChangeManagement, 9(6): 12-25 Porac, J.and Rosa, J.A. (1996) ‘InPraise of Managerial Narrow-Mindedness’inJournal of ManagementInquiry, 5(1): 35-42. Semler,R. (1994) ‘Whymy formeremployeesstill workforme’,in Harvard BusinessReview,January-February1994. Senge,P. (1994) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization,RandomHouse Australia,Sydney. Senge,P. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:Strategiesand Toolsfor Building a Learning Organization,NicholasBrearley PublishingLtd,London. Watzlawick,WeaklandandFisch(undated) Extract containedin Lecture Noteson Reframing, Organizational AnalysisandDesign,2004.