The four frames
Each frame can be succinctly captured by its name, the set of assumptions underpinning it, and a metaphor to help tell its story. Keep in mind that each one constitutes a different lens, with its own merits, through which to understand organizations. They are not in conflict with each other.
Structural frame
“A focused, cohesive structure is a fundamental underpinning for high-performing teams.”
– Bolman and Deal, 2021, p. 111
The structural frame views organizations as factories that can be optimized. Leadership does this through specialization, division of labor, and strategies to adapt to changing market forces. The primary tool to address ineffectiveness is restructuring, but only when necessary. The expectation is that appropriate coordination and control, guided by rationality rather than personal agendas, will take the org where it needs to go.
This perspective has its roots in industrial psychology (Levy, 2019) and Frederick Taylor’s “scientific management” (Taylor, 1997), where the key to productivity is the meticulous analysis of work functions. You observe people working, measure aspects of their work, and devise optimizations. This can be done at a high level for org-wide strategy, too, although it’s generally harder to diagnose issues and track the impact of changes.
Structural frame strategies mainly include managing vertical and horizontal coordination, and structuring the org in a particular way, e.g. around products, functions, or geography. The matrix structure is a famous example of organizational design where each functional unit answers to, say, one regional manager and one product line manager. As a company grows from a startup to a global corporation, its design will evolve to best suit its needs.
The book illustrates structural thinking nicely through a sports analogy. In baseball, there is very loose coordination. Each player can do their job largely independently. In football, plays depend on each team member sticking to their predefined roles to execute a plan. And in basketball, team members execute a fast-paced improvisatory dance that exhibits tight coupling. Different strategies for different environments.
The main criticism of this perspective is that it ignores the human element, running the risk of turning people into numbers. This is where the human resource frame comes in.
Human resource frame
“Organizations need people, and people need organizations, but their respective needs are not always well aligned.”
– Bolman and Deal, 2021, p. 138
The HR frame sees organizations as families where the main goal is to drive productivity through satisfying individual and group needs. This follows from the human relations movement of the mid-1900s, which also spawned the field of applied research that is now called organizational psychology (Levy, 2019).
Conceptual tools in this frame include Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Alderfer’s Existence-Relatedness-Growth theory and Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory, to name a few. They all get at the same idea, which is that we have different categories of needs. Some are more basic like food and shelter (i.e. “hygienes”) while others take us a step further into community and growth (i.e. “motivators”).
The HR frame makes certain assumptions, the main one being that organizations and people fundamentally need each other. The org needs people to do the work and people need the org to sustain a living and build community. When the fit is bad, they might exploit each other or become victims, but when the fit is good, both flourish.
Chris Argyris argued that when the fit is bad, employees find ways to stay sane, which manifests in various ways. They withdraw through absenteeism or presenteeism (a.k.a. quiet quitting), they sabotage, scramble up the ladder to better jobs, form alliances like labor unions, or propagate a pessimistic view of work. This is all expected when employees’ needs go unmet.
How can an HR frame leader address unmet needs? By maintaining a consistent HR strategy, hiring the right people, keeping them, investing in and empowering them, and promoting diversity. Leaders can also reflect on their own views of employees.
Argyris and Schön described two “theories for action” (Argyris and Schön, 1974). The first, Model I, views organizations as inherently dangerous, cut-throat arenas. The second, Model II, advocates for finding common ground and communicating openly to test assumptions. Model II is clearly desirable, but it is complicated by the gap between people’s “espoused beliefs” and their “theories-in-use”. Leaders too often say one thing, do another, and then act as if they are consistent. I view this as readily explainable and discuss it in this article on corporate power hierarchies.
Political frame
“The question is not whether organizations will have politics but rather what kind of politics they will have.”
– Bolman and Deal, 2021, p. 206
I have to say, the political frame is my favorite of the four. It is just so crucial for successful leadership and understanding why leaders behave the way they do. Ignore the political frame and you’ll get stuck like a grasshopper in molasses.
This perspective views organizations as jungles where coalitions with differing interests form to secure control over scarce resources. The conflict that subsequently arises requires that negotiation be at the center of any productive exchange. It’s a game of chess (or Age of Empires, if you were a gamer in the late 90s).
The political frame highlights the many forms of power that influence outcomes (French and Raven, 1959): position, control of rewards, coercion, expertise, and controlling the agenda, to name a few. Some enlightening research has been done on the usage and perceptions of power within organizations (Fairholm, 2009). It is difficult to study, though, presumably because leaders prefer to keep their tactics to themselves. After all, power flows through ambiguity and access to information.
There are a number of meaningful implications here. One is that goals are not really set from a high command, as it were, but instead evolve organically through bargaining amongst stakeholders. For this reason, being skilled in the use of power tactics makes all the difference.
There are four key political skills that emerge from the literature: agenda setting, mapping the political terrain, networking and building coalitions, and negotiation. And when it comes to judging morality in political action, Bolman and Deal (2021, p. 224) ask four questions:
1. Are all parties to a relationship operating under the same understanding of the rules of the game?
2. Does a specific action follow a principle of moral conduct applicable to comparable situations?
3. Are we willing to make our thinking and decisions public and confrontable?
4. Does this action show concern for the legitimate interests and concerns of others?
The political frame embodies a perspective that is both fascinating and cannot be overlooked. I think it’s important to see politics as inherently neutral, as a tool that can be used wisely and unwisely.
The following quote, although true in a sense and one of my favorites from the world of stand-up comedy, risks descending us into paralyzing cynicism.
“Everybody knows by now, all businessmen are completely full of s**t; just the worst kind of low-life, criminal, c**ksuckers you could ever wanna run into... And the proof of it is … they don't even trust each other. ... When a businessman sits down to negotiate a deal, the first thing he does is to automatically assume that the other guy is a complete lying prick who's trying to f**k him outta his money. So he's gotta do everything he can to f**k the other guy a little bit faster and a little bit harder. … That’s business.”
– George Carlin, You’re All Diseased, 1999
Such a way to put it. It’s important to de-emphasize HR frame thinking when negotiating with a Carlinian businessman. But I digress.
Symbolic frame
“What is most important is not what happens but what it means.”
– Bolman and Deal, 2021, p. 254
Last but certainly not least, the symbolic frame describes organizations as theaters where symbols and meanings run the show. These cultural artifacts arise as a way to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity. Everything is interpreted by the actors onstage and serves as a means to bond the group together.
While the structural frame tells us “what we do”, the symbolic frame speaks to “who we are”. Organizational symbols include myths (e.g. origin stories), values, heroes, rituals, metaphor, humor, and specialized language.
For example, annual performance evaluations are a ritual that supervisors may orchestrate largely to give the appearance of “developing our talent”. Similarly, many of us have had the experience of sitting in quarterly update meetings where it seems that even the speaker is bored of hearing themselves talk. It’s impressive how low the information-to-word-count ratio is. But sometimes the content is secondary to the act itself.
Symbolic frame leaders recognize the dramaturgical purpose of group meetings. The host exercises their authority over the proceedings. This reminds the group of who is in charge. The speaker then puts on a show that entertains audience members, who in turn engage in the ritual of coming up with clever questions to ask that bolster their reputation. Meetings also constitute an arena in which rivals can vie for dominance. So don’t knock the chest-beating. See it as an ad that can’t be skipped.
What does the symbolic frame have to say about successful groups? Many things, including that how someone becomes a member is important. That stories reinforce group identity. That humor and play reduce tension and encourage creativity. That ritual and ceremony reinforce values. That informal cultural gestures contribute in outsized ways.
With so many displays and rituals, it can be tempting to dismiss it all as hot air. However, symbolic gestures give an organization a valuable opportunity to restate its values. This in turn drives the org’s culture, uniting employees under a common banner (real or imagined). What better way to influence an organization than through its soul?
