Main Content

Lesson 2 Nature and Structure of Administration and Governance in Higher Education

Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames

Bolman and Deal wrote an influential book, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, that presents four frames that individuals use to process organizational governance and change. The framework highlights how each situation can be viewed differently depending upon which frame is used. There is no perfect frame or model for all situations, because each frame highlights certain considerations while paying less attention to other considerations. The effective leader will operate from multiple frames, using each frame to carefully consider the issues raised by that frame and using a variety of frames to ensure that all of the key issues are being examined. Myopically examining an issue from only one frame will likely cause key issues to be ignored, which can lead to disagreement, conflict, and problems.

Let us quickly introduce you to each of the four frames presented by Bolman and Deal. One can adjust these frames to reflect your own view of the key items that one might consider in any situation, as the essential point raised by Bolman and Deal is the importance of using multiple frames, not the idea that there is a specific set of frames that are ideal for each individual. Further, leaders of organizations operate from the four frames and exhibit characteristics that link back to each respective frame.

Click on each tab to view the frame and its respective characteristics.

The Structural Frame

This frame for institutional leadership is grounded in the notion that by providing a formally arranged organizational structure, with clearly defined rules of engagement among both internal and external actors, quality will be improved and problems will be minimized. This frame sets out to maximize the capacity of the organization through clearly defined roles and rules. The structural frame’s foundation is built around the theoretical constructs offered by Frederick Taylor’s “scientific management” and by Max Weber’s “monocratic bureaucracy.”

Characteristics
  • Structural leaders do their homework.
  • Structural leaders rethink the relationship of structure, strategy, and environment.
  • Structural leaders focus on implementation.
  • Effective structural leaders experiment, evaluate, and adapt.

The Human Resource Frame

This frame emphasizes the relationship that exists between organizations and the people that work there. This relationship is symbiotic, in that both need each other to be successful. Employees need an organization for the professional and personal rewards they offer (both extrinsic and intrinsic), and organizations need people to function and thrive. People are the core of any high functioning operation, and without talented, creative, hard-working individuals organizations likely become stagnant or fail. Finding and keeping the right people is a central imperative to any high functioning organization. Problems arise when a disconnect occurs between organizational priorities and individuals’ personal needs and interests.

Characteristics
  • Human resource leaders believe in people and communicate their belief.
  • Human resources leaders are visible and accessible.
  • Effective human resource leaders empower others.

The Political Frame

This frame examines institutional governance from a view that stands in stark contrast to the more traditional view than say, the Structural Frame, that suggests a more top down view of leadership and operation. In the political frame, organization leaders have power that derives from their position; however, many other forms of authority exist and those individuals are also all vying for control. These other actors seek to gain a greater share of resources -- often limited resources -- particularly under challenging economic conditions. Goals, strategies, and policies  take shape after a period of intense negotiation between those with position and power, and others within the organization that have secured control within and amongst various interest groups. This dispersion of power can lead to better governance, or in some cases individuals can exert their influence in destructive ways.

Characteristics
  • Political leaders clarify what they want and what they can get.
  • Political leaders assess the distribution of power and interests.
  • Political leaders build linkages to key stakeholders.
  • Political leaders persuade first, negotiate second, and use coercion only if necessary.

The Symbolic Frame

This frame emphasizes that through the use of myths, fairy tales and stories, rituals and ceremonies -- as well as metaphor, humor, and play -- organizations are able to simplify the complicated and rationalize the unexplainable. The frame also helps to prompt leaders to contemplate how words, actions, or physical artifacts may be interpreted by others in unanticipated ways. This frame highlights that situations are constantly evolving and changing, complicated, and can aptly be characterized as fluid in nature rather than linear. Given the complex nature of organizational governance, providing structure through symbols serves to bring meaning and predictability.

Characteristics
  • Leaders use symbols to capture attention.
  • Symbolic leaders frame experience, for instance by intepreting history.
  • Symbolic leaders discover and communicate a vision.
  • Symbolic leaders tell stories.

Top of page