Tag Archives: Structure

Four Formidable Frames

— by on — Leave a reply

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Summary:

In Reframing Organizations by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal (1991), they use four common organizational frames – Human Resource, Political, Symbolic and Structural – to explain how to effectively organize, operate, utilize and change organizations and their work teams. The human resource frame explains how the feelings of individuals, teamwork relations, tailored skills, and work reflection assist an organization and its employees through human interaction and emotional development. The political frame describes the contest, conflict, negotiation, coercion, compromise, and a vie for power within individuals and institutions. The symbolic frame depicts the creativity, cultural, vibrant, social, and ceremonial aspects of leaders within organizations. The structural frame show us that standardization, supervision, hierarchy, stabilized environments, coordination, and organization can be extremely beneficial to the success or demise of an institution.

The frame work concept relies on these four frames to help explain why some businesses fail while others succeed. The same applies for the teams that manage these organizations. Bolman and Deal guide the reader through real world examples pointing out the chinks in many organizations structure. They then use these frames to illustrate how companies can better adapt and promote success in different institutions through using not just one frame independently, but by acting as a multiframe institution where all four frames are being used in many different facets.

At the end of the book, The authors provide a case study analysis of a new principal at ‘Richmond’ high school. They show a dysfunctional school system and decisions that were made over a several year period. Bolman and Deal (1991) then break apart the high school case study and explain how the different frames were used or could be used to assist in developing the high school further.

Validity (Strengths and Critiques):

When it comes to the data, the authors focus mainly on the implications of previous institutions successes and downfalls. Bolman and Deal (1991) use examples from a variety of professional fields from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to Mcdonalds, and from Harvard University to the FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina. The authors rely little on abstract thoughts as they use real world examples to show the use of their organizational frames. The data also does not look at organizations as isolated beings, but as players in the same arena. This allows for a better understanding about the complexities of major business industries and allows for a better application of their ideas into common workplaces. However, it is important to point out that Bolman and Deal seperate the public and private sectors in their analysis as they believe each model interacts and deals with in a different type of organization manor. Bolman and Deal (1991) also acknowledge that specific people can often be the demise or saving grace of an organization to to their mastery or “artistry” of the individual (p.220).

The organization of the book is excellent. There is an introduction to the book and framing concept, a reflection on the information and examples used to support the concept, and then very detailed chapters that provide an in-depth look at each frame and how specific examples have used or not used that particular frame. The authors wrap everything up with a look at multiframe uses, ethics and the influence of external factors on all organization.

I believe that this concept is imperative to the education body of organizational development. Not only were many diverse examples of companies, schools, and businesses used, but the concept works for both the physical institution and employee development. By providing only four frames, it makes it easy to apply the information to personal situations, and provides an easy tool for evaluating a way to restructure organizations.

Personal Use:

This book, Reframing Organizations, is one of the reasons that I decided to focus on organizational structures in higher education. I seem to be able to see the practical application of their information. It was the first time that I saw how there are so many pieces to an organization that require constant attention and maintenance. It helped me to see that the basic hierarchical structure to an organization is not what makes or breaks a company, but the people, the companies ethics, the use of different talents, and the ability to manage in an ever changing environment. These are all factors that I will now have to consider when looking at organizing a growth plan.

I can use the frame concept as a springboard to develop a growth plan for the College of Medicine – Phoenix. The book gives me many different examples of great ways to help a business succeed or adapt, but nothing specific on developing growth models. However, Bolman and Deal  provide all the tools necessary to create a growth model through their examples and structural frames. For example, I can use this notion to show the importance of proper structure and team development. I can research different policies that have been implemented to make sure they are ethical and fully developed. I can also use the frame theory presented in this book to see if the Academic Affairs  and Student Affairs departments at the College of Medicine – Phoenix currently are using all the frames appropriately. If they are not, I can help to build the new frames into a new growth model. If the frames are being implemented correctly, then I can help build upon them and see the continuation of their development.

Theory of Mobility and Behavior in Organizations: An Inquiry Into the Consequences of Some Relationships Between Individual Performance and Organizational Success.

— by on — Leave a reply

Jacobs, D. Toward a Theory of Mobility and Behavior in Organizations: An Inquiry Into the Consequences of Some Relationships Between Individual Performance and Organizational Success. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 684-707. Retrieved May 27, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778938 .

David Jacobs in “Toward a Theory of Mobility and Behavior in Organizations: An Inquiry Into the Consequences of Some Relationships Between Individual Performance and Organizational Success” (1981) begins to model how individuals can positively or negatively impact their larger organizations. He brought three examples into perspective, in regards to determinantes of a relationship between an organization and an individual. The first example showed how a professor of an academic institution received the pulitzer prize. This individual not only brought spotlight to himself, but to their organization. This person and their academic institution were then able to affect different resources to their favor compared to another research whose subject area and research are just as important but did not receive an award. In this second case, an individual effects change on a smaller level and brings little advantage or disadvantage to the institution. Jacobs  third example shows how an individual who does exemplary work at his or her job may not stand out or make their institution stand out, however when the individual does poorly, it can dramatically influence the company or institution negatively. A good example of this can be seen with an airline pilot. If the pilot has an error in landing or in flight, it could hurt the companies stock and customer base compared to if he perfectly lands the aircraft, there would be little reward for the pilot or the company. Jacobs (1981), also acknowledges that not all employees at an institution work or are reliant upon themselves and that often times other individuals or departments are responsible for collective work. In these cases, four relationships between an individual and the organization were looked at…

 

“(1) whether interdependence between positions is pooled or sequential,

(2) whether individual success in various organizational positions is common or infrequent

(3) whether positions are located in organizations which cannot receive much credit for an exemplary performance, and

(4) whether positions are located within subunits whose performance has limited effects on the performance of the total organization” (Jacobs, pg. 691, 1981).

 

Much of the research in the article relied upon others organizational structures and theories. Jacobs relied upon established examples of careers and the general public knowledge about the roles of particular individuals within society. He used his Theory of Mobility to show how an individual’s movements are structured based off of the organization of an institution. Jacobs was able to depict how some types of jobs provide/require a different mobility structure based off of his 3 general mobility classifications. What Jacobs discovered was that industries can begin to predict and outline the success of employees and institutions based off of their mobility structure.

The organization of the article was coherent, however it could have used more titles to give the reader the ability to go back and look at specific examples. It seemed to run quite long with examples.

The contribution to the the overall organizational field is minor, as a majority of the information deals with broad generalizations. However, it is beneficial to those inexperienced in different organizational  structures and expectations. It gets the mind to consider the roles and growth of their institutional field.

The strength of this article was his ability to classify individuals performance structures and how one can succeed or fail within a given organizational environment. Jacobs constantly uses his three organizations performance models through the entirety of the article and examples to solidify his research.

However, I felt the theory lacked when trying to depict mobility examples of how an individual can break away from their specific groups. For example, what happens when an individual begins to take on the vast majority of the work on their team? Who gets the credit? The team or the individual? The article also lacked in specific, tested examples, and relied on a basic understandings of particular careers and their functions.

Jacobs does well in the introduction and concluding summary in conveying his theory and its application to the reader.

This article sparked a new avenue that I would like to look at and pursue within creating and organizational structure for the College of Medicine Phoenix. Prior to this article, I was unable to articulate why it is important to have a mobility structure in place or how to begin to look at the movement of individuals within the institution. Because of this piece I will be able to build a stronger argument for developing a strong growth structure for the Academic Affairs Department. I can use this information to help create a positive mobility structure within the department to help encourage employee growth and retention as it provided a way to measure the effects of different types of individual performances at an institution.

I would like to further the study by trying to practically apply this theory in developing and organizational growth structure at the College of Medicine – Phoenix campus. Hopefully by using a theory based model, I will be able to more clearly see the holes in the theory and depict whether the theory actually works. By attempting to implement the actual study I will hopefully build on what the study/article was missing. Physical application.