EDLP 702 Special Topics #2 and #3

702 Special topics #2 and #36

EDLP 702 Special Topics #2 and #3

Philip W. Holmes

Virginia Commonwealth University – EdD in Leadership Cohort 4

Bolman & Deal’s Political Frame and Drath’s Interpersonal Influence

Bolman & Deal (2008) characterize the political frame of leadership as hard-nosed, competitive, and power-based, and describe political organizations as “roiling arenas hosting ongoing contests of individual and group interests” (p. 194). Drath (2001) states that interpersonal influence “is a way of understanding that leadership happens when a group of people agree and disagree, ally and contend, concur and argue, plan and negotiate, until someone emerges as the most influential person and thus claims the role of leader” (p 13).

These two concepts would thus seem to be describing much the same thing, with the exception being that the political frame of reference describes an enduring situation – a constant worldview in which scarcity and conflict inevitably collide, and no constant or sanctioned arbiter is available – while the interpersonal influence appears to be more episodic – arising out of certain situations where the leader is not immediately apparent but will eventually appear, and where, as Drath (2001) puts it, “influence must be achieved” (p. 14).

The boundaries between these two concepts are likely not firm. It is difficult to imagine circumstances where Bolman & Deal’s political frame would be in play completely and Drath’s notion of interpersonal influence would not, and vice versa. In most circumstances, pressure is exerted by an amalgam of these two concepts.

Three Examples Supporting the Above Observations

The recent process that led to the nomination of Ken Cuccinelli as the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia – with Cuccinelli angling with his colleagues to force a convention and not a primary to select the GOP candidate, because the former would favor his candidacy – is an exemplary example of the political frame interacting with the notion of interpersonal influence. On the one hand, the political frame is clear. Political figures with clear positions and roles (and many constituents behind them) vied with each other to obtain their goals. Cuccinelli and his allies tried to force a convention, and Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling and his allies tried to force a primary, in an arena of scarce resources (there was, after all, only one convention and only one primary, and only one Republican was going to be the gubernatorial nominee). At the same time, the convention itself was the very picture of Drath’s interpersonal influence, with coalitions forming, breaking apart, reforming, and negotiating until Cuccinelli and his allies emerged as those with the influence necessary to reach their eventual goal.

Consider the efforts of Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones to move the Richmond minor league ballpark from the Boulevard to Shockoe Bottom. On the one hand, the mayor has certain prerogatives based on his role, and the various political partners with whom he interacts, contends, and competes have their roles and prerogatives. One might conclude that the ballpark issue is a simple contest of competing powers, and the most powerful individual will win. But, the mayor of Richmond has no sway in Chesterfield County, and the county manager of Henrico County has no sway in Richmond. Some efforts of interpersonal influence must be exerted. After all, if the powers and prerogatives of the major players in this contest were sufficient to force a resolution, a resolution would already have been achieved. And as of this writing, the issue is still unresolved.

Finally, consider the efforts of Texas Senator Ted Cruz recently to force a closure of the federal government’s operation (by disallowing its capacity to borrow) because of his (and his constituents’) concerns about the Affordable Care Act. On the one hand, Cruz has certain impressive powers as a function of his role as a senator. On the other hand, those powers were not sufficient for his purpose. He had to contend with the powers of his ninety-nine fellow senators, and the powers of the many other non-senator players in the health care debate. Regardless of whether he can be said recently to have won or lost, he was able to be a player in the national Affordable Health Care debate both because of his political ability to force certain actions (as a sitting senator, he could launch a filibuster), and because of his interpersonal influence (he was able to get fellow senators and others inside and outside of government to support his cause).

In What Settings Do You Observe One Frame More Than the Other?

The political frame is more evident in settings where power arrangements are settled, often antagonistic, and historical. The interpersonal frame is evident in settings where power relationships are new, fluid, and unsettled, and where established relationships and roles cannot provide guidance.

Which frame is most effective in specific circumstances?

It is tempting to conclude that in every case it is best to allow a kind of open debate, to let the best debater win; in other words, to state that Drath’s more flexible interpersonal influence frame will always trump the more rigid political frame posited by Bolman & Deal. But there will always be circumstances where rigid “more political” structures have been set up to enable quick and essential decisions because such decisions are essential. Intrinsic and essential differences in power sometimes will ensure that the right decisions are made in an expeditious manner. In times of crisis and emergency, only so much debate can be allowed.

However, when an organization is not in crisis, and is attempting, for example, to map out its best long-term view, a quick or unequivocal decision or direction may end up stifling debate or exploration, and unduly truncate the creative process inherent in the interpersonal influence frame. In such cases, the interpersonal influence frame will ensure that the best point of view – and not necessarily the strongest – will be heard.

The Author’s Political or Interpersonal Influence Frame

Earlier this year, the author concluded (based on a provided assessment) that his preferred frame of reference was political. But the process of completing this assignment has led him to conclude that he most often relies on interpersonal influence to achieve his goals.

In truth, his organization is too large, and his relative status in the organization is too low, for him to state that he most often achieves his goal through sheer political will and influence. For example, earlier this week, the author was able to stop a six-figure learning project from proceeding, because of his perception that the client was simply not prepared to complete it, given their current organizational situation. On the surface, this might seem to reflect Bolman & Deal’s political frame (the author had his point of view about the viability of a learning project, his antagonists had their points of view; scarce learning resources were in play; the author created a coalition that enabled his point of view to win). In truth, the author was able to secure his point of view because of his ability to influence the other partners in the situation – his client, his client’s manager, his own manager, and various other players (instructional designers, project managers, and others). Without their input and agreement, his point of view would not have prevailed.

References

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.