Primary leadership frame per bolman and deal5

The Author’s Primary Leadership Frame of Reference, per Bolman and Deal

Philip W. Holmes

Virginia Commonwealth University EdD in Leadership Cohort 4

The Author’s Primary Leadership Frame of Reference, per Bolman and Deal

Bolman and Deal (2008) posited four frames of reference through which leaders perceive their roles and make sense of challenges. Each of these four frames – structural, human resource, political, and symbolic – is “… a mental model – a set of ideas and assumptions – that you carry in your head…” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 11).

While these models are internal, they are not idiosyncratic. One’s primary leadership frame is driven not by preference, but by the prevailing conditions in one’s organization or environment. Various factors may push a leader to embrace one or another leadership frame, depending on the leader’s awareness and ability to shift perspective (i.e., reframe) (Bolman and Deal, 2008).

The author’s primary leadership frame of reference is political. This frame, with its focus on conflict and jockeying for power and resources, is arguably the least attractive of the four frames in Bolman and Deal’s model; however, an honest assessment of the author’s work environment leads to no other conclusion.

The Author’s Work Environment

Bank of America, the author’s employer, has been starving its divisions ever since the eruption of the last financial crisis. Banks are particularly sensitive to economic downturns. When people and companies borrow and spend less, banks make less money, and they must reduce expenses to remain profitable and satisfy shareholders. In addition, in a move to reduce the risk of future financial crises, federal regulators are now demanding higher levels of capitalization. These capital requirements put more pressure on banks to cut costs and move those savings to their reserves. The scarcity of resources in this environment makes a political frame of reference almost unavoidable.

Competing for Scarce Resources

The Global Learning Organization (GLO), the division in which the author works, has insufficient resources to address the bank’s learning needs. The company’s attempts to move past its “legacy issues” (shorthand for problems related to the last recession) are forcing many of its divisions to create and adopt new ways of doing business, most of which entail training. Thus, while GLO has fewer resources than ever, it is facing its greatest ever demand for learning solutions. Competition for scarce resources is a hallmark of the political environment (Bolman & Deal, 2008), and no phrase describes the bank’s environment better.

Advocating on Behalf of Clients

The author represents the learning needs of the bank’s Global Risk Management division, which lobbies constantly for GLO resources. The author must package his client’s needs in such a way that they meet the definition of “essential learning” that GLO enforces. At the same time, the author is expected to be a zealous steward of GLO’s own resources. This stewardship sometimes forces him to shift the direction of his advocacy and deny client requests on behalf of GLO and its own needs. Advocating for a team’s goals is another hallmark of the political environment (Bolman and Deal, 2008), and the author’s job entails constant and competing advocacy efforts.

Creating and Managing Networks of Allies

To counter shifting priorities and processes, the author must nurture a network of allies, including managers, executives, and peers. In some cases, he must reach up two levels in the organization for leverage. In other cases, he relies on peers to help secure resources or maneuver around rigid processes. For example, if a project requires that a step be completed immediately, and the service level agreement is three business days, he must tap supportive colleagues for help, and be sure to be flexible on their behalf when it is their turn to reach out to him. Nurturing networks of allies is another key aspect of the political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

Cautionary Note

The author acknowledges that all four leadership frames of reference come into play throughout his workday. Optimal leaders must master each of the four frames and hone their diagnostic skills, so that they can quickly move from one frame to the other, as the situation requires. This ability to frame and reframe is a key distinction between successful and unsuccessful leaders (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

However, the ability to reframe is not the sole indicator of leadership success. Examining the failure of Penn State’s leadership team to respond appropriately to allegations that former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was sexually abusing children, Albino (2013) warned that decisions to reframe must not be simply tactical. Leaders must always be grounded in sound ethics, no matter which frame they choose.

If we manage to hang on to the values and beliefs that helped us grow as professionals, or simply as human beings, then we have the foundation for our personal model of strong and ethical leadership. Our understanding of who we are as leaders should rest on those simple foundations – not on our ability to change our perspective, or to become more and more skillful at working within a specific frame. If, on the other hand, we do not know who we are as leaders, and if we do not listen to the voices of our respective identities, then regardless of the frame in which we are functioning, and no matter how appropriate it may be to the setting, we can become totally lost. We can follow the rules of the frame and still lose our bearings completely. (Albino, 2013, p. 145)

References

Albino, J. (2013). Personal leadership identity and leadership frames: Understanding what happened at Penn State. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 16(3), 130-146.

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