# data[].attributes.body
When we look at a situation, a problem, or an environment, we want to look at it from four different frames, or perspectives.  These frames are the four different avenues that leaders can use to make change in their schools.  Here are the four different types explained:

# data[].attributes.body
When making change, leaders will use this approach to rearrange structures currently in place to be conducive to the new initiative.

Works like a Factory or Machine, straight-forward approach

Plans and policies are in place

Leaders emphasize goals, objectives, specialized roles, etc.

Focus on data

"Top-Down" Structure - Formal relationships are present within the structure

Everyone knows who their boss is and who needs to do what to accomplish goals

# data[].attributes.body
When making decisions for change, these leaders will focus on personal perspectives.  They will support staff, listen to them, empower them, encourage professional development, etc. to meet the needs of the staff during change.

Works like a family - people working together, varying relationships, etc.

Focus is on skills, attitudes, teamwork and communications

Goal is to "align the organizational and the human needs" (Ingle, 2013) because both are important.

Gatherings, participation, and discussions include everyone in the process of change.

Communication is the exchange of information, needs, and feelings.

# data[].attributes.body
These leaders use a political approach to change.  They often work with interest groups and work for change though compromise.

Negotiations are common to get key players' buy-in to change

Must work with the most powerful factions to get compromises made

Work within the political environment to get buy-in and make decisions

# data[].attributes.body
These leaders are your inspirational, excited, passionate leaders.  They will use their vision, or the end goal, to motivate staff for change.

Culture of a school

Rituals are used to

# data[].attributes.body
Lee Bolman and Terry Deal were both working professors when they met.  Bolman taught at Harvard University and the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Deal taught at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education.
The two met when they were assigned to be co-teachers of a class on organizations at Harvard.  While they had very different backgrounds and often butt heads, they created a partnership that would change the way people lead. The challenges they faced working together helped them develop their four frames. And now, the books they have written together have been translated and read all over the world to help leaders work with people more effectively.

# data[].attributes.body
If school leaders habitually only focus on one frame, he/she risks being ineffective. Below lists the 4 frames and how they can be utilized and visible in schools.

1. Structural
Rules and procedures are necessary for the safety of students as well as the efficiency the school day is ran. This includes large items like fire drills and other evacuation plans, down to smaller items like ordering supplies for the school. The school works like a machine in which all parts need to function correctly.

This frame also focuses on goal setting. Districts can set building, individual, or team goals that could include instructional outcomes and professional goals. Student Learning Objectives (SLO) or Professional Practice Goal (PPG) are two examples how individuals are setting annual goals in schools.

Another important area in this frame is role clarification. Creating sub groups or team leaders is an example how a leader can use the structural frame to find success within his or her building.

2. Human Resources
In this frame, schools can be looked at as a community of people who need each other. Examples of this frame include providing professional development, focusing on the culture and climate, having strong communication, and building connections.

An effective leader is responsive to employee needs and understands that adult connections are prerequisites to taking care of children. This could mean doing staff activities outside of school where connections can be made and morale can be kept high.

Giving support to staff members with curriculum and behaviors are other ways to support this frame of leadership. Creating positions like instructional coaches or problem solving teams are ways to give additional support to teachers.

3. Political
In the political frame, leaders build power bases and strategically gain support in key areas. In schools, gaining the support of an adopted curriculum is where this frame could apply. This frame is most appropriate when there is conflicting views in which the leader attempts to bring everyone together. This frame is also seen with declining or scarce resources. This could be evident in challenges where schools are lacking support staff such as para professionals, specialists in mental health, or guidance counselors. Leaders using this frame are creative and develop reasonable compromises.

4. Symbolic
In this frame, leaders give staff direction and a vision. This could be evident in the district's vision and mission statement. Guiding staff using the collective commitments can help bring staff together by giving the ways the district will achieve its vision. Schools also use symbols like logos or mascots to give the school an identity.

# data[].attributes.body
Bolman and Deal created these four frames to create and promote change within an organization. The four frames are listed below with characteristics listed under each one. These characteristics represent each frame.

1. Structural
-strategy
-clarifying tasks and responsibilities
-setting goals
-creating systems

2. Human Resource
-focus on individual needs
-value in organization
-giving team members power to perform job

3. Political
-addressing conflict
-leaders show advocacy, networking, and negotiation skills

4. Symbolic
-aligning individual goals
-create sense of purpose
-leader has charismatic visionary, can excite and motivate individuals

# data[].attributes.body
*Each of the four frameworks have specific characteristics.  These characteristics work together to create an effective leadership model.
1. Structural
*Rules are laid out for everyone to follow.
*Goals are set to bring people together and drive community.
*Each person is given a role to follow.
*Structures are developed that fir into the environment and the technology being used.
*Leaders in this framework need to be aware of structures they are setting, task they are handing out, the environment they are creating, and the technology they are using.

2. Human Resources
* This part of the framework focuses on the needs and skills of the team.
*Relationships need to be established and a community of trust should be built.
*People should feel empowered.
*The challenge for Leaders is be aware of human needs and align organizational structures to fit them.

3. Political
*Many of the characteristics of this framework are around power and competition.
*This is where conflict comes into play and managing the conflict.
*The challenge for leaders in this framework is developing an agenda and power base.

4. Symbolic
*The focus here is placed on creating meaning and culture.
*Rituals are set up to confirm values and provide bonding.
* Development of shared values helps to resolve conflict.
*The challenge for leaders here is to create faith, beauty, and meaning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Success as Seen through Four Leadership Frames

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'm reposting a beautifully written review by Michael Salesof an excellent and important book by two widely recognized consultants, researchers, and theorists in the Organizational Learning Field.
As F. Scott Fitzgerald noted, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function," and this is very much the frame of reference on this 2014 book on leadership. While so many, many books and theories propound the exclusive prominence of a particular set of ideas, Bolman and Deal have long been comfortable with the reality of ambiguity. For almost 40 years, they have explored the facets of the alternative lenses through which the data of organizational life can be viewed.

I believe that the authors' Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (Jossey-Bass, 1991) is the best-selling organizational behavior textbook of all time. Here they laid out their central thesis that virtually anything that happens (or doesn't happen) in organizational contexts can be seen in several different frames simultaneously. Let's take the example of a promotion:

The Structural Frame would look at a promotion through the lens of goals, roles, rules, policies, order in relationships, and procedures. It is the stuff of thoughtful analysis and bureaucracy, which is not a negative term in this context. Policies developed over a long period of time might require decisions to be made about the viability of every associate in an organization on at least a three year basis. Vetting structures are needed to determine the criteria against which promotion should occur and measurements would needed to assess outcomes against goals. Promotions are part of the natural order of things: when people produce results, they are promoted. When organizations are in various stages of their life-cycle, as determined by product mix, markets, degree of innovation, etc., they need different types of people in the positions that are available. Salary should be based on the degree to which abstract and long term thinking are required. These are the sorts of considerations that go into structural thinking.

The Human Resources Frame would look at a promotion in terms of what it shows about how people are cared for in an organization. The focus is on how people feel. People who do good work are highly valued in an organization that emphasizes the human resources frame. People aren't overlooked. Sometimes, people are promoted because it will stretch them, be good for them in some way. Promoting some people and not promoting others can have a huge impact on team dynamics. Teamwork is essential to an organization dedicated to human resources development. Great relationships make for great organizations! You want great people to work for your organization, treat 'em right! Look at Google's perks!

The Political Frame would focus on what a promotion says about what agenda gets ahead in an organization. Which coalition of constituencies is on top? Is it Sales, Manufacturing, Research, Administration? What sort of "team of rivals" needs to be brought together to turn the conflicting demands of organizational chieftains into a successful governing coalition? How does a promotion make for peace or war within an organization or between an organization and its competitors? What organization wins over the best talent? How do they do it? Once that talent is there, what does it need to know about negotiation to be successful in a specific environment? How should promotions be used to motivate appropriate political behavior?

The Symbolic Frame would question the role that a promotion plays in an organization's narrative about itself. Does the selection of a person for a job resonate with a particular organizational myth, e.g., visit virtually any Apple retail store and you'll observe a higher level of racial and stylistic diversity than you'll find in almost any other complex private sector enterprise in the United States. It's a statement about who Apple is that's almost as powerful as Tim Cook's essay, " I'm Proud to Be Gay." This is a company that wants everyone to know that it values "thinking different." Its promotional practices are going to reflect those sorts of deeply held values.

For Bolman and Deal, leaders need to know their default frame, i.e., how they are instinctually drawn to view data and take action. Are they big believers in job descriptions? Do they "know" that associates will be intrinsically motivated under the right conditions? Are they confident in their intuition about what their competitors inside and outside the organization are going to do next? Are they ready to display their passion in a great speech because this is what always moves people to listen to the higher angels of their human nature?

And, perhaps, even more important, great leaders have to be able to move fluidly between and among frames when conditions require it and, maybe, even some times when they do not. Leadership is invested in results. If a leader isn't getting any hits with his/her most trusted approach, it's time to change up one's stance.

To do this, Bolman and Deal invent dialogs throughout the book to demonstrate how leaders from the four frames would handle differing situations. While they critique the limitations of being stuck in over doing one frame and not seeing the complexities and the opportunities of the everyday organizational situations they are presenting to leaders, they do not judge the rightness or the wrongness of one frame versus another. They simply show that leaders in one frame will see different possibilities than the leader grounded in another one. And, they emphasize that all the frames can be utilized to create solutions, strategies and tactics that engage the full breadth of personal profiles and organizational realities.

"Images of Leadership: Can Crooked Kites Fly" and "Leadership and Change" were particularly impactful chapters for me.

In "Kites" they posit the leadership configurations of executives like Jeff Bezos, Ursula Burns, and Steve Jobs using the four frames perspective. They point out that "If you recognize your blind spots, you can work on expanding your vision or collaborating with others who complement your worldview because they are attuned to things you might miss."

Alan Mulally's masterful "resurrection" of Ford demonstrates how a great leader drew on each of the frames to achieve change in and save a large industrial enterprise that was teetering on the abyss of a death spiral shortly before the outbreak of the Great Recession. Mulally may not have used their language, but the authors do an excellent job of showing how good theory can be applied to the comprehension of skillful practice.

The graphic below provides an overview to the framework:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing by Lee Bolman and Terry Deal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'm reposting a beautifully written review by Michael Salesof an excellent and important book by two widely recognized consultants, researchers, and theorists in the Organizational Learning Field. As F.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four Frame Analysis Approach to Leadership

# data[].attributes.body
Bolman and Deal created the four frames to affect positive change within organizations, but with these changes can also come challenges. The pros and cons of each frame are described below.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros
The structural framework  clarifies roles and responsibilities so that people understand what they are responsible for.  Having processes in place helps efficiency to "get the job done."

Cons
When roles are split widely and tasks separated, it may become difficult to coordinate efficiently.  It may become easier to lose sight of the vision of the organization as a whole.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros
This is related closely to the ideas laid out by Ken Robinson in Creative Schools (2015).  If schools can tailor education to the individuality of students, then their engagement will increase.  If Organizations tailor the system to the individuality of the people, then productivity and engagement may increase.  A good fit between the organization and the people benefits both parties in health and wealth.

Cons
Employees still need to "get the job done."  As with the structural frame, it is easy to lose sight of the organization's vision and purpose when the focus is on the people within the organization.  While it is important to show care and concern, care must be made for the whole system as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros
When organizations are in need of change, the political frame can be the ticket.  Political leaders work through compromise to get to an end point that will seemingly benefit the organization.  This may also lead to creative solutions for the organization.

Cons
At times, the wrong person can be in power and move the organization in a negative direction or negatively impact the other aspects of the organization.  In other situations, power is too widely distributed, making it difficult to make timely, reasonable decisions.  Compromises may also become difficult due to the numerous people with power.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros
People within the organization are motivated to move the company forward with a unified vision.  This can increase engagement.  The marketing that can be used with the rituals, ceremonies, logos or icons may also give the organization an advantage.

Cons
If the wrong person or group is playing their role ineffectively, then others become disengaged from the vision and story of the organization.  People may then play the wrong story when talking about the organization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reframing Organizations (Bolman and Deal)
Sivakumar, Accountant, Member
I would like to know about Framing/Reframing in organizations.
What is the model and what are advantages, disadvantages, and challenges in simple terms.

Read all responses and join this discussion yourself.
Support your management career and your personal development with 12manage.

Four-Frame Model, Reframing Organisation Processes (Bolman & Deal)
Jaap de Jonge, Management Consultant, Netherlands
Bolman & Deal describe 4 distinctive 'frames' (lenses, filters, view points) from which people view the world and from which organizations can be seen or constructed:
- Structural Frame: sees organizations as structures with responsibilities, rules, prelacies and procedures. Origin: sociology, management science. The main challenge is to make the structure fit to the situation.
- Human Resource Frame: sees organizations as an extended family. How to tailor organizations to satisfy human needs, improve Human Resource Management, and build positive interpersonal and group dynamics. Origin: psychology. The main challenge is to tailor the organization to people while still get he job done.
- Political Frame: sees organizations as arena, contests or jungles. How to cope with power and conflict, build coalitions, hone political skills, and deal with internal and external politics. Origin: political science. The main challenge is to avoid situations where the power is in the wrong hands or too broadly dispersed.
- Symbolic Frame: sees organizations as tribes theaters or carnivals. How to shape a culture that gives purpose and meaning to work, stage organizational drama for internal and external audiences, and build team spirit through ritual, ceremony, and story. Origin: social and cultural anthropology. The main challenge is avoiding that the actors play their part badly, that symbols, ceremonies and rituals lose their meaning.

Source: Lee G. Bolman, Terrence E. Deal (2008) "Reframing Organisations, Artistry, Choice and Leadership"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reframing Organizations (Bolman and Deal)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reframing Organizations (Bolman and Deal) Sivakumar, Accountant, MemberI would like to know about Framing/Reframing in organizations. What is the model and what are advantages, disadvantages, and challenges in simple terms. Read all responses and join this discussion yourself. Support your management career and your personal development with 12manage.

# data[].attributes.body
The description of the 4 frames in this video start at 3:45.