Leadership Styles and Leaders Article Review

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 2104 words ( 7 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 3

Page 1 of 7

Frame Model

Introduction and Background of the Four-Frame Model

The multi-frame model developed by Bolman and Deal provides a useful approach for organizational leaders to gain an improved understanding of their respective roles, as well as providing the ability for them to gain new insights into complex organizational situations to facilitate their decision-making (Roddy, 2010). For instance, Monahan, Shah, Bao and Rana (2015) report that, "Bolman and Deal (1991) defined these frames that assist decision-making with regard to the specific situation" (p. 1). The four-frame model was developed by Bolman and Deal is based on the findings that had emerged from a wide range of leadership theory studies and identified four fundamental frames: (a) the structural frame (relates to hierarchy and formal rules), (b) the human resource frame (focuses on the people in the organization), (c) the political frame (views organizations as arenas where participants compete over resources, power, influence, and interests), and (d) the symbolic frame (focuses on the ceremonies, culture, and myths within an organization) (Monahan et al., 2015).

Although a number of popular leadership theories concentrate of relationships and tasks, they do not necessarily advocate evaluating an organization from several different perspectives (Andrade, 2011). To help overcome this limitation, Bolman and Deal's four-frame model uses the relationships and tasks elements as well as others (Monahan et al., 2015). In this regard, Monahanet al. (2015) report that, "The Bolman and Deal model consists of four leadership styles: the No-style, Single, Paired and Multi-styled. Leaders using a single style predominantly use one style. Similarly, leaders using a paired style predominately utilized two leadership styles and those using the multi-style utilize three or more leadership styles" (2015, p. 2). So-called "No-style" leaders tend to "freewheel" their leadership without subscribing to any of the four leadership styles in which these frames are situated by Bolman and Deal (1990); however, leaders tend to perform more effectively when they apply a multi-frame leadership style (Monahan et al., 2015).

Purpose of the Literature Review

There are three main purposes for conducting a literature review: (a) to learn what others have written about an issue of interest, (b) to provide a viable framework for and establish the importance of a study, and (c) to identify existing gaps in the body of knowledge (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2001).

Analysis

The theoretical model developed by Bolman and Deal's (1991, 1997) has demonstrated utility in helping leaders develop a better understanding concerning the complexity of their circumstances and a growing body of research indicates that managers and leaders who apply a multi-frame approach are most effective (Thompson, 2000). This was a significant contribution because organizations are typically highly complex entities that demand consistent and effective leadership to gain and sustain a competitive advantage (May, Li, Mensel & Huang, 2014; Wong-Kam, 2015).

Stuck Writing Your "Leadership Styles and Leaders" Article Review?

View All Our Example Leadership Styles and Leaders Article Review

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

The multi-frame model developed by Bolman and Deal was originally presented in their text, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations (1984) which introduced the authors' integrated approach to gaining an improved understanding of organizational behavior based on many of the prevailing leadership theories at the time as well as studies in political, cultural and anthropological sciences (Amsler, 1994).

In sum, Bolman and Deal maintain that evaluating organizational situations from different perspectives provides leaders with the ability to develop novel alternatives and strategic responses (Andrade, 2011). Each of the four frames includes its own respective assumptions and concepts. For example, Andrade (2011) notes that, "The human resource frame focuses on involvement and participation as well as training and investing time and money in employees to help them develop needed skills" (p. 218). By contrast, the structural frame developed by Bolman and Deal focuses on "developing appropriate patterns and policies, establishing roles and responsibilities, and aligning new and old systems to create feelings of security" and the symbolic frame "is related to institutional culture, values, rituals, myths, stories, and ceremonies" (Andrade, 2011, p. 218).

From Bolman and Deal's perspective, most organizational leaders routinely use one or two frames at the most, an individual approach that they termed a "personalistic perspective" that is directly related to the unique values and characteristics of the people who comprise an organization (Amsler, 1994). As shown in Table 1 below, though, the structural, human resource, political and symbolic frames encompass the full range of issues that organizational leaders face on a regular basis when confronted with difficult decisions.

Table 1

Overview of Bolman & Deal's four-frame model

Frame

Structural

Human Resource

Political

Symbolic

Metaphor for organization

Factory or machine

Family

Jungle

Carnival, temple, theater

Central concepts

Rules, roles, goals, policies, technology, environment

Needs, skills, relationships

Power, conflict, competition, organizational politics

Culture, meaning, metaphor, ritual, ceremony, stories, heroes

Images of leadership

Social architecture

Empowerment

Advocacy and political savvy

Inspiration

Basic leadership challenge

Attune structure to task, technology, environment

Align organizational needs and human needs

Develop agenda and power base

Create faith, beauty, meaning

Source: Farnsworth, 2013

The overarching objective of Bolman and Deal's four-frame model is to provide leaders with a systematic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of their leadership style as well as the effectiveness of their organizations by identifying their most significant strengths and weaknesses (Amsler, 1999). Moreover, this diagnostic analysis can extend to staff members as well. For example, Amsler (1994) reports that, "This [multi-frame] tool is designed to be used at the beginning of a restructuring effort as a way….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Leadership Styles And Leaders" (2016, October 11) Retrieved June 27, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/leadership-styles-leaders-2162746

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Leadership Styles And Leaders" 11 October 2016. Web.27 June. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/leadership-styles-leaders-2162746>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Leadership Styles And Leaders", 11 October 2016, Accessed.27 June. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/leadership-styles-leaders-2162746
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example