Four Frame Analysis
Introduction
The four frame analysis was devised by Bolman and Deal by going through complex theories and joining them with their assumptions hence creating a four frame structure that was meant to understand an organization and its leadership. They assist in the remodeling of an organization to suit everyone and create a successful and efficient organization. The rust in the organization is done away with; it guides people in their daily practices in the organization (McCabe). Reframing an organization is a modern method that is applicable in the management of organizations. The frames are applied in organizations to enhance a better focus. The head office is able to transact several of the business operations so as to accomplish its business objectives.
Each and every organization has its own set frames that they normally use to collect information, set decisions, determine and explain behaviours. The frame assists the organization to acquire ideas, techniques and efficiency. There are basically four frames, structural, human resource, political and symbolic frames.
Structural Framework
Structural Frame; this focuses on the social aspect of the organization. The designation of duties to employees is consecutively followed by grouping them into their respective groups with their specific tasks. These groups have their tasks correlated and are dependent on the goals and objectives of the organization. The organization works best when there are no personal favors for the good of oneself and external benefit at the loss of the organization. The structures that are created are done in a manner to fit into the situation prevailing in the organization. The efficiency is increased and maintained through specialization and division of duties. The duties carried out are done in a manner that is coordinated so as to achieve the best and efficiently managed. Any problem that may have arisen is solved by a restructuring mechanism of the specific organization.
It involves a structural manager who designs and implements processes in a certain manner shown; the manager has to first set the goals of the organization, these are what will be the driving force. It is then followed by the management of the external environment that in one way or the other influences the processes of the organization. It then followed by a clear formulation of an organizational structure that is designed to perform a specific set task (Umdrive). A clearly set line of authority has to be distinguished, that is the creation of a head, the assistant down to the last person in the organization. A line of authority is critical as it follows a chain in command that assist the easy management of tasks. The sections created are consequently required to strictly focus on their area allocated and avoid any person affliction that more often than not affects the business.
The Navy had no set principles that would guide the new organization to success. The Navy has no preferred set code of behaviour that is acceptable and followed by everyone. Another aspect that is common with the structural frame is the establishment of working relationships between the members of the organization. A suitable working relationship has to be established for efficient achievement of the goals. The crew in the Navy had no initial working experience and so had started working together, their relationship was therefore not that cemented and would automatically not achieve any set task. The communication in the Navy had in addition to this a failed line of authority in the sense that there was no line of authority. A broken communication line meant that there was no organization and correlation of activities between the members.
The Human Resource Framework
The human resource frame is mainly human concentrated, the organization is meant to serve the human needs. The relation that is established between the organization and the human is quite symbiotic; the human need the organization for careers, salaries and opportunities while on the other hand the organization need the people for energy, ideas and talent. A failed correlation between the organization and the staff results to the suffering of the organization and the staff. The staff will be exploited and the organization on the other hand will be victimized (Canada). The human resource framework is composed the human resource manager and the staff. The human resources manager is the head and works in close connection with his or her staff by responding to the needs and goals of the organization through commitment and loyalty.
The relation between the human resource manager and the staff is cemented through an efficient support and empowerment for each other. The human resource manager establishes a warm and open connection with his staff which the staff consequently responds positively and enhances their working capability and efficiency. The manager creates a strong connection with the support staff through participation which empowers them and creates opportunities which allow the staff to access resources that will enable them to do the job perfectly.
The correlation between the human working staff and the organization is not as efficient as it is supposed to be. This is highly expected that the organization will automatically suffer. The Commanding Officer was not in touch with the ideas and the feelings of the staff. He was only concerned with the commands given to him by the higher offices and passed them down to the staff. An efficient organization takes in ideas from the staff as well as aspirations. The policies he placed across were hurting the staff as a whole.
An efficient human resource is composed of a good form of leadership with a mission and a vision, a good management of the organization’s processes, perfect values and ethics of the leaders and the establishment of an effective relationship. The supervisors lack a working vision, no established business ethics and values and there is no relationship that has been established between the crew members and the supervisors or the Commanding Officers.
The Human resource also composes a productive working force that offers an efficient delivery of services, the responsibilities of the staff is clearly laid out; there is an organized work delivery and an effective strategy. The crew members have a poor environment of the delivery of service in addition to working over time without payment. The duties to the crew members are not clearly put out in addition to an ineffective organization of work. Composition of the human resource is a supportive culture, respect for persons in the organization, an effective communication, well-being and safety of the staff.
The Navy lacks support for its staff through no relationship of any king that is established. The respect similarly lacks by giving them no consideration in decision making. Communication is not available between the crew members and the head office that is the supervisors and the Commanding Officers. The well-being of the crew members was critical as they worked over time and were not considered for payment. The environment that is set in the Navy is not suitable as the members are not comfortable.
Conclusively, there has to be a sustainable working force where the staff is allowed to develop themselves, there is also an efficient management of any work load and a compensation mechanism. The Navy has no management of any overload of work, the crew work over time just to complete an authority issued to them, an efficient overtime working should be put in place to so as to sustain an effective and efficient performance. A complete compensation of any time worked overtime should be made available for the staff. The crew members are not effectively paid for their extra working time hence creating a situation where the environment is not sustained for the crew members.
The Symbolic Framework
The symbolic frame is another one of the four frames; most of the activities that take place in the organization are related to a certain meaning. It brings together a social and cultural anthropology. An organization has strong relations to the cultures more so on the basis of myths, rules and managerial authority. The individuals in an organization are meant to accomplish a certain task. The activities have a correlated meaning that go hand in hand. Events that take place in an organization are interpreted differently by different people and hence handled differently due to their varied forms of experiences. The ambiguous nature of the organization leads to several decisions to be made that will affect its running. Most of the practices taking place in the organization are considered important just for what they express instead of what they result to.
The symbolic framework in the Navy is one that is not well created and implemented. The culture that the Navy have is one that you take orders without asking questions. The staff is suffering under the presumption of obeying the superior officers. The Commanding Officer does not mind about his junior officer but follows the culture of taking orders which has to be completed even at extra working time. The crew is also a victim of stress as a result of this, the organization will automatically suffer.
Another culture that is the time they spend working overtime is not considered for payment and still no questions can be asked by the Navy crew members. The option of quitting the Navy is not of any consideration. The only means of leaving the Navy is through the line of duty. The social aspect of the organization has not been given time to grow and cement itself properly. It is the symbolic nature of the Navy to follow instructions of their supervisors which demonstrates an aspect of loyalty, truthfulness and respect for the country as well as authority. Going against the set rules is severely punishable and symbolically presents a situation where one does not respect or is not loyal to the country he or she is serving.
The organization portrays certain features of culture according to Collins and Porras’s (1994). There is a commonly held ideology or belief as initially stated of not going against a superior officer’s order. There is also an indoctrination which the process of becoming a member. The Navy has a poor process of indoctrination where the crew had no time to establish a relationship with each other in addition to this, this was a new organization that should have been given time to grow. The tightness of fit was at its extreme low, the members did not fit into the organization. Elitism of the Navy was almost disappearing as the crew members did not feel being part of something special they underwent a poor state of affairs.
The symbolic frame desires a vision and an aspect of inspiration which lacked in the Navy; there is the need of having something to believe in. the people who are working in an organization will issue loyalty to an organization with a unique identity and creates an environment that makes them feel important (Villanova). The symbolic frame more so depends on the traditions of the organization as a foundation of creating a vision and creating a correlation, which it seems is lacking in the Navy. The symbolic framework can be best applied to an organization that has unclear goals and loose relationships.
The symbols of the organization are meant to serve several functions; they socialize, assure and pass messages. The socialization is not there in the Navy as they barely know each other, the communication is broken down. The application of the symbolic frame is mainly judged based on its appearance.
The Political Framework
The political framework is an important frame in the organization and is composed of a leader who is well conversant with the organization’s operations. It is the work of the political scientist who developed it with the view that an organization is a place where people do compete for power and may even disregard other people’s opinions so as to achieve their own desires. The power that is available is limited and hence all the available forces are applied to gain it (Zehava Rosenblatt). All the individuals in the organization play a part in this. The political framework of the organization is summarized by Bolman and Deal as; the organization being a coalition of individuals and groups of varied forms of interest.
Differences do exist between the individuals and groups in relation to their beliefs, interests and how they perceive the organization. The decisions that have to be done involve the allocation of resources that are scarce. The varied forms of interests and limited resources create a sense of conflict between the members of the organizations. The goals and the decisions that are made come from forcing their principles on others, bargaining as well as negotiating.
The Navy has Commanding Officer who seemingly has his own interests at heart and uses the crew members to achieve this. He does this by forcing authority on his junior officers to work long hours at no pay. The Commanding Officer is doing all this in the favour of himself to the Supervising Officer. The Supervisor, the Commanding Officer and the crew members play a role in this power tussle. As the crew members do not know each other, they will work individually.
Conclusion
The Four Frame work analysis presents a critical state in the Navy that needs agent relook. The organization is suffering as well as the human part of the organization. The whole organization is looked at in a different way. The application of the four frames can assist the leaders to observe and know the problems as well as the available solutions the organization can apply (Bolman and Deal). The leader is hence able to think in a flexible manner and create varied forms of opportunities meant to advance and also sustain the organization’s practices for the benefit of all individuals as well as the organization. The Navy’s frame structure was badly affected and needed an urgent relook, this would involve all the members of the organization to play a role in this.
Works Cited
Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. “Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4) (Paperback).” Jossey Bass, 1999-2011. 544.
Canada, Treasury Board of. “Human Resources Management Framework.” 2001. 29 June 2011 http://www.google.co.ke/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=hFC&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=_ukKTvKUEIKqrAeN3tWaDw&ved=0CG4QBSgA&q=human+resource+framework+of+the+organisation&spell=1&biw=1280&bih=605 .
McCabe, Dr. P. “BOLMAN AND DEAL’S FOUR-FRAME ANALYSIS: CASE STUDY.” January 2003. 29 June 2011 http://termpaperaccess.com/doc_bolman_and_deal_s_four_frame_analysis_case_study_dkrpw.html .
Umdrive. “The Structural Framework.” 1993. 29 June 2011 https://umdrive.memphis.edu/kmeyer/…/Structural%20Frame.ppt .
Villanova. “The Structure and Theory of Organization: SYMBOLS AND CULTURE IN HUMAN ORGANIZATIONS.” 2002. 29 June 2011 http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208002/Powerpoint/f-sym/index.html
Zehava Rosenblatt, Kathryn S. Rogers, Walter R. Nord. “Toward a Political Framework for Flexible Management of Decline.” Organization Science (1993): 76-91.
