8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
1/24
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
2/24
Introduction
An organization has many dimensions that define it as a whole these include
structure, human resource, politics and culture. The various aspects of an
organization lay the foundation for the future growth of not only the organization but
also its members. This notion has been supported by a large scale research into the
field of organizational behaviour by world renowned researchers such as :
This essay aims at revealing the fact that concentrating only on the structure of an
organization could lead to blind sighting the managers to the other indispensible
aspects of an organization. A very practical approach can often lead to a
misinterpretation of an organization`s objectives and growth pro spects. This hasbeen explained explicitly by a detailed research in the field of leadership and
supervision. The four frames of organizational behaviour indicate that the same
situation (what same situation?) can be viewed from four different angles. Each of
these frames is uncharacteristic, logical, and potent, yet when taken together, they
help capture a comprehensive picture of an organizations situation. These four
management perspectives are believed to offer greater explanatory power than
applying a single preordained theory or building a new theory directly from data
analysis.
FOUR FRAMES
The research for this essay is based on the Multiframe Leadership Model featured in
the book Reframing Change: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership by Terrence Deal, an
educational expert, and Lee Bolman, a business consultant. This model has been
chosen because it joins education and business in a w ay that relates well to
business administration. It does not see these realms as competing, but explains
how each can work in cooperation with the other. (isnt reference me mention
karna enuff for this model?i mean whats the use riting abt the whole thng here when
u cud jst mention it in one line in the referencing?its jst increasing the word limit n its
description above doesnt seem important here)
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
3/24
The Multiframe Leadership Model breaks down behavior into four frames:
Hu man Reso u rces : Leaders in the human resource frame seek to understand their
personnel and individual relationships within the organization. In order to lead a
successful program, they work to discover what motivates each of their employees.
Str u ct u ral : A leader in the structural frame focuses on policy, procedures, and
outcomes. The work of the group is highlighted over the indiv idual. Focusing on this
frame leads to effective goal setting and a strong bottom line.
Political : In the political frame, the leader views an organization as a group of players
who are constantly forming alliances and coalitions to compete for power and
resources. This can, for example, lead to many different entities on campus coming
together to support an athletic program.
Symbolic : A leader in the symbolic frame stresses the organizational culture,
focusing on its values, attitudes, rituals, and traditi ons. An athletic director who
understands how to use this frame motivates others to work extremely hard for the
cause.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
4/24
Structural Frame
The fundamental role of a manager is to not only to identify and quantify
organizational goals but also to concentrate on the dynamic relationship between theorganisational structure and its external environment. A manager has to lay down
the appropriate organizational structure to achieve the organization`s goals and
objectives in conjunction with the ext ernal environment. A well structured
organization clearly defines the division of labour and tasks at hand, this makes the
organization more efficient and conversely if an organizational structure is unclear it
could lead to confusion, frustration and even conflict. Some characteristics of a well
structured organization are well defined policies, linkages and lines of authority. It is
not only important for an organization to have the right structure but it is also
important that its members understand tha t structure and adhere to it.
A manager or a leader`s task in the organization is to focus on facts and logic, not on
personality and emotions. Most of the intra organizational issues amongst people
stem from flaws in the organization`s structure and not d ue to flaws in its members.
Bolman & Deal (1991, p. 355)
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
5/24
H uman Resource frame
An organization is built by its members, or more appropriately the nature of an
organization is defined by the nature of its members. This approach involves
emotional and practical views together; the degree of responsiveness of theorganization to the needs and the extent to which the organization is supportive of
their goals determines the level of loyalty and commitment from its members.
Managers and leaders that are insensitive to the needs and requirements of their
employees can never be effective leaders. The human resource manager and leader
works on behalf of both the organization and its people, seeking to serve the best
interests of both.
A manager has to use empowerment and support to the advantage of the
organization. This has many dimensions to it such as: acknowledging members`
aspirations and needs, personal warmth and openness, providing opportunities to
grow. H uman resource managers and leaders empower their followers through
participation and openness as well as by making sure that they have the autonomy
and the resources they need to do their jobs well. H uman resource managers and
leaders emphasize honest, two-way communication as a way to identify issues and
resolve differences. They are willing to confront others when it is appropriate, but
they try to do so in a spirit of openness and caring.
Bolman & Deal (1991, p. 359)
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
6/24
P olitical Frame
Different groups or associations within the organization compete for the available
resources and power, which can often lead to conflicts in the organization.
Bargaining, negotiation, coercion, and compromise are part of everyday political lifein traditional organizations (Thomas, 2003).
The political frame attributes politics for the basic organizational features such as
interdependence, tolerance, power distance and scarcity. P olitics involves
coordination, conflict management and mediation and is inevitably present in every
organization. The political frame does not view politics or power as a negative or a
positive aspect, even though both can be used for exploitation and dominance, it can
also be a means for building a vision and collective goals, this could help a manager
or a leader in building cooperation and a well coordinated organization.
P ower is a means of solving conflicts among people in an organization. It is a means
of building relations and a source of affecting people. On the basis of the designation
of a member in the organization, power is given to them. There has to be a lot of
emphasis on the extent to which power should be assigned to an individual in an
organization. Congregations of one denomination, for example, may compete with
congregations from other denominations for members, but work cooperatively with
congregations of their own denomination in a regional evangelism program. Mostlocal governments have zoning and tax regulations that are fa vourable to the
presence of congregations; but these very same governments may also have
policies that collide with a congregation's sense of economic or racial justice.
Cultural/Symbolic Frame
The symbolic frame focuses on organizational symbols rather than the organizational
structure or its rules and policies. The symbolic focus is on the meanings individuals
give their world, and how they deal with ambiguity and uncertainty by creating
symbols to help them resolve confusion, increase predictability, p rovide direction,
and anchor hope and faith. Many events are more significant for what they express
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
7/24
than for their outcomes. The image of management derived from this view is that of
uncertainty reduction and manager as magician or priest (Thomas, 2003).
Symbols are objects, acts, relationships, or linguistic formations that stand
ambiguously for a multiplicity of meanings, evoke emotions, and impel men to action
(Cohen, 1974).Symbols may be visible, physical manifestations of organizations and indicators of
organizational life. Symbols take on important meanings in organizations; meanings
that are defined by cultural and social conventions and interactions. Much of human
understanding occurs through the use of symbolic processes (Axley, 1984). A
symbol can be any sign (an act, event, logo, etc.) that represents some concept;
thus, the representation of the concept becomes the symbol's meaning (Geertz,
1973). The most pervasive medium of symbolism is language.
It is believed that if managers are able to use such symbols and meanings to convey
to their subordinates that the change is legitimate and those employees believe that
the change is legitimate then resistance to the change will be limited ( H ardy, 1991).
Viewed from such a perspective, those that are a ble to define the reality have
considerable power over those who accept the reality as their own (Bradshaw,
1998).
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
8/24
Discussion
AN ORGANIZATION COM P RISES OF A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK T H AT IS
COM P OSED OF A NUMBER OF AS P ECTS OF STRATEGICALLY P LANNED
CH ANGE IM P LEMENTATION T H AT VARY FROM ITS STRUCTURAL H IERARC H YTO T H E dynamics of power and politics TO interests, value, MEANING AND
ASSOCIATION. ALL T H ESE AS P ECTS, AND H ENCE AN ORGANIZATION ON
TH E W H OLE, CANNOT BE STUDIED USING A SINGLE frame of organizational
behaviour. The multiplicity of notions in the literature suggests that there is a
probable danger in focusing only on any one theory and excluding the rest (Day and
Klein 1992).
For EXAMP
LE, FOCUSSING ONLY ON TH
E ORGANIZATIONS STRUCTUREOVERS H ADOWS T H E SIGNIFICANCE OF T H E social dynamics of relationships
that EFFECT changes WIT H IN IT. LIKEWISE, AN EM PH ASIS ONLY on social
relationships and T H E dynamics of power and politics OVERLOOKS the
organizational, professional and personal boundaries, both impl icit and explicit,
within AN ORGANIZATION.
TH E ABOVE STANCE CAN, AT BEST, BE RATIONALIZED VIA SCIENTIFIC
CALCULATION. H OWEVER, T H IS APP ROAC H IS REJECTED IN FAVOUR of
qualitative and organic methods of knowledge production that contextualize, BREAK
DOWN and DIVULGE workplace practices, attitudes, values and dynamics as
TOOLS TO acknowledge, INCOR P ORATE and SU P ERVISE VARIATION. FACTS
H ELP DECIDE AND DETERMINE TEC H NICAL SOLUTIONS TO P ROBLEMS,
TH EREBY INVOLVING MORAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE DILEMMAS such as
IMP ARTIALITY of resource ALLOTMENT or equality of access to services that
require value-based judgment. IN ORDER TO ANALYZE H OW AN ORGANIZATION
FUNCTIONS, ALL TH
ESE ASP
ECTS ARE ESSENTIAL, BUT EACH
ALONECANNOT SUFFICIENTLY EX P LAIN TH E FACTORS AFFECTING T H E END-
P RODUCT OF P LANNED ORGANIZATIONAL C H ANGE. ALT H OUG H IT IS CLEAR
NOW T H AT AN ORGANIZATION CAN BE STUDIED IN ITS TOTALITY ONLY BY
ASSESSING ALL T H E FRAMEWORKS TOGET H ER, YET A SECONDARY
approach is to ANALYSE the relevance of each theoretical view SE P ARATELY.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
9/24
Selecting the correct frame for supervision
Ernie Hilton
TH E EX P ERIENCE FOR BOT H TH E SU P ERVISOR AND T H E SU P ERVISEE CAN
BE SIGNIFICANTLY IM P ACTED BASED ON H OW T H EY C H OOSE TO
INTER P RET T H E VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WIT H IN TH E MANY FRAMES IN
SU P ERVISION. T H US, T H E MANNER IN W H ICH A SU P ERVISOR C H OOSES TO
FRAME AN EX P ERIENCE, S H ALL ULTIMATELY DECIDE W H ET H ER T H E
ACCURATE CONTEXT C H OSEN DURING T H E INTERACTION IS ACTUALLY
RECKLESS OR P RECISE. In the book, Reframing Organizations , the authors,
Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest T H AT ORGANIZATIONS ARE
CONCEP
TUALIZED BY LEADERS within four frames of reference; str u ct u ral , hu man reso u rce , political and symbolic . Although broad in
scope these frames undeniably exist within organizations and teams. A
SU P ERVISOR IS RENDERED A GREATER P RECISION IN UNDERSTANDING
TH E VARIED CIRCUMSTANCES WIT H IN TH E SU P ERVISION P ROCESS IF H E IS
ABLE TO CLEARLY VISUALIZE T H E FOUR CONTEXTS WIT H IN TH E
ORGANIZATION.
Structural Frame in Supervision
Often described as the factory or machine this element of any organization needs
to exist for effective operations (Bolman & Deal, p.400). T H E ARC H ITECTURE OF
TH E ORGANIZATION IS BEST ABSORBED BY AN EM P LOYEE WIT H IN TH IS
FRAME AND INCLUDES ALL T H E policies, rules and roles, guidelines for practice
and performance, and how decisions are made. This frame tends to H AVE AN
endless supply of content available fo r supervision. GOOGLING on the CYC-NET
alone IS SUFFICIENT to find endless information on the structure FOR supervision.
The structural frame DEEMS IT ESSENTIAL FOR SU P ERVISORS TO DO T H E
REQUIRED H OMEWORK. A supervisor, who tries to feign their way through best
practice models, frameworks and other needed competent areas , because they rely
on their positional power versus their expert power , usually will not generate the
team cohesion and aptitude needed for a strong organization or team (Austin p.21 -
22). IN ORDER TO P ROVIDE T H E NECESSARY STRUCTURE W H ILE
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
10/24
DEVELO P ING CORE COM P ETENCIES, there MUST be no S H ORT CUTS in
supervision, IRRES P ECTIVE OF H OW BORING OR MUNDANE IT MAY BE. TO BE
A LEADER WIT H IN TH E STRUCTURAL FRAME IN SU P ERVISION IT IS
IMP ERATIVE TO have written clarity in areas of job performance W H ICH ARE
FURT H ER defined by structures like; organizational themes, codes of conduct,policies and procedures, operational and communication plans, detailed models of
treatment practice, case management models and organizational charts. Increasing
autonomy in employees through supervision requires that safety be present by
having comprehensive clarity regarding the structure of operations in addition to the
supervisor being deliberately availability for the process of supervision and
evaluation (Rivas, 1998, p.269).
Human Resource Frame in SupervisionThe human resource frame IS P ER H AP S the most CONTROVERSIAL FRAME for
supervisors in supervision. IT provokes the concept of an organization being like
an extended family complete with needs, feelings, prejudices, skills, and limitations
(Bolman & Deal, p.14). T H IS frame OFTEN SEES the structurally dependent
supervisor and the human resource biased supervisor collide. W H ILE T H E FOCUS
OF T H E structural frame LIES MOSTLY on T H E enforcement of rules, policies and
guidelines necessary for predictable operations, the human resource frame, ON T H E
OT H ER H AND, predominately CATERS TO T H E needs of people REGARDINGpolicy and contracts, W H ICH TH EREFORE LEADS TO T H E TWO COLLIDING
when T H EY are in competing positions or not balanced in operations. Compassion,
support and empowerment are ESSENTIAL TO T H E H UMAN RESOURCE FRAME
when interpreting the supervision process and its content. The supervisor operating
from this frame is usually either interpreted as a catalyst or a wimp (p.354). BY
ADO P TING T H E OLD ADAGE OF P UTTING P EO P LE FIRST, T H IS FRAME
EMPH ASIZES MORE ON P RODUCTIVITY T H ROUG H P EO P LE, T H EREBY
P ROMOTING coaching, mutuality, participation, facilitation and empowerment.
Effective human resource leaders ADO P T TH E NOTION T H AT employees are
respected, worthwhile and ARE essentially RES P ONSIBLE FOR T H E SUCCESS
OF an organization. A supervisor, who SU PP ORTS employee needs AS A P ART OF
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
11/24
TH E SU P ERVISION P ROCESS, JUSTIFIES the existence of the human resource
frame and its relevance as an integral part of A SUCCESSFUL organization .
P olitical Frame in Supervision
ABSTRACTLY KNOWN AS the jungle, or what Bolman and Deal call the politicalframe of an organization (p.433). T H ERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO T H IS supervision
P ROCESS IN T H AT IT ALLOWS political supervisors to be realists AS REGARDS
TH E OFTEN- P RESENT SCARCE RESOURCES AVAILABLE. W H ILE IT IS
REQUIRED OF A human resource leader to put the needs of an individual over the
organization's limitations T H EREBY P OSSIBLY EVEN JEO P ARDISING T H E
resources for others; A political leader, CONVERSELY, AFTER ESTIMATING the
reality AND LIMITATIONS of the situation MUST REAC H an agreement within
supervision without offending, or creating illusions or false promises. In supervisionthe political goal is to balance these scarce resources again st divergent interests of
individuals in relation to the needs of the masses (p.197).
TH E P OLITICAL FRAME IN SU P ERVISION AIMS AT UNITING AN
ORGANIZATIONS TEAMS AND MEMBERS WIT H ITS GOALS AND VISION. T H IS
ENSURES A GREATER FOCUS ON P LANNING STRATEGIES AND TACTICS
FOR ACCOM P LISH ING GOALS RAT H ER T H AN JUST RESOLVING CONFLICTS.
DAMAGE COULD BE CAUSED TO T H E IDEAS BE H IND T H E ROLE OF
SU P ERVISION FOR AN ORGANIZATION T H EREBY EVEN AFFECTING T H E
RES P ECTIVE RELATIONS H IP S IN QUESTION BY A SU P ERVISOR W H O
MISREADS T H E CONTEXT OF T H E SU P ERVISION P ROCESS AND LACKS
P OLITICAL WISDOM. A S H REWD political supervisor ACCE P TS CONFLICTS AND
CH ALLENGES as AREAS GENERATING interest and curiosity rather than BEING
INCAP ACITATING and harsh. IN FRONT LINE P RACTICE, YOUT H AND FAMILIES
TYP ICALLY P LAY WIT H TH E NOTION OF BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATING, AN
EXAMP LE BEING A strategy in an intervention plan GENERATING a therapeuticchange VERSUS a political intervention INTENTIONALLY designed to AFFECT the
youth. T H E SAME ARGUMENT S H OULD T H US H OLD TRUE EVEN WIT H IN TH E
CONTEXT OF SU P ERVISION.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
12/24
Symbolic Frame in Supervision
The metaphor associated with this frame is characterized by the idea that
organizations are like "theatres (Bolman & Deal, p.15). Often UNDERUTILIZED,
TH
IS FRAME IS AS ESSENTIAL FOR TH
E SUCCESS OF AN ORGANIZATION AS ARE T H E OT H ER FRAMES. EVERY ORGANIZATION H AS A CULTURE
ASSIGNED TO ITS SU P ERVISION P ROCESS T H AT MUST BE CAREFULLY
ORGANIZED LEST IT GENERATE NEGATIVE ASSOCIATIONS. T H IS CULTURE
OF SU P ERVISION, ESTABLIS H ED BY T H E SU P ERVISOR, H AS A CERTAIN
P OWER W H ICH WH EN UNDERESTIMATED P RODUCES T H E SAME EFFECT AS
TH AT GENERATED U P ON UNDERESTIMATION OF T H E EXTENSIVE IM P ACTS
OF INS P IRATION OR DE P RECIATION IN AN ORGANIZATION. AN
ORGANIZATION W H ERE T H E SU P ERVISION P ROCESS IS ACCE P TED BY T H ESU P ERVISOR AS A REGULAR RITUAL T H ROUG H S H ARING EX P ERIENCES
AND STORIES, AND CASTING VALIANT INTERVENTIONS AS FABLED
EXAMP LES OF TREATMENT IS ONE T H AT EMBRACES a symbolic frame.
Supervision CAN INS P IRE EM P LOYEES IF MEANING AND P UR P OSE IS
ASSOCIATED WIT H WH AT IS DONE. OFTEN feeling, ATTAC H ED WIT H the
purpose that is greater than self, can EASILY MOTIVATE. INDIVIDUALS CAN
TH US BE UNITED WIT H IN A CULTURE OF S H ARED BELIEFS AND VALUES
TH EREBY CREATING SCO P E FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION ANDBUILDING A SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATION. SOLIDARITY AND A CO H ESIVE
CULTURE CAN T H US BE CREATED AMONG TEAMMATES W H ILE EM P LOYEES
CAN BE GUIDED BY T H E symbolic language found in posted organizational tenants
or team charters, T H EREBY GENERATING GREATER O PP ORTUNITIES FOR
CONSISTENT practice and service delivery.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
13/24
Relationship between Frames
C ulture and structure
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IS INTERLINKED WIT H ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE IN T H AT T H E TWO CANNOT BE READ SE P ARATELY OR BE
CLEARLY DEFINED WIT H IN AN INSTITUTION. IT IS SAFE TO SAY T H AT
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE EXISTS AND FUNCTIONS WIT H IN AN
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.
Organizational STRUCTURE IS CONTAINED WIT H IN TH E ORGANIZATIONAL
culture, WH
ICH
IS A BROADER SP
ECTRUM OF SMALLER ISSUES WITH
IN TH
EORGANIZATION. T H E INFRASTRUCTURE OF AN ORGANIZATION, ALONGWIT H
ITS MANY P RACTICES AND MET H ODS, ENSURE A STABLE AND EFFICIENT
FUNCTIONING OF ITS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, W H ET H ER T H E
ORGANIZATION IN QUESTION IS A COR P ORATION OR SIM P LY A S P ORTS
TEAM.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE BASICALLY SU PP ORTS T H E
ESTABLIS H MENT OF T H E ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE WIT H IN ANY
ORGANIZATION. EXAM P LES S H OWCASING T H E DIRECT DE P ENDENCE OF
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE INCLUDE
H OW MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS WIT H IN TH E ORGANIZATION, T H E
RES P ONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED S P ECIFICALLY TO SU P ERVISORS, AND T H E
P ROCEDURE OF P ASSING COM P LAINTS T H ROUG H TH E RANKS.
TO SUCCESSFULLY ASSESS ANY ORGANIZATION, IT IS ESSENTIAL T H AT WE
ANALYSE H OW ITS STRUCTURE ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS. T H E STRUCTURE
DEFINES T H E MANNER IN W H ICH VARIOUS INTERLINKED GROU P S ARE
ESTABLIS H ED WIT H IN AN ORGANIZATION IN ORDER FOR T H EM TO
FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY. A SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
AIMS AT P ROMOTING EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN T H E MANYP ARTS OF AN ORGANIZATION AS ALSO EN H ANCING T H E COORDINATION
BETWEEN ITS VARIOUS DE P ARTMENTS.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
14/24
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE MAY ALSO BE COM P ARTMENTALIZED INTO
VARIOUS CATEGORIES SO AS TO DEFINE T H E PH ASES MANY BUSINESSES
EXP ERIENCE W H ILE GROWING IN SIZE AND SCO P E. T H E P RE-
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE, T H E FIRST PH ASE, IS KNOWN FOR T H E
ABSENCE OF A STRUCTURE T H AT STANDARDIZES TASKS, AND IS T H USSUITABLE FOR SMALLER ESTABLIS H MENTS T H AT NEED TO BE ADA P TIVE
DUE TO LESSER RE P EAT SCENARIOS. The BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE,
TH E SECOND PH ASE, INVOLVES A CERTAIN EXTENT OF STANDARDIZATION
IN P AP ERWORK AND OT H ER P ROCESSES, AND IS T H US SUITED FOR
LARGER BUSINESSES. T H E TERM BUREAUCRACY, T H OUG H BEING
SOMEW H AT NEGATIVE IN NATURE, IS H ELP FUL IN TACKLING ISSUES T H AT
COULD BECOME INVETERATE T H EMES IN SUC H LARGE ESTABLIS H MENTS.
FINALLY, WE H AVE T H E P OST-BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE , W H ICH IS
SLIG H TLY TENUOUS IN NATURE AND IS MORE T H EORETICAL, T H OUG H IT
RELATES MORE TO T H E RECENT, CULTURE-BASED MODELS OF
SU P ERVISING.
TH US, T H E CULTURE AND T H E STRUCTURE OF AN ORGANIZATION ARE SO
INTERTWINED T H AT IT CAN BE H ARD TO DISTINGUIS H BETWEEN T H EM,
WH ICH IS RAT H ER AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF ANY SUCCESSFULLY
FUNCTIONING ORGANIZATION.
Relation between P olitics and Structure
TH E P OLITICS WIT H IN ANY ORGANIZATION GOES H AND-IN- H AND WIT H TH E
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. ANY ORGANIZATION COM P RISES OF A
SU P ERVISOR W H O H AS SOME DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER T H EIR
SUBORDINATE IN TERMS OF T H E SUBORDINATE BEING DE P ENDANT ON
TH EM FOR FAVOURS INVOLVING ALLOCATION OF WORK, WORK
SC H EDULES, JOB SECURITY ,TRANSFERS, P ROMOTIONS, ETC. LIKEWISE,
TH E SU P ERVISOR ALSO DE P ENDS ON T H EIR SUBORDINATE FOR
INFORMATION AND T H E OVERALL WORK P LACE EFFICIENCY AND
P RODUCTIVITY. T H US, BOT H TH E SU P ERIOR AND T H E SUBORDINATE
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
15/24
S H ARE A RELATIONS H IP OF MUTUAL INTERDE P ENDENCE, W H ERE BOT H
ARE ABLE TO CONTROL T H E BE H AVIOUR OF EAC H OT H ER AND H AVE A
CERTAIN DEGREE OF P OWER OVER EAC H OT H ER. T H EREFORE,
DE P ENDING ON T H E CIRCUMSTANCES, EAC H H AS T H E P OWER TO
MANIP ULATE T H E OT H ER WIT H IN TH E ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. SUC H CO-DE P ENDENCY RELATIONS H IP S ARE AN INTEGRAL P ART OF ALL
ORGANIZATIONS, W H ET H ER SMALL OR LARGE.
Relation between Human Resource and Structure
A H IGH P ERFORMANCE ORGANIZATION OR AN HP O EMBRACES
INTELLECTUAL CA P ITAL, AS ITS BASIC P REMISE, W H ICH ENCOM P ASSES
ALL TH E knowledge, expertise, and dedication of an organizations workforce.
TH EREBY, INS P ITE OF ALL T H E TEC H NOLOGY AND MEC H ANIZATION TODAY,
IT IS T H E MANUAL WORKFORCE T H AT ACTS AS T H E MOST VITAL HUM AN
RESO U RCE , CONTRIBUTING DIRECTLY TOWARDS EN H ANCING AN
organizations purpose, mission, and strategies.
MOST WORK FLOW IS SYSTEMATIZED AND CONCENTRATED AROUND T H E
FOCAL BUSINESS P ROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES, AND WORK TEAMS ARE
ORGANIZED IN ORDER TO EX P OUND ON T H IS INTELLECTUAL CA P ITAL
WITH IN HP Os. T H E EM PH ASIS IS ON ADO P TING H UMAN RESOURCE
P OLICIES T H AT AUGMENT employee flexibility, skills, knowledge, and motivation.
TH ERE ARE FEWER LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT IN AN HP O, H ENCE
TRANSFORMING T H E FUNCTIONING OF MANAGERS, W H OSE FOCUS S H IFTS
FROM DIRECT ORDER-GIVING TO TRAINING, integrating the work of T H E teams
with each other, and facilitating T H EIR work IN ORDER TO BOT H SUCCESSFULLY
COM P LETE T H EIR JOBS and SATISFY customer expectations.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
16/24
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
17/24
Conclusion
The NOTION of multi-framing supervision H ELP S a supervisor understand how best
to be helpful in building T H EIR ORGANIZATIONAL capacity. Diversity in thinking
which STEMS FROM being aware of VARIED themes ENABLES T H E supervisor toconsider SEVERAL ways of interpreting problems ALONGWIT H TH EIR possible
solutions. H ENCE, JUST AS ALL T H ESE QUALITIES MUST BE P RESENT IN front
line workers W H ILE considering all the VARIED possible meanings and contexts
associated WIT H a youths troublesome behaviour , T H EREFORE it seems only
reasonable and parallel to practice that supervisors EMBRACE T H E MANY
FRAMES WIT H IN the process of supervision.
The human resource frame EMPH
ASIZES on TH
E needs of people. Leadersworking within T H IS FRAME CONSIDER the feelings and relationships BETWEEN
people, and BELIEVE T H AT FACILITATION AND EM P OWERMENT ARE T H E
KEYS FOR AN ORGANIZATION TO meet T H E basic human needs. The political
frame focuses on individual and group interests . P olitical leaders negotiate
between groups WIT H VARIED INTERESTS for T H E use of limited resources AND
TH US, USE NETWORKING AND NEGOTIATING COM P ROMISES TO build
power bases. The symbolic leader, ON T H E OT H ER H AND, CREATES symbols
and culture to DEFINE human behavior and a shared mission and identity for theorganization IS REFLECTED IN H IS P ERSONALITY. AN enthusiasm, a sense of
charisma and drama IS IM P ARTED to the organization BY T H E LEADERS
WORKING WIT H IN TH IS FRAME. 4,5
Although no theory P ROVIDES a full explanation of organizational phenomenon,
TH E FOUR FRAMED MODEL P RESENTS a useful tool W H ICH ENABLES US to
focus ON the ASSESSMENT of T H E ABOVE MENTIONED findings. ALL T H ESE
theories ARE complementary; each partialLY EX P LAINS T H E H APP ENINGS in the
organization while implementing change S IN T H E program. Each perspective is
CONSIDERED DUE TO its ability to provide a unique but practical explanation for
TH E MANY aspects of T H E change process.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
18/24
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
19/24
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice
and leadership (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly H ills, CA: Sage
P ublications, Inc.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1989). Informing professional practice in educational
administration. J ou rnal of Ed u cational Administration, 27 (2), p. 186.
Taylor, F. W. (1911/1967). T he principles of scientific management .
New York: W. W. Norton.
Austin, M. J., (1981) S u pervisory M anagement for the Hu manServices Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: P rentice H all Inc.
Bolman, L.G and Deal, T.E., (2003) Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice, and Leadership , 3rd. ed., San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass
Rivas R.F. (1998)., Dismissing P roblem Employees in R.L Edwards,., J.A.
Yankey and M.A. Altpeter, Skills for Effective M anagement of Nonprofit
Organizations , Washington, DC: NASW P ress
Weber, M. (1930/1992). T he Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism
(A. Giddens, Trans.). New York: Routledge.
1. Axley, S. R. (1984). Managerial and Organizational Communication in
Terms of the Conduit Metaphor. Academy of M anagement Review, 9, 428-
437.
2. Alvesson, M. (1996). Comm u nication, power and organization . Berlin,
Germany:Walterde Gruyter.
3. Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., P orter, L. W., Renwick, P . A. and Mayes, B.
T.(1 979).Organizational P olitics -Tactics and Characteristics of Its Actors.
California management review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 77.
4. Allison, G.A. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the C u ban M issile
Crisis. Little Brown, Boston.
5. Braverman, H . (1974). Labor and M onopoly Capital . New York: Monthly
Review P ress.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
20/24
6. Butcher, D. and Clarke, M. (2002) Organizational politics: The cornerstone
for organizational democracy. Organizational dynamics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 35.
7. Buchanan, D. & Badham, R. (2007). Power, politics and organizational
change winning the t u rf game. London: Sage P ublications (in press).
208. Bradshaw, P . (1998). P ower as Dynamic Tension and Its Implications for
Radical
Organizational Change. E u ropean J ou rnal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 7 (2), 121-143.
9. Boston, R. (2000). College and Corporation: In stitutional P ower in the
Enterprise
University. In S. Marginson & M. Considine (Eds.), T he Enterprise U niversity:
Power, Governance, and Reinvention in A u stralia (pp. 96-133). Cambridge:
The
P ress Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
10. Boeker, W. (1989) The Development and Institutionalization of Subunit
P ower
in Organizations, Administrative Science Q u arterly 34: 388410.
11. Buchanan, D. & H uczynski, A. (2004). Organizational Behavio u r: An
Introd u ctory T ext , Financial Times P rentice H all, H arlo w.
12. Cliffs, N.J. and Lindblom, C.E. (1959).The Science of Muddling Through.
P u blic Administration Review, 19(2).
13. Cohen, A. (1974). Two dimensional man: An essay on the anthropology of
power and symbolism in complex society, Routledge and Kegan P aul, London
14. Day, P . and Klein, R. (1992). Constitutional and Distributional Conflict in
British
Medical P olitics: the Case of General P ractice, 1911 -1991, P olitical Studies,
40,3, 462-478.
15. Drory, A. and Romm, T. (1990).The Definition of Organizat ional P olitics: A
Review. Hu man Relations, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 1133
16. Edwards, M. (2001). Social Policy, P u blic Policy From Problem to
Practice,
Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
21/24
17. Foucault, M. (1978). T he H istory of Sex u ality . Middlesex: P eregrine
Books.
18. Edwards, R. (1979) Contested T errain: T he T ransformation of the
Workplace in
the T wentieth Cent u ry . London: H einemann.19. Friedman, A. (1977). Ind u stry & Labo u r: Class Str u ggle at Work and
M onopoly
Capitalism . London: Macmillan.
20. Feldman, M.S. and March J.G.. (1981). Information in organizations as
signal
and symbol. Admin. Sci. Q u art. 26(2) 171-186.
21. Geertz, C. (19731). T he Interpretation of C u lt u res. New York: Basic
Books.
21
22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). T he Discovery of Gro u nded T heory:
Strategies for Q u alitative Research . Chicago: Aldine P ress.
23. H atch, M. J. (1997). Organization T heory. M odern Symbolic and
Postmodern
Perspectives . Oxford University P ress.
24. H ardy, C. (1991). P luralism, P ower and Collegiality in Universities.
Financial
Acco u ntability and M anagement, 7 (3), 127-142.
25. H umphrey, C., & Scapens, R. W. (1996). Methodological Themes:
Theories and
Case Studies of Organizational Accounting P racti ces: Limitation or
Liberation?
Acco u nting, A u diting and Acco u ntability J ou rnal, 9 (4), 86-106.
26. H ickson, D.J., R.J. Butler, D. Cray, G.R. Mallory, D.C. Wilson. 1986. T op
Decisions . Blackwell, Oxford.
27. H abermas, J. (1976). Comm u nication and Evol u tion of Society . London:
H einemann Educational Books.
28. H ardy, C., & Clegg, S.R. (1996). Some dare call it power. In S.R. Clegg,
C.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
22/24
H ardy, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), H andbook of organizational st u dies (pp. 622
641).
London: Sage.
29. Johnson, G. (1990). Managing stra tegic change; The role of symbolic
action. British J ou rnal of M anagement , Vol. 1, pp. 183-200.
30. Kotter, John P . (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.
H arvard B u siness Review 73 ( 2 ): 59 67.
31. Keeney, R.L. 1982. Decision Analysis: An Overview. Oper. Res. 30(5)
803-838.
32. P ratt, J.W., H . Raiffa, R.O Schlaifer. 1964. The foundations of decision
under
uncertainty: an elementary exposition. J . of the Amer. Statist. Association
59(306)
353-375.
33. Laroche, H . 1995. From decision to action in organizations: Decision -
making as a
social representation. Organ. Sci. 6(1) 62-75.
34. Layder, D. (1998). Sociological Practice . London: Sage P ublications.
35. . (1994). U nderstanding Social T heory . London: Sage P ublications.
36. Mintzberg, H . (1983). Power in and Aro u nd Organizations. P rentice- H all,
37. Machina M.J., P arker P h., Sterman J., Weber E., Wernerfelt B., and
Wensley R.
(1999). Bounded rationality modeling. M arketing Letters , 10(3) , 233-248.
38. P ettigrew, A. (1973).The politics of organizational decision -making.
London:
Tavistock.
39. . (1977). Strategy formulation as a political process . International
st u dies of
management and organization , 7 , 7897.
40. P oole, M.S. (2004). Central issues in the study of change and innovation.
In M.S.
P oole and A. H . Van de Ven (eds.), H andbook of organizational change and
Innovation (pp. 1-31). New York: Oxford University P ress.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
23/24
41. P feffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations . Marshall, VA: P itman.
42. . (1992). M anagement with power . Boston, MA: H arvard Business
School
P ress.
43. . (1981).Management as symbolic action: The creation andmaintenance of
organizational paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior , 3: 152.
44. Riggs, F. (1964). Administration in Developing Co u ntries. Boston:
H oughton Mifflin.
45. Rafaeli, A., & Kluger, A. (1998). The cognitive and emotional influence of
service context on service quality: A model and initial findings. Unpublished
manuscript, H ebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ISRAEL.
46. Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential
Ethnographic M ethods: Observation Interviews and Q u estionnaires . Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira P ress, Sage P ublishing.
47. Schiff, M., & Lewin, A. (1983). The Impact of P eople on Budgets. In J. Bell
(Ed.), Acco u nting
48. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology: An
Overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), H andbook of Q u alitative
Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage P ublications.
49. Schein, Edgar H . (1987). Process Cons u ltation: Vol. 2. Its Role in
Organizational Development . 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
50. Simon, H .A. (1957). Administrative behavior . Free P ress, New York.
51. . (1976). From Substantive to P rocedural Rationality . S. J. Latsis, ed.M ethod
and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge University P ress, Cambridge, 129-
148.
52. . (1976). Administrative Behavio u r: A St u dy of Decision-making
Processes in
Administrative Organization, 3rd ed., Free P ress, New York.
53. Thomas, A. B. (2003). Controversies in management: Iss u es, debates,
answers .
2nd ed. London: Rutledge.
8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)
24/24
54. Trist, E. and Bramforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological
consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Hu man Relations 4(1)
3-38.
55. Walsh, J. P . (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from
a tripdown memory lane. Organ. Sci. 6(3) 280-321.