Bolman & Deal frameworks
Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Kentucky. He also is the Founding Director of the UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education (CASTLE), the nation’s only academic center dedicated to the technology needs of school administrators, and was a co-creator of the wildly popular video series, Did You Know? (Shift Happens). He has received numerous national awards for his technology leadership work, including recognitions from the cable industry, Phi Delta Kappa, and the National School Boards Association. In Spring 2011 he was a Visiting Canterbury Fellow at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. Dr. McLeod blogs regularly about technology leadership issues at Dangerously Irrelevant and Mind Dump, and occasionally at The Huffington Post. He can be reached at scottmcleod.net.
Most educational administration graduate students can tell you about Bolman
& Deal's leadership frameworks
. The frames help change agents
conceptualize different approaches to an issue. Depending on the circumstances,
one approach may be more appropriate than another. Or, most likely, several
approaches in combination will be most successful. Bolman & Deal's four
frames are as follows:
- Structural. Leaders who make change using this
approach focus on structural elements within the organization as well as
strategy, implementation, and adaptation. Changing institutional structures
works well when goals are clear, when cause-and-effect relationships are well
understood, and when there is little conflict, uncertainty, or ambiguity.
human resource frame focus on people. This approach emphasizes support,
empowerment (perhaps through distributed leadership mechanisms), staff
development, and responsiveness to employee needs. A focus on people works well
when employee morale is a consideration and when there is relatively little
facilitate change focus on the political realities that exist within and outside
organizations. This approach emphasizes dealing with interest groups (and their
varying agendas), building power bases, coalition-building, negotiating
conflicts over limited resources, and creating compromises. The political
approach is appropriate when resources are scarce or diminishing as well as when
goals or values are in conflict.
approach focus on vision and inspiration. Symbolic leaders feel that people
need to believe that their personal work, and the work of the organization, is important and
meaningful. Traditions, ceremonies, and rituals are very important to the
symbolic approach, which is most appropriate when goals and/or cause-and-effect
relationships are unclear.
on Bolman & Deal's four frames]
Bolman & Deal's frames can be used at the planning stage of a change
initiative to help diagnose organizational needs, to identify institutional
challenges and contexts, and to devise appopriate actions (e.g., 'For this initiative, we need to be sure to address the political aspects because...').
The frames also can be used to rethink and reframe unsuccessful change
initiatives (e.g., 'This initiative failed because we didn't appropriately
address the human resource frame.').
A combination of the four perspectives is nearly always warranted when
implementing a change initiative. Unfortunately, I think most educators would
agree that the structural aspects of change initiatives tend to be emphasized quite
strongly (e.g., 'We'll create a new program' or 'we'll reorganize ourselves' or
'we'll buy some technology to help') with a concurrent neglect of the other
three frames. Because school leaders often may be strong in one or two of
these frames but not all four, it is important to get others on board to
adequately conceptualize and address all needed aspects of the change initiative.
I'm sure most of you can identify a situation where an emphasis, or lack of emphasis, on one of these frames led to a change initiative's success or failure.
Delay, deny and deflect were the strategies Facebook has used to navigate scandals it's faced in recent years, according to the New York Times.
- The exhaustive report is based on interviews with more than 50 people with ties to the company.
- It outlines how senior executives misled the public and lawmakers in regards to what it had discovered about privacy breaches and Russian interference in U.S. politics.
- On Thursday, Facebook cut ties with one of the companies, Definers Public Relations, listed in the report.
Protected animals are feared to be headed for the black market.
Sure we know it would be bad, but what do all of these scary numbers really mean?
- At the press time, the value was $21.7 trillion dollars.
- Lots of people know that a default would be bad, but not everybody seems to get how horrible it would be.
- While the risk is low, knowing what would happen if a default did occur is important information for all voters.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.