Leadership Styles, Models and Philosophies. Leadership Models and Theory. Part 7.

 

1. Four-Frame Model – Bolman and Deal

What is Bolman and Deal's Four Frame Model of Leadership?

Lee Bolman and Terry Deal outlined their Four-Frame model in their book, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (1991).

Bolman and Deal stated that leaders should look at and approach organizational issues from four perspectives, which they called 'Frames'.

In their view, if a leader works with only one habitual Frame (frame of reference), the leader risks being ineffective.

---

The Four Frames Outlined by Bolman and Deal

The Four Frames outlined by Bolman and Deal are:

1. Structural
2. Human Resource
3. Political
4. Symbolic

Here are descriptions of and differences between the Four Frames:

Structural	This Frame focuses on the obvious 'how' of change.  It's mainly a task-orientated Frame.  It concentrates on strategy; setting measurable goals; clarifying tasks, responsibilities and reporting lines; agreeing on metrics and deadlines, and creating systems and procedures.
Human Resource	The HR Frame places more emphasis on people's needs.  It chiefly focuses on giving employees the power and opportunity to perform their jobs well, while at the same time, addressing their needs for human contact, personal growth, and job satisfaction.
Political	The Political Frame addresses the problem of individuals and interest groups having sometimes conflicting (often hidden) agendas, especially at times when budgets are limited and the organisation has to make difficult choices.  In this Frame, you will see coalition-building, conflict resolution work, and power-base building to support the leader's initiatives.
Symbolic	The Symbolic Frame addresses people's needs for a sense of purpose and meaning in their work.  It focuses on inspiring people by making the organisation's direction feel significant and distinctive.  It includes creating a motivating vision and recognising superb performance through company celebrations.

Implications of the Four Frame Model

Bolman and Deal proposed that a leader should see the organisation's challenges through these four Frames or 'lenses', to gain an overall view, and to decide which Frame or Frames to use.

• The leader may use one Frame (implying a behavioural approach) for a time, and then switch to another. Or instead, the leader might combine and use a number of Frames, or all four, at the same time.

A crucial aspect of Bolman and Deal's model seeks to avoid the temptation for leaders to become stuck, viewing and acting on conditions through one lens or Frame alone.

• Bolman and Deal assert that because no Frame works well in every circumstance, then a leader who sticks with one Frame is bound eventually to act inappropriately and ineffectively.
• Instead, it is the leader's responsibility to use the appropriate Frame of reference, and thereby behaviour, for each challenge.
• Central to this methodology is asking the right questions and diagnosing the vital issues.

---

Examples

1. Where a leader ascertains that the biggest problem in a group is a lack of motivation and commitment, the leader should probably adopt a Symbolic and/or Human Resource (Frame) approach.
2. If the main group challenge is instead confusion around priorities and responsibilities, then the leader will probably be more successful in adopting Structural and Political (Frames) orientation.
3. If the group is experiencing uncertainty and anxiety about direction then Symbolic and Political (Frames) leadership behaviours are more likely to produce effective results.

Essentially, the leader should adopt a multi-Frame perspective before choosing how to act.

Organisations tend naturally to use the Structural Frame but pay less attention to the other three Frames.

According to the Four-Frame theory, this is due either to:

• Lack of awareness of the need for multi-Frame thinking and behaviour or
• Behavioural rigidity due to unconscious limiting beliefs (controlling the leader's perceived priorities or capabilities).

Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Model:

Structural

This frame focuses on the “how” of change. It primarily focuses on strategy; clarifying tasks and responsibilities; setting measurable goals and deadlines; and creating systems and protocols. This frame is well-suited for organizations and managers that deal in analysis and logic. Roles and goals are generally well-defined. The emphasis is on rationality, facts, and data. The organization itself can be thought of as a machine, requiring precision movements of many cogs. As such, a leader or project will need to be direct, focused, and methodical.

- Organizational structure / Governance

- Clear structure for the task & environment

- Policies/Procedures

- Rules 

- Authority

- Facts, tasks, logic

Human Resource

This frame is focused on the individual, their needs, and their value within an organization. The emphasis is on giving individuals the power and opportunity to perform their given responsibilities well. Interpersonal skills are critically important as coaching, motivation, guidance, and support of the individual are key in establishing the role and fit. The organizational goal is often empowerment and job satisfaction. 

- Support & empowerment

- Morale considerations

- The "right" people for the job

- The "right" attitudes, skills and behaviors for the endeavor

- Are needs taken care of (think hierarchy of needs)?

Symbolic

This frame is often described as theatrical because the focus is on aligning individual goals with organizational goals to create a sense of purpose or meaning in one’s work. The project manager/lead must be a charismatic visionary with the ability to excite and motivate through storytelling and showmanship. The leader should ensure that there is a motivating vision and actively recognize excellent performance in their team members.

- Symbols

- Stories

- Foundational legends

- Visual representations

- Strong vision, story 

Political

This frame emphasizes the importance of addressing conflicts between individuals or differing interest groups. The characteristics of an organization viewed through this lens include scarcity, power, allies, and deal-brokering. Leaders need advocacy, networking, and negotiation skills. The emphasis is on using any and all assets to maximize the benefits to the unit, organization, or workforce with the recognition that not all needs may be met.

- Relationships

- Connections

- Interest groups / constituencies

- Conflict & limited resources

- Negotiations/ buy-in, working with different groups

- Key champions

 

Adapted from: https://icenetblog.royalcollege.ca/2019/04/09/education-theory-made-practical-3-bolman-and-deals-four-frame-model/

https://tinyurl.com/ypxys48r

https://tinyurl.com/mun6rz3a

Leadership Styles, Models and Philosophies. Leadership Models and Theory. Part 6.

 

Path-Goal Theory - Robert House

Summary:

Robert House's Path-Goal Theory of leadership proposes that a leader's effectiveness depends on their ability to adapt their leadership style to the needs of their followers and the specific work environment. The theory suggests that leaders should clarify the path to goal achievement, remove obstacles, and provide support to enhance follower motivation, satisfaction, and performance. 

Key aspects of Path-Goal Theory:

Contingency Approach:

The theory emphasizes that there's no single best leadership style. Effective leadership is contingent on the situation, including the characteristics of the followers and the nature of the task. 

Follower Characteristics:

Leader behavior should be tailored to individual follower needs, such as their personality, experience, and perceived ability. 

Task Characteristics:

The nature of the work, including its complexity and structure, should also influence the leader's style. 

Leadership Styles:

House identified four main leadership styles:

• Directive Leadership: Providing clear instructions and expectations. 

• Supportive Leadership: Focusing on the well-being and needs of followers.

• Participative Leadership: Involving followers in decision-making. 

• Achievement-Oriented Leadership: Setting challenging goals and encouraging high performance. 

Motivation:

The theory is rooted in expectancy theory, suggesting that followers are motivated when they believe their efforts will lead to valued outcomes (goals) and that the leader's actions can help them achieve those outcomes. 

In essence, the theory suggests that leaders should:

• Clarify the path to goals: Help followers understand what is expected of them and how to achieve it

• Remove obstacles: Identify and eliminate barriers that hinder follower progress. 

• Provide support: Offer encouragement, resources, and guidance to help followers succeed. 

By adapting their leadership style to the specific situation and follower needs, leaders can enhance motivation, satisfaction, and ultimately, performance. 

What is Robert House's Path-Goal Theory?

The next significant leadership theory to emerge in the Situational/Contingency category was Robert House's Path-Goal theory, in his 1971 paper: A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness, which he refined three years later in cooperation with T R Mitchell.

House said that the main role of a leader is to motivate his followers by:

1. Increasing or clarifying the (group's/followers') personal benefits of striving for and reaching the group's goal.
2. Clarifying and clearing a path to achieve the group's goals.

Hence the theory's name: Path-Goal Theory.

House's theory matched four ways of behaving to four sets of circumstances, or 'situations'.

• The circumstances in Path-Goal theory are driven by 'follower characteristics' and 'workplace characteristics'.

Follower Characteristics

1. What they believe about their ability - Do they feel they are capable of fulfilling the task well?
2. Where control resides - Do group members believe they have control over the way they approach the task and the chances of achieving the goal? Or do they see themselves as being controlled by other people and outside events?
3. Attitude to power and those in power - Do members want to be told what to do and how to do it... or not? What do they think of those in the organisation who have more official power than they do, especially the leader?

Workplace Characteristics

1. The kind of task - Is it repetitive? Is it interesting? Is it predictable or structured? Is it unpredictable, creative or unstructured?
2. The leader's formal authority - Is it well-defined?
3. Group cohesion - Do those working in the group feel a sense of unity?

House took these two external dimensions and matched them with four leadership behavioural styles, as the below table summarises.

Behavioural Styles

Leadership Style	Workplace Characteristics	Follower Characteristics
Directive	Unstructured interesting tasks Clear, formal authority Good group cohesion	Inexperienced followers They believe they lack power They want the leader to direct them
Supportive	Simpler, more predictable tasks Unclear or weak formal authority Poor group cohesion	Experienced, confident followers They believe they have power They reject close control
Participative	Unstructured, complex tasks Formal authority could be either clear or unclear Group cohesion could either be good or poor	Experienced, confident followers They believe they have power They reject close control, preferring to exercise power over their work
Achievement- orientated	Unstructured, complex or unpredictable tasks Clear, formal authority Group cohesion could either be good or poor	Experienced, confident followers They think they lack some power They accept the idea of the leader setting their goals and have a lot of respect for the leader

Leadership Styles

Leadership Style	Description
Directive	In House's Directive style, the leader clarifies the path to the goal by giving clear direction and guidance on goals, tasks, and performance standards.  The work will normally be complex and unstructured, and followers will usually lack experience and accept a high degree of outside control.  In essence, the leader is telling the followers exactly the required methods and outcomes.  There is little or no emphasis on personal needs (for example emotional or financial) in striving for and achieving the goal because the work is considered (by the leader and organisation) to be sufficiently satisfying and rewarding in its own right.
Supportive	House's Supportive style puts more emphasis on improving the working atmosphere (notably making it more friendly and helpful) and safeguarding followers' welfare.  This leadership approach is appropriate where followers can perform their tasks skillfully, and believe they have a high degree of control over the outcome.  Followers don't want close supervision, but they do need protection and care in handling stresses and frustrations arising from repetitive, uninteresting tasks.  In this Supportive style, the leader removes or reduces the effects of emotional obstacles on the path to the goal.
Participative	Followers of House's Participative leadership style are similar to followers of the Supportive style: confident and experienced, they believe they largely control the outcome, and they reject close control.  However, unlike typical Supportive workplace characteristics, here work is much less structured, repetitive and predictable.  The leader consults followers (perhaps more likely here to be called 'colleagues') on decisions concerning goals and methods, and genuinely takes account of followers' opinions and ideas.  Here the Participative leader strengthens the path-goal connection in three ways:  First, aligning followers' values and concerns with the aims.  Second, ensuring followers are happy with how they are to achieve the goals.  Third, giving followers a strong sense of autonomy and satisfaction, so improving motivation to achieve the goal.
Achievement- orientated	House's Achievement-orientated leadership style is based on encouraging followers to achieve personally outstanding results.  Followers are competent and confident, and crucially also accept the principle of the leader setting ambitious goals.  Followers trust and respect the leader, and draw personal motivation and increased confidence from the leader's belief that the individual follower can achieve demanding aims and targets.

In the grid diagrams above Robert House effectively describes four different 'situations' (in this case combinations of 'workplace characteristics' and 'follower characteristics') which he matched to four different leadership styles.

Summary and Comparison with Other Models

Essentially, House's work implies that leaders need to adapt their leadership style based on both the characteristics of the workplace environment and also the characteristics of the team. By implication, Path-Goal theory assumes that a leader can vary his or her mindset and behaviour as needed.

• Unlike Fiedler's Contingency model, House's Path-Goal theory asserts that leaders can and should vary their behaviour according to the situation and the problems or opportunities that each situation presents.
• In this way, Path-Goal theory is similar to Tannenbaum and Schmidt's Continuum and to Kurt Lewin's Three Styles model. 

Path-Goal theory is a situational or contingency model that in addition to matching leadership styles in given situations, also advocates switching leadership styles according to changing situations.

https://tinyurl.com/3ptb635y