The nature and definition of leadership have been an ongoing discussion from as far back in antiquity as ancient Greece. Philosophers such as Socrates and Plato supported the position that it is better to suffer wrong than to cause it, and advocated due consideration of consequence before any action. This can be seen in Socrates’s assertion in the Apology that “crowds kill lightly and then, wish sometimes, if they could, to bring the dead back to life…” (Gilbert, 2012). He proposed that due consideration needs to be given to one’s actions a priori so as to avoid the remorse from bad choices . Socrates also advanced the idea that people should be independent and think for themselves (Evans, 2012). Ancient Greece was a study in contrasts with regard to leadership models. Some city states like Athens embraced a democratic model based on the idea of self-determination and independent thinking advanced by Socrates and his contemporaries. Other city-states such as Sparta followed a more traditional model of government where power was centralized in the monarchy, though in Sparta there was limited oversight from a council of elders. Different leadership models have had different impacts on the subjects of the leadership. In Athens, a democratic state ended Sparta’s hegemony in the Aegean while its influence was curtailed by the rise of the Macedonian kingdom, a monarchy, under King Philip II. The changes in the Aegean cannot be attributed solely to the system of governance, as the complicated political situation often saw different states forming alliances against others. It was, however, evident that the fate of monarchies greatly depended on the monarch’s leadership ability.
The unification of the Greek city-states into the Greek Kingdom and its subsequent expansion under Alexander the Great, as well as its decline upon his demise, is one such example. Given the contrast in the differences seen in the examples described, the difficulty in arriving at a unitary definition or standard of leadership can be appreciated. Some authorities hold that despite the volume of literature available on leadership, there has been no consistent definition of leadership found (Mello, 1999). Nevertheless, research, though mainly in the fields of business and industrial organizations has yielded many theories and models of leadership (Yukl, 1998). One of the many models that have been developed from research into leadership is the Four Frame Model by two researchers, Lee G. Bolman, and Terrence E. Deal. The model is expounded in their text “ Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership,” now in its fifth edition.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Four Frame Model by Bolman and Deal.
The framework advanced by Bolman and Deal proposes that being able to evaluate a given circumstance from multiple perspectives gives one a better understanding of what is going on. The authors refer to these perspectives as frames and propose the following four “frames” as lenses through which leaders can view and process their work, leadership, and organizations.
The Structural Frame
The Human Resources Frame
The Political Frame
The Symbolic Frame
According to Bolman & Deal (2013), each frame carries concepts, metaphors, and values which provide the basis for understanding events and situations within an organization. Most individuals don’t rely on one frame but rather show a preference for one or two frames. The four-frame model is useful in that it accommodates the various ways in which people evaluate and respond to organizational life. Additionally, it provides a scientific and proven approach to leadership by allowing leaders to apply quantifiable metrics in the evaluation and application of principles of leadership. Having a “mental frame” helps leaders and those under them to understand their organization, understand various styles of leadership and develop mechanisms to be effective. In this regard, the authors assert that “Frames generate scripts, or scenarios, to guide action in high-stakes circumstances.” (Bolman & Deal, 2013). The ability to switch between frames also allows for alternative views that could provide valuable insights into various organizational issues. Leaders can thus choose any of four frames, as each carries different problem-solving strategies and then switch among frames if necessary (Bolman & Deal, 2013)
A closer look at the frames
The Structural Frame
This frame is a collective of ideas from sociology, economics and management science. The metaphor for this frame is a workshop that operates through rational goal setting and decision making. This frame makes numerous assumptions. These include that problems result from structural misalignment, the organization leans toward goal achievement, there is effective division of labor, and that performance issues can be mediated through reorganization. The ethic that best describes this frame is excellence. The structural frame is useful in the exploration of responsibilities and formal roles as well as the issues normally left to “common sense.” This frame is best applied through the various levels of influence in an organization, as well as the vertical and horizontal structures of leadership. Ongoing dilemmas in the structural frame revolve around finding the right organizational system and balancing levels of control on the one hand and autonomy on the other. An example cited in the book revolves around the convergent evolution of management structures within Panasonic in Japan and Philips in the Netherlands. The two firms began on opposite ends of the spectrum. Panasonic had a centralized approach with headquarters responsible for decision making (Monden & Kosuga, 2007). However, Philips’s country-based operations had considerable local autonomy as headquarters granted them a high degree of freedom. However, global market forces pushed both firms to adopt similar structures by organizing product development centrally for more efficiency. They also delegated decision-making to different regions in line with their customers’ unique needs. An effective leader in this frame is likely good in analysis and design, as well as in adopting an analytical/ architectural approach.The ideas exemplified in the structural frame apply to private businesses, non-profits and sports organizations where roles are differentiated, and there is a consensus among all on the roles and defined metrics for success (Insert personal examples here).
The Human Resources Frame
The “human resource frame” helps leaders to understand their employees better. Through this frame, leaders can be able to develop their employees to play bigger roles in the organization thereby adding value to the organization. This frame is underpinned by psychology and studies of human behavior. The metaphor for this frame is the family, with the organization being viewed as an extended family. This frame draws on the relationship between the people and the organization with a focus on the people and their wishes, emotions, biases, expertise and the establishment of boundaries. The assumptions in this frame are that “individual-organizational alignment benefits both sides, productive relationships are vital to organizational health, and learning is central to productivity and change” (Bowman & Gallos, 2010). In this frame, employees are the organization’s chief assets. As a result, the organization prioritizes the employees’ desires and not the organization’s. The employees and the organization are mutually dependent. Often, many companies believe that they value their employees. However, they treat their workers like children and not adults who can think for themselves. This in many cases is far from the truth.
When employees are not treated right, they withdraw mentally while others retreat from work by taking leaves of absence or quitting. Some may go as far as protesting or even sabotage e.g. manipulating output to “punish the organization.” Switching to the human resource frame can help address such problems. An example is Wegmans a retail chain which is highly ranked on Fortune magazine’s list of best places to work. This organization follows a corporate philosophy based on fulfilling their employees’ needs first before fulfilling those of their customers’. Another example of how this frame can be applied is that of Southwest Airlines. This firm has built a motivated, successful workforce by paying its employees a competitive wage and working towards building dedication among its workforce. The human resource frame may seem counter-intuitive in situations where the global marketplace puts pressure on a firm. Outsourcing and downsizing to stay profitable would be the typical organizational response. This might be a viable option in the short term. However, in the long run, it would erode morale. A much better idea would be to invest in the workforce as this would result in engaged employees who are more productive and loyal to the organization. A leader with experience in this frame will thus likely be a catalyst for change and a servant leader, who is good at supporting and empowering those around him or her (Insert personal examples here).
The Political Frame
The metaphor for the political model is the jungle. This frame works with power structures and provincial concerns and draws its ideas from political science. It operates on the premise that problems arise when power is concentrated in the wrong places or is too broadly dispersed. The dominant ethic in this frame is justice. Any environment which requires many individuals to work together will have competing interests and different needs which vary from individual to individual. These may even manifest as power struggles which in many cases can affect the ability of an organization to meet its mandate. Navigating this minefield requires negotiation and bartering so as to achieve one’s agenda, resolve conflicts and create a win-win situation for everyone. This requires switching to the “political frame.” It is also useful in the allocation of scarce resources amongst competing interests so as to arrive at the best possible outcome. For instance, the Challenger disaster in 1986 was in part the result of unmanaged competing interests. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) requisitioned funds from the government, whereas the public was unwilling to have their dollars allocated to NASA and the space program. Safety warnings had been issued due to the weather, and the shuttle program contractors advised a delay in launch, which NASA’s leadership deemed too expensive. Subsequently, the launch was undertaken against the advice of experts. The disaster that ensued could have been avoided had there been a consensus among the parties concerned. An effective leader using this frame will likely come across as an advocate or negotiator, good at advocacy, and coalition building (Insert personal examples here).
The Symbolic Frame
In this frame, the most appropriate metaphor is the temple or theater, and the organizational ethic that best describes it is faith. The symbolic frame borrows from organization theory, sociology, and cultural anthropology to create an image of the ideals and aspirations of the organization. In this frame, what happens is not as important as what it means, and interaction has symbolic meaning. As a result, organizational culture plays a significant role in defining leadership. This frame addresses itself to images, symbolic messages, rituals and ceremony seeking to assign meaning to the events in an organization. A leader should use this frame to generate and use symbols that bring people together through rituals that support organizational goals. This can be done by use of notable people, rituals, metaphor, humor and play to develop an organizational culture with “stickitivity, ” and that will help the staffers cope in uncertain times. An effective leader using this frame will likely come across as a prophet or artist, with strong skills in inspiration, and framing experiences for his colleagues and or subordinates (Insert personal examples here).
The Principle-Centered Leadership in academia and educational institutions.
Principle based leadership is a leadership paradigm proposed by Steven R. Covey in his book “Principle-Centered Leadership.” According to Covey, “Principle-centered power is created when the values of the follower and leader overlap. Control is apparent, but it is not external; it is self-control” (Covey, 2005). He proposes that an individual should be internally validated thus self-development should start from within, and be based on inherent traits such as initiative, resourcefulness, creativity, willpower, courage, stamina and intelligence. A moral compass is essential for a principle-based leader in addition to traits such as integrity and maturity. In this model, the leader acquires influence and followers based on character and internal attributes. However, the leader needs to continuously improve his or her skills in all dimensions i.e. the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual spheres. Dr. Covey stated that a principle-centered leader should view his life as a mission, leading a balanced life and exercising temperance. In this model, a leader can exercise coercive power, utility power or principle-centered power.
According to Dr. Covey, a leader should learn continually, be service-oriented, radiate positive energy and believe in other people. Also, a leader should lead a balanced life, see life as an adventure, be synergistic, and exercise for self-renewal. These are the eight leadership characteristics that underpin the principle-centered leadership model (Covey, 2005). Little research has been conducted on leadership in academia and even less within academic colleges and departments. However, leadership in the educational and academic environment is no different from leadership in other sectors (Berg & Järbur, 2014). As such, many of the lessons acquired through research into business can also be applied in the academic sector (Inman, 2011; Al-Omari, 2005)
The process of education is a lifelong exercise beginning right from birth. Children are heavily influenced by the quality of teachers and the role models they encounter at their tender ages. One of the most important aspects of any early childhood setting is the quality of its leadership. Leaders set the tone and are critical to the development of a nurturing environment that supports families and staff, who then encourage children to flourish. As such any caregiver and teacher must have strong positive and innate values to provide the child with an enabling environment for learning and development. A principle-centered leadership approach is an effective model for early childhood education (Carr et al., 2004). Principle-centered leadership is grounded in a humanistic, transformational, and values-based perspective (Bennis, 1993). The process of education is critical in securing and setting out the foundations that underpin a learner’s journey through life.
Teachers and educators need to take responsibility for the various aspects of the learning environment that provide this function to the students (Inman, 2011). Additionally, the teachers are the guardians to the hallowed halls of academia. They cannot fulfill this role without a strong sense of integrity. This is because young learners quickly perceive where they can flout the rules and where the educational members of staff are willing to abet this, the learners may perceive a pattern of irreverence. Such tendencies when uncorrected are seen in older learners, resulting in a disregard for basic rules such as attending class, respecting deadlines for assignments or not cheating on assignments or examinations. Leaders understand that lack of integrity undermines almost everything they are trying to accomplish. Thus, they seek to maintain their integrity when they make decisions and create policies with the aim of creating win-win outcomes for children and families within an ethical framework and while being fair to staff (Insert personal examples here).
With the greater connectivity and ability to send and receive information electronically, geographical boundaries have been virtually shredded, and in their place, an amorphous structure has emerged. This structure has challenged established norms, interpersonal relations as well as the manner in which business is carried out in virtually all sectors, including education. According to Salaman and Butler (1994), in order to change appropriately, organizations must be able to analyze themselves, their processes, structures, and environments. They must be able to identify preferred and appropriate responses, as well as be able to implement them. They must also be able to learn and adapt quickly (Al-Omari, 2005). Without this ability, organizations will not be able to exercise appropriate choice in respect to structure, process, culture, and product; and consequently, they will fail. The learning organization needs a process for supporting people in the identification and exploitation of learning opportunities. This is provided by the models discussed above. However, these methods are by no means exhaustive. This shifting environment demands that leaders also adjust to meet these changes in a case of adapt or perish. Hersey et al. (1996) suggest that all leaders have a primary leadership style and others have a secondary leadership style. A leader’s knowledge of the frame they operate in allows them to adapt to the shifting scene both in businessman in educational institutions. Studying leadership behavior is important because it can help ensure effective utilization of human resources (Al-Omari, 2005; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). It can also aid in preventing resistance to change, restriction of output, and labor disputes; and often, it can lead to a more efficient organization that can weather today’s turbulent socio-economic environment.
References
Al-Omari, A. A. (2005). Leadership styles and style adaptability of deans and department chairs at three public research universities. Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University).
Bennis, W.G. (1993). An invented life: Reflections on leadership and change . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Berg, C.H, & Järbur, C. (2014). Leadership and leadership development in academia. CESAER Taskforce HR
Bolman, L. G., & Gallos, J. V. (2010). Reframing academic leadership . John Wiley & Sons.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership . John Wiley & Sons.
Carr, V.W., Johnson, L.J., & Corkwell, C. (2004). Developing center wide support. In S. Bell, V.W. Carr, D. Denno, L.J. Johnson, & L. Phillips, Challenging behaviors in early childhood settings, creating a place for all children , pp. 21-32. Baltimore: Brookes.
Covey, S. R. (2005). Principle-centred leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster
Evans, J. (2012, May 4). What can business leaders learn from ancient philosophers? Theguardian.com Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/business-learn-from-ancient-philosophers
Gilbert, A. (2012). Gandhi, Socrates and satyagraha, part 1. Democraticindividuality.com . Retrieved http://www.democraticindividuality.com/2012/07/gandhi-socrates-and-satyagraha-part-1.html
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & Johnson, D.E. (1996). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources (7th ed.) . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resource . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice –Hall, Inc.
Inman, M. (2011). The journey to leadership for academics in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership , 39(2), 228-241.
Mello, J. A. (1999). Reframing leadership pedagogy through model and theory building. Career Development International , 4 (3), 163-169.
Monden, Y., & Kosuga, M. (2007). Japanese Management Accounting Today (Vol. 2). World Scientific.
Salaman, G., & Butler, J. (1994). Why managers won’t learn. In Mabey, C., and Iles, P. (Eds.),
Managing Learning. Routledge, London, New York, (with the Open University).
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
