Four frames of Bolman and Deals are giving us ability to see the same organization from four different points of view. They are very useful, when current organizational structure need in changes or corrections. The most often using frame is structural one; it looks natural for such institution as organization. However, it is not the only one possible frame and using it all the time does not give us full understanding of situation, even worse: it is narrowing our vision and may lead to extra problems in management. The most powerful feature of four frames model is ability to switch from one model to others, from one style of leadership and management principles and tools to others. In this work, we will come closer to political frame, which point attention to power, fait for it, and how it is using in organization for its goals achieving.
In model, Bolman and Deals observe number of features for each frame. We will describe them for political one. First of all, metaphor, symbol of organization in that case is jungle, what is place, where are no laws and mostly natural power has sense, as competition is going around constantly and that’s “war of everybody against everybody”. So central concepts of that frame are power, conflict, competition, and organizational politics.
View on power and conflict in this frame is positive: so conflicts are natural, they are happens and encourage new ideas, challenges status quo. Of course they have some costs, but also benefits, they are not a big problem. This frame does not focus on resolution of conflicts, but on strategy and tactic of the most profitable behavior in such situation. The main power in that frame is authority, the ability to recognize people and resources and to force groups to articulate needs and mobilize for achievement of them.
Is such conditionals is logical that leaders image is “advocacy”. Its main challenge is to develop agenda and power base. Leadership style which is proper for political frame is “advocate, negotiator” and leadership process suppose advocacy and coalition building. Ineffective in that frame is leader, who is “con artist, thug” using in process of its leading manipulation and fraud. To be efficient leader should to be clear about what he wants and what he can get. In addition, he should:
Assess distribution of power and interests
Build linkages to key stakeholders
Persuade first, negotiate second, and coerce only if necessary.
Bolman & Deal list five assumptions beyond the Political Frame (Bolman and Deal, 2008):
Organizations are coalitions
Enduring differences among coalition members
Allocation of scarce resources
Conflict is central process and power most important resource
Goals and decisions arise from bargaining, negotiation and jockeying for position
In general political frame is useful, when company need in risky changes, what ask for urgency, mobilization and force.
Unfortunately, maybe because leaders more often oriented on other frames with political issues related more cases of failure, then success.
We will use as the illustration for the political frame in action Interpublic Group, as a company whose head suffered from disability to use political frame, when his competitors were actively using it.
The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (IPG) is an advertising holding company working on global market, which is one of the biggest players there; it is a member of Top-4 in industry of advertising. Headquarter of company is placed in New York City; company has many branches and “daughters” all around the world, whose business is also advertising and marketing services, the staff of that system includes around 47,400 employees. Company client’s sizes vary from local to global ones. The size of projects, what holding’s agencies performs vary broadly too. Areas, which company specified in are:
consumer advertising,
digital marketing,
communications planning and media buying,
PR and specialized communications disciplines. (IPG annual reports)
Around board members are Michael Roth, Jocelyn Carter-Miller, Deborah Ellinger, John Greeniaus and others. CEO of company today is Michael Roth.
However, the case is related with Marion Harper Jr., who was founder of the company and CEO for 18 years before his resignation. In general, he was successful in leading company: as result of his heading IPG become the world’s largest conglomerate in market services, advertising, and information on the base of a personally successful agency career. Harper made acquisitions, started new companies, and widened his orbit into international branches and companies to expend IPG even more.
His active innovation making and creativity was a bit spontaneous, so it lead company to financial problems. CEO have not had will to recognize how serious they are and to decide them. In addition to some financial incompetency Harper have had problems with political tactic. He decided not to develop coalition inside his executive group, but instead of that, he started to build individual ties to with executive team members, where he was dominating. When executives was “crossing” him, Harper used to assign such colleagues to head some “remote” branches of company or even to place them on partial retirement (Zaleznik, 1970).
As financial problems of company become more obvious and critical to other executives, they formed their own coalition. The purpose of that was not only financial issues, but also managers who were offended by Harper, as result of his weak diplomacy and coalition building ability. That new coalition managed to garner the votes necessary to fire Harper.
Proper powerful leader behavior in this situation of serious financial problems would be forming coalition with other executives. Such coalition serve to guard against the effects of blind spots, because two people seldom have identical limitations in their vision and ability to respond. In opposition, the need to control and dominate personally is a serious mistake. It is by yourself a blind spot that can affect a chief executive, because he makes it difficult for people to help him, while creating grievances, which eventually lead to attacks on him. That exactly have happened in our example of The Interpublic Group of Companies.
References
Black, J. (n.d.). Defining Enrollment Management: The Political Frame.
Retrieved from http://hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/vcsa/documents/Defining_EM_The_Political_Frame.pdf
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th Ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 527 pages.
IPG annual reports. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://investors.interpublic.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=87867&p=irol-reportsannual
Reframing organizations. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.unitar.org/hiroshima/sites/unitar.org.hiroshima/files/AF09_Reframing_Organizations.pdf
Zaleznik, A. (1970) Power and Politics in Organizational Life. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/1970/05/power-and-politics-in-organizational-life
