A manager puts in place a process to achieve an organization’s goals through human, financial and technical resources (Baird 1990, p. 3) and are now an essential part of organizations. “Managers” moving through organization structures was rare outside the military or civil service until recently. Mintzberg’s concept presupposes that managers move into the strategic apex (Boland 2003, p. 73), because they made the “right decisions”, have knowledge and experience. Managers once planned, organized, directed and controlled the organization (Fayol, 1949). Mintzberg identified that managers had 10 rather than four roles (1973). Kotter identified that managers set goal, strategies, monitored activities, obtained information, cooperated and supported supervisors, obtained cooperation from other groups, motivate, control and manage conflict (1982). Luthans identified four broad managerial roles: communication, traditional management (planning, decision making), networking and human resource management (1988). Managers are now leaders, communicators and networkers. Managers occupy positions because of experiences, which moulds their outlook or “frame of reference”. A “frame of reference” is a perspective (Bolman 2003, p. 15) or “mental model” (Senge 1994, p. 174) of how we consider matters taking account of experiences in similar situations (Bolman 2003, p. 12). There are four frames of reference: structural, human resource, political and symbolic (Bolman 2003, p. 13). An “enabling asset” is an essential skill that permits the owner to achieve other skills. This paper considers whether a manager’s dominant frame of reference is a skill that underpins all others skills in enabling them to effectively operate as a manager.

1. A Managers Frame of Reference is his/her most enabling asset
Introduction
A managerputsin place a processto achieve anorganization’sgoalsthroughhuman,financial and
technical resources(Baird1990, p. 3) and are now an essential partof organizations. “Managers”moving
throughorganizationstructureswasrare outside the militaryorcivil serviceuntil recently. Mintzberg’s
conceptpresupposesthatmanagersmove intothe strategicapex (Boland2003, p. 73), because theymade
the “right decisions”,have knowledgeandexperience.
Managers once planned,organized,directedandcontrolledthe organization(Fayol,1949). Mintzberg
identifiedthatmanagershad10 rather thanfour roles(1973). Kotteridentifiedthatmanagerssetgoal,
strategies,monitoredactivities,obtainedinformation,cooperatedandsupportedsupervisors,obtained
cooperationfromothergroups,motivate,control andmanage conflict(1982).
Luthansidentifiedfourbroad managerial roles:communication,traditional management(planning,
decisionmaking),networkingandhumanresource management(1988). Managersare now leaders,
communicatorsandnetworkers.
Managers occupypositionsbecause of experiences,whichmoulds theiroutlookor“frame of reference”. A
“frame of reference”isa perspective(Bolman2003,p. 15) or “mental model”(Senge1994, p. 174) of how
we considermatterstakingaccountof experiencesinsimilarsituations(Bolman2003,p. 12). There are
fourframesof reference:structural,humanresource,political andsymbolic(Bolman2003, p. 13).
An “enablingasset”isanessential skillthatpermitsthe ownertoachieve otherskills. Thispaperconsiders
whetheramanager’sdominantframe of reference isaskill thatunderpinsall othersskillsinenablingthem
to effectivelyoperate asamanager.
Structural Frame
The structural frame isthe traditional perspectiveof managementandhasits genesisinthe needto
improve the efficiencyandeffectivenessof organizations(Bolman2003, p. 45) through specialization,
divisionof labourandhierarchies(Bolman2003, p.46). Thisframe considers that“…clear,well understood
rolesandrelationshipsandadequate coordinationare key…”to organizational performance (Bolman2003,
p. 44). This frame isgoal orientedanddesignsavarietyof formal structures (Flamholtz1998: pp. 183-188),
rulesandpolicies(Bolman2003,p. 18). Hierarchiesasessentialtoensure thatcontrol isexercisedand
rulesandpoliciesensure proceduresaddresssituationsconsistently:to achieve organizationalefficiency
and effectiveness.
The right structure isdependentoncompatibilitywith organizational goals,strategiesandsize, the
operatingenvironmentanduse of technologyorprocesses(Bolman2003, pp.58-63). The new business
environmentrequires new structures,teams,networksandotherscanvassedbyDunford(1997, p. 40) and
Bolman(2003, pp.93-109). A limitationof the structural frame isflexibility andinappropriatestructures.
While organizationsare adept atreinventing,re-engineeringandrestructuring(Bolman2003,pp. 82-91),
some finditdifficulttoadjustandadapt. Structuresand strategyare sometimes immutable because
organizational processesensuresthatstrategyflowsfromananalytical processwhichconsidersall
eventualities:hencethe organizationisblindtoemergingrealitiesbecause itdoesnotfititsperspective of
howmatters where to evolve. The structural frame alsomissesothercritical aspectsthatare observed
throughotherframes:the appropriate use of these wouldmake amanagermore successful.

2. 2
Human ResourcesFrame
The human resource frame ismore “progressive”thanthe structural perspective and considers “…people’s
skills,attitudes,energy,andcommitmentare vital resourcesthat canmake or breakan organization…”
(Boland2003, pp.113-114). This frame addressesemployee concerns(therebyreducingthe needfor
unionsandlowersstaff turnover),throughintegratedstrategiesonremuneration,conditionsandjob
security(Boland2003, p. 129).
Managementtheoryisawashwithconceptsfor the human resources:Senge considersthe learning
organization(Senge1994), Semleradvocatesrotationalleadership,upwardsappraisal etal (Semler1994),
othersconsiderteams,jobredesign,industrialdemocracy,employee share ownership. Anoverriding
feature is the identificationandmeldingof personal andorganizational goalstoenhance commitmentto
the organization(Lee SooHoon,p.65).
A humanresources focushas“humanized”management,removingabhorrent practices andrecognizing
that employeescanmake a valuable contribution. Thisframe iseffective inreducing organizational costs
(ie absenteeism,accidents, disputation andturnover),butitsapplicationalsoresultsinthe introductionof
new,andoftenlaboursaving, technology,increasedcasualisationof work(hence less jobsecurity) andnew
workarrangements toenhance productivity(Bolman2003, pp.137-139). Jack Welch’usedhuman
resources(throughperformance management) to know whothe bottom10 per centof staff was in GE so
theybe fired(Ghahremani 2001).
The human resource frame canignore the importance thatstructuresbringthoughstabilityandgoal
orientation(Bolman2003, p. 332). Inappropriatelydesignedhuman resourcesstrategiescan alsoresultin
the recruitmentof “organizational man”:ie cloneswhoare similarinattitudes/outlook,upbringingand
intolerantof “difference”anddiversity. A heavyfocusbythe organizationonpeople thatsuitit maymean
there islittle chance tounderstandandacceptnew ways of doingbusinessorappreciate the exercise of
power(Bolman2003, p.192).
Political Frame
The political frame isthe processof makingdecisionsandallocating scare resources whenthere is
divergentinterests(Bolman2003, p.181) throughbargaining, andnegotiation(Bolman2003,p. 186). The
mainfunctionisthe distributionanduse of power(Bolman2003, p.188) whichcan be derived froma
range of sources (Bolman2003, pp.195-196).
Thisframe doesnot considerthe resolution,butthe management,of conflict(unlike the structural and
humanresourcesframes),throughstrategyandtactics(Bolman2003, p. 197). Organizationshave been
“saved”by politics: ie in1944 whenHenryFordII removedhisgrandfather’scronies andintroduced anew
managementteam,turningaround Fordwhich hadmade lossesforthe previous20 years(Drucker1995, p.
5).
A challenge forthe political frame isthe misuse of poweranditseffects. Moral hazard andethical
considerationsare oftenignoredinthe processtoachieve the required outcome. The inwardfixationon
the dynamicsof politicswithinandbetweenorganizations,tendsto alsooverdramatize itscontributionto
organizational success. Participants becometotallycommittedtoexploitinganygivensituation,because
the endjustifiesthe means,mistrustothersandindoingsominimizethe chance thatalternatives,including
conflictresolutionorcollaboration,mighthave (Bolman2003,p. 332).

3. 3
SymbolicFrame
The symbolicframe concernsthe creationof values,rituals, beliefsand rulestoforma “culture”whichis
usedto hold organizationstogether. Deal andKennedynote thatculture isbasically“…the waywe do
thingsaroundhere…”(Bolman2003, p. 243). Organizationswill have differentculturesdependingon
theirevolution, use of technology,educationallevels,markets,etal:forexamplethe differentcultures
betweenMicrosoft(Herbold2002, pp.73-79) and Nordstrom(Bolman2003, pp.244-246).
The symbolicframe can be usedto determine anoganization’sculture:a“negative”culture includesdouble
standards,external recruitmentof managerswithoutcorporate knowledge, executive diningrooms,fear,
coercion(see Bolman2003, p. 250). The change froma negative toapositive culture,whileinitially
distrusted,will leadtogreatercommitmenttothe organization. A positiveculture mayemphasize
openness,egalitarianism,sharedvaluesetal. Like the humanresource frame,the symbolicframe isusedto
enhance one’scommitmenttoanorganizationthroughthe manipulationanddevelopmentof “culture”.
The symbolicframe isoften difficulttodefine, withtrue meaningshiddenormisunderstood(Bolman2003,
p. 332). Cultural change isthe panaceapanderedby manyconsultantsredefining anorganization:
unfortunately,theyoftenmissthe existinginformal andunwrittenexpressions of itand the empty
symbolismcanbe why an organization isnoteffective.
Reframing
It isimportantfor managerstoappreciate theirdominantframe of reference and “reframe”andtake a
“multi frame”perspective. By“reframing”amanagercan fullyunderstandandanalyse anorganization
fromfour essential perspectivessince “…preconceivedtheoriesandimages determine whatwe see,what
we do, andwhat we accomplish. Narrow oversimplified,perspectivesbecome fallacies,thatoftencloud,
rather thanilluminatemanagerialaction...”(Bolman2003, p. 40). Reframingcanalsomeanthat a
situation,whenconsideredfromanotherperspective,couldhave adifferentmeaning(Watzlawick1974, p.
95).
In analyzingmanagementcourses,DunfordandPalmerfoundthat“...teachingmanagementframeshad
significantpositiveeffectsoverboththe shortrunand the long- infact, 98 percent of theirrespondents
ratedreframingas helpfulorveryhelpful,andabout90 percent feltthatitgave thema competitive
advantage..”(DunfordandPalmer1993 and Dunfordand Palmer1995 in Bolman2003, pp. 17-18).
Unfortunately,most managerstendtoexclusivelyrelyontheirowndominantframe of reference,rather
than considerall framesavailable tothem. Itrequiresaconsciousefforttoappreciate one’sowndominant
frame(s) andtodeliberatelyconsiderotherstoensure thatacomplete perception andanalysis canbe
made.
Boland notes that using one or two frames may be sufficient for a manager to become middle management,
but questionswhetheritisenoughto aspire to seniorpositions (2003,p. 333). This isreinforcedby
Luthanswho foundthat“…middle andlowerlevelmanagersspentalmostto-thirdsof theirtime on
structural activities…aboutone fifthon“humanresource management”…andaboutone fifthon
“networking…”(Boland2003, p.317). Otheracademics (includingBolmanandGranell 1999) foundthat
“…effectivenessasamanager wasparticularlyassociatedwiththe structural frame,whereasthe symbolic
and political framestendedtobe the primarydeterminantsof effectivesasaleader…”(Bolman2003, p.
318).
The applicationof the fourframesand reframingisanessential partof organizational analysisanddesign.
Reframingiscritical totransformorganizationswithpoorhealth. The RobertFKennedyHighSchool case
studyofferssome of the complex issuesfacing managers(Bolman2003,pp. 409-431). Inthisexample the
analysisof the desperate situationfromeachof the fourframesandreframingenabledthe School Principal

4. 4
to more clearlyappreciate andunderstandthe dynamicsinorganizationthathe wasleading. Thisanalysis
alsoprovidedhimwiththe opportunitytodevelopresponsestothe keyeventsthatwere shapingthe
structural,humanresources,political andsymbolicproblemsatthe school. Throughintegratingthose
responsesinreframing,the School Principalwasable tomapout a processthat may eventuallyprovide the
solutionsthathe requires. If he didnotapplythe fourframesand didnotreframe,the School Principals
responsestothe keyeventsatthe school maywell have beenpiecemealandmissedkeyclues.
Academicshave noted thatorganizationchange from reframingisnotguaranteedtosucceedif an
organizationdoesnotreframe appropriately.
PalmerandDunfordnotedthere were fourlimitsonreframing:“…cognitive limits,frame dominance and
the limitsof language,conceptionsof actionandtheirlimitsonreframingandknowledgeandpower..”
(PalmerandDunford1996, p.22).
Kotternotesthat eightmistakes are commonlymade intransformingthe organization followingthe
reframingprocess include:“notestablishingasense of urgency”,“lackingavision”and
undercommunicatingthe vision”(Kotter1995, p.61 and PalmerandDunford 1996, p.21).
Some have alsoquestionedwhetherframesandreframingare necessaryarguingthatotherfactorssuchas
skillsandexperience are more important(PoracandRosa 1996, p.35-42)
Conclusion
Thispaperhas consideredthe fourframes:the structural frame isgoal orientedandconsidersformal
structures,rules,rolesandpolicies:hierarchiesare essential toensure control isexercised. The human
resourcesframe focusesonthe individual andthe integrationof humanresourceswithorganizational
strategy,to enhance commitmenttothe organization. The political frame isthe processof making
decisions,allocatingresourcesandappreciatesthatcompetinginterests,differencesandgoalsare resolved
throughpower. The political frame doesnotconsiderthe resolutionof conflictbutonitsmanagement.
The symbolicframe concernsthe creationof culture withinanorganizationand canbe usedto enhance
commitment.
Reframingiswhere the managerintegratesandperceivesthe organizationthroughthe prismof four
frames. Most managerstendto relyontheirowndominantframe of reference, ratherthanconsiderall
framesavailable tothem. Where amanageris able toinclude otherframesorperspectivesinlookingat
the environment,theirowninformationgapsandblindspotstoevolvingeventswilldecrease.
Most managers,unwittingly,use one ortwoframesasmanagers. In doingso,theycan not maximize the
applicationof theirmanagement,leadershipandanalyticalskillsforthe organization. Accordingly, formost
managers,theirinitial frame of referenceisnotan enablingasset. Where amanagercan reframe and
applythe perspectivesof structure,humanresources,politicsandsymbolism, asinthe case studyof the
RobertJ KennedyHighSchool, thenthe manager’s broadened frame of reference willbe anenablingasset.

5. 5
References
Baird,L., Post,J. andMahon, J. (1990) Management:Functionsand Responsibilities,HarperCollins
Publishers,New York.
Bolman,L. andDeal,T. (2003) Reframing Organizations:Artisty,Chioceand Leadership,
JohnWileyandSonsInc, San Francisco.
Drucker,P. (1995) Peopleand Performance,Butterworth-HeinemannLtd,
Oxford.
Dunford,R.and Palmer,I.(1993) ‘IsReframingUseful toManagers?’ in Training and
Developmentin Australia (December) pp.22-34.
Dunford,R.and Palmer,I. (1997) ‘OrganisingforHyper-Competition:New Organizational
Formsfor a new age’in New Zealand Strategic
Management,Summer1997.
Fayol,H. (1949) General and IndustrialManagement,Pitman,London.
Flamholtz,E.G. and Randle,Y. (1998) Changing theGame:Transformationsof thefirst,second
and third kinds,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork.
Ghahremani,Y. (2001) ‘Enterprise Management:Gone WithThe Wind’,in Asia
Week, 23 November2001.
Hoon,L.S. (undated) ‘A Managerial Perspective of the Objectivesof HRM
PracticesinSingapore:AnExploratoryStudy‘in Singapore
ManagementReview,Singapore,undated.
Kotter,J. (1992) The General Manager,The Free Press,New York.
Kotter,J.(1995) ‘LeadingChange:WhyTransformationEffortsFail’in
Harvard BusinessReview (March-April),pp.59-67.
Luthans,F.R.,Hodgetts,M.andRosenkrantz,S. (1988) Real Managers,Ballinger,Cambridge.
Mintzberg,H. (1973) The Natureof ManagerialWork,Harper andRow,New
York.
Nadler,D.A.andTushman,M. (1997) Competing By Design:The PowerOf Organisational
Architecture,OxfordUniversityPress.
Palmer,I.AndDunford,R.(1996) ‘Reframingandorganizationalaction:the unexploredlink’,
inJournalof OrganizationalChangeManagement, 9(6):
12-25
Porac, J.and Rosa, J.A. (1996) ‘InPraise of Managerial Narrow-Mindedness’inJournal of
ManagementInquiry, 5(1): 35-42.
Semler,R. (1994) ‘Whymy formeremployeesstill workforme’,in Harvard
BusinessReview,January-February1994.
Senge,P. (1994) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning
Organization,RandomHouse Australia,Sydney.
Senge,P. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:Strategiesand Toolsfor
Building a Learning Organization,NicholasBrearley
PublishingLtd,London.
Watzlawick,WeaklandandFisch(undated) Extract containedin Lecture Noteson Reframing,
Organizational AnalysisandDesign,2004.