Introduction

An organization has many dimensions that define it as a whole these include

structure, human resource, politics and culture. The various aspects of an
organization lay the foundation for the future growth of not only the organization but
also its members. This notion has been supported by a large scale research into the
field of organizational behaviour by world renowned researchers such as :

This essay aims at revealing the fact that concentrating only on the structure of an
organization could lead to blind sighting the managers to the other indispensible
aspects of an organization. A very practical approach can often lead to a
misinterpretation of an organization`s objectives and growth prospects. This has
been explained explicitly by a detailed research in the field of leadership and
supervision. The four frames of organizational behaviour indicate that the same
situation(what same situation?) can be viewed from four different angles. Each of
these frames is uncharacteristic, logical, and potent, yet when taken together, they
help capture a comprehensive picture of an organization’s situation. These four
management perspectives are believed to offer greater explanatory power than
applying a single preordained theory or building a new theory directly from data
analysis.
FOUR FRAMES

The research for this essay is based on the Multiframe Leadership Model featured in
the book Reframing Change: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership by Terrence Deal, an
educational expert, and Lee Bolman, a business consultant. This model has been
chosen because it joins education and business in a way that relates well to
business administration. It does not see these realms as competing, but explains
how each can work in cooperation with the other. (isn’t reference me mention
karna enuff for this model?i mean whats the use riting abt the whole thng here when
u cud jst mention it in one line in the referencing?its jst increasing the word limit n its
description above doesn’t seem important here)
The Multiframe Leadership Model breaks down behavior into four frames:

Human Resources: Leaders in the human resource frame seek to understand their
personnel and individual relationships within the organization. In order to lead a
successful program, they work to discover what motivates each of their employees.

Structural: A leader in the structural frame focuses on policy, procedures, and

outcomes. The work of the group is highlighted over the individual. Focusing on this
frame leads to effective goal setting and a strong bottom line.

Political: In the political frame, the leader views an organization as a group of players
who are constantly forming alliances and coalitions to compete for power and
resources. This can, for example, lead to many different entities on campus coming
together to support an athletic program.

Symbolic: A leader in the symbolic frame stresses the organizational culture,

focusing on its values, attitudes, rituals, and traditions. An athletic director who
understands how to use this frame motivates others to work extremely hard for the
cause.
Structural Frame

The fundamental role of a manager is to not only to identify and quantify

organizational goals but also to concentrate on the dynamic relationship between the
organisational structure and its external environment. A manager has to lay down
the appropriate organizational structure to achieve the organization`s goals and
objectives in conjunction with the external environment. A well structured
organization clearly defines the division of labour and tasks at hand, this makes the
organization more efficient and conversely if an organizational structure is unclear it
could lead to confusion, frustration and even conflict. Some characteristics of a well
structured organization are well defined policies, linkages and lines of authority. It is
not only important for an organization to have the right structure but it is also
important that its members understand that structure and adhere to it.

A manager or a leader`s task in the organization is to focus on facts and logic, not on
personality and emotions. Most of the intra organizational issues amongst people
stem from flaws in the organization`s structure and not due to flaws in its members.

Bolman & Deal (1991, p. 355)

Human Resource frame

An organization is built by its members, or more appropriately the nature of an

organization is defined by the nature of its members. This approach involves
emotional and practical views together; the degree of responsiveness of the
organization to the needs and the extent to which the organization is supportive of
their goals determines the level of loyalty and commitment from its members.
Managers and leaders that are insensitive to the needs and requirements of their
employees can never be effective leaders. The human resource manager and leader
works on behalf of both the organization and its people, seeking to serve the best
interests of both.

A manager has to use empowerment and support to the advantage of the

organization. This has many dimensions to it such as: acknowledging members`
aspirations and needs, personal warmth and openness, providing opportunities to
grow. Human resource managers and leaders empower their followers through
participation and openness as well as by making sure that they have the autonomy
and the resources they need to do their jobs well. Human resource managers and
leaders emphasize honest, two-way communication as a way to identify issues and
resolve differences. They are willing to confront others when it is appropriate, but
they try to do so in a spirit of openness and caring.

Bolman & Deal (1991, p. 359)

Political Frame

Different groups or associations within the organization compete for the available
resources and power, which can often lead to conflicts in the organization.
Bargaining, negotiation, coercion, and compromise are part of everyday political life
in traditional organizations (Thomas, 2003).
The political frame attributes politics for the basic organizational features such as
interdependence, tolerance, power distance and scarcity. Politics involves
coordination, conflict management and mediation and is inevitably present in every
organization. The political frame does not view politics or power as a negative or a
positive aspect, even though both can be used for exploitation and dominance, it can
also be a means for building a vision and collective goals, this could help a manager
or a leader in building cooperation and a well coordinated organization.

Power is a means of solving conflicts among people in an organization. It is a means

of building relations and a source of affecting people. On the basis of the designation
of a member in the organization, power is given to them. There has to be a lot of
emphasis on the extent to which power should be assigned to an individual in an
organization. Congregations of one denomination, for example, may compete with
congregations from other denominations for members, but work cooperatively with
congregations of their own denomination in a regional evangelism program. Most
local governments have zoning and tax regulations that are favourable to the
presence of congregations; but these very same governments may also have
policies that collide with a congregation's sense of economic or racial justice.

Cultural/Symbolic Frame

The symbolic frame focuses on organizational symbols rather than the organizational
structure or its rules and policies. The symbolic focus is on the meanings individuals
give their world, and how they deal with ambiguity and uncertainty by creating
symbols to help them resolve confusion, increase predictability, provide direction,
and anchor hope and faith. Many events are more significant for what they express
than for their outcomes. The image of management derived from this view is that of
uncertainty reduction and manager as magician or priest (Thomas, 2003).
Symbols are objects, acts, relationships, or linguistic formations that stand
ambiguously for a multiplicity of meanings, evoke emotions, and impel men to action
(Cohen, 1974).
Symbols may be visible, physical manifestations of organizations and indicators of
organizational life. Symbols take on important meanings in organizations; meanings
that are defined by cultural and social conventions and interactions. Much of human
understanding occurs through the use of symbolic processes (Axley, 1984). A
symbol can be any sign (an act, event, logo, etc.) that represents some concept;
thus, the representation of the concept becomes the symbol's meaning (Geertz,
1973). The most pervasive medium of symbolism is language.
It is believed that if managers are able to use such symbols and meanings to convey
to their subordinates that the change is legitimate and those employees believe that
the change is legitimate then resistance to the change will be limited (Hardy, 1991).
Viewed from such a perspective, those that are able to define the reality have
considerable power over those who accept the reality as their own (Bradshaw,
1998).
Discussion

AN ORGANIZATION COMPRISES OF A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK THAT IS

COMPOSED OF A NUMBER OF ASPECTS OF STRATEGICALLY PLANNED
CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION THAT VARY FROM ITS STRUCTURAL HIERARCHY
TO THE dynamics of power and politics TO interests, value, MEANING AND
ASSOCIATION. ALL THESE ASPECTS, AND HENCE AN ORGANIZATION ON
THE WHOLE, CANNOT BE STUDIED USING A SINGLE frame of organizational
behaviour. The multiplicity of notions in the literature suggests that there is a
probable danger in focusing only on any one theory and excluding the rest (Day and
Klein 1992).

For EXAMPLE, FOCUSSING ONLY ON THE ORGANIZATION’S STRUCTURE

OVERSHADOWS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE social dynamics of relationships
that EFFECT changes WITHIN IT. LIKEWISE, AN EMPHASIS ONLY on social
relationships and THE dynamics of power and politics OVERLOOKS the
organizational, professional and personal boundaries, both implicit and explicit,
within AN ORGANIZATION.

THE ABOVE STANCE CAN, AT BEST, BE RATIONALIZED VIA SCIENTIFIC

CALCULATION. HOWEVER, THIS APPROACH IS REJECTED IN FAVOUR of
qualitative and organic methods of knowledge production that contextualize, BREAK
DOWN and DIVULGE workplace practices, attitudes, values and dynamics as
TOOLS TO acknowledge, INCORPORATE and SUPERVISE VARIATION. FACTS
HELP DECIDE AND DETERMINE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS,
THEREBY INVOLVING MORAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE DILEMMAS such as
IMPARTIALITY of resource ALLOTMENT or equality of access to services that
require value-based judgment. IN ORDER TO ANALYZE HOW AN ORGANIZATION
FUNCTIONS, ALL THESE ASPECTS ARE ESSENTIAL, BUT EACH ALONE
CANNOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAIN THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE END-
PRODUCT OF PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE. ALTHOUGH IT IS CLEAR
NOW THAT AN ORGANIZATION CAN BE STUDIED IN ITS TOTALITY ONLY BY
ASSESSING ALL THE FRAMEWORKS TOGETHER, YET A SECONDARY
approach is to ANALYSE the relevance of each theoretical view SEPARATELY.
Selecting the correct frame for supervision

Ernie Hilton

THE EXPERIENCE FOR BOTH THE SUPERVISOR AND THE SUPERVISEE CAN
BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BASED ON HOW THEY CHOOSE TO
INTERPRET THE VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN THE MANY FRAMES IN
SUPERVISION. THUS, THE MANNER IN WHICH A SUPERVISOR CHOOSES TO
FRAME AN EXPERIENCE, SHALL ULTIMATELY DECIDE WHETHER THE
ACCURATE CONTEXT CHOSEN DURING THE INTERACTION IS ACTUALLY
RECKLESS OR PRECISE. In the book, Reframing Organizations, the authors,
Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest THAT ORGANIZATIONS ARE
CONCEPTUALIZED BY LEADERS within four frames of
reference; structural, human resource, political and symbolic. Although broad in
scope these frames undeniably exist within organizations and teams. A
SUPERVISOR IS RENDERED A GREATER PRECISION IN UNDERSTANDING
THE VARIED CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN THE SUPERVISION PROCESS IF HE IS
ABLE TO CLEARLY VISUALIZE THE FOUR CONTEXTS WITHIN THE
ORGANIZATION.

Structural Frame in Supervision

Often described as the “factory” or “machine” this element of any organization needs
to exist for effective operations (Bolman & Deal, p.400). THE ARCHITECTURE OF
THE ORGANIZATION IS BEST ABSORBED BY AN EMPLOYEE WITHIN THIS
FRAME AND INCLUDES ALL THE policies, rules and roles, guidelines for practice
and performance, and how decisions are made. This frame tends to HAVE AN
endless supply of content available for supervision. GOOGLING on the CYC-NET
alone IS SUFFICIENT to find endless information on the structure FOR supervision.

The structural frame DEEMS IT ESSENTIAL FOR SUPERVISORS TO DO THE

REQUIRED HOMEWORK. A supervisor, who tries to feign their way through best
practice models, frameworks and other needed competent areas, because they rely
on their “positional power” versus their “expert power”, usually will not generate the
team cohesion and aptitude needed for a strong organization or team (Austin p.21-
22). IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY STRUCTURE WHILE
DEVELOPING CORE COMPETENCIES, there MUST be no SHORT CUTS in
supervision, IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW BORING OR MUNDANE IT MAY BE. TO BE
A LEADER WITHIN THE STRUCTURAL FRAME IN SUPERVISION IT IS
IMPERATIVE TO have written clarity in areas of job performance WHICH ARE
FURTHER defined by structures like; organizational themes, codes of conduct,
policies and procedures, operational and communication plans, detailed models of
treatment practice, case management models and organizational charts. Increasing
autonomy in employees through supervision requires that safety be present by
having comprehensive clarity regarding the structure of operations in addition to the
supervisor being deliberately availability for the process of supervision and
evaluation (Rivas, 1998, p.269).

Human Resource Frame in Supervision

The human resource frame IS PERHAPS the most CONTROVERSIAL FRAME for
supervisors in supervision. IT provokes the concept of an organization being “…like
an extended family complete with needs, feelings, prejudices, skills, and limitations”
(Bolman & Deal, p.14). THIS frame OFTEN SEES the structurally dependent
supervisor and the human resource biased supervisor collide. WHILE THE FOCUS
OF THE structural frame LIES MOSTLY on THE enforcement of rules, policies and
guidelines necessary for predictable operations, the human resource frame, ON THE
OTHER HAND, predominately CATERS TO THE needs of people REGARDING
policy and contracts, WHICH THEREFORE LEADS TO THE TWO COLLIDING
when THEY are in competing positions or not balanced in operations. Compassion,
support and empowerment are ESSENTIAL TO THE HUMAN RESOURCE FRAME
when interpreting the supervision process and its content. The supervisor operating
from this frame is usually either interpreted as a “catalyst or a wimp” (p.354). BY
ADOPTING THE OLD ADAGE OF “PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST”, THIS FRAME
EMPHASIZES MORE ON “PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH PEOPLE”, THEREBY
PROMOTING coaching, mutuality, participation, facilitation and empowerment.

Effective human resource leaders ADOPT THE NOTION THAT employees are
respected, worthwhile and ARE essentially RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUCCESS
OF an organization. A supervisor, who SUPPORTS employee needs AS A PART OF
THE SUPERVISION PROCESS, JUSTIFIES the existence of the human resource
frame and its relevance as an integral part of A SUCCESSFUL organization.

Political Frame in Supervision

ABSTRACTLY KNOWN AS the “jungle”, or what Bolman and Deal call the political
frame of an organization (p.433). THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THIS supervision
PROCESS IN THAT IT ALLOWS political supervisors to be realists AS REGARDS
THE OFTEN-PRESENT SCARCE RESOURCES AVAILABLE. WHILE IT IS
REQUIRED OF A human resource leader to put the needs of an individual over the
organization's limitations THEREBY POSSIBLY EVEN JEOPARDISING THE
resources for others; A political leader, CONVERSELY, AFTER ESTIMATING the
reality AND LIMITATIONS of the situation MUST REACH an agreement within
supervision without offending, or creating illusions or false promises. In supervision
the political goal is to balance these scarce resources against “divergent interests” of
individuals in relation to the needs of the masses (p.197).

THE POLITICAL FRAME IN SUPERVISION AIMS AT UNITING AN

ORGANIZATION’S TEAMS AND MEMBERS WITH ITS GOALS AND VISION. THIS
ENSURES A GREATER FOCUS ON PLANNING STRATEGIES AND TACTICS
FOR ACCOMPLISHING GOALS RATHER THAN JUST RESOLVING CONFLICTS.
DAMAGE COULD BE CAUSED TO THE IDEAS BEHIND THE ROLE OF
SUPERVISION FOR AN ORGANIZATION THEREBY EVEN AFFECTING THE
RESPECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS IN QUESTION BY A SUPERVISOR WHO
MISREADS THE CONTEXT OF THE SUPERVISION PROCESS AND LACKS
POLITICAL WISDOM. A SHREWD political supervisor ACCEPTS CONFLICTS AND
CHALLENGES as AREAS GENERATING interest and curiosity rather than BEING
INCAPACITATING and harsh. IN FRONT LINE PRACTICE, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
TYPICALLY PLAY WITH THE NOTION OF BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATING, AN
EXAMPLE BEING A strategy in an intervention plan GENERATING a therapeutic
change VERSUS a political intervention INTENTIONALLY designed to AFFECT the
youth. THE SAME ARGUMENT SHOULD THUS HOLD TRUE EVEN WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF SUPERVISION.
Symbolic Frame in Supervision

The metaphor associated with this frame is characterized by the idea that
organizations are like "theatres” (Bolman & Deal, p.15). Often UNDERUTILIZED,
THIS FRAME IS AS ESSENTIAL FOR THE SUCCESS OF AN ORGANIZATION AS
ARE THE OTHER FRAMES. EVERY ORGANIZATION HAS A “CULTURE”
ASSIGNED TO ITS SUPERVISION PROCESS THAT MUST BE CAREFULLY
ORGANIZED LEST IT GENERATE NEGATIVE ASSOCIATIONS. THIS “CULTURE”
OF SUPERVISION, ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPERVISOR, HAS A CERTAIN
POWER WHICH WHEN UNDERESTIMATED PRODUCES THE SAME EFFECT AS
THAT GENERATED UPON UNDERESTIMATION OF THE EXTENSIVE IMPACTS
OF INSPIRATION OR DEPRECIATION IN AN ORGANIZATION. AN
ORGANIZATION WHERE THE SUPERVISION PROCESS IS ACCEPTED BY THE
SUPERVISOR AS A REGULAR RITUAL THROUGH SHARING EXPERIENCES
AND STORIES, AND CASTING VALIANT INTERVENTIONS AS FABLED
EXAMPLES OF TREATMENT IS ONE THAT EMBRACES a symbolic frame.
Supervision CAN INSPIRE EMPLOYEES IF MEANING AND PURPOSE IS
ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT IS DONE. OFTEN “feeling”, ATTACHED WITH the
purpose that is greater than self, can EASILY MOTIVATE. INDIVIDUALS CAN
THUS BE UNITED WITHIN A CULTURE OF SHARED BELIEFS AND VALUES
THEREBY CREATING SCOPE FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND
BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATION. SOLIDARITY AND A COHESIVE
CULTURE CAN THUS BE CREATED AMONG TEAMMATES WHILE EMPLOYEES
CAN BE GUIDED BY THE symbolic language found in posted organizational tenants
or team charters, THEREBY GENERATING GREATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CONSISTENT practice and service delivery.
Relationship between Frames

Culture and structure

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IS INTERLINKED WITH ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURE IN THAT THE TWO CANNOT BE READ SEPARATELY OR BE
CLEARLY DEFINED WITHIN AN INSTITUTION. IT IS SAFE TO SAY THAT
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE EXISTS AND FUNCTIONS WITHIN AN
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.

Organizational STRUCTURE IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE ORGANIZATIONAL

culture, WHICH IS A BROADER SPECTRUM OF SMALLER ISSUES WITHIN THE
ORGANIZATION. THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF AN ORGANIZATION, ALONGWITH
ITS MANY PRACTICES AND METHODS, ENSURE A STABLE AND EFFICIENT
FUNCTIONING OF ITS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, WHETHER THE
ORGANIZATION IN QUESTION IS A CORPORATION OR SIMPLY A SPORTS
TEAM.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE BASICALLY SUPPORTS THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE WITHIN ANY
ORGANIZATION. EXAMPLES SHOWCASING THE DIRECT DEPENDENCE OF
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE INCLUDE
HOW MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION, THE
RESPONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO SUPERVISORS, AND THE
PROCEDURE OF PASSING COMPLAINTS THROUGH THE RANKS.

TO SUCCESSFULLY ASSESS ANY ORGANIZATION, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE

ANALYSE HOW ITS STRUCTURE ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS. THE STRUCTURE
DEFINES THE MANNER IN WHICH VARIOUS INTERLINKED GROUPS ARE
ESTABLISHED WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION IN ORDER FOR THEM TO
FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY. A SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
AIMS AT PROMOTING EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE MANY
PARTS OF AN ORGANIZATION AS ALSO ENHANCING THE COORDINATION
BETWEEN ITS VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE MAY ALSO BE COMPARTMENTALIZED INTO
VARIOUS CATEGORIES SO AS TO DEFINE THE PHASES MANY BUSINESSES
EXPERIENCE WHILE GROWING IN SIZE AND SCOPE. THE “PRE-
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE”, THE FIRST PHASE, IS KNOWN FOR THE
ABSENCE OF A STRUCTURE THAT STANDARDIZES TASKS, AND IS THUS
SUITABLE FOR SMALLER ESTABLISHMENTS THAT NEED TO BE ADAPTIVE
DUE TO LESSER REPEAT SCENARIOS. The “BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE”,
THE SECOND PHASE, INVOLVES A CERTAIN EXTENT OF STANDARDIZATION
IN PAPERWORK AND OTHER PROCESSES, AND IS THUS SUITED FOR
LARGER BUSINESSES. THE TERM “BUREAUCRACY”, THOUGH BEING
SOMEWHAT NEGATIVE IN NATURE, IS HELPFUL IN TACKLING ISSUES THAT
COULD BECOME INVETERATE THEMES IN SUCH LARGE ESTABLISHMENTS.
FINALLY, WE HAVE THE “POST-BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE”, WHICH IS
SLIGHTLY TENUOUS IN NATURE AND IS MORE THEORETICAL, THOUGH IT
RELATES MORE TO THE RECENT, CULTURE-BASED MODELS OF
SUPERVISING.

THUS, THE CULTURE AND THE STRUCTURE OF AN ORGANIZATION ARE SO

INTERTWINED THAT IT CAN BE HARD TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THEM,
WHICH IS RATHER AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF ANY SUCCESSFULLY
FUNCTIONING ORGANIZATION.

Relation between Politics and Structure

THE POLITICS WITHIN ANY ORGANIZATION GOES HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. ANY ORGANIZATION COMPRISES OF A
SUPERVISOR WHO HAS SOME DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER THEIR
SUBORDINATE IN TERMS OF THE SUBORDINATE BEING DEPENDANT ON
THEM FOR FAVOURS INVOLVING ALLOCATION OF WORK, WORK
SCHEDULES, JOB SECURITY ,TRANSFERS, PROMOTIONS, ETC. LIKEWISE,
THE SUPERVISOR ALSO DEPENDS ON THEIR SUBORDINATE FOR
INFORMATION AND THE OVERALL WORKPLACE EFFICIENCY AND
PRODUCTIVITY. THUS, BOTH THE SUPERIOR AND THE SUBORDINATE
SHARE A RELATIONSHIP OF MUTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE, WHERE BOTH
ARE ABLE TO CONTROL THE BEHAVIOUR OF EACH OTHER AND HAVE A
CERTAIN DEGREE OF POWER OVER EACH OTHER. THEREFORE,
DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, EACH HAS THE POWER TO
MANIPULATE THE OTHER WITHIN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. SUCH
CO-DEPENDENCY RELATIONSHIPS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF ALL
ORGANIZATIONS, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE.

Relation between Human Resource and Structure

A “HIGH PERFORMANCE ORGANIZATION” OR AN HPO EMBRACES

“INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL”, AS ITS BASIC PREMISE, WHICH ENCOMPASSES
ALL THE knowledge, expertise, and dedication of an organization’s workforce.
THEREBY, INSPITE OF ALL THE TECHNOLOGY AND MECHANIZATION TODAY,
IT IS THE MANUAL WORKFORCE THAT ACTS AS THE MOST VITAL HUMAN
RESOURCE, CONTRIBUTING DIRECTLY TOWARDS ENHANCING AN
organization’s purpose, mission, and strategies.
MOST WORK FLOW IS SYSTEMATIZED AND CONCENTRATED AROUND THE
FOCAL BUSINESS PROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES, AND WORK TEAMS ARE
ORGANIZED IN ORDER TO EXPOUND ON THIS INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
WITHIN HPOs. THE EMPHASIS IS ON ADOPTING HUMAN RESOURCE
POLICIES THAT AUGMENT employee flexibility, skills, knowledge, and motivation.
THERE ARE FEWER LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT IN AN HPO, HENCE
TRANSFORMING THE FUNCTIONING OF MANAGERS, WHOSE FOCUS SHIFTS
FROM DIRECT ORDER-GIVING TO TRAINING, integrating the work of THE teams
with each other, and facilitating THEIR work IN ORDER TO BOTH SUCCESSFULLY
COMPLETE THEIR JOBS and SATISFY customer expectations.
Conclusion

The NOTION of multi-framing supervision HELPS a supervisor understand how best

to be helpful in building THEIR “ORGANIZATIONAL capacity”. Diversity in thinking
which STEMS FROM being aware of VARIED themes ENABLES THE supervisor to
consider SEVERAL ways of interpreting problems ALONGWITH THEIR possible
solutions. HENCE, JUST AS ALL THESE QUALITIES MUST BE PRESENT IN front
line workers WHILE considering all the VARIED possible meanings and contexts
associated WITH a youth’s troublesome behaviour, THEREFORE it seems only
reasonable and parallel to practice that supervisors EMBRACE THE MANY
FRAMES WITHIN the process of supervision.

The human resource frame EMPHASIZES on THE “needs of people”. Leaders

working within THIS FRAME CONSIDER the feelings and relationships BETWEEN
people, and BELIEVE THAT FACILITATION AND EMPOWERMENT ARE THE
KEYS FOR AN ORGANIZATION TO meet THE basic human needs. The political
frame focuses on “individual and group interests”. Political leaders negotiate
between groups WITH VARIED INTERESTS for THE use of limited resources AND
THUS, USE “NETWORKING AND NEGOTIATING COMPROMISES” TO build
power bases. The symbolic leader, ON THE OTHER HAND, CREATES “symbols
and culture” to DEFINE human behavior and a shared mission and identity for the
organization IS REFLECTED IN HIS PERSONALITY. AN enthusiasm, a sense of
charisma and drama IS IMPARTED to the organization BY THE LEADERS
WORKING WITHIN THIS FRAME.4,5

Although no theory PROVIDES a full explanation of organizational phenomenon,

THE FOUR FRAMED MODEL PRESENTS a useful tool WHICH ENABLES US to
focus ON the ASSESSMENT of THE ABOVE MENTIONED findings. ALL THESE
theories ARE complementary; each partialLY EXPLAINS THE HAPPENINGS in the
organization while implementing changeS IN THE program. Each perspective is
CONSIDERED DUE TO its ability to provide a unique but practical explanation for
THE MANY aspects of THE change process.
References

 Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry,

choice and leadership (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

 Sergiovanni, T. J. (1989). Informing professional practice in educational

administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 27(2), p. 186.

 Taylor, F. W. (1911/1967). The principles of scientific management.

New York: W. W. Norton.

 Austin, M. J., (1981) Supervisory Management for the Human

Services  Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc.
 Bolman, L.G and Deal, T.E., (2003) Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice, and Leadership, 3rd. ed., San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass
 Rivas R.F. (1998)., “Dismissing Problem Employees” in R.L Edwards,., J.A.
Yankey and M.A. Altpeter, Skills for Effective Management of Nonprofit
Organizations, Washington, DC: NASW Press
 Weber, M. (1930/1992). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism
(A. Giddens, Trans.). New York: Routledge.

 1. Axley, S. R. (1984). Managerial and Organizational Communication in

Terms of the Conduit Metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428-
437.
 2. Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, power and organization. Berlin,
Germany:Walterde Gruyter.
 3. Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A. and Mayes, B.
T.(1 979).Organizational Politics-Tactics and Characteristics of Its Actors.
California management review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 77.
 4. Allison, G.A. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile
Crisis.Little Brown, Boston.
 5. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
 6. Butcher, D. and Clarke, M. (2002) Organizational politics: The cornerstone
for organizational democracy. Organizational dynamics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 35.
 7. Buchanan, D. & Badham, R. (2007). Power, politics and organizational
change winning the turf game. London: Sage Publications (in press).
 20
 8. Bradshaw, P. (1998). Power as Dynamic Tension and Its Implications for
Radical
 Organizational Change. European Journal of Work and Organizational
 Psychology, 7(2), 121-143.
 9. Boston, R. (2000). College and Corporation: Institutional Power in the
Enterprise
 University. In S. Marginson & M. Considine (Eds.), The Enterprise University:
 Power, Governance, and Reinvention in Australia (pp. 96-133). Cambridge:
The
 Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
 10. Boeker, W. (1989) ‘The Development and Institutionalization of Subunit
Power
 in Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 388–410.
 11. Buchanan, D. & Huczynski, A. (2004). “Organizational Behaviour: An
 Introductory Text”, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow.
 12. Cliffs, N.J. and Lindblom, C.E. (1959).The Science of Muddling Through.
 Public Administration Review, 19(2).
 13. Cohen, A. (1974). Two dimensional man: An essay on the anthropology of
power and symbolism in complex society, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
 14. Day, P. and Klein, R. (1992). Constitutional and Distributional Conflict in
British
 Medical Politics: the Case of General Practice, 1911-1991, Political Studies,
40,3, 462-478.
 15. Drory, A. and Romm, T. (1990).The Definition of Organizational Politics: A
 Review. Human Relations, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 1133
 16. Edwards, M. (2001). Social Policy, Public Policy — From Problem to
Practice,
 Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
 17. Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. Middlesex: Peregrine
Books.
 18. Edwards, R. (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the
Workplace in
 the Twentieth Century. London: Heinemann.
 19. Friedman, A. (1977). Industry & Labour: Class Struggle at Work and
Monopoly
 Capitalism. London: Macmillan.
 20. Feldman, M.S. and March J.G.. (1981). Information in organizations as
signal
 and symbol. Admin. Sci. Quart. 26(2) 171-186.
 21. Geertz, C. (19731). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic
Books.
 21
 22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded
Theory:
 Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Press.
 23. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory. Modern Symbolic and
Postmodern
 Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
 24. Hardy, C. (1991). Pluralism, Power and Collegiality in Universities.
Financial
 Accountability and Management, 7(3), 127-142.
 25. Humphrey, C., & Scapens, R. W. (1996). Methodological Themes:
Theories and
 Case Studies of Organizational Accounting Practices: Limitation or
Liberation?
 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(4), 86-106.
 26. Hickson, D.J., R.J. Butler, D. Cray, G.R. Mallory, D.C. Wilson. 1986. Top
 Decisions. Blackwell, Oxford.
 27. Habermas, J. (1976). Communication and Evolution of Society. London:
 Heinemann Educational Books.
 28. Hardy, C., & Clegg, S.R. (1996). Some dare call it power. In S.R. Clegg,
C.
 Hardy, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 622–
641).
 London: Sage.
 29. Johnson, G. (1990). Managing strategic change; The role of symbolic
action.
 British Journal of Management, Vol. 1, pp. 183-200.
 30. Kotter, John P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.
 Harvard Business Review 73 ( 2 ): 59 – 67.
 31. Keeney, R.L. 1982. Decision Analysis: An Overview. Oper. Res. 30(5)
803-838.
 32. Pratt, J.W., H. Raiffa, R.O Schlaifer. 1964. The foundations of decision
under
 uncertainty: an elementary exposition. J. of the Amer. Statist. Association
59(306)
 353-375.
 33. Laroche, H. 1995. From decision to action in organizations: Decision-
making as a
 social representation. Organ. Sci. 6(1) 62-75.
 34. Layder, D. (1998). Sociological Practice. London: Sage Publications.
 35. —. (1994). Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage Publications.
 36. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and Around Organizations. Prentice-Hall,
 37. Machina M.J., Parker Ph., Sterman J., Weber E., Wernerfelt B., and
Wensley R.
 (1999). Bounded rationality modeling. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 233-248.
 38. Pettigrew, A. (1973).The politics of organizational decision-making.
London:
 Tavistock.
 39. —. (1977). Strategy formulation as a political process. International
studies of
management and organization, 7, 78–97.
 40. Poole, M.S. (2004). Central issues in the study of change and innovation.
In M.S.
Poole and A.H. Van de Ven (eds.), Handbook of organizational change and
Innovation (pp. 1-31). New York: Oxford University Press.
 41. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Marshall, VA: Pitman.
 42. —. (1992). Management with power. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School
Press.
 43. —. (1981).Management as symbolic action: The creation and
maintenance of
organizational paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3: 1–52.
 44. Riggs, F. (1964). Administration in Developing Countries. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
 45. Rafaeli, A., & Kluger, A. (1998). The cognitive and emotional influence of
service context on service quality: A model and initial findings. Unpublished
manuscript, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ISRAEL.
 46. Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential
Ethnographic Methods: Observation Interviews and Questionnaires. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, Sage Publishing.
 47. Schiff, M., & Lewin, A. (1983). The Impact of People on Budgets. In J. Bell
(Ed.), Accounting
 48. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology: An
Overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
 49. Schein, Edgar H. (1987). Process Consultation: Vol. 2. It’s Role in
Organizational Development. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
 50. Simon, H.A. (1957). Administrative behavior. Free Press, New York.

 51. —. (1976). From Substantive to Procedural Rationality. S. J. Latsis, ed.

Method
 and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 129-
148.
 52. —. (1976). Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-making
Processes in
 Administrative Organization, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York.
 53. Thomas, A. B. (2003). Controversies in management: Issues, debates,
answers.
 2nd ed. London: Rutledge.
 54. Trist, E. and Bramforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological
 consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations 4(1)
3-38.
 55. Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from
a trip
 down memory lane.Organ. Sci. 6(3) 280-321.