OAD Assignment 1 (2)

8/9/2019 OAD Assignment 1 (2)

1/24


2/24

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 pro spects. This hasbeen 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 organizations 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 w ay 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. (isnt 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 doesnt seem important here)


3/24

The Multiframe Leadership Model breaks down behavior into four frames:

Hu man Reso u rces : 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.

Str u ct u ral : A leader in the structural frame focuses on policy, procedures, and

outcomes. The work of the group is highlighted over the indiv idual. 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 traditi ons. An athletic director who

understands how to use this frame motivates others to work extremely hard for the

cause.


4/24

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 theorganisational 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 ext ernal 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 tha t 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 d ue to flaws in its members.

Bolman & Deal (1991, p. 355)


5/24

H uman 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 theorganization 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. H uman 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. H uman 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)


6/24

P olitical 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 lifein traditional organizations (Thomas, 2003).

The political frame attributes politics for the basic organizational features such as

interdependence, tolerance, power distance and scarcity. P olitics 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.

P ower 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. Mostlocal governments have zoning and tax regulations that are fa vourable 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, p rovide direction,

and anchor hope and faith. Many events are more significant for what they express


7/24

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 ( H ardy, 1991).

Viewed from such a perspective, those that are a ble to define the reality have

considerable power over those who accept the reality as their own (Bradshaw,

1998).


8/24

Discussion

AN ORGANIZATION COM P RISES OF A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK T H AT IS

COM P OSED OF A NUMBER OF AS P ECTS OF STRATEGICALLY P LANNED

CH ANGE IM P LEMENTATION T H AT VARY FROM ITS STRUCTURAL H IERARC H YTO T H E dynamics of power and politics TO interests, value, MEANING AND

ASSOCIATION. ALL T H ESE AS P ECTS, AND H ENCE AN ORGANIZATION ON

TH E W H OLE, 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 EXAMP

LE, FOCUSSING ONLY ON TH

E ORGANIZATIONS STRUCTUREOVERS H ADOWS T H E SIGNIFICANCE OF T H E social dynamics of relationships

that EFFECT changes WIT H IN IT. LIKEWISE, AN EM PH ASIS ONLY on social

relationships and T H E dynamics of power and politics OVERLOOKS the

organizational, professional and personal boundaries, both impl icit and explicit,

within AN ORGANIZATION.

TH E ABOVE STANCE CAN, AT BEST, BE RATIONALIZED VIA SCIENTIFIC

CALCULATION. H OWEVER, T H IS APP ROAC H 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, INCOR P ORATE and SU P ERVISE VARIATION. FACTS

H ELP DECIDE AND DETERMINE TEC H NICAL SOLUTIONS TO P ROBLEMS,

TH EREBY INVOLVING MORAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE DILEMMAS such as

IMP ARTIALITY of resource ALLOTMENT or equality of access to services that

require value-based judgment. IN ORDER TO ANALYZE H OW AN ORGANIZATION

FUNCTIONS, ALL TH

ESE ASP

ECTS ARE ESSENTIAL, BUT EACH

ALONECANNOT SUFFICIENTLY EX P LAIN TH E FACTORS AFFECTING T H E END-

P RODUCT OF P LANNED ORGANIZATIONAL C H ANGE. ALT H OUG H IT IS CLEAR

NOW T H AT AN ORGANIZATION CAN BE STUDIED IN ITS TOTALITY ONLY BY

ASSESSING ALL T H E FRAMEWORKS TOGET H ER, YET A SECONDARY

approach is to ANALYSE the relevance of each theoretical view SE P ARATELY.


9/24

Selecting the correct frame for supervision

Ernie Hilton

TH E EX P ERIENCE FOR BOT H TH E SU P ERVISOR AND T H E SU P ERVISEE CAN

BE SIGNIFICANTLY IM P ACTED BASED ON H OW T H EY C H OOSE TO

INTER P RET T H E VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WIT H IN TH E MANY FRAMES IN

SU P ERVISION. T H US, T H E MANNER IN W H ICH A SU P ERVISOR C H OOSES TO

FRAME AN EX P ERIENCE, S H ALL ULTIMATELY DECIDE W H ET H ER T H E

ACCURATE CONTEXT C H OSEN DURING T H E INTERACTION IS ACTUALLY

RECKLESS OR P RECISE. In the book, Reframing Organizations , the authors,

Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest T H AT ORGANIZATIONS ARE

CONCEP

TUALIZED BY LEADERS within four frames of reference; str u ct u ral , hu man reso u rce , political and symbolic . Although broad in

scope these frames undeniably exist within organizations and teams. A

SU P ERVISOR IS RENDERED A GREATER P RECISION IN UNDERSTANDING

TH E VARIED CIRCUMSTANCES WIT H IN TH E SU P ERVISION P ROCESS IF H E IS

ABLE TO CLEARLY VISUALIZE T H E FOUR CONTEXTS WIT H IN TH E

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). T H E ARC H ITECTURE OF

TH E ORGANIZATION IS BEST ABSORBED BY AN EM P LOYEE WIT H IN TH IS

FRAME AND INCLUDES ALL T H E policies, rules and roles, guidelines for practice

and performance, and how decisions are made. This frame tends to H AVE AN

endless supply of content available fo r 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 SU P ERVISORS TO DO T H E

REQUIRED H OMEWORK. 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 P ROVIDE T H E NECESSARY STRUCTURE W H ILE


10/24

DEVELO P ING CORE COM P ETENCIES, there MUST be no S H ORT CUTS in

supervision, IRRES P ECTIVE OF H OW BORING OR MUNDANE IT MAY BE. TO BE

A LEADER WIT H IN TH E STRUCTURAL FRAME IN SU P ERVISION IT IS

IMP ERATIVE TO have written clarity in areas of job performance W H ICH ARE

FURT H ER 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 SupervisionThe human resource frame IS P ER H AP S 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). T H IS frame OFTEN SEES the structurally dependent

supervisor and the human resource biased supervisor collide. W H ILE T H E FOCUS

OF T H E structural frame LIES MOSTLY on T H E enforcement of rules, policies and

guidelines necessary for predictable operations, the human resource frame, ON T H E

OT H ER H AND, predominately CATERS TO T H E needs of people REGARDINGpolicy and contracts, W H ICH TH EREFORE LEADS TO T H E TWO COLLIDING

when T H EY are in competing positions or not balanced in operations. Compassion,

support and empowerment are ESSENTIAL TO T H E H UMAN 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

ADO P TING T H E OLD ADAGE OF P UTTING P EO P LE FIRST, T H IS FRAME

EMPH ASIZES MORE ON P RODUCTIVITY T H ROUG H P EO P LE, T H EREBY

P ROMOTING coaching, mutuality, participation, facilitation and empowerment.

Effective human resource leaders ADO P T TH E NOTION T H AT employees are

respected, worthwhile and ARE essentially RES P ONSIBLE FOR T H E SUCCESS

OF an organization. A supervisor, who SU PP ORTS employee needs AS A P ART OF


11/24

TH E SU P ERVISION P ROCESS, JUSTIFIES the existence of the human resource

frame and its relevance as an integral part of A SUCCESSFUL organization .

P olitical Frame in Supervision

ABSTRACTLY KNOWN AS the jungle, or what Bolman and Deal call the politicalframe of an organization (p.433). T H ERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO T H IS supervision

P ROCESS IN T H AT IT ALLOWS political supervisors to be realists AS REGARDS

TH E OFTEN- P RESENT SCARCE RESOURCES AVAILABLE. W H ILE IT IS

REQUIRED OF A human resource leader to put the needs of an individual over the

organization's limitations T H EREBY P OSSIBLY EVEN JEO P ARDISING T H E

resources for others; A political leader, CONVERSELY, AFTER ESTIMATING the

reality AND LIMITATIONS of the situation MUST REAC H an agreement within

supervision without offending, or creating illusions or false promises. In supervisionthe political goal is to balance these scarce resources again st divergent interests of

individuals in relation to the needs of the masses (p.197).

TH E P OLITICAL FRAME IN SU P ERVISION AIMS AT UNITING AN

ORGANIZATIONS TEAMS AND MEMBERS WIT H ITS GOALS AND VISION. T H IS

ENSURES A GREATER FOCUS ON P LANNING STRATEGIES AND TACTICS

FOR ACCOM P LISH ING GOALS RAT H ER T H AN JUST RESOLVING CONFLICTS.

DAMAGE COULD BE CAUSED TO T H E IDEAS BE H IND T H E ROLE OF

SU P ERVISION FOR AN ORGANIZATION T H EREBY EVEN AFFECTING T H E

RES P ECTIVE RELATIONS H IP S IN QUESTION BY A SU P ERVISOR W H O

MISREADS T H E CONTEXT OF T H E SU P ERVISION P ROCESS AND LACKS

P OLITICAL WISDOM. A S H REWD political supervisor ACCE P TS CONFLICTS AND

CH ALLENGES as AREAS GENERATING interest and curiosity rather than BEING

INCAP ACITATING and harsh. IN FRONT LINE P RACTICE, YOUT H AND FAMILIES

TYP ICALLY P LAY WIT H TH E NOTION OF BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATING, AN

EXAMP LE BEING A strategy in an intervention plan GENERATING a therapeuticchange VERSUS a political intervention INTENTIONALLY designed to AFFECT the

youth. T H E SAME ARGUMENT S H OULD T H US H OLD TRUE EVEN WIT H IN TH E

CONTEXT OF SU P ERVISION.


12/24

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,

TH

IS FRAME IS AS ESSENTIAL FOR TH

E SUCCESS OF AN ORGANIZATION AS ARE T H E OT H ER FRAMES. EVERY ORGANIZATION H AS A CULTURE

ASSIGNED TO ITS SU P ERVISION P ROCESS T H AT MUST BE CAREFULLY

ORGANIZED LEST IT GENERATE NEGATIVE ASSOCIATIONS. T H IS CULTURE

OF SU P ERVISION, ESTABLIS H ED BY T H E SU P ERVISOR, H AS A CERTAIN

P OWER W H ICH WH EN UNDERESTIMATED P RODUCES T H E SAME EFFECT AS

TH AT GENERATED U P ON UNDERESTIMATION OF T H E EXTENSIVE IM P ACTS

OF INS P IRATION OR DE P RECIATION IN AN ORGANIZATION. AN

ORGANIZATION W H ERE T H E SU P ERVISION P ROCESS IS ACCE P TED BY T H ESU P ERVISOR AS A REGULAR RITUAL T H ROUG H S H ARING EX P ERIENCES

AND STORIES, AND CASTING VALIANT INTERVENTIONS AS FABLED

EXAMP LES OF TREATMENT IS ONE T H AT EMBRACES a symbolic frame.

Supervision CAN INS P IRE EM P LOYEES IF MEANING AND P UR P OSE IS

ASSOCIATED WIT H WH AT IS DONE. OFTEN feeling, ATTAC H ED WIT H the

purpose that is greater than self, can EASILY MOTIVATE. INDIVIDUALS CAN

TH US BE UNITED WIT H IN A CULTURE OF S H ARED BELIEFS AND VALUES

TH EREBY CREATING SCO P E FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION ANDBUILDING A SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATION. SOLIDARITY AND A CO H ESIVE

CULTURE CAN T H US BE CREATED AMONG TEAMMATES W H ILE EM P LOYEES

CAN BE GUIDED BY T H E symbolic language found in posted organizational tenants

or team charters, T H EREBY GENERATING GREATER O PP ORTUNITIES FOR

CONSISTENT practice and service delivery.


13/24

Relationship between Frames

C ulture and structure

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IS INTERLINKED WIT H ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURE IN T H AT T H E TWO CANNOT BE READ SE P ARATELY OR BE

CLEARLY DEFINED WIT H IN AN INSTITUTION. IT IS SAFE TO SAY T H AT

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE EXISTS AND FUNCTIONS WIT H IN AN

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.

Organizational STRUCTURE IS CONTAINED WIT H IN TH E ORGANIZATIONAL

culture, WH

ICH

IS A BROADER SP

ECTRUM OF SMALLER ISSUES WITH

IN TH

EORGANIZATION. T H E INFRASTRUCTURE OF AN ORGANIZATION, ALONGWIT H

ITS MANY P RACTICES AND MET H ODS, ENSURE A STABLE AND EFFICIENT

FUNCTIONING OF ITS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, W H ET H ER T H E

ORGANIZATION IN QUESTION IS A COR P ORATION OR SIM P LY A S P ORTS

TEAM.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE BASICALLY SU PP ORTS T H E

ESTABLIS H MENT OF T H E ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE WIT H IN ANY

ORGANIZATION. EXAM P LES S H OWCASING T H E DIRECT DE P ENDENCE OF

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE INCLUDE

H OW MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS WIT H IN TH E ORGANIZATION, T H E

RES P ONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED S P ECIFICALLY TO SU P ERVISORS, AND T H E

P ROCEDURE OF P ASSING COM P LAINTS T H ROUG H TH E RANKS.

TO SUCCESSFULLY ASSESS ANY ORGANIZATION, IT IS ESSENTIAL T H AT WE

ANALYSE H OW ITS STRUCTURE ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS. T H E STRUCTURE

DEFINES T H E MANNER IN W H ICH VARIOUS INTERLINKED GROU P S ARE

ESTABLIS H ED WIT H IN AN ORGANIZATION IN ORDER FOR T H EM TO

FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY. A SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

AIMS AT P ROMOTING EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN T H E MANYP ARTS OF AN ORGANIZATION AS ALSO EN H ANCING T H E COORDINATION

BETWEEN ITS VARIOUS DE P ARTMENTS.


14/24

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE MAY ALSO BE COM P ARTMENTALIZED INTO

VARIOUS CATEGORIES SO AS TO DEFINE T H E PH ASES MANY BUSINESSES

EXP ERIENCE W H ILE GROWING IN SIZE AND SCO P E. T H E P RE-

BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE, T H E FIRST PH ASE, IS KNOWN FOR T H E

ABSENCE OF A STRUCTURE T H AT STANDARDIZES TASKS, AND IS T H USSUITABLE FOR SMALLER ESTABLIS H MENTS T H AT NEED TO BE ADA P TIVE

DUE TO LESSER RE P EAT SCENARIOS. The BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE,

TH E SECOND PH ASE, INVOLVES A CERTAIN EXTENT OF STANDARDIZATION

IN P AP ERWORK AND OT H ER P ROCESSES, AND IS T H US SUITED FOR

LARGER BUSINESSES. T H E TERM BUREAUCRACY, T H OUG H BEING

SOMEW H AT NEGATIVE IN NATURE, IS H ELP FUL IN TACKLING ISSUES T H AT

COULD BECOME INVETERATE T H EMES IN SUC H LARGE ESTABLIS H MENTS.

FINALLY, WE H AVE T H E P OST-BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE , W H ICH IS

SLIG H TLY TENUOUS IN NATURE AND IS MORE T H EORETICAL, T H OUG H IT

RELATES MORE TO T H E RECENT, CULTURE-BASED MODELS OF

SU P ERVISING.

TH US, T H E CULTURE AND T H E STRUCTURE OF AN ORGANIZATION ARE SO

INTERTWINED T H AT IT CAN BE H ARD TO DISTINGUIS H BETWEEN T H EM,

WH ICH IS RAT H ER AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF ANY SUCCESSFULLY

FUNCTIONING ORGANIZATION.

Relation between P olitics and Structure

TH E P OLITICS WIT H IN ANY ORGANIZATION GOES H AND-IN- H AND WIT H TH E

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. ANY ORGANIZATION COM P RISES OF A

SU P ERVISOR W H O H AS SOME DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER T H EIR

SUBORDINATE IN TERMS OF T H E SUBORDINATE BEING DE P ENDANT ON

TH EM FOR FAVOURS INVOLVING ALLOCATION OF WORK, WORK

SC H EDULES, JOB SECURITY ,TRANSFERS, P ROMOTIONS, ETC. LIKEWISE,

TH E SU P ERVISOR ALSO DE P ENDS ON T H EIR SUBORDINATE FOR

INFORMATION AND T H E OVERALL WORK P LACE EFFICIENCY AND

P RODUCTIVITY. T H US, BOT H TH E SU P ERIOR AND T H E SUBORDINATE


15/24

S H ARE A RELATIONS H IP OF MUTUAL INTERDE P ENDENCE, W H ERE BOT H

ARE ABLE TO CONTROL T H E BE H AVIOUR OF EAC H OT H ER AND H AVE A

CERTAIN DEGREE OF P OWER OVER EAC H OT H ER. T H EREFORE,

DE P ENDING ON T H E CIRCUMSTANCES, EAC H H AS T H E P OWER TO

MANIP ULATE T H E OT H ER WIT H IN TH E ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. SUC H CO-DE P ENDENCY RELATIONS H IP S ARE AN INTEGRAL P ART OF ALL

ORGANIZATIONS, W H ET H ER SMALL OR LARGE.

Relation between Human Resource and Structure

A H IGH P ERFORMANCE ORGANIZATION OR AN HP O EMBRACES

INTELLECTUAL CA P ITAL, AS ITS BASIC P REMISE, W H ICH ENCOM P ASSES

ALL TH E knowledge, expertise, and dedication of an organizations workforce.

TH EREBY, INS P ITE OF ALL T H E TEC H NOLOGY AND MEC H ANIZATION TODAY,

IT IS T H E MANUAL WORKFORCE T H AT ACTS AS T H E MOST VITAL HUM AN

RESO U RCE , CONTRIBUTING DIRECTLY TOWARDS EN H ANCING AN

organizations purpose, mission, and strategies.

MOST WORK FLOW IS SYSTEMATIZED AND CONCENTRATED AROUND T H E

FOCAL BUSINESS P ROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES, AND WORK TEAMS ARE

ORGANIZED IN ORDER TO EX P OUND ON T H IS INTELLECTUAL CA P ITAL

WITH IN HP Os. T H E EM PH ASIS IS ON ADO P TING H UMAN RESOURCE

P OLICIES T H AT AUGMENT employee flexibility, skills, knowledge, and motivation.

TH ERE ARE FEWER LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT IN AN HP O, H ENCE

TRANSFORMING T H E FUNCTIONING OF MANAGERS, W H OSE FOCUS S H IFTS

FROM DIRECT ORDER-GIVING TO TRAINING, integrating the work of T H E teams

with each other, and facilitating T H EIR work IN ORDER TO BOT H SUCCESSFULLY

COM P LETE T H EIR JOBS and SATISFY customer expectations.


16/24


17/24

Conclusion

The NOTION of multi-framing supervision H ELP S a supervisor understand how best

to be helpful in building T H EIR ORGANIZATIONAL capacity. Diversity in thinking

which STEMS FROM being aware of VARIED themes ENABLES T H E supervisor toconsider SEVERAL ways of interpreting problems ALONGWIT H TH EIR possible

solutions. H ENCE, JUST AS ALL T H ESE QUALITIES MUST BE P RESENT IN front

line workers W H ILE considering all the VARIED possible meanings and contexts

associated WIT H a youths troublesome behaviour , T H EREFORE it seems only

reasonable and parallel to practice that supervisors EMBRACE T H E MANY

FRAMES WIT H IN the process of supervision.

The human resource frame EMPH

ASIZES on TH

E needs of people. Leadersworking within T H IS FRAME CONSIDER the feelings and relationships BETWEEN

people, and BELIEVE T H AT FACILITATION AND EM P OWERMENT ARE T H E

KEYS FOR AN ORGANIZATION TO meet T H E basic human needs. The political

frame focuses on individual and group interests . P olitical leaders negotiate

between groups WIT H VARIED INTERESTS for T H E use of limited resources AND

TH US, USE NETWORKING AND NEGOTIATING COM P ROMISES TO build

power bases. The symbolic leader, ON T H E OT H ER H AND, CREATES symbols

and culture to DEFINE human behavior and a shared mission and identity for theorganization IS REFLECTED IN H IS P ERSONALITY. AN enthusiasm, a sense of

charisma and drama IS IM P ARTED to the organization BY T H E LEADERS

WORKING WIT H IN TH IS FRAME. 4,5

Although no theory P ROVIDES a full explanation of organizational phenomenon,

TH E FOUR FRAMED MODEL P RESENTS a useful tool W H ICH ENABLES US to

focus ON the ASSESSMENT of T H E ABOVE MENTIONED findings. ALL T H ESE

theories ARE complementary; each partialLY EX P LAINS T H E H APP ENINGS in the

organization while implementing change S IN T H E program. Each perspective is

CONSIDERED DUE TO its ability to provide a unique but practical explanation for

TH E MANY aspects of T H E change process.


18/24


19/24

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 H ills, CA: Sage

P ublications, Inc.

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

administration. J ou rnal of Ed u cational Administration, 27 (2), p. 186.

Taylor, F. W. (1911/1967). T he principles of scientific management .

New York: W. W. Norton.

Austin, M. J., (1981) S u pervisory M anagement for the Hu manServices Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: P rentice H all 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 P roblem Employees in R.L Edwards,., J.A.

Yankey and M.A. Altpeter, Skills for Effective M anagement of Nonprofit

Organizations , Washington, DC: NASW P ress

Weber, M. (1930/1992). T he 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 M anagement Review, 9, 428-

437.

2. Alvesson, M. (1996). Comm u nication, power and organization . Berlin,

Germany:Walterde Gruyter.

3. Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., P orter, L. W., Renwick, P . A. and Mayes, B.

T.(1 979).Organizational P olitics -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 C u ban M issile

Crisis. Little Brown, Boston.

5. Braverman, H . (1974). Labor and M onopoly Capital . New York: Monthly

Review P ress.


20/24

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 t u rf game. London: Sage P ublications (in press).

208. Bradshaw, P . (1998). P ower as Dynamic Tension and Its Implications for

Radical

Organizational Change. E u ropean J ou rnal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 7 (2), 121-143.

9. Boston, R. (2000). College and Corporation: In stitutional P ower in the

Enterprise

University. In S. Marginson & M. Considine (Eds.), T he Enterprise U niversity:

Power, Governance, and Reinvention in A u stralia (pp. 96-133). Cambridge:

The

P ress Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

10. Boeker, W. (1989) The Development and Institutionalization of Subunit

P ower

in Organizations, Administrative Science Q u arterly 34: 388410.

11. Buchanan, D. & H uczynski, A. (2004). Organizational Behavio u r: An

Introd u ctory T ext , Financial Times P rentice H all, H arlo w.

12. Cliffs, N.J. and Lindblom, C.E. (1959).The Science of Muddling Through.

P u blic 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 P aul, London

14. Day, P . and Klein, R. (1992). Constitutional and Distributional Conflict in

British

Medical P olitics: the Case of General P ractice, 1911 -1991, P olitical Studies,

40,3, 462-478.

15. Drory, A. and Romm, T. (1990).The Definition of Organizat ional P olitics: A

Review. Hu man Relations, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 1133

16. Edwards, M. (2001). Social Policy, P u blic Policy From Problem to

Practice,

Allen & Unwin, Sydney.


21/24

17. Foucault, M. (1978). T he H istory of Sex u ality . Middlesex: P eregrine

Books.

18. Edwards, R. (1979) Contested T errain: T he T ransformation of the

Workplace in

the T wentieth Cent u ry . London: H einemann.19. Friedman, A. (1977). Ind u stry & Labo u r: Class Str u ggle at Work and

M onopoly

Capitalism . London: Macmillan.

20. Feldman, M.S. and March J.G.. (1981). Information in organizations as

signal

and symbol. Admin. Sci. Q u art. 26(2) 171-186.

21. Geertz, C. (19731). T he Interpretation of C u lt u res. New York: Basic

Books.

21

22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). T he Discovery of Gro u nded T heory:

Strategies for Q u alitative Research . Chicago: Aldine P ress.

23. H atch, M. J. (1997). Organization T heory. M odern Symbolic and

Postmodern

Perspectives . Oxford University P ress.

24. H ardy, C. (1991). P luralism, P ower and Collegiality in Universities.

Financial

Acco u ntability and M anagement, 7 (3), 127-142.

25. H umphrey, C., & Scapens, R. W. (1996). Methodological Themes:

Theories and

Case Studies of Organizational Accounting P racti ces: Limitation or

Liberation?

Acco u nting, A u diting and Acco u ntability J ou rnal, 9 (4), 86-106.

26. H ickson, D.J., R.J. Butler, D. Cray, G.R. Mallory, D.C. Wilson. 1986. T op

Decisions . Blackwell, Oxford.

27. H abermas, J. (1976). Comm u nication and Evol u tion of Society . London:

H einemann Educational Books.

28. H ardy, C., & Clegg, S.R. (1996). Some dare call it power. In S.R. Clegg,

C.


22/24

H ardy, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), H andbook of organizational st u dies (pp. 622

641).

London: Sage.

29. Johnson, G. (1990). Managing stra tegic change; The role of symbolic

action. British J ou rnal of M anagement , Vol. 1, pp. 183-200.

30. Kotter, John P . (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.

H arvard B u siness Review 73 ( 2 ): 59 67.

31. Keeney, R.L. 1982. Decision Analysis: An Overview. Oper. Res. 30(5)

803-838.

32. P ratt, 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 P ublications.

35. . (1994). U nderstanding Social T heory . London: Sage P ublications.

36. Mintzberg, H . (1983). Power in and Aro u nd Organizations. P rentice- H all,

37. Machina M.J., P arker P h., Sterman J., Weber E., Wernerfelt B., and

Wensley R.

(1999). Bounded rationality modeling. M arketing Letters , 10(3) , 233-248.

38. P ettigrew, A. (1973).The politics of organizational decision -making.

London:

Tavistock.

39. . (1977). Strategy formulation as a political process . International

st u dies of

management and organization , 7 , 7897.

40. P oole, M.S. (2004). Central issues in the study of change and innovation.

In M.S.

P oole and A. H . Van de Ven (eds.), H andbook of organizational change and

Innovation (pp. 1-31). New York: Oxford University P ress.


23/24

41. P feffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations . Marshall, VA: P itman.

42. . (1992). M anagement with power . Boston, MA: H arvard Business

School

P ress.

43. . (1981).Management as symbolic action: The creation andmaintenance of

organizational paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior , 3: 152.

44. Riggs, F. (1964). Administration in Developing Co u ntries. Boston:

H oughton 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, H ebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ISRAEL.

46. Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential

Ethnographic M ethods: Observation Interviews and Q u estionnaires . Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira P ress, Sage P ublishing.

47. Schiff, M., & Lewin, A. (1983). The Impact of P eople on Budgets. In J. Bell

(Ed.), Acco u nting

48. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology: An

Overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), H andbook of Q u alitative

Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage P ublications.

49. Schein, Edgar H . (1987). Process Cons u ltation: Vol. 2. Its Role in

Organizational Development . 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

50. Simon, H .A. (1957). Administrative behavior . Free P ress, New York.

51. . (1976). From Substantive to P rocedural Rationality . S. J. Latsis, ed.M ethod

and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge University P ress, Cambridge, 129-

148.

52. . (1976). Administrative Behavio u r: A St u dy of Decision-making

Processes in

Administrative Organization, 3rd ed., Free P ress, New York.

53. Thomas, A. B. (2003). Controversies in management: Iss u es, debates,

answers .

2nd ed. London: Rutledge.


24/24

54. Trist, E. and Bramforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological

consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Hu man Relations 4(1)

3-38.

55. Walsh, J. P . (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from

a tripdown memory lane. Organ. Sci. 6(3) 280-321.

OAD Assignment 1 (2)

Documents

Transcript of OAD Assignment 1 (2)