Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E Deal argue that reorganizations fail or succeed largely depending on how leaders navigate them through four key “frames” – structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. We need to see reorganizations as complex, multifaceted phenomena requiring adaptive thinking and a reframed perspective.
Structural Frame
- Focus: Roles, responsibilities, hierarchies, procedures.
- Risk: Overemphasis on charts and efficiency can ignore human factors.
- Effect: May increase clarity but reduce flexibility or morale.
Human Resource Frame
- Focus: People’s needs, relationships, skills, support.
- Risk: Reorganizations can cause anxiety, fear, or disengagement.
- Effect: Decreased morale and productivity.
Political Frame
- Focus: Power dynamics, coalitions, conflicts, winners/losers.
- Risk: Resistance and sabotage if power shifts are not managed.
- Effect: Can destabilize teams and create internal conflict.
Symbolic Frame
- Focus: Culture, values, meaning, rituals, stories.
- Risk: Reorganizations may feel like loss of identity or betrayal.
- Effect: Confusion or disengagement if cultural impact is ignored.
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized…I was to learn later in life that…we tend…to meet any situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
– Charlton Ogburn
Reflections
Wheelans IMGD model stipulates that groups go through four developmental phases and that we reach full potential (productivity) in the end phases. This model has smaller teams in mind but I think we can still assume that careless reorganizations will disrupt this process by shuffling team members.
Key Sources
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership.
Åkerlund, M., Jacobsson, C., & Tilin, F. (2021). The legacy of Susan Wheelan. Small Group Research, Vol. 52 103-109.