LEADERSHIP COACHING – THE FOUR FRAMEWORK MODEL.


In the Four Framework Approach, Bolman and Deal (1991) suggest that leaders display leadership behaviours in one of four types of frameworks: Structural, Human Resource, Political, or Symbolic. The style can either be effective or ineffective, depending upon the chosen behaviour in certain situations.

1. STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK: In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a SOCIAL ARCHITECT whose leadership style is analysis and design. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a PETTY TYRANT whose leadership style is details. structural leaders focus on structure, strategy, environment, implementation, experimentation, and adaptation.

2. HUMAN RESOURCE FRAMEWORK: In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a CATALYST and servant whose leadership style is support, advocate, and empowerment. while in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a PUSHOVER, whose leadership style is abdication and fraud. Human Resource Leaders believe in people and communicate that belief; they are visible and accessible; they empower, increase participation, support, share information, and move decision making down into the organisation.

3. POLITICAL FRAMEWORK: In an effective leadership situation, the leader is an ADVOCATE, whose leadership style is coalition and building. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a HUSTLER, whose leadership style is manipulation. Political leaders clarify what they want and what they can get; they assess the distribution of power and interests; they build linkages to other stakeholders, use persuasion first, then use negotiation and coercion only if necessary.

4. SYMBOLIC FRAMEWORK: In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a PROPHET, whose leadership style is inspiration. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a FANATIC or fool, whose leadership style is smoke and mirrors. Symbolic leaders view organisations as a stage or theatre to play certain roles and give impressions; these leaders use symbols to capture attention; they try to frame experience by providing plausible interpretations of experiences; they discover and communicate a vision.

This model suggests that leaders can be put into one of these four categories and there are times when one approach is appropriate and times when it would not be. Any one of these approaches alone would be inadequate, thus we should strive to be conscious of all four approaches, and not just rely on one or two.

For example, during a major organisation change, a STRUCTURAL LEADERSHIP STYLE may be more effective than a VISIONARY LEADERSHIP STYLE; while during a period when strong growth is needed, the visionary approach may be better. We also need to understand ourselves as each of us tends to have a preferred approach. We need to be conscious of these at all times and be aware of the limitations of our favouring just one approach.

Share on Social Media

Leave a comment