The Human Resource Frame of Leadership

Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four frames model of organizations and leadership is a versatile tool for managers. This article delves into the human resource frame of their 4-frame model — its assumptions, dimensions, examples, tensions, and what makes leaders effective in the human resource aspect.

These insights come from my notes on "Reframing Organizations" and "How Great Leaders Think." I use this framework in my coaching and created this series to benefit others. Their body of work is essential reading for leaders and managers. Links to sources and other posts in this series are at the bottom.

The relationship between organizations and people has evolved from the industrial revolution's 'cogs in the machine' mentality to today's focus on employee engagement. Bolman and Deal's human resource frame of leadership focuses on this often tense and intricate relationship.

What is the human resource frame

The human resource frame of leadership focuses on aligning organizational and employee needs. This frame is built on the foundation that organizations and people are interdependent, emphasizing that mutual benefit leads to excellence and fulfillment.

Organizations crave the energy, effort, and talent people bring. In return, people seek tangible and intangible rewards from their workplace. When these needs align, it sparks organizational excellence and personal fulfillment.

Leaders embracing this frame act as facilitators, empowering employees through support, active listening, and creating an inclusive environment. They recognize the importance of relationships and collaboration. These leaders adopt "high-involvement" strategies to cultivate an engaged workforce, moving away from outdated practices that stifle human beings.

Neglecting the human resource frame results in a disengaged workforce and underperforming organization. While downsizing and outsourcing might offer short-term flexibility, they risk eroding the foundation of organizational strength – the loyalty and expertise of its workforce.

Conversely, successfully applying this approach creates a cycle of meaningful work and organizational success, turning investment in people into a competitive advantage.

Assumptions of the human resource frame

Companies often see individuals as tools to achieve organizational goals. However, aligning individual and organizational needs harnesses talent and energy, benefiting the enterprise.

The human resource frame prioritizes the latter. Its assumptions are:

Service to human needs: Organizations exist primarily to meet human needs, not the other way around.
Mutual necessity: Both people and organizations need each other. Organizations require ideas, energy, and talent, while individuals need careers, salaries, and opportunities.
Consequences of poor fit: When alignment between individuals and organizations is poor, either or both suffer. Individuals may feel exploited or may exploit the organization, leading to mutual detriment.
Mutually beneficial fit: A strong alignment benefits both parties. Individuals find meaningful work, and organizations gain the talent and energy necessary for success.

Organizations and individuals have different but related concerns:

Organizations ask, “How do we find and retain people with the skills and attitudes to do the work?”

Workers want to know, “How well will this place work for me?”

These two questions are closely related, because “fit” is a function of at least three things:
(1) how well an organization responds to individual desires for useful work;
(2) how well jobs let employees express their skills and sense of self; and
(3) how well work fulfills individual financial and lifestyle needs.

— Lee Bolman, Terrence Deal

Dimensions of the human resource frame

When operating from this lens, the focus is on:

HR strategy: Define and communicate the philosophy for managing people. Establish systems and practices to support this.
Recruitment: Focus on hiring the right individuals. Be clear about hiring needs and being selective in recruitment.
Retention: Compensate employees fairly and prioritize keeping talented ones. Ensure job security and promote from within.
Investment: Invest in employee growth and share the profits.
Empowerment: Enable employees to take initiative and make decisions. Encourage autonomy and participation. Allow job redesign to enhance engagement. Support self-managing teams.
Diversity: Promote a diverse workforce. Clearly articulate and follow the organization’s diversity philosophy and hold managers accountable for initiatives.

Another lens for understanding these human resource frame challenges is Herzberg’s hygiene vs motivation factors.

Examples of the human resource frame

Famous examples of companies prioritizing the human resource frame include:

Google's "20% time" policy allowed employees to spend 20% of their work time on personal projects. This resulted in innovations like Gmail and Google News.
Costco offers above-average wages and comprehensive benefits, including health insurance for part-time workers.
Zappos empowers its customer service representatives to make decisions without managerial approval, even allowing them to send flowers to customers in certain situations. This showcases trust in employees and encouragement of autonomy.
Patagonia offers on-site childcare, flexible work hours, and encourages outdoor activities. This aligns with the human resource frame's focus on meeting individual needs and creating a fulfilling work environment.
Starbucks offers full tuition coverage for eligible employees to complete a bachelor's degree online.
Toyota's suggestion system encourages all employees to suggest improvements to the manufacturing process, demonstrating a commitment to participation and valuing their expertise.

These examples showcase different aspects of the human resource frame, from empowerment and investment to compensation and work-life balance.

Tensions of the human resource frame

As with the other frames, there are inherent tensions in this approach:

Investment vs. cost: Organizations must invest in their people for long-term success, but during financial difficulties, this can be seen as a short-term cost.
Empowerment vs. control: While it is crucial to empower employees, organizations still need to maintain control and direction.
Individual needs vs. organizational goals: Balancing the needs and desires of individual employees with the broader goals of the organization is challenging.
Flexibility vs. consistency: Adapting to individual employee needs while maintaining consistent policies and practices.
Retention vs. fresh perspectives: Promoting from within and ensuring job security can conflict with the need for new ideas and external talent.
Work-life balance vs. organizational demands: Supporting employees' personal lives while meeting the organization's productivity needs.
Diversity vs. cohesion: Promoting diversity while maintaining a strong, unified organizational culture.
Autonomy vs. teamwork: Encouraging individual initiative while fostering collaborative team environments.
Development vs. performance: Balancing employee growth and learning with immediate performance demands.

Paradox is in the very nature of managerial and leadership work.

Effective leaders in the human resource frame

Leaders who excel in the human resource frame follow a consistent set of people-centric principles:

They communicate a strong belief in people.

They have an unwavering belief in people, often expressing this through a formal philosophy or credo. Herb Kelleher, co-founder of Southwest Airlines, believed that happy employees lead to happy customers. This belief is reflected in their core value: "Employees come first." Kelleher famously said: "You have to treat your employees like customers. When you treat them right, then they will treat your outside customers right."

They are visible and accessible.

Remember "management by wandering around"? Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors, embraced this approach throughout her career. Despite her high-level position, she regularly visits GM factories and dealerships, engaging directly with employees at all levels. In one instance, Barra spent time on the assembly line at GM's Orion plant, working alongside workers to understand their day-to-day challenges.

They empower others.

Employees are called "partners" or "associates," emphasizing their stake in the company's success. Ritz-Carlton empowers people through its "2,000 rule," allowing any employee, regardless of position, to spend up to $2,000 per guest, per incident, to resolve a customer issue or enhance a guest's experience without needing supervisor approval. This enables staff to make quick decisions in crucial moments, from replacing a damaged item to arranging special services.

These leaders in effect understand what I call the Human OS.

In essence, leaders who focus on the human resource frame create an environment where employees feel valued, heard, and empowered to contribute meaningfully to the organization's success.

The human resource frame reminds us that organizations are more than structures and strategies—they're communities of individuals. Effective leaders recognize that aligning organizational needs with employee aspirations isn't just good for morale—it's essential for long-term success.

This is one in a series of posts on the Bolman-Deal 4 frames model. Here are the other ones in this series:

Overview of Bolman-Deal 4 frames of leadership
Political frame
Structural frame
Symbolic frame

Sources

Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal
How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal
Wizard and the Warrior: Leading with Passion and Soul by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal