The Structural Frame of Leadership

The structural frame is one of Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four frames model of leadership and organizations. In this piece I delve deeper into the structural frame of leadership — what it entails, its assumptions, dimensions, examples, tensions, and what makes leaders effective in the structural aspect.

These insights are drawn from my notes on their books, "Reframing Organizations" and "How Great Leaders Think." I frequently use their framework in my coaching and decided to create 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 of this post.

Why do some organizations thrive in chaos while others crumble? Through the structural lens of Bolman and Deal's four-frame model, we explore how effective leadership is deeply intertwined with organizational design and structure.

What is the structural frame

When we think of an organization, the typical image is an org chart—a series of boxes and lines representing responsibilities and hierarchy, often shaped like a pyramid. This typical way of how we understand organizations reflects the structural view, but the structural lens goes much deeper into social architecture and its consequences.

Although often equated with bureaucracy, the structural frame includes both rigid hierarchies and freewheeling task forces.
Ignoring structure can lead to wasted resources on solving problems incorrectly attributed to individual skills rather than organizational design. Changing people without addressing structural issues often leads to recurring problems.
Organizations create specialized roles and units to divide work. Effective procedures are needed to integrate these specialized elements.
The right structure depends on factors like goals, strategy, technology, people, and environment. When done well it helps the organization achieve its goals and allows everyone to see their role in the larger system.

The structural frame emphasizes the importance of a well-defined social architecture in achieving organizational effectiveness, with leaders playing a crucial role in designing and maintaining this structure. From a structural perspective then, the role of the leader entails:

Clear goals and relationships: Leaders must clarify goals, roles, and relationships to align with the business’s needs.
Avoiding confusion: Without a clear structure, people are uncertain about their roles, leading to confusion and frustration.
Logical focus: Leaders should focus on tasks, facts, and logic rather than personalities and emotions, as many issues arise from structural flaws.

Assumptions of the structural frame

The structural frame of leadership is built on a belief in rationality and the idea that well-defined roles and responsibilities ensure focused effort and minimize distractions. The premise is to direct people effectively, defining their jobs and how they collaborate.

The six core assumptions of the structural frame are:

Goal orientation: Organizations aim to achieve established goals and devise strategies accordingly.
Efficiency through specialization: Specialization and proper division of labor enhance efficiency and performance.
Coordination and control: Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that the efforts of individuals and units align seamlessly.
Rationality: Organizations function best when rationality prevails over personal agendas and outside pressures.
Fit with circumstances: An effective structure aligns with the organization’s current strategy, technology, workforce, and environment.
Problem solving and restructuring: When structural flaws impact performance, problem-solving and restructuring are the preferred remedies.

Dimensions of the structural frame

Why do organizations pick a certain structure while others pick a different one? Here are some of the factors:

Size and age: Larger, older organizations evolve to be more complex and formal.
Core processes: Simple structures suit stable tasks, while complexity necessitates flexibility.
Environment: Stability favors simple structures; chaotic environments require adaptability.
Strategy and goals: Clear goals align with top-down structures; ambiguous ones benefit from decentralization.
Technology: Promotes flatter, flexible, and decentralized structures.
Workforce nature: Highly-educated professionals thrive on autonomy and discretion.

Examples of the structural frame

Here are some examples that illustrate the structural frame:

Military organizations: A clear chain of command, well-defined roles, and strict hierarchies enable rapid decision-making and coordinated action in high-stakes situations.
Hospital ER**:** Tightly defined roles (doctors, nurses, technicians) and procedures ensure efficient handling of emergencies, crucial for rapid care in life-or-death situations.
Assembly lines in manufacturing: Division of labor and specialization maximize efficiency and quality control in mass production environments.
Legal firms: A clear partnership structure and hierarchy, with defined roles for partners, associates, and support staff, prioritize career progression and the distribution of responsibilities and rewards.
Sports teams: Specific positions and roles for each player, coordinated by coaches and management, deploy specialized skills effectively in pursuit of team goals.

These examples show how different organizations use structure to divide work, coordinate efforts, and achieve their goals.

Tensions in the structural frame

Navigating the complexities of authority, roles, and relationships inside organizations is a perennial challenge for managers. The trick is in recognizing that these are in fact paradoxes and inherent in the nature of the game.

Differentiation vs. Integration. Balancing the assignment of tasks and the synchronization of efforts is a classic dilemma. As firms grow in size and complexity, sophisticated coordination strategies become necessary to maintain focused operations.
Gap vs. Overlap. Unclear assignment of key responsibilities cause crucial tasks to fall through the cracks. Conversely, overlapping roles and activities leads to conflicts, wasted efforts, and redundancy.
Underuse vs. Overload. Insufficient workloads can lead to boredom and inefficiencies, while overwhelming tasks can swamp employees.
Clarity vs. Creativity. Uncertainty about roles leads employees to tailor their duties based on personal preferences, whereas overly defined responsibilities create rigidity.
Autonomy vs. Interdependence. Too much independence can isolate individuals. In contrast, excessive interdependence bogs down initiatives.
Too Loose vs. Too Tight. Organizations must balance holding entities together without stifling flexibility. Netflix calls this dynamic “high alignment and loose coupling”.
Goal-less vs. Goal-bound. Lack of clear goals can lead to aimlessness, while outdated targets reduce relevance.
Irresponsible vs. Unresponsive. If individuals shirk responsibilities, performance declines. Conversely, strict adherence to rules can alienate stakeholders.

These are only some of the many paradoxes that leaders face.

Attributes of effective structural leaders

Leaders who are adept at the structural frame combine deep industry knowledge, alignment of structure with strategy, robust implementation plans, and a culture of constant experimentation and adaptation.

Preparation and expertise

Structural leaders thoroughly understand their industry and organizational intricacies. Steve Jobs, for example, was known for his deep understanding of technology. He restructured Apple’s product lines, focusing on a few key products that emphasized UX and design aesthetics. In contrast, John Sculley, a marketing expert from Pepsi, initially focused on cost management and aggressive marketing, but struggled with maintaining Apple's innovative edge without deep technical expertise.

Strategy, structure, and environment alignment

Effective leaders align their organizational structure with strategy and market demands. Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo restructured the portfolio to include healthier food options, aligning the company’s strategy with the growing market demand for health-conscious products. Meanwhile, Bob Nardelli of Home Depot overdid centralized decision-making processes and operational controls, which alienated employees and customers by diminishing Home Depot’s customer service-focused strategy.

Focus on implementation

Leaders must anticipate resistance, provide adequate training, and foster political support and cultural understanding. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos focused heavily on implementation through rigorous operational excellence, continuous employee training, and maintaining a high-performance culture. Carly Fiorina of HP however failed to effectively manage cultural integration and employee buy-in during HP’s merger with Compaq, leading to significant internal resistance and performance issues.

Bolman-Deal’s structural frame of leadership emphasizes the critical role of designing and maintaining an effective organizational structure. Understanding and navigating the inherent tensions within the structural frame is key to achieving sustained leadership success.

It’s a useful lens (and also a default one for many managers) but also not the only one.

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

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