by Lee G Bolman
Martin:
She didn’t mention it, and I don’t want to interrupt important work, but we also need to set some priorities and work out an agenda for the day anyway. Jack, have you developed a plan for how you and I can get to work on the transition?
Davis:
We can meet later on, after I get through some pressing business.
Martin:
The pressing business is just the kind of thing I need to learn about as the new manager here. What issues are you discussing?
Davis:
How to keep the office functioning when the new manager is not ready for the job.
Martin:
Well, I have a lot to learn, but I feel up to it. With your help, I think we can have a smooth and productive changeover. How about if you continue your meeting and I just sit in as an observer? Then, Jack, you and I could meet to work out a plan for how we’ll handle the transition. After that, I’d like to schedule a meeting with each manager to get an individual progress report. I’d like to hear from each of you about your major customer service objectives and how you would assess your progress. Now, what were you talking about before I got here?
This time, Martin is still clear and firm in establishing her authority, but she does it without appearing harsh or dictatorial. She underscores the importance of setting priorities. She asks if Davis has a plan for making the transition productive. She emphasizes shared goals and defines a temporary role for herself as an observer. She focuses steadfastly on the task instead of on Davis’s provocations. By keeping the exchange on a rational level and outlining a transition plan, she avoids escalating or submerging the conflict. She also communicates to her new staff that she has done her homework, is organized, and knows what she wants to accomplish. When she says she would like to hear their personal objectives and progress, she communicates an expectation that they will be heard, but that she is in charge.
A Human Resource Scenario
Human resource leaders believe that people are the center of any organization. If people feel that the organization is responsive to their needs and supportive of their personal goals, they will respond with commitment and loyalty. Leaders who are authoritarian or insensitive, who don’t communicate effectively, or who don’t care will be ineffective. The human resource leader works on behalf of both the organization and its people, seeking to serve the best interests of both.
The job of the leader is support and empowerment. Support takes a variety of forms: showing concern, listening to people’s aspirations and goals, and communicating personal warmth and openness. The leader empowers through participation and inclusion, ensuring that people have the autonomy and encouragement needed to do their jobs. The approach favors listening and responsiveness.
Some people, though, go a little too far in making an effort:
Davis:
Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.
Martin:
Oh, gosh, no, she didn’t. I feel terrible about interrupting your meeting. I hope I didn’t offend anyone, because to me, it’s really important to establish good working relationships right from the outset. While I’m waiting, is there anything I can do to help? Would anyone like a cup of coffee?
Davis:
No. We’ll let you know when we’re finished.
Martin:
Oh. Well, have a good meeting, and I’ll see you in an hour.
In the effort to be friendly and accommodating, Martin is acting more like a waitress than a manager. She defuses the conflict, but her staff is likely to see their new boss as weak. She could instead capitalize on an interest in people:
Davis:
Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.
Martin:
I’m sorry if I’m interrupting, but I’m eager to get started, and I’ll need all your help. (She walks around, introduces herself, and shakes hands with each member of her new staff. Davis scowls silently.) Jack, could we take a few minutes to talk about how we can work together on the transition, now that I’m coming in to manage the department?
Davis:
You’re not the manager yet. I was asked to stay on for a week to get you started—though, frankly, I doubt that you’re ready for this job.
Martin:
I understand your concern, Jack. I know how committed you are to the success of the department. If I were you, I might be worried about whether I was turning my baby over to someone who wouldn’t be able to take care of it. But I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t feel ready. I want to benefit as much as I can from your experience. Is it urgent to get on with what you were talking about, or could we take some time first to talk about how we can start working together?
Davis:
We have some things we need to finish.
Martin:
Well, as a manager, I always prefer to trust the judgment of the people who are closest to the action. I’ll just sit in while you finish up, and then we can talk about how we move forward from there.
Here, Martin is unfazed and relentlessly cheerful; she avoids a battle and acknowledges Davis’s perspective. When he says she is not ready for the job, she resists the temptation to counter his salvo. Instead, she recognizes his concern but calmly communicates her confidence and focus on moving ahead. She demonstrates an important skill of a human resource leader: the ability to combine advocacy with inquiry. She listens carefully to Davis, but gently stands her ground. She asks for his help while expressing confidence that she can do the job. When he says they have things to finish, she responds with the agility of a martial artist, using Davis’s energy to her own advantage. She expresses part of her philosophy—she prefers to trust her staff’s judgment—and positions herself as an observer, thus gaining an opportunity to learn more about her staff and the issues they are addressing. By reframing the situation, she has gotten off to a better start with Davis and is able to signal to others the kind of people-oriented leader she intends to be.
A Political Scenario
Political leaders believe that it is essential to recognize differences and deal with conflict. Inside and outside any organization, a variety of interest groups, each with its own agenda, compete for scarce resources. There is never enough to give all parties what they want, so there will always be struggles.
The job of the leader is to recognize major constituencies, develop ties to their leadership, and manage conflict as productively as possible. Above all, leaders need to build a power base and use power wisely. They can’t give every group everything it wants, but they can create arenas where groups can negotiate differences and come up with a reasonable compromise. They also need to work at articulating what everyone has in common. It is wasteful for people to expend energy fighting each other when there are plenty of external adversaries to battle. Any group that doesn’t have its act together internally tends to get trounced by outsiders.
Some leaders translate the political approach as meaning that they should manage by intimidation and manipulation. It sometimes works, but the risks are high. Here’s an example:
Davis:
Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.
Martin:
In your next job, maybe you should train your secretary better. Anyway, I can’t waste time sitting around in hallways. Everyone in this room knows why I’m here. You’ve got a choice, Jack. You can cooperate with me, or you can lose any credibility you still have in this company.
Davis:
If I didn’t have any more experience than you do, I wouldn’t be so quick to throw my weight around. But if you think you know it all already, I guess you won’t need any help from me.
Martin:
What I know is that this department has gone downhill under your leadership, and
it’s my job to turn it around. You can go home right now, if you want—but if you’re smart, you’ll stay and help. The vice president wants my report on the transition. You’ll be a lot better off if I can tell him you’ve been cooperative.
Moviegoers cheer when bullies get their comeuppance. It can be satisfying to give the verbal equivalent of a kick in the groin to someone who deserves it. In this exchange, Martin establishes that she is tough, even dangerous. But such coercive tactics can be expensive in the long run. She is likely to win this battle because her hand is stronger, but she may lose the war. She increases Davis’s antagonism, and her attack may offend him and frighten her new staff. Even if they dislike Davis, they might see Martin as arrogant and callous. She lays the ground for a counterattack, and may have done political damage that will be difficult to reverse.
Sophisticated political leaders prefer to avoid naked demonstrations of power, looking instead for ways to appeal to the self-interest of potential adversaries:
Davis:
Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.
Martin:
(pleasantly) Jack, if it’s OK with you, I’d prefer to skip the games and go to work. I expect this department to be a winner, and I hope that’s what we all want. I also would like to manage the transition in a way that’s good for your career, Jack, and for the careers of others in the room.
Davis:
If I need advice from you on my career, I’ll ask.
Martin:
OK, but the vice president has asked me to let him know about the cooperation I get here. I’d like to be able to say that everyone has been helping me as much as possible. Is that what you’d like, too?
Davis:
I’ve known the vice president a lot longer than you have. I can talk to him myself.
Martin:
I know, Jack, he’s told me that. In fact, I just came from his office. If you’d like, we could both go see him right now.
Davis:
Uh, no, not right now.
Martin:
Well, then, let’s get on with it. Do you want to finish what you were discussing, or is this a good time for us to develop some agreement on how we’re going to work together?
In this instance, Martin is direct and diplomatic. She uses a light touch in dismissing Davis’s opening salvo. (“I’d prefer to skip the games.”) She speaks directly to both Davis’s interest in his career and her subordinates’ interest in theirs. She deftly deflates his posturing by asking if he wants to go with her to talk to the vice president. Clearly, she is confident of her political position and knows that his bluster has little to back it up.
Note that in both political scenarios, Martin draws on her power resources. In the first, she uses those resources to humiliate Davis, but in the second, her approach is more subtle. She conserves her political capital and takes charge while leaving Davis with as much pride as possible, achieving something closer to a win-win than a win-lose outcome.
A Symbolic Scenario
Symbolic leaders believe that the most important part of a leader’s job is inspiration—giving people something they can believe in. People become excited about and committed to a place with a unique culture, a special place where they feel that what they do is really making a difference. Effective symbolic leaders are passionate about making the organization unique in its niche and communicating that passion to others. They use dramatic symbols to excite people and to give them a sense of the organization’s mission. They are visible and energetic. They create slogans, tell stories, hold rallies, give awards, appear where they are least expected, and manage by wandering around.
Symbolic leaders are sensitive to an organization’s history and culture. They seek to use the best of an organization’s traditions and values as a base for building a culture that has cohesiveness and meaning. They articulate a vision that communicates the organization’s unique capabilities and mission.
At first glance, Olivia Martin’s encounter with Jack Davis might seem a poor candidate for the symbolic approach outlined in this scenario. An ineffective effort could produce embarrassing results, making the would-be symbolic leader look foolish:
Davis:
Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.
Martin:
It’s great to see that you’re all hard at work. It’s proof that we all share a commitment to excellence in customer service. In fact, I’ve already made up buttons for all the staff. Here—I have one for each of you. They read, “The customer is always first.” They look great, and they communicate the spirit that we all want in the department. Go on with your meeting. I can use the hour to talk to some of the staff about their visions for the department. (She walks out of the office.)
Davis:
(to remaining staff) Did you believe that? I told you they hired a real space cadet to replace me. Maybe you didn’t believe me, but you just saw it with your own eyes.
Martin’s symbolic direction might be on the right track, but symbols work only when they are attuned to the context and make sense to members of a group or organization. As a newcomer to the department culture, she needs to pay close attention to her audience. Meaningless symbols antagonize, and empty symbolic events backfire.
Conversely, a skillful symbolic leader understands that a situation of challenge and stress can serve as a powerful opportunity to articulate values and build a sense of mission. Martin does both, in a well-formed symbolic approach to Davis’s gruffness:
Davis:
Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.
Martin:
(smiling) Maybe this is just the traditional hazing ritual in this department, Jack, but let me ask a question: If one of our customers came through the door right now, would you ask her to wait outside for an hour?
Davis:
If she just came barging in like you did, sure.
Martin:
Are you working on something that’s more important than responding to our customers?
Davis:
They’re not your customers. You’ve only been here five minutes.
Martin:
True, but I’ve been with this company long enough to know the importance of putting customers first.
Davis:
Look, you don’t know the first thing about how this department functions. Before you go off on some customer crusade, you ought to learn a little about how we do things.
Martin:
There’s a lot I can learn from all of you, and I’m eager to get started. For example, I’m very interested in your ideas on how we can make this a department where as soon as people walk in, they get the sense that this is a place where people care, are responsive, and genuinely want to be helpful. I’d like that to be true for anyone who comes in—a staff member, a customer, or just someone who got lost and came into the wrong office. That’s not the message I got from my initiation a couple of minutes ago, but I’m sure we can think of lots of ways to change that. How does that fit with your image of what the department should be like?
Notice how Martin recasts the conversation. Instead of engaging in a personal confrontation with Davis, she focuses on the department’s core values. She brings her “customer first” commitment with her, but she avoids positioning that value as something imposed from outside. Instead, she grounds it in an experience everyone in the room has just shared: the way she was greeted when she entered. Like many successful symbolic leaders, she is attuned to the cues about values and culture that are expressed in everyday life. She communicates her philosophy, but she also asks questions to draw out Davis and her new staff members. If she can use the organization’s history to advantage in rekindling a commitment to customer service, she is off to a good start.
BENEFITS AND RISKS OF REFRAMING
The multiple replays of the Davis-Martin incident illustrate both the power and the risks of reframing. The frames are powerful because of their ability to spur imagination and generate new insights and options. But each frame has limits as well as strengths, and each can be applied well or poorly.
Frames can be used as scripts, or scenarios, to guide action in high-stakes circumstances. By changing your script, you can change how you appear, what you do, and how your audience sees you. You can create the possibility of transforming everyday situations. Few of us have the dramatic skill and versatility of a professional actor, but you can alter what you do by choosing an alternative script or scenario. You have been learning how to do this since birth. Both men and women, for example, typically employ different scenarios for same-sex and opposite-sex encounters. Students who are guarded and formal when talking to a professor become energized and intimate when talking to friends. Managers who are polite and deferential with the boss may be gruff and autocratic with subordinates and then come home at night to romp playfully with their kids. The tenderhearted neighbor becomes a ruthless competitor when his company’s market share is threatened. The tough-minded drill instructor who terrorizes new recruits bows to authority when faced by a colonel.
