Include at least 2 references per post.
Post# 1
Structural leadership often evokes images of petty tyrants and rigid bureaucrats who never met a command or rule they didn’t like. Compared with other frames, literature on structural leadership is sparse, and some structural theorists have contended that leadership is neither important nor basic (Hall, 1987). Structural leadership can be powerful and enduring, its style is subtler and more analytic than other forms. Structural leaders succeeded because they have the right design for moment and are able to get their changes implemented. The following characteristics make effective structural leaders successful: Structural leaders do their homework; Structural leaders rethink the relationship of structure, strategy, and environment; Structural leaders focus on implementation; Effective structural leaders experiment;
Effective structural leaders intuitively saw the need to cultivate understanding and acceptance of major decisions by continually asking for advice and by establishing committees and task forces to address major issues (Bolman & Deal). Sloan used a simple principle of centralize planning and resource allocation; decentralize operating decisions. This leadership approach is effective when leaders are focused on designing, building an effective organization and developing better ways of managing employees. I agree with this way of leadership as it deal with a better way of managing people and running an effective organization.
Reference
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
Post #2
In the structural frame, an effective leader would be someone who analyzes situations and can be known as “social architects” (Bolman and Deal, p. 356). If the leader is a tyrant, the leadership will be ineffective. But, if the leader focuses on “designing and building an effective organization,” the leader can be successful (Bolman and Deal, p. 356).
I think this type of leadership works for people who like to do thorough research and can invent ideas based on the research they have done. The downside is that while researching ideas is good, structural leaders tend to forget about building a foundation first and that can be a major point of failure (Bolman and Deal, p. 359). The Structural leader will be more effective during a major organizational change because the business is already established, so a foundation has (hopefully) already been established as well.
References:
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Post #3
The frame that I have chosen to analyze is the human resources frame. This frame is routed in psychology and places a significant emphasis on the needs of people (Sasnett, & Ross, 2007). Employee empowerment and strong relationships are key motivators here, and authority stems from the ability to lead by example rather than accumulate power. Connecting with employees, and viewing them as associates, rather than subordinates, is vital to this management style (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 361). Leaders are viewed as activists for change, seeking to do the most good for the largest number of people. Researchers have described this leadership style as catalyst, or servant, noting that the human resources frame relies on actively serving the needs of the people in the organization, and using this as an effective mechanism to drive business forward. Supportive empowerment, and relationship building via connecting with all levels of employees creates a sense of extended family, and ideas come from all levels of the company. This leadership style is effective when the leaders of a work force whom are effectively empowered and encouraged are able to creatively problem solve and innovate to create a business model that adapts to the changes in industry and environment. Leadership through this frame becomes less effective and even catastrophic when leadership stops making strides forward and become viewed as weak and directionless. Failure to maintain a strong sense of purpose, or abandonment of responsibilities by management can have the opposite effect (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 355), creating a work force without a strong leader and no effective support to encourage performance and strategic movement.
References:
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing Organizations Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (5th ed.). Newark: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated
Sasnett, Bonita, & Ross, Thomas. (2007, Oct. 4). Leaderships Frames and Perceptions and Effectiveness Among Health Information Management Program Directors. Retrieved on: 2018, Apr. 11. From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2047298/
