Human Resource And Structural Frame: Change In Leadership

It has been proven that when expectations of employees are handled properly, it will lead to a committed employees thus the occurrence of turnover is lower (Luscombe, 2013).An employee who is happy with his or her work setting would be an unlikely candidate to be yearning to go.

The methodology is designed to allow leaders to consider the organization from different angles, in order to develop a multi-perspectival approach to innovation and change. Each frame (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) can be applied to an organization in order to view it more clearly from a different frame of reference to find the most effective solution and strategy for advancement. I liken this model to “seeing is believing.” Sometimes an organization is seeing the wrong picture and doesn’t understand why it’s not getting the result it wants. The four frames allow leaders to see organizations in their complexity and think critically about alternative possibilities for change. They help to clarify reality and actually see what’s happening. An example would be FEMA’s response to Hurricane Irma. All frames were used to make a true assessment of events and quickly assemble appropriate leadership intervention. (Structural: environmental infrastructure and function, Human Resources: American Red Cross efforts and charity distribution, Political: both Houston and Florida struggling for power and resources, Symbolic: bringing a diverse group of individuals together into a cohesive team.) Through time, effort, and repetitive practice FEMA was able to use the four frames

Organizations need people for their energy, effort and talent. Individuals need organizations for the many rewards they offer. But the needs of the individual and the organization don’t always line up very well and when the fit between people and organizations is poor, one or both will suffer. Human resource frame evolved from early work of pioneers such as Mary Parker Follett (1918) and Elton Mayo (1933, 1945), who questioned a century old, deeply held assumption that workers had no rights beyond a paycheck. Their duty was to work hard and follow orders. Pioneers who laid the human resource frame’s foundation criticized this view on two grounds: it was unfair, and it was bad psychology. People's skills, attitudes, energy, and commitment are vital resources that can make or break an enterprise, they argued. One of the core assumptions of the human resource frame states that when the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer. Individuals are exploited or exploit the organization or both become victims. The “fit” is a function of at least three different things: how well an organization responds to individual desires for useful work; how well jobs enable employees to express their skills and sense of self; and how well work fulfills individual financial and lifestyle needs (Cable and DeRue, 2002).

The structural frame has a different ground of beliefs and principles dissimilar from the other four frames. Solely it based upon certain assumptions, predicated on the division of labor (also referred to as specialization) and deliberate coordination. There too lies in the belief hiring the right people for the right jobs with specialized defined roles and responsibilities, will they perform to their maximum capacity. Essentially, the structural frame is bounded on the principles of effectiveness and efficiency in addition to productivity. This is exactly why leaders whether in private or non-profit organization should always devise a mental model of the rational message they want to convey to the outside world about their infrastructure, especially when related to their goals and objectives.

The human resource frame is known to operate from drastically different paradigms. Bolman and Deal (2013, p. 113) state that opposing paradigms are identified when an individual asks which statement is true; 1.) “Our most important asset is our people”, or 2.) “Organizations exploit people --chew them up and spit them out” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 113).

Bolman and Deal (2013) stated that there were four-frame models that governed organizations, and the models were structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Lightcap (2014) discussed the entrepreneurial model that was a

Lester (2002) submitted that employees are likely to experience a diminished level of commitment, a decreased level of work performance, and they are likely to witness to the fact that their psychological contract had being breached. In addition, Conway & Briner (2002) stated that the psychological wellbeing of employees is likely to reduce when there is a breach in the psychological contract and as result, talent retention in an organisation will diminish (Tekleab & Taylor, 2003).

All organizational frames are important for a project success. The structural frame can help understand an organization structure and roles and

The authors of this article give the misconceptions of employee turnover by systematically breaking down myths that organizations tend to believe cause employees to leave the workplace. The misconceptions are replaced with evidence based strategies that show the underlying factors beyond pay compensation that drive turnover in addition the employee morale. One of the meta-analytical relationships that

A rapidly changing business environment due to technological changes and the impacts of globalization has resulted in shift of human resources paradigms (Khan, 1997). In every organization

In an era of organizational flux due to competition and globalization, companies and employees are faced with constant change. Leaders must be able to adapt to change as the environment shifts. HR has been known as the organizational change agent, administrative expert, and employee advocate. More recently they have been regarded as business strategic partners for many organizations. In order to be successful and remain competitive in today’s market, Human Resources (HR) must be considered a strategic partner if an organization wants to flourish. Top executives today commit significant resources to ensure that their company’s functions are capable of rapid change and achieving their

Every organisation in the world today is putting a lot of efforts, time, and resources in the human management. As this is, an excepted reality that no organisation in the world can vie in this globalised world just on the mere basis of their product and services. In order for an organisation to be successful, it has to invest substantially into the domain of people skills, and their behaviour. Due to stressful working environment, many organisations loose employees due to lack of motivation, stress, lower employee job satisfaction and other contributing factors of behavioural sciences and psychology. All these factors have negative effects on the organisation and organizational behaviour simultaneously. Many experts are in concord that

As the world is turning out to be more aggressive and unstable than any other time in recent memory, producing based enterprises are looking to increase upper hand at all cost and are swinging to more inventive sources through HRM practices (Sparrow, Schuler, & Jackson, 1994). HR practices has been defined by (Smallbusiness.chron.com, 2016) as “the means through which your human resources personnel can develop the leadership of your staff.”

Many companies look to salaries and benefits as the first places to cut back when looking to make changes that involve cost-saving. When this happens, it is inevitable that some employees will leave the company to seek employment elsewhere. The employees that remain, whether they stay voluntarily or because they could not find employment elsewhere, are often resentful. Motivation decreases, taking job performance along with it. Employees lose their company loyalty and may even become angry enough to purposefully sabotage the company.

Organization development grew out of the human relations traditions of the 1940s and 1950s, and it has had enormous influence on management practices and thinking about how organizational effectiveness can be achieved. Critical manpower and resource shortages faced by all organizations, public and private, during World War II and in the immediate post-war years stimulated a search by social scientist and managers, separately and in cooperation with one another, for effective means to maximize the utilization of existing individual and organizational resources. (Ritcher, I 2007). Organization Development was by tradition about planned change efforts, instituted to enhance organization effectiveness within the context of the traditional, hierarchical, management-as-experts, top-down era. The legacy of leaders and organizations developed in this context remain. Organizational Development is about how organizations and people function and how to get them to function better. Organization transformation signals the need to transform mindsets, engage people and make the deep shift to the ongoing mutual learning environment needed for the long-lasting change characteristic of our world today.