Question

Students often equate the structural frame with red tape and bureaucracy and see the human resource frame as soft and just concerned with how people feel. Sometimes they miss the important understanding that participative (people focused) structures are also possible outcomes of rational thinking and organizational design efforts. Lets consider the ways in which the two frame are potentially complementary, not necessarily inconsistent or adversarial.

Provide an example from your own experience of how these frames can inform one another and benefit from an ability to "see" both at work in the system. What does holding both frames reveal about the system or change effort that otherwise might be missed? Some of the chapter case studies can assist you in brainstorming an example.

Answer 1

The human resource frame emphasizes understanding people and their needs. It means to know their feelings, belief, fear, development, etc. With this, the person can be adjusted with his work in the company. By attending to people, the organization can meet the goals of company as well as of the individual. People must feel good about themselves and their work. The metaphor here is family

While Structural frame is more about the architecture of the organization, goals, roles, technology, hierarchies, policies, etc. Here the challenge for the leaders is to design and maintain organization with its goals and situation. The metaphor here is a factory or machine

As discusses above, if people are happy about themselves and their work, it would be profitable for the company. Thus, a company must call upon its people to participate in designing the structure. It would make sure that transparency is maintained and people trust the leaders. Participative structure values each person and gives them a chance to design their work and company. With this trust, people put in extra effort as they think themselves as belonging to the culture of it. Keeping the two separate is not always profitable.

An example is, in small companies like startups, they follow a flat structure where every person is involved in decision making and deciding for the company. Leaders need to reach a consensus that is done with discussion or voting on an issue. It keeps people engaged and accountable for their work. It also shows a sense of belongingness. This benefits the company in coming up with novel ideas while aligning with the objectives of its human resource. Since a person is happy with himself and his work, the benefits become obvious

Taking the two frames apart creates a gap between the organization's aspirations and people's needs. This leads to a principal-agent problem as people mistrust the company with red-tape culture. They may also not be motivated to work as it doesn't align with their needs, which may lead to a high turnover rate. On the other hand, putting these together motivates people, build trust in them, and engage them in working better. If both frames are not held together, this would be missed.