|
CreativeCore
| |
REFRAMING - Robert L. Sandidge & Anne C. Ward
Chapter 11 from Quality
Performance in Human Services Copyright 1999 - Brookes Publishing
|
|
Quality Performance
in Human Services
Leadership
Edited by
James F.Gardner, Ph.D., M.A.S.
& Sylvia Nudler, M.A.S. |
 |
|
A forward-thinking
book demonstrating a leadership model that is person centered,
quality-driven, and best of all, achievable. Practical applications of
contemporary leadership detailed in summary checklists help encourage
staff to explore the potential for quality improvement in the workplace.
This manual also includes important input from people who receive
services as well as exercises you can use now to enhance the services
you offer people with disabilities. (all proceeds benefit The Council's
Foundation for Quality and Leadership.)
Learn to link leadership, values, and vision to create
quality services.
Price $38.00 - 400 pages - 6 x 9 paperback ISBN I-55766-360-2
Paul H Brookes Publishing
To Order |
|
Click and go to topic
REFRAMING
Reframing
Explained
Basic Types Of Reframing
Context Reframing
Content Reframing
Reframing As A
Communication Skill
Learning to Communicate
Theory And Practice
For Individual Reframing
Reframing In Practice
The
Quality Revolution
As A Reframe In Business
Major Reframes In
The Field Of Human Services
The Reframe of
Person-Centered
Planning
New Frames for
Thinking about
Environment
Theory And Practice
For Organizational Reframing
Family Systems
Complexity of Self-Organizing Systems
Organizational
Values and Goals
Intentions and
Expectations
Organizational
Structure
Time
and Space
Reframing And Systems Thinking
Reframing In Practice
Management Paradigms
Conclusion
Making Sense of Another's Frames
References
Recommended Readings
|
REFRAMING
The meaning of any situation or of
any set of circumstances is found in the frame within which we view it. One
of our favorite old stories is one based on the simplest question of frames:
When something happens, is it good, or is it bad? The story goes like this:
A Russian farmer in the 1800s was out plowing his fields one spring day and,
as he unhooked the plow from his horse, his horse leaped and galloped out of
his fields and into the forest. The man walked back to the village that
evening and told of the event. His friends and neighbors gathered around him
and exclaimed about his misfortune, saying what an unlucky day this was for
him. The man said only, "You never know."
Not more than two weeks later, the man and his son were out slowly plowing
the spring fields by themselves, when the farmer's horse trotted back into
the field along with another horse, a wild horse. When the farmer and his
son arrived in the village at the end of the day, riding one horse and
leading the second horse, all of their friends and neighbors gathered around
them and talked about how fortunate is was that their horse went into the
wild, because now they had two horses on the farm. Once again, the
thoughtful farmer said only, "You never know."
Several days later, the farmer's son broke his leg when he was thrown from
the wild horse while trying to break it in and train it for farm work. That
night, the villagers cursed the unfortunate day that the wild horse came to
the farm. The farmer said, "You never know."
Not long after, the entire village shook when the Cossacks came roaring
across the plain, going from house to house, and conscripting every man of
fighting age into service until they came to the farmer's home, where they
left his son with his family because of his broken leg. That night, a
mourning village came together to console themselves and each other and to
tell the farmer how lucky he was that the wild horse had broken his son's
leg. The farmer looked at all of his neighbors and said only, "You never
know."
The villagers in the story were very quick to place meaning on every event,
to interpret it, and place it in the scheme of things past and future. The
"frame" of meaning through which they gazed let them know how they were to
feel, what was to be done next, and what to watch out for in the future. The
farmer in the story saw life and circumstances through a very different
lens. He extracted no meaning from events and went from event to event, from
moment to moment, giving what was called for and taking what was given.
Reframing takes the same situation and the same circumstances and then gives
those "facts" a different meaning. This different meaning allows us to take
a different approach and gives us new possibilities for the action that we
might take and the responses we might make. - TOP
REFRAMING
EXPLAINED
Reframing is about changing
perception by understanding something in another way. Bandler and Grinder
explained reframing in the following manner:
What reframing does is to say, Look, this external thing occurs and it
elicits this response in you, so you assume that you know what the meaning
is. But if you thought about it this other way, then you would have a
different response. Being able to think about things in a variety of ways
builds a spectrum of understanding. None of these ways are 'really' true,
though. They are simply statements about a person's understanding.
(1982, p. 43) |
BASIC TYPES
OF REFRAMING
There are two basic kinds of
reframes: context reframing and content reframing. Both can alter our
internal representations of events or situations, which permits us to
experience the events in other, hopefully, more resourceful ways. -
TOP
CONTEXT REFRAMING
Bandler and Grinder noted
that "every experience in the world and every behavior is appropriate, given
some context, some frame" (1982,p.9) Context reframing offers
an understanding of how we make meaning through the environment - physical,
intellectual, cultural, historical, and emotional - in which a situation
occurs. It can also provide a pattern of thinking that helps us see the
value in every situation regardless of any perceived downside.
Context reframing is taking an experience that seems to be negative, not
useful, and distressing and showing how the same behavior or experience can
be useful in another context. Children's stories are full of reframes
designed to show children how what might seem a liability can be useful in
another context. For example, the other reindeer made fun of Rudolph's
bright, red nose; but that funny nose made Rudolph the hero on a dark night.
Context reframing can be used as a "perceptual filter," taught and practiced
until it becomes an integral and habitual way of organizational thinking. It
is a very useful tool in business as it is the way of thinking that gives
one the ability to make lemonade from those unexpected (and unwanted)
lemons. Creativity, new visions, innovations are commonplace for those
who know to reframe and recontextualize problems and obstacles into
opportunities and resources. The following stories are prime examples of
this ability to reframe and recontextualize.
An Executive Director at a human service agency was
looking for inexpensive raw materials to make dried flower arrangements for
the agency gift shop. He called up the local funeral parlors and asked what
they did with flowers after the funerals. As expected, the funeral parlors
disposed of the flowers. The parlors agreed to give the agency the flowers
at no cots. The agency transforms the flowers into beautiful arrangements to
sell in the agency gift shop at a good profit. Throwing away dead flowers
many not seem like an opportunity to many, but when you can reframe them
into another context, you have created free raw materials.
Safety-Kleen in Elgin, Illinois was one of the fastest growing and most
successful companies in the mid 1970s and 1980s. Its founder noticed that
garages threw out the oil when they made oil change. It was not only a bad
ecological practice it was wasteful. What other use could there be for used
motor oil? The management of Safety-Kleen answered that question.
Waste oil could be used in asphalt and other oil based building materials.
It also could be cleaned and recycled. Safety-Kleen built a multi-million
dollar business by putting out a fleet to pick up used oil. They were one of
the first to collect the used oil and resell it; they also charge the
operator for the service.
Viewing organizations, individuals, and the world with reframing tools opens
us to potential rather than locking us into our perceived limits. An
entrepreneur is fundamentally an expert reframer - that is, he or she is
someone who can add value to resources and convert them into wealth. -
TOP
Content Reframing
The second type of reframing is
content reframing. Content reframing is simply changing the meaning
of a situation - that is, the situation or behavior stays the same, but the
meaning is changed. For instance, a famous army general reframed a
distressful situation for his troops by telling them that "We're not
retreating, we're just advancing in another direction." Another
example is the reframing of death. Death is a life event that has different
meaning in different cultures, and even many individuals deal with this
event in vastly different ways. Some are forever grieving the loss, whereas
others are joyous at the now eternal presence of the person's spirit. In
other words, different people attach very different meaning and
interpretations to the concept of death. |
REFRAMING
AS A COMMUNICATION SKILL
Bandler and Grinder noted
that "as a communicator you want to have the ability to shift the frames
that people put around anything" (1982, p. 33). Learning to reframe is
essential in learning to effectively communicate with others and even with
ourselves. In every field of endeavor, it is the person who sets the frame
who defines the playing field, and, therefore the scope of the "game" to be
played. The framer defines the focus of attention and sets the frames
that define the presuppositions of the activity or conversation.
In politics, professionals who specialize in setting frames and in reframing
situations are called spin doctors. Although this group may need to do a
little "spinning" to gain a better perception of what they are saying, what
they are doing is not new; it just has been given a name. Politics,
marketing, sales, and effective communication of any type is about
perception not about any objective truth. For example, you may recall the
age issue raised when Ronald Reagan ran against Walter Mondale. In a
television debate, Mondale made a comment that implied Reagan's age was an
issue. Reagan replied that he did not think age should be an issue and
that he had no intention of making a issue of his opponent's youth and
inexperience. In that one comment, he totally reframed the question in
a way that made sure that it would not be a major factor in the race.
This ability to reconceptualize and reframe concepts so that others alter
their own perceptions is a concept prevalent in marketing. Reis and Trout
(1981) explored the concept in their now-classic marketing book called
Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. In a more recent book by Mr.
Trout defined positioning as "not what you do to the product, but
what you do to the mind - the ultimate marketing battleground is the
mind, and the better you understand how the mind works, the better you'll
understand how positioning works." (1995 p. ix, italics in original). Trout
identified two basic types of organizations with problems: those that have
lost their focus and those that have lost touch with the marketplace. In
both cases, he prescribed "repositioning" as the answer.
Losing focus and losing touch with the marketplace are problems that confuse
the customer's perception of a company. In the first case, the market does
not know what the company does. And in the second case, being out of touch
with a changing world leaves the company positioned to fill needs that no
longer exist. In both cases, repositioning requires redefining the company's
purpose, what it is doing, and how it is being perceived. Organizations
should remember that it is perception that motivates behavior, nothing else.
Reframing, which is accomplished through communication, is a tool for
changing perception. - TOP
Learning to Communicate
Reframing starts by recognizing
how each of us processes our experiences. Reframing is not just a
pattern to apply to the world "out there" but needs to be a resident program
in our mental operating system. We tend to accept our perceptions at face
value and use reasons like "that's just the way I am" as rationale for
continuing to proceed with the same thought patterns.
To overcome our reluctance to challenge our perceptions, the personal
challenge is to learn to communicate with ourselves with all the purpose,
direction, and persuasiveness that we offer in a business presentation. How
we think, or the structure of our thinking, affects the content in the same
way that how we drive affects the safety and security of our passengers. In
practice, reframing is widely used in the therapeutic context. When a
counselor asks a client to "see it another way" or "think about it
differently," he or she is attempting to reframe events to get him or her to
see the problem in another light. - TOP |
THEORY AND PRACTICE FOR
INDIVIDUAL REFRAMING
Reframing is a key to the
puzzle of self-fulfilling prophecies - the concept that your beliefs tend to
unconsciously manifest themselves in your actions and decisions.
Self-fulfilling prophecies have been called the Pygmalion effect from a play
that later became My Fair Lady. In the play, Professor Henry Higgins
won a wager that nurture was more powerful than nature. He trained a
commoner, Eliza Doolittle, to have the manner and speech of a woman of the
upper class. The story demonstrates that our self-perceptions, or who it is
we learn to think we are, is a primary determinant in how we will fare in
life. There is story after story about class room experiments in which
teachers were told that a group of randomly chosen students were gifted and
that another random group were slow; sure enough, at the end of the
experiment, students tested just that way.
Perceptions define our experience. Meaning is created in our brains
from our experiences. Behavior is given meaning based on what we
learned the behavior meant in the past. We have a past frame into which we
fit current behavior in order to identify and understand it. The
understanding comes not from the behavior itself but from the particular
frame through which we chose to view it. Each of us perceives the world as
it is filtered into our awareness through our frames of perceptions.
Thus, each of us experiences and finds different and unique meaning in our
world.
Reframing, then, is expanding our own or others' perceptions by providing a
new frame through which to view a life situation. What is a disastrous
problem for someone is a challenging growth opportunity for another. Victor
Frankl (1963) who survived Nazi Concentration camp, recounted that although
most of his fellow inmates lost hope and subsequently died, Frankl kept hope
and planned for the lectures he would give after his release. In his own
mind, he turned a potentially hopeless situation into a source of rich
experiences that he could use to help others overcome hopeless situations.
Fortunately, we do not have to be in such dire circumstances for reframing
to be useful. Every moment of every day, there is opportunity to see things
in another way. To see them through another frame of perception can give us
hope and a better perspective of ourselves and others.
A major implication of this concept is that there are no correct or right
frames of perceptions. There are only useful frames and not so useful frames
depending on the particular context. A useful reframe is to understand that
all perceptions are useful in some context. Given that, you can always ask
yourself or someone else, "where would this perception be useful, or where
would it make sense?" - TOP |
Reframing in Practice
Celebrated medical hypnotherapist,
Milton H. Erickson, M.D., mastered reframing in a therapeutic setting.
(Rosen, 1982). When an individual would come to him with a problem such as
procrastination, Erickson would immediately congratulate him and declare the
client an expert on procrastination. He would then enlist the person to
teach him how to become a master Procrastinator. By reframing what was
perceived as a lifelong liability into a skill, Erickson helped each
individual see this former liability as a positive attribute and an ability
to be valued and used in the appropriate contexts. The person then
could view his or her behavior not as something to avoid or get rid of but
as a resource that has value when used appropriately. Two possible
contexts in which procrastination could be useful are postponing dessert
when dieting or delaying the expression of rage when angry. This ownership
and mastery of, in this example, procrastination, gives the individual
options to choose to use this skill in an appropriate context.
The ability to reframe virtually any issue into a positive attribute
establishes an atmosphere of acceptance and cooperation rather than one of
"expert and subject." Genuinely accepting every person's ideas,
attitudes, and behaviors as positive and useful is to open ones own
perceptions to the potential rather than the limitations of any situation.
Seligman (1990) noted that people who were more realistic (i.e., less
optimistic) were accurate in their assessments of objective reality but were
less happy and did not live as long as people who chose to be optimistic.
Often people who are great optimistic reframers are discredited as being
Pollyannaish and criticized for being naïve. While the accusations may be
"true" in a sense, it would appear the Pollyanna and naïve perceptions are
actually more life-sustaining than those of the realist.
Reframing is more than a technique to resolve a difficulty. Reframing is an
operating system for the organism. Once it becomes a habit, the whole world
and everyone in it are seen in terms of "what is right" rather than "what is
wrong." This is a fundamental shift in our cultural paradigm in that we are
encouraged and rewarded to be problem-solvers from an early age. American
culture gives great accolades and much money to those who can solve the big
problems. We learn to measure our self-worth in terms of our ability to
solve problems. Seeing oneself through the filters of being a problem
solver sets one's perceptual filters to "scan for problems." Life is then
seen primarily as a source of problems being served up so that we can
maintain our status as master problem solver. Problem solving is a dominant
theme in schools, psychotherapy, management, and counseling. We continue our
fascination with problems although we know that success is what creates
success. Success stimulates success in persons and in organizations. Yet, we
spend much of our personal and organizational time looking through the frame
of "problem elimination or solution." How many of us as children learned
that we got more attention from adults when we brought them a problem to
solve? How many of us carry this unconscious pattern into everything we do
today? Management consultants, managers, and employees often see their roles
as problem solvers. This orientation can hide from us the small successes
that if noticed and nurtured, can lead to a creative spirit of continuous
improvement and success. An individual attitude of reframing problems
into potential and opportunity is more than just "sleight of mind." It is
literally a way to change the perceptions of ourselves, those we serve, and
the organizations we lead. -
TOP |
THE
QUALITY REVOLUTION AS A REFRAME
IN BUSINESS
The total quality management
movement in business was a major, across-the-board reframe. It affected the
ways that businesses thought about every important relationship, from
relationships with customers, to relationships with suppliers and employees.
One of the primary changes brought about by the quality revolution was in
the relationships between companies and their employees.
An example of a new covenant between employer and employee comes from Jack
Stack of Springfield Remanufacturing. Stack (1992) explained that he shares
all of Springfield's production and profit numbers with every person in the
plant and in the office. He even offers classes to his employees to teach
them what every number means and how the financial reporting process works.
This is a massive reframe in a business world that still tends to operate on
a "need to know" basis. Since Stack started opening his books to his
employees, Springfield's sales have soared, as have profits. Employee
turnover is extremely low, whereas employees hold themselves and each other
to the highest of standards. Stack wrote that
We have a company filled with people who not only are
owners, but who think and act like owners rather than employees. ... Owners,
real owners, do not have to be told what to do - they can figure it out for
themselves. They have all the knowledge, understanding, and information they
need to make a decision, and they have the motivation and the will to act
fast. (1992, pp. 15-16)
All employees want to find meaning in their work. If managers act as if this
"frame" were true and if they hold it as part of their covenant with
employees, then how will they think differently about what information they
share with associates and team members? How will managers help employees to
organize their work? What demands will managers make of their teams and of
themselves to uphold the values that they have chosen to be the
nonnegotiable elements in the organizations. How will managers go about
choosing team members - our partners in service?
One of the most important reframes in the quality revolution is the
definition of quality itself. The new definition is simple: Quality
is what the customer says it is. Looking through this lens has been a big
change for many enterprises. Moreover, the new ways of thinking continue to
take on new frames as companies reckon with the challenges presented by the
quality movement. Roles have shifted. Companies, in the demand for
defect-free products, increasingly have started demanding the same of their
suppliers. An organization committed to delivering the highest quality
service or product needs to align itself with supplier companies and
individuals who share this dedication to high-quality standards. This has
led to more long-term relationships between customers and suppliers. Demming
noted that,"in long-term relationships both supplier and customer have a
chance to learn from each other" (in latzko & Saunders, 1995, p. 58). In
this context, an organization's relationship with its suppliers is similar
to the organization's relationship with its end-use customers. In other
words, a firm that establishes a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship
with suppliers is more likely to maintain consistently high quality.
And, if all of this information about quality and the changes it has wrought
in business make us start to wonder about the cost of this reframe, Philip
Crosby (1979) suggested that we think about that in another way, too. He
reframes the entire nature of the cost of quality in the title of his
seminal book, Quality is Free. |
MAJOR
REFRAMES IN THE FIELD OF HUMAN SERVICES
How we think about what is
most important in our work with people with disabilities are the frames that
determine what values we espouse, what we choose to do, what we choose to
learn. These frames have been changing significantly in almost every area of
human services. For example, we heard a professional in the field of
developmental disabilities offer, by way of definition of the disability,
"What we know is that these people learn more slowly." This frames the
entire nature of developmental disabilities as well as the definition of
learning, the process of learning, and therefore, the nature of our work
with people "who learn more slowly." How will we know if our work is
successful? Using this professional's definition, we will watch for evidence
of change, no matter how small, no matter how long it takes. We will watch
for evidence of learning, and so we may pay more attention to what is to be
learned and therefore, what we will teach. Within this definition, our roles
are primarily as teachers and facilitators for those we support as learners.
We are the links between the world, the entire environment, and those who
are learning more slowly to more fully join in that world. Our roles shift
slightly from being primarily providers of care to teachers. This definition
affects what we will choose to learn ourselves. -
TOP
The Reframe of
Person-Centered Planning
If we assume the roles of
teachers and facilitators, what is it that we are to teach, and what is that
we are to learn? This is where the new frames of person-centered planning
and the theory and practice of outcomes chosen by each individual become
important. When we have the concept of a "learner," it becomes important to
know what it is that the learner wants to learn so that we can provide the
necessary experiences and facilitate his or her interactions with the
environment. Only when we have this information can we teach what the
learner wants to learn, and therefore, help individuals move toward those
outcomes that they have chosen as the most important in their lives.
In this frame, we reframe the past in terms of what we did not yet know. We
reframe the future in terms of what we choose to learn and the goals we set.
The present is for providing experiences that will give us the opportunity
to learn in order to move toward important outcomes. The past nor the future
is who we are. This is an empowering reframe because no matter where
we find ourselves, we will always determine what is to be learned right
here, right now. And we will go about setting goals for ourselves and
designing learning experiments.
New Frames for
Thinking about Environment
If we think of the immediate
environment around a person as a "container" of that person, we must
immediately recognize that the container we provide for persons with
developmental disabilities is one we are constantly attempting to grow and
enlarge. This container - a known environment - is the place in which
a person has the most safety, the most familiarity, can move with ease, has
the most defined choices, knows the expectations of the environment and the
people in it. Within this container, he or she can adjust expectations
accordingly, with some real knowledge of cause and effect.
The concept of enlarging this space around a person with a disability is a
major reframe. Knowing that the larger the container, the less predictable
the environment, society historically has attempted to further and further
restrict and constrict the containers provided for persons with all types of
disabilities. This is where the importance and the complexity of increased
choice become apparent. The larger the container in which we live, the more
choices we will be called on to make for ourselves. The larger the
container, the more personal responsibility. The larger the container, the
more information about choices is required. The container also must be large
enough container to allow for some real self-expression. Yet we must
actually have a boundary to the container - the security of a known space -
to have the comfort of ritual and the comfort of expectations that we can
assume will be met.
The reframe here - that is, the change in mindset - is one of quality of
life as opposed to the safety of imposed restriction. Just trying on this
mindset, to the extent that it is different, will change our thinking, which
will tend to change our behavior. - TOP |
THEORY
AND PRACTICE FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REFRAMING
Covey (1989) uses the
concept of a paradigm to explain how the way we see a situation and how we
interpret its meaning, determines our possible choices of response. Covey
would give a drawing to participants in workshops that, depending on how one
looks at it, can be a drawing of either a very young, smartly dressed woman,
or of a very old, haggard woman. He has his students write stories about the
woman in the drawing and has the participants share their stories with each
other. Students who saw the old woman in the drawing are in shock and
disbelief when they hear stories about the young woman in the picture. Each
group wonders about the sanity and sensory acuity of the other group. The
perceptions of each group are so firm by the time they invent their stories
that it takes a long time for each group to demonstrate to the other group
that their eyes are seeing an accurate picture. Each section of the drawing
must be explained in terms of the picture they are seeing until the other
group suddenly cries out, "Oh! I see her now." The lines, the shadows on the
page, had not changed, but only through reframing is each participant able
to see two distinctly different pictures in those lines and shadows.
How an organization interprets the meaning of a situation will determine its
choices and responses. Schwarz and Volgy (1985) challenged (and reframed)
the meaning that the Reagan Administration put on the economic difficulties
of the early 1980s. The authors used the analogy of a patient who was
experiencing symptoms of the heart and respiratory system. These symptoms
might indicate that the patient was having a heart attack. If that were the
case, the patient would need immediate, drastic measures in order to pull
through. They used this interpretation to explain the drastic, rather
painful, measures of supply-side economics that the Reagan economists were
proposing.
Schwarz and Volgy (1985) then took the exact same heart and respiratory
symptoms and explained them as the symptoms of a person who was in the last
half mile of a marathon race. The marathon runner had been taxing his
physical systems in order to finish a highly unusual event that required
great strength and stamina. Moreover, although the runner had used up all
reserves in his physical system, the recommendation to the runner would be
to rest for a period and then start building reserves again. If the symptoms
of the runner were confused with those of a heart attack victim, the
measures taken by doctors would either kill the runner or seriously damage
his health.
The authors then went on to argue that the economy had just run a marathon,
that it had demonstrated its strength and stamina in a difficult time, and
that it was now time to rest and build reserves; it was not a time to take
drastic measures in an experiment to find out what would "trickle down" to
those who had already been called on to give their all and who had given it
faithfully.
Analogies and metaphors can be useful tools in the
challenge to see a business situation in a new way, through a new lens. Take
the common example of interdepartmental strife. Imagine a situation in which
accusations, mutual blaming, and miscommunication in a growing organization
are escalating into a situation that could affect the quality of customer
care. It can be useful to try on several different frames as a way of both
gathering information and generating potential possibilities for
intervention. One might look at such a situation through a number of lenses,
such as family systems, complexity or self-organizing system, organizational
structure, and time and space. - TOP
Family
Systems
If we look at a situation
through a family-system theory lens, we might gather information by asking
the following questions:
 | Triangulation: Is
there a pattern of people drawing others into their interpersonal
(or interdepartmental) conflicts? Is there a tendency to encourage
people to take sides?
|
|
| Distance: is communication between people in the departments
becoming less frequent? Has communication been cut off altogether?
|
|
| Over-focus: How much
organizational energy is focused (unproductively) on this particular
conflict? What effect is this intense focus of attention having on
other parts of the organization? On the conflict itself?
|
|
|
Complexity of
Self-Organizing Systems
In 1992, Margaret Wheatley
brought the new scientific theories of chaos and complexity into the world
of business when she wrote Leadership and the New Science. Wheatley
wrote about the nature of self-organizing systems in which
Small, local disturbances are not suppressed; there is no central command
control that prohibits small, constant changes. The system allows for many
levels of autonomy within itself, and for small fluctuations and changes. By
tolerating these, it is able to preserve its global stability and integrity
in the environment. (1992, p. 95)
In light of this lens, or interpretation, we might bring the non-cooperating
departments together, make sure it is clearly understood that organizational
values will be upheld; ensure that quality of care and service will be held
to our highest standards; and then make resources of time, space, trust, and
leadership available to both departments. We also would expect them to
reorganize themselves in order to better serve both their customers and the
overall organizational values.
-
TOP
Organizational
Values and Goals
In viewing a conflict
through an organization's values and goals, managers can ask the following
questions:
| What is really most important
in the organization -- being right or meeting outcomes?
|
|
| To which organizational values
could the conflict be giving voice?
|
|
| Does everyone involved know
what the organizational values are? How do they know?
|
|
Intentions and Expectations
To ascertain the employees' intentions
and expectations, managers can ask the following:
| What are the deeper intentions
and expectations?
|
|
| What skills are required in
order to meet those intentions and expectations?
|
|
Organizational Structure
A manager who views
departmental conflict through an organizational structure lens might ask
these questions:
| How does the
current organizational structure foster the conflict?
|
|
| How is power
being used in the conflict?
|
|
| Where is the
organization's energy going? What is getting lost in the conflict?
How can it be found again?
|
|
Time
and Space
Changing the context of a
situation often changes its meaning, which changes expectations, imagined
possibilities, and choices of behavior. One way to change context is
to expand, contract, or in some other way change the time and space within
which a situation unfolds. A manger who views interdepartmental conflict
through the lenses of changing time and space could explore conflict
resolution options in the following ways:
| Change the
context. Imagine that the conflict continues to escalate over
the next year. What will it be like a year from now?
|
|
| Imagine
that the conflict has been solved and that communication throughout
the entire organization has improved as a result of steps taken and
information generated. How did that happen? What was necessary?
-
TOP |
|
Schwartz (1991) discussed the
ability to try on different ways of making meaning by shifting time. He
takes teams through a process of imagining what changing circumstances might
mean. As the groups develop their stories of what they think will happen
because of what is currently happening, they determine the best course of
action based on that interpretation. Schwartz then has them put that one
interpretation aside, take the same set of circumstances, apply a completely
different meaning, and develop an appropriate course of action based on the
new meaning given the same circumstances. The result of this kind of
thinking and rethinking is a greatly increased ability on the part of team
members to be able to see multiple potential interpretations of
circumstances with which they are presented; and they develop a deeper
wisdom about possible choices. -
TOP |
|
REFRAMING AND SYSTEMS THINKING
Systems thinking is described by
Senge:
Business and other human endeavors are ... systems. They ... are bound by
invisible fabrics of interrelated actions, which often take years to fully
play out their effects on each other. Since we are part of that lacework
ourselves, it's doubly hard to see the whole pattern of change. ... Systems
thinking is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has
been developed over the past fifty years, to make the full patterns clearer,
and to help us see how to change them effectively. (1990, p. 7)
Senge introduced a tool for diagramming systems that shows cause and effect,
as a way to "see" what is actually happening graphically (i.e., how the
elements of a system are related). This allows us to "step back" and see the
situation portrayed outside of ourselves so that we can more objectively
move things around, play with the variables, make predictions. Any method we
use that gives us more objectivity will help us to get out of our frames of
meaning and, therefore, to have more choices with which to experiment.
We invite consultants into our organizations in the hope that they will help
us see our situation in new ways. Consultants can do this precisely because
they are not deeply or historically involved I the organization. They tend
to see in terms of patterns. Because they are detached from the
organization, consultants are often able to discuss organizational patterns
in objective terms. This, in turn, can teach the members of the organization
to reframe their thinking into more objective language. An experienced
consultant is also likely to have seen and worked with similar
organizational patterns before, and we expect him or her to help the
organization change frames with confidence.
|
Reframing In Practice - Encountering Difference
Difference of opinion is
difference in models. A difference in models produces a difference in
framing and perceived or projected meaning on a given situation. In field of
disabilities there are many different mental models in practice. To
understand what frames others are using and how they are making sense of the
world through those frames, it is useful to examine and understand the
prevalent models in the field. (see Table 11.1). It is not surprising, then,
that how one frames disabilities has everything to do with how he or she
responds both personally and professionally. The frame influences the
thinking in every aspect of approaching the person with a disability, and it
affects all the systems and surroundings. Each frame offers a different view
of the nature and source of the problem, evidence procedures, impact of the
problem on the individual, solutions sought, and strategies employed.
In Daniel's (1991) model, the individual defect paradigm frames the
desired outcomes in terms of improved functional capacity, return to work,
and improved personal adjustment. The focus is on fixing the individual. The
community an social unit paradigm places value on stronger relationships,
fuller life for all citizens, and community ownership of problems and
solutions. The focus is on building community and family capacity to support
people with disabilities. The technology/ecology frame uses filters to
enhance individual choice and control through the use of technology. Access
to information and technology is key to self-determination. The individual
rights paradigm frames the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship.
Disability is viewed in the frame of an ongoing civil rights struggle.
Each frame has it's own language,
cultural heroes, and advocates. It is easy to see that each paradigm or
cluster of ideas puts a different frame and shows a different picture of the
same situation. Each view is not necessarily right or wrong, just a
different point of view that is typically used by the advocates to sway
public thinking and support their way. - TOP |
|
|
|
Source:
Daniels (1991)
MANAGEMENT PARADIGMS
Management is thought and
subsequent behavior based on theories and ideas. How we do everything
we do is based on a conscious or unconscious paradigm. We are full of
assumptions, theories about how we work, how the world works, why people
behave and misbehave the way they do, and how organizations work.
Although many of these ideas are not conscious, they drive the frames that
we put around each management situation.
Leaders
draw on a variety of ideas and paradigms as they work
to improve and change their organizations. Since the early 1970s, social
scientists have focused on the ideas about how organizations work. The
theory base is diverse, but four frames emerge (Bolman & Deal, 1991):
rational systems, human resources, political,
and symbolic.
Rational systems theorists
focus on goals, roles, and technology.
For them, the frame is about developing structures to support organizational
purposes. Organizations establish purposeful goals and then select
structure, policy, and procedure to accomplish those goals.
Political theorists see the
world through the filters of power, conflict, and the distribution of scarce
resources. For them, organizations are like the wilds in which success comes
to those who understand the uses of power, coalitions, bargaining, and
conflict. Whereas rational systems theorists would design new
structures to reduce conflict and human resource theorists would encourage
people to talk it out, the political theorists would accept conflict and
move on to building a larger coalition to exert more influence.
Symbolic theorists are concerned
about problems of meaning. The frame here is that managers must rely more on
images, drama, magic, and luck to manage the meaning of events in the
organization. Symbolic theorists are consummate reframers. -
TOP |
|
CONCLUSIONS:
MAKING SENSE OF ANOTHER'S FRAMES
Understanding where others are
"coming from" requires the ability to step outside one's own mental
structures to perceive the situation through another persons frames.
To find the sense in the situation that someone else sees, you have to look
at it through his or her frame. Once you do that, you will have some ground
for redirecting his or her attention to looking at it another way or through
another frame.
Reframing is a tool, which when skillfully applied, can bring greater
understand of those who think and act differently than oneself. Knowing that
there are different possible frames and paradigms will give us a way to
engage those different models of the world in a deeper, more accepting way.
We can then realize that those who disagree with us are speaking and acting
from within a different frame, perhaps a different theory of disabilities,
or a different theory of management. By using reframing skills, we can
explore the other person's views in order to find the frame of reference out
of which they are thinking and operating. Only then can we reframe the
situation and move on to creating a frame that will allow the deeper
intention of both people to guide our plans and actions to mutually
beneficial outcomes. -
TOP
|
|
References:
| Bandler, R., & Grinder J. (1982).
Reframing. Moab, Utah: Real People Press.
|
|
| Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1991).
Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San
Francisco: Josey-Bass.
|
|
| Clifton, D., & nelson, P. (1992).
Soar with your strengths. New York: Delacorte Press.
|
|
| Covey, S. (1989). The seven
habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
|
|
| Crosby, P. (1979) Quality is
free. New York: McGraw-Hill.
|
|
| Daniels, S. (1991). Disability
paradigm. Unpublished manuscript, Washington, DC.
|
|
| Frankl, V.E. (1963). Man's search for
meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York: Penguin USA.
|
|
| Helgesen, S. (1995). The web of inclusion.
New York: Currency/Doubleday.
|
|
| Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1993)
Credibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
|
|
| Latzko, W.J., & Saunders, D.M. (1995).
Four days with Dr. Demming: A strategy for modern methods of
management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
|
|
| Ries, A. & Trout, J. (1981). Positioning:
The battle for your mind. New York: McGraw Hill.
|
|
| Robbins, A. (1986). Unlimited power.
New york: Fawcett Columbine.
|
|
| Rosen, S. (1982). My voice will go with
you: The teaching tales of Milton H. Erickson. New York: W.W.
Norton.
|
|
| Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long
view. New York: Currency/Doubleday
|
|
| Schwarz, J.E., & Volgy, T.J. (1985). The myth
of America's decline. Harvard Business Review, 63, 98-107.
|
|
| Seligman, M. (1990). Learned optimism.
New york: Alfred A. knopf.
|
|
| Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline:
The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:
Currency/Doubleday
|
|
| Stack, J. (1992). The great game of
business. New York: Currency/Doubleday
|
|
| Trout, j. (1995). The new positioning.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
|
|
| Wheatley, M.J. (1992). Leadership
and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
-
TOP |
|
RECOMMENDED
READINGS
| Anderson, W.T. (1990).
Reality isn't what it used to be. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
|
|
| Carse, J.P. (1986). Finite and
infinite games. New York: Ballantine Books.
|
|
| Collins, J.C., & Porras, J.I.
(1994). Built to last. New York: Harper Collins.
|
|
| Crum, T.F. (1987). The magic of
conflict. New York: Simon 7 Schuster.
|
|
| DeBono, E. (1990). I am right:
you are wrong. New York: penguin uSA
|
|
| Dobyns, L., & Crawford-Mason, C.
(1991). Quality or else. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
|
|
| Dykstra, A., Jr. (1995). Outcome
management. East Dundee, IL: High Tide Press.
|
|
| Felts, B. (1993). Interview with
Richard Bandler. NLP Network News, 1 (4), 1-11.
|
|
| Goldstein, J. (1994). The
unshcakled organziation. Portland, OR: Productivity press.
|
|
| Hagen, S. (1995). How the world
can be the way it is. Wheaton, IL: quest Books
|
|
| Hardy, R.E., & Swartz, R. (1996).
The self-defeating organization. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
|
|
| Kelly, R. (1992). The power of
followership. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
|
|
| Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by
erwards. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
|
|
| Lynch, D. (1984). Your high
performance business brain: An operator's manual. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
|
|
| Lynch, D. (1988). Strategy of the
dolphin: Scoring a win in a chaotic world. New York: William
Morrow & Co.
|
|
| Muldoon, B. (1996) The heart of
conflict. New York: G.P. Putman's Sons.
|
|
| Ray, M., & Myers, R. (1986).
Creativity in business. New York: Doubleday.
|
|
| Ray, M., & Rinzler, A. (Eds.).
(1993). The new paradigm in business. New York: Jeremy P.
Tarcher
|
|
| Watzlawick, P. (1978). The
language of change. New York: W.W. Norton.
|
|
| Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., &
Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and
problem resolution. New York: W.W. Norton.
|
|
| Wheatley, M.J. (1992). Leadership
and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. |
|
-
TOP |
| |
|
