Comparison Of Bolman And Deal 4 Frames Model And Dunphy And Stace Contingency Model

Bolman and Deal 4 Frames Model

Discuss about the Quality Management For The Organizational Project.

The report helps in analysing the different kind of change management models wherein the similarities and differences of the models will be discussed in an effective manner. The strengths and weaknesses of both the models namely Bolman and Deal 4 frames model and Dunphy and Stace contingency model will be discussed as this will help in providing proper brief about the different models in an effective manner (James and Albert 2015). The usefulness of the models has to be discussed that will help in analysis of the utilisation of the models in the business.  Both of the models are utilized by different organizations in order to implement changes.

There are different kind of similarities and differences in both the models wherein Bolman and Deal 4 frames model stated that leaders need to look at the different organizational issues along with four perspectives. The four frames outlined are as follows:

• Symbolic
• Structural
• Human Resource
• Political

Bolman and Deal 4 frames model helped in making understand that the leaders need to check the different kind of organizational challenges through these four models. The main and crucial aspect of the model is it will help in avoiding temptation of the leaders in acting effectively in different kind of models (Lozano, Ceulemans and Seatter 2015).

Dunphy and Stace contingency model helps in emphasizing the fact that the different organizations should vary their strategies of change as per the changes in the environmental for arriving at the optimum fit. The four styles of leadership are as follows:

• Collaborative style
• Directive style
• Coercive style
• Consultative style

There are different kind of similarities in both the models wherein it includes the following:

• Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model focuses on the different perspectives of the leaders wherein the leaders need to observe the different changes from the four perspectives that include structural, human resource, political and symbolic in nature. Similarly, in Dunphy and Stace Model, it was seen that it focuses on the change management wherein it includes both implementation and formulation of the leadership characteristics in organizations (Cummings, Bridgman and Brown 2016)
• Secondly, in Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model it was seen that leaders focuses on the different aspects of change that is required in the individuals in the workplace. Similarly, in the Dunphy and Stace Model, it was seen that it helps in providing support to the employees and they help in negotiating different conflicts and bring in change management effectively (Kakucha 2015)
• Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model helps in focusing on different kind of change strategies that includes the analysis of the organizational factors as this will help the company in solving such issues effectively. On the other hand, Dunphy and Stace Model helps in solving the different issues of the organization in an effective manner that will help in bringing different kind of changes in the organization (Cameron and Green 2015).
• There are different kind of style of change management in the Dunphy and Stace Model wherein the companies need to analyse the different changes appropriately. Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model helps in understanding the different requirements from the point of the leaders and the model do not consider the employees in any manner. Similarly, in Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model, the changes are made effectively that can be used in order to bring different changes in the organization along with leadership style of the leaders.

• The Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model helps in understanding the different changes in an effective manner that focuses on the requirements of the leaders of different organizations. On the other hand, Dunphy and Stace model focuses on implementing change management in the entire organization. The main focus of the model is to focus on different kind of changes that will help in implementation of changes in an effective manner (Lewis, Passmore and Cantore 2016)
• Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model includes the four frames that includes the leadership that is required to be followed by the different leaders of the organizations. On the other hand, Dunphy and Stace Model focuses on the different kind of leadership approaches that can be attained by the leaders in the organizations as to increase the effectiveness of the functions of the organizations effectively (Helfat and Martin 2015).
• Lastly, it can be seen that Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model focuses on only frame and there is limitation that there is no multi-frame thinking. However, on the other hand, Dunphy and Stace Model focuses on scale and style of change management that is required to be analysed effectively. Dunphy And Stace Model has to focus more on the different kind of issues that can be solved by measuring the scale of change that is required to implement such changes effectively (Doppelt 2017)

There are different kind of strengths and weaknesses in both the models that include the following:

Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model

Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model helps in focusing on the different requirements of the leaders in the organizations. The respective model helps in focusing on different approaches and four frames that will help in reducing uncertainties and issues at workplace.

• The model focuses on the perspectives that can help the leaders in effectively solving different kind of issues (Kuipers et al. 2014)
• The model will help in focusing on the different aspects that will help in analysing the entire organizational change and when the leader lacks ascertainment of the problem wherein there is lack of motivation and commitment among workers. The Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model helps in adopting symbolic approach that helps the companies in solving the issues with such model
• The symbolic frame along with political frame of Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model helps in producing effective kind of results and this can reduce the confusion among the team members as well

• The model only focuses on the four frame that can be ineffective in nature in certain circumstances
• The model only focuses on the perspectives of the leaders; however, the employees are not kept in the focus and this can be ineffective in nature
• The model limits the focus and perspectives of the leaders to a certain four frames and this will limit the ideas of the leaders to a certain extent itself (Hornstein 2015)
• The model asserts that there can be situations and circumstances wherein the frame will not work well, in such situations the leaders cannot focus on such situations and this can create ineffectiveness in the performance of the organization as well

The Dunphy and Stace Model is the approach towards the change management in the different kind of organizations. The respective model helps in focusing more on bringing and implementing change in the organizations. There are strengths and weaknesses of the model that has to be analysed in an effective manner that will help in solving the issues of the companies effectually.

• The developmental transition helps in facilitating as that focuses on development of the employees and this model helps in improving the communication in an effectual manner
• The kind of change that has been proposed by Dunphy and Stace model can be analysed with the implementation of different turnarounds that is required to be analysed in an effective manner
• Dunphy and Stace model helps in development of the effective kind of communication that includes the analysis of the different organizational kind of factors
• The model helps in implementing developmental transition that will help in expansion of the different kind of services in organizations and this includes the change management implementation as well

• The model is criticized as it is normative in nature and there is only limited kind of empirical evidence in the different analysis of the model in a limited manner
• The model is criticized as it is dependent on the different kind of change drivers and this model do not have any kind of independency in bringing the entire change in the organizations (Al-Haddad and Kotnour 2015)
• The model is criticized as there is excess of the dependency on style of leadership that has been adopted for organizational change implementation and the respective model do not consider the analysis of the organizational factors (Goetsch and Davis 2014).

Dunphy and Stace Contingency Model

Therefore, it can be analysed that there are different strengths and weaknesses of both the models. The strengths of the model have to be analysed in an effective manner as this will help in bringing the change and there are different issues as well that has to be addressed in an effective manner. The different strengths of the Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model has to be applied in the different companies effectively as this will provide different opportunities to the firm in an effectual manner.

Conclusion

Therefore, it can be concluded that both the models are effective in nature wherein they help in brining and implementing change in the organizations. It was seen that both the models have different kind of weaknesses and strengths that has helped them in implementing changes in the organizations. The similarities in the models has helped in handling different issues in an effective manner and the differences has made them more effective from one another. Lastly, Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model has helped in understanding the perspectives of the leaders and their way of looking at the changes that is required to be made. On the other hand, Dunphy and Stace Model has helped in understanding the requirement of the change management in organizations.

References

Al-Haddad, S. and Kotnour, T., 2015. Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), pp.234-262.

Cameron, E. and Green, M., 2015. Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T. and Brown, K.G., 2016. Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. human relations, 69(1), pp.33-60.

Doppelt, B., 2017. Leading change toward sustainability: A change-management guide for business, government and civil society. Routledge.

Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014. Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson.

Helfat, C.E. and Martin, J.A., 2015. Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41(5), pp.1281-1312.

Hornstein, H.A., 2015. The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), pp.291-298.

James, R.P. and Albert, S., 2015. Transforming an Australian public organization: a case study using Hirschhorn’s’ Three Campaigns’ change model. The Business & Management Review, 6(2), p.164.

Kakucha, W.N., 2015. The Role of Charismatic Leadership in Change Management Using Kurt Lewin’s Three Stage Model. The International Journal of Business & Management, 3(10), p.634.

Kuipers, B.S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J. and Van der Voet, J., 2014. The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public administration, 92(1), pp.1-20.

Lewis, S., Passmore, J. and Cantore, S., 2016. Appreciative inquiry for change management: Using AI to facilitate organizational development. Kogan Page Publishers.

Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. and Seatter, C.S., 2015. Teaching organisational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, pp.205-215.