Using Frames to Understand Conflict

Have you ever felt crazy at work?  Like your perception of reality is not at all like those around you?  And when you ask for feedback or clarification, you get an unreasonable response which furthers the feeling of being crazy? 

I have recently experienced this.  Honestly, my saving grace is email and documentation of events.  No one disagrees with the documentation, but no one involved validates the conflict or even confronts the ethical questions that arise from them.  The documentation grounds me.  The responses shake me up. 

The events at work have caused me to reflect deeply.  During the course of a few weeks in my new position, I had a flash of insight when I realized that my view of leadership is incongruous with others in higher or equal positions.  I began to see a philosophical divide but couldn't pinpoint it exactly. This triggered a memory of a book that I read during my Masters program at Seattle University.  Reframing Organizations, Artistry, Choice and Leadership by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal.

 I'm rereading this book again and it has helped me better understand the events. This book divides the view of an organization into four frames or lenses in which to view its functions.  Each frame has a much different language and understanding of dynamics and events. 

	Structural	Human Resources	Political	Symbolic
Metaphor for Organization	Factory or Machine	Family	Jungle	Carnival, temple, theater
Central Concepts	Rules, roles, goals, policies, technology, environment	Needs, skills, relationships	Power, conflict, competition, organizational politics	Culture, meaning, metaphor, ritual, ceremony, stories, heroes
Image of Leadership	Social architecture	Empowerment	Advocacy	Inspiration
Basic leadership challenge	Attune structure to task, technology, environment	Align organizational and human needs	Develop agenda and power base	Create faith, beauty, meaning

The upper leadership at my organization is very structurally and politically oriented.

I have a human resources and symbolic preference.  I have framed my new job within this context and it has been received with a welcome and relief.  I realize now the reason my peers need this view so desperately is because it does not exist at the upper level.   This has caused a deep organizational thirst for something more.   

During the course of the events since starting this position, I unknowingly entered the political frame when I requested money for a powerfully symbolic project.  This caused deep chaos and ambiguity for a few reasons:

1. I was speaking a symbolic language upper leadership didn't understand.  But I was confident and sure of the power of this symbol.  This was confusing to them. 
2. I was asking for resources in a political framework in which money is always held tightly and fought over by tribes.  Money is the currency of power in the political framework.  You do not ask for money without expecting a conflict. 

As a result, communication broke down. I was asked to follow up in an unreasonable and time-consuming way.  Instead of complying, I responded that I could not effectively do my job under those circumstances and I walked away.  They could keep the money if they wanted to. 

The choice to walk away was personal, not political.  Their request was unreasonable and I wanted to focus on my core duties.  But the choice cracked open the framework.  Suddenly, upper leadership's framework shifted to a Human Resources frame.  They need me to be successful for their own political currency.  Keeping money is only useful in politics to a degree.   

We reached an tentative agreement.

Without understanding the frameworks, the events would still confuse me.  Now I see that the conflict arose essentially from a leadership guided by different frameworks than mine.  I also see that my role in trying to seed change is in communicating and helping people discover the power of the Human Resources and Symbolic frames in an organization that misunderstands them.