Olivia: Most of us think big failures—like a corporate scandal or a government disaster—happen because leaders are corrupt or incompetent. The truth is far more terrifying. The biggest catastrophes are often caused by leaders who are brilliant, dedicated... and blind. Jackson: Whoa, hold on. So you're saying competence can be a weakness? That being an expert can actually make you worse at your job? That feels completely backward. Olivia: It does, but it’s the unsettling reality at the heart of the book we’re diving into today: Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal. Jackson: Reframing Organizations. Okay, the title itself sounds a bit like a dense business school textbook. Olivia: And it is a classic in that world, but don't let that fool you. What's fascinating is that this book has been a bestseller in leadership studies for over 30 years, constantly updated. The authors weren't just academics; they wanted to create a practical survival guide for leaders navigating the chaos of real-world organizations. They argue that leaders don't fail because they're dumb; they fail because they get locked into one way of seeing the world. Jackson: Brilliant but blind. I'm intrigued. But that’s a huge claim. Can you give me a real-world example of where this kind of expert blindness led to disaster? Olivia: Absolutely. And it's one of the most tragic examples imaginable. It involves the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.

Jackson: Okay, now you have my full attention. Most people blame that on a lack of information or a failure to connect the dots. Olivia: That's the common narrative. But Bolman and Deal would argue the problem was deeper. It wasn't a lack of dots; it was that the different agencies were using completely different coloring books. They were trapped in their own "frames." Jackson: What do you mean by frames? Olivia: A frame is essentially a mental model. It's the lens through which you see the world. It tells you what's important and what to ignore. For the FBI at the time, their dominant frame was law enforcement. They saw the world in terms of criminals, evidence, and prosecution. Their job was to build a case and arrest people after a crime was committed. Jackson: Right, that makes sense. That’s their job. Olivia: Exactly. But the CIA operated from a completely different frame: espionage. Their world was about spies, foreign threats, and gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks. They weren't focused on building court-ready cases; they were focused on covert operations. Jackson: So you had one group thinking like cops and another thinking like spies. Olivia: Precisely. And their frames were so different, they couldn't effectively share or understand each other's information. The book gives a chilling example. The CIA had identified two known Al-Qaeda terrorists who had entered the United States. But they didn't pass that information to the FBI. Jackson: Why on earth not? That seems like a massive, unforgivable oversight. Olivia: From our perspective, yes. But from within their frame, it made a certain kind of sense. To the CIA, these men were a potential intelligence asset to be monitored. To the FBI, they would have been immediate targets for arrest, which could have blown the CIA's larger surveillance operation. The FBI saw a crime waiting to happen; the CIA saw a thread to pull. They were both looking at the same individuals but seeing two completely different realities. Jackson: That's horrifying. It’s like they were speaking different languages while a bomb was ticking. They weren't necessarily incompetent or malicious; their own expertise blinded them to the other half of the picture. Olivia: That is the very definition of the trap. Each agency was full of brilliant, dedicated people doing their jobs exactly as they were trained to do. But their specialized frames created systemic blindness. No one could see the whole picture—that these men weren't just criminals or intelligence assets, but part of a plot to use airplanes as missiles. That possibility didn't fit neatly into either the "crime" frame or the "espionage" frame. Jackson: I can see this playing out in the business world, too. I’m thinking of the Volkswagen emissions scandal. The engineers were so locked into the "factory" frame—hit the performance targets, solve the technical problem—that they completely ignored the political and ethical frames. They cheated. Olivia: A perfect example. They solved the engineering problem brilliantly, but created a political and symbolic catastrophe that cost the company billions and destroyed public trust. They were wearing blinders. The book is full of these stories, from corporate meltdowns to government fiascos, and the pattern is always the same: a leader or an organization gets stuck in one way of seeing and misses the bigger picture. Jackson: Okay, so being trapped in one frame is disastrous. I'm sold on the problem. How do we break out? What are the other ways of seeing that we're missing?

Olivia: This is where the book becomes incredibly empowering. Bolman and Deal don't just diagnose the disease; they give you the cure. They offer a toolkit with four distinct frames, or lenses, that you can use to analyze any situation. Jackson: A leadership toolkit. I like that. It sounds practical. What are they? Olivia: The first is the one most organizations are built on: the Structural Frame. Think of it as the organization as a Factory. This lens focuses on logic, rules, roles, and goals. It’s all about the organizational chart, the processes, the chain of command. It's the blueprint of the machine. Jackson: The boring stuff, basically. The bureaucracy. Olivia: It can be, but it's essential! Without a good structure, you have chaos. The problem is when it's the only lens you use. The second lens is the Human Resource Frame. This sees the organization as a Family. It’s not about roles; it’s about people. It focuses on needs, skills, relationships, and morale. The key question here isn't "Is the process efficient?" but "Are our people supported, motivated, and able to grow?" Jackson: Okay, so Factory vs. Family. Structure vs. People. I get that. Those two often seem to be in conflict at most companies. Olivia: They are. And that's just the beginning. The third lens is the Political Frame. This views the organization as a Jungle. It recognizes that organizations aren't always rational factories or happy families. They are arenas of power, conflict, and competition. Different groups have different agendas, and they're all competing for limited resources—budget, influence, promotions. Jackson: Ah, the office politics frame. So this is basically 'Game of Thrones' but with spreadsheets and passive-aggressive emails. Olivia: (laughing) That is a perfect analogy. It’s about understanding power dynamics, building coalitions, and negotiating. A leader who ignores the political jungle is naive and will likely get eaten alive. Jackson: I know a few of those. Okay, so we have the Factory, the Family, and the Jungle. What’s the fourth one? This feels like it's covering most of the bases. Olivia: The fourth is the one that’s most often ignored, and perhaps the most powerful. It’s the Symbolic Frame. This lens sees the organization as a Temple or a Carnival. It’s about culture, meaning, belief, and faith. It’s the stories a company tells about itself, the heroes it celebrates, the rituals that bind people together—like the annual holiday party or the way a new hire is welcomed. It’s the vibe. Jackson: Honestly, that sounds a bit 'woo-woo' for the corporate world. The "vibe"? Can you really manage a company based on that? Olivia: You can't manage a company without it. The Symbolic frame answers the question, "Why should I care?" It's what inspires people to go above and beyond. The book tells the story of the Eagle Group, a company that created a legendary, innovative team by fostering a powerful culture of collaboration and risk-taking. They didn't just have good structure or perks; they had a shared identity, a story they all believed in. That's the temple. Jackson: A temple. I see. It’s the mission, the shared purpose. Olivia: Exactly. And the book uses a fantastic little story to tie all of this together—the story of the three baseball umpires. They're asked how they call balls and strikes. The first umpire, a structuralist, says, "I call 'em as they are." He believes in an objective reality. Jackson: He’s the Factory guy. Rules are rules. Olivia: The second umpire, more of a humanist, says, "I call 'em as I see 'em." He acknowledges his own perception is part of the equation. Jackson: The Family guy. It’s about individual experience. Olivia: But it's the third umpire who holds the key. He’s the symbolic and political thinker. He says, "They ain't nothin' until I call 'em." Jackson: Wow. So he's saying reality isn't fixed? That he creates it with his call? Olivia: He creates the meaning. The pitch is just a ball of leather moving through space. It only becomes a "strike" when the umpire, the person with symbolic authority, declares it to be so. That’s what great leaders do. They don't just manage reality; they interpret it. They frame it. They tell the story that gives events meaning. Jackson: Okay, that clicks. The Factory, the Family, the Jungle, and the Temple. It’s like a set of X-ray glasses for any social situation. Once you have these four lenses, you can never unsee the hidden machinery, the family dynamics, the power games, and the cultural rituals happening all around you, from your office to your local coffee shop. Olivia: That’s the power of it. You start seeing everything through these frames. You watch a press conference and see the political and symbolic moves. You analyze a team project that failed and see the structural flaws and the human resource neglect. It changes how you diagnose every problem.

Jackson: So what's the big takeaway here? Is it just about being a better manager by using a four-part checklist, or is there something deeper? Olivia: There’s something much deeper. The real power isn't just knowing the four frames exist. Many people can memorize them. The book's subtitle is key: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. The choice is which lens to use in a given moment. But the artistry is in the ability to reframe—to fluidly and gracefully switch between them. Jackson: So it’s not about picking one frame and sticking to it. It’s about being a master of all four. Olivia: Exactly. A leader facing a crisis might need to be a structural architect in the morning, designing a new workflow. Then a human resource counselor in the afternoon, addressing team burnout. Then a political negotiator by evening, securing resources from another department. And all the while, be a symbolic chief, reminding everyone of the mission and keeping hope alive. Jackson: That sounds exhausting. But also incredibly effective. It’s like being a multilingual interpreter of reality. You can speak the language of spreadsheets, the language of feelings, the language of power, and the language of stories. Olivia: That’s a beautiful way to put it. And that's the ultimate goal. To move beyond a single, comfortable perspective and embrace the full, messy, complex reality of organizations. The book defines a "mess" in two ways: a troublesome situation, and a group of people who eat together. The core challenge of leadership is to transform the former into the latter. Jackson: From a troublesome situation to a group that can eat together. I love that. It’s about turning chaos into community. Olivia: And you can only do that if you can see the situation from all sides. If you can see the broken structure, the hurt feelings, the hidden power struggles, and the need for a shared story. Jackson: That's a powerful question to end on. It makes you rethink every problem you've ever been stuck on. I'm thinking about a project at a past job that just went completely off the rails. We were all focused on the structure, the deadlines—the Factory frame. We never stopped to look at the jungle, the competing agendas, or the family, the fact that the team was completely burned out. Olivia: And if you had, you might have found a completely different solution. That's the power of reframing. Jackson: That's a challenge I think we can all take with us. We'd love to hear your own 'reframing' moments. What problem did you see differently once you changed your lens? Share them with us on our social channels. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.