settings in which there are various forms of actors and factors interacting with each other and eventually contributing to the organizational framework, Bolman’s and Deal’s leadership frames attempt to provide different scopes under which managers perceive issues/problems raised and behave towards implementing solutions (Mabey and Finch-Lees, 2008; Newstrom and Davis, 1997; Sasnett and Ross, 2007).
The four frames of organizational leadership are: the structural frame, the human resources frame, the political frame and the symbolic frame. The structural frame underlines the essence and importance of rules, regulations, structures, organizational design and policies; the human resources frame emphasizes the aspect of ‘people’ within the organization by placing significant weight on the fit between organizational structures and employees; the political frame focuses predominantly on the concentration of power and competition between organizational members; and the symbolic frame emphasizes the cultural orientation of organizations as means of inspiring and motivating organizational members (Bolman and Deal, 1991; Bolman and Deal, 2003; Crist, 1999; Sasnett and Ross, 2007).
Drawing upon the four frames proposed, this project deals with an analysis and theoretical application of the theory over the case of Nasa’s Challenger and Columbia shuttles disasters in 1986 and 2003 respectively. The aftermath of the Challenger and Columbia disasters revealed that the physical causes of the two incidents were less important than the internal – organizational ones that hindered greater problems in the overall communication and interaction between critical organizational departments. In both cases the lack of an integrated approach towards quality and safety procurement as well as the insufficient and ineffective communication amongst management and organizational members proved to be great contributors to the overall disaster.
Palestini (2004) states that the