The Power of Framing

Creating the Language of Leadership

Gail T. Fairhurst

• Éditeur: Jossey-Bass
• Année: 2010
• ISBN:
  9780470901328
• Édition: 2
• Sujet: Negocios y empresa
• Sous-sujet: Comportamiento organizacional

Praise for The Power of Framing

"The primary work of leadership involves managing meaning through framing. Fairhurst shows that the way leaders use language to frame people, situations, and events has important consequences for the way individuals make sense of the world and their actions. The Power of Framing is an accessible and inspirational read for leaders who want to shape their organizations in ethically responsible ways."
— J. KEVIN BARGE, professor, Texas A&M University

"An ideal book for MBA students and business professionals who are interested in specific tools for constructing leadership in their professional worlds. By focusing on the language toolbox of leadership, the book empowers anyone to construct leadership through talk and interaction."
— JOLANTA ARITZ, associate professor, Center for Management Communication, USC Marshall School of Business

"Building on her earlier acclaimed work, and written in a highly accessible style, Fairhurst's thoughtful study provides us with a practical and highly relevant analysis of the power of framing language from a leadership perspective. This is a must-have book."
— DAVID GRANT, professor of organizational studies, University of Sydney

"Communication is the most important element of leadership, and framing of the subject and situation is one of the most powerful tools available to leaders. Gail Fairhurst has created the handbook to help leaders do this right. A must-read for anyone in a leadership capacity."
— RICH KILEY, venture capitalist, and retired Procter & Gamble marketing and HR executive

"To be an effective global manager, there is nothing more critical than understanding how to frame an issue so that you are effectively communicating and motivating in a culturally sensitive manner. This book will tune you into these issues and show you how to make certain your communication is properly interpreted by your audience."
— OLGA JACOB, general sales manager (Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg), American Airlines

1

The Reality of Framing

THE WORDS frame or framing have many meanings these days. Most often, they refer to a form or structure, as in “the house has a sturdy frame,” or they refer to the act of constructing such a form, as in “framing a house.” However, a “frame” can also be a structured way of thinking such as the concept of customer service (designating anything that serves or supports the purchasers of a product or service). Framing then is the act of communicating that concept—even something as clichéd as saying, “The customer is always right.” However, the English vernacular allows for a lot of wordplay using frame or framing; we can refer to “framing someone for murder” (sometimes referred to as a frame-up), or to “framing an argument,” or to “framing the issues.”

But could you also talk about “framing reality”? If you’re familiar with the old baseball yarn of the three umpires who disagreed about the task of calling balls and strikes, you might.¹ As the story goes, the first umpire said, “I calls them as they is.” The second one said, “I calls them as I sees them.” The third and cleverest umpire said, “They ain’t nothin’ till I calls them.”² The first two might argue that the swing and a miss can be objectively determined, especially in this age of instant replays and multiple camera angles. True enough, but the third understands that one needs a society’s invented game of baseball for a strike to mean something in the first place. A strike is a strike by virtue of the agreed-upon rules of baseball and pronouncement by its authorities. Without the institution of baseball, a swing and a miss could just as easily be fly or mosquito swatting. So as long as the game is under way, the third umpire understands best of all that he frames reality by gesturing and calling, “Strrriiike three. You’re out!”

If leadership is like umpiring baseball, what kind of umpire are you? This book will help you answer this question. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of leaders are like the first and second umpires. Only a small minority come close to the third, who understands the real power of human communication. Not just a simple transmission, it is the very stuff of reality-making itself.

The Rules of Reality Construction

What is the relationship between leadership and the task of constructing reality? Well, that’s what this book is all about. For starters, let’s begin with a few guiding rules.

Reality Construction Rule #1: Control the Context

Leaders often cannot control events, but they can control the context under which events are seen if they recognize a framing opportunity.

Some leaders disparage communication as something they just do automatically. They may also label communication “mere rhetoric,” “window dressing,” or “just words” because it cannot change the hard cold facts of a situation. True as that observation may be, however, it falls far short of being complete.

Consider the situation Robert E. Murray—chairman of the Murray Energy Corporation and co-owner of the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah—faced on August 6, 2007, when the mine caved in with six miners trapped inside. It was perhaps the most important communications challenge of his career, and it serves to illustrate the effect of most of the rules in this chapter.

As soon as news of the collapse reached him, he could be sure that anxious families, the mining community, and the press would hang on his every word. But could any communication by him change the reality of a mine collapse with six entombed miners?

Of course, neither words nor symbols can alter the physical or material conditions of our world (although they may influence our perceptions of them). However, communications can play a huge role in many other issues surrounding a mine collapse—the comfort and rescue effort updates to the families and mining community; the moral and legal assignment of blame that could ultimately prove costly in a court of law; the efforts at image management for Murray Energy Corporation and its partner that could be key to future business and treatment by federal regulators; the treatment of the press as a means to an end in this regard, and many more.

Robert Murray was not in Utah at the time of the collapse, but upon hearing of it, he reportedly boarded a private jet and was at the Crandall Canyon site within hours, taking command of the rescue operation and giving frequent media updates.³ Although not all situations so clearly mark their communication exigencies, Murray appeared to recognize an important communication opportunity with the mine collapse. This was his chance to frame reality, and he took it. But was he competent in his crisis communications?

Reality Construction Rule #2: Define the Situation

At its most basic level, framing reality means defining “the situation here and now” in ways that connect with others.

In the sense I use it here, framing involves the ability to shape the meaning of a subject—usually the situation at hand—to judge its character and significance through the meanings we include and exclude, as well as those we emphasize when communicating.⁴ At his first formal news conference on August 7, 2007, how did Robert Murray define “the situation here and now”? He was adamant that an earthquake had caused the mine’s collapse—not his company’s practice of “retreat mining,” which is exceedingly dangerous and tightly regulated. In this “situation here and now,” Murray sought to portray Murray Energy Corporation as without blame. (You can check out Murray’s news conference on You Tube.⁵)

But Murray went on from there, confidently proclaiming, “We know exactly where the miners are,” promising, “I will not leave this mine until the men are rescued dead or alive,” and then boldly predicting, “We’re going to get them.”⁶ Curiously, at that same news conference, he spoke of subjects as wide-ranging as the essential nature of the U.S. coal industry for American consumers, new technologies, global warming, and his own rise from miner to founder, co-owner, and president of Murray Energy Corporation. On that hot August day, Robert Murray chose very specific meanings to define “the situation here and now” for those in attendance (and ruled out others that might suggest his company’s culpability). That is the essence of framing.

One of the most frequently asked questions about framing is a matter of definition: Is it a structured way of thinking or an act of communicating? In reality, it is both, because a frame is that mental picture, and framing is the process of communicating that picture to others.⁷ However, it can be a little confusing to talk about those “mental pictures” because they can be a single frame or snapshot of a situation, as in “I (Gail Fairhurst) am writing Chapter One right now.” Or they can be rather persistent patterns of thought that I have formed, for example, about “book writing” or “first chapter book writing.”

I prefer to call these more general structures mental models because they help organize our thoughts and serve as underlying expectations for what is likely to happen in new situations.⁸ Think of them as a library of past cases from which specific frames emerge each time we communicate.⁹ For example, from Robert Murray’s mental models for crisis communications, his “deflect responsibility” framing emerged, coupled with the tendency to make some rather bold predictions.

What motivates us to choose one framing strategy over another? The simple and perhaps slightly cynical answer is “self-interest” or “personal goals,” but the better answers are “culture” and “sensemaking.” As Chapter Two discusses, culture supplies us with a tool bag of specific language and arguments to consider when we communicate with another. Sensemaking is the situational engagement of mental models (just as the mine collapse triggered Murray’s mental models for crisis communications).¹⁰ In practical terms, to have made sense is to know how to go on in a situation, that is, to know what to say or do next.¹¹Chapter Two discusses how mental models make this all possible.

Language becomes a key issue not just in our own sensemaking, but in how effectively we impact the sensemaking of others. In an increasingly complex world, language that is nuanced, precise, and eloquent enables leaders to draw distinctions that others may not see or be able to describe (Chapter Four). Quite often, options for surviving a complex world lie in those distinctions. ¹² However, as Freudian slips also demonstrate, more than just conscious processes are at work when we use language. We need to know how to harness our unconscious as a result (Chapter Three).

Finally, and most important, a suitable definition of “the situation here and now” requires that we connect with others in some meaningful way. We have to be able to align others’ interests with our own because we are rarely free agents. We are interdependent and often so inextricably so that we cannot accomplish objectives on our own. When we operate with a sense of that interdependence, we are motivated to look for the best ways to connect to others. Robert Murray clearly aimed for such a connection, but did he succeed?

Reality Construction Rule #3: Apply Ethics

“Reality” is often contested. Framing a subject is an act of persuasion by leaders, one imbued with ethical choices.

Robert Murray might have made himself the hero of one of those uniquely American success stories were it not for the challenges to his credibility in the hours and days following the mine collapse. U.S. government seismologists from the National Earthquake Information Center in Colorado indicated that it was likely the mine collapse itself that caused the ground to shake, not an earthquake.¹³It also became clear that Murray did not know where the miners were; bore holes were drilled in several unsuccessful attempts to supply oxygen and look for signs of life. Murray’s promise not to leave the mine was also broken after three rescuers died and six were injured while trying to reach the miners. By August 23, Murray was telling National Public Radio, “It’s a deadly mountain, and I’m not going near it.”¹⁴

What might Murray have said to draw less fire? He could have allowed that the technique of retreat mining, even within the bounds of governmental regulation, might be among several factors that could contribute to a mine collapse. Instead, he consistently forced the media to parse his words on the subject. For example, at the Aug...