Is your university a well-oiled machine or a factory where employees are considered resources in the production system, which can be engineered to produce the most efficient output under the plans and control of a hierarchical management? Or can your university be compared to a family, in which nurturing mothers and fathers try to ensure that everyone can use their personal strengths for the benefit of all? Or perhaps it can be likened to a jungle, in which different groups and alliances compete with each other to advance their own agenda and win the maximum amount of scarce resources? Or do the staff of your university, in a similar fashion to people in a temple, strive towards a greater purpose that is meaningful to everyone?

Bolman and Deal (1984; 1991; 2008) use these four metaphors—a machine, a family, a jungle and a temple—to illustrate four fundamentally different approaches to looking at organisations. They call these approaches frames, which are cognitive frameworks that help us direct our attention to what we consider important. They influence our perception of what we see, what we hear, how we distinguish problems, how we interpret events and what kindof information we are willing to collect to support our thinking and pave the way for the actions we are about to take. However, frames also act as cognitive blinders, for while they help us see and hear certain issues, they also blind us from seeing and hearing other signs and opportunities.

In this chapter, the four-frame model and the concepts of reframing and multi-framing will be introduced. The review is based on Bolman and Deal’s bestselling book Reframing Organisations—Artistry, Choice and Leadership, which was originally published in 1984 as Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organisations and is now in its fifth edition.

Following an introduction of the main concepts of Bolman and Deal’s model, a short overview of the research and the critique on the four-frame model will be provided. A reader interested in the original references for this research can consult Bolman (2017) or Vuori (2011, 81–90). The conclusion section evaluates the merits and challenges of utilising the four-frame model in the study of academic leadership.