Having looked at framing, in its nature, definition and applications to the workplace, I would like to look at the inherent limitations with framing. Mastering framing is an art and, as such, it is not precise and often elusive. But there are good useful techniques at our disposal.
The appreciation of framing limitations and the understanding of the good practices should help.
Limitations
Frames are natural, instinctive and often automatic. Our brain needs them. We need them to make sense of our world, to help us in understanding and to assist with decisions.
As suggested by Sheril Mathews in his article, frames carry their own limitations and issues. It is mostly related to human biases.
We can say that:
- frames filter what we see;
- frames themselves are often hard to see;
- frames appear complete and simple;
- frames appears often exclusive;
- frames can be hard to change;
- frames integrate character, logic and emotions.
Frames filter what we see – in a situation, once we apply a frame or a model to our thinking, the frame will condition us, like it is in control of the information we attend. As such, it often prevents us from seeing other aspects that are “outside” our frame.
Frames themselves are often hard to see – frames are often automatic, adopted by our brain to simplify what we see, to help us act. It is often difficult to understand the specific features and nuances of the frame we adopt. In analysing our framing, a lot depends on our upbring, past experiences, our education and training on the subject.
Frames appear complete and simple – as said above, given that frames are there to simplify our world, we may not challenge them. We accept them, in what we believe they are – solid, accurate, incontrovertible.
Frames appear often exclusive – it is hard to adopt multiple views. We tend to struggle in looking at multiple frames, especially if they are contrasting each other. Some views are really opposite to each other – think about ethics or politics (or the polarised views on meat vs no-meat vs synthetic meat!)
Frames can be hard to change – it is in human nature to stick to one frame. It is about our brain trying to be economical. Challenging a frame is difficult and requires time and effort. Referring to my choice about commuting to work that I mentioned in the previous article, it was hard for me to decide to scrap the car!
Frames integrate character, logic and emotions – we conclude and reach our decision on the choice of frame after applying our logic and with an emotional charge. But we often struggle in explaining to others the reasoning, the fairness and correctness of our frame over that of a counterpart. We may confuse “ethos”, “pathos” and “logos” and use these incorrectly, creating a conflict or more confusion. This can be due to the emotional charge associated with the frame or distortion by the media used for the debate (think about the limitations imposed by social media). I mention here an interesting book in which the issue of ethos, pathos and logos is well explained(“Thank You for Arguing”, by Jay Heinrichs).
How to be better at framing
What can we do so that we frame more effectively?
What you can do may be specific to your professional field, your interest and your personality. In your profession, do you have to champion innovation or to break boundaries? Or are you rather focused on ensuring strict compliance to established procedures? Are you involved in leading societal or behavioural changes or are you simply interested in reading and analysing trends in your datasets? Are you in the communication sector? Are you interested in politics? Skills for good framing are different in all these situations.
What I think is useful for this blog is a consolidation of common-sense advice, finding common traits. Allow me to be generic and use guidance from Sheril’s article. In his article he provides four good advices that I elaborate below (and I am adding one to the list):
Allow space and time to learn about uncovering frames
- What are the measures of success for your frame of choice?
- Which assumptions are at the base of the frame?
- What attributes of your frame do you consider that should be unquestioned?
- What are the boundaries that the frame imposes?
- What do those boundaries leave out?
- How is your personal and professional background, and training, influencing your frame and your reasoning?
- What do you consider as ‘non-negotiable’? And why?
Allow space and time to become familiar with opposing frames
- What are the circumstances that determine the existence of opposing frames?
- What aspects does your frame address better than the one of your counterpart?
- What aspects does it ignore or neglect?
- What are the attributes that make those opposing frames mutually exclusive?
- Which are the ‘non-negotiables’, in your frame and in the one of the counterpart?
Allow space and time (.. and get in the habit) to reframe
- Are the assumptions at the base of your frame of choice still valid?
- Is your frame successful? If not, why?
- Are your ‘non-negotiables’ still current and valid?
- Is there any change in the aspects that the frame addresses or in the aspects that it ignores?
- Can you borrow a different frame from a different discipline, sector, field or industry?
- Is there an option for reframing? Why not taking it?
Allow space and time to learn the language of persuasion
- What metaphors and imagery can you use to explain or describe your frame of choice?
- Are you using “ethos”, “logos” and “pathos” effectively and appropriately?
I am not an expert in communication or in persuasion, but I saw similarities in what Sheril proposed and what Jay Heinrichs covered in his book. It is interesting to read about the value of storytelling, “contrasting”, “spinning”, the use of analogy and jargon, categorisation, repetition etc.
Allow space and time to understand the context
- What is the current and future context?
- Have the stakeholders changed their attitude toward your frame?
- Do you need to modify assumptions and boundaries in response to the changes in the context?
- Are your assumptions on the measure of the frame success still valid? If not, why?
This is about keeping an open mind and continuing to consider the context in which the agents operate and the frame applies. It is about remaining vigilant on the context and about the moving parts, watching their interdependencies.
Remember that frames have limitations and we, humans, have biases and emotions. It is a matter of investing time and effort and learning a few tricks.
“You predict, construct, and act. You are an architect of your experience.”
Lisa Feldman Barrett
How would this resonate with your experience with framing? Have a thought about the topic and read in the next article about the application of framing to project management.
Marco Bottacini, Senior Portfolio Manager at GALVmed
The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinion of GALVmed.
Project Management Discussion Group 