As I See It: Frame and Reframe

by Victor Rozek

Wisdom is often a recycled thing; discovered and rediscovered, translated, expanded, and finally adopted as one's own. The ancient Talmud tells us that "We do not see the world as it is, we see the world as we are." Cognitive science calls it "framing." Apparently, in several thousand years we've traded eloquence for brevity. But the meaning is essentially the same. A frame is a jumble of beliefs and experiences that shape the way we see the world. It's the cognitive mechanism through which we make meaning of what is.

Absent an observer, all events are neutral. It is our interpretation of events and their impact on us that gives them meaning. Frames acts like a cheesecloth through which data is constantly being squeezed. But only the data that supports the assumptions and beliefs of the frame gets through. Contradictory data never quite make it. Once you have an established frame, you tend to accept only the facts that fit the frame.

The descriptors we use reveal the frame operating beneath the surface, thus language becomes important. As CEOs, PR firms, lawyers, and politicians discovered long ago: words not only describe reality, they create reality; control the language and you control the message. When Coca-Cola says "It's the real thing," the implication is that competing products are not real, but artificial copies and poor-tasting imitations of the original; a powerful frame for brown sugar water with bubbles.

In the workplace, frames are evident in the way in which people, issues, and projects are portrayed. Is that female colleague assertive or bitchy? Does affirmative action lower standards or level the playing field? Is the software implementation schedule aggressive or unrealistic? Each of these frames has meaning beyond the specific terminology. And translating the frame is a means to understanding the framer, because how we describe the world says a lot more about us than it does about the world.

Notice the presumptions in framing a female colleague as "assertive." Assertive people speak their mind and ask for what they want. They are self-starters, actively pursuing their goals, and are unafraid to take chances. They stand up for what they believe and will not hesitate to let you know when they don't like something. When the term is used by men, there may also be a condescending (albeit complementary) aspect to calling a woman "assertive." It implies that she is what men are expected to be, which is a clumsy way of acknowledging gender equality.

Bitchy, on the other hand, is being assertive without cause. Bitchy people are annoying when they speak their minds. They are passive complainers, angry, resentful, and prone to nastiness. There is a clear villain (the bitch), and a victim (anyone within earshot). The very act of bitchiness challenges male power and authority. When used to describe women, this frame is dismissive, intended as a shorthand for all of the irritating qualities men ascribe to women, such as being emotional, irrational, and chronically discontented. The use of the word "bitch" in hip-hop is yet another level of disdain and disrespect that contributes to a larger cultural context in which it is permissible--and in some quarters fashionable--to treat women with contempt.

Curiously, in the context of the workplace, bitchy and assertive are almost mirror opposites. But how can one person be experienced so differently? Precisely because each observer views the world through a frame that acts like a distorting lens which recognizes only the data that matches the distortion. Thus, if I admire assertive women, I will look for evidence to support my beliefs. If I feel threatened by them, the same behaviors will be interpreted as bitchy. That one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is largely a result of how the activities of that person are framed. His bombs bad, my bombs good; my assertiveness admirable, her assertiveness repulsive.

In the case of affirmative action, both arguments are true. Affirmative action does lower standards and it levels the playing field. Which of those outcomes is championed depends on the frame through which it is viewed. The Redress Past Inequities frame argues that minorities have been economically and educationally disenfranchised by policy and prejudice. It further argues that the essence of the American dream is equal opportunity for all, and that the nation has an obligation to ensure all of its citizens can participate in that dream. In this frame, compassion is valued more than competition and fairness means more than individual advantage. If standards have to be adjusted, it is a temporary measure owed to people who have been wronged for the sole purpose of equalizing opportunity.

Viewed through the Pull Yourself Up by Your Own Bootstraps frame, affirmative action is punitive to people who had nothing to do with past inequities. If equality is the goal, then one group of people should not be penalized for the benefit of another. In this frame, competition is valued more than compassion, and individual achievement is more celebrated than fairness. The belief is that hard work and discipline should be rewarded, and advantage should not be legislated. The fact that immigrants from all nations and ethnic backgrounds have succeeded proves success is possible without favoritism. Those who are not successful must not be working hard enough.

If you don't think any of this discussion is relevant to your workplace, you must work alone or in Heaven.

A primary reason for tension in the workplace is that people tend to be judged through pre-existing frames. Escaping such judgment is one of the reasons why African Americans have re-created their identity over the years. From Negroes to Blacks to African Americans; each of these descriptors has a very different frame which evokes different mental images and judgments. The degree to which others were annoyed by the changing descriptors is an indication that they preferred an old frame with its incumbent baggage, and could not accept the possibility that people could reinvent themselves.

The important point is that frames can and should be changed when they no longer serve us. New frames create new meanings, and as meaning changes, behavior follows. A storied example from American history is the meaning of "all men are created equal," which has been reframed a number of times to include people previously left out. And as the frame changed, our collective behavior adjusted. In the workplace, anything that isn't as we would like it to be is a candidate for reframing. Relationships to managers and coworkers, attitudes about job assignments and even beliefs about ourselves can be transformed. (What if manipulative people are simply good at getting what they want; how would I behave differently if I saw my dull job as a daily reminder to recommit to my values and my dreams?)

As for the third example, software implementation schedules are almost always presented as being aggressive. Using aggression as a frame in the workplace is consistent with the use of sports metaphors and the belief that the business environment is win/lose and fundamentally hostile. Framing the target dates for a project as aggressive implies that those responsible for its implementation (both men and women) are rife with testosterone; a no-nonsense, nose-to-the-grindstone group, willing to do whatever it takes to complete the project on--or ahead of--schedule. Note the presupposition that in a successful implementation, aggression is more valuable then attention or accuracy. The belief is that business is war, and we have to be aggressive in order to win.

No manger could possibly be expected to announce a lackadaisical schedule. If the manager was male, anything less than aggression would mark him as a milksop. If the manager was female, lacking aggression would render her unfit for management. The aggressive frame requires that work be hard. If it were pleasant and spacious, it would diminish in value and so would the people doing it. Being aggressive, in this context, means determining the direction in which the current is flowing, and then swimming upstream.

Conversely, framing an implementation schedule as unrealistic implies that the speaker is a realist while those favoring an aggressive schedule are disconnected from reality. While perhaps accurate, to the gung-ho set it indicates a lack of commitment and an unwillingness to work hard and do whatever it takes. To people who hold an aggressive frame, "unrealistic" is defeatist. It implies that there is an objective reality over which we do not have control; that there are some things we cannot do, and that we can't simply bend reality to our will. It is also a way of saying "I told you so" before the outcome has been decided.

"Unrealistic" is a low risk frame. The people that hold it value what is doable over what might be doable. They favor reason over enthusiasm, and results over predictions. Work only becomes hard, they believe, when people are unrealistic about what can be accomplished; and those who are constantly aggressive are exhausting themselves and making life harder than it need be. The realists do not see business as war, but as an endless stream of doable tasks requiring sufficient time and the right resources. Work can be challenging, but also pleasant. Realistic employees value life outside the office and seldom have their first heart attack at age 50.

So, is your boss intimidating or intense? Is the salesman pushy or excited about his product? Is your coworker back-stabbing or competitive?

The power of reframing is that it changes the meaning of what we perceive, and when the meaning changes, our responses also change giving us more behavioral options. When Columbus reframed what others believed about the world, he responded by sailing forth into the unknown and opened previously unimaginable possibilities. The behemoth that is FedEx, was a reframe of the Postal Service, and new ways of handling mail and packages evolved from it. The PC was a reframe of the mainframe.

Framing and reframing give rise to new meanings which inspire new beliefs that generate new behaviors that in turn create new possibilities. It is an ancient and enduring alchemy with the power to turn ugly ducklings into swans.