In their influential work Reframing Organizations, Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal describe four frames through which organizations can be understood. In previous articles we’ve explored the structural and human resource frames. In this, we will be discussing the Political Frame, which offers a particularly relevant lens for examining university housing, a dynamic environment where competing interests, scarce resources, and informal alliances share daily life.
At its core, the Political Frame sees organizations as arenas of ongoing competition and negotiation. Power is decentralized, and stakeholders bring divergent interests and agendas. This is all especially visible within the context of university housing where Resident Assistants (RAs), Hall Directors (HDs), student government like the Residence Hall Association (RHA) and National Residence Hall Honorary (NRHH), housing administrators, facilities staff, and students themselves all have different priorities and limited resources to pursue them. Each group wields different forms of power—whether formal authority, expertise, or influence—and must constantly negotiate to advance its interests. Understanding these dynamics helps housing staff and student leaders work more strategically, recognizing that success often depends less on hierarchy and more on coalition-building, persuasion, and careful relationship management.
This post is part of a four part series exploring Bolman and Deals Four-Frame Model for understanding organizations.
Structural | Human Resources | Political | Symbolic
Competing Interests in University Housing
The Political Frame assumes conflict is inevitable. In housing, students may demand more flexible visitation policies or better amenities, while administrators must balance budgets, enforce policies, and ensure safety. RAs often act as intermediaries, balancing peer relationships with institutional responsibilities and commitments to Residential Life. Each group wields different types of power: students may organize petitions or influence public opinion through the institution’s student newspaper, RAs exercise authority through program and rule enforcement, and administrators control budget and policy decisions.
For instance, during budget allocation season, tension often rises. Residence halls may compete for limited renovation funds. A newer hall might request aesthetic updates to stay competitive, while an older hall may argue that structural repairs are essential. While there are times when administrators make these decisions without students in the room, there are certainly opportunities for students to share their feedback regarding a decision like this through RHA or something of that nature. These debates highlight how resource scarcity creates a political environment. Leaders within university housing must negotiate these needs, often relying on coalitions to build support for their priorities.
Building Coalitions
Coalition-building is central in the Political Frame. In university housing, coalitions can form among different stakeholders to push for common goals. Hall councils, for example, often unite students to advocate for changes like extended quiet hours during finals or increased funding for community events. RAs might band together to suggest new ways to improve training programs or advocate for sessions throughout the year that meet their interests and needs, like mental health or leadership development. These alliances can strengthen the political influence of otherwise marginalized groups within the housing system.
Successful housing administrators recognize the importance of listening to different voices and forming strategic partnerships. They attend hall council meetings, hold open forums, and establish advisory boards that include students and staff. By doing so, they acknowledge the political nature of housing and avoid decisions that might provoke resistance or alienate key groups.
During my time as a Hall Director at Minnesota State University Mankato, I proposed a new policy that would allow professional staff members to have alcohol within their apartments. For decades, the university subjected the dry campus policy for students to those in the Hall Director position, all of whom were over the age of 25 and had received a Master’s degree. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit and restaurants where we had been able to consume alcohol off-campus shut down, I saw an opportunity to help improve the lives of current Hall DIrectors and to help remove a barrier for future applicants. With this rationale, I was able to appeal to both my peers and to the other administrators in the department. While it was something to carefully consider, if the right policy was applied it could be a win for everyone. In order to do this, I had to establish my own coalition and ensure I had the right voices at the table. I collaborated with another fellow Hall Director, worked closely with my supervisor with what revisions they felt needed to be made, and presented this to the Director of Residential Life, who also provided helpful feedback. In order to make a difference, I needed to have support at all of the right levels.
Power Dynamics and Negotiation
In university housing, power is exercised both formally and informally. Formal power resides with those who write policies, assign rooms, and manage budgets. However, informal power can be equally influential. A popular RA can sway student opinion, a well-organized student protest can bring campus-wide attention to housing issues, and influential alumni can pressure university leadership through donations or public statements.
Understanding this distribution of power helps housing staff navigate conflicts more effectively. Rather than imposing top-down solutions, they engage in negotiations, compromise, and political maneuvering. An HD may “trade favors,” offering extra funding for a student-led event in exchange for support on a contentious new policy. You need to proceed with extreme caution if this is how you approach deal making. Oftentimes it’s much more nuanced, providing support and building a stronger relationship that can benefit both or all parties in the future. Political skill, or the ability to frame issues persuasively to broker deals and build lasting alliances, becomes essential for leaders who have things they want to change within ResLife and at the institution in general.
Implications for Leadership
Applying Bolman and Deal’s Political Frame to university housing reveals that leadership is less about authority and more about influence. Effective leaders must be politically astute, recognizing that their success depends on understanding hidden agendas, balancing diverse interests, and navigating conflicts with tact.
For example, an RA leading a campaign for updated laundry facilities cannot succeed through passion alone. They must gather evidence, mobilize student support, present their case to administrators, and possibly negotiate compromises. Similarly, professional staff must remain alert to the undercurrents of dissatisfaction or unrest among residents, adjusting policies in ways that maintain institutional integrity while responding to student needs.
Conclusion
ResLife is a microcosm of the broader political realities of organizational life. Bolman and Deal’s Political Frame provides a powerful tool for understanding the competing interests, coalition-building, and power dynamics that define the residential experience. By viewing housing through a political lens, administrators, RAs, and students alike can better navigate the complexities of campus life, advocate effectively for their needs, and build more responsive, vibrant residential communities.
