BACKGROUND FOR PAPER 1 AND 2

 

 

Universalism vs. Particularism

In Ethics 501, you learned several different approaches to thinking about and analyzing ethical issues. The models you were exposed to reflect, by and large, a Western approach to ethics. A more multicultural model can be found in considering the difference between Universalist and Particularist approaches to ethics. This typology was developed by Fons Trompenaars and considers the ethical question, “What is more important—rules or relationships?” Read the following synopsis of these two perspectives. As you read, note how these approaches mirror the qualities of individualism/collectivism, high/low context, and monochromic/polychromic time orientations discussed in Modules 2 and 3.

Universalism versus Particularism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.via-web.de/universalism-versus-particularism/

Differences in the Concept of Social Responsibility

At the very heart of any discussion of social responsibility is the question of why the organization exists. Is it to maximize the financial return to the owners, as many Western business schools teach—or is it to promote the well-being of society, a perspective reflected in the mission statements of many Japanese companies?

In the following essay, Kidus Mehalu of Ethiopia considers the role that leaders of multinational corporations might play in balancing the profit motive with the need for addressing worldwide social and economic problems.

Mehalu, K. G. (2011). Social responsibility and managerial ethics: A focus on MNC’s, 3rd Global Drucker Forum, Vienna. Retrieved from http://essay.druckerchallenge.org/fileadmin/user_upload/essays_pdf/kidusmehalu.pdf

Making Ethical Choices

Though any ethical dilemma can present a leader with difficult choices, resolving cross-cultural ethical dilemmas can seem downright impossible because the moral beliefs and values concerning what is right and wrong may not be the same in both cultures. The question then arises, do we take the position of ethical relativism (deciding what is right or wrong depending on the ethical norms and standards of the culture where the action takes place) or risk being complicit in cultural imperialism (imposing the ethical standards of one’s own society on another which has made different judgments in accordance with the morality of their own culture).

To understand more about the relative nature of moral practices across and between cultures, read:

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, S. J., & Myer, M. J. (2014). Ethical relativism. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html#sthash.FeFJwTIQ.dpbs Are there any ethical standards that cut across all cultures and help leaders make the right choice when societal moral codes conflict? Marc Hauser, a Harvard psychologist, argues for the existence of a moral code that is shared among all human beings, regardless of nationality, political affiliation, religion, race, age, or gender. This does not mean that all humans respond to moral situations in the same way. They will respond within the guidelines of their own social norms. But it does suggest that we will respond to certain moral imperatives following universal underlying principles—such as killing is wrong —though the application of that principle may vary from society to society (for example, laws about death penalties or assisted suicides).

Let’s look at an example we are all familiar with—South Africa under apartheid. Many international companies conducted business in South Africa during the apartheid. Most were headquartered in countries that did not tolerate racial discrimination. It is interesting to compare the different strategies employed by these companies when deciding how to interact with a culture where the social discrimination would be considered to be ethically wrong in their own countries.

Strategy	Approach	Examples of Companies
Individually refuse to abide by apartheid	Refuse to follow rules of apartheid (e.g., integrate factory washrooms)	Polaroid, GM
Collectively refuse to abide by apartheid	Sign a promise to adhere to the “Sullivan Principles”*	125 Fortune 500 Companies
Comply with apartheid	Play by the rules	Citibank
Forced withdrawal	Economic sanctions	89 U.S. firms including IBM, GM, P&G
Stand fast	Protect investment in South Africa	Multiple European firms
Invest	Buy up companies at bargain prices	Asian firms

*Companies that signed the Sullivan Principles pledged to:

· Express their support for universal human rights, especially for their employees, the communities in which they operate and for the parties with whom they do business.

· Promote equal opportunity for their employees at all levels of their company with respect to issues such as color, race, gender, age, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. Also they would not operate with worker treatment that exploits children, includes physical punishment, abuses females, imposes involuntary servitude or incorporates other forms of abuse.

· Respect their employees’ voluntary freedom of association.

· Compensate their employees enough to enable them to meet their basic needs and provide the opportunity to improve their skill and capability in order to raise their social and economic opportunities.

· Provide a safe and healthy workplace, protect human health and the environment and promote sustainable development.

· Promote fair competition including respect for intellectual and other property rights and not offer, pay, or accept bribes.

· Work with governments and the communities in which the company does business to improve the quality of life in those communities, including their educational, cultural, economic and social well-being. They would also seek to provide training and opportunities for workers from disadvantaged backgrounds.

· Promote the application of the Principles by those with whom the company does business.

As this case illustrates, arriving at a common approach to dealing with cross-cultural ethical problems is hard to achieve.

Stages of Moral Development

There are four common rationalizations leaders use to justify unethical behavior.

· It is not really immoral/illegal.

· I am acting in the best interests of the individual or organization.

· It will never be discovered or publicized.

· My actions help the organization and therefore the ends justify the means.

These rationalizations stem from Kohlberg’s “Stages of Moral Development.” Kohlberg theorized that individuals progress through various stages of moral development ranging from an immature basis for deciding what is the right thing to do out of a fear of punishment to a fully self-actualized code of ethics based on internalized principles of justice. There is a link to an article on Kohlberg’s model under “Optional Reading” if you care to know more about this model.

Some scholars argue that organizations can be characterized by a similar stage model and they make ethical decisions according to the stage of development they have achieved. Read the following article that explains these stages and gives examples of real organizational responses to ethical dilemmas.

Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of corporate moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(4), 273.

In order for leaders to set the proper guidelines for making ethical decisions within their organizations, leaders must engage their subordinates in open discussion, without fear of punishment or reprisal. These discussions should be informed by the levels of moral development described in the article above, with the goal of making decisions at the highest level of moral reasoning possible.

As stated by INSEAD professor Henri-Claude de Bettignies:

The purpose of these discussions and debates is not to impose values or give solutions, but to enhance awareness, to provide frames of reference, to give analytical tools to explore in-depth tradeoffs among short and long-term alternative decisions, to involve individual managers in assessing their own values and paradigms in order to be more lucid and responsible in their own choices.

Application: Ethics and Negotiation

An effective way to initiate a discussion at this level is to consider an application of the ethical frameworks we have been considering to a practical activity like negotiation. For an in-depth study of how cross-cultural differences can effect ethical action in negotiations, read the following research article. When reading this article, focus on the Introduction and Conceptual Framework, skim the Research Methods and Results, and focus again on the Discussion and Conclusion.

Ma, Z. (2010). The SINS in Business Negotiations: Explore the Cross-Cultural Differences in Business Ethics Between Canada and China. Journal Of Business Ethics, 91, 123–135.

Conclusion

There may be certain ethical principles that are universal, as some experts claim. These could include such principles as honesty, integrity, and protection of society. Others are decidedly culture-specific, such as whistle-blowing, bribery and kickbacks, profiteering, social welfare, patent protection, etc. The challenge is to recognize similarities and differences and identify the underlying rationalization (protection of group or protection of the individual). The leader needs to help his or her followers look for ways to resolve the differences through a shared sense of common human values.

In the end, the resolution of ethical dilemmas is likely to be culturally determined. Individualist cultures will evaluate moral decisions based on a personal ability to live with the consequences; collectivist cultures will look at whether or not the group can live with them. Low-context cultures will seek to codify legal rules—or at least written ones; high-context cultures will adopt tacit standards shared by members of the society. And universalist cultures will expect ethical standards to apply equally to all; particularist cultures will apply standards depending on who or what is involved.

And so we find ourselves coming full circle, wondering if it is ever possible to find a set of ethical principles that will apply to cross-cultural situations where each party operates under different values and assumptions about what is right and what is wrong.

Optional Reading

An example of a typical analytical tool used to facilitate ethical decision making is described in the following article:

Bagley, C. E. (2003). The ethical leader’s decision tree. Harvard Business Review 81(2), 18.

Dolcheck, M. M & Dolcheck, C. C. (1987). Business ethics: A comparison of attitudes of managers in Hong Kong and the United States, The Hong Kong Manager. (April–May) 28–43.

McLeod, S. A. (2011). Kohlberg. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Stewart, J. B. (2011). Amandla! The Sullivan principles and the battle to end apartheid in South Africa, 1975–1987. Journal Of African American History, 96(1), 62–89.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAPER 1

In this module, you will be completing a post-experience write-up. This paper should be about 6 pages long. The purpose of this write-up is to reflect on the experience as specifically related to the concepts in this course: CQ, the components of CQ, and CQ development. It is important to fully describe bothyour successes and failures at building CQ capacity. The ability to recognize failure can provide valuable insights and growth. If developing one component of CQ is more difficult for you than others, it is not unusual. For example, you may understand cultural differences (cognitive) and be highly motivated to learn to lead in cross-cultural environments (motivation), but find yourself unable to change your leadership style to fit the cultural circumstances (action). Perfection is not the goal of this course—that can take years of practice. What is a more realistic goal is to become more aware of your strengths and weaknesses and make progress toward becoming more culturally competent by building on your strengths and shoring up your weaknesses.

Assignment Expectations

Your post-experience write-up should include the following:

1. Assess the quality of the cultural experience as related to the assignment expectations (see Module 2)

2. Provide a rich qualitative description of the cultural experience.

3. Clearly and accurately relate your experience to the key concepts of the course:

· Cognitive (CQ Knowledge): awareness, self-awareness, knowledge

· Motivation (CQ Drive): perseverance related to cultural interaction

· Metacognitive (CQ Strategy): active control over thinking and using cultural knowledge (e.g., questioning assumptions and/or stereotypes)

· Action (CQ Action): ability to adjust or adapt behavior

1. Assess your effectiveness in personally applying CQ concepts (honest and critical analysis of your strengths and weaknesses, successes and difficulties).

2. Describe how what you learned through this exercise can improve your performance as a leader.

3. Use professional-quality writing.

 

 

 

 

 

PAPER 2

The SLP for this module involves a self-assessment on ethics. Begin by completing this interactive ethics assessment . Then, in your weekly journal, reflect on the following questions:

1. What was your score on this assessment?

2. What did the feedback following the assessment reveal about your patterns of ethical decision making?

3. How is this instrument “culture bound”? How would the answers be different in a particularist culture?

4. What other insights have you gained about your role as a leader in making ethical decisions in a cross-cultural situation?

SLP Assignment Expectations

· The journal is a cumulative document—you turn in all previous entries with each module.

· Include the results from the assessment in your journal.

· Each module should add 2–3 pages to the journal.

· The journal should be thoughtful and insightful, integrating learnings from the assessment with other activities in the module and course.

· The format for the journal is less formal than academic papers (e.g., you can use the first person), but you should use headings to organize your thoughts and guide the reader and cite any sources where you are using information, data, or text from an outside source.

· Any references should be prepared in APA format in a combined reference list at the end of the journal.

· Your journal should be edited and error-free.

· Submit your finished paper to TLC by the assignment due date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND PAPER 3 AND 4

 

we introduce the Bolman and Deal Four Frames Model. We will also be reviewing the notion of sensemaking, given that sensemaking serves as a very good theoretical backdrop/ underpinning for our use of the Four Frames. Bolman and Deal suggest that leaders interpret organizational events differently because their perspectives are dependent upon the frame or frames they are actively using. Different leaders rely on different “frames.” 

Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames is a widely-acclaimed theoretical model that is grounded in the notion of sensemaking. In his seminal 1995 book Sensemaking in Organizations (* footnote 1), Karl Weick says the following: “The concept of sensemaking is well named because, literally, it means the making of sense. Active agents construct sensible, sensable (** footnote 2) events. They ‘structure the unknown’” (Weick, 1995, p. 4). 

[1] Source: Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[2] The spelling of the adjective “sensable” is not a typographical error. The spelling of the word “sensable,” derived from Huber and Daft (1987), is intended to refer to how events are perceived – i.e., how they are “sensed” by onlookers. Therefore, a “sensable” event may or may not be reflective of reality, but is descriptive of how events are perceived by individuals viewing and/or affected by them). 

Because our world is increasingly complex, chaotic, and mutable, we need ways of making sense of it. Weick says that sensemaking is itself the process by which people structure the unknown. Of course, our need to make sense of things occurs on multiple levels; in organizations, sensemaking is a process that occurs at the individual, group, and organizational levels. More recently, Weick et al. (footnote 3), have said that sensemaking allows for clarity of the “situation [such that it] is comprehended explicitly in words and that serves as a springboard into action” (p. 409). Stated in plain terms, when we can’t clearly explain what is happening, it’s more likely than not that we don’t have a good understanding of what is really going on! 

[3] Source: Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking and organizing. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.

The following excerpt, adapted from pages 24-27 of Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.), helps to answer the question: Why should we be concerned with organizational sensemaking?

Human organizations can be exciting and challenging places. That is how things are usually depicted in management texts and corporate annual reports. But they are just as likely deceptive, confusing, and demoralizing. It is a mistake to assume that an organization is either a snake pit or a rose garden (Schwartz, 1986). Managers need to be mindful of several natural characteristics of life at work that create opportunities for the wise as well as traps for the unwary.

First, organizations are complex. They are populated by people, whose behavior is notoriously hard to understand and predict. Interactions among diverse individuals and groups make organizations even more complicated. Larger organizations have a bewildering array of people, departments, technologies, goals, and environments. The complexity is compounded with transactions across multiple organizations. Almost anything can affect anything else in collective activity. Permutations produce complex, causal knots very hard to disentangle.

Second, organizations are surprising. What you expect is often dramatically different from what happens. The solution to yesterday’s problems often creates future impediments to getting anything done. It may even create new possibilities for disaster. What goes around often comes around, to the detriment of an organization’s well-being. Taking action in a collective enterprise is like shooting a wobbly cue ball into a large and complex array of self-directed billiard balls. So many balls careen in so many directions that it is impossible to know how things will eventually sort out.

Third, organizations are deceptive. They defy expectations and then camouflage surprises. It is tempting but too easy to blame deception on individual character flaws or personality disorders. Subordinates legitimately fear that the boss will not listen or might punish them for being resistant or insubordinate. One person put it simply: “Communications in organizations are rarely candid, open, or timely.”

Fourth, organizations are ambiguous. The sum of complexity, unpredictability, and deception is rampant ambiguity. Figuring out what is really happening in businesses, hospitals, schools, or public agencies is difficult. Even if we think we know what is happening, it is hard to know what it means or what to do about it. When you incorporate additional organizations—or cultures—into the human equation, the level of ambiguity quickly becomes overwhelming. Ambiguity originates from a number of sources. Sometimes information is incomplete or vague. The same information may be interpreted in a variety of ways. At other times, ambiguity is deliberately created to hide problems or avoid conflict. Much of the time, events and processes are so complex, scattered, and uncoordinated no one can fully understand—let alone control—what is happening.

Adapted from McCaskey (1982), Bolman and Deal list some of the most important sources of organizational ambiguity as:

We are not sure what the problem is. Definitions are vague or competing, and any given problem is intertwined with other messy problems.

We are not sure what is really happening. Information is incomplete, ambiguous, and unreliable. People disagree on how to interpret information that is available.

We are not sure what we want. We all have multiple goals that are unclear or conflicting. Different people want different things. This leads to political and emotional conflict.

We do not have the resources we need. Shortages of time, attention, or money make difficult situations even more chaotic.

We are not sure who is supposed to do what. Roles are unclear, there is disagreement about who is responsible for what, and things keep shifting as players come and go.

We are not sure how to get what we want. Even if we agree on what we want, we are not sure (or we disagree) about how to make it happen.

We are not sure how to determine if we have succeeded. We are not sure what criteria to use to evaluate success. Or if we do know the criteria, we are not sure how to measure the outcome.

In this table adapted from Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations (2003), commonplace organizational activities are viewed in the context of four frames – these are the Structural, Human Resources, Political, and Symbolic frames. Bolman and Deal say that “any event [in this table] can be framed in several ways and serve multiple purposes. Planning, for example, produces specific objectives. But it also creates arenas for airing conflict and becomes a sacred occasion to renegotiate symbolic meanings” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 305).

Table 1: Four Interpretations of Organizational Process (pp. 306-7) ***
Process	Structural Frame	Human Resources Frame	Political Frame	Symbolic Frame
Strategic planning	Creating strategies to set objectives and coordinate resources	Gatherings to promote participation	Arena to air conflict and realign power	Ritual to signal responsibility, produce symbols, negotiate meanings
Decision making	Rational sequence to produce right decision	Open process to produce commitment	Opportunity to gain or exercise power	Ritual to confirm values and create opportunities for bonding
Reorganizing	Realign roles and responsibilities to fit tasks and environment	Maintain a balance between human needs and formal roles	Redistribute power and form new coalitions	Maintain an image of accountability and responsiveness; negotiate new social order
Evaluating	Way to distribute rewards or penalties and control performance	Process for helping individuals grow and improve	Opportunity to exercise power	Occasion to play roles in shared drama
Approaching conflict	Maintain organizational goals by having authorities resolve conflict	Develop relationships by having individuals confront conflict	Develop power by bargaining, forcing, or manipulating others to win	Develop shared values and use conflict to negotiate meaning
Goal setting	Keep organization headed in the right direction	Keep people involved and communication open	Provide opportunity for individuals and groups to make interests known	Develop symbols and shared values
Communication	Transmit facts and information	Exchange information, needs, and feelings	Influence or manipulate others	Tell stories
Meetings	Formal occasions for making decisions	Informal occasions for involvement, sharing feelings	Competitive occasions to win points	Sacred occasions to celebrate and transform the culture
Motivation	Economic incentives	Growth and self-actualization	Coercion, manipulation, and seduction	Symbols and celebrations

 

Table 2: Choosing a Frame (p. 310) ***
Question	If yes:	If no:
Are individual commitment and motivation essential to success?	Human resource; symbolic	Structural; political
Is the technical quality of the decision important?	Structural	Human resource; political; symbolic
Is there a high level of ambiguity and uncertainty?	Political; symbolic	Structural; human resource
Are conflict and scarce resources significant?	Political; symbolic	Structural; human resource
Are you working from the bottom up?	Political; symbolic	Structural; human resource

*** [3] Source: Bolman, L.G.& Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley. 

This chapter from the National Defense University serves as an informative discussion of the relationship between sensemaking, framing and frames, and Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Model: 

Framing Perspectives. (n.d.). National Defense University. Retrieved on May 2, 2014 from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr-dm/pt1ch5.html

Here is an excellent slide presentation/ overview of the Four Frames: 

Vincent, P. (2014). Four-frame model: Reframing organizations. Slideshare. Retrieved on May 1, 2014 from http://www.slideshare.net/PhilVincent1/fourframe-model

Next, read the following excerpt from Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E.(2003). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed). San Francisco: John Wiley. Note the assumptions of the Structural Frame, as you will use these to guide the writing of your Module 1 Case:

Assumptions of the Structural Frame

The assumptions of the structural frame are reflected in current approaches to social architecture and organizational design. These assumptions reflect a belief in rationality and a faith that the right formal arrangements minimize problems and maximize performance. A human resource perspective emphasizes the importance of changing people (through training, rotation, promotion, or dismissal), but the structural perspective champions a pattern of well-thought-out roles and relationships. Properly designed, these formal arrangements can accommodate both collective goals and individual differences.

Six assumptions undergird the structural frame:

1. Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives.

2. Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through specialization and a clear division of labor.

3. Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of individuals and units mesh.

4. Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal preferences and extraneous pressures.

5. Structures must be designed to fit an organization’s circumstances (including its goals, technology, workforce, and environment).

6. Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies and can be remedied through analysis and restructuring (Bolman & Deal, 2003, pp. 44-45).It is important to recognize that the Structural Frame is theoretically rooted in the scientific management works of individuals like Frederick Winslow Taylor, Henri Fayol, Max Weber, and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth.

Dr. Jacobs’ slide presentation is a wonderfully comprehensive overview of the Structural Frame: 

Jacobs, R.M. (n.d.). Theories of practice: The structural frame. Villanova University. Retrieved on May 8, 2014 from http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208002/Powerpoint/8002%20MPA/structural.ppt 

Elaine Westbrooks’ excellent presentation on the Structural Frame follows here (be sure to review the embedded videos as well as the slides): 

Westbrooks, E. (2012). Reframing organizations: The structural frame. Prezi. Retrieved on May 4, 2014 from http://prezi.com/e8hhfbnjodal/reframing-organizations-the-structural-frame/ 

Part 3: Optional and Session-Long Resources (these optional resources relate to Sensemaking and to Frames and Framing; you may want to refer back to these readings in future modules): 

In this excerpt, the authors of the Four Frames Model – Bolman and Deal – discuss the tendency for modern organizations to resemble feudal hierarchies, in the sense that today’s organizations also have their versions of monarchs, lords, and serfs: 

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (n.d.). Monarchs, lords, and serfs. Lee Bolman.com. Retrieved from http://www.leebolman.com/Teaching%20materials/Monarchs%20lords%20etc.pdf

Here is a very good presentation on the origins of the structural perspective/ lens, structural tensions, and structural imperatives (“must-haves”):

Sensemaking 

In this well-written and highly informative chapter of her book on leadership, Dr. Joan Gallos makes clear the relationship between sensemaking and use of Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Model: 

Gallos, J.V. (2008). Making sense of organizations: Leadership, frames, and everyday theories of the situation. In Joan V. Gallos (Ed.), Business Leadership: A Jossey-Bass Reader (161-179). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://www.joangallos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/making-sense-of-organizations.doc

In this journal article, Weick et al. observe how sensemaking relates to organizing:  

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. Retrieved from ProQuest. 

The following book chapter is an excellent reading on sensemaking: 

Ancona, D.  (2011). Sensemaking: Framing and acting in the unknown. In Scott A. Snook, Nitin N. Nohria, and Rakesh Khurana (Eds.), The Handbook for Teaching Leadership (3-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/42924_1.pdf

Here is the final report from the Command and Control Research Program’s (CCRP) Sensemaking Composium. This report is military-based, and includes discussion of such key (and related) constructs as “situational awareness” and individual and organizational sensemaking: 

Leedom, D.K. (23-25 Oct. 2001). Final Report, from Sensemaking Symposium. Command and Control Research Program (CCRP), Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2001_sensemaking_symposium/docs/FinalReport/Sensemaking_Final_Report.htm

The following is a well-written, informative article that defines the concept of sensemaking, and describes how sensemaking is “both an individual and a social activity” (Social section, line 1) that is related to identity construction: 

Marshall, T. (n.d.). Sense-making. The Atlas of New Librarianship. Retrieved on April 30, 2014 from     http://www.newlibrarianship.org/wordpress/?page_id=1151

Frames and Framing 

Remember that the four frames are present in every organization, no matter its size or type. Importantly, while each one of us has a preference for certain frames over others, no one frame is “best” – optimally, we will view the organization through the use of all four frames simultaneously, or through multi-frame thinking. While the use of a multi-frame approach may be challenging in practice, the use of a single frame is not only limiting, but it can even be misleading. For example, when an organization’s leadership places sole reliance on the Symbolic Frame, the importance of structure, or even the contribution of the organization’s people resources, may go unnoticed and unattended. Symbolism is vitally important in organizations; but an organization’s people, its strategies, and its structures are as equally important. 

Dr. Joan V. Gallos’ book chapter discusses how organizational diagnosis can be performed using the Four Frames: 

Gallos, J.V. (2006). Reframing complexity: A four dimensional approach to organizational diagnosis, development, and change. In Joan V. Gallos (Ed.), Organization Development: A Jossey-Bass Reader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved on May 1, 2014 from http://www.joangallos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/reframing-complexity-a-four-dimensional-approach.doc

Doug Greene’s presentation on reframing is a very good introduction to framing and discussion of the Four Frames Model: 

Greene, D. (2010). Reframing organizations. Dr. Doug Greene. Retrieved on May 11, 2014 from http://www.drdouggreen.com/wp-content/Reframing-Organizations.pdf

Below is an early (Winter 1991) journal article by Bolman and Deal, in which the authors studied the Four Frames Model in two organizations: 

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management (1986-1998), 30(4), 509-531. Retrieved from ProQuest. 

Following is an excellent outline overview of the Four Frames. Bolman and Deal have aptly subtitled the reframing process as “The Leadership Kaleidoscope”: 

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (n.d.). Reframing organizations: The leadership kaleidoscope. Retrieved on May 8, 2014 from http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/bolman.html  

Be sure to visit Dr. Lee Bolman’s home page, an excellent source of information concerning frames and framing. Get the story directly from one of the original authors of the Four Frames Model: 

Bolman, L. (2014). Reframing organizations teaching resources. Lee Bolman. Retrieved on May 8, 2014 from http://www.leebolman.com/reframing_teaching_resources.htm

Finally, be sure that you review the excellent summary tables included here: 

Filipovitch, A.J. (2005). Framing organizations. Retrieved from http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~jp5985fj/courses/609/Frame/Reframing.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAPER 3

 

Begin the Module 1 Case by visiting the Walt Disney Company website:

The Walt Disney Company. (2014). Retrieved on May 8, 2014 from  http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/                                                          

Additional Case-related resources 

The following resources should be helpful to you in your analysis of the Case. Chapter 6 of Bryman’s book relates (somewhat ominously) to “control and surveillance” activities at Disney: 

Bryman, A. (2004). The Disneyization of society. London: Sage Publications. Retrieved from Ebrary. 

Structure implies logistics. Certainly, the artful and skillful deployment of technology will often create useful intelligence – even competitive advantage. And so…is Mickey watching? Read “Big Mickey is Watching”: 

Palmeri, C., & Faries, B. (2014). Big Mickey is watching. Bloomberg Businessweek, (4370), 22-23. Retrieved from EBSCO – Business Source Complete. 

Case Assignment

After you have reviewed the contents of the Walt Disney Company website, completed the readings provided at the Background page of Module 1, and performed additional research from the library and the internet, write a 6-7 page paper in which you do the following:

 Using the following assumptions of the Structural Frame, complete an in-depth assessment of the Walt Disney Company:

1. Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives.

2. Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through specialization and a clear division of labor.

3. Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of individuals and units mesh.

4. Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal preferences and extraneous pressures.

5. Structures must be designed to fit an organization’s circumstances (including its goals, technology, workforce, and environment).

6. Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies and can be remedied through analysis and restructuring.

Keys to the Assignment

The key aspects of this assignment that are to be covered in your 6-7 page paper include the following:

· Describe the organizational design used by the Walt Disney Company. Is Disney’s structure more or less effective as it relates to the company’s ability to accomplish its stated purpose (vision, mission)? Explain.

· Using Bolman and Deal’s Structural Frame, analyze two or three structural characteristics of the Walt Disney Company. Because you cannot cover all structural characteristics in a short paper, you will need to be selective; therefore, choose two or three characteristics that are of particular interest to you. These might include the Walt Disney Company’s strategic plans, more specific goals and objectives, or the company’s policies and procedures. Alternatively, you might select technology or some component of Disney’s external environment (e.g., competition, legal, political, or social environments).

· For each structural characteristic that you have included in your Case, discuss the extent to which that structural characteristic has been effective or ineffective relative to assisting Disney attain its stated purpose. Defend your answer in the context of the six (6) assumptions given above (how well do the structural characteristics you’ve identified above ascribe to these assumptions, if at all?).

· Having had applied the Structural Frame to the Walt Disney Company, is there anything that you would you do differently? Conclude Chapter 1 of your paper by giving recommendations as to what Disney should do differently, and explain why.

· The background readings will not give you all the answers to the Case. Therefore, you will need to perform some research in the library, and use a minimum of 3-4 scholarly sources from the library to support and justify your understanding of the case.

· Your paper must demonstrate evidence of critical thinking (if you need tips on critical thinking, http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/college-and-university-students/799 is an excellent resource ). Don’t simply restate facts – instead, be sure to interpret the facts you have accumulated from your research.

 

 

 

PAPER 4

In the Module 1 SLP, you will write a 3- to 4-page paper in which you will apply the Structural Frame to the organization in which you are currently employed (or in which you have worked previously). 

Overview of the LED599 SLP Sequence  

Before we begin the Module 1 SLP, two very important and related points should be emphasized, as they are fundamental to an understanding of the Module 1 SLP: 

1. All four frames can be used to assess any given organization, because all organizations have structural, human resources, political, and symbolic characteristics; and 

2. Different leaders use lenses – or frames – through which they view their organizations. Certain leaders will tend to use one frame predominantly, while others tend to be more balanced, choosing one of the frames depending on the circumstances. The important point here is that there is no “right” frame through which a leader should or must view any given organization or any particular set of organizational circumstances. At the same time, it is helpful for a leader to understand which frame (or frames) he/she is actively using. It is also critical that leaders be aware that there are four frames – not one – and that the use of others may be beneficial to effective sensemaking as well (importantly, this helps leaders to better avoid organizational “blind spots”).    

Assignment

The Module 1 SLP requires that you write a 3- to 4-page paper, in which you address the following: 

After you briefly describe the organization in which you presently work – or in which you have previously worked – apply the Structural Frame to the organization, analyzing the effectiveness of two or three structural characteristics you have identified.  

Keys to the Assignment

The key aspects of this assignment that should be covered in your paper include the following (note there are two parts to this SLP):

Part 1:

In a minimum of two pages:

· Briefly describe your organization – name, what it does, size (number of employees, annual revenue, relative market share, etc.);

· Describe the organizational design of your chosen organization. Is it effective? Why or why not?

· Choose 2 or 3 structural characteristics of your organization (e.g., strategic planning process, goals, objectives, policies, procedures, rules, budgets and other allocation of resources, etc.); and

· Discuss the relative effectiveness of the structural characteristics you have identified. If you were CEO of your company, what (if anything) might you do differently? Why would you make any changes you suggest?

Part 2 :

· Complete the Leadership Orientations Questionnaire , and score your results.

· In a minimum of two pages:

· Report your scores for each of the Four Frames.

· After you have completed an in-depth self-assessment of your scores, discuss how your scores inform your personal leadership style. For instance, what do your scores (high and low) collectively suggest about your leadership tendencies and about the ways in which you personally make sense of organizational events?Might your low scores indicate areas in which you may have leadership “blind spots”?