1. REFRAMING ORGANIZATIONS
Bolman and Deal
Jack Anderson – 2010-12 Cohort
(a) Why is it important for educational leaders to examine issues through multiple frames?
(b) Select a current reform issue in your school district, and highlight the usefulness of each
of the four frames in analyzing the issue.
(c) Describe how your theory of action has been influenced by your understanding of four
organizational frames.
(d) Effective leaders can be architects, servants, advocates, and prophets. Share the
leadership frame(s) that is most descriptive of you as a leader and the strengths and
liabilities that may accompany the leadership frame.

2. a) Why is it important for educational leaders to examine issues through multiple
frames?
Intelligent people do dumb things when they misread situations or use the wrong frame to
analyze the organization (school district and community) and the cultural norms when trying to
initiate change. A school district, especially a large high school is a very complex organization
that requires leadership that can examine the various structures through the lenses of all four
frameworks. A leader needs to use all four frames if he/she will ever be able to understand and
find solutions to complex, unpredictable and complicated issues. Making decisions without
knowing the cultural framework and the personnel we will be affecting can create unintended
consequences. A school leader must try to distribute the time they spend on instructional issues
and the time spent managing the building. Both are important, however, the reality is that a
school administrator must deal with non-instructional issues every day. If he/she allows it, these
management issues, can consume all of the leader’s time. Management issues can include;
upset parents, plumbing leaks, gang issues, staff misconduct, broken bones and broken hearts. I
have had an opportunity to work as a principal in various buildings and under pleasant and
hostile situations. I unknowingly used all four frames before I attempted to make changes. I
found out the hard way that the laws of physics do exist. (For every action, there is usually a
“negative” reaction.) Using all four perspectives to evaluate a situation or problem helps the
school leader gain their own perspective on the possible ramifications so that he/she can reframe
their thinking to workable strategies. Not every school or situation will need to equally emphasis
all four frameworks. However, it is important that any successful and effective school leader
know not only how to reframe if necessary, but also not to depend on one framework to
effectively view and solve complex problems. On pages 24-27 Reframing Organizations speaks

3. to the properties of organizations. This is true with schools. Schools can be complex, surprising,
deceptive and ambiguous. Solutions to today’s problem can actually be an impediment to
solving future problems. The four frames that Bolman and Deal have developed will not only
expand our thinking, they will provide insight to solutions to complex problems.
b) Select a current reform issue in your school district, and highlight the usefulness of
each of the four frames in analyzing the issue.
The most important component to improving student learning is to improve teaching. This is
done through effective and researched-based professional development and by helping teachers
work smarter. (Most are already working very hard.) The KSD worked with Tony Alvarado and
Tony Wagner to examine research on how to improve the effectiveness of teaching. The district
had to examine what they were currently doing and by using data, show whether they were
successful. We also had to use this data to prove to our principals that we needed to change how
we delivered instruction in the KSD. All four frames were utilized in examining the current
structure being used as well as the structure and process with which it would be replaced. The
superintendent had to effectively communicate his vision of change to the building principals
and the community; he had to utilize data to prove that change was necessary, build consensus
and nurture the support of his building leaders to help him carry out this reform. He also needed
to show teachers that instruction can be improved and learning increased. Finally, he had to
provide the inspiration and sell his vision.
After nearly two years working with this concept and with the help from Connie Hoffman and
Jim Huge, we came up with P. E. R. R. as a model for effective teaching. P. E. R. R. stands for;
Purpose, Engagement, Rigor and Results. Lessons must be planned with a purpose. This is

4. what you want your kids to learn; it is not just an activity. This purpose must match the state
G.L.E.s and also must be shared with the students each day prior to the beginning of the lesson.
Techniques need to be implemented daily that authentically engages students in the lesson.
Students must be challenged to ask questions and seek understanding. The lesson must be
rigorous and at a level that provokes cognitive thinking. Finally, there needs to be a method in
place to assess (results) learning and to create a formative assessment model that can be used
throughout the lesson. Summative assessments can be used as long as this is not the only
assessment model used.
A comprehensive plan was needed to implement the PERR model and to get every principal,
teacher, staff member, student and parent in the community to understand what and why the
KSD needed to change to this new instructional model. They started with the principals and
district leaders. Data was shared showing why we needed to make a change. Lots of data! Then
principals were given professional development opportunities through year-long “Instructional
Conferences” which were held every two months for every district administrator. These
conferences were designed to show district administrator and building leaders what good
teaching looks like. Another requirement for all district administrators was to visit the classroom
a minimum of two hours daily/ ten hours weekly. This was referred to as the” 2/10 rule”.
Principals were prepared to share with their staff the reasons for the change and to also recognize
the ramifications of implementing change within their buildings. Teacher association leaders
were invited to learn along with the principals so that transparency was the theme from the
beginning. Learning walks were initiated to help develop trust and openness. Literacy coaches
were added to each secondary school to help teachers through the process of learning PERR
without the threat of negative evaluations and reprisals. Videos were used to train principals on

5. what each component of PERR looked like in classrooms with students. Our teachers were the
instructors modeling and opening their classrooms to be video tapped. Principals learned to
recognize good teaching and conduct pre and post conferences through this model. Teachers
learned how to utilized PERR in their lessons. Students saw the purpose of the lesson posted on
the board or explained before each lesson. “Today you are going to learn and be able to….”
Viewing our situation with the lenses of all four frames allowed us to identify the potential
ramifications and unintended consequences. We eventually were able to focus on improving the
curriculum. The KSD has implemented a K-12 math, and science adaption and we are currently
working through a 6-12 social studies adaption. Our teachers have also developed “Power
Standards” in math and science and have created a pacing guide so that all schools and classes
are using not only the same text, but are covering the same material by the end of the school
year. Viewing our district through all four frames, we were able to identify what needed to
change, why it needed to change, and to develop an implementation plan that included all stake
holders.
c) Describe how your theory of action has been influenced by your understanding of
the four organizational frames.
My first administrative position was as an assistant principal in the same school that I began
my teaching career. My next principal position was in a building whose previous leadership was
weak and the staff welcomed me. My third administrative position was as a principal in a large
comprehensive high school whose demographics were vastly different from the other two
buildings. This high school had a free/reduced lunch and ethnic diverse student body triple of
my two previous schools. The staff at this high school did not want me. I was not their first
nor was I their second choice during the interview process. The board and superintendent hired

6. me as the principal of this building with specific directions to change the culture, change the
expectations and change the direction of the state assessment scores and the attitude of the staff
in making any significant instructional changes. (They had a “woe is me” mentality that
emanated their belief that their kids could not rise to higher expectations.) My initial work
focused on the Political and Symbolic Framework. I had to build trust and empower my staff. I
tried to create a culture of trust with a staff that did not trust me nor did they have the confidence
that I possessed the necessary knowledge of how to work in a building with the social challenges
that come with poverty, mobility, and apathy.
My direction and leadership had to come from the back of the ship, steering our course with
the rudder rather than standing in front of the boat pointing toward where we needed to go and
what we needed to do to improve teaching and learning. I had to empower the teachers that did
not want me there and did not want to change how they delivered instruction. If ideas or
direction came directly from me then it must be a conspiracy and was immediately resisted by
the staff. It wasn’t until the beginning of my fourth year that I was trusted enough to lead from
the bow of the ship. I would not have lasted nine years if I limited my mental model to just one
frame. I resurrected the site council so that decisions concerning school improvement appeared
to come from the staff.
I have learned that each building has its unique issues and culture. As a teacher, I saw
principals come and go. If a leader only focused their efforts through one or two of the
organizational frameworks, he/she did not last long. School buildings and districts are much too
complicated to believe that you can solve problems by just standing out front pointing and
shouting directions or forgetting that a school’s greatest asset are their teachers. It is not
curriculum or educational reform. A poor teacher with a great curriculum is still a poor teacher

7. that is incapable of teaching our kids to the level they deserve and require. Instruction will still
be mediocre and inadequate.
d.) Effective leaders can be architects, servants, advocates, and prophets. Share the
leadership frame(s) that is most descriptive of you as a leader and the strengths and
liabilities that may accompany this leadership frame.
My administrative experiences have taught me that what I see as my strength and style may
not work at every school. As described above, my leadership style had to adapt to the culture
and staff of that particular building. I believe that my strength and effectiveness as a leader
comes from my interpersonal skills, serving and empowering those people around me. Working
as a catalyst and a servant. (Human Resource) as well as being a visionary (Symbolic), working
to inspire and to build relationships to celebrate the victories and to lessen the impact of the
defeats.
My first administrative position required me to work with and supervise the same teachers
and staff that I grew up with professionally. They were my friends and my colleagues. I knew
the school culture; I was familiar with looking at the staff and students through the “Political”
lens. I knew who the cultural leaders were, I knew the challenges, I was able to build upon the
linkages that I forged as a teacher with the parents and staff. I was able to build upon what was
already in place. I could operate as the social “architect” that was able to continue with the
strategies and focus that was put into place by the principal. I knew the staff well enough to
orchestrate the implementation of the current educational reforms and district vision and strategic
plan. My leadership style from the onset of my administrative career centered on the Human
Resources Framework. I knew what the staff needed and what it took to get staff that had high

8. achieving kids walk through our doors as freshmen and work to get these kids to the next level.
The staff struggled with how to motivate the discouraged or disadvantaged learner and to get
them to experience a level of success. The staff struggled with getting kids who were not
intrinsically motivated to work and learn.
I was also well known by the staff. They had a perception of what I was capable of as well as
what they thought were my limitation. I knew that in order to fully utilize my creativity and
vision, I had to move to another building. I took a position at a school that welcomed me and my
vision of academic excellence for all students. I worked out of the Symbolic Frame leading a
staff that wanted to improved instruction, take advantage of professional development
opportunities, practice collegiality, and be the best teacher possible. My influence as a principal
came from “earned power” not institutional power given to me as the principal of the building. I
was able to utilize what I thought were effective leadership characteristics from the Human
Resources Frame. All this, because I followed a very ineffective leader.
My 19 years as a school administrator, taught me that nothing can substitute or is as effective
as treating people with dignity and respect, leading by example, being organized, and
surrounding myself with good people that know more than you do about particular things. Know
your weaknesses and make sure that the people you chose to help you can compensate for what
you don’t do well. My behavior has implications on the behavior of others.