The document discusses efforts to improve supply chain integration for the launch of new products in South America, with executives interested in leveraging Porter's five forces for strategy development. It outlines the varying bargaining power of buyers in different industries, emphasizing how this power influences pricing and profitability. Additionally, it explores ethical considerations across cultures in organizational decision-making, highlighting frameworks for addressing ethical dilemmas and developing cultural competence among leaders.

1. Resource: Achieving Supply Chain Integration, Ch. 6
Since the team has aligned purchasing and logistics, and
stabilized disruptions in the supply chain for Small Molecule,
the executive leaders are now interested in capitalizing upon
those improvements. Small Molecule's new products will be
launched in South America. The executives have asked the team
to come in to explain the processes already taken. They want
help creating a solid supply chain strategy for their South
America launch considering how to leverage Porter's Five
Forces.
Prepare a 4 slide visual presentation for the executives with
speaker notes that explains how Porter's "Five Forces" are used
to develop the supply chain strategy.
Determine how these Five Forces work together to evaluate
growth potential and develop the overall strategy.
Cite references consistent with APA guidelines.
Just talk about the buyers power
Buyer Power
When the bargaining power of buyers is high, they can demand
price concessions from firms in an industry. Often, when
industries are characterized as “high competitive rivalry,”
buyers have more power relative to sellers. Buyers also have
more absolute power when there are few buyers relative to
sellers, or when buyers purchase large volumes. Generally, as
buyer power decreases, firms can charge higher markups and
improve their profitability. An example of weak buyer power is
movie theater customers. When customers go to see a movie—
assuming they haven’t sneaked in a snack—they have no source
of beverage or food other than from the movie theater
concession stand. As a result, the movie theater can raise prices

2. to an amount that a consumer would not typically pay.
Examples of industries with high buyer power are somewhat
uncommon when the public sector is not the buyer. However,
some examples of industries with concentrated buyer power can
be found in agriculture. For example, 50 percent of all tobacco
grown is purchased by three companies. Similar concentration
of buyer power is found in the cocoa beans market, or in a coal
mining town where the mine is the only buyer of labor.
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

3. 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

4. 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:

5. · 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.

6. 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

7. 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:

8. 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 both
your successes and failures at building CQ capacity. The ability
to recognize failure can provide valuable insights and growth. If

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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).

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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%20
8002/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%2

19. 0lords%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.

20. 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

21. 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/Reframin
g.html

22. 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:

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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?

26. Part 2:
· Complete the Leadership Orientations Questionnaire, and
score your results.
· In a minimum oftwo 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”?