Dissonance, norms, and leadership

Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames for Structural Organizations establish a framework for assessing the function and dysfunction of an organization. Additionally, the Four Frames enable leaders to better understand the attributes and challenges for organizational change. Implementing the Four Frames when assessing an organization is not a quick, snap judgment process but rather like the process of implementing a long-range action plan. It is the hope that within the context of organizational transformation that the leader not only create a healthily organization but also one that fosters the growth of leaders. 

Viewing the Four Frames via the lens of a SI participant, as well as an educational professional, there is a disconnect between what is the best for the organization (Stritch) and for the followers/participants (SI participants). In order to foster strong leadership, said leadership must be demonstrated. The concept to bring in all alumni speakers for the 20-year celebration of the doctoral program should be applauded, yet it did not work. The number of speakers who spoke beyond their own personal story or to a topic that is applicable to students in the doctoral program were slim. 

A fine example would be the doc talks by Drs. Mike Dickman and Kris Hipp. A Ted Talk, the premise of what the doc talks were to emulate, is concise, has a clear theme, is a relate-able and interesting 20-minute presentation. Going beyond the fact that the speakers, sans Dr. Marcus Arrington, were founders of the doctoral program there is little application of the topics presented. Nor were the speakers clear or concise but they were knowledgeable. Perhaps that was the example that is being demonstrated at this SI – to not get so “down the rabbit hole of your research” that you can not convey it to others. It may be better for the speakers to follow the philosophy Dr. Joe Sanfelippo (2017) that “We can change our culture 30 seconds at a time;” rather than reflecting negative concepts of Follett’s’ cooperation theory of power over vs power with and challenging the notion of title/position.

This dissonance within SI and the participants can be reflected in the structures of a political and symbolic organizational structure. The basic leadership challenges that are happening within the SI leadership are that of agenda, power base and  emblematic of a dysfunctional organization. There are sets of expected norms. The question arises whether those norms are of the university or for HLC accreditation?

The  symbolic structure that is perpetuated by the Stritch program is demonstrated in glimmers; a glimmer is faint and does not last for long. This gives me pause, is this why the alumni were brought in? To fan the flames so we are able to get through the program? If it is not evident, we the SI participants, have drunk the Kool-aide of the doc. program. I am unsure what more we can do, sans sit and sit and sit and sit.