Running head: LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

Leadership Orientations Self-Assessment

Craig A. Bryant

EDUC 5380 Strategic Operations

May 19, 2015

Version 1.0

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

Introduction
Upon completing the Orientations Self-Assessment survey, a distinct question came to
mind. Why is the Political Frame highest on my rating scale? The Human Resources frame was
the next closest, but I thought it would be my highest rating by far. In fact, the Political frame, in
my view, would have been at least in third place on my results. In Outliers: The Story of Success,
Malcolm Gladwell (2008) suggested that, The values of the world we inhabit and the people we
surround ourselves with have a profound effect on who we are. This suggests that my frame is
being shaped by several outside factors. Family, friends, peers, culture, media, and a host of
other forces are influencing and possibly even manipulating the frame from which I lead and will
lead. If the survey had been placed in front of me ten years ago, would it be different? What
about five, ten, or twenty years in the future?
Furthermore, can I now have more control over the dominant frame? If the Political
frame is at the forefront of my organizational viewpoint, can I now, with knowledge and
understanding of the four frames, cause whichever frame I choose to stand out? Are certain
leaders so attuned to their prevailing leadership frame that they can treat all four like a faucet
which can be turned on and off at will? On the other hand, those outside factors might be so
overwhelming that there may be little control at all over which leadership orientation is the most
prevalent.
The Political Frame
In their book Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal (2008) suggest that The
political frame views organizations as roiling arenas hosting ongoing contest of individual and
group interests (p. 194). The authors expand this by clarifying five propositions to summarize
the frame. First, there is a mix of individuals and interest groups. Second, members have

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

persistent differences involving many aspects. Third, allocating scarce resources drive key
decisions within the coalition. Fourth, those same scarce resources and differences bring about
conflict and cause power to be the most important aspect. Finally, negotiating and bargaining are
brought about by goals and decisions (2008, p. 194-195).
When people hear the word politics, they generally interpret the word with a negative
connotation. In my opinion, this is mostly because people see politicians as people who are
mostly dishonest, or at least devious enough that they only say what needs to be said to win
elections. Obviously, not every politician is this way. Nevertheless, it is how most are perceived.
It is surprising, then that this particular frame happened to be my highest percentile score. It is
surprising because I dont see myself as political, at least not in the manner that I described
above. I suppose the reason it is startling is that I have not viewed the political frame in the
fashion in which Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal present it. It is hard to imagine myself as
someone like Bill Gates. Setting up a power base, allies, networks, and coalitions seems
farfetched from what I perceive to be my personality. The famous basketball player Michael
Jordan may have scored high in this frame. His only concerns were accomplishing the goals, no
matter the conflict and no matter how scarce the resources. From my point of view, it is not in
my nature to welcome conflict. However, looking back I presume that I do operate from this
frame more consistently than I considered. For example, I am constantly negotiating with
students, parents, and administrators. There is conflict on a daily basis, and I must build a
coalition with goals and objectives. Just because I am not always shrewd in my dealings does not
mean I am not operating from the political frame.
I would like to pay attention specifically to the second, third and fourth propositions as
they relate to personal future leadership. As a future administrative leader within an educational

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

setting, I understand that there will absolutely be countless differences in my faculty, and most
likely scarce resources. I must recognize that conflict is not in and of itself corrupt or unhealthy. I
can remain true to my values without being a ruthless politician.
The Human Resources Frame
Bolman and Deal (2008) outline the human resource frame as it relates to people and
organizations and believe it is built on a few core assumptions. First, human needs are served by
organizations, not vice versa. Second, people and organizations need each other. Finally, there
must be a good fit between the individual and the organization, as opposed to a poor fit (2008, p.
122).
Although this frame yielded my second highest percentile score, it is actually
shocking to me that it was not far and away the highest. In my mind, I see the human resources
frame where the team from top to bottom develops and maintains chemistry with one another.
Everyone knows and performs their particular role, and everyone realizes the importance and
value of others roles. Having played and coached team sports for much of my life, I see the
value in team chemistry. Mark Cuban, the outspoken owner of the Dallas Mavericks, speaks
passionately about the significance of team chemistry. In an interview with mavs.com writer Earl
Sneed, Cuban addresses the topic. He says that, chemistry to me is critical. You know, a team
with talent without chemistry is never going to winYou can have one knucklehead in the
locker room, but if you have two, youre (in trouble) And so, to me, chemistry makes a huge
difference. Cuban speaks from experience in this matter. The Mavericks had the best record in
the NBA in the 2006-2007 year, and were considered the most talented. Many NBA experts had
picked them to win the title that year. Yet they lost to the upstart Golden State Warriors in the

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

first round. Why? They had chemistry issues late in the year and certain players werent fitting
in. Conversely, in 2011 the Mavericks won the NBA title when many experts thought they would
bow out in the first round. They had less talent than the team they beat in the Finals, the Lebron
James led Miami Heat. Yet they won convincingly. There was a perfect fit among the players,
coaches, and front office personnel, and they had great chemistry.
Cuban has been successful, in my opinion, because he leads with Theory Y
assumptions, which states that the essential task of management is to arrange conditions so that
people achieve their own goals best by directing efforts toward organizational rewards
(McGregor, as cited in Bolman and Deal, 2008). He works to ensure his employees feel wanted
and needed, and in return his employees usually perform above par, with certain exceptions of
course. That seems to be the key to the human resource frame.
Personally, I have had the benefit of working under management that realized the need to
have the right fit with their employees. My current principal is someone who would fit well into
this frame. On the contrary, I have also worked under management who seemed to feel that the
employee was at work only to fulfill the organizations needs. For my part, I genuinely believe
that the optimal way to lead is through this frame. As a Christian we are taught to love people.
How can I do that in my future leadership roles without believing wholeheartedly in this frame?
The Structural Frame
The structural frame is third on my percentile scale, which is a little surprising as I assumed it
would be my lowest score. According to the leadership orientations self-assessment, this frame
emphasizes rationality, logic, facts, and data. It is structured and a leader in this frame has good
analytical skills. This is not me. On the surface I make logical and rational decisions. Dig deeper,
however, and generally those logical and rational decisions have not come from analyzing data,

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

but from fluid thought processes and a feel for the situation. A great example of a leader who
would fit well into the structural frame would be my High School basketball coach. I did not fit
well into his structure and system. As the only player on the team who played basketball year
round, in other words the only one who did not play football, I felt as though I had a relatively
high basketball IQ for a teenager. I was a student of the game, unlike some of our other players
who were gifted athletes. The football players had high football IQ, but not so much in
basketball. Our coach felt it was in the best interest of the team if we played a very structured
style of basketball, believing that giving our football players a fluid situation would hinder our
ability to succeed.
I felt differently, however. Because we possessed exceptionally fast athletes. In fact, very
fast athletes. My philosophy was that we should let our athletes run, and run some more, until the
other teams were so tired they couldnt keep up. This, of course, would have loosened the
structure the coach wanted. Some structure is still obtainable in a run and gun system, but far less
than when you walk the ball up the floor and run through very structured sets of movements. I
felt our non-basketball IQ athletes needed to play with feel and fluidity. Our coach thought they
needed a well-structured system embracing logic. I was always respectful and ran what the coach
wanted, but needless to say we butted heads on a few occasions.
The school system is currently trending toward leading through the lens of the structural
frame. We are constantly being told to analyze the data. Look at the facts of the data and make
sound, rational decisions based on the data and facts. The skills we are required to teach are very
structured, down to the verb that must be taught. Next year our school district will begin
enforcing a structured, analytical lesson plan and skills timeline across all three middle schools.
Because the school system is moving in this direction, I feel I must improve my structural frame

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

leadership score. I must become better at reading data, analyzing it, and relaying that information
to my teachers.
The Symbolic Frame
From the movie Braveheart with the outspoken William Wallace and the story of the quiet
Chris Kyle in American Sniper to our favorite athletes and historical heroes, symbolic leaders
seem to not go unnoticed. This frame believes that management is to provide vision and
motivation. I am not sure where I thought I would fall into the structural frame. I am inspired by
leaders or symbols. I try my best as a teacher to inspire my students. In my opinion, the best
symbolic leaders are those that lead by example. People can shout and criticize, Kobe Bryant for
example, but that is not all it takes for others to follow. Soldiers would follow Chris Kyle
anywhere on the battlefield because of his inspirational example. Will my administrative
leadership be that kind of inspiration? I should absolutely strive for that to be the case.
Conclusion
In order to be more than a decent organizational leader, I believe that I cant rely on just
one frame. There has to be a mixture; the right mixture. They should be blended together in a
way that fuses with my personality. As my self-assessment stands now, the political frame and
the human resources frame are leading the way. Can I break the frame, though? Do I want to?
Those answers will most likely come when I am in an administrative role. I will have to learn my
strengths and weaknesses in each frame and combine each one so that I am not reliant on one
way of thinking. Each member of the faculty may need me to utilize a different type of
organizational leadership frame. This is an interesting study, one in which I look forward to
seeing unfold.

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

Percentile Structural
Score

HR Score

Political Score Symbolic

90-100th

22-24

24

16-24

21-24

80-89th

20, 21

22, 23

14, 15

18-20

70-79th

18, 19

21

13

17

60-69th

17

20

12

16

50-59th

15,16

19

11

14, 15

40-49th

14

18

10

13

30-39th

13

17

12

20-29th

11,12

15, 16

11

10-19th

9, 10

13, 14

9, 10

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

1-9th

6-8

6-12

6-8

Appendix B
Categories

Points
Possible

SelfEvaluation

APA formatting / Grammar / Punctuation / Usage /

50

47

Reflections Relatable to Frames

25

23

Personal Examples Provided

25

23

Depth of Development

25

22

Insights / Implications for future practice

25

21

Total Points

150

136

Average of the two scores:

Instruction
Evaluation

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT REFLECTION

10

References
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: Stories of success. New York : Little, Brown and Company.
Sneed, E.K. (2014, August 26). Mavs owner Mark Cuban hopes team develops championship
chemistry. Retrieved from http://www.mavs.com/mavs-owner-mark-cuban-hopes-teamdevelops-championship-chemistry/