The Structural Frame: US Army

Apply the Structural Frame to the United States Army

Two very important and related points should be emphasized:

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").

After you briefly describe the United States Army apply the Structural Frame to the organization, analyzing the effectiveness of two or three structural characteristics you have identified.

Part 1:
Briefly describe the United States Army, what it does, size (number of employees, annual revenue, relative market share, etc.);
Describe the organizational design of the United States Army. Is it effective? Why or why not?
Choose 2 or 3 structural characteristics of the United States Army (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 the United States Army, what (if anything) might you do differently? Why would you make any changes you suggest?

Part 2:
Report the scores for each of the Four Frames in the Leadership Orientations Questionnaire.
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"?