| Course | EDO 810 Organizational Theory |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Doctoral synthesis and leadership plan |
| Length | About 1,053 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDO 810 Module 8
Three Centers Still Arguing Inside One: A Theory-Based Leadership Plan for the Deputy Director of a Merged 911 Authority
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDO 810: Organizational Theory
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Centers Still Arguing Inside One: A Theory-Based Leadership Plan for the Deputy Director of a Merged 911 Authority
I serve, in this example, as deputy director of Tri-County Emergency Communications, responsible for operations on a floor of 140 telecommunicators and supervisors. The authority was created in 2019 when three dispatch centers, one each under the county sheriff, the city's police and the fire district, combined. The earlier modules of this course examined it through bureaucratic, human relations, systems, institutional, political and effectiveness theories. This paper brings those analyses together into a leadership plan for the coming year. My role and the agency, like the numbers, are fictional. Writing about one's own workplace carries a risk the earlier modules did not: the writer is part of the system being described, with loyalties and blind spots of their own, so the paper names those limits near the end rather than claiming a neutral view.
The Diagnoses Together
| Module | Finding | Frame it belongs to |
|---|---|---|
| 2, bureaucracy | Rules protecting callers enable; rules governing staff time coerce | Structural |
| 3, human relations | High significance, almost no feedback, low psychological safety | Human resource |
| 4, systems and contingency | Integration works on ordinary days and fails in surges | Structural |
| 5, institutional | Three policies exist only on paper | Symbolic |
| 6, power and networks | Budget vetoes; three legacy cliques; informal leaders | Political |
| 7, effectiveness | The board sees one measure of one constituency | Structural and political |
Reading the Pattern Through Four Frames
Bolman and Deal (2021) argued that leaders understand and act on organizations through mental models they call frames, and that most rely too heavily on one or two. The structural frame sees goals, roles, rules and coordination. The human resource frame sees needs, skills and relationships between people and the organization. The political frame sees scarce resources, competing interests, power and bargaining. The symbolic frame sees meaning, culture, stories and ritual. Effective leaders, they argued, can reframe, reading the same situation through several lenses and choosing actions that fit what each reveals.
Read through the frames, the authority's history is clear. Since the merger, leadership has worked almost entirely in the structural frame: new organization charts, unified protocols, shared software and policies. Those were necessary, but the deepest problems, the vetoes, the cliques, the telecommunicators' sense that the work goes unseen and the absence of any shared story of what the authority is, belong to the political, human resource and symbolic frames, where little has been done.
How the Authority Changes
A review of theories of organizational change identified four basic motors (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). A life cycle motor drives change through a prescribed sequence of stages. A teleological motor drives it through goal setting, action and learning. A dialectical motor drives it through conflict between opposing entities, whose collision produces a new synthesis. An evolutionary motor drives it through variation, selection and retention in a population. Different motors can operate at once, and leaders who misread which motor is running will choose the wrong kind of action.
The authority's history fits the dialectical motor. Three centers with different cultures, priorities and loyalties were joined by agreement, not absorbed by one dominant center. Each still pursues its own interests through the board and through the legacy groups on the floor. Change has come when conflict forced a new arrangement, as when last year's seven-month budget fight produced the first shared staffing formula. Treating the authority as if it were following a planned, teleological path, as the merger documents assumed, explains why so many plans have stalled.
Paradoxes That Remain
Some tensions will not be resolved. The authority must be both standardized, so every caller receives the same response, and flexible, so telecommunicators can use judgment. It must answer to three founding agencies while acting as one organization. It must be fast for callers while being livable for staff.
A companion article described four ways of working with paradox (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989): accepting the tension and using it constructively, clarifying levels so each pole applies at a different level or place, introducing time so each pole applies at a different moment, and introducing a new concept that dissolves the opposition. For the authority, spatial separation fits standardization and judgment: protocols govern the opening questions of every call, while judgment governs what follows once the core facts are known. Temporal separation fits speed and livability: surge periods will demand more, while ordinary periods protect breaks and training. The tension among the three agencies may yield only to a new concept, a shared identity as the region's emergency communications service rather than three centers in one room.
A One-Year Plan
| Quarter | Action | Frame | Measure from Module 7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Begin peer debriefs and outcome follow-ups | Human resource | Debriefs after critical incidents; two-year retention |
| 1 | Form mixed shift teams and new-hire cohorts | Political | Share of advice ties across legacy groups |
| 2 | Launch the protocol review group led by the two central dispatchers | Political and structural | Protocol flags resolved |
| 2 | Tell the authority's story: a name, a shared history and a yearly recognition night | Symbolic | Staff survey on identity |
| 3 | Activate the surge mode before winter | Structural | Answer times during declared surges |
| 4 | Report the full scorecard; propose the two-of-three budget rule | Political | Board adoption; budget passed on time |
My Role and Its Limits
As deputy director I control the floor's operations, schedules and training, but not the board, the budget or the founding agencies. I can lead the human resource and symbolic actions directly and influence the political ones through the director. My own history matters too: I came from the old city center, and the other two legacy groups may read my actions as partisan. The plan therefore assigns visible leadership of the protocol review and the recognition night to people from the other two groups.
Conclusion
Viewed through Bolman and Deal's frames, the authority's problems are mostly political and symbolic, while its leadership has been mostly structural. Van de Ven and Poole show that its change follows a dialectical motor, which calls for working through conflict rather than around it, and Poole and Van de Ven show how to hold the tensions that remain. A year of actions across all four frames, measured by the scorecard from Module 7, gives the authority its best chance of becoming one organization.
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (7th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308389
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329
EDO 810 Module 8 instructions, in plain terms
The final module of EDO 810 asks for a synthesis, and the paper usually requires students to apply several organizational theories to their own leadership context and propose a course of action. The Module 8 instructions in your Aspen classroom come before this page; the role and the agency here are invented. Describe your leadership context and role. Integrate findings from more than one theoretical perspective rather than summarizing each in turn. Explain how and why the organization changes. Address tensions that cannot be resolved. Propose a leadership plan with actions, timing and measures, and back it with scholarship referenced in APA 7 style.
Inside the EDO 810 Module 8 example
The writer is deputy director, responsible for operations on the floor. A diagnosis table draws on every module: coercive rules from Module 2, missing feedback from Module 3, weak surge integration from Module 4, decoupled policies from Module 5, veto politics and legacy cliques from Module 6 and an incomplete effectiveness picture from Module 7. Bolman and Deal's Reframing Organizations sorts the findings into structural, human resource, political and symbolic frames, showing that the merger has been led almost entirely through the structural frame. Van de Ven and Poole (Academy of Management Review) explain the authority's history as dialectical change still under way. Poole and Van de Ven (Academy of Management Review) suggest separating some tensions in time and space. The plan's six actions include a merger story told in the authority's own name, mixed shift teams, a surge mode and the twelve-measure scorecard.
Where the marks sit in the EDO 810 Module 8 rubric
Synthesis papers are graded on integration: whether theories are used together to illuminate one situation and lead to action. This example avoids summarizing theories one by one; instead it brings every earlier diagnosis into a single table and reads it through Bolman and Deal's frames, which reveals a pattern no single module showed. Van de Ven and Poole's motors give the plan a theory of why the authority changes the way it does. Poole and Van de Ven provide a principled way to handle tensions that remain. The plan is specific, sequenced and tied to measures from Module 7, and the writer reflects on their own role and limits, which is expected at the doctoral level.
EDO 810 Module 8 help from the desk
Final synthesis papers often restate each theory from the course in turn, ending with a list of recommendations loosely connected to them. Integrate instead: show how several theories together explain one situation. Another common weakness is ignoring the political and symbolic sides of leadership in favor of structure. Include a theory of how your organization changes, since that tells you what kind of action will work. Admit the tensions you cannot resolve and explain how you will hold them. Sequence your actions over time and attach measures. Finally, reflect honestly on your own position, authority and limits as a leader in the setting.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDO 810 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDO 810 Module 1: The Study of Organizations
- EDO 810 Module 2: Classical and Bureaucratic Theory
- EDO 810 Module 3: Human Relations and Behavioral Perspectives
- EDO 810 Module 4: Systems and Contingency Theory
- EDO 810 Module 5: Institutional Theory
- EDO 810 Module 6: Power, Politics and Networks
- EDO 810 Module 7: Organizational Effectiveness
- EDN 810 Module 7: Professional Ethics and Standards in Leadership
- EDO 812 Module 1: Defining Innovation and Entrepreneurship
- EDN 820 Module 7: Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles
- EDN 814 Module 7: Accreditation as a Leadership Decision
EDO 810 Module 8 questions, answered
What does EDO 810 Module 8 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDO 810 ends with applying theory to a leadership context, so a synthesis using several organizational theories to diagnose your own setting and propose a plan is typical. Read your Module 8 prompt.
What are Bolman and Deal's four frames?
Structural, human resource, political and symbolic: four lenses for reading and leading an organization.
What drives organizational change?
Van de Ven and Poole identified four motors: life cycle, teleological, dialectical and evolutionary.
Where can I find a free EDO 810 Module 8 sample paper?
This page has it at no charge: a doctoral synthesis applying organizational theory to the leadership of an invented merged 911 authority, with a one-year plan.
How should leaders handle paradox?
Poole and Van de Ven described accepting the tension, separating it by level or place, separating it in time or creating a new perspective that resolves it.