| Course | EDP 810 The Psychology of Leadership |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Doctoral frame analysis |
| Length | About 1,049 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 810 Module 1
One Problem, Four Pictures: Reframing a Stalled Rollout
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 810: The Psychology of Leadership
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
One Problem, Four Pictures: Reframing a Stalled Rollout
Eight months after a composite youth services agency in Des Moines, Iowa, launched a new electronic case record system, most caseworkers were still writing notes on paper and typing them in on Fridays, if at all. Daniela, the executive director, had approached the problem as a matter of training and compliance: more sessions, clearer deadlines, a weekly completion report. Completion rates had barely moved. The agency, Daniela and her staff are composites invented for this course. This paper reframes the stalled rollout through Bolman and Deal's four frames to see what Daniela's first reading missed.
The Frames
Bolman and Deal (2021) describe four frames, each a set of ideas and assumptions that shapes what a leader notices and how they act. The structural frame sees an organization as a system of goals, roles, rules and coordination; problems arise when structure does not fit the task, and solutions involve redesign. The human resource frame sees an organization as a set of people with needs, skills and feelings; problems arise when the fit between people and organization breaks down, and solutions involve meeting needs and building capacity. The political frame sees an organization as an arena of scarce resources and competing interests; problems reflect conflict, and solutions involve bargaining, coalition-building and the use of power. The symbolic frame sees an organization as a culture held together by meaning, story and ritual; problems arise when meaning is lost, and solutions involve restoring it.
Four Readings of One Problem
| Frame | What it sees in the stalled rollout | What it suggests |
|---|---|---|
| Structural | Unclear deadlines; the system's fields do not match the agency's forms; no one owns data quality | Redesign forms to match fields; name a data owner per team |
| Human resource | Caseworkers lack time and confidence; training was one-size-fits-all; field visits leave no time to type | Protected documentation time; peer coaches; tablets for field use |
| Political | Supervisors were not consulted; the data team gained influence; a veteran supervisor opposes it openly | Bring supervisors into decisions; negotiate with the opposing supervisor |
| Symbolic | Caseworkers see paper notes as a sign of care; the system feels like surveillance; launch was a memo, not a moment | Reframe documentation as advocacy for youth; mark a relaunch with stories |
What the Structural Reading Got Right and Missed
Daniela's structural reading was accurate as far as it went. The system's fields did not match the agency's intake forms, so caseworkers had to translate their notes, and no one was responsible for checking data quality. Fixing these problems was necessary. But the structural frame could not explain why caseworkers who had attended every training still preferred paper. The other frames could.
The Human Resource Reading
Seen through the human resource frame, caseworkers were not resisting so much as struggling. Most spent their days in the field, visiting families and schools, and had no time to type until Friday. Several of the most experienced were uneasy with technology and embarrassed to say so in group trainings. The system asked more of people without giving them more time or support.
The Political Reading
The political frame showed something Daniela had not wanted to see. The system had been selected by the data team and the finance director without consulting the four casework supervisors. The data team's influence had grown, since it now produced the reports the board saw. One veteran supervisor, respected by her staff, told them openly that the system was "for the funders, not the kids." Her team's completion rate was the lowest in the agency.
The Symbolic Reading
Through the symbolic frame, the paper notes carried meaning. Caseworkers described handwritten notes as part of how they cared for youth; typing into a system felt bureaucratic and, for some, like being watched. The launch itself had been announced in a memo, with no moment that marked the change or connected it to the agency's mission.
The Evidence on Multi-Frame Leadership
Bolman and Deal (1991) surveyed leaders and their colleagues in several sectors and countries, measuring how often leaders used each frame and how effective colleagues rated them. Leaders who used more frames were rated more effective. The structural frame was the strongest predictor of effectiveness as a manager, while the political and symbolic frames were stronger predictors of effectiveness as a leader. Bolman and Deal (1992) extended the analysis to school administrators and examined differences of context, national culture and gender. The links between frame use and rated leadership held broadly across these groups, and men and women showed similar frame orientations. Both studies relied on ratings by colleagues, which capture perceived rather than objectively measured effectiveness, and on cross-sectional data, so they show association rather than cause. Still, they support the claim that leaders who see situations several ways are seen as more effective.
Options That Reframing Produces
Reframing produced three options Daniela had not considered. First, she would invite the veteran supervisor to co-lead a redesign of the forms, turning her opposition into ownership, an option drawn from the political frame. Second, she would provide tablets with voice-to-text for field notes and protected documentation time, from the human resource frame. Third, she would mark a relaunch with stories from caseworkers whose documentation had helped a young person obtain services, linking the system to the agency's mission, from the symbolic frame. The structural fixes would continue alongside.
How the Frames Interact
The frames are separate lenses, but the options they produce affect each other. Inviting the veteran supervisor to co-lead the forms redesign is a political move, yet it also has structural consequences, since it gives casework supervisors a formal role in data decisions, and symbolic ones, since staff will read it as a sign that their judgment counts. Protected documentation time is a human resource measure with a political cost: the data team must accept slower reports while the change beds in. Bolman and Deal (2021) argue that skilled leaders anticipate these interactions rather than discovering them afterward.
Conclusion
Bolman and Deal's frames turned one stalled rollout into four problems, each real. Their research suggests that leaders who use more frames, particularly the political and symbolic, are seen as more effective. For Daniela, reframing replaced more of the same training with options that addressed time, power and meaning as well as structure.
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509-534. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930300406
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and managing: Effects of context, culture, and gender. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 314-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X92028003005
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (7th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
EDP 810 Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
Module 1 of EDP 810 typically asks for a paper introducing the four frames and applying them to a leadership problem. Follow the Module 1 instructions in your Aspen course; the agency here is a composite. Explain what each frame assumes about organizations and what it directs a leader to notice. Apply all four to one concrete problem rather than defining them in the abstract. Report empirical evidence on multi-frame leadership, with its methods and limits. Show what new options reframing produces. Doctoral papers here need an argument, not a summary, in APA 7 style, and treat the frames as ways of seeing a situation rather than as personality types. Say how the frames interact, since a change seen through one frame usually has effects that only another frame can see.
Inside the EDP 810 Module 1 example
Daniela, the composite executive director, cannot understand why caseworkers still keep paper notes eight months after the agency bought a new case record system. Bolman and Deal's book sets out the four frames and the practice of reframing. Their 1991 study surveyed leaders and colleagues in several sectors and linked multi-frame thinking to rated effectiveness. Their 1992 study examined the same patterns across contexts, national cultures and gender. A four-row table shows what each frame sees in the stalled rollout and what it suggests, and the paper ends with three options that none of the frames would have produced alone. A short section explains how the frames interact once Daniela begins to act.
Reading the EDP 810 Module 1 grading rubric
A strong doctoral frame paper applies every frame to the same facts and shows what each reveals and misses. This example treats the structural reading, which Daniela started with, as accurate but incomplete, and shows how the human resource, political and symbolic readings add causes she had not seen. The empirical studies are described with their designs, including the reliance on ratings by colleagues, so the evidence is weighed rather than simply cited. Options are tied to specific frames, and the conclusion argues for reframing as a habit rather than a one-time exercise. The paper also shows how the frames interact, which moves the analysis beyond four separate lists toward a single judgment.
EDP 810 Module 1 help from the desk
Frame papers often define the four frames in turn and stop there, or assign a frame to a person as if it were a personality. Apply all four to one problem and show the differences. Use the empirical studies carefully: they rely largely on ratings, and their findings concern patterns rather than guarantees. Show what reframing adds in practical terms, such as a new option or a risk that had been missed. Write as an argument with a thesis, since doctoral papers are judged on reasoning as much as coverage. Show at least one place where frames interact, such as a structural change with political effects.
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 EDP 810 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 810 Module 2: The Structural Frame
- EDP 810 Module 3: The Human Resource Frame
- EDP 810 Module 4: The Political Frame
- EDP 810 Module 5: The Symbolic Frame
- EDP 810 Module 6: Personal Frame Preferences
- EDP 810 Module 7: The Neuroscience of Leadership
- EDP 810 Module 8: Leading Change Across the Frames
- EDN 818 Module 5: Evidence-Based Innovation
- EDO 810 Module 7: Organizational Effectiveness
- EDO 820 Module 6: Ethics in Public, Private and Nonprofit Governance
- EDN 814 Module 1: Purpose of Programmatic Accreditation
EDP 810 Module 1 questions, answered
What does EDP 810 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 810 opens with Bolman and Deal's four frames and reframing, so a paper applying all four frames to one leadership problem is typical. Your Module 1 prompt has the exact task.
What are Bolman and Deal's four frames?
The structural frame (roles, rules and coordination), the human resource frame (needs and skills of people), the political frame (power, interests and coalitions) and the symbolic frame (meaning, culture and ritual).
Does using more frames make a leader more effective?
Bolman and Deal's 1991 study found leaders who used more frames were rated more effective, with political and symbolic frames linked to leadership and the structural frame to management.
Where can I find a free EDP 810 Module 1 sample paper?
This page has the full paper: the four frames introduced, one stalled project reframed four ways and the evidence on multi-frame leadership.
What is reframing?
Deliberately looking at the same situation through different frames to find causes and options a single view would miss.