Read Exhibit 3‐1 Diagnostic Framework, p. 56, in your textbook.Requirements:In this self‐reflective assignment, you will select a common organizational framework that can be used to shape mutual e

Read Exhibit 3‐1 Diagnostic Framework, p. 56, in your textbook.

Requirements:

• In this self‐reflective assignment, you will select a common organizational framework that can be used to shape mutual engagement and shared diagnosis in an organization of your choice. If you need help in your selection, contact your instructor.
• Back up your facts, assumptions, ideas, and claims with 2‐3 scholarly sources that are not required readings in this course. 
• Your paper should be 4‐5 pages in length.

"Theory into Practice Use a common organizational framework to shape mutual engagement and shared diagnosis. No framework can, of course, explicate all the interconnects, causes and effects, and actions and reactions that occur within an organization and impact performance. That is why relying on a framework is only a preliminary step in the diagnosis. Mutual engagement and open, honest dialogue will build on the framework and enrich participants’ understanding of organizational dynamics. There are numerous frameworks available for judging alignment. 4 Exhibit 3‐1 offers one such framework. The goal of any framework is to provide a common guide to participants as they seek to understand the interconnected linkages that affect organizational performance.

Exhibit 3‐1 summarizes the criteria that, according to David Nadler, any useful framework should adhere. 5 What makes a framework effective is that it leads people toward systemic thinking that Exhibit 3-1 Diagnostic Framework†*Social (incl. History), Technological, Economic, and Political Environment† This organizational design framework and analytic model has been adapted from a number of writers on the contingency theory of organizations: James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1967); Paul R. Lawrence and J. W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment (Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1969); Jay R. Galbraith, Designing Complex Organizations (Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley, 1973); Jay W. Lorsch and John J. Morse, Organizations and Their Members: A Contingency Approach (New York: Harper & Row, 1974); Jay R. Galbraith, Organization Design (Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley, 1977); Jay W. Lorsch, “Organization Design: A Situational Perspective,” Organizational Dynamics, 5 (1977) American Management Association, 1977; Jay R. Galbraith and Daniel A. Nathanson, Strategy Implementation: The Role of Structure and Process (St. Paul, MN: West, 1978); John P. Kotter, Leonard A. Schlesinger, and Vijay Sathe, “Organization Design Tools,” Organization: Text, Cases and Readings on the Management of Organizational Design and Change (Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1979). See also H. W. Lane, “Systems, Values and Action: An Analytic Framework for Intercultural Management Research,” Management International Review 20, no. 3 (1980), pp. 61–70. can focus diagnosis on disjunctions that are impeding implementation of the renewed strategy and achievement of outstanding performance. A framework helps employees understand that outstanding performance can be achieved or sustained only with alignment between and among all the elements. It builds a common understanding and language that can form the basis of a shared diagnosis."