The public opinion on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy can be mainly assessed from the position of discrimination. In that regard, taking the US marine as an organization, such policy can be seen as a crisis that changes the original definition of such organization, and thus, require a certain intervention to overcome such crisis. The usage of frame grids as a tool in the case of analyzing the US marine organization might help identify the origins of such crisis as well as the way such crisis might be solved.
The frame for the US marine can be seen as follows:
Reframing the organization into one or more dominant frames will allow identifying the source of the crisis as well as provide means of solving such aspects. The choice of the frames to be political and structural can be seen due to several characteristics of the organization, which include the absence of individual commitment and motivation for success, work from the top-down, the importance of ambiguity and uncertainty.
The use of the structural frame will enable overcoming one of the main problems of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” crisis, which is a vague framework that allows homosexuals to serve. In that regard, the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is controversial in itself, as it does not provide strict rules to follow, e.g. reporting harassment will lead to that the complainant will “get kicked out of the military for being gay” (Belkin 105). The political framework will provide a point of view of the organization as clear and consistent (Bolman and Deal). Accordingly, one cause of the crisis in the policy is that it was put in action without sufficient evidence that would justify its purpose, where the only reason for the policy is the unit cohesion rationale, which is “the idea that if gays and lesbians revealed their sexual orientation, then units no longer would be able to function” (Belkin). Such a problem can be seen in the structural nature of the organization, which implies a “blueprint for pattern of expectations and procedures” (Bolman and Deal).
Reframing can be used to solve the problem, where a combination of frames will allow overcoming the deficiencies of the policy. For example, taking the political frame in power, will allow the problem to be seen from the perspective of people and resources. The policy at the present time was estimated to put human and financial expenditures on the period through which the policy was in effect, as of 2005 (SCHEPER et al.). The political perspective implies recognizing people and resources, and thus, will force articulating the needs and mobilizing forces to change the policy (Bolman and Deal). The utilization of such frame will allow restructuring the priorities, the differences of the opinions on the issue along with scarce resources lead to a conflict. Thus, negotiating and making alliances can be a suitable solution for the current crisis. One possible example can be seen through making alliances, where the focus will be put on the interests of higher order. In this case, and as it can be seen from the grid, the interests are those of the nation. Accordingly, leadership as well can be reframed toward a political leader, where the crisis implies different powers and interests, where a political leader will help assess their distribution.
Works Cited
Belkin, Aaron. “The Pentagon’s Gay Ban Is Not Based on Military Necessity.” Journal of Homosexuality 41.1 (2001). Web.
Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. “Reframing Organizations”. n.d. The Nellens.
Scheper, Jeanne, et al. ““The Importance of Objective Analysis” on Gays in the Military: A Response to Elaine Donnelly’s Constructing the Co-Ed Military.” Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 15 (2008): 419-48. Print.