How to Write About School Culture Norms and Leader Approaches to Preparing Teachers for Change
A section-by-section academic writing guide for educational leadership students — covering how to identify and summarize school culture norms using Glickman et al. (2024), how to describe leader approaches that prepare teachers for change without disrupting existing culture, and how to connect both to the demands of diverse communities.
This assignment asks two things that students consistently treat as unrelated: summarize norms present in school culture, and describe approaches leaders can use to prepare teachers for change without affecting that culture. The connection between them is the analytical core of the assignment. School culture norms are not background context — they are the specific forces that determine whether teacher preparation for change succeeds or fails. A response that lists cultural norms in one section and leadership strategies in another without linking them misses what the prompt is testing. This guide explains what each component requires, which frameworks from Glickman et al. (2024) are most relevant, how to build the analysis that earns full marks, and how to structure a response that addresses the diversity and community demands the prompt establishes at the outset.
This is not a general essay about why change is hard in schools, nor a list of leadership qualities. It requires analytical summaries of specific, named cultural norms grounded in the supervision and leadership literature, and it requires leadership approaches that are explicitly designed to preserve cultural assets while enabling change. Describing change management in generic terms without connecting it to school culture norms earns partial credit at best. The “without affecting school culture” clause in the prompt is the analytical constraint that separates a strong response from a weak one — it forces you to demonstrate that you understand culture as both a resource and a potential barrier, and that leader strategies must be calibrated accordingly.
What This Guide Covers
What This Assignment Is Actually Testing
The prompt establishes a specific problem context before asking its questions: communities change, leaders must be innovative and responsive, and both problems and resistance can arise at any time. These conditions set the analytical frame — your response is not about stable, comfortable schools but about schools operating in dynamic community environments where leaders cannot assume consensus or inertia will protect them.
The assignment then asks for two analytically connected tasks. First, summarize at least three norms present in school culture. This requires you to identify cultural norms with precision — not “teachers collaborate” but the specific, named normative phenomenon that Glickman and others document — and to explain what each norm does inside the school as an institution. Second, describe at least three approaches leaders can use to prepare teachers for change without affecting school culture. This requires you to demonstrate that you understand which cultural norms are worth preserving, which might need redirecting, and how leaders navigate that distinction through specific, documented strategies.
How to Define School Culture for This Assignment
Before summarizing specific norms, your response needs a working definition of school culture that sets up the analytical framework. School culture is not the same as school climate, and the distinction matters for this assignment. Climate refers to the perceptions and attitudes of individuals in the school — how people feel about working there. Culture refers to the shared assumptions, values, beliefs, and norms that shape behavior across the school as an institution — the collective standards for how things are done here, often operating beneath conscious awareness.
School Culture vs. School Climate: Why the Distinction Matters for This Assignment
Climate is about individual experience: how motivated teachers feel, how safe students feel, how supported families feel. It is relatively changeable through targeted interventions — climate surveys, recognition programs, improved communication. Culture is about institutional behavior patterns: what teachers actually do in classrooms, how professional decisions get made, what practices persist regardless of formal policy. Culture changes slowly, is shaped over years of shared experience, and resists top-down mandates. Norms are the behavioral expressions of culture — the observable, implicit rules that govern professional behavior in a school without being formally written anywhere.
This distinction matters for the assignment because the prompt asks about approaches that prepare teachers for change without affecting school culture. That phrase only makes analytic sense if you understand which cultural elements are worth protecting. Positive cultural norms — like strong professional collaboration or a shared commitment to student learning — are assets that change strategies should build on, not disrupt. Negative or limiting cultural norms — like isolation, resistance to feedback, or low collective efficacy — may need redirection through the very change strategies the prompt asks you to describe. Understanding which is which requires knowing what the norms are.
How to Summarize Three School Culture Norms
“Summarize” means more than naming. For each norm, your response should identify what the norm is, how it manifests in actual school behavior, what function it serves (or fails to serve) in the school as an institution, and why a leader working toward change needs to account for it. Glickman et al. (2024) address school culture and norms throughout their developmental supervision framework — use the text’s specific language and concepts as anchors for each norm you discuss.
Norm 1: Collegiality and Collaborative Norms
Collegiality: The Norm of Professional Interdependence
Collegiality as a school culture norm refers to the shared expectation that teachers work together, discuss their practice openly, observe each other’s instruction, and take collective responsibility for student learning outcomes. It is distinct from congeniality — which is social friendliness among staff — in that it requires professional engagement with each other’s teaching practice, not just positive interpersonal relations. In schools where collegiality is a strong cultural norm, teachers routinely share lesson plans, participate in peer observation, co-plan curriculum, and engage in professional dialogue about student data. In schools where it is weak or absent, teacher isolation is the operative norm — a cultural pattern where each teacher treats their classroom as a private domain and professional practice is not subject to collective examination.
Glickman et al. (2024) explicitly link collegial school cultures to improved instructional outcomes and frame supervisory leadership’s central purpose as building the conditions in which professional collaboration can occur. For this assignment, the analytical task is to explain what this norm looks like in practice and why it is consequential for change. A leader preparing teachers for pedagogical change in a school with strong collegiality norms can leverage those norms — professional learning communities, collaborative lesson study, shared data review — in ways that are impossible in isolationist school cultures. The norm is both a target of description and an asset for the leadership strategies in Part 2.
How to Develop This Norm in Your Response
For the summary section of your assignment, do not just say “collegiality means teachers work together.” Describe what the norm looks like when it is present and when it is absent. Explain the function it serves: reducing professional isolation, distributing instructional knowledge, creating shared accountability for student learning. Cite Glickman et al. (2024) with a specific chapter reference where this norm is discussed — the sections on school culture and supervisory leadership’s role in building professional learning communities are the most relevant. Then, when you reach the leadership approaches section, explicitly reference this norm when describing collaborative professional development as a change strategy.
Norm 2: Shared Mission and Educational Beliefs
Shared Mission: The Norm of Collective Purpose
A shared mission norm refers to the cultural expectation that all staff operate from a common understanding of the school’s educational purpose — what students are supposed to learn, what kind of adults the school is trying to develop, and what the school owes to its community. In schools with a strong shared mission norm, decisions about curriculum, instruction, and student support are tested against a collectively articulated sense of purpose. Individual teachers’ instructional choices are evaluated not only against personal preference but against their alignment with the school’s stated aims. When a leader proposes a change — in pedagogy, in assessment practice, in school schedule — it is evaluated by staff through the lens of “does this serve our mission?”
The absence of a shared mission norm produces a fragmented school culture where teachers operate according to individual philosophies that may or may not be compatible with each other or with the school’s stated goals. This fragmentation makes change both harder and easier in different ways: harder, because there is no collective anchor to which a change argument can appeal; easier in some respects, because there is no deeply held shared belief system to disrupt. Glickman et al. (2024) address the role of supervisory leaders in facilitating the development of shared educational beliefs as a foundational element of effective school communities — distinguishing between schools that have a clear collective purpose and those that operate as collections of individual professionals.
The prompt specifically references diverse students and communities. The shared mission norm has particular importance here because what counts as the school’s mission is directly shaped by the community it serves. In schools with diverse student populations — diverse by race, language, socioeconomic status, or family structure — a shared mission norm that does not incorporate those students’ needs is not truly shared. Part of the leader’s analytical task in a diverse school context is ensuring that the school’s operational norms reflect the actual student population being served, not an idealized or historical student population. Your response should address this connection explicitly when discussing this norm, particularly if your course has emphasized culturally responsive leadership.
Norm 3: Norms of Continuous Improvement
Continuous Improvement: The Norm of Professional Growth Orientation
A continuous improvement norm is the shared cultural expectation that professional learning is ongoing — that good teaching is not a fixed state achieved through experience but a practice that develops and improves through reflection, feedback, and deliberate effort. In schools where this norm is strong, teachers seek out professional development, welcome instructional feedback from peers and supervisors, reflect on student learning data as evidence of their instructional effectiveness, and view change as professionally appropriate rather than threatening. In schools where this norm is absent — where experience is equated with competence and where veteran teachers’ instructional practice is treated as beyond examination — change proposals are experienced as implicit criticisms rather than professional opportunities.
Glickman et al. (2024) frame the entire developmental supervision model around the premise that teachers, like students, exist at different stages of professional development and that supervisory leaders’ responsibility is to support growth across those stages. The continuous improvement norm is the cultural context that makes developmental supervision feasible — without it, efforts to improve instruction meet resistance framed as professional autonomy or institutional loyalty rather than as legitimate engagement with the goal of improving student learning. For change management purposes, this norm is particularly consequential: a leader proposing instructional change in a school with a strong continuous improvement norm can frame the change as professional growth; the same proposal in a culture with a static competence norm will be experienced as criticism.
Additional Norms Worth Considering
The assignment requires at least three norms, but discussing four or five with precision demonstrates stronger command of the literature than presenting exactly three. The following additional norms are well-documented in the school culture literature and in Glickman et al. (2024), and any of them could be substituted for or added to the three above.
Norms of Collective Efficacy
The shared belief among teachers that the school as a whole — not just individual teachers — has the capacity to produce positive learning outcomes for all students. Schools with high collective efficacy norms hold themselves collectively accountable for results and do not attribute student failure primarily to external factors. Research consistently shows this norm is one of the strongest predictors of school achievement gains.
Norms of Teacher Autonomy and Privacy
In many school cultures, the norm that each teacher’s classroom is their private professional domain persists despite decades of research showing that instructional isolation limits both teacher growth and student learning. Where this norm is strong, any initiative that involves peer observation, shared lesson planning, or data-based accountability will encounter resistance framed as professional independence.
Norms of Student-Centered Practice
Some school cultures have developed a strong normative expectation that instructional decisions are evaluated by their effect on student learning rather than by teacher preference or tradition. This norm functions as a shared criterion for professional judgment — it gives leaders and teachers a common standard against which proposed changes can be evaluated and accepted or rejected on principled grounds.
Understanding Resistance to Change in School Culture
The prompt notes that “problems and resistance can arise at any time” and that leaders must anticipate school changes. This framing requires your response to address resistance — not as an obstacle to be overcome but as a predictable, culturally produced response that leaders can anticipate and plan for. Understanding why resistance occurs is what enables the leader approaches in Part 2 to be designed effectively.
How to Describe Three Leader Approaches to Preparing Teachers for Change
The assignment asks for approaches that prepare teachers for change without affecting school culture. The word “prepare” is important — this is not about implementing change but about building teacher readiness for it. And “without affecting school culture” requires that each approach be designed to work with existing cultural norms rather than against them. Each approach you describe should be specific enough that a reader could understand what it looks like in practice, and each should be explicitly connected to the school culture norms you identified in Part 1.
Approach 1: Collaborative Professional Development as Cultural Leverage
Using Professional Learning Communities to Prepare Teachers for Change
Where a school already has a strong collegiality norm, leaders can use collaborative professional development structures — most commonly Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) — to introduce and build readiness for change through peer learning rather than top-down instruction. The distinction between “collaborative professional development” as a change preparation strategy and “professional development as change delivery” is analytically important. Delivery PD assumes teachers need information and skills that they currently lack. Collaborative PD assumes teachers have knowledge, experience, and concerns that are inputs to the change process — and that peer dialogue about those inputs produces better understanding of the change and stronger buy-in than expert-driven presentations.
In practice, this approach involves structuring regular collegial time for teachers to examine data together, identify instructional challenges connected to the proposed change, share existing practices that already align with the change direction, and collectively develop implementation plans. The leader’s role in this structure is not to deliver the change message but to facilitate the professional dialogue — asking questions that connect teachers’ existing expertise to the change goals, surfacing evidence that makes the need for change visible, and creating space for teachers to identify the path forward collectively.
Connecting This Approach to School Culture Norms
This approach leverages the collegiality norm: it works because teachers already expect to engage in professional dialogue with each other. It reinforces the continuous improvement norm by embedding change readiness in ongoing professional learning rather than in crisis-response PD. And it connects to shared mission norms by using student learning data — the concrete expression of whether the school is achieving its mission — as the organizing evidence for why change is needed. A leader who introduces change through this approach is not disrupting school culture; they are using the school’s strongest cultural assets as the vehicle for change preparation.
Approach 2: Developmental and Differentiated Supervision
Meeting Teachers Where They Are: Glickman’s Developmental Approach to Change Readiness
Glickman et al.’s (2024) developmental supervision model is premised on the recognition that teachers exist at different stages of professional development — differentiated by their level of abstract thinking about instruction, their commitment to professional growth, and their experience with specific practices or challenges. A leader preparing teachers for change using a developmental approach does not deliver the same message, at the same pace, with the same level of support to every teacher. Instead, the leader diagnoses each teacher’s level of readiness — their comfort with ambiguity, their existing skill with change-relevant practices, their concerns about the proposed change — and differentiates their supervisory support accordingly.
In developmental supervision terms, teachers who are highly abstract thinkers with strong commitment to professional growth need different support than teachers who are concrete thinkers with lower levels of professional engagement. The former need collaborative and non-directive supervisory approaches — dialogue, reflection prompts, opportunities to co-design implementation — because they have the internal resources to lead their own change readiness process. The latter need more directive support — clear expectations, structured professional learning, frequent check-ins, concrete models of the change in practice — because they need external scaffolding to build toward readiness that more experienced teachers achieve independently.
Why This Approach Preserves School Culture
Developmental supervision preserves school culture because it honors the existing professional identities and levels of expertise within the faculty. It does not treat all teachers as equally unprepared or as equally ready. It recognizes that experienced, expert teachers need to be engaged as contributors to the change process, not as recipients of it — and that teachers who need more support are not resisters but professionals at an earlier developmental stage. This reframing prevents the cultural damage that blanket mandates cause when they implicitly treat experienced teachers as incompetent.
What It Requires from the Leader
This approach demands that leaders understand their staff’s developmental profiles — which teachers think abstractly about instruction, which are highly committed to professional growth, which need structured support. This requires ongoing supervisory observation and relationship-building, not just annual evaluations. Leaders who implement developmental supervision do so through a sustained supervisory relationship with teachers, not through periodic visits. The approach is consistent with Glickman et al.’s emphasis on supervision as an ongoing, developmental process rather than an evaluative event.
Approach 3: Building Shared Vision Through Distributed Leadership
Distributed Leadership and Teacher Voice in Change Readiness
Distributed leadership as a change preparation approach means that the leader deliberately involves teachers in the diagnostic and planning stages of change rather than presenting a fully formed change mandate for implementation. The premise is that teachers who participate in identifying the problem, analyzing evidence, and generating potential solutions have fundamentally different relationships to the change than teachers who receive the change from above. The former have co-ownership; the latter have compliance obligations. Compliance produces surface implementation — teachers do what is required when observed but revert to prior practice otherwise. Ownership produces genuine implementation because the teacher’s professional investment is in the success of the change they helped design.
In practice, distributed leadership for change readiness involves identifying and cultivating teacher leaders — teachers with strong collegial standing who are early adopters of new practices, whose professional credibility with peers makes them effective change advocates. It also involves creating formal structures for teacher input into change decisions: curriculum committees, instructional design teams, data analysis groups with decision-making authority rather than just advisory roles. And it involves transparent communication from leaders about the constraints and non-negotiables of the change — being honest about what teachers can influence and what is externally mandated, so that the collaborative work teachers do is real rather than performative.
Glickman et al. (2024) frame supervisory leadership as fundamentally collaborative — the role of the supervisor is not to evaluate and direct but to develop teachers’ professional capacity and support collective decision-making about instruction. The text’s discussion of the community of learners concept — in which the school is reconceptualized as a learning organization where teachers are learners alongside students — is directly relevant here. A distributed leadership approach to change preparation is consistent with this community of learners framework: it treats the school’s response to community change as a collective professional learning challenge, not as a compliance challenge. Reference specific chapters when using this framework in your response to demonstrate that you are engaging with the 11th edition specifically.
Connecting Leadership to Diverse Students and Communities
The prompt opens by establishing that communities change and that leaders must be “innovative and responsive to learning that meets the needs of diverse students and communities.” This framing is not decorative — it establishes the context that makes the question consequential. Your response should connect each of the norms and approaches to this diversity context explicitly rather than treating it as a separate topic.
How to Structure the Full Response
The assignment prompt has a clear two-part structure that your response should follow: cultural norms first, leadership approaches second. But the analytical connection between them should be visible throughout — the leadership approaches section should explicitly reference the norms discussed in Part 1 to demonstrate that the strategies are culturally grounded, not generically applied.
-
Introduction: Community Change Context and the Leader’s Analytical Position
Open with a concise framing of the relationship between community change and school culture. Establish that school culture — specifically its norms — is both the context within which change happens and a critical variable that determines whether change succeeds. Introduce Glickman et al. (2024) as the primary theoretical framework. End with a clear thesis statement that identifies the norms you will summarize and signals the leadership approaches you will describe. Do not spend more than one paragraph on general statements about educational change — get to the analytical content quickly.
-
Part 1: Summary of School Culture Norms (Three or More)
For each norm, organize your discussion in a consistent structure: name the norm, define it in the specific terms used in the supervision literature (not in common language), describe how it manifests in observable school behavior, and explain its consequence for school performance and for the change context the prompt establishes. Reference Glickman et al. (2024) for each norm — cite specific chapters or page ranges rather than citing the book generically. If a norm has both positive and potentially limiting dimensions (as the autonomy norm does), acknowledge both — this demonstrates analytical precision rather than oversimplification.
-
Transition: Understanding Resistance as a Cultural Phenomenon
Before moving to leadership approaches, insert a brief analytical transition that explains why change preparation strategies must account for school culture norms — specifically, why resistance to change is a predictable cultural response rather than an individual attitudinal problem. This transition connects Parts 1 and 2 analytically and prevents the response from reading as two separate lists joined by a heading change. Even two to three sentences that link the norms you just described to the change dynamics the leadership approaches must navigate will substantially improve the analytical coherence of your response.
-
Part 2: Leadership Approaches to Preparing Teachers for Change
For each approach, describe what it is and what it looks like in practice, explain how it builds teacher readiness for change without disrupting existing positive cultural norms, and connect it explicitly to at least one of the norms discussed in Part 1. Reference Glickman et al. (2024) for the theoretical grounding of each approach — the developmental supervision model, the community of learners framework, and the collaborative supervision approaches are all directly relevant. If the course has assigned additional readings beyond Glickman, those sources can supplement the primary text but should not replace it as the theoretical anchor.
-
Conclusion: Implications for Innovative and Responsive Leadership
Return to the prompt’s opening framing — communities change, leaders must be innovative and responsive, problems and resistance arise at any time. Synthesize your argument: effective leaders do not treat school culture as an obstacle to change or as an untouchable given. They understand which cultural norms are assets that change strategies can leverage, and they use those assets deliberately. Their approaches to preparing teachers for change are culturally grounded — they work with the school’s professional history rather than against it. Close with a specific statement about what this means for leadership in diverse school communities, connecting the analytical argument to the diversity context the prompt established at the outset.
Using Glickman et al. (2024) Correctly in Your Writing
The assignment specifies Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., Ross-Gordon, J. M., & Solis, R. D. (2024). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (11th ed.). Pearson. This is the primary source for the theoretical frameworks that should anchor your response. Using it correctly means more than citing it — it means engaging with the specific concepts the 11th edition develops.
| Concept in Glickman et al. (2024) | Relevance to This Assignment | Where to Apply It |
|---|---|---|
| Developmental Supervision Model | The premise that teachers are at different developmental stages and need differentiated supervisory support — foundational to the change preparation approaches | Leadership Approach 2; connects to norms of continuous improvement |
| Community of Learners | The reconceptualization of the school as a learning organization where teacher learning is as important as student learning; grounds collaborative PD and distributed leadership | Leadership Approach 1 and 3; connects to collegiality norms |
| School Culture and Norms | The text’s explicit treatment of school culture as the context for supervision — the norms, beliefs, and values that shape professional behavior | Part 1 (norms); provides theoretical grounding for all three norms |
| Collaborative, Cooperative, and Directive Supervisory Approaches | The spectrum of supervisory behaviors matched to teacher developmental levels — from non-directive to directive depending on teacher commitment and abstraction | Leadership Approach 2; explains how leaders adapt their approach to individual teachers |
| Action Research and Data-Driven Decision Making | Teacher-led inquiry into instructional problems — a mechanism for building change readiness that is grounded in teachers’ own professional questions | Leadership Approach 1 and 3; connects to continuous improvement and shared mission norms |
| Diversity and Cultural Responsiveness in Supervision | The 11th edition’s treatment of how supervisory leaders attend to cultural diversity in schools — including cultural responsiveness as a supervisory competency | Diversity section; connects norms and approaches to diverse community contexts |
For a peer-reviewed foundation on school culture norms and their relationship to change readiness, see: Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press. Fullan’s framework for understanding change as a cultural rather than technical process directly complements Glickman et al.’s developmental supervision model and is widely cited in educational leadership research. Specifically, his analysis of why mandated change fails when it does not account for existing professional culture provides a theoretical anchor for the “without affecting school culture” constraint in your prompt. Pairing Glickman et al. (2024) with Fullan (2007) demonstrates breadth of reading while keeping the primary assignment source central. Available through most university library databases and Google Scholar.
Where Most Responses Lose Marks
Norms Described in Generic Language
“Teachers in schools have norms like respecting each other and working hard.” This describes social expectations in any organization, not the specific cultural norms in school culture literature. It demonstrates no engagement with Glickman et al. or any educational leadership research. Generic norm descriptions earn minimal credit regardless of how many are listed.
Instead
Name norms using the specific terminology from the supervision literature — collegiality (not “working together”), shared mission (not “having a purpose”), continuous improvement orientation (not “wanting to get better”). Define each using Glickman et al.’s framework, describe observable behavioral expressions, and explain the institutional function the norm serves. Cite the specific text.
Leadership Approaches Disconnected from Culture
“Leaders can hold professional development workshops, communicate clearly about changes, and support teachers emotionally.” These are generic management behaviors applicable to any organization. They do not demonstrate that the student understands how these approaches must be calibrated to specific school culture norms, and they do not engage with Glickman et al.’s developmental supervision framework.
Instead
Each leadership approach should be named using terminology from the supervision literature, described in terms of what it looks like in practice in a school context, explicitly connected to one or more of the cultural norms described in Part 1, and grounded in Glickman et al. (2024) with specific citation. The approach’s mechanism for preserving rather than disrupting school culture should be analytically explained, not assumed.
Treating “Without Affecting School Culture” as Meaning “Without Changing Anything”
Some students interpret the constraint in the prompt as meaning that leaders should avoid all change — which renders the assignment self-contradictory. “Without affecting school culture” does not mean without affecting anything. It means preparing teachers for change in ways that do not disrupt positive cultural norms, that work with existing collegial structures and shared values, and that do not impose change in ways that damage professional trust or collective identity.
Instead
Interpret “without affecting school culture” as a design constraint on leadership approaches: approaches must be culturally preserving of positive norms (collegiality, shared mission, continuous improvement) while redirecting or building norms that may limit change readiness (isolation, static competence assumptions). Demonstrate this analytical distinction in how you describe each approach.
Ignoring the Diversity Context
Writing a response that discusses school culture norms and leadership approaches as though the community context is irrelevant — making no connection between the diversity framing in the prompt and the specific content of the norms or approaches. The prompt opens with diversity for a reason: in diverse school communities, what counts as appropriate cultural norms and which leadership approaches will build rather than alienate teacher commitment are shaped by community context.
Instead
Connect at least one of the norms (shared mission or collective efficacy are the most natural fit) to the diverse community context by discussing whether and how that norm must be inclusive of all students and families to function as a genuine cultural asset. Connect at least one leadership approach to the challenge of building change readiness in schools where the proposed change involves becoming more responsive to diverse student needs — which may require teachers to examine assumptions about their students.
- Introduction establishes the relationship between community change and school culture and introduces Glickman et al. (2024) as the theoretical framework
- At least three school culture norms are summarized using terminology from the educational leadership literature, not common language
- Each norm description includes: a definition, observable behavioral manifestations, and institutional function
- Each norm is connected to Glickman et al. (2024) with a specific citation — not just the textbook listed generically
- A transitional analysis connects the norms section to the leadership approaches section by explaining why resistance to change is a cultural phenomenon
- At least three leadership approaches are described with enough specificity that what each looks like in practice is clear
- Each leadership approach is explicitly connected to at least one of the cultural norms in Part 1
- Each approach’s mechanism for preserving positive school culture norms is analytically explained
- The diversity and community context from the prompt’s opening is addressed substantively in at least one norm and one leadership approach
- Glickman et al. (2024) is cited correctly throughout — author, year, and specific location within the text
- At least one additional source beyond Glickman et al. is included to meet a minimum reference standard
- Conclusion synthesizes the argument and returns to the innovative and responsive leadership framing the prompt establishes