Module 2: The Structural Frame

D. Margaret EvanSon

OGL 481: Organizational Leadership Pro-Seminar 1

Dr. B.

August 31, 2021

Arizona State University

 2

Module 2: The Structural Frame

The Scenario

The Scott County Airport Authority (SCAA) operates Scott Regional Airport. When the

COVID-19 pandemic severely restricted air travel, efforts began to reduce operating costs.

Several positions exist to specifically support the commercial passenger terminal. Since that

activity was now limited, the Chief Operating Officer (COO) proposed we lay off 10 part-time

employees and 6 full-time employees. His belief was that we could do this and still operate

safely and efficiently. Evaluating this proposal I used 4 staffing scenarios to demonstrate that we

could not layoff that many people and still maintain continuity of operations. The final result was

a three month furlough of 10 part-time staff.

How the structure of the organization influenced the situation.

Viewing this situation through the structural frame, it is important to understand how the

SCAA is organized. SCAA has a three person executive team and eight departments which are

organized around a particular specialty which interact laterally to coordinate activities. The

Authority is a machine bureaurocracy with 4 heirachical layers between the Chief Executive

Officer (CEO) and the front line. In a machine bureaucracry the day-to-day operations are

standardized and overseen by managers while the strategic decisions are made at the top of the

hierarchy (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The key to this structure is the chain of command where each

hierarchical level has a defined level of authority to direct activities of lower levels (Bolman &

Deal, 2017). At SCAA the executive level has full authority over the number of staff.

The structure influences the outcome of this situation. Any change to staffing must be

approved by the COO and authorized by the CEO. Once the staffing level is determined the

department Directors have complete authority over scheduling and work assignments. The
 3

motivation at the top was to reduce long term costs; the layoff of 16 people who were viewed as

redundant accomplished that. My motivation was to maintain continuity of operations and look

at the short term and long term affects of this action. The COO used action planning to direct the

layoff of 16 employees and achieve the cost savings. However, he is also responsible for the

outcomes in this department and a short-fall could reflect negatively on both he and I. There is a

flow of information up and down in this organization and he was open to reviewing my analysis,

ultimately recognizing that the correct staffing level included retaining the 6 full time terminal

employees.

Recommendation for an alternative course of action using the structural frame

An alternative approach to this situation would be to use a performance control

expectation. Unlike action planning, which specifies the action to take to achieve an outcome,

performance control focuses on measuring the outcome without specifying actions (Bolman &

Deal, 2017). For example, the directive could have been "reduce expenses by X dollars." This

would have put me in the position to recommend a combination of staff reductions and

expenditure reductions that achieve the desired amount.

I believe a more lateral approach could also be used. The spending cuts affected the

Operations department more dramatically than other departments. On the face of it, the

perception was that Operations was the only department to lose activity. But that was a fallacy;

all departments had a loss of activity. A lateral approach would involve multiple departments

examining future projects and planned expenditures to determine what could be deferred or

canceled in light of the new environment. Coordinating efforts to examine areas of opportunity

may have also revealed ways to synchronize efforts and share resources.
 4

Reflection

This was a challenging situation for several reasons. In the structural frame, the hierarchy

determines levels of authority. When people at a high level of authority are not open to feedback

then there are authoritarian directives instead of informed and collaborative decisions. While this

started as a tense situation, with what seems to be a directive, I knew that a detailed

demonstration of how the actual operation would be affected was needed so the COO would

reconsider. Luckily, the COO was open to feedback and a review of my analysis.

As I reflect on this situation I believe the actions taken were right. The valuable lessons

are related to ways that I lead my own team. I will carefully consider whether I should use a

performance control approach or an action planning approach. Distinguishing these two

approaches provided insight to me on the way that the outcome can be affected by the way the

direction is given. The COO’s willingness to reconsider his position provided me with an

example of how a leader is open to feedback and is willing to change position when new

information is available.
 5

Reference

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass