OGL 481 Pro-Seminar I:

PCA-Structural Frame Worksheet

Worksheet Objectives:
1. Describe the structural frame
2. Apply the structural frame to your personal case situation

Complete the following making sure to support your ideas and cite from the textbook and other
course materials per APA guidelines. After the peer review, you have a chance to update this and
format for your Electronic Portfolio due in Module 6.

1) Briefly restate your situation from Module 1 and your role.

As discussed previously, the organizational situation I have chosen to analyze is one that

occurred when I was working with the educational division of the public health office at my

former university as a student volunteer. During a meeting, my response to a question about

ways to improve the program was interrupted and met with hostility from the student lead in

charge of the educational division, leading to the carrying out of a mediation session that

ultimately resulted in my decision to leave the organization.

2) Describe how the structure of the organization influenced the situation.

The first aspect of structure within the organization that influenced the situation is the

overemphasis placed on the importance of seniority in determining team dynamics and

expectations. In the organization, new members in their first semester with the organization had

trainee status and were not considered to be full members of the organization. In addition to this

title distinction, newer members were also expected to put in more hours weekly in preparation

than seasoned team members, while also having less control over their schedules and

assignments than members with greater seniority. These structural distinctions contributed to the

1
creation of an organizational culture that placed a great deal of emphasis on the role of seniority

when determining the value or importance of individual team members. Because this structure

contributed to an atmosphere where an individual’s importance is based on their tenure, it in turn

made my decision to share my honest input as a newer member a taboo thing to do. Thus, the

events that unfolded due to the student lead’s dissatisfaction with my decision to do so are in part

a result of the seniority-based hierarchy inherent in the organization’s structure.

Another aspect of the organization’s culture that influenced the featured situation was the lack of

formalized policies and procedures relating to how meetings were to be conducted. The lack of

established protocol for how team members were meant to engage during meetings created an

environment where communicated expectations and actual expectations were unaligned. For

instance, in terms of established rules for etiquette or conduct during meetings, there was nothing

that would indicate to team members that newer members or trainees were barred or otherwise

discouraged from contributing during team discussions. However, based on the reaction of the

student lead during and after the events of the featured situation, there seemed to have been an

unspoken assumption that less seasoned members were expected to take a back seat and only

listen during team discussions. The lack of documented expectations regarding contributions to

meetings influenced the events that occurred, as it was not clear to me going into the meeting

that my participation in team conversations would be perceived as disrespectful or abnormal, as

there was nothing included in the established policies or procedures that would have indicated

so.

2
 3) Recommend how you would use structure for an alternative course of action
regarding your case.

In the case of the situation being analyzed, there are a few aspects of the organization’s structure that I

would have altered to allow for an alternative course of action. The first aspect of structure I would

address would be the hierarchical structure as it relates to the role of seniority. Rather than utilizing a

structure that measures the importance or value of team members in terms of how long they have been

with this organization, I would have liked to see the implementation of a structure that acknowledges the

valuable contributions and unique perspectives of all members. This could be achieved in part through

altering the criteria for achieving full member status. Rather than having status be determined entirely in

terms of time-based seniority, full member status should be granted to any member who demonstrates

sufficient competency in key knowledge and skill areas, as determined by a set standard against which to

measure individuals’ capabilities. Placing a greater degree of importance on competency rather than

tenure in the organization’s structure would allow for an environment where potentially meaningful

contributions would not be dismissed due to the seniority of the individual delivering it.

Additionally, altering the structure in terms of the power dynamics between the student lead and the team

of student volunteers to make the structure align more closely with the all-channel network approach

rather than the simple-hierarchy structure which it more closely resembled at the time of the featured

situation. Because the team I was a part of was primarily self-directing in terms of its relationships to the

rest of the organization outside of the educational division, it would make sense for the dynamics within

the self-directing team to encourage active participation and collaboration from all team members to

maximize the benefits derived from each members’ insights. Creating a structure within the team that

aligns with the all-channel model would allow for information to flow more freely between team

members to increase collaboration, rather than having all orders come top-down from an individual

member of the team (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Additionally, teams with all-channel networks tend to have

3
higher overall morale amongst team members (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Because my decision to leave the

organization stemmed primarily from a lack of morale and from feelings of being undervalued, I believe

that if the team’s structure more closely aligned with the all-channel model, the events of the situation

being discussed may not have driven me away from the organization overall.

4) Reflect on what you would do or not do differently given what you have learned
about this frame.

Given what I have learned about the structural frame, if I were to re-experience this situation, I think I

would have taken everything a bit less personally and would had less frustration directed towards the

student lead. At the time of the events featured, I viewed the leading cause of the conflict that ensued and

of most of the problems within the team as being the direct result of the student lead’s personality and

leadership style. Because of this interpretation, I was very quick to view my frustration with the situation

itself as frustration with her specifically and viewed the problematic group dynamics as stemming from

the environment she created. However, after learning more about the structural frame and applying that

lens to this situation, I now see that while her approach to leading the group may have played a role in the

way things went, it is not the only contributing factor. Perhaps my time there may have gone differently if

there was a different student filling her position, but it is just as likely that the same events could still have

occurred under different leadership.

This is, in essence, the major insight that is gained through applying the structural lens to understanding

organizational situations. While it is easy to explain away issues by attributing blame to a supposed guilty

party, organizational activities do not occur in a vacuum and are influenced by a myriad of factors,

including the structure of the organization itself (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Suppose a different person was

chosen to fulfill the role of student lead during the semester where the events of this situation took place;

would the situation have gone any differently than it did? Although there is no way to know for certain,

viewing the situation through the perspective of the structural frame implies that the structural factors at

4
play could have easily influenced a different individual to behave similarly if they were in the position of

student lead. Similarly, a situation like the one that occurred could have played out if I was not part of the

team, as another team member could have made the same missteps I did. Overall, learning about the

structural frame has increased the degree of nuance I perceive as existing in this organizational situation,

and has led me to view the events that occurred as being less personal in nature than I had initially

believed them to be.

5
 Reference

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership

(6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.