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

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

The situation is a conversation between myself and one of my baristas, Anna. I am a shift

supervisor and her acting manager most of the time we work together. Anna struggled with her

attitude, work ethic, and not living Starbucks’ mission and values. I pulled her aside for a

conversation after we closed to address her behavior and how we could go about improving her

experience by addressing her bad behavior. The conversation went okay and ended because Anna

was upset. After spending time thinking about the conversation, Anna realized how her behavior

was affecting the team and that I wanted to help her. The conversation centered around

communication, and we addressed how we could better communicate with each other and our

team.

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

The organization in question is Starbucks. Within Starbucks, there are a couple of

different structures, as the company is in over 80 markets. The structure that I experience at my

location most resembles a simple hierarchy. Within higher levels of the company, there are other

structures, but my store does not play a role in those structures. At the store and district level,

there is a “Simple hierarchy with a middle manager who reports to the boss and, in turn,

supervises and communicates with others (see Exhibit 5.3)... Although this type of hierarchy

further limits access to the top, it can be more efficient than a dual‐manager arrangement. At the
same time, friction between operational and top‐level managers is commonplace, and number

two may be tempted to usurp number one's authority” (Bolman & Deal, p.104). At the store

level, I, as a shift supervisor, am the middle manager, while at the district level, my store

manager is a middle manager. This adds layers of complexity to understanding and defining

roles. These layers can hinder communication and make it more difficult for issues to be handled

in a timely manner.

In this situation, Anna and I both work nights and only see our store manager two to three

times a week for a couple of hours which makes it hard to communicate quickly with him. The

store manager also has his phone off when he is not at work, making communication even more

difficult. I had spoken with my manager briefly about the situation and had to make the decision

to speak with Anna without him, or else we would have had to wait over a week to connect. This

communication barrier makes it difficult, and the communication hierarchy can delay

communication even more. The lack of knowledge of communication procedures results from

the structure and how long it takes for information to be communicated from the top down and

how that information changes by the time it reaches the store level. The company's hierarchical

structure led to miscommunications and a knowledge gap for Anna, me, and our store manager.

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

An alternative course of action I could have taken is to follow the hierarchal structure

Starbucks has in place. Instead of working to take care of the issue myself and working within

my team, I would have gone to my superior, which in turn would go to his. I would avoid

structural change “because a stable structure reduces confusion and uncertainty, maintains
internal consistency, and protects the existing equilibrium. The price of stability is a structure

that grows increasingly misaligned with the environment. Eventually, the gap gets so big that a

major overhaul is inevitable. Restructuring, in this view, is like spring cleaning: we accumulate

debris over months or years until we are finally forced to face up to the mess” (Bolman & Deal,

p. 92). In going through the chain of command to deal with a partner not living the mission and

values, I would have avoided breaching the in-place structural plan.

Starbucks follows Mintzberg’s five, and that is a part of the structure. “At the base of

Mintzberg's image is the operating core, consisting of workers (agents) who produce or provide

products or services directly to customers or clients” (Bolman & Deal, p.81). Anna and I are in

this grouping, which influences our information flow and the procedures we follow. “Directly

above the operating core is the administrative component: managers who supervise, coordinate,

control, and provide resources for the operators” (Bolman & Deal, p. 82). My boss falls into this

frame, and he is where most of our information comes from. He receives that information from

his manager, who hears from senior management. This top-down approach makes

communicating difficult from the bottom up because it takes much more time. If I had followed

the structure in place, the conversation between Anna and I would have happened later, and our

manager would have been present. The outcome may have been different, and there would have

been less conversations on the side, but the process would have been much longer, and the bad

behavior would have permeated the atmosphere even more.

4) Reflect on what you would do or not do differently, given what you have
learned about this frame.
 The main thing I would do differently is to approach the situation sooner than I did. At

first, I was going through the hierarchy structure, going to my manager(s) and seeking advice,

and letting them be directly involved. Following this structure let the behavior happen longer and

upset other partners at work, which affected the team dynamics and our achieving our goals. It

also led to confusion about expectations because it looked like I was just allowing a barista to

break our mission and values with no consequences. If I had skipped the chain of command and

instead started by communicating with this partner in the first place, I think the issue would have

been solved sooner. I looked at the chain of command and followed it without realizing I should

have already had the tools to take care of this issue myself and then go to my store manager. If I

had better understood the store structure, I would have sought out the information from my

district manager that my store manager was not sharing.

Our district (and store) have modified the hierarchical structure that corporate follows and are

now restructuring so that information is shared and expectations are set clearly and efficiently.

“Every group evolves a structure that may help or hinder its effectiveness. Attention to lines of

authority, communication, responsibilities, and relationships can make a huge difference. As

work becomes more complex or the environment gets more turbulent, teams need more complex

structures with multifaceted and lateral forms of communication and coordination” (Bolman &

Deal, p. 113). Our district-level management has begun to restructure our region because we lost

coordination. It seems we are headed in the direction of dual authority, which should help with

our communication issues because there will be fewer layers to go through. Our store had

already experienced this structure this fall when we had comanagers as a manager transitioned to

a new store. I have learned from my experience that understanding the structure of an
organization will help me be a better leader. I misunderstood our structure, which also had

significant gaps that added to the problem solving process.

 Reference

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership

(7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass