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.

The scenario I will be presenting was one that happened during a project ramp.
Like many companies in the sector, “SOLO” does not follow a traditional dealership
model or brick-and-mortar car purchasing locations, but rather has a network of galleries
with amenities for users, and prospective users, including a café, test drives and areas to
relax and recharge. Within this “gallery” model, there are different levels depending on
where they are located.
The group I am on focuses on one of the three models in particular. Our gallery is
focused on the business travelers from the luxury vehicle segment. With that in mind, our
initial green-lit plan was to open up 25 “travel galleries” across the US in strategic
locations that fit our needs to be opened for the initial product launch. This number would
increase to 80 over the next 4 years after launch. This was the plan we had been working
off of for a at least 9 months. The Executive Committee then posed the question, “Can
you do the same with 10 locations instead of 25?” So we began to work out where those
would be and what we needed to do for each of them. We presented again. Again, the
Executive Committee came back and said, “Can you function with only 5 locations
instead of 10? And can those 5 all be in California?”
The problem with these questions was that not all information had been given to
the needed individuals. For this project to be a success, there are multiple concurrent
workstreams that are working hand-in-hand. Within these workstreams there is site
selection, architecture & design, research & development, emerging technologies,
permitting, personnel decisions, software development, and cost allocations to name a
few hurdles. Further, not all information as to why this question was being asked was
given to those involved—chiefly among them was the fact that our launch date had
potentially (but not so potentially) moved back by 12 months. This last piece of
information was not confirmed by the Executives nor was it communicated to any of the

1
 principle stakeholders. There was not a clear reason for the change, nor was there a clear
understanding of where the change had come from.

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

My organization is broken up into different parts and subsidies. At the top we have the
parent organization, “SOLO” led by our Chairman and Founder. That organization
operates out of our home country (not the US). There is an entire team under that entity
that operates everything from manufacturing to design and architecture, etc. Under the
“SOLO” umbrella, is us, “SOLO, US”. This entity has our own CEO (who reports to our
Chairman), we have our own legal team, HR team, business development team, R&D
team, testing, procurement, facilities, etc.

Within our “SOLO, US” structure there are certain areas that overlap with our parent org
structure such as R&D, design, legal, etc. But there are others (mine) where there is
absolutely no overlap on our structure: Business Development. Within the Business
Development side of things, we have to rely on our parent organizations resources for
R&D, product testing and financial approvals. Everything in the organization has kept
pretty confidential due to the nature of the work so decisions are not always broadcast
clearly or readily available. This impacts all levels of the organization. I had to present
the situation to my boss who reports directly to the US CEO who had no idea that the
decision was made. It took him another 3 days to actually get the answer we needed from
our Executive team from the parent “SOLO”.

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

With regards to the current situation, structure could be improved. Our organization has a
clearly defined goal that all employees know. In our US office, we all know what our
ultimate goal is. We are all working toward that goal. We all want to be at the top. Our
office is a team and when it all works well, it works really well, but as we learned, “the
performance of a small group depends heavily on structural design and clarity” (Bolman
and Deal, 2021). Looking at the contextual variables: We know our mission. We know
what is required. We know who is doing what. We know who is in charge. We know that
decisions are made at our bi-weekly readouts. We know a lot about how we work
together and what success looks like, but where we faulter is how we coordinate efforts.
Our structure is a little all over the place. While on paper we have the one-boss or simple
hierarchy network, in other ways there is dual authority, but we also have a circle
network within our business development team that turns into an all-channel network.
Personally, I feel that the all-channel network doesn’t always work the way we want it to.
We need to have more of a simple hierarchy structure. Something where our team can
work up the chain and share resources with other divisions in other countries and entities.

2
 4) Reflect on what you would do or not do differently given what you have learned
about this frame.

I honestly don’t know if I would do anything differently given what I have learned in this
frame. The structure of the business, while at times is crazy and with redundancies, I
don’t think that completely changing the structure is the answer to this situation.
“Effective teams typically have a clear purpose, measureable goals…” (Bolman and
Deal, 2021) which our team most definitely has. Our team, in this situation, simply
experienced a Lack of Clarity, not a lack of creativity. We are a divisionalized
organization that struggles with the cat-and-mouse game. If we look at “SOLO US” as a
division of “SOLO”, the division head (US CEO) wants to be the decision maker, but our
main office wants oversight and control. I think the biggest difference here for this
situation is the communication both the frequency and substance.

3
 Reference or References
(Choose appropriate Title if Applicable and Delete the Rest)

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. [7th Edition]. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.