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.

My situation is one where three factors led to my decision to leave an organization after 22
years. Two factors were internal to the organization; leadership changes and communication
changes. One was an external factor of an outside organization putting pressure on the company,
leading to a response that misaligned with my personal values.

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

(Insert 2 Long Paragraph Description Here to Earn Excellent)

The structure of the organization and how it was changing was a major factor in the
situation I experienced. While the organization initially was internally and externally known to
leverage lateral coordination and a more collaborative structure, it shifted into a highly rigid
vertical orientation. While vertical coordination is not inherently bad, it’s most successful “…
when authority is both endorsed by subordinates and authorized by superiors” (Bolman & Deal,
2021, p. 59). The multiple leadership changes I experienced in a short amount of time, 8 leaders
in 2 years, demonstrated that the superiors were not confident in their placement decisions, nor
was there enough time for subordinates to build trust and endorse their new leader.

Another structural factor that influenced the situation was the flow of communication,
and how it changed over time. While the authority was organized in a vertical structure, the
communication flow changed to more of a matrix structure. The organization would directly
communicate with lower-level employees through emails, memos, and even live streaming
sessions over a social media type platform. This was under the pretense of transparency but
resulted in undermining the local leadership levels. These communications often directed the
employees back to their leaders for more information, but no further information was provided to
the leaders. This handicapped leader effectiveness because we could not filter information to
meet the needs of our teams and markets. The constant flow of information without a filter or

1
context led to burnout for a lot of employees, leadership included. Had the opportunity been
presented to filter and communicate only what was needed, I believe this could have been
avoided.

Lastly, the final structural impact on my satiation was how the organization’s cultural
structure collapsed when presented with stress from outside forces. An external entity was
attempting to influence employees by highlighting shortcomings in their experience and how the
organization was failing them. Rather than to acknowledge those shortcomings with the
transparency they prided themselves on, the organization’s leaders choose to launch a campaign
of convincing employees how good they had it, rather than to acknowledge that their experience
can be better and provide the steps to making it so. This impacted my individual experience in
that feedback became weaponized for employment actions and a blaming fear state took hold.
This didn’t occur directly to me, but I observed it many times with peers. This response, at least
by my local leadership, resulted in the breakdown and neglect of the organizational culture and
created conflicts with my personal values and the organization’s direction.

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

With my case the structural recommendation is to not attempt structural changes during times
of organizational crisis. I can appreciate that the communication changes were intended to be
helpful, but their negative impact was evident early on and adjustments were not made to alter
course. I can appreciate that the leadership changes were in the hopes of finding the right fit, but
the leader change fatigue had lasting impacts on people and the business. I can appreciate how
difficult it must have been for the top leadership to feel the external pressures also during a crisis,
but introducing new structural processes that were applicable only to a few leaders created a fear
state for many.
I also recommend that a structural effectiveness analysis is done on a regular basis. This
would have allowed for adjustments to be made as soon as it became evident that the
communication processes were not beneficial in meeting organizational goals or lining up with
the organizational culture. Checking-in on established structures can prevent organizations from
wasting resources on work processes that are not effective.
Ultimately, my situation proves the following statement from author’s Bolman and Deal true,
“If structure is overlooked, an organization often misdirects energy and resources,” (Bolman &
Deal, 2021, p. 73). My recommendation would be to shore up existing structure during a crisis
to provide some predictability. This would work very well if all levels of leadership are trusted.
The number of resources used, both in directly spent dollars and spending of unneeded time, was
wasteful. For some reason, the pandemic and external pressure proved too much for executive
leadership and they chose to go around their leaders, rather than through them.

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

2
 In my scope of responsibilities with the situation, there is not much that I would have been
able to do differently. I am confident that I did everything in my control to adjust my
circumstances, and I had provided as much time as I was willing to try and ride-out the situation.
As my circumstances were not a direct result of a single person or group that I could provide
feedback to, I had no power to influence the changes that I would have needed to see to restore
my confidence in the organization.
I had to come to terms with the fact that after 22 years, the organization was simply no longer
meeting my needs. The type of leadership they needed in my position required full buy-in on
any new direction and initiatives. As my confidence in the organization wavered, I knew that I
was not willing to be the all-in leader they needed, and my team deserved. When I embraced this
realization, I experienced a profound sense of peace and began my exit strategy. I was proud of
my ability to look objectively at the situation while having the courage to step aside and allow
the organization to find their new right-type of leader.

3
 Reference

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass