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.

I work as an assistant general manager for a quick-service restaurant. When we

hired Nick and Tina, they were dating. They had been working at another franchise
location of the same quick-service restaurant. Nick and Tina had been dating and working
together for a few years. We knew that they were dating when we hired them at my
location, and we hired both as managers. The situation in question arises when Nick ends
the relationship with Tina. This caused some drama within the store as employees began
to choose sides. Within a week, the situation got worse. Employees found out that Nick
had a new girlfriend. She was a woman named Megan, who was a newly promoted
manager at our restaurant. Once the employees discovered this, there was even more
drama, gossip, and slander towards all three people involved.

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

The fact that the organization has a structure is part of why the events that
occurred were problematic. If there had not been a management structure, it would not
have been a problem that two employees were dating. However, the structure and the fact
that one of the managers was higher in the organizational structure caused the concern.
However, no formal action could be taken because our organization has no formal policy
prohibiting dating. We do have a form we asked the two employees to sign. The form is a
commitment to keep their work life and relationship separate, along with an agreement
that sexual harassment is not tolerated. This lead to the second problem.

The second problem that surfaced out of the organizational structure is that our
organization has no policy for dealing with what happened. The two employees (Nick
and Megan) denied that they were dating or pursuing a romantic relationship. Because
there is no policy against dating within the organization, and the only policy is to ask
them to sign the dating-at-work policy agreement, there was nothing we could do when
they refused to admit they were dating.

1
 3) Recommend how you would use structure for an alternative course of action
regarding your case.

"The structural perspective advocates pointing people in the right direction,

defining jobs, and stipulating how they work together. Properly designed, these
provisions support and accommodate both collective goals and individual differences"
(Bolman, 2021, p.50). By using the intent of a structure stated by Bolman, it could be
explained to the employees that this romantic relationship within the workplace is not
conducive to helping the organization achieve its goals. I could also talk about how the
organization does have the right to decide how people work together and has the right to
define job roles. The structure could also show that dating within the workplace is not
conducive to doing their jobs as they are defined. Another assumption of organizational
structures is that "organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal
agendas and extraneous pressures" (Bolman & Deal, 2021, p. 50). When in a romantic
relationship, it is extremely hard to put rationality above personal agendas and above the
agenda of the one whom you are in a romantic relationship with. It could be explained to
the two employees who are pursuing a relationship that it will be challenging for them to
do their jobs and put the organization's needs above their feelings and personal lives.
Managers are paid to do what is best for the store, which becomes increasingly more
complicated when a manager tries to tend to their and significant others' desires.

A work romantic relationship within the workplace is also not conducive to a

healthy workplace environment. In many instances, other employees may be
uncomfortable, irritated, or neglected due to the managers being distracted by their
relationship. The organization's structure could be used to show that this would be a
problem. Another way that structure could be used to talk with the two employees is to
illustrate an example where the store and the significant other compete for a manager's
attention. An example that could be used is that a significant other feels jealous as the
manager converges with other women in the workplace. At this point, the manager would
have to decide if they will tend to the store or their significant other with negative
emotions. The manager would also need to decide when they will take care of the matter.
It would suffice to hold off until both managers are off the shift. Still, perhaps the matter
would feel urgent and need to be attended to at the moment, therefore taking the manager
away from the floor to focus on solving a confrontation with their significant other.

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

An alternative course of action using the organization's structure would be to

make a policy that dating employees cannot work at the same store. The organization

2
 functions in a divisionalized form (Bolman & Deal, 2021). The two stores sell the same
product but operate independently. A few managers go in between the two stores, but
when they do, they have the same position on the organizational structure at both stores.
That is, a shift lead does not work as a shift lead at one store and then work the next day
as the general manager. Since there is an opportunity to move employees between the
two stores, it is reasonable to require one in a dating relationship to be moved to a
different store. This would eliminate any direct risks of having the two in the same store.
The risks include being distracted by each other, giving special treatment, making other
employees uncomfortable, and having inappropriate conversations or activities unsuitable
for a workplace.

I would recommend a policy change to address the problem of not having a way
to react to two employees denying a romantic relationship. The policy should encourage
and allow the two employees in a relationship to tell the general manager about their
relationship within 14 days. However, if they do not, the policy would give the general
manager the authority to transfer one of the employees to the other store. For this request
to be approved, one other manager must bear witness that the two employees in question
are indeed suspected of pursuing a romantic relationship. After the two witnesses are
established, the general manager must get approval to transfer one of the employees to
the other store. This is not likely a structure that would be scalable. However, I believe
this policy would work in our organization as we have about 30 employees (including
managers) in both stores.

3
 Reference
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass