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 role at Smash Fitness and StayStrong Nutrition was as a regional operations manager.
Part of my role responsibilities were to maintain and build the team, direct the activities of the
organization, accomplish the organizational goals, ensure a safe work environment, create and
maintain the budget, report progress or issues to executives, perform inventory, and much more.
I was also the main leader team members went to for anything related to the organization. This
organization had a top-down management approach along with an extremely competitive work
environment. The main leadership approach utilized was an authoritarian style, which is one of
the main contributors to the main problem of high turnover rates experienced. This type of
approach had negative effects on the work environment, team dynamics, and performance results
of the organization.

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

Morale is higher in organizations with a more formal structure because people prefer clarity
of their roles and responsibilities, especially from authority figures (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p.
52). This is only if it helps get work done, not if it makes it more difficult with things like overly
controlling management. Even though the structure was formal at StayStrong Nutrition and
Smash Fitness, the morale was a negative one because the team members felt they did not have
enough choice and latitude, which prevented everyone from feeling like they were participants in
decision-making. There were issues with the organization’s stagnant structural design.
Differentiation and integration are the two central issues for structural design. Every organization
must find an arrangement of these two that works to be successful.

Differentiation, or division of labor, means specialized roles are created and, once they are
established, team members have a better idea of what kind of behaviors they need to accomplish
tasks. It is all about how to allocate work. Differentiation prescribes procedures, job descriptions,
routines, and rules, but these prescriptions create a unified, reliable, and predictable environment

1
(Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 54). Integration is more focused on how to coordinate efforts after
differentiation occurs. People are grouped into working units. There are a few different options
for how to group people: function, time, product, customer, place, and process.

StayStrong Nutrition and Smash Fitness were able to divide labor effectively enough, but
they struggled with integration. Different team members would be assigned to their own specific
roles, but there was an issue with each department developing their own subcultures and methods
to achieving results. This caused a separation between different types and levels of team
members, which created a general division within the organization. Everyone should have been
on the same page by trying to accomplish the same mission. This led to even more negative
morale and team dynamics throughout the organization. To coordinate efforts with structural
goals, vertical and lateral coordination are important to consider.

Vertical coordination is where higher level team members control others’ work through rules
and policies, authority, and planning and control systems (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 56). Lateral
coordination fills the gaps vertical coordination skips over through task forces, formal and
informal meetings, networks, coordinating roles, and matrix structures (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p.
59). It is less authority-based. Vertical coordination can be efficient, but it is dependent on the
willingness of team members to follow direction from authority. StayStrong and Smash
prioritized vertical coordination but did not place nearly enough value on lateral coordination.
This made the gaps lateral coordination would normally fill much more evident to those within
the organization.

More lateral coordination tactics prevent the stifling of creativity and initiative that can occur
from vertical coordination. Even though lateral coordination is more effective, it is also more
expensive. Finding the right blend between both coordination forms depends on the challenges
the organization is facing. Vertical is better when the environment is stable, tasks are clear and
predictable, and the organization is unified, but lateral procedures are better for more complex
organizational situations (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 61). Team members were not motivated to do
their personal best and excel; all they did was listen to the few authoritative figures. Not
everyone was willing to follow orders.

StayStrong and Smash were not able to find a balance between coordination forms. The work
environment was not a stable, predictable one because it was a start-up. It was quickly expanding
which made the organizational situation increasingly more complex. 

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

2
 To uncover the best structure, the organization needs to discover and respond to certain
parameters, or contingencies: size and age, core process, environment, strategy and goals,
information technology. All contingencies combined will help an organization find its ideal
social architecture. Restructuring is a high-risk, but powerful way to improve organizational
structure. StayStrong and Smash require restructuring to improve their organizational design
structure. Restructuring is a solution to structural dilemmas that occur due to tensions within the
workplace (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 73). These tensions can be between differentiation and
integration, gap and overlap, underuse and overload, lack of clarity and lack of creativity,
excessive autonomy and excessive interdependence, too loose and too tight, goal-less and goal-
bound, and irresponsible and unresponsive.

At Smash and StayStrong there was tension between differentiation and integration because
people were doing many different things. It was harder to remain focused as the complexity of
the organization grew; coordination strategies were diminished. There was also tension between
a lack of clarity and creativity because team members would try to tailor their roles to fit their
personal preferences rather than tailoring them to meet organizational goals. There needs to be a
balance between defined roles and personal goals. There are five different structural
configurations that each have their own challenges, but StayStrong and Smash had a simple
structure where the boss had the edge. To appropriately restructure the organization, leaders need
to understand these tensions between competing interests of different parties within the
organization.

Mintzberg’s model provides principles to guide appropriate restructuring in a variety of

organizational situations. In a simple structure, like StayStrong and Smash, coordination happens
through direct supervision. There is constant monitoring, and authority exercises their control
over day-to-day operations. The issue with this simple structure is that leaders become too
distracted by problems that immediately come up. This leads to strategic issues because the long-
term is neglected. Helgesen’s “web of inclusion” could be a solution to the organization’s
structural design because it is more circular than hierarchical.

One action creates a ripple effect through the entire organization, and it reinforced
interconnectedness, which is what the organization needs. Everyone is connected. The structure
of the organization must fit with its strategy, environment, and technology. Every component
needs to fit for StayStrong and Smash to remain vital. Restructuring is a response to the
pressures an organization feels and the issues that arise from those pressures (Bolman & Deal,
2017, p. 73). There are two main pressures the organization faces: the organization growing and
leadership changes.

StayStrong and Smash are quickly growing. The old structure worked for a bit, but it is
creating issues as the organization keeps growing. Along the lines of growth, more leadership
was required to keep up with demand, but the leaders getting promoted or entering the
3
organization always want to start with reorganization. Reorganization is needed, but there is no
need to rush into things. This organization falls into one of the three trouble organizational
configurations: the impulsive firm. The organization is controlled by the two COOs and one
CEO, along with three other leaders.

It became more disorganized. Profits were falling as a result and survival was always a
worry. The organization needs to utilize restructuring to move beyond the simple structure it
refuses to avert away from. The organization also needed to understand team configurations and
the impact that has on the structure. Diverse teams that distance themselves from the hierarchy
tend to produce better results. Effective teams must be built correctly, meaning roles and
responsibilities must align with common goals (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 96). Team
configurations need to be considered because the group structure can hinder or enhance
effectiveness.

StayStrong and Smash had a problem where groups could not make decisions without an
authority figure stepping in. The organization had a dual authority team configuration where it is
a simple hierarchy and middle management reports to top management. Middle management
also supervises and communicates with other team members in this configuration. This limited
the access other team members had to the top, but there was tension between middle and top
management. A top-down hierarchy works for simple tasks, but if things are more complicated,
which they were, the structure must develop into something more multifaceted. Effective teams
require communication and coordination in addition to a clear purpose, measurable goals,
common commitment to working relationships, collective accountability, and a manageable size.
The organization needs to develop their teams. Transitioning to a self-managing team that
runs itself could be more beneficial. Having the right structure and necessary information will
lead to more collaboration and motivation throughout StayStrong and Smash. Morale would also
increase. 

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

From a structural perspective, an organization’s environment, structure, and strategy need

to align for there to be success. The structural frame asserts that the right combination of roles,
goals, relationships, and coordination is key for organizational performance (Bolman & Deal,
2017, p. 48). Structure helps combat the potential issues that can arise with team members like
being confused or ineffective. The structural lens is based around rationality. An appropriate
combination of roles and responsibilities will maximize everyone’s performance, so the
structural perspective encourages putting everyone in the right role. The right roles are going to
be those that reconcile collective goals and individual differences (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 48).
Strategy is required for structure.

4
 A good strategy is specific in direction, but flexible enough to adjust to any changing
circumstances. Meeting strategic goals is integral. The main issue I had was this alignment
between roles and coordination. I would have been more adamant about studying the
organization, seeing how different components interact, then have used this information to
effectively restructure the organization. I need to be able to do a microscopic assessment of the
problems to understand my options for structure. This also involves looking at the team structure
and top performance. To improve this area, as a leader, I would give the team clearer authority so
that way leaders can stay out of the way.

This gives the team more flexibility and allows for more collective energy and creativity.
I would also create more specific, measurable goals for the team, so each task is more aligned to
the organization’s overall purpose. Making sure I develop an environment where the team can
uncover who is best suited for what for things so that the team can come together successfully, is
another aim of mine. I need to make sure to establish social contracts among members, so they
stay aligned with the shared purpose. It will guide and keep the team more focused. A final
aspect I would implement in a team configuration is to have everyone hold themselves
collectively accountable. This is critical for coordinated efforts. 

Reference
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5