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.

I am a middle-tier manager for the organization and am in charge of the

mobility/deployment function of my work center while another person of equal rank is
responsible for airdrop operations in the work center. My primary focus is to ensure my
personnel is trained and deployed across the Pacific providing logistics support in
conjunction with humanitarian/disaster relief efforts, contingency response, deployment
taskings, and military exercises. While in garrison I also manage the administrative
actions for my flight to include disciplinary actions, personal matters that need leadership
attention such as engaging with the finance office for incorrect pay, and general
personnel paperwork. External to the organization I represent the Air Transportation
function across the Pacific on behalf of my Functional Area Manager (FAM) located in
Hawaii. My position and work center is unique because we administratively belong to
my squadron in Alaska but operationally belong to my boss in Hawaii. Essentially, my
boss in Hawaii can ask me to go somewhere and my boss in Alaska cannot do anything
about it.

The issue as stated above is that I have two bosses I report to and each plays a significant
role in my career and how my flight operates. My work center’s primary purpose is to
support the deployment aspect from my Hawaii boss but while at home we provide
parachute rigging support to aircrews in Alaska. My Hawaii boss seldom notifies my
Alaska boss of taskings and my Alaska boss often finds out about the tasking at the last
minute from myself before heading on the road. Also, my Hawaii boss used to work for
my Alaska boss when he was of a lower rank and did not get along with my Alaska boss.
This further instigates conflict between the two organizations because of history and
personality conflicts. In addition, we have five other people from my career field (2T2s)
assigned to another work center that assists with deploying units on the base. During
military exercises, these 2T2s are often overwhelmed with the workload, squadron
leadership directs my flight to support them, however in a real-world scenario my

1
 personnel would be deployed. More often than not we are strongarmed into assisting but
this does not fix the glaring hole in capability if a real-world tasking were to occur.
Lastly, because I fall administratively under my Alaska boss and my annual appraisal
goes to them so if I make waves it can affect my future promotions.

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

The structure of the organization inhibits my Alaska boss from effectively utilizing his
personnel as they can be deployed at a moment's notice without him being notified.
Additionally, if myself or my team is burned out from being on the road too much my
Alaska boss has no power to remedy the situation. Another thing the structure has
affected is the manning at my unit in Alaska. Since manning is based on work at the duty
location, our manning was reduced because the airdrop function of my job does not
generate enough man-hours to justify the manning. The manning for being deployed on
the road is attributed to my boss in Hawaii leaving my Alaska boss with a net loss on
personnel.

The biggest issue in the structure of my organization is the ineffective communication

between both my bosses. If my Hawaii boss communicated the deployments to my
Alaska boss, there would not be as many issues and may even allow for some planning
on my Alaska boss’s end. Something else structurally that is strange is my Hawaii boss
is enlisted (CMSgt) and my Alaska boss is an officer (LtCol). Under any other chain of
command, a high-ranking officer would trump the high-ranking enlisted every time. This
creates problems for my young Airmen as they are seeing the authority of an officer is
not as it should be.

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

The Simple Hierarchy is what is present in the rest of the Air Force and that is what I
would use in this scenario. For that to happen, my team and I need to be removed from
Alaska and moved to Hawaii where our operational boss is anyways. There work center
that exists in Hawaii that is performing the function of my mobility/deployment team
already. We can just be added to their manning and we eliminate the diluted
management of personnel.

Another hierarchy that would work is the Circle Network but this would require effective
communication to execute effectively. All that would need to happen is for my Hawaii
and Alaska bosses to get on the same page for deployment support in the Pacific region.
My Hawaii boss would communicate upcoming deployments to my Alaska boss which
then allows my Alaska boss to prepare the rest of the squadron to operate with a loss of
personnel. As far as supporting the other 2T2s in another work center, we can assist them

2
 with the caveat that we can deploy at an anytime but in the meantime, we can help with
training other personnel in the squadron to assist them in our absence.

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

Something I would have done differently in my scenario is vocalizing my concerns to

both my bosses so we could sit down and figure out a way forward. Sometimes there are
last-minute deployments but for the most part, there is ample time for notification and
preparation for both my bosses to adjust. Establishing weekly communication between
all parties would have likely alleviated issues (aside from personality conflicts) over the
last couple of years. I would have also started training personnel to help the 2T2s in the
other work center sooner so they would get some reprieve and avoid burnout.

Despite the struggles, I would have still pushed back on the squadron on being forced to
support the other 2T2 based on identifying holes in capabilities. Although I want to help
them, having a crippling hole in our processes is only going to hurt the squadron in the
long run. I was met with resistance from the squadron but they at least acknowledged the
issues and developed a way forward.