OGL 481 Pro-Seminar I:

PCA-Human Resource Frame Worksheet

Worksheet Objectives:
1. Describe the human resource frame
2. Apply the human resource 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.

As a manager within TACTECH I was responsible for approximately 30

employees. According to Bolman (2021), the organizational structure was one of simple
hierarchy. At the top of my department was the director’s assistant, followed by myself as
the manager, then below me was the frontline supervisor, followed by the leading
technicians, and then the team supervisors who presided over the junior technicians
assigned to them.

On the day of presenting a new strategic plan the frontline supervisor announced
that they were not going to execute the plan regardless of the potential consequences for
not doing so. The frontline supervisor turned down any invitation to provide me with
feedback or provide someone else with feedback about the new strategic plan. The issue
with the frontline supervisor was elevated to the director of TACTECH for review and
follow on direction. The director came back and enforced that the frontline supervisor
would follow the plan or face severe consequences.

2) Describe how the human resources of the organization influenced the situation.

Unfortunately TACTECH’s policies as a whole align all too well with the concept
introduced by McGregor (1960) known as Theory X. According to Bolman (2021) the
basis of Theory X is that it generally assumes that subordinates are passive, lazy, have
little ambition, prefer to be led, and resist change. McGregor (1960) breaks down Theory
X into two subcategories of hard and soft. According to Bolman (2021) the hard version
of Theory X is focused around coercion, tight controls, threats, and punishments to
successfully lead subordinates. This is not how TACTECH leaders conduct themselves in
normal day-to-day operations however if there is an issue or challenge to the normal
process of operation these policies are the fall back for solving the issue (ironically it is
only throwing grease on the fire). Bolman (2021) identifies that such policies overtime

1
 will undoubtedly lead to low productivity, antagonism, militant unions, and subtle
sabotage; all of which were present within TACTECH at the time of this incident. I
believe that the latent negative HR policies and the atmosphere they were instilling
within the organization is the reason that my Frontline Supervisor had adopted behaviors
described by Argyris (1964). The primary behavior exhibited by the frontline supervisor
was one of indifference toward his/her profession and their associated responsibilities.
This indifference eventually led to an unexpected tipping point where the Frontline
Supervisor adopted a behavior of sabotage.

The second major HR influence in this situation was the prevalent culture based
on concepts introduced by Argyris (1974) as Model I. In this model Argyris (1974)
details a sequential process that delineates the thought process of those who generally
assume that relationships within an organization are dangerous and their only safety is to
look out for themselves because no one else will. I think that Model I was prevalent in
TACTECH because of the latent Theory X policies in place for governing the
organization. My Frontline Supervisor was drawn to a conclusion that I was the problem
and that they did not need to change. When the TACTECH Director enforced Theory X
principles on the Frontline Supervisor they responded with subtle modes of sabotage to
force me to change. As time went on and I did not budge from the directed stance; the
Model I paradigm continued to strengthen the assumption in my Frontline Supervisor that
I was truly the problem. Eventually TACTECH succumbed to the Frontline Supervisor’s
sabotage and removed him/her from the position and placed them in an administrative
position with no direct subordinates.

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

Knowing what I do now I would encourage the adoption of concepts introduced

by Argyris (1974) under Model II. Specifically I would incorporate communications
skills within the organization that emphasize not only advocacy but inquiry as well. A
large portion of the conflicts I observed in TACTECH stemmed from members only
advocating for items or actions with no interest in the other party's perspective.
Incorporating inquiry into the dialogues within the organization would open up avenues
to safely discuss perceived issues regardless of the level of polarization expected. These
conversations would introduce a new level of transparency within the organization that
would remove latent barriers imposed by suppressed assumptions. I think that this would
also encourage a culture that scrutinized individual infallibility and promote an
atmosphere of openness and experimentation to new ideas.

Another HR principle to be encouraged would be what Bolman (2021) described

as autonomy and participation. TACTECH had a rigid hierarchy with detailed domains of
responsibility. I think this caused the relationship between the organization and its

2
 members to become stagnant; which led to the majority of skills and talents within the
organization never being tapped into. The technicians of the organization felt
disconnected from its endeavors and were only there to follow directions. This stagnation
set the stage for the discord experienced within the organization and proved to be a
barrier when more was going to be needed of the members in order to complete the
upcoming operation successfully. Allowing the teams to identify, implement, and
improve the processes of their work would undoubtedly improve the morale of the
organization and in turn open up opportunities not thought possible before.

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

I had concerns before I introduced the new plan that my Frontline Supervisor was
too apathetic to apparent deficiencies within our teams. Instead of confronting them about
such issues I maintained an oil on water relationship hoping that the observed
indifference of the Frontline Supervisor would pass as things got moving along in
preparation for the upcoming operation. Instead I would change that approach to one that
facilitated the concepts introduced by Argyris (1974) in Model II. If I had addressed my
concerns early on I think it would have provided the Frontline Supervisor an avenue to
safely provide and receive feedback.

The second thing I would change is how I approached the teams in implementing
changes in the teams’ processes. At the time I was under the impression that I was saving
everyone time by putting something together that would benefit us all. I had not
considered the prevalent culture within the organization and how the members of our
teams were essentially bound by informal rules because of the politics at play within the
organization. I missed an opportunity that would have encouraged them to participate in
the organization. I think this would have also taken some of the stress off of my Frontline
Supervisor as they had become accustomed to deflecting directives in order to develop
some sense of proprietary within the lower ranks of TACTECH’s structure.

3
 References

Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the organization and the individual. NY: Wiley.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.

Jossey-bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.

John Wiley & Sons.

MacGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise (Vol. 21, No. 166.1960). McGraw‐Hill:

New York.