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 played for a professional football/soccer team called Cacadores das Taipas. I had an
internal role as a player for the team. This was the first full season post-covid and due to
the financial hit that many businesses suffered during the pandemic, all of the team’s
sponsors pulled out. This led to many months of no pay for the players or coaches and
created a large rift between the management of the club and the coaching staff and
players.

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

Looking at an organization through the structural frame is observing, as evident by the

name, at its structure and “this frame focuses on the “how” of change… on strategy;
clarifying tasks and responsibilities; setting measurable goals and deadlines; and creating
systems and protocols” (Santa Rosa Junior College, 2023). The structure of my football
team definitely influenced the situation heavily. First taking a look at our goal, as every
team, the goal is to be first place in the league. It is the greatest goal to have as a team
and one that usually goes without saying. What was alarming was that the club did not
elaborate on the goal or make it specific enough to feel passionate about. There was no
target on the amount of wins we were shooting for, no explanation on how we were going
to achieve that ultimate goal, nor was there any clarifications on how management would
be supporting the team in their efforts to win the championship. It was evident that not
everyone had the same amount of commitment to the goal because the older players were
usually just concerned about a pay check whereas the younger players were more
committed because they wanted to pave a brighter future for themselves in the industry,
and the management did nothing to unite the players. When the salary issue arose, the
already unbalanced levels of commitment to winning amongst the players was a big
driving force into the way the situation was handled. The older players had no problem
with sitting out of trainings, giving no effort in games, and arguing back and forth with
1
 management. The few younger players on the team tried to fight their case that they had
to train because they still have to improve their careers for next season. There was quite a
bit of bickering between what course of action the team would take but one thing we
knew for certain is that we had to stay united and push for the outcome that the majority
decided was best for the team. If one person differed, the management would see it as a
weak point and our efforts would crumble. Eventually, due to the lack of specificity in
our goals as a team, we ultimately chose to prioritize our salaries over winning the
championship.

Looking at the structure in regards to how the organization was organized, it was
operated as a simple hierarchy with the president and board of directors being upper level
management, the coaching staff being middle management, and the players being
employees. Because there was a clear distinction of power, the management always had
an upper hand in negotiations. Us as players were always made to feel replaceable and it
was hard to argue a case to get paid when the management made us feel as though they
could just replace us for players that were willing to play for less money. Due to the
structure of the organization, the way we approached negotiations had to be very careful.
Although there was a lot of arguing back and forth, we had to keep the upmost respect for
the management in order to push our argument forward. A lot of the arguments revolved
around our contracts, the black and white obligations that both parties agreed to uphold,
as opposed to personal sentiments towards the situation. We knew that if we kept our
argument strictly objective, it would be harder for management to turn our words against
us and have the whole situation blow up in flames. In this case, the structure of the
organization made the players, who are supposed to be the backbone of the team, feel
small and unimportant and therefore influenced our approach to handling the situation.

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

If I had a chance to implement a different structure in order to proceed with a different

course of action, I would establish an all-channel network as opposed to the simple
hierarchy that the organization was run on. In all-channel networks, “information flows
freely” and “morale in an all-channel network is usually high” (Bolman & Deal, 2021, p.
105). Because of the very evident distinction of power, mixed in with an industry that is
known for cultivating high egos amongst individuals, communication barriers presented
themselves very strongly. By implementing an all-channel network, egos can be
controlled easier due to the level ground everyone is on, and I believe it would have
improved communication between the players and the management. An all-channel
network would have also greatly improved morale due to the open communication and
made us more committed to the team and winning the championship. Instead of having
meetings where there was not only a clear social divide but a visible physical divide
between the players and management, I would have liked to have meetings where

2
 everyone was free to share their thoughts openly and be part of a system where instead of
employees fighting the managers and vice-versa it instead turns into employees and
managers versus the problem.

Secondly, I would have used a different structure that breeds a culture of successful
teamwork. As I mentioned in my scenario, there was a divide between the older and
younger players. There were many times that both groups would be unable to get on the
same page and that greatly affected the outcome of not only the negotiations about our
salary but our season as a whole. The big problem I noticed is that “successful teams
depend on… what the team is trying to do,” but our team had no idea what we were even
doing. There was no clear mission statements, voiced out goals, plans, nor support to
achieve anything and I believe that clarifying these things would have united the team
better and would have provided us with a clearer vision of what we were fighting for and
what we were willing to do or give up for it.

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

As just a player, I did not have much of a say in anything nor much power to make any
major changes, so it is hard to say what I would have done differently. In my scenario,
most of the times I was just taking a back seat in the meetings and letting the older and
more experienced players take the lead. If there is one thing I would have done
differently, knowing what I know now, I probably would have tried my best to work with
my coaches and captains to establish clear goals/missions in order to have a more united
team. In the meetings there was only a few players that would speak up and there were
some that did not care how the meeting went. If we had strong and concrete goals to
believe in, then I believe the issues we had with management would not have persisted
for so long. Everyone on the team would have felt more obliged to speak up for not only
themselves but on the behalf of all those negatively affected by the situation.
Unfortunately that was not the case because we were never really given anything to
believe in or care about. We were allowed to get too complacent with the bare minimum
and that hindered us from achieving more as a team.

What I think the team did well as a whole, and something I would not have changed, was
handling the issue internally. The organization’s structure, particularly the culture, was
one that was insistent on solving issues internally and exhausting all resources before
going to the press about it. This issue could have been a lot worse had the players or
someone from the management told the press their side of the story. Despite the terrible
situation both sides were stuck in, there was still enough respect between the two parties
to handle everything inside the club without involving external parties.

3
 Reference or References

Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand, 2021.

“ISSC & Student Equity and Achievement.” The Four Frames | ISSC & Student Equity and
Achievement, https://sea.santarosa.edu/four-frames#:~:text=Structural,deal%20in
%20analysis%20and%20logic.