Structural

FINAL

Structural frame looks at issues around coordination and definition on roles and decision making. “The assumptions of the structural frame are reflected in current approaches to organizational design. These suppositions reflect a belief in rationality and a faith that a suitable array of formal roles and responsibilities will minimize distracting personal static and maximize people’s performance on the job. Where the human resource approach emphasizes dealing with issues by changing people (through training, rotation, promotion, or dismissal), the structural perspective argues for putting people in the right roles and relationships.” (Bolman, 47) In every organization there is a structural frame, and there are six structural assumptions that come with having these structural frames. It is assumed that if an organization has a structural frame implemented, it will help;

1) Achieve established goals and objectives, 2) Increase efficiency and performance via specialization and division of labor, 3) Form appropriate coordination and control, 4) Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal agendas, 5) Structure design must fit circumstances, 6) Structural deficiencies can help solve problems and reconstruct.

Reviewing these six structural assumptions, many of them do not apply towards the situation we have with Marta. Which, explains the problem at hand. In the case of this organizational structure, there is a no clear structural hierarchy. I would like to say that it would be a very flat and horizontal structure that doesn’t require departments to communicate and answer to each other. In addition the organization structure can be described as a Divisionalized form, as there are two different sectors and bosses that you must report to in this case. When dealing with the structural frame of this situation, issues and problems arise from the fact that the structure of the organization is not clear for all of the employees involved in situation. I think the main issue is the fact that Helena and Gill report to the Human Resources Headquarters of the organization while at the same time Marta and Francesco have different responsibilities and duties they need to carry out at the In-store location. This shows that these two divisionalized departments have different established goals and objectives they want to achieve as their own respective department. The human resources managers Helena and Gill obviously have the objective to hire a learning disabled person, in order to fulfill the company’s equal employment opportunity initiative. While Francesco, as a store manager obviously wants to have impressive numbers for his store and wants the best employees as possible. Marta, is stuck in the middle of this with no boss and she also has her own goals and objectives for the future, and the job only being part-time, the corporate goals of the organization do not really matter to her, and therefore it becomes an ethical thing. Since everyone’s personal agendas prevails over rationality, the organization is faced with a problem, as noted in number 4 of the six assumptions.



So the question lies within, whose authority is greater? Whose decision should matter the most and why? Authority plays a big role in this organization’s situation. The way that Human resources managers Helena and Gill handled their request was as if the organizations structure was formed like this. The structure between the three parties; Human Resources Management, Recruiter and Store Manager was so flat that nobody listened to each other. Everybody felt they had the same level of authority, especially Marta who is the recruiter. Nobody is the boss of Marta therefore she does not need to submit to anyone’s agenda but her own. Marta felt ethically challenged when pressured by Francesco the store manager to hire a regular employee without a learning disability. Since Francesco met with Marta in person to discuss his issues, and Helena and Gill only communicated through emails, Francesco had a bigger influence. Also they did not follow up to the situation professionally as they could have. If Gill or Helena had the greater intention to fulfill the company’s equal employment initiatives, they could have set up a meeting in person with Marta and Francesco to discuss and negotiate the hiring situation. Instead they went back and forth with emails that took a very long span of time, which resulted in Francesco hiring a different candidate to meet the needs of his everyday store front operations. I feel that a better structure for the organization would be of a structure that looks similar to this;

The Boss represents the organization’s goals and objectives that everyone must subject to, and then you have the two departments that have their own respective department’s goals and objectives but they must communicate and negotiate with each other, ultimately meeting the goals and objectives of the whole organization. More specifically, I think the better solution also lies within each employee’s responsibilities, delegations and decision making power. In order to remedy this situation reconstruction of the organization’s structural frame need to take place. The best recommendation is to reconstruct the structure frame by getting rid of having a third party recruiter. Instead Marta can become part of running the store front operations, and Gill in the Human Resources Department can also handle the responsibilities and delegations of a recruiter. Therefore Gill would have to handle and take care of sourcing, contacting and orienting future employees, at the same reporting to Helena with equal employee rights initiative. This way there is no mix up and miscommunication, and if a request is made one party will have to report to another, instead of being stuck in the middle. According to //Reframing Artistry Choice and Leadership//, structural deficiencies such as situation like this one can help organizations scope out structural problems within organizations and help reconstruct for a better organization tomorrow.

 Works Cited Bolman, ,. Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. // Reframing Organizations Artistry, Choice, and Leadership //. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. 47-50. Print.Bolman, ,. Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. // Reframing Organizations Artistry, Choice, and Leadership //. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Print. __Structural frame:__ Structural frame looks at issues around coordination and definition on roles and decision making. In this case only Gill and Helena have defined roles and decison making powers. For both of them it is clear who they report to, but need to feed from both Marta and Francesco. For Marta on the other hand, the issue as discussed previosly is not quite straight. She expects a case to case involvement from parties concerned. In this satiation there were no rigid rules as to how to approach the problem, the decision was made through major elements of the political frame. -we would recommend defining domains when facing issues of diversity (people with learning disabilities) in the workplace. **-the 'two bossess' issues, does not work. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is have formal meetings, as opposed to weeks long back and forth emailing.** **-recommendation would also be to make the recruiter full time or unify it in the HR for the respective store (ie fire Marta as a surpluss due to process restructuring), Gill in this case.**