Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Group 2

Assignment 2:


Group 2
Student ID Name
41206606 Salman Rahman
42308585 Rui Wang ( Ray )
41761561 Ashley Lowe
43142141 Woosung Jung
Monday 6PM Class
The structural frame is largely concerned with defining and attributing
structure to tasks, employees and the general organisation environment. This essay
will consider what organisations would be like if managers gave the Structural frame
strong priority over the other frames.
Since the end of the industrial revolution, organisations and managers have
increasingly been using the HR, political and symbolic frames. Organisations
currently emphasise employee wellbeing and ensuring cultural fit between the
organisation and employees. A change to the use of the structural frame would instead
involve focus on the bottom line, productivity maximisation and lowest cost.
Employees would be treated more as numbers than complex individuals. Managers
would try to overcome the issue of employees personal lives through the use of
formalised roles and responsibilities. Rationality is a key assumption of the structural
frame and as such, personal issues are given little weight and are not addressed in the
work place which in turn would lead to lower employee morale and motivation.
The structural frame being given higher priority over the other frames would
cause several problems. The first of which is less dynamic problem solving in an
increasingly changing environment-the structural frame is more useful in stable
environments, which is not characteristic of modern society. Structural flaws in
organisational system are not easily overcome. Structurally-oriented leaders tend to be
hierarchical and task-oriented which can reduce employee motivation as feelings of
isolation and undervaluation increase through minimal consideration of employees
personal lives and the effect on work.
However, the adoption of the structural frame can also be extremely useful.
Structure is needed to ensure the correct allocation of resources in any organisation.
In addition, the structural frame emphasises clarity of responsibilities and goals;
employees who are aware of what is required of them and what goals need to be
achieved will be more productive. However, it should be noted that the use of the
structural frame is more useful in some organisations than others.
Organisations that have low skilled employees, a stable environment, are
relatively small and have complementary processes and goals are more likely to
benefit from adoption of the structural frame. A key example of an organisation that
would benefit from this is the NSW public education system.
Hierarchy begins with the State Department of Education and funnels down through
schools to ensure harmonisation of content and that a certain level of standard is
established. Each role in the system has definitive responsibility and direction to
ensure maximisation of student results.
The structural frame views organisations as machines. However, in
organisations with highly skilled employees and turbulent environments, there is a
need for decentralisation and organic systems. Accountability is important to reduce
conflict and to determine responsibilities and rules. The technology industry is a key
example of an area that would be worse off using the structural frame. For example,
Googles competitiveness is determined by organisational agility and innovation.
They encourage employee responsibility and freedom to explore their innovative side
which has ensured their position as market leader.
The structural frame has benefits under some circumstances, but largely the
use of a combination of the four frames is much more competitive and realistic in
todays ever-changing environment.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen