Jennifer Crosson

Organizational Learning 812

July 12, 2018

“When Bosses Rush In”

The case study of “When Bosses Rush In”, exemplifies common errors that are
often made by leaders in complex human organizations. Helen Demarco a long time
employee and recently appointed middle manager finds herself in a typical middle
management dilemma of feeling caught between conflicting signals and pressures.
(Bolman and Deal, 2017) There are a myriad of complex issues within the organization
that share the common thread of dysfunction as a result of the dynamics that are
human. The lack of skilled leadership and management at every level further
exacerbated the dysfunction and ultimate failure of Helen Demarco as a competent
and successful senior manager. As described by Bolman and Deal (2017) good leaders
possess wisdom through experience and have fine tuned the artistry of balancing the
key dynamics of organization.

1
 To examine Helen’s lack of leadership and failure in the “Osborne Plan” we can use
a mental model devised by Bolman and Deal (2017). The model that highlights four
frames helps humans organize or compartmentalize the intricate and complex
information that bombards us in our daily interactions. The structure, human, political
and symbolic frames with defined concepts will enable us to identify specific examples
that will give us an understanding of the “big picture” and main challenges.

Structural Frame

. Only focusing on mandate to cut costs while increasing efficiency caused Osborne to
loose sight of “big picture”.

. Demarco caught in middle management conundrum, coupled with lack of managerial

skill and experience ( still thinking like an employee and not a leader).

. Failure to collaborate with all levels of organization left Osborne without knowing all
the facts.

. Both Demarco and Osborne had preconceived ideas of their roles (they identified with
their positions) which led to the inedibility to constructively utilize the human resources
(that are employees) skills.

. Both perceived they were doing what was right and in the best interests of the
company (power struggle of ideology).

Human Resource Frame

. Osborne did not trust, empower or capitalize on the strengths of his employees as he
was not “present” or collaborative with employees at each level of structure
( combination of lack of communication and disrespectful attitude towards staff in
keeping them in the dark). This ambiguity led others to react.

. Osborne failed to see real problems (employee dynamics: needs, skills).

. Demarco over simplified reality on flaws of Osborne (new to company and not
knowledgeable and couldn’t be trusted) as a result of ambiguity.

2
. Demarco chose to identify herself with role of an employee (allegiance to peers)
instead of utilizing skills of a senior management role and successfully completing
duties of said management position.

Political Frame

. Demarco’s perceived allegiance to organization (20 year employee) gave her a sense
of power in her thought that she knew what was best for the organization.

. Demarco’s preconceived judgements of Osborne as a “change agent” blinded her

and caused her to dwell in negativity.

. Recruiting others in her crusade wasted energy on devising unproductive scheme in

stead of utilizing skills of a manager and “re-frame” the problem to produce alternative
solutions.

. As a result of pressure from the board to find a “quick fix” Osborne set bar too high.

. Demarco also “caved” to pressures and engaged in unproductive and deceitful

behaviour.

. Both failed to use leadership skills to innovate finding new solutions and systems
(remained entrenched in past problems).

. Both at the (expense of the organization) engaged in [internal (self) and external
(others)] power struggles for personal gain. *** could also be considered in symbolic
frame.

Symbolic Frame

. Political drive (personal ambitions and competitiveness) in establishing a reputation as

a desired “hero” and infallible leader blinded Osborne.

. Saviour and loyal hero complex blinded Demarco.

3
 Through analyzing the behaviours and incidents presented in the case study
through a multi-framed approach we can objectively begin to make sense of the
multitude information and complex dynamics at play in the organization. Leaders who
become aware and proficient thereby, automatizing these skills “free up” energy to
focus on solutions.

Demarco fell victim to “middle management woes”. Instead of learning the

necessary tools and honing her skills thereby evolving in her role of senior manager
over her to two year tenure she remained stuck in past perceptions and thinking. Her
reactions, misguided perceptions and unfounded theories “blinded her to possibilities”
and for lack of a better words, “she was her own worst enemy”. She failed in finding
innovative solutions and was culpable in keeping the organization stuck in “yesterday’s
problems” Bolman and Deal (2017). Her perceptions and inability to remain objective
prevented her from problem solving and was a result of lack of knowledge and
experience in utilizing the skills gained from becoming informed. In closing, while
Demarco failed in her role, the case and the challenges presented highlight the
complex dynamics within organization. Lack of problem solving, failure and innovation
is indicative prevailing dysfunctions. Unless care is given to solving the “prevailing”
problems within the structures of the organization they will remain in a cycle
of…“looking for solutions to yesterdays problems that create tomorrow obstacles”.
(Bolman and Deal, 2017).

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations : artistry, choice, and
leadership. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy.queensu.ca