1. Briefly restate your situation and your role.

In 2008 the housing market crashed. At that time, I was the Office Administrator and co-owner of the business BC Constructing LLC. The business was new with under ten employees, and we operated like a family. The business had been driven by public works projects that were in abundance because of rapid growth in the state and housing market. After the housing market crash, the number of jobs decreased and large companies who had never looked at smaller, low-dollar jobs were bidding on every job posted. Work was scarce and companies were scrambling to cover payroll to keep employees working. BC Constructing was also bidding on all the jobs possible to keep its employees working. The company process was that all jobs were started after the contract was signed with the customer. The job involved in this situation was now the only job BC Constructing was working on and started on time. One of the subcontractors notified BC Constructing that the delivery for the main pump was not going to be on time. This created a situation with a domino effect on the schedule. The other trades that followed could not perform their part sequentially and in a timely manner causing the project to be in breach of contract with the city. BC Constructing was faced with having to determine whether to hold payment from the subcontractor and enter litigation or move forward and deal with penalties for breach of contract with the customer/city.
 
 2.  Describe how the structure of the organization influenced the situation.

The project BC Constructing was working at this time was for a city that had timelines for completion. This was currently the only job in que and work began on time and as planned. As the delivery date for a critical item was due, we were notified that the subcontractor would not be able to uphold their delivery date as was agreed upon in the subcontract. This created a situation with a domino effect on the schedule. The other trades that followed could not perform their part sequentially and in a timely manner causing the project to be in breach of contract with the city. As a co-owner, we were faced with having to determine whether to hold payment from the subcontractor and face litigation or move forward and deal with penalties for breach of contract with the owner/city. We needed to act quickly.

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

The structural framework of BC Constructing had seemed solid, setting out the important aspects of being driven by honesty and transparent practices. Placing employees in roles that were appropriate knowing their strengths and abilities and a unified force within the company. The organizational model was a top-down approach but there was interdependence with employees who had specific specialties. The estimating software had been thoroughly vetted and training was received. This was a reliable way to bid jobs and track progress by the project manager. Weekly meetings assured job objectives and targets were being met. Project management competencies were used to build and plan jobs based on project scope. Preparing a budget, timeline, setting up suppliers and subcontractors, drafting contracts, and mitigating potential risks were standard procedures. Final decisions were made by the owner of any outliers. The superintendent had authority on the job site and that role was well defined. The relationships between owner and employees were based on longevity and knowledge of character and quality of work. Standard policies and procedures were affirmed, but they were boiler plate templates. Because of the familiarity between members of the company there was less formality. An alternate course of action could have been to alter the amount of jobs being done at the same time. The current practice was to do one job at a time but having more backlog would have given the company more options. Having more jobs would have insulated the negative effect of the subcontractor failing on their contract. 

4. Reflect on what you would do or not do differently given what you have learned.

When I reflect on the situation, I believe the structural frame should have been set up with better strategies for dealing with contract failures. It was a new company and this type of risk was not mitigated in the planning phase. The company was still building equity reserves and being in a more advantageous financial situation would have helped intermittently, but not to resolve the situation entirely. The market crash was the catalyst for the eventual outcome.
 
References
​
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Swift, C. (n.d.). Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model. Accipio. https://www.accipio.com/eleadership/leadership-fundamentals/bolman-and-deals-four-frame-model/

Using the structural frame lens when reviewing a company problem provides a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. By examining the problem through this perspective I have the opportunity identify underlying structural issues or direct causes within our company and develop more effective solutions. Learning about the process of diverse perspectives improves my understanding and ability to evaluation situations better.