OGL 481 Pro-Seminar I:

PCA-Human Resources Frame

The organization that I chose to analyze for my Personal Case Analysis is Horizon Air, the
primary regional air carrier for Alaska Airlines. My role with Horizon Air is what we call a
Team Captain. As a Team Captain I oversee the day to day operations for Alaska and Horizon
flights in and out of the airport in Fresno, CA. I came across a situation about a year ago in
which I had to help my manager decide whether to demote another member of leadership, or to
terminate him entirely. This situation arose from a series of events where he showed
unprofessional conduct and disregard for the safety culture of Horizon Air. My manager chose to
use my input as part of his recommendation because I worked closely with this individual on a
daily basis. He felt that I could provide a more thorough insight on some other aspects of his
work habits. I ended up recommending that my manager simply demote him and let him remain
employed. To come to this decision I contemplated his behavior prior to being a member of
leadership, and concluded that his actions were a result of the pressures of leadership, not of a
poor work ethic or blatant neglect for safety procedures.

2) Describe how the human resources of the organization influenced the situation.

Horizon Air has a strong organizational culture that is people-oriented for the most part.
Horizon Air has many different departments and workgroups. Different work groups include
airport employees, flight crews, reservations agents, safety and compliance, policy and
procedure, and many others. Part of the human resources aspect of the company is getting all
work groups connected and working together towards the organizational goal.

An HR aspect that I feel had a strong influence on this situation in particular is the concept of
informal group norms which are very prevalent in my organization and my station in particular.
According to Bolman and Deal (2017), groups and teams develop informal norms to answer
questions such as “Do we want to be task oriented, no nonsense, and get on with the job? Or
would we prefer to be more relaxed and playful? Do we insist on full attendance at every
meeting, or should we be more flexible? Must people be unerringly punctual, or would that
cramp our style?” (p. 173). Having unclear or opposing organizational norms can cause conflict.
My station has a team of about 27 people. We are a small station and are, for the most part, tight
knit. One of the informal norms that we have is that almost every agent is labeled as either an
“AM person” or a “PM person.” Our group is split down the middle with half the employees
working morning shift, and the others working afternoon/night shifts. I have been with the
company for almost 5 years and people do not change their shift preference often. This informal
norm creates a divide among employees. The AM people have been known to be uptight and

1
bossy, which is a result of the high intensity and fast pace of the AM shift. The PM shift on the
other hand is very relaxed, with a laissez faire mentality due to the fact that the flight schedule
allows for more down time and a slower working pace.

The reason that this aspect influenced the situation is because Carl was a PM agent taking on
a Team Captain role for the AM crew. This caused interpersonal conflict due to clashing
personality types. Carl was a very happy-go-lucky type of person, constantly making jokes and
fooling around. Many of the AM agents felt that he did not know when to be serious and that he
was irresponsible as a Team Captain. This caused many of the AM agents to have a negative
opinion of Carl from early on. It is my opinion that this interpersonal conflict played a big role in
what led Carl to behave the way that he did. His actions seemed to me as if they were in an effort
to save face and not give the rest of the AM crew any reason to say anything negative about his
performance. This feeling led Carl to develop a defensive mentality when it came to receiving
criticism from other agents. Bolman and Deal (2017) infer that “insecure, defensive managers set
up a self-destructive spiral: They need help but avoid getting it” (p. 148). I feel that Carl fell
subject to this downward spiral and it ultimately led to his demotion.

3) Recommend how you would use the human resources frame for an alternative course
of action regarding your case.

There are several recommendations that could be made to have impacted the outcome of
this situation in a more positive way. The first recommendation that I would make would be
for individuals such as Carl who are looking to move upwards within the organization to
implement more of the aspects of emotional intelligence. Carl could have benefitted by
employing the ideas of emotional intelligence in order to help him gain “awareness of self
and others and the ability to handle emotions and relationships” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p.
167). Emotional intelligence plays a huge role in organizations because they require people
to work together to achieve a common goal, therefore there must be some level of teamwork
and collaboration. Emotional intelligence especially in leaders goes a long way in supporting
team cohesion. Carl would have fared more successfully had he gone into the new leadership
role with a better understanding of how his personal traits and personality were going to
differ, and possibly conflict with the rest of the team.

My second recommendation for this situation would be for the management and
leadership to have been more realistic of whether or not placing this individual in a
leadership role was appropriate in the first place. The organization was in need of someone to
fill a position, and instead of working short until someone truly qualified was interested,
management chose to promote someone who did not have the interpersonal skills to adapt to
the leadership role.

2
 4) Reflect on what you would do or not do differently given what you have learned
about this frame.

In reflecting on this situation from the human resources frame I can conclude that, while I
would not have changed my ultimate decision, I would have done a few things differently. First,
I would have made more of an attempt to communicate openly with Carl about how his style of
leadership was going to contrast to what the group was accustomed to. I myself am a typical
“AM person” as I described earlier. I really enjoy the high intensity levels that come with
working the morning shift, and as a TC I do my best to have my team as prepared and by the
book as possible. Carl and I did initially clash in our leadership styles but we were able to find a
way to work together well. The other members of the morning crew were not so open to the new
style. I wish that I would have done more to facilitate the integration of a new leadership style.

Second, I have realized while looking at my organization through the human resources frame
that there is a culture of mistake shaming. Part of the reason that Carl did not succeed was that,
for one he was ill-equipped for leadership, and second that the culture of the organization does
not necessarily facilitate growth and learning as much as it should. There is a high degree of
playful teasing when agents make mistakes, as long as they are not safety related. Looking back I
can see that what some might consider teasing, others may consider bullying if they are already
feeling inferior. I can relate because I myself feel pressure that if I make a mistake I am going to
be mocked or berated. I feel that this is certainly something that I could work to change in my
organization.

3
 Reference or References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing  organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass