Vikram Pandit is a brave man. He stepped up to head Citigroup when others flinched at the thought. Then he set about streamlining and rebuilding Citi, which had been laid waste by the credit crunch and under the regime of his predecessor, Charles Prince.

With steely resolve, Pandit wrote down billions of dollars, closed scores of branches, jettisoned parts of the business, slashed jobs and cut dividends. He didn’t stop there. Next, he tapped sovereign wealth funds in Asia and the Gulf for nearly $30 billion, set up a new risk-management team, and cut the bank’s exposure to the sub-prime market.

Pandit’s latest initiative may be his boldest yet. His plan to overhaul Citi’s bonus system is an attempt to move the bank from a highly individualistic to a team culture. It is intended to cut down in-fighting among senior executives and promote co-operation across its investment banking, commercial banking, and wealth management divisions.

While other banks have reviewed their rewards systems in the wake of the credit crunch, arguably no one has gone as far as to base bonuses on the cooperation and performance of the company as a whole. Indeed, in an industry where rewards are inextricably linked to individualism and competition, this is little short of declaring war. Pandit Is said to want the system in place in time for next year’s bonuses, which is bound to stir up a hornet's nest of resistance among senior Citi executives.

Few bankers want to see their bonuses tied to businesses they cannot control, especially given the current volatile state of the industry. One online commentator in the New York Times recently wrote: “It will create even more innuendos and backstabbing by an already politically charged senior management…this will create a facade of where managers give the outward appearance of cooperation and will end up with hidden agendas and covert operations.”

So what is Pandit thinking? Is he on a groundbreaking mission to clean up Citi’s culture and make it more equable? Or is this a naïve – or reckless - attempt to change the fundamental nature of the beast? And what will be the effect on Citi in a year’s time? A more co-operative and high-performance workplace - or a wilderness of in-fighting and political intrigue?

In my experience of working with bankers, the collaborative, consensus-driven and sensitive manager is a rare creature. Where I have occasionally found them, they have been pressured to meet targets and drive results by bosses who are ruthlessly focused on the numbers. Even the banks that value soft skills and value collaboration are buckling under the current pressure.

Perhaps Pandit is a true visionary who is trying to change Citi’s culture for future generations: the checks and balances of team working will certainly curb the excesses of individual greed. But is this workable? Will this do more harm than good, given Citi’s current situation? What do you think?

Matrix management has been around for 40 years, but there have been few challenges to its efficacy and viability. Most writers and management theorists remain convinced that a matrix approach is superior to a hierarchy, but is it really the only alternative? Are there different ways to manage – for example, a truly integrated hierarchical/matrix system or do we need to think about a different system altogether?

Let’s take a look at a few fundamental questions to see if matrix systems are shaping up to the challenges of 21st century business. Here are some thoughts – drawn from my own experience and from Life in a Matrix, a great resource. Let me have your thoughts too.

Key challenges

• Multiple reporting lines can reflect the interests of functions, geographical regions and product lines, but they can also cause conflict, stress and confusion among staff if managers’ interests are not aligned


• Poorly defined management roles can result in turf wars or lack of accountability, which can erode organizational cultures


• Self-managing teams and individuals can free up management time and allow creative and flexible approaches to work – but not everyone can make the transition to self-management


• Organisations can set parallel priorities, but this does not always result in effective or efficient working


• Matrix systems are vulnerable to constant reorganization, which can disrupt the relationships that make them work: knowledge, experience and organizational know-how can be lost easily


• Responsive managers in a matrix can offer unparalleled opportunities for professional development, but inattentive managers can cause immense stress and over-work


• It can be difficult to keep track of who is overseeing performance if project completion is the key focus for businesses

How do you lead in the matrix?

• Make sure the culture is robust, supportive and you have the right values and behaviours in place


• Ensure that you are a skilled communicator: networking, influencing, coaching and facilitating skills are paramount


• Draw up clear goals, objectives, and performance metrics for managers and staff and see to it that they are aligned vertically and horizontally


• Empower teams to make decisions and to resolve conflicts at an appropriate level


• Don’t tinker with the structure, but let the networks and matrix evolve over time


• Use your expertise and personal network to influence those over whom you have no formal authority

How do you work in the matrix?

• Bolster your communication, networking and coaching skills


• Think about who is making demands on your time and attention


• Decide how much effort and attention each part of your workload requires


• Work out how to manage priorities and where you can do trade-offs


• Understand your managers’ situations and identify potential pressure points


• Ensure that each manager is aware of your entire workload and push back against unreasonable or conflicting demands


• Keep your manager informed about what you are doing and your progress

What are the possible effects of the matrix – on people and organizations?

• Greater focus on short-term projects rather than long-term issues


• Shorter attention spans as multiple projects are carried out simultaneously


• Transactional relationships as managers and employees trade off priorities


• More flexible – or more conflictual - management relationships


• More open/supportive – or more political/destructive – organizational cultures


• Greater uncertainty – more ability to deal with ambiguity or less accountability


• More productivity, challenge and growth – or more stress, pressure and fear

What is the future for the matrix?

What do you think? Has matrix management passed its sell-by date? Is there any realistic alternative in sight? What improvements or ideas do you suggest? Let me hear your thoughts.

One theme has emerged loud and clear from executives I have been coaching this year: the utter frustration of operating in complex and shifting matrix management systems. The complaints are legion: multiple and complex reporting lines, confusion over accountability, competing geographical and functional targets, lack of role clarity, too many people involved in decisions, lack of support from senior managers, and the politics and conflicts arising from continual organisational restructuring.

Only last week I heard one senior executive’s attempts to explain his direct, indirect and ‘dual solid’ lines of reporting across multiple functions, product lines, and geographic regions. He told me that in addition to running his own virtual team that spanned three time zones, he had responsibility for several head office projects, with the added problem of dealing with a line manager on one project who was his peer on another. By the time he had finished, my head was spinning.

Another manager told me how he was integrating a project team from a company which his own matrix organisation was taking over. As he went through each layer of complexity and challenge, he began to laugh – amusedly at first, but then with increasing despair. He confessed he was exhausted by the sheer complexity of the situation and was unable to answer my question: “At what point does all this become unworkable?”

This sounds like organisational hell to me, so why do companies continue to have such faith in matrix management? It is easy to see why it was regarded as a necessary innovation when it first emerged in the 1970s. Companies realized that vertically aligned structures did not address cross-functional or business-wide needs. Matrix structures broke down the hierarchies, allowing teams to share information across task boundaries and enabling managers and staff to build their knowledge and experience across projects.

By the 1980s, though, the belief in matrix structures was challenged, due to their inherent complexity and instability. Managers soon realised that they hindered rather than helped them work effectively: employees became confused over conflicting loyalties, with line managers retaining central control and dotted line managers imposing extra demands.

Yet matrix management continues today, even though we are arguably operating in a more complex environment than ever before. As well as the challenges of vertical and horizontal management, there is an unstable economic climate, advancing globalisation, strategic uncertainty and increasing levels of organisational rationalisation, mergers and takeovers. On top of this, organisations have been slow to realise the need for training in the skills necessary to navigate matrices: communication, influencing, coaching, negotiation and conflict management. The result is an almost impossible situation in which to lead or manage.

Despite the ubiquity of this problem, there are few resources for managers and leaders on the challenges of matrix management. Take a look at Kevan Hall’s very readable blog, and Christopher Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal’s evergree Matrix Management: Not a Structure, a Frame of Mind.

In the next post, I will examine some of the complexities of matrix management and offer some ways to deal with it. But first, what are your experiences of working in a matrix environment? Does it work for you or do you find it impossible to navigate? What are the daily realities for you and your staff? Do you think matrix management will survive, or do we need to develop a new system to replace it?

MORE ON MATRIX ORGANIZATIONS:
What Gets Lost on the Dotted Line (HMCL Article)

On Monday morning, two items on BBC radio got me thinking. The first was the news that Gordon Brown, our beleaguered prime minister, has launched a website where the public can put questions to him via YouTube. Like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Mr Brown has realised it was time to go interactive.

“I am here to answer your questions,” he says in his video clip. “Politicians get the chance in Prime Minister’s Questions [a weekly half-hour slot where MPs can grill the PM]. I think it’s time the public had a chance.” It’s not instant – we have to submit our questions by 21 June and he will answer the most popular “at some point soon”. But it was appreciated – a few hours after the announcement, the site had attracted thousands of subscribers.

For a heavyweight politician such as Brown this is a big move, prompted, no doubt by David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, who branded Brown “an analogue leader in a digital age”. Cameron, 41, set up his own site two years ago, offering a view of his home life that included a webcast of his family eating breakfast. This has turned out to be a powerful marketing tool for him and his party as his popularity ratings have steadily risen.

The next item was an interview with Jean-Pierre Garnier, the outgoing CEO of GlaxoSmithKline. Garnier, 60, has been a controversial figure during his eight-years leading the drugs manufacturer. Five years ago, shareholders voted against a pay package that would have allowed him to walk away with $36 million if he lost his job. He also drew fire for refusing to charge lower prices for HIV medicine in Africa and branding animal rights activists ‘despicable cowards’. Yet in the last couple of years he has managed to reverse his reputation and become one of Britain’s most respected businessmen.

On Monday, though, he was in the hot seat again. Having agreed to discuss GSK’s bird-flu vaccine for humans, Garnier instead found himself ambushed by questions about Seroxat, the company’s anti-depressant that has been linked to suicide impulses in young people. When asked whether GSK was prepared to make public all information about the potential dangers of the drug, Garnier became increasingly annoyed. The next question, whether he would leave a company that will “be honest” about the safety of its drugs, caused him to end the interview and walk out of the studio. “I am not interested in this question…” he said. “I wish you the best. Goodbye”.

We shall see whether Brown masters YouTube and attracts a new generation of Labour party supporters. But for Garnier, the evidence is clear: he is stuck in analogue mode. Unable to engage with his interviewer or flex his style, he revealed himself as a leader who is aloof, fixed and authoritarian. It’s difficult to imagine him engaging in a Q&A on YouTube-style with his employees or shareholders.

I’m pleased our politicians are using new media channels to connect with voters. That’s what we – especially the younger generation – expect. But are CEOs and business leaders up to speed yet? Does your CEO or boss communicate with you through a YouTube channel? Is he or she open to direct questions from you or the shareholders? If not, why not?

Or are you a leader who is considering engaging this way? What are the benefits? What are the problems? Are you aware of any leaders who are using this media in their companies? Does it work? Do you see any results in the workplace?

Let’s also hear some of the questions you’d like to ask if your CEO or boss gave you the opportunity to grill them online.

Thanks to all the readers who commented on last week’s post on Imposter Syndrome, especially to Parag, Jason and Omar – it takes courage to talk about being an ‘imposter,’ so thanks to you for coming forward. I was also encouraged to hear both the pros and cons of working with those suffering from imposter syndrome in business.

This week I want to set out some definitions of imposter syndrome and some useful steps for dealing with it. If you feel you are holding yourself back, or if you work with someone who displays this behaviour, read on.

It starts with recognising it in yourself and others. Imposter syndrome can be defined as a collection of feelings of inadequacy that persist despite evident success. ‘Imposters’ suffer from chronic self-doubt and a sense of intellectual fraudulence that override any feelings of success or external proof of their competence. They seem unable to internalize their accomplishments, however successful they are in their field. High achieving, highly successful people often suffer, so imposter syndrome doesn’t equate with low self-esteem or a lack of self-confidence. In fact, some researchers have linked it with perfectionism, especially in women and among academics.

Where does it come from? Some researchers believe it has its roots in the labels parents attach to particular members of the family. For example, one child might be designated the ‘intelligent’ one and the other the ‘sensitive’ one. Another theory is that parents can programme the child with messages of superiority: the child is so fully supported that the parents and child believe that he or she is superior or perfect.

Some common thoughts and feelings associated with imposter syndrome include:

“I must not fail” There can be a huge amount of pressure currently not to fail in order to avoid being “found out.” Paradoxically, success also becomes an issue as it brings the added pressure of responsibility and visibility. This leads to an inability to enjoy success.

“I feel like a fake” Imposters believe they do not deserve success or professional accolades and feel that somehow others have been deceived into thinking otherwise. This goes hand in hand with a fear of being “found out”, discovered, or “unmasked”. They believe they give the impression that they are more competent than they are and have deep feelings that they lack knowledge or expertise. Often they believe they don’t deserve a position or a promotion and are anxious that “somebody made a mistake”.

“It’s all down to luck” The tendency to attribute success to luck or to other external reasons and not their abilities is a clear indicator of imposter syndrome. They may typically say or think: “I just got lucky” or “it was a fluke”. Often this masks the fear that they will not be able to succeed the next time.

“Success is no big deal” The tendency to downplay success and discount it is marked in those with imposter syndrome. They might attribute their success to it being an easy task or having support and often have a hard time accepting compliments. Again, they think their success is down to luck, good timing, or having fooled others.

So what can you do to mitigate the negative effects of Imposter syndrome?

• Recognise imposter feeings when they emerge. Awareness is the first step to change, so ensure you track these thoughts: what they are and when they emerge.

• Rewrite your mental programmes. Instead of telling yourself they are going to find you out or that you don’t deserve success, remind yourself that it’s normal not to know everything and that you will find out more as you progress.

• Talk about your feelings. There may be others who feel like imposters too – it’s better to have an open dialogue rather than harbour negative thoughts alone

• Consider the context. Most people will have experience moments or occasions where they don’t feel 100% confident. There may be times when you feel out of your depth and self-doubt can be a normal reaction. If you catch yourself thinking that you are useless, reframe it: “the fact that I feel useless right now does not mean that I really am.”

• Reframe failure as a learning opportunity. Find out the lessons and use them constructively in future. This is a critical lesson for everyone.

• Be kind to yourself. Remember that you are entitled to make small mistakes occasionally and forgive yourself. Don’t forget to reward yourself for getting the big things right.

• Seek support. Everyone needs help: recognise that you can seek assistance and that you don’t have to do everything alone. This will give you a good reality check and help you talk things through.

• Visualise your success. Keep your eye on the outcome – completing the task or making the presentation, which will keep you focused and calm.

Do you have any further coping strategies for imposter syndrome? What works – and doesn’t work – for you? Have And what do you think Imposter Syndrome means for business – for example, which professions or sectors have a higher population of ‘imposters’?

Note: There are plenty of resources on Imposter Syndrome, including important work by Valerie Young and this further reading.

The New York Times recently ran a great piece about managers and professionals who suffer from feelings of fraudulence or inadequacy at work. Imposter syndrome (also known as imposter phenomenon, imposterism and “neurotic imposture”) can be a good thing for managers, said the author. Occasionally feeling like a fraud ensures managers don’t get too egotistical: it helps them define their limits and ensures they seek guidance when they are out of their depth. It also shows their humility.

I have come across many instances of imposter syndrome among my coaching clients in recent years. Typically, they are managers on fast-track careers in their late 30s or early 40s who have been promoted to a new role in which their experience is being tested to the limits. Despite support from their bosses and feedback showing they have great operational, strategic and people skills, they often seem beset with doubts.

Take James, the 41-year-old head of a shared services division for a major U.S. financial services firm in London. He had been a very successful financial director and was promoted to a role that required him to integrate the operations of Finance, HR, IT, Property and Legal affairs. His fear was that he didn’t have the skills or knowledge base to deal with such varied professionals and was in a complete state of panic when he saw me. He was replacing a much older manager, he said, he came from a specialized function, he was shy, his influencing and presentation skills were poor, and so on.

Given that he was very well-regarded in the firm, and his 360 feedback survey indicated he had all the skills required, I challenged him: “What’s the real issue here?” He paused for a moment and then said: “I suppose I wonder why they chose me. I think they may have made a mistake.” Asked why, James eventually admitted that he knew he was competent, yet his father’s words were still ringing in his ears: ”He always told me, ‘Don’t take risks, stick with what you’ve got’”. James agreed that what might have been appropriate for his father wasn’t right for his life or career, yet 30 years on, he was still being guided by them.

James did manage to override his father’s “script” with more relevant and positive beliefs – and he has been very successful in his new role. Yet the same thoughts still creep up on him unawares and he feels he will never be entirely free of them. But in truth, this may not be such a bad thing: James is always alert, thoughtful and self-aware about his management style – in fact, he’s a very humble guy, which is why he’s so well respected.

One of the reasons I think clients open up to me about imposter syndrome is that I’m a long-term sufferer too. I can trace it back to my schooldays, more than 30 years ago. I went to a high school far from home and had an irrational fear (or had perhaps been told) that my classmates would be much smarter than me. I worked hard to prove I was their equal, and won a place at Cambridge. This should have reassured me, but instead I found myself in an even bigger dilemma: I felt like a complete imposter. Every single day of the three years I spent at college felt like my interview day – I was waiting for someone to tap me on the shoulder and tell me there had been a mistake in admissions. I also felt the pressure of being one of the first small intake of women in the college’s 470-year history – but unlike many of the other women whose fathers, brothers, uncles or grandfathers had been students there, I had no sense of family belonging.

Thoughts that I wasn’t smart enough, I didn’t belong, and I would soon be found out helped propel me through school, college and work, driving me to achieve higher and higher results. Even today – and despite the evidence of degree certificates, books published, and a great career – I am still wondering whether I got here by luck or accident.

I wish I’d known it earlier in my career, but “Imposter phenomenon” (read Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes's The Impostor Phenomenon Among High Achieving Women) is common among women. It was first used in the late 1970s to describe of high-achieving US women who harboured a secret sense they were not as capable as others thought. In the 1980s “impostorism” was related to people with anxious personalities, although researchers have since documented fears in men and women from all backgrounds and ages, and in adolescents. A recent article in HBR, The Dangers of Feeling Like a Fake, linked “neurotic imposters” with perfectionists, who set “excessively high, unrealistic goals and then experience self-defeating thoughts and behaviors when they can’t reach those goals…perfectionism often turns neurotic impostors into workaholics."

Perfectionism and imposter syndrome seem to be emerging more and more in my work and I have been wondering why this might be. Is it a response to the greater pressures of business – the desire to control things as it becomes increasingly clear that we are less able to control anything? Or is it the result of too much – or too little – information, education or training?

What do you think? I’d like to hear your thoughts about imposter syndrome. How would you describe it? Are you a manager or leader who has occasionally felt like a fraud at work? When did you feel that way and why? Or have you worked for someone who suffered from imposter syndrome? What happened to you and the team? What should we look out for?

Next week, I’ll set out some definitions for imposter syndrome and strategies for dealing with it. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing your responses!