Thanks for the link Gill. I think the key to a successful matrix is to focus less on the structure and more on the people skills and I think this is the area that has been neglected with the big strategy consultancies focusing on structures and then leaving with a cheery "we don't do implementation"

To me all the value is in the implementation - the structure itself solves nothing.

Hi. I work in a matrix organisation. I report to a market (sector) boss and also a solution (skillset) boss. In practice the market boss has the power as he owns the P+L (the purse strings) and the solution group is just an affinity of like minded people. However, at the end of the day it is all about the power of relationships and the feeling of a community of people with a common purpose. Whoever can create this will win the hearts and minds of everyone.

Chris
http://learn2develop.blogspot.com

Thanks for the comments, Kevan and Chris. You are both exactly right - in a matrix environment, a focus on people skills and building a community are critical. Companies that focus only on structures and processes are missing the point: to succeed, grow, flex and evolve, companies need strong people and a web of strong relationships. That doesn't happen by accident: we can speak, but that doesn't mean we can communicate; we have ears, but we don't always listen. Building and maintaining strong relationships requires time, effort and skill.

Gill, a very nice thought-spawning article again! I was recently victimized by this matrix management system of my firm although I couldn't figure out where the problem lied back then. My line manager and peers rated me as outstanding and my dotted line manager and senior manager rated me as mediocre in the IPMP (Individual Performance Management Program). The HR department and I were in a big fix.

The very phrase that came to my mind as soon I finished reading about MM is: "Too many a cook spoil the broth!". And that's how the organizational structures are turning into hyper-complex nightmares. I have got a few observations, please correct me if any of these are too far-fetched or impractical:

1. As you rightly said, MM creates chaos in Organizational Pyramid. But I still have a hunch that big conglomerates like GE, P&G can only do well by adopting their generic matrix management organizational structure - at least for the next decade unless some highly revolutionary management strategies replace the existing ones.

2. Different types of organizational structures might suit different firms based on the product/service offered by them. But in modern times, there is a cut-throat competition and the projects and services have all become fast-tracked. More and more companies are turning into project-based firms rather than purely functional-based firms.

3. I would prefer shifting structures to complex structures as it helps us tackle change and develop adaptability and flexibility in the changing times.

4. Matrix Management cannot be ousted out of the system overnight but I believe, it can be simplified to a great extent by making an attempt to convert the hierarchal pyramid into a flat-latticed structure. It greatly simplifies reporting process, increases peer pressure which eventually increases productivity, fosters team work, leadership, healthy competition and diversity, cuts bossism and politics and finally the firm may become a full-blown result and success oriented company.

5. It is very much necessary to develop strong, micro-level and clearly defined scope of roles and responsibilities and personal development plans rather than vaguely assigning tasks by managers in the projects.

6. Pool people with similar skills in specialized departments (say R&D of 3M company) which demand a very high level of innovation and technical expertise rather than managerial and business acumen.

7. The concept of dotted-line managers should either be totally eliminated or their role must be restricted to assessing and managing the risks, developing contingency plans (along with line managers) and crisis management (together as a team). Would it be a lot easier for a company to operate in three layers? - top management, senior managers and teams (each with a team leader not a boss!) instead of having vice-someones and deputy-someones and assistant-someones?

8. Companies might want to study the organizational structures of some successful and fast-growing and upcoming and unconventional companies like Google, Zappos, last.fm, Starbucks etc. under a microscope to see how their structures are directly influencing their successes or how they might be tweaked to achieve even bigger results.

Now the cosmic question is, how willing the companies are, to get rid of their "faithful" matrix management systems and how quickly would they adapt to the new "killer organizational system" (if there's some such thing in the pipeline)?

Having read this debate I am pleased always to have worked in companies with a traditional hierachy. For sure this does not work in big companies spanning continents and time zones. For smaller companies based in one country there is no such need for matrix management.Hierachical structures have drawbacks as poor leadership by senior managers can have knock on effects and cannot be easily corrected. Good leaders in such an organisation inspire. Staff know where they stand. The reporting lines are clear. Some readers point to a need to develop a third way, between the simple pyramid and the complex matrix. Theorists of management must remember as they develop these new structures that they are dealing with people, who will always have human strengths and weaknesses. Systems are only as effective as the people who operate them.

I wish to second Mr Yata’s proposal for a radical revision of matrix management.

Supporters of matrix management say it allows team members to share information.I disagree. They also say matrix management leads to greater depth of knowledge across tasking boundaries.Again I must disagree. Matrix management was a response of academics and consultants to the increasing complexities of business in the era of globalization. It has been shown to be overly complicated and unwieldy. It confuses managers and staff because it blurs reporting lines and loyalties.

Any system that cannot be explained visually is flawed. Often I have wondered if it would be more appropriate to describe it as Mess Management as I have studied diagrams of the system. How can one have faith in a system that describes human relationships with dotted lines?

A system is only as effective as those operating it. The weaknesses of matrix management described here are the result of human fallibility. Matrix management is a tool constructed to cope with the increasing complexity of business described by Gill Corkindale. A business operating across national borders, cultures and time zones must have management structures to ensure expertise is shared. Classic hierarchical management was suitable in the pre-globalisation age - and remains so for small to medium sized busineses and certain international businesses with a single intellectual purpose (law firms but not banks) - but larger enterprises, such as those involved with manufacturing (cars)energy (electricity) exploration (oil) and service (hotels and airlines), require sophisticated systems. At its best the balanced matrix can produce tremendous yields while at the same time satisfying staff.

There is also a paradox here; we introduce a matrix to reflect the internal and external complexity of our business environment.

The reason we need a matrix is the we CANNOT choose between priority A and B, we want to take both into account - function is important, but so it technology and product group and geography – so we reflect them all in the formal structure and this makes dilemmas such as divided loyalties permanent in a matrix.

Having done this we then spend all of our time on trying to create clarity and alignment. Whilst this is admirable to some degree it is ultimately a failed effort – if you could align perfectly you would not need an matrix structure!

A matrix deliberately sets out to trade clarity for flexibility.

We have to clarify what we can, but also get much more comfortable with ambiguity – and may people find that difficult.

I have worked for companies where management was the traditional 'up-down' model. The plus was a defined chain of command. The minus was departments as fiefdoms run by managers not always co-operating in the best interests of the company for selfish reasons. In companies using matrix management we had greater flexibility and better use of employee skills. But these pluses could too often be wiped out by managers point scoring off each other. Staff were confused about who they reported to and who they should be loyal to.Both systems have merit. Where is the Third Way?