Amazing description of Matrix Management.

It seems to me that for short term, Matrix management will be limited and successful in technology industry, specially related to medical, science, engineering and consultant industries.
cause Matrix structure gives more flexibility for 'ideas' and 'information' to flow, which are two major component for innovation in company.

I agree with the article that working in a Matrix structured Management require Self-managing skills, however its not hard to learn. Thus, I think long term future seems to be more tended to Matrix management, cause people change when they have to!

Another advantage of Matrix Management is it create a Multidisciplinary atmosphere for problem solving, which is far better then a specialized personal solving it.

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

I work in a matrix managed company and we were just commenting yesterday on how one of our products is suffering because a number of small developments have enhanced it's functionality (short-term advantage) but decreased it's quality (long-term disadvantage)

Great article.

Great article, it has been an issue in my personal experience. I have seen it working fine in services oriented business, like consulting firms, but working for example in a CPG industry the scenario is quite different. The culture must be set to allow more than a reporting line, te recognition/remuneration also must be aligned. I would like to know more if there are proven new ways to solve the need for different roles in an organization of this kind.

Best regards,

One problem I encounter in profesional life is that people tend to stop acting if they don't know excactly how to act or what to do.

Doing nothing is often worse then doing the wrong thing, but by doing nothing you don't stick your head out.

In Matrix Managed companies these two problems come together:

Because there is no clearity on who is responsable for what, people also don't know who to address for information that is needed to solve a problem or make a decission and stop acting.

This causes (bigger) problems, however people are not personally addressed by the fact that they could (or even should) have prevented this problem because there is a lack of accountability. So no real incentive to stick your head out.

I agree with all what Gill is saying in the article but in my opinion 80% of the problems in Matrix Organisations come forth out of a lack of accountability.

(comment that needs to be made here is that with clear accountability, you also need room for error in order to maintain a workable atmosphere, and errors are no real errors if the decission is sound, but based on facts that were the thruth at the time but changed in a later stadium)

The overall exposition is great and touches on many aspects of the Matrix alike organization.

It would be great to touch on the context that call for such formation and whether you need to have a Matrix across all line of businesses or a hybrid solution is to be considered as an optimal setting.

By context, I am referring to the conditions and corporate structure that calls for such matrix along side the selection criteria’s and variables that can be used an induction to such formation.

Pierre El-Hnoud
Corporate Strategist
www.pierre-elhnoud.org

Another great and 'frank and honest' article produced by the equal to no one and charming Gill. One can only wonder how is it possible that 'After everything is said and done. So much is said and nearly nothing seems to be done!?'Strangely enough it reminds me of Hemingway, who when asked to design a story in only six words produced the following jewel-'For sale:baby shoes, never to be worn.' We tend to so easily forget the 'human nature',that has been essentially governed not by rationalizations but simply by 'passions and interests' that correlate very vaguely with what writers and management theorists ( terrorists) preach. It is obvious that bureaucracies are socially pathological in their lack of desire to remove a persistent obstruction to their development- bringing in real not just labeled democracy and objective market mechanisms into their organizations as to create transparent accountability to internal and external clients through agile learning and adaption. This massive paradigm shift and vital necessity for change in the ' bureaucratic mindset' dates back to the early days of industrialization. If a constructive trans -formative leadership is not introduced, the trap to think that you are more important than your clients is not dissolved and 'interactive complexity' is not clearly understood and taken into account, I personally see only trouble knocking on our door!It is naive to rely on the assumption that people will automatically change when they have to, at least the empowered to make the tough decisions seem to have serious difficulties!? In this context I would like to hear Gill's response to the raised by me issues, no matter that it may seem not very modest.And let us finally face and address the following hot potato-'Until when must we tolerate the existence of arrogant monopolies, as long as they satisfy some 'central power' or are we also obstructed as a mass-media forum to speak freely on what is in our minds?'

Hi,
Some very useful thoughts, articulating what many of have seen.
My personal preference is for a traditional hierchy, supplemented by cross functional project based teams where the project has a clear priuority for those who volunteer (always better) or are seconded to the team for their functional expertise.
The project teams need need to be led by an expert in the aim of the project, not a project manager, ensuring technical accountability, and members are responsible for both their team performance, and their functional performance, with due account taken of the priorities.
The Japanese car makers use this style, and increasingly in my change management activities, it is paying dividends, as the "mind-set" change is less disruptive than a matrix structure.

Allen Roberts

The bigger the matrix, the longer is the delay to complete the activiites. The functions that can go parallel, most of the times starts to run sequentially and thus fails to create a self-managing individual.

Gill has raised very compelling points in his article. There are a number of excellent resources available on matrix management and this article is consistent with what we need to do as well as the risks that present themselve.

I work in the information technology area of a very large insurance company. I have seen matrix management work successfully when the roles of the staff are aligned by position families (project manager, business analyst, systems analyst, deveoper, etc). It requires two fundamental processes covering staffing and performance management.

The success also relies on a mature project management environment where a strong PMO provides governance and oversight on the budget and utilization of resources. Competent project management is also critical to ensure the roles and responsiblities on the project and resource planning are well executed.

Culturally, the sponsor must be strong and visible to drive the culture change required to operate successfully in this environment. One of his key responsibilities is driving alignment to culture change (releasing control and driving collaboration) and among his leadership.

The benefit is that staff have greater exposre to potential opportunities to work on different project to grow their careers. They are also supported in developing the key functional and leadership competencies aligned with their position families.

I transitioned to another part of the organization to implement this same model. The cultural challenges are much greater hear and reflect what Gill stated as, "Poorly defined management roles can result in turf wars or lack of accountability, which can erode organizational cultures". The primary issue is that the organization has been operating in a siloed fashion with a strong desire to retain control. Redefining the senior leadership and management roles is vital.

The sponsor in this organization was relatively hands off hoping that the leadership team would work through the issues and achieve consensus. Given the struggles and upward feedback, he has become much more actve in driving alignment in defining the responsibilites and promoting the culture change.

I am optimistic in the outcome. Staff are now gaining a broader view of the organization and opportunities for them to expand their skills through project rotations are available. There is tremendous opportunity to optimize project delivery capabilites through the reallocation of underutilized staff, aligning the right staff with critical projects, while also focusing on the skills they need to remain viable professionals.

I believe matrix management is a longer term direction to optimize the utilization of staff within application delivery and competency development. We are moving toward a much more collaborative environment compelled by the required behaviors of our generation Y and the technologies aviailable to support this.

- Melissa

Nice article. When it comes to leading in the matrix it is great to have a "buck stops here" committee of leaders from each division to work out any issues or lack of clarity. Working in the matrix it makes a big difference if issues are commonly and openly escalated to the leadership team. Organization problems are solved at the right level - a high level. In the culture everyone respects the outcome of an escalation and moves ahead.

I work for a nonprofit organization that has over 1000 employees here in the US. We have been trying to utilize parts of matrix management for the past 15 years or so but for the first time are trying to nail down organization wide policies and guidelines in this area. In my research of matrix management very little has been found for the non profit sector. Does anyone know where to find such information if it exists?

The Learned Professor misses one serious flaw in matrixed
organizations. The complete disconnect between individuals
towards long term relationships. Matrix organizations create
out of any organization, a whole series of one time games
for each player. By eliminating the long term relationships
the players find themselves focusing on utter short term gain.

When I worked in matrixed roles, the task managers would slave
drive and use short term fear based goals to force near term
production while the group managers would rotate the staff
so as to reduce staff turnover, but, reduce productivity
to each of the tasks.

Matrixed organizations set up complex warring tribes, with
little social cohesion, and have little to recommend for
managers interested in a successful organization