Challenges and Strategies of Matrix
Challenges and
Strategies of Matrix
Organizations:
Top-Level and Mid-Level
Managers’ Perspectives
Thomas Sy, College of Business Administration, California State University, Long Beach;
Laura Sue D’Annunzio, A.T. Kearney Inc.
U
sing surveys, inter-
views, and workshops with 294 toplevel and mid-level managers from seven major multinational corporations in six industries, we identified the top five contemporary challenges of the matrix organizational form: (1) misaligned goals, (2) unclear roles and responsibilities, (3) ambiguous authority, (4) lack of a matrix guardian, and (5) silo-focused employees. We also provide managers with the best practices that will improve their matrix organizations.
Interest in matrix organizational structures peaked during the 1970s and 1980s.
Since that time, research and literature on the noticeably. matrix have dropped
Simultaneously, organizations continue to adopt the matrix as a viable alternative to deal with their increasingly complex
H UMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 28.1
39
Overview of the Matrix
EXHIBIT 1
Matrix Forms
Functional
Matrix
s
Employees remain full members of functional departments. s
Processes and procedures instituted to ensure cross functional collaboration. Balanced
Matrix
s
s
Employees move between functional departments and projects and respectively retain membership with those units during the same period.
Strives for equalized power and authority between organizing dimensions and equal pursuit of multiple business objectives.
s
Permanent project management overlay. s
Project managers have primary control over resources and project’s direction.
s
Project managers are responsible for defining what needs to be accomplished and when.
s
s
s
s
Classic model by which the matrix form is known.
s
Employees are officially members of two organizing dimensions.
s
Project
Strategies of Matrix
Organizations:
Top-Level and Mid-Level
Managers’ Perspectives
Thomas Sy, College of Business Administration, California State University, Long Beach;
Laura Sue D’Annunzio, A.T. Kearney Inc.
U
sing surveys, inter-
views, and workshops with 294 toplevel and mid-level managers from seven major multinational corporations in six industries, we identified the top five contemporary challenges of the matrix organizational form: (1) misaligned goals, (2) unclear roles and responsibilities, (3) ambiguous authority, (4) lack of a matrix guardian, and (5) silo-focused employees. We also provide managers with the best practices that will improve their matrix organizations.
Interest in matrix organizational structures peaked during the 1970s and 1980s.
Since that time, research and literature on the noticeably. matrix have dropped
Simultaneously, organizations continue to adopt the matrix as a viable alternative to deal with their increasingly complex
H UMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 28.1
39
Overview of the Matrix
EXHIBIT 1
Matrix Forms
Functional
Matrix
s
Employees remain full members of functional departments. s
Processes and procedures instituted to ensure cross functional collaboration. Balanced
Matrix
s
s
Employees move between functional departments and projects and respectively retain membership with those units during the same period.
Strives for equalized power and authority between organizing dimensions and equal pursuit of multiple business objectives.
s
Permanent project management overlay. s
Project managers have primary control over resources and project’s direction.
s
Project managers are responsible for defining what needs to be accomplished and when.
s
s
s
s
Classic model by which the matrix form is known.
s
Employees are officially members of two organizing dimensions.
s
Project
References: Bartlett, CA, & Ghoshal, S (1990). “Matrix Management: Not a Structure, a Frame of Mind,” Harvard Business Review (July-August): 138-145. Galbraith, JR (1973). Designing Complex Organizations, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Galbraith, JR (1994). Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Galbraith, JR (2000). Designing the Global Corporation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Galbraith, JR (2002). Designing Organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Gilmore, TN, & McCann, JE (1983). “Diagnosing Organizational Decision Making Through Responsibility Charting,” Sloan Management Review Goodman, RA (1967). “Ambiguous Authority Definition in Project Management,” Academy of Management Journal (December): 395-407. Goold, M, & Campbell, A (2002). Designing Effective Organizations: How to Create Structured Networks, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Hodgetts, RM (1968). “Leadership Techniques in the Project Organization,” Academy of Management Journal (June): 211-219. Joyce, WF (1986). “Matrix Organization: A Social Experiment,” Academy of Management Journal (Volume 29): 536-561. Kilmann, RH (1985). “Understanding Matrix Organization: Keeping the Dialectic Alive and Well.” In Contemporary Organizational Development,” Knight, K (1977). Matrix Management, New York: PBI. Kolodny, HF (1979). “Evolution to a Matrix Organization,” Academy of Management Review (Volume 4): 543-553. Bartlett, CA, & Ghoshal, S (1993). “Beyond the M-Form: Toward a Managerial Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (Winter): 23-46. Kramer, RJ (1994). “Organizing for Global Competitiveness: The Matrix Design,” Conference Board report no Bartlett, CA, & Ghoshal, S (1998). Managing Across Borders, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Larson, EW, & Gobeli, DH (1987). “Matrix Management: Contradictions and Insights,” California Management Review (Volume 29): 126-138. Burns, LR (1989). “Matrix Management in Hospitals: Testing Theories of Matrix Structure and Development,” Administrative Science Quarterly Lawrence, PR, Kolodny, HF, & Davis, SM (1977). “The Human Side of the Matrix,” Organizational Dynamics (Summer): 43-61. Burns, LR, & Whorley, DR (1993). “Adoption and Abandonment of Matrix Management Programs: Effects of Organizational Characteristics and Butler, AG (1973). “Project Management: A Study of Organizational Conflict,” Academy of Management Journal (Volume 16): 84-101. Chandler, AD (1962). Strategy and Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Corporate Strategy Board (1998). “Matrix Management in a Global Organization” (October): 071-195-665. Davis, SM, & Lawrence, PR (1977). Matrix, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Delbecq, AL, Van de Ven, AH, & Gustafson, DH (1986). Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal and Delphi Processes, Middleton, Denison, DR, Hart, SL & Kahn, JA (1996). “From Chimneys to Cross Functional Teams: Developing and Validating a Diagnostic Model,” Academy Lippitt, ME, & Mackenzie, KD (1976). “Authority-Task Problems,” Administrative Science Quarterly (December): 643-660. Overholt, MH (1997). “Flexible Organizations: Using Organizational Design as a Competitive Advantage,” Human Resource Planning (Volume 20): 22-32. Smith, HR (1978). “A Socio Biological Look at Matrix,” Academy of Management Journal (October): 922-926. Staw, BM, Sandelands, LE, & Dutton, JE (1981). “Threat-Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis,” Administrative Science Stopper, WG (1998). “Agility in Action: Picturing the Lessons Learned from Kodak and 23 Other Companies,” Human Resource Planning (Volume 21):