matrix organization

1. Challenges and Strategies of Matrix
Organization
By
Thomos Sy. College of Business Administration California State University
Laura Sue D’Annumzio, A.T. kearney Inc

2. INTRO
 Interest in Matrix Org reaches its peak during 1970’s to 1980’s
 Adopt as viable alternative to deal with complex business in
aerospace, automobile, banking, chemical, communication,
computer, defense, electronics, financial energy.
 Need for information on challenges and best practices.
 Focus on human side(managing and operations) instead its
structure, as its results may b actionable

3. OVERVIEW OF MATRIX
Organizational structure that allows to address multiple business
dimensions using multiple command structure.
emerged in aerospace in 1960
Forms of Matrix
Functional matrix
Balanced matrix
Project Matrix

4. Strengths Weaknesses
 Leverage vast resources while  Authority not equal to
staying small and task oriented responsibility
 Focus on multi business goals  Every one has one boss
 Innovative and fast action for  Ambiguity and conflict
those who know how to use it  Increase cost for new
 Enhance personal skills management
 Increase Flow of info through
lateral communication channels

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 Current research Based upon author’s Work
 But primary based upon surveys, interviews, workshops with
294 mid level and top level managers of 7 Major US based
Corporations in Six industries
 Duration in matrix Structure 3 to more than 20 years n either
in initial stages
 Revenue is 70 billion$, 170,000 employees,
 42 participants from each company with tenure 13.4 years.

6. APPROACHES IN DATA COLLECTION
1st phase send a survey to participants to identify major
challenges and best practices
2nd phase an in depth case study with North American
automobile manufacturer for deeper study

7. MANAGING IN MATRIX
Five major challenges in matrix
 Misaligned goals
 Unclear roles and responsibility
 Ambiguous authority
 Lack of matrix guardian
 Silo focused employees
Compare views of top level and middle level managers

8. MISALIGNED GOALS
 Work in different dimension
 47% mid level managers and 6% top management
 Used 5-point likert scale to check frequency
 Top level managers(M=3.97, SD .91)
 Middle level managers(M=2.55, SD 1.00)

9. MISALIGNED GOALS
Issues
 Competing or conflicting objectives
 Inadequate process to align and deduct
 Lack of coordination,
 Poor timing of work plans and objectives
 Conflict in functional objective and regional requirement
(training req, permission from HR)(inc incentive by PM less
profit for Brand M)

10. MISALIGNED GOALS
Strategies
Cascading Goals Horizontally and vertically
Communicate constantly objectives to employees minimize
discord

11. UNCLEAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
83% mid level 23% top level managers
Mid level(M 3.24, SD 1.21)
Top level (M 2.16, SD 1.08)

12. UNCLEAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Issues
 Unclear job description and guideline for role and
responsibility
 Create tension
 Confusion about boss
 Whom to contact for information
 Constant shifting create uncertainty
 Poor planning (transition to matrix organization unclear
responsibilities of middle level)

13. UNCLEAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Strategies
Clear guideline on role and responsibilities
Assignment of accountability
Single point for information and approval
Plan for communication and information sharing(monthly meeting)
RASIC(responsible, Approve, Support, Informed, Consulted)

14. AMBIGUOUS AUTHORITY
Leaders have responsibility without authority as dual reporting
structure
62% middle level, 71% top level
Top level managers(M 3.97, SD 1.05)
Middle level managers(M 3.79, SD 1.12)

15. AMBIGUOUS AUTHORITY
Issues
 Confusion over final authority
 Lack of clarity of area of accountability
 Delay in decision making process
 Leaders don’t share decision rights

16. AMBIGUOUS AUTHORITY
Strategies
 Culture plays crucial role(in collaborative focus on solution, in
political focus on maintenance of status)
 Negotiation and persuasion skills required
 Decentralized decision making

17. MATRIX GUARDIAN
Lack of performance measures of matrix
Middle level manager 35%, top level managers 91%
Top level manager(M 3.17, SD 1.02)
Middle level manager(M 2.26, SD .99)

18. MATRIX GUARDIAN
Issues
 Lack of consequences and rewards for performance matrix
fail to motivate employees
 Lack of monitoring systems

19. MATRIX GUARDIAN
Strategies
 Establish monitoring process to deduct and identify matrix
performance
 Ensure matrix guardian have approach and authority
 Preserving undue political pressure

20. SILO-FOCUSED EMPLOYEES
 Employee view their loyalty belongs to certain subunit.
 Mid level 72% top level 69%
 Top level (M 3.83, SD 1.15)
 Middle level(M 4.08, SD 1.13)

21. SILO-FOCUSED EMPLOYEES
Issues
 Personal conflict b/w leaders delay collaboration
 Withholding resources from others
 insufficient communication b/w business units
Two reasons of this behavior
 Employee reside in same function throughout careers
 Matrix require more collaboration then traditional and
employees are not trained for that

22. SILO-FOCUSED EMPLOYEES
Strategies
 Define expectations
 Provide training
 Work across functions
 Build relationship