Organizational “silos” and the habits of thought and behavior that accompany silos too often stand in the way of cross-cutting collaboration. Today’s speed of business and the multidisciplinary problems that we are trying to solve leave most traditional hierarchies out of breath. People may move quickly but their organizations frequently struggle to keep up, resulting in staff frustration and fatigue. It’s like trying to solve digital problems with analog technology. As organizations take more multidisciplinary approaches to accomplishing work — many times virtually or through strategic alliances — matrix management presents a more viable option to traditional methods.
The sporadic formation and disbanding of cross-functional teams for a project does not constitute a matrix organization. Some people tell me that their organization has always operated on an informal matrix basis, where staff from different functions work together in cross-functional teams. Cross-functional teams are the building blocks of the matrix organization. Participation on such teams gives staff valuable experience in spanning boundaries and working with others from outside their discipline toward a shared goal using shared resources but it does not unleash the full potential power of your horizontal organization.
Indeed, more and more organizations are working through increasing numbers of multidisciplinary, or cross-functional, teams. When only a few such teams are operating at once, things are relatively manageable. However, a tricky dynamic gets unleashed when a significant number of resource-consuming cross-functional teams start competing with one another for talent, money, and infrastructure. In addition, when employees begin relating to one another vertically, horizontally, and diagonally, effective communication is even more difficult.
The network approach has expanded beyond the world of computers and cyberspace to the way we think about human organizations. Dee Hock, author of Birth of the Chaordic Age and other works, coined the term “adhocracies,” in referring new organizations where the relative absence of hierarchy and the fast connections permit the organization to get its work done in an agile way. The matrix affords more structure, role definition, and a set of rules for making decisions, allocating resources, and accomplishing tasks, and is an expression of a networked, rather than a rigidly hierarchical, way of doing things. Like our information technology systems, which rely on partners, alliances, and outsourcing, matrix management is a networked approach with defined roles, rules, and tools.
Organizations choose the matrix structure for one or more of the following reasons: Goal focus — improving the organization’s ability to accomplish high-impact goals; Speed — reducing the amount of time to accomplish cross-functional objectives; Ability to handle complexity — improving the ability to solve complex problems; Capacity utilization — ensuring the highest-and-best use of all human, financial, and infrastructural assets, such as equipment, plants, computers, fleet, etc.; and Creativity and organization learning — mixing disciplines and staff from diverse backgrounds to cultivate new thinking and to expand technical depth and breadth. Here are some other specific potential advantages to matrix management: A reduction in the number of organizational levels, resulting in a flattened hierarchy. An elimination of unnecessary work that fails to add value to the enterprise, particularly widespread “coordinative” and “checkers-checking-checkers” kind of work. An organization design based on processes that add genuine value, such as product development or order entry, rather than functions or departments that may become process-obsessed or narcissistic. A structure that brings focus and power to the management of change as well as expands agility. The use of management horizontally and diagonally so that the “white spaces” between traditional vertical lines are both managed and bridged. Organizational boundaries are reduced over time, resulting in economies as core processes are performed more efficiently and effectively. Greater professional-development opportunities afforded by meaningful interaction with other disciplines. Greater self-management and a wider job “wingspan,” or spectrum of work performed by jobs in the organization. Higher and better use of staff time and talent. Stark illumination of resource constraints with a corresponding requirement to set priorities in an explicit way. More rapid team-based elimination of work that fails to add value to the enterprise.
If some or all of these benefits are sufficiently motivating, you may wish to design and implement a matrix organization. This book will give you some concepts and tools to use on the way. However, be forewarned: The matrix cannot be “wished” into place. “Drive-by management” won’t make it happen either. The hard work of defining and negotiating how this structure should work simply cannot be avoided. Then, and only then, can the process of learning how to derive matrix management’s powerful benefits be pursued with lasting success.
The “matrix management” concept is not always fully understood. Some people talk about matrix management as “dotted-line relationships,” but, if you’ll notice, these folks rarely talk about what’s truly involved with a dotted-line relationship. Other people refer to matrix management as being “where one division loans out its employees to another division or to a project.” While each of these responses contains a grain of truth, neither tells the whole story.
Differing or unclear definitions of matrix management impede implementation success. Clarity is essential. Remember, organizational clarity is greatest at the top. So if you are at or near the top of your organization and things are unclear to you … well, you know the rest of the story. When an organizational change occurs, employees promptly ask, “What am I supposed to do differently?” Without clarity, that question won’t be answered and, as a result, employees will conclude that the French are right after all: “The more things change, the more they remain the same."
|