Matrix organizations
(→Abstract) |
(→Abstract) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Abstract == | == Abstract == | ||
| − | + | A matrix organization utilizes matrix management as its primary organizational structure. Within such an organization, employees have dual reporting relationships and thus report along two central chains of command. Typically, these are represented by a chain of functional value and another representing a project, product, client or market. <ref name=''stuckenbruck''>Stuckenbruck, L. C. (1979). ''The Matrix Organization''. Project Management Quarterly, 10(3), 21–33</ref> Within a matrix organization, an employee is associated with a functional manager and a project manager. While the functional manager is responsible for the expertise and technical skills of the employees, the project manager is responsible for delivering targeted project outcomes by utilization of those skills. In this manner, the titular matrix is comprised by the various intersections along the two chains of command. Matrix management differs from the similar multidimensional management style, in which many simultaneous dimensions are considered beyond the functional and e.g. client-oriented ones. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | A matrix organization utilizes matrix management as its primary organizational structure. Within such an organization, employees have dual reporting relationships and thus report along two central chains of command. Typically, these are represented by a chain of functional value and another representing a project, product, client or market.<ref name=''stuckenbruck''>Stuckenbruck, L. C. (1979). ''The Matrix Organization''. Project Management Quarterly, 10(3), 21–33</ref> Within a matrix organization, an employee is associated with a functional manager and a project manager. While the functional manager is responsible for the expertise and technical skills of the employees, the project manager is responsible for delivering targeted project outcomes by utilization of those skills. In this manner, the titular matrix is comprised by the various intersections along the two chains of command. Matrix management differs from the similar multidimensional management style, in which many simultaneous dimensions are considered beyond the functional and e.g. client-oriented ones. | + | |
Due to the dual reporting relationship of each employee, the exact organizational form varies depending on the balance of power between the two managers. This balance is described from the perspective of the project manager, and can be either weak, balanced or strong, depending on the amount of authority they hold over the project compared to that of the functional manager. | Due to the dual reporting relationship of each employee, the exact organizational form varies depending on the balance of power between the two managers. This balance is described from the perspective of the project manager, and can be either weak, balanced or strong, depending on the amount of authority they hold over the project compared to that of the functional manager. | ||
| − | The structure of a matrix organization is intended to address the requirements for companies that operate in dynamic and otherwise complex market environments—examples of which | + | The structure of a matrix organization is intended to address the requirements for companies that operate in dynamic and otherwise complex market environments—examples of which could be product development companies or consultancy firms. The matrix-structured approach provides an inherent flexibility by allowing internal projects to utilize the expertise of all available functional areas within the organization. This enables companies to produce rapid results without the need to realign between each project, as well as the possibility of running many different and unrelated projects in parallel. |
Whilst there are many benefits to matrix organizations, their structural complexity may sometimes lead to coordination issues or internal conflict—especially in the cases where the managerial balance has not been clearly defined. | Whilst there are many benefits to matrix organizations, their structural complexity may sometimes lead to coordination issues or internal conflict—especially in the cases where the managerial balance has not been clearly defined. | ||
Revision as of 21:51, 9 May 2023
Created by Martin Sorensen
Contents |
Abstract
A matrix organization utilizes matrix management as its primary organizational structure. Within such an organization, employees have dual reporting relationships and thus report along two central chains of command. Typically, these are represented by a chain of functional value and another representing a project, product, client or market. [1] Within a matrix organization, an employee is associated with a functional manager and a project manager. While the functional manager is responsible for the expertise and technical skills of the employees, the project manager is responsible for delivering targeted project outcomes by utilization of those skills. In this manner, the titular matrix is comprised by the various intersections along the two chains of command. Matrix management differs from the similar multidimensional management style, in which many simultaneous dimensions are considered beyond the functional and e.g. client-oriented ones.
Due to the dual reporting relationship of each employee, the exact organizational form varies depending on the balance of power between the two managers. This balance is described from the perspective of the project manager, and can be either weak, balanced or strong, depending on the amount of authority they hold over the project compared to that of the functional manager.
The structure of a matrix organization is intended to address the requirements for companies that operate in dynamic and otherwise complex market environments—examples of which could be product development companies or consultancy firms. The matrix-structured approach provides an inherent flexibility by allowing internal projects to utilize the expertise of all available functional areas within the organization. This enables companies to produce rapid results without the need to realign between each project, as well as the possibility of running many different and unrelated projects in parallel.
Whilst there are many benefits to matrix organizations, their structural complexity may sometimes lead to coordination issues or internal conflict—especially in the cases where the managerial balance has not been clearly defined.
Fundamental overview
Matrix organizations are designed to facilitate cross-functional collaboration and improve organizational agility. They are based on the idea that traditional functional structures can create silos and hinder innovation, while project-based structures can be inflexible and lead to duplication of effort. By combining these two approaches, matrix organizations can leverage the strengths of both while mitigating their weaknesses. [2]
Known use cases
Philips, Consultancy firms, aerospace engineering
Application
Matrix organizations are particularly useful in complex environments where multiple functions or departments need to work together to achieve a common goal. They are often used in project-based industries such as construction, software development, and aerospace, as well as in multinational corporations with diverse product lines and geographically dispersed teams. Successful implementation of a matrix structure requires clear communication channels, well-defined roles and responsibilities, and strong leadership.
Project, program and portfolio management
Multinational corporations
Innovation and agility
Implementation and maintenance
Limitations
Although matrix organizations offer a range of substantial benefits within the categories of innovation, management, and collaboration, the structure may also result in communication-related issues. These issues may encompass substantial risks, within coordination between departments and the overall power dynamics of the organization in question. Some studies suggest that a matrix organisational structure may in some cases particularly affect coordination in situations where there is a lack of clarity surrounding the division of decision-making roles within the organisational hierarchy. The specific context of the implementation, as well as the goals of the organization should therefore be considered in comparison to the general benefit that the matrix-divided decision structure can provide. A strategy to understand and mitigate risks associated with the implementation of a matrix organisational structure is to continuously monitor the effectiveness of decision-making and task management over time.
Power Struggles and Role Ambiguity
Implementing a matrix organization can be challenging, and it is important to carefully consider the specific context and goals of the organization before doing so. Some of the key challenges that can arise in matrix organizations include communication and coordination difficulties, role ambiguity, and power struggles. To address these challenges, organizations should establish clear communication channels, well-defined roles and responsibilities, and strong leadership. They should also invest in training and development to ensure that employees have the skills they need to work effectively in a matrix environment.
Communication issues
Issues with reporting
An overview of the various advantages and disadvantages can be seen in the tables below.
| Advantages[3] | Weak | Balanced | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resource efficiency | High | High | High |
| Project integration | Weak | Moderate | Strong |
| Discipline retention | High | Moderate | Low |
| Flexibility | Moderate | High | Moderate |
| Improved information flow | Moderate | High | Moderate |
| Improved motivation and commitment | Uncertain | Uncertain | Uncertain |
| Disadvantages[3] | Weak | Balanced | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power struggles | Moderate | High | Moderate |
| Heightened conflict | Low | Moderate | Moderate |
| Reaction time | Moderate | Slow | Fast |
| Difficulty in monitoring and controlling | Moderate | High | Low |
| Excessive overheard | Moderate | High | High |
| Experienced stress | Moderate | High | Moderate |
Annotated bibliography
References
- ↑ Stuckenbruck, L. C. (1979). The Matrix Organization. Project Management Quarterly, 10(3), 21–33
- ↑ Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization science, 7(5), 502-518
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Larson, E., & Gobeli, D. (1987). Matrix Management: Contradictions and Insights. California Management Review, 29, 126-138. https://doi.org/10.2307/41162135
