Matrix Organizational Chart

By merging functional and product organizational structures, the matrix produces a one-of-a-kind working environment.

It is appropriate for project-driven work assignments that demand the combined contribution of various specialists with diverse functional powers under the overall guidance of a project manager (Heijden, 2011).

Companies use this structure because of the benefits it provides.

Secondly, the matrix enables managers to select personnel and talents based on the demands of the present project. In addition, the organization gains a more dynamic perspective, as opposed to the usual static and inflexible scenario found in other organizational structures. Besides, this structure encourages and provides an opportunity for workers to make use of their skills in diverse capacities on top of their usual roles. Compared to other structures, the matrix enables a swift response to the dynamic market and technical requirements. Further, those in middle management can make trade-off resolutions based on an overall management perspective (Quinn & Cameron, 2011).

Challenges of the Matrix Structure

The companies that adopt the matrix structure also face some challenges, the first being difficulty in streamlining activities between departmental and project management. This is caused by the conflicts that may arise as the different departmental managers take control of the assignments with project managers (Martin, 2015). Often, organizations find themselves in a state of confusion where workers are unable to identify the “boss” to whom they are responsible. While it is common for managers to jockey for power in many firms, the matrix design encourages this as they all strive to take charge of projects. This results from mistaking matrix management with group decision-making. At the onset, the dual chain-of-command associated with this structure causes high overhead costs, though they are later replaced by productivity gains as the organization matures (Cohen & Bradford, 2017).

Behavior Changes needed to adopt the Structure

According to Galbraith (2008), organizational structures do not fail. Instead, management fails in ensuring the smooth implementation of the structures. Building a successful matrix organization requires aligned people, strategies, and processes. Given this, managers and employees need to adopt new behaviors for the system to work. As opposed to the traditional structures where individuals are independent, the matrix organizational requires interdependent behavior amongst its employees. They must also learn how to perform in cross-functional teams, with the primary focus being on processes and products as opposed to functional focus characteristic of traditional structures. Also, employees must adopt system thinking which involves consultations and checking with others, contrary to the conventional method of linear thinking characteristic of other structures (Sy & Cole, 2004).

For optimal output, managers in matrix organizations should learn how to use negotiation and influence with their employees.

This is contrary to using authority in traditional structures. Moreover, they must adopt a culture of empowering others, pushing decision-making processes to the lowest possible levels, and using collaborative as opposed to the directive approach to managing their staff (Sy & D’Annunzia, 2005).

Why is the Matrix Structure Appropriate as a formal Design Element of the Organization?

The matrix structure bases its operations on two dimensions, the vertical and horizontal. Its superiority above the traditional structures makes it a preferable method because it assumes that an organization is a system whose components (people and areas) are interdependent. Given this, the whole group is synonymous with the interaction of its parts mentioned above. Besides, this is the preferred structure because it promotes cooperation, which is most appropriate for the optimization of the organization. According to the Hannover Research (2013), the most important aspect of a company is team performance, a factor that is characteristic of this structure. Rather than huddle employees in departments based on their functions, the matrix organization gives room for the formation of groups around goals and products. This allows every employee to contribute to a cross-functional team founded on their expertise. With every employee reporting to two managers, functional and product, the structure promises optimal outcomes.

References

Cohen, A.R. & Bradford, D.L. (2017). Influence without Authority. John Wiley & Sons

Galbraith, J.R. (2008). Designing Matrix Organizations that Actually Work: How IBM. Proctor& Gamble and Others Design for Success. Wiley & Sons.

Hannover Research (2013). Best Practices in Matrix Organizational Structures. Hannover Research; District Administration Practice

Heijden, K. (2011). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. John Wiley & Sons

Martin, P. (2015). Matrix Management Reinvented: Book 1. The New Game in Town

Quinn, R.E. & Cameron, K.S. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework.

Sy, T. & Cote, S. (2004). Emotional Intelligence: A Key Ability to Succeed in the Matrix Organization. The Journal of Management Development. 23 (5/6); 240

Sy, T. & D’Annunzia, L.S. (2005). Challenges and Strategies of Matrix Organizations: Top Level and Mid-Level Managers. Human Resource Planning, 28 (1); 40