Revealing the matrix

28/1/2013

‘Unfortunately, no one can be told what the matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.’ (Morpheus, The Matrix. 1999)

The concept of matrix in organisations has been around for some time now but what does it look like in practice? Some describe it as collaborative working across functional boundaries. Some describe it as dual reporting relationships with a hard line to a functional lead and a dotted line to a project lead. Some describe it as a network of multiple reporting relationships, each with equal authority.

What has your experience of matrix been? How has it worked in practice? What has it felt like for those involved? What has it called for in terms of new styles of leadership, team working and personal effectiveness? What new culture, attitudes, approaches and skills has it required? What tensions has it created and how have you navigated them? What has most influenced its success?

If you were to offer three lines of advice on this topic, what would they be? I would love to hear your thoughts!

24 Comments

Fred Nickols link

28/1/2013 04:57:10 am

I worked in a matrix organization for 12 years. It is basically a means of sharing resources. Too much fuss is made about dual reporting relationships. It's no different than a consulting firm with multiple clients. The one where I was employed worked very well. As for three lines of advice, try these:

1. Your boss is your boss.
2. Your clients are your clients.
3. Don't confuse the two.

Nick Wright

28/1/2013 10:14:08 am

Hi Fred and thanks for the note. I liked your succinct advice and found the analogy of a consulting firm with multiple clients helpful. With best wishes. Nick

Florence Dambricourt

28/1/2013 07:43:19 am

Sometimes the art of using new words and expression to keep us thinking and working :-)

Nick Wright

28/1/2013 10:16:12 am

Hi Florence and thanks for the comment. Could you say more about what you had in mind? With best wishes. Nick

Bob McQueen

28/1/2013 09:25:58 am

I have experience managing on both side of the Matrix i.e. Project and Functional. The key question to ask and answer is “who is managing who?” and “what does this management involve?”.
My View is that no matter what your answer is you are thinking within a Management Paradigm from an age that should have passed. Processes deliver outputs and it is the process that needs to be managed. It is my view that the people who are doing the work need the knowledge, skills, attitude and information so they can use a “self-organizing” management approach. Facilitating this, monitoring progress and resolving issues the process team needs help with is the role of both Project and Functional management.
Why is the day to day management of “keeping things going” using a self-organizing approach a challenging to achieve. I leave the answer to you. However when it is achieved it enables manages to have the space to conceive and achieve “new things”

Nick Wright

28/1/2013 10:20:26 am

Hi Bob and thanks for the note. It sounds like the approach you are describing involves self-managing teams with project or functional managers being available to oversee, resource, facilitate, problem-solve etc. if the teams encounter issues or difficulties they are unable to resolve for themselves. Have I understood you correctly? With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Ian Gray

28/1/2013 10:45:58 am

The key thing I have found is to get the approach and agreements in place up front (using a RASCI or other model). The key to the success has been that this process clarifies expectations and understanding between the different parties, not to have a document to hit each other over the head with. Having done this, I have not had to go back to them again. As some of the other posts have commented, clarity is key.

Nick Wright

28/1/2013 10:55:58 am

Hi Ian and thanks for the note. I like your emphasis on working to reach clarity, shared understanding and agreement between parties from the outset rather than simply relying on formal documentation. As you say, it clarifies expectations and releases the parties from risks of interference and micromanagement. With best wishes. Nick

Bob McQueen

28/1/2013 10:53:17 am

Hi Nick
You are on track. I have worked in Silicon Valley for many years as an engineering functional and project manager. For the past 20 years I have had the privilege of consulting and teaching in the performance improvement area. Companies I have worked with include Intel, HP, Cisco, Apple and Applied Materials. My consulting company has a counterpart in the UK The Organizational Learning Centre Europe.
All companies are trying to figuring out have best to compete and thus how best to manage their resources. The approach I described is my view on how to achieve high performance. The challenge is to understand the “soft capabilities” that underlie achieving high performance and then how to measure and build these capabilities throughout the organization. The “end in mind” is to establish a process management/partnership organization which manages daily work using self-organizing teams. Transforming a top down traditionally managed organization to a process based partnership organization is no easy chore. My view is that Traditionally Managed organizations that fail to make this transition are unlikely to survive in today’s increasingly competitive market place

Nick Wright

28/1/2013 11:03:14 am

Hi Bob and thanks for the note. It sounds like you have a lot of valuable experience in this area. Are you saying you would identify soft capabilities that support effective self-management within and between teams? Do you have any examples?

Also, would you be happy to share any examples of what a 'process management/partnership organisation' would be characterised by and doing in practice in contrast to a traditionally managed organisation? With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Robert Crosby

29/1/2013 11:17:57 am

My book, "Solving the Cross-work Puzzle" is about Matrix Management. We will soon publish an instrument with 42 questions which measure matrixed work including project mg'ment and product development. I could send you the first 10 Q's by Email.

Nick Wright

29/1/2013 11:19:45 am

Hi Robert and thanks for your kind offer. I'd very much like to see the questions. My email address is info@nick-wright.com. With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Cyril Dunworth

29/1/2013 11:18:41 am

My esteemed colleagues at T-Space penned a piece called Mastering the Matrix which can be seen here http://ebookbrowse.com/mastering-the-matrix-doc-d219187240

Nick Wright

29/1/2013 11:26:03 am

Hi Cyril and many thanks for sharing the link to 'Mastering the Matrix'. I've just had a quick glance at the paper and it looks very helpful. With best wishes. Nick

Hilary Lines

30/1/2013 05:04:16 am

Hi Nick, thanks for your questions - it is a fascinating area. Much of my experience has been with coaching leaders in professional services businesses - and I have seen many instances where value has been lost because of the polarisation that inevitably occurs between the axes of the matrix. One of the core principles of effective leadership in complex organisations, in my view, is the ability to hold the space for creative tension at the polarity. This requires the individual leader to be 1) Aware of how they can engender creativity, how they might stop it, 2) Mentally and emotionally open to those whose goals run counter to their own, and 3) Willing to learn and grow from creative connection across the points of polarity and paradox. These ideas are developed in my book, about to be published, called, 'Touchpoint Leadership: creating collaborative energy across teams and organisation'. If you, or anyone, would like a copy of the Introductory chapter, I would be happy to send to you. hilary.lines@touchpointleaders.com

Nick Wright

30/1/2013 11:26:23 am

Hi Hilary and thanks for sharing such thoughtful comments. I really like the three conditions you described for effective leadership within a matrix environment. It reminded me of some of the ideas in Liz Wiseman’s book, ‘Multipliers’ (2010). I’d certainly be very interested to receive a copy of the introductory chapter from your new book so will send you an email. With best wishes. Nick

Benson Agoha MIPA

30/1/2013 04:53:17 pm

Nick, the concept of the Matrix Organisation has never been one for easy discussion. Yet it in practice and working. Actually, in reality, every `environment', whether it is business, educational, political, social, economic and even religious environment, has a matrix of a sort to it - and the challenge for us all is to analyize it, discover the void for you to fill and recognize when it is being encroached upon, ensuring that, clashes are avoided and that lines of inter-relationships are not just adherred to but also respected.

The matrix organisation can easily be described when we view the working partnership within a University system that operates a seperated, but associated open-learning faculty. Despite inter-departmental exchanges and co-operations, lines and boundaries are known, recognised and respected, avoiding clashes and breakdown of the system.

Nick Wright

30/1/2013 04:57:28 pm

Hi Benson and thanks for the note. It sounds like you are saying it's important to recognise the matrix as an organisational system, to make the system explicit and to ensure that boundaries and communication lines are clear and respected. That's good advice. With best wishes. Nick

Steve Wood

31/1/2013 01:40:14 am

In so many of these situations, I feel we adopt frameworks and organisational models and miss the all important (and often time consuming) task of creating teams. This is the all important process in my experience - the taking of a bunch of individuals with different roles, responsibilities, ways of working and objectives and turning them into a team who share a common goal and will move heaven and earth to achieve it. Of course that needs to be supported by strong project or matrix management models but that's exactly what they are - a support. Get it right and you'll have strong levels of trust and accountability whilst still leaving room for strategic and creative tension, even conflict at times. But it's the creation and holding together of that team which will always, in my experience, be the difference between success and failure.

Nick Wright

31/1/2013 09:14:46 am

Hi Steve and thanks for sharing such inspiring insights. Your emphasis on team development certainly resonates with my own experience of working in cross-functional project teams. Where investment has been made in team relationships and shared understanding up front and on route, especially where team members didn’t know each other or hadn’t worked together in this way previously, it has made a significant difference in terms of e.g. energy, trust, robust conversations, creativity and collaborative working. Conversely, when teams have leapt straight into task mode, they have spent significantly more time subsequently on fire fighting and problem-solving issues within the team, especially when faced with pressured deadlines or other challenges that can create stress. With best wishes. Nick

Benson Agoha MIPA

1/2/2013 09:09:42 pm

The matrix is a complex organisational arrangement and in fact, most conglomerates with self-accounting associate businesses are matrix oriented. Though each group would have its ceo and his subordinates, when lines of communication cross or when a department from one organisation has dealings with the next, it is often necessary that each head recognizes when to play the follower.

In my earlier post, I sighted the University system where, one academic might find himself playing student to another lecturer much junior to him in the overall organisational structure. Yet, for that purpose and at that point in time, he has to play the follower.

What do you think Nick?

Nick Wright

1/2/2013 09:39:07 pm

Hi Benson and thanks for the additional comments. I found your comments on leadership and followership helpful. It brings 'job' (e.g. functional expertise) and role (e.g. leader or follower) into the same frame, with the latter depending on specific initiatives (e.g. projects or programmes).

It raises interesting questions about, for instance, (a) what leadership and teamworking attitudes, mindsets and abilities are required to make this fluid way of working successful and (b) how, where and by whom conflicts for resources are addressed and resolved.

If different programmes want to draw on the same people or other critical resources at the same time, where, how and by whom in your experience are such conflicts resolved: e.g. by leadership at a macro-organisational level or by managers/practitioners at a local level...or both?

The former would require a very clear, shared view of organisational priorities and timeframes at a senior leadership level and a willingness to collaborate to achieve them; the latter would require clarity about organsational priorities, delegated authority and good influencing and negotiating skills at a local level.

I would be interested to hear any examples of how you've seen this work out in practice, e.g. in the university context. What happened, what were the underlying issues, how were they addressed, what happened as a result etc. With best wishes. Nick

Benson Agoha MIPA

5/2/2013 11:39:59 am

It certainly does. Large organisations with multiple projects often have matrix structures. There, we find combination of both product and functional structures and the use of teams of employees. And as you pointed out, we resources to serve competing crossroads, different challenges usually arise.

Unfortunately, I am a little tonguetied and won't mention specific organisations here. Still the University environment provides a lot of insight into understanding the matrix structure, with academic staff having to serve or teach in different departments across different faculties. Indeed, as in every organisations conflicts do occure. And resolutions often stem from analysing it from each micro-setup in context with the macro one.

It is not uncommon for meetings to be summoned for resolution conflicts and as I suggested earlier on, the easier method is for everyone to be fully aware of his position first within his micro environment and, contextually speaking, also at the macro level. There again, there might exist an established code of conduct or ethics of particularly professions, all of which are sometimes reasons for conflicts. Resolutions also will take these into account.

Statements like "Don't forget you are talking to the Assistant Manager" and a challenging respose like "Don't forget you are talking to a Medical Doctor" are positions whose resolution may have to be handled at the macro level.

When emphases on hierarchy are nullified by established code or ethics or specific fields, hardline positions may be rife, but in the end objective reason takes eminence.

William (Doc) Holiday

5/2/2013 11:40:59 am

Priorities!