I am calling for a radical revision in the concept of matrix management. Multiple reporting lines, confusion over accountability, competing functional priorities, lack of role clarity, too many people involved in decisions, lack of support from senior managers….these are all complaints I have heard from managers stuck in matrix management systems.
In my experience these reporting structures hinder rather than help managers work effectively. Global organizations today are more complex and require accelerated decision making. I argue that reporting lines must be clear with a defined chain of command to avoid decisions based on political expediency. A matrix deliberately sets out to trade clarity for flexibility.
The politics surrounding dual solid lines, indirect functional reporting, and dotted line management all lead to additional layers of compromise and more challenges to decision making that managers don’t need. Moreover, these relationships can become more unworkable when there is distrust or competition at the level above.
I believe matrix management is overly complicated and unwieldy. Put yourself in a multiple matrix reporting structure with two solid lines, a functional dotted line manager and two global projects and I believe you are being mis-managed. This matrix forces a manager to choose between competing priorities. Dotted line managers should be totally eliminated in favor of building a network of strong senior management relationships.
I am recommending the traditional hierarchy as the optimal reporting structure for managers who work in today’s organizations. Let’s return to one set of priorities, clear chain of command, one performance rating and most important…an empowered manager!
As someone who has been both a manager and a subordinate in matrix management structures, I can say that it has its advantages and disadvantages. On the surface I agree with Mike Dean’s assessment that these reporting structures hinder rather than help managers work effectively, are more complex and trade clarity for flexibility. The added bureaucracies come from the need to educate and gain support from multiple lines of management for a given initiative. This is often very time-consuming and prone to significant concessions, resulting in delayed and diluted solutions.
That said, let’s not totally dismiss the virtues of this matrix structure. In some instances an organization can truly get two for the price of one. The same individual can perform similar functions and have similar responsibilities for multiple business lines and functions. From a political standpoint, two different line managers can enjoy the ownership of controls and analytics they require to manage, advise and/or approve a process, program or initiative. Sometimes these managers can represent groups that naturally challenge and balance each other. And, like it or not, corporate politics and bureaucracies are here to stay. If the occasional matrix management structure provides an efficiency within this environment, then it has its place. Just use it wisely and very selectively.
Mike, good points however I am not convinced that a matrix reporting relationship between two managers that “naturally challenge and balance each other” is a “win-win” for the person stuck between these two antagonists.