Matrix management
Matrix management is an organizational structure that emerged in the late twentieth century, designed to enhance flexibility and responsiveness in large businesses. Unlike traditional line management, which is hierarchical and linear, matrix management utilizes multiple, often overlapping teams that focus on specific projects. This approach allows companies to leverage employee skills across various projects while maintaining accountability to both a primary manager and project leaders. The adaptability of matrix management is particularly beneficial in dynamic environments where businesses must juggle multiple objectives and quickly respond to changing customer needs.
However, while matrix management offers several advantages, such as increased problem-solving capacity and resource sharing, it can also pose challenges. Employees may experience confusion due to conflicting demands from different supervisors, and the complexity of the system can overwhelm them if not properly managed. Additionally, matrix management is typically more suited for temporary projects rather than long-term objectives. Overall, this structure reflects a shift towards valuing employee versatility and collaboration in achieving business goals, but it requires careful implementation to avoid its potential pitfalls.
On this Page
Matrix management
Matrix management is a type of organizational structure that developed and became globally common in the late twentieth century. The matrix structure differs from traditional business structures because it is formed of multiple, temporary, and sometimes overlapping teams of managers and employees. These teams focus on different business projects meant to increase business flexibility and service to customers. Matrix management, when used properly in suitable situations, can allow businesses to solve problems in new ways and better distribute the abilities of their employees. However, many critics of this management style feel it can be confusing or overwhelming to employees and, if misused, may stifle work productivity.
Background
People have formed businesses and other organizations for thousands of years. The most basic organizational model, and the first to develop, was the line management structure. In the simplest version of this structure, one person serves as the leader, holding the greatest power. Below the leader are one or more employees who follow the leader’s rules and requirements. This structure served well for small shops of all kinds, often staffed by a skilled craftsperson in charge of one or more apprentices.
Over time, as businesses grew, modifications added new layers to the line management structure. In more complex forms, this structure may have several leaders or a whole board of directors. Below them may be managers or other company officers with lesser, but still significant, amounts of power. These officers, in turn, serve as leaders to employees. In this way, the system becomes more complicated but better distributes both power and responsibility.
However, in modern times, the line management system began to show its flaws. Line management usually works best with a single company function and a single supply of resources. Huge modern companies using this system may struggle to complete multiple projects at the level of diversity, speed, and quality required in many fields today. They may also struggle to change or diversify the focus of their company, which happens frequently in some sectors.
These companies sought a new method by which they could share resources and empower separate but cooperating work teams to complete their required projects with maximum efficiency. In the late twentieth century, businesses began departing from line management and experimenting with a new system, known as matrix management. Soon, matrix management became a common feature of large businesses worldwide.
Overview
In the later decades of the 1900s, matrix management increasingly spread among organizations. This management structure seemed well suited to the new demands on businesses to meet many goals and carry out many projects simultaneously, actions that would be very difficult for a standard line management system to accomplish. The projects undertaken by matrix groups can take all forms, but generally, they are temporary groups working on specific temporary tasks to bring changes and meet the changing needs of customers.
Although it may take many forms, in general, matrix management is used to share employees and other crucial resources across different projects, departments, and company functions. Each employee answers to a primary leader for overall company matters while also working for one or more project managers. In a matrix management system, an employee might work with and report to many bosses in a single day or project.
Matrix systems can apply to organizations with a variety of structures. These structures reflect the beliefs, goals, and activities of the organization. Some businesses have “tall” structures with many hierarchical levels of power, organized vertically. Others are “flat,” with one leader overseeing many separate groups with equal power, organized horizontally. Some structures are centralized, or built around one strong leader or group of leaders. Others are decentralized, spreading authority more broadly among groups.
In general, matrix management combines traditional line management with other project management methodologies. Employees must take on line responsibilities to satisfy their overall bosses while also taking on project responsibilities to satisfy their various project managers. That way, valuable employees can use their skills and efforts for a variety of business goals. The matrix structure may change occasionally or even frequently based on shifting business trends and goals.
Matrix management is based on the idea that employees are the most valuable resource of a business. In modern times, one employee may have a wide range of abilities. Instead of tying that employee into one role and one task, matrix management shares employees between company functions. For example, a worker might work as a computer programmer within the line management of a company. At the same time, they might be a quality checker on Project A, a co-manager of Project B, and a researcher on Project C. Tasks and work demands would shift as needed.
When properly implemented, matrix management can benefit an organization in many ways. Dividing a business’s workload into related but separate projects can create a significant amount of flexibility. Temporary project teams can be assembled and disassembled as needed. Adding team members with different visions and skills can bring valuable elements to a project and allow teams to approach and solve problems in ways a linear organization might not. Project team schedules and budgets are also usually easier to monitor and regulate than those of an entire company.
Matrix management also has several downsides that organizations must consider before implementing a plan. When adopting a matrix system, a common issue is the confusion and stress that can result from conflicting or competing demands from multiple leaders. If leaders fail to properly communicate and align their goals and priorities for the project, employees may be pressured to prioritize two full-time tasks. As employees become increasingly overwhelmed with the impossible task of meeting the expectations of two supervisors, their work performance suffers, and their motivation decreases. An improperly developed matrix may also harm team members’ individual sense of accountability and allow employees or managers to pass along or neglect their responsibilities. Sometimes, this results from poor communication of each person’s duties. Outlining goals and responsibilities on an individual level, even to a small degree, can improve accountability and motivation. Employees should know who they report their work progress to and what progress should be accomplished daily or weekly. Additionally, implementing specific and actionable performance evaluation criteria and modifying them when necessary can help guide individual performance.
Bibliography
Bartlett, Christopher A., and Sumantra Ghoshal. “Matrix Management: Not a Structure, a Frame of Mind.” Harvard Business Review, July–Aug. 1990, hbr.org/1990/07/matrix-management-not-a-structure-a-frame-of-mind. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025.
Bazigos, Michael, and Jim Harter. “Revisiting the Matrix Organization.” McKinsey & Company, Jan. 2016, www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/revisiting-the-matrix-organization. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025.
Bhalla, Vishal, et al. "How to Make Your Matrix Organization Really Work." MIT Sloan Management Review, 17 Nov. 2022, sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-make-your-matrix-organization-really-work. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025.
Frasier, Ben. "Surviving in the Matrix: How Leaders Can Build Relationships in Complex Org Structures." Society for Human Resource Management, 15 Apr. 2023, www.shrm.org/executive-network/insights/surviving-matrix-how-leaders-can-build-relationships-complex-org-structures. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025.
Logemann, Robert. "Managing for Success in a Matrix Organization." Forbes, 15 Sept. 2023, www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/09/15/managing-for-success-in-a-matrix-organization. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025.
"Matrix Management: Definition, Advantages and How It Works." Indeed, 16 Aug. 2024, www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/matrix-management. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025.
Metcalfe, Dawn. Managing the Matrix: The Secret to Surviving and Thriving in Your Organization. Wiley, 2015.
Stuckenbruck, Linn C. “The Matrix Organization.” Project Management Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 3, Sept. 1979, www.pmi.org/learning/library/matrix-organization-structure-reason-evolution-1837. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025.