The Failure of Matrixed Organizations
If you’re unfamiliar with the term “Matrixed Organization”, consider yourself lucky. In the interest of “agility”, many companies have adopted this structure - at their peril.
Matrixed Organizations:
* Arranged in a grid rather than a hierarchy
* Employees accountable to multiple bosses via two or more separate chains of command
* Responsibility for a given deliverable distributed across several directors
Matrixed organizations promised open communication between teams, facilitation of innovation, and reduced need for realignment for each new project. They have failed to deliver.
People, let’s stop the madness, shall we? This way of arranging an organization runs entirely counter to the goal of agility. Here’s why:
a) Matrixed Organizations exacerbate staffing issues.
In Matrixed Organizations individuals report to multiple leaders. Let’s pause right there. See the absurdity? In a time when companies are struggling to recruit enough individual contributors, they’re pivoting toward more “bosses” directing the activities of fewer “do-ers”. Matrixed Organizations exacerbate staffing issues!
b) Matrixed Organizations muddy accountability.
Giving someone more than one manager instantly results in a lack of clarity on their true priorities. People are either pulled in multiple directions, or left floating aimlessly. When people are given conflicting instructions, or don’t know what’s expected of them, it leads to chaos - progress isn’t made and frustration runs high. It’s a fatal flaw – Matrixed Organizations by their very nature undercut one of the most fundamental management principles – people must have clear goals. Matrixed Organizations muddy accountability!
c) Matrixed Organizations slow decision-making.
Establishing multiple middle and senior managers with overlapping spheres dramatically bogs down the decision-making process. With no one quite sure who is empowered to make a given call, but simultaneously no one wanting to miss a chance to weigh in and influence each outcome, even the simplest decisions take forever (if they can be made at all). Teams spend much more time getting buy in on every little thing, even when consensus is not needed. Matrixed Organizations slow down decision-making!
Matrixed Organizations are a failed experiment and it’s time to pull the plug. The idealized vision of overlapping departments functioning harmoniously is fundamentally flawed. By setting up top-heavy org. charts, obfuscating roles and responsibilities, and bogging down the decision-making process, the Matrixed Organization makes staffing more challenging, managing more difficult, and decision-making slower. Want a nimble, agile organization? Time to leave the Matrix for the real world.
Networking and communication build and sustain the relationships that make business work. Avoid these bad habits immediately or people will dislike you immediately.
Mastering these 5 missing skills quickly maximizes your productivity and influence, which in turn enhances both job security and advancement potential.
I explained the goal in designing any component. Overly tight specifications would make it harder to find suppliers and would drive up costs. The engineer's entire approach changed.
Preparing for a presentation is vital in enabling team members to convey critical points, and influence outcomes with customers. Here are the steps involved.
When customer tensions rise, the right approach can turn friction into collaboration. At CAEDENCE, we call it the 3C’s: Calm, Clarify, Control. Here's more detail.
Will AI Replace Direct Customer Communication? Absolutely Not! In an age of chatbots and algorithms, the highest-impact discussions still happen person-to-person.
B2B customer relationships are not a breeze. We’ve navigated hundreds of challenging accounts and distilled five secrets that consistently turn friction into forward progress.
Ever notice how a quick fix from the top can feel like a shortcut, but it ends up stunting your team’s growth? When managers rush to answers, they inadvertently affect team development.
Over the years we’ve been exposed to Six Sigma, Juran, Deming PDCA, 8D, Dale Carnegie, A3, Shainin, and more. Each technique works pretty well, and has been demonstrated many times in a wide variety of industries and circumstances. At the core they are all essentially the same!
Each approach relies on an underlying logical flow that goes like this: [a] make sure the problem is clearly defined; [b] be open to all sources of information; [c] vet the information for relevance and accuracy; [d] use the process of elimination to narrow down all possible causes to the most likely few; [e] prove which of the suspects is really the cause of the issue; [f] generate a number of potential solutions; [g] evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility and risk of the potential solutions; [h] implement the winning solution(s); and [i] take steps to make sure your solution(s) don’t unravel in the future.
The differences between the paradigms resides in supplementary steps and toolkits. For example, 8D contains the important “In
Your team is marching through the tools of your company's chosen problem-solving approach. This is time not spent on growing your business or delivering cost reductions. Yet your customers are suffering, and they're not shy about letting you know it! Why isn't it working?
