Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Matrix organization implies a mixed organizational form in which traditional vertical hierarchy is overlaid by a horizontal structure consisting of projects, products, and business subsidiaries or geographical areas.

The key characteristic of a matrix organization is its multiple command structures whereby employees experience dual or multiple lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability that distinguish it from the traditional one-boss principle in classical organizational design.

Many writers build upon the seminal work of Jay R. Galbraith, who represents the matrix organization as a mixed form along the continuum of a range of organizational design alternatives between the pure functional form and the pure product form. On one end of this continuum is the traditional hierarchical structure along functional lines such as research and development, production, and marketing. On the other end of the continuum is the pure product organization that is set up under a product manager.

The matrix never applies to an entire organization. Matrix structures are mainly suitable for temporary projects that are scheduled to be completed within designated cost, time, and performance standards. Classical matrix design is specified by the choice of authority structure, integrating mechanisms such as teams, and by the formal information system. Matrix structures can be thought of as coordinative devices that ideally blend the program orientation of project staff with the specialty orientation of functional personnel in a synergistic relationship. Research and experience from companies that revert from matrix to traditional structures show that it is challenging and complex for organizations to adopt matrix structures, because processes and cultures must also be concordant with the matrix design.

Most organizations, especially contemporary multinational firms, exhibit some matrix overlays due to the complexity of the international business process. For example, in multinational companies, one variation of the matrix is the global matrix structure—a popular means of organizing documented in the global business strategy and international management literature. Multinational companies introduce global matrices to enable coordination and integration of geographically dispersed activities. Equal lines of authority for product groups and for geographic divisions are established to balance the benefits produced by geographic and product structures and to coordinate a mixture of product and geographic subunits. Geographic divisions focus on national responsiveness, and product divisions concentrate on finding global efficiencies, and ideally this approach is a means of achieving global coordination and local responsiveness.

Conceptual Overview

The matrix design developed primarily during the U.S. aerospace program in the 1960s, where highly sophisticated project coordination required it to meet constraints of cost to the taxpayers. The term was supposedly coined by engineers who wanted to describe this evolution in project management. Matrix structures continue to be adopted by government labs, professional firms, banks, and health care agencies in the United States and multinational companies.

Matrix organization attracted much attention in the 1970s when the pioneering works on it were written. There have been plenty of lists, tables, and anecdotal stories of the merits and disadvantages of matrix or cross-functional structures, and only a few of these are empirically based. Over time, they have become commonly accepted as definitive. Summarizing these, the main advantages include increased frequency of communication in the organization; an increase in the amount of information the organization can handle; flexibility in the use of human and capital resources; increased motivation, job satisfaction, commitment, and personal development; and heightened ease in achieving technical excellence within the organization. The demerits of this type of organizing, as critics point out, are that the matrix creates ambiguity about resources and personnel assignments, organizational conflict between functional and project managers, conflict among individuals who must work together but have very different backgrounds, and insecurity for functional managers and erosion of their autonomy, making it more costly in terms of overhead and staff, more meetings, delayed decisions, and information processing.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading