Answer:
The fundamental difference between effective and less effective matrix organizations is whether the tension between different perspectives is creative or destructive. While various processes, systems and tools can help, what matters most is what top leadership says and does and how that flows through the organization in shared targets, clear accountabilities, live team interactions and team-building transparency and behaviors.
Getting matrix management right is linked inextricably to an organization’s culture - the only sustainable competitive advantage. Key components of a culture can be grouped into behaviors, relationships, attitudes, values and the environment.
Environment and values: Each organization has its own environment, context and bedrock values. Everyone needs to know what matters and why. Don’t try to do anything else until you’ve got that set.
Attitude is about choices: An organization’s overall strategy drives choices about which of its parts will be best in class (superior), world class (parity), strong (above average), or simplified/outsourced to be good enough. These choices help determine the need for a matrix and how best to design it.
Relationships and behaviors: This is why organizations have matrices. The most effective of them best balance focus and collaboration. They allow leaders and teams to build differential strengths and then work together to make the best possible decisions and scale enterprises with a creative tension that they could not do on their own.
My colleague Joe Durrett has worked all sides of matrix organizations in marketing at Procter & Gamble, sales and general management at Kraft General Foods and CEO of Information Resources, Broderbund Software and Advo. He has seen matrices at their best and at their worst and offered his perspective for this article along with his partners John Lawler and Linda Hlavac. The 12 ways to make matrix organizations more effective were built on their ideas.
Explanation:
