Working in The Matrix

I had dinner with Mr. Matrix.

His real name is Jim and he is VP of Manufacturing for a global company. We share a common trait: the desire to turn a plausible theory into a practical solution.

Jim's Matrix Insight

Somewhere between the second and third Tapas serving, I heard this:

"You know what really drives the success of a flat, matrix organization?"

Competency. A whole lot of competency.

(If you're a bit unfamiliar with matrix organizations, click here ).

Knowing what happens when Jim has an epiphany, I did the only reasonable thing under the circumstances and ordered another glass of Cabernet. Jim has made the matrix work for a lot of years in a number of different manufacturing and operational assignments. So I was inclined to listen.

Why Competency?

You probably know the pitfalls of matrices: serving two bosses, conflicts over priorities (and a whole lot more), fuzzy roles, and the paradox of increasing complexity while decreasing the hierarchy. So I've always focused on strong leadership and decision-making between the functional and executive managers. That's consistently proven to be a highly productive path.

Jim agrees. With this addition, however.

He has found it easy to work with and coach the leaders in that way. He's also discovered that when that doesn't lead to the right outcome, the issue is competency in the matrix. Here's why:

A matrix depends on highly collegial relationships within the organization. People need to inherently trust the expertise of others to get things done and to hand off tasks. Influence power vs. position power is the byword. In technical disciplines, it's nearly impossible to influence others without professional respect. And that comes from a recognition of professional competency by one's colleagues.

Take-away number 1: Spend time putting highly competent people into flat organizations. Or hire them. You'll have to backtrack and do it later so you might as well do it right the first time.

If Speed Is One of Your Goals, Then Slow Down

Competent people working on individual parts of a project will run with their piece of the action. But it's only a piece. As a result, you need to have brief check-in meetings regularly with the two leaders present in order to solve potential functional/executive conflicts in real time. If you don't, the problems will surface later when they are bigger; ownership and tempers begin to get in the way; and  you'll have to backtrack again. One step forward and two back don't help us with the speed thing.

Take-away number 2: Slow down and meet so you don't have to stop and argue.

What are your best tips for flat organizations? A lot of readers either work in, or consult to, companies that want less hierarchy and more speed. Here's an invitation to add your own "best practices" from personal experience.

Comments

[Tom Haskins]

Steve: I just finished reading Mindset by Carol Dweck (Thanks for the recommendation!) So I'd tweak what you're saying about competency in a matrix just a bit. If someone is already typecast as competent, there are going to be constant trust issues because these statues are going to be protecting their reputation, avoiding risks, acting like a finished product, and keeping learning to an absolute minimum. If they are becoming competent, a work in progress, using a growth mindset, - then they can be trusted and the matrix crossfire will work out it's problems.

Anyone on the front line of serving customers, clients, patients, students, subscribers or members is implicitly in a matrix. They report to the customer and their manager. They usually feel like they are caught in the middle and in danger of someone "shooting the messenger" when delivering a message from one to the other. If the manager and the customer both assume they are still learning, are in no position to already be right, and have no reputation to defend -- the wrinkles get smoothed out. On the other hand, if either has a fixed mindset, mayhem is a better word than matrix for the conflicted reporting relationships.

[RobynM]

I completely understand where Tom is coming from: if you assume everyone is competent in what you're expecting them to be competent in, you're bound to be disappointed and increase workplace anxiety. But going to the other extreme is viewing everyone from the git go as incompetent. That's not going to win many colleagues over. Can we find a middle place where we understand that everyone is competent in some things and still learning in others - regardless of their vertical or more global competencies? What would such a system look like, and how would it work?

[Jim Stroup]

Hi Steve,

This is a great subject, because the matrix structure in one form or another finds so many applications today. But for all the frustrations that can attend on its use, there is no substitute for overlaying a form of unity of command over it. Someone must be in charge. While I personally argue that we must look for leadership not from atop but from within the organization, we must nevertheless have clear command from above in order to release that leadership (and competence), and give it something to organize around.

However flat an organization is, that unity of command must be available as a resource for management and staff to evaluate and resolve the sort of difficulty you describe here. An outfit that uses the matrix system need not surrender that.

Although they often do, and that's the biggest problem. The next biggest - and possibly most prevalent - is the negative intra-organizational dynamics that can be set in motion among providing and hosting department heads - as well as provided staff - who develop concerns about how each others' members are being treated, or how their careers are being affected (for example, by routinely working outside of their own department, resulting in reduced familiarity with both their direct and project bosses, or the divided loyalties of the project boss between superior performance of a provided staff member and the development of that boss's own department members.

I would be interested in learning more about Jim's experience with this latter issue. How might he see his recourse to competence addressing this? This is also a part of what I get out of Tom's observations - especially the insightful reference to the matrix aspects of front-line employees.

Great topic - thanks for raising it!

[Steve Roesler]

Tom, Robyn, and Jim,

I think I'll do one response because you all added to each other's thoughts.

Tom has me thinking about the idea of competence becoming a static label. I think he's really onto something with the notion that if one is identified as competent, there is a human inclination to hold fast that gets in the way of adopting a learning approach to one's job/life. That's a really important distinction in addition to the idea that front-line people are always in a matrix. This may literally alter how I diagnose organizational issues from now on. Much appreciated.

Robyn hit on the key thing for me when it comes to competence: no one is competent at everything and, therefore, always has room to learn. This is in line with Tom's thinking.

Jim: "Matrix Jim's" favorite line is, "If I don't know who to beat up when something goes wrong, then we aren't clear enough on responsibilities." After the article on humor and teasing this may sound a bit jaded, but he does use that line with humor and a smile and it has become a rallying cry for increased clarity.

As for the divided loyalties, development issues, etc: We set up a system that actually works pretty well. Instead of waiting for the traditional semi-annual or annual performance review, everyone involved in supervising an employee gets together and offers an update on performance quarterly and, in some cases, more often--especially in project situations where the person is being shuttled about frequently. There is an agreed-upon set of assessment questions that everyone answers: solid line boss, dotted line boss(es), and x number of project colleagues.

Yes, this can be a bit time-consuming and intense; but it offers the matrixed people a thorough and honest evaluation as well as detailed insights regarding development.

[Jim Stroup]

Steve,

Thanks - that's good - an organization willing to pay the substantial extra investment in something that seems to go less directly to the bottom line, almost an imposition on everyone's time. They've clearly thought it through, also, with the skeleton structure for the sessions. I don't need to tell you this is far from universal. And I suppose that the functioning of this system also fares well or poorly according to how "Matrix Jim's" competence rule is followed.

Good - thanks again!

[Steve Roesler]

Jim,

It's not easy to keep this going. For the very reason you mentioned (not going directly to the bottom line) there is always a naysayer who wants to "nuke" it as an extraneous activity. Fortunately it has CEO support and he isn't budging.