#matrix management

View On WordPress

View On WordPress

All in the name of saving money - which so far is the only thing I am yet to see proof of...

View On WordPress

Faster, better, cheaper summarizes the top strategic priority for nearly every enterprise. That said, we can sometimes forget that achieving better and cheaper, let alone breakthrough innovation and differentiation, requires episodic changes in organizational and personal speed. Stated differently, we must sometimes slow down in order to speed up if we are to make quality and cost containment improvements. A single, chronic, unvarying speed is not appropriate to all circumstances. It seems to me that we too often set our velocity – organizationally and personally – calibrated to the velocity of incoming messages on our handheld device. This can result in an activity trap that is more mind-numbing than mindful.. Stated in vehicular terms, an automobile which only had one speed – apart from “stopped” – would either be hitting other vehicles or being hit by other vehicles all too often. Such collisions happen in organizations as well and yet many of us act surprised at the consequences of incessant racing.Matrix management success requires the ability to adjust speed deftly if only because cross-functional teams are sharing resources more intricately than in a siloed hierarchy. There’s a matching principle in finance, which requires that we match long-term financing with long-term debt.  There’s also a matching principle in accounting. That said, there’s a matching principle for management which is highly important in exercising leadership in a high-performance matrix organization. This matching principle is evidenced by and consistent with MBTI and other personality profile approaches and instruments. A practical, simplified view of these useful instruments is that there are times to be more task-focused than people-focused and vice versa.  Similarly, there are times to be caffeinated and there are times to be de-caffeinated. If the executive needs to be in an analytic mode, the correct flex is towards the de-caffeinated/task focused approach.  If we are coaching an employee to higher performance, we need to take a de-caffeinated/people-focused approach. If we are seeking the outer limits of innovation, we need “big sky” thinking that is caffeinated and a mix of tasks and people, with emphasis on bringing out people’s best thinking.  Finally, if we are prosecuting a sturdy and established agenda, the caffeinated task-focused approach generally works best. Deft leadership of the matrix organization requires that leaders flex their velocity and focus depending on the nature of the challenge.  This is true in a traditional hierarchy, but it is even truer in a well-tuned, more sensitive and interdependent matrix organization. One size doesn’t fit all, and one speed doesn’t either. It’s easy to forget this management matching principle at today’s speed of business but consider this: There are going to be times when you will be better off if you slow down now to speed up later.

This entry is written at the behest of a commenter’s suggestion that I expand on a previous blog entitled Matrix Gold: Mining for Synergy in Cross-Functional Teams. I appreciate the suggestion. In Matrix Gold, we explored matrix management benefits such as greater efficiency and productivity; discovery breakthroughs; and the widening of comfort zones.  There are at least three other kindred opportunities which warrant discussion. First, conscious pursuit of synergistic optimization should thwart inadvertent incompatibility between or among vertical functions.  In this way, we provide a solid foundation for maximizing vertical interoperability with respect to areas including but not limited to policy; procedure; systems; timing; and resource scheduling to name a few. If vertical integration doesn’t translate into vertical interoperability, what are we talking about?! Previously invisible, barely visible, or otherwise inexplicable frictions between or among verticals should be surfaced and resolved to optimize synergy.  More colloquially, if one vertical is driving on the left and another is driving on the right, there will be collisions.  There are plenty of examples where a lack of interoperability degenerates into interpersonal conflict or worse, avoidance of inter-vertical interaction at multiple levels – impersonal, interpersonal and personal to use Kofman’s useful framework from his book Conscious Business. Second, “mission creep” or “boundary creep” tendencies can be spotted early on when there is conscious focus on synergistic optimization.  Such mission or boundary creep  often does not emanate from ulterior motives such as “empire building;” instead such creep tends to emerge on the basis of evolving strategies, tactics, technologies, supplier relations, relations between R&D and manufacturing,  between Marketing and Production, and who knows what else. The organic adjustment of any organization to the cumulative effects of day-to-day intervertical transactions most often occurs on an   “unconscious,” sympodial basis.  At some point, crunchy implications for structural change “suddenly” burst into executive awareness usually occasioned by a critical incident.  The constant quest for synergy spots these developments early on: “Jurisdictional disputes” among verticals which are competing dysfunctionally with one another can be arrested through a thorough examination of vertical boundaries and how these boundary definitions affect the attainment of synergy now and in the projected future. The examination is often the cure itself inasmuch as it  provides a solid basis for transforming destructive tension into constructive tension. Third, and on a related note, opportunities for decreasing costs and increasing impact can be discovered when our pursuit of synergy reveals opportunities for appropriate boundary adjustments to a given vertical or verticals.  Are there beneficial possibilities for consolidating the missions and functions of two previously discrete verticals which have developed over time?  Alternately, has the complexity, size, and/or importance of a particular vertical evolved to such an extent that it now makes sense to subdivide a vertical into two or more new verticals? Keeping a close eye on synergistic integration allows adjustments to be made ahead of the curve rather than getting stuck behind the curve with the attendant wasted time, money, and tension.

Can you successfully implement and manage a matrix organization by humming a few bars of Kumbaya and exhorting personnel to collaborate with one another as they have never done before?  Some folks seem to think so. Indeed, some speak of a matrix organization which doesn’t involve a dual reporting structure and which doesn’t have need for use of tools such as RACI diagrams, or the alternative LACIE diagram which is recommended by Strategic Futures. This then raises the question: When is a matrix organization not a matrix organization? While implementation of a matrix organization need not be painful, it does require learning some new ropes which are not highly intuitive.  It also requires special insights and, yes, here’s that terrible word, discipline to get the most of what this organizational form has to offer as a source of strategic advantage.  Matrix management consists of roles, rules and tools: Everyone needs to be on board if you are to avoid incessant frustration. If people don’t change their behavior from what has gone before, please be assured that you will keep getting what you were getting before in much the same way albeit with a masquerade ball of changed nomenclature. If you skip one or several rungs on the ladder to matrix management success, you may well stumble and fall.  You probably didn’t take the advanced course prior to successful completion of the prerequisites. If you think it’s enough to inculcate key personnel with nosebleed-altitude matrix management concepts alone, with everything else taking care of itself, then welcome to painless dentistry.  Dentistry may be painless for minor procedures, but an extraction or a new crown likely involves some discomfort. The shift from a traditional hierarchical organization to a networked matrix organization is not a minor procedure, but it need not be long and painful either. Years ago, Judith Bardwick taught us that there is “danger in the comfort zone.”  Matrix management is a state of mind, but if you think that the “state of mind” is enough, you won’t achieve the changes in behavior that are required to make it work. That’s too comfortable and convenient. Indeed, psychologists teach us that changes in behavior lead to changes in attitude, rather than vice versa.  While significant changes in behavior based solely on an altered “state of mind” may materialize suddenly in the twilight zone or a cartoon world, they don’t materialize desirable when people are cocooned in the comfort zone. Real change involves a degree of discomfort. Established principles of change management, applied in conjunction with equipping your employees to use the matrix structure to achieve individual and collective success – competently and confidently – make the difference.  A behavioral approach, based on tested roles, rules and tools, is critical to making the shift to matrix management while avoiding needless chaos– unless you like the idea of a bevy of consultants pulling their trailer into your parking lot for a long stay! Buckminster Fuller summed it up best: “If you want to change how a person thinks, give up. You cannot change how another person thinks. Give them a tool, the use of which will gradually lead them to think differently.”  Once again, Bucky nailed it: Changes in behavior precede changes in attitude. Roles, rules, and tools are the scaffolding for behavioral change needed to transform your organization.