matrix organization case study

Revisiting the matrix organization

Matrix organizations have been around for decades, stimulating vigorous debate between supporters and detractors for nearly as long. 1 1. For a classic critique, see Tom Peters, “ Beyond the matrix organization ,” McKinsey Quarterly , September 1979. They remain prevalent at the large number of companies that need to bring functional centers of excellence together with business-specific people and processes. Eighty-four percent of respondents to a recent Gallup survey, for example, were at least slightly matrixed.

About the research

The findings of the study on matrixed employees are based on a Gallup panel web survey, completed by 3,956 full-time employees aged 18 and older, that was administered between April 8 and April 27, 2015. The Gallup panel is a probability-based longitudinal group of US adults selected through random-digit-dial (RDD) phone interviews over landlines and cell phones. Address-based sampling methods are also used to recruit panel members. The Gallup panel is not an opt-in panel, and members are not given incentives for participating.

Our sample for this study, which used Current Population Survey figures, was weighted to be demographically representative of the US adult population. For results based on this sample, the maximum margin of sampling error is plus or minus two percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. Margins of error are higher for subsamples. In addition to sampling error, the wording of questions and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error and bias into the findings of public-opinion polls. The survey responses were matched with those of a US workforce panel survey administered in November 2014 to study the engagement and other work-related factors of matrixed employees. Separately, Gallup’s meta-analysis of the relationship between employee engagement and business outcomes included more than 49,000 business units across 49 industries.

The results of the organizational studies are based on subsets of McKinsey’s global database for the Organizational Health Index (OHI). This index is a survey-based assessment of organizational health, defined as the ability to perform over the long term. That kind of performance is based on three capabilities: aligning around strategies, executing them, and adapting when necessary. 1 1. Organizational health is operationally defined by scores on nine organizational outcomes: direction, leadership, culture and climate, accountability, capabilities, coordination and control, innovation and learning, motivation, and external orientation. Unlike employee engagement, they are assessed by survey questions about the organization’s effectiveness in these areas rather than their impact on employees. The index includes data from more than two million respondents and over 2,000 unique surveys. Organizations in the top quartile for health collectively outpace organizations in the bottom quartile in total returns to shareholders (TRS): they earned three times the annual TRS of bottom-quartile organizations over the nine-year period of the study. 2 2. See Aaron De Smet, Bill Schaninger, and Matthew Smith, “ The hidden value of organizational health—and how to capture it ,” McKinsey Quarterly , April 2014.

The study focusing on the accountability practices of organizations was conducted using data from 254 unique companies and 781,224 respondents, collected in 2014 and 2015. This study determined the rank order of practices structurally related to organizational-health outcomes. The order of the practices was based on the magnitude and significance of the standardized betas produced by regressing the outcome on the direct practices. To determine the rank order of the related practices, we first regressed the outcome on the direct practices and then (using a stepwise regression) entered the remaining practices. Practices that explained a minimum incremental 1 percent of the variance were labeled related practices. Their rank order (like our treatment of direct practices) was based on the incremental amount of variance explained.

That survey, covering nearly 4,000 workers in the United States, highlights some benefits for employees in matrices, particularly in areas related to collaboration. At the same time, the survey suggests that these employees feel less clear about what’s expected of them than their nonmatrixed counterparts do. This problem has consequences: Gallup research indicates that clarity of expectations is a foundation for building an engaged workplace that performs at high levels. Furthermore, according to McKinsey’s Organizational Health Index (OHI), clear and accountable roles are among the most important drivers of organizational health. Taken together, the Gallup and McKinsey findings underscore how important it is for executives and line managers to address the role ambiguity that’s all too common in matrix organizations. (For more on the research behind these two studies, see sidebar, “About the research.”)

Ubiquitous and unexceptional

Eighty-four percent of the US employees Gallup surveyed were matrixed to some extent. Forty-nine percent served on multiple teams some days (we categorized them as slightly matrixed), and 18 percent served on multiple teams every workday but with different people, though mostly reporting to the same manager (matrixed). The remaining 17 percent reported to different managers in their work with different teams (supermatrixed).

Most employees in matrixed organizations, according to the survey, aren’t terribly engaged with their jobs. (Gallup defines employee engagement as involvement in and enthusiasm for work.) These figures are consistent with what Gallup has found in the workplace at large over a decade of study. They are alarming, given the relationship between worker engagement and vital business outcomes, such as productivity, profitability, and customer perceptions of service quality. 2 2. James K. Harter et al., The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes , Gallup, February 2013, gallup.com. The survey does suggest a modestly positive relationship between the four categories of organization and employee engagement, which rises slightly across them (exhibit).

Collaboration and clarity

Beneath the surface, we found some areas (particularly collaboration) where matrixed organizations performed better than less matrixed ones and others (related to role clarity) where they did worse. The differences in engagement at more and less matrixed organizations suggest advantages and disadvantages that may cancel one another out.

A key area of strength for matrixed organizations lies in collaboration—a heartening discovery, since cross-company teamwork is one of the chief aims of many matrices. We asked employees of slightly matrixed, matrixed, and supermatrixed organizations about the benefits of being on different teams. Supermatrixed employees were generally about twice as likely as slightly matrixed ones to say that their organizations not only helped them collaborate more effectively with coworkers, do their best work, and serve customers well but also stimulated bottom-up innovation. Supermatrixed employees were also somewhat more likely than those in the other categories to say they had received recognition or praise during the past seven days, that their opinions counted, and that their fellow employees were committed to doing quality work. These are key elements in the overall engagement of employees and suggest that relationships and collaboration among employees in matrixed organizations and their peers and superiors really are better.

On the other hand, only a minority of the supermatrixed employees strongly agreed with the statement, “I know what is expected of me at work,” compared with 60 percent of the nonmatrixed. This reflects a common complaint about matrixed organizations—that the structure gives rise to a lack of clarity about responsibilities, expectations, and who reports to whom. Workers in the three matrixed groups were more likely than nonmatrixed ones to say that they need clear direction from project leaders and communication between their managers and project leaders to prioritize their work most effectively.

Also, employees in the matrixed categories were more likely than their nonmatrixed counterparts to say they spent their days responding to coworkers’ requests and attending internal meetings. Such responses are not surprising in an environment where employees receive instructions and feedback from multiple managers and work with a range of people to complete projects. These are also probably factors in the critics’ assertions that the matrix structure can slow decision making, blur lines of communication, stifle productivity, and hinder organizational responsiveness and agility. 3 3. For more, see Billie Nordmeyer, “Disadvantages of organizations with the matrix approach,” Houston Chronicle , chron.com; and Eric Krell, “Managing the matrix,” HR Magazine , Society for Human Resource Management, April 1, 2011, shrm.org.

Would you like to learn more about our People & Organizational Performance Practice ?

The link to organizational health.

Interestingly, role clarity and related accountability practices emerge as among the most important drivers of organizational health, and ultimately performance, in McKinsey research based on the Organizational Health Index (OHI). McKinsey has consistently found that improving role clarity improves accountability, an outcome that is a critical component of the overall health-index score. In fact, organizations with high accountability scores have a 76 percent probability of achieving top-quartile organizational health—more than triple the expected rate. What’s more, the independent effects of role clarity are so powerful that they affect OHI scores directly, one of only four management practices (among 37) that do. 4 4. Since the impact of these practices transcends geography, industry sector, and company size, we call them power practices. Besides role clarity, personal ownership (another accountability practice), strategic clarity, and competitive insights are also in this select group. Overall, we assessed the 37 management practices through empirically derived survey items that were independent of the outcomes they predicted. We assessed the independent effect of role clarity after statistically controlling for shared or overlapping effects among the 37 practices.

These findings are consistent with work by McKinsey’s Suzanne Heywood and others showing that organizations can mitigate the complexity associated with matrices through clear accountability and targets for individuals. 5 5. See Suzanne Heywood, Jessica Spungin, and David Turnbull, “Cracking the complexity code,” McKinsey Quarterly , 2007 Number 2; and Suzanne Heywood and Julian Birkinshaw, “ Putting organizational complexity in its place ,” McKinsey Quarterly , May 2010. Further reinforcing these findings is the academic literature suggesting that higher levels of the ownership mentality predict higher levels of collaboration, organizational commitment, and corporate citizenship, as well as reduced levels of behavior that deviate from workplace norms. 6 6. James B. Avey, Bruce J. Avolio, Craig D. Crossley, and Fred Luthans, “Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement, and relation to work outcomes,” Journal of Organizational Behavior , 2009, Volume 30, Number 2, pp. 173–91; doi 10.1002/job.583.

The Gallup survey does suggest that role clarity takes a hit in matrixed organizations. Yet it also indicates that super-matrixed employees were more likely to have received recognition or praise in the previous seven days and to believe that their opinions counted. McKinsey research suggests that these features of the employee experience in matrixed companies have a positive impact on organizational health: two management practices—recognition and employee involvement in direction setting—are important drivers of two of the OHI’s outcomes—motivation and direction—which, along with accountability, are meaningful components of the overall OHI score.

Priorities for matrixed managers

Given the importance of role clarity and accountability to organizational health and, ultimately, performance, addressing the role ambiguity that pervades matrixed companies is a critical priority for their leaders, who should help employees by continually setting clear expectations aligned with the direction of the business. This clarity should cascade into frequent conversations between managers and their direct reports about the specific role each person plays in advancing the company’s objectives. Consultative (as opposed to authoritarian) leadership practices can contribute meaningfully to accountability, according to McKinsey’s OHI research.

It is also imperative to maintain day-to-day lines of communication to root out and dispel ambiguity and ensure that everyone is consistently on the same page. This is true at the organizational as well as the team level: Gallup research shows that managers should not save critical conversations for once-a-year performance reviews—engagement flourishes when employees receive regular, actionable feedback on their progress.

Read our latest thinking on matrix organizations

Last, the matrix structure is notorious for frequently obscuring lines of accountability, so leaders and managers should ensure that all employees understand whom they answer to and the duties for which they are responsible. The importance of regular discussions to reclarify expectations as work demands change is compounded in matrix organizations. And highly engaged employees thrive in a system where everyone is accountable for his or her work.

Michael Bazigos, head of organizational science at McKinsey, is based in McKinsey’s New York office. Jim Harter is the chief scientist of workplace management and well-being for Gallup’s Workplace Management Practice in Omaha, Nebraska.

The authors wish to thank Gallup’s Sangeeta Agrawal, Annamarie Mann, and Susan Sorenson, as well as McKinsey’s Lili Duan, Dominik Deja, Dinora Fitzgerald, and Yuan Tian, for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

The hidden value of organizational health—and how to capture it

Beyond the matrix organization

Matrix Organization in an Industrializing Society: Case Studies from Brazil

Cite this chapter.

• James R. Hemsley 3 ,
• Roberto Sbragia 3 &
• Eduardo Vasconcellos 3  

Part of the book series: NATO Conference Series ((SYSC,volume 7))

204 Accesses

Organizations with matrix structural characteristics are currently the subject of considerable academic interest, although the industrial world has, de facto, been using these organizational forms for a considerable time. Almost all published studies on them to date have been made in the U.S. and W. Europe, and it is therefore of considerable interest to study whether this organizational structure is appropriate in the industrializing world and if so under what conditions.

This paper considers the role of matrix organizations in Brazil, a prime example of a rapidly industrializing country. Three case studies are analyzed in some depth to provide a basis for a discussion of the nature and role of matrix organizations in Brazil and the apparent differences between matrix organizations in “developed” and “developing” societies.

Visiting Professor; Research Fellow, Vanderbilt University: COPPEAD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Industry Clusters as Network Organizations

Cluster Life-Cycles, Entrepreneurship and Regional Economic Development with a Case Study of the Korean Shipbuilding Cluster

Social Enterprises Within the Public Sector’s Purview: A Taxonomy-Based Study on South Korea

Bibliography.

Shannon, R.E. “Apollo/Saturn Program Management”, Chapter 3. Source book of Saturn benefits, UARI Report, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Research Institute, December 1970.

Google Scholar  

“Apollo Program Management”, Staff Study for the Committe on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., July 1969

Shannon, R.E. “Matrix Management Structures”, Industrial Engineering, March 1972

Galbraith, J. “Organization Designs”, Business Horizons, February 1971.

Kolodny, H.F. “Matrix Organization Design, Implementation and Management”, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1976.

Rattner, H. “Tecnologia”, Revista de Administraçãdo de Empresas, Vol.14 N93, June 1974.

Cardoso, F.H. “Empresario Industrial e Desenvolvimento Econômico” Ed. Difusão Europeia do Livro, São Paulo 1964.

Bresser Pereira, L.C. “Empresarios e Administradores no Brasil”, Ed. Brasiliense, São Paulo 1974.

Alves de Souza, S. “Administração Numa Sociedade em Desenvolvimento: o Caso do Brasil”, unpublished MBA thesis, COPPEAD, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 1976.

Hemsley, J.R. “Measurement of Organizational Change and Development: A Brazilian Case Study”, paper presented at EURO II, Stockholm, 1976.

Galbraith, J. “Designing Complex Organizations”, Addison Wesley, Menlo Park, 1973.

Hemsley, J.R. “Matrix Organizational Structures in Brazilian Organizations”, Internal Research Paper, COPPEAD, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 1976.

Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L. “The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments”, Human Relations, Vol.18, 1965.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Management Institute, School of Economics and Management, University of São Paulo, Cidade Univ., São Paulo, Brazil

James R. Hemsley, Roberto Sbragia & Eduardo Vasconcellos

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London, UK

Donald T. Bryant

U.S. Navy Office of Civilian Personnel, Washington, DC, USA

Richard J. Niehaus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1978 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Hemsley, J.R., Sbragia, R., Vasconcellos, E. (1978). Matrix Organization in an Industrializing Society: Case Studies from Brazil. In: Bryant, D.T., Niehaus, R.J. (eds) Manpower Planning and Organization Design. NATO Conference Series, vol 7. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-4622-7_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-4622-7_16

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4613-4624-1

Online ISBN : 978-1-4613-4622-7

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Advisory boards aren’t only for executives. Join the LogRocket Content Advisory Board today →

• Product Management
• Solve User-Reported Issues
• Find Issues Faster
• Optimize Conversion and Adoption

The matrix organizational structure: Pros, cons, and insights

One of the hardest things to get right at any organization, especially as it scales, is how teams are organized and work together. You also have to factor in whether certain employees will work well with certain managers, potential personality conflicts, areas of growth for high performers, and the list just goes on…

At the end of the day, what really matters is how well you can serve the needs of your customers. Hence, you need to find an organizational structure that balances the needs inside the company while still delivering a high-quality product or service.

If engineers only work with and report it to other engineers, they likely are getting great mentorship and management; however, their teams may not be fully equipped to solve all of the problems that matter to customers. But, if engineers were always interspersed with other disciplines, their teams might be great. It’s all in customer problems, but their managers might need to gain the skills to help them grow as engineers.

Matrixed organizations are a potential way of balancing these problems and finding the best of both worlds. In this article, we’ll learn about the pros and cons of a matrix organizational structure, examples of how it works, and more.

What is a matrix organizational structure?

Having a matrix organizational structure is a way of potentially solving this problem. Employees are organized into both functional groups and product groups.

In a matrixed organization, each employee in the company has:

• A team that they’re a member of that organizes the work they do
• A manager who helps them grow their skills, guide them toward the next promotion, and discusses compensation

In a matrix organization, it’s unlikely that your career manager is also the one directing your work (likely with the exception of engineers).

This allows organizations to group people together into teams that allow them to best solve customer problems. At the same time, it’s still encouraging and enables mentorship from employees who can help other employees grow and understand the work that they do.

The dual-reporting structure of matrixed organizations helps balance the need for specialization and the need for cross-functional collaboration . However, matrixed organizations are more complex to run and involve more setup and maintenance.

What is an example of a matrix organizational structure company?

Matrixed organizations are very common in the technology world, especially in software development. Most teams that create software that goes out to customers are in some form of a matrix structure.

The matrixed org structure is the default for most of the technology world that produces B2B or B2C products. Product teams at Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Amazon, and most startups organize into a matrixe structure to give each team the right mix of autonomy and accountability. This is because (typically) no individual person in a software company has the full skill set to build and maintain high-quality software and then take it to market.

To make a great software product, you need great engineering, great design, an understanding of customer problems, a solid business strategy, the ability to measure and understand the impact of the future you release, and more.

Over 200k developers and product managers use LogRocket to create better digital experiences

In the modern tech industry, it’s much more common for employees to specialize in one of these areas, e.g., become software engineers, product managers, designers, data scientists, or marketers.

To get all of the skills you need, you need to group these people together on a team, like this:

These are commonly referred to in the industry as product teams. Depending on the type of software or product that a team is working on, they will have:

• 4–8 software engineers with various skill sets
• One engineering manager
• 1–2 data scientists or analysts
• 1–2 designers
• One product manager

Each of the people on this team will have a separate career manager, so the product manager will report to a director of product management, the designers will report to a head of design, etc.

However, the product manager and engineering manager will likely direct the work that this team does with partnership from the rest of the team.

What are the pros and cons of the matrix structure?

There are both pros and cons to structuring teams this way. Advantages include assembling the best skills for the problem, easier re-organizations, and more cross-department collaboration. Cons include its complexity and overhead, stakeholder management, and the difficulty of staying organized and efficient.

Let’s dive a little deeper.

Pros of a matrix structure

Assembles the best skills for the problem

By forming teams with diverse skill sets, you have the option of assembling strong teams that can hopefully build the best product for your customers.

Each team in the company doesn’t have to have the exact same composition — you can customize who’s working on what problem and still keep a relatively neat organizational structure.

This means that if your team was focused on customer acquisition, it might include folks from the marketing team. Whereas, if you just focused on backend optimization of the code base, you wouldn’t need a designer. This allows you to assemble the skills that you think will best solve the problem for your customer and hopefully get you to the best outcome.

Makes re-organizations easier

While reorganizing teams is never easy, it is easier to change people’s functional grouping than their career managers.

The most important relationship that someone has with a company is with their manager. Numerous studies show that whether or not an employee likes their manager is the #1 leading indicator of whether they’ll stay or leave.

As companies grow and evolve, which is especially the case in the technology world, you’re likely going to need to change the team structure to fit the current goals of the company.

The way that you need to organize your company when you have 40 employees is going to be very different than when you have 200. Using a matrixed structure means that you can reshuffle the functional teams without running the risk of changing people’s managers.

Enables cross-department communication

The more teams that are built up from people across the departments the more organically information will flow between the departments.

Needless to say, it’s easier for engineers to understand what design is doing when they sit together in a cross-functional team all day.

You tend to have less siloing between the different departments in a matrix organization.

Cons of a matrix structure

Complexity and overhead

When you create the two layers of reporting to make a matrix organization work, you’re increasing the complexity in the company. The increasing complexity of the company adds management costs and likely requires more skilled managers.

Whenever you’re doing employee reviews, you need to get the perspective of each employee from both their functional manager and their career manager.

It’s harder for their career manager to fully understand the work that they’re doing because the career manager likely needs to see their day-to-day progress.

More complicated stakeholder management

Because most of the heads of each department are no longer directly involved in the day-to-day work of all of their employees, the need to find dedicated stakeholder management processes that work for the size and the scale of the company becomes more important.

In a matrix organization, you can no longer assume that your manager is aware of 100 percent of the things that your team is doing. You need to find ways of servicing and getting buy-in for the work that will have the biggest impact in the company but also potentially carry the biggest risks.

Difficulty staying organized and efficient

When you’re pulling together people with different skill sets and perspectives, you need to have a way of keeping work organized and efficient so that your team is churning out as many valuable things to a customer with the highest degree of confidence they can.

Virtually all of the ways modern software teams stay organized (scrum, agile, etc.) arose from the need to keep teams of diverse skill sets and interests on track and accountable for important projects.

Most of the modern product development workflow — concepts like product reviews, design reviews, specification documents, business requirement documents, user stories , story points, etc. — arose from the need to explain scope and timelines to other employees with a different skill set than you.

If everyone in the team had the same skill set, passing requirements between each other would be much easier.

This complexity is worth the cost of better solving customer problems, but it still is a notable disadvantage of the matrix organization.

Conclusions and key takeaways

The matrix organization has become the standard practice of the majority of technology companies and you can find this structure at all big-name technology players such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Uber, Amazon, and more — especially in departments that develop products or work on Hardware devices.

A matrix structure is something that all companies should seriously consider as their products become more complex and you become more reliant on employees with specialized skill sets who need to collaborate across departments.

The way that employees are organized is one of the foundational elements of company culture and the way in which work gets done. Finding the right structure for your team and company is key to success.

Featured image source: IconScout

LogRocket generates product insights that lead to meaningful action

Get your teams on the same page — try LogRocket today.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• #collaboration and communication

Stop guessing about your digital experience with LogRocket

Recent posts:.

Leader Spotlight: Differentiating digital experiences, with Scott Lux

Scott Lux talks about the future of ecommerce and its need for innovation and excellent customer experience.

A guide to the Minto Pyramid

The Minto Pyramid has you start with the conclusion, before working through more detailed, supporting arguments, and further information.

Leader Spotlight: A data-driven approach to roadmapping, with Nataliya Kolb

Nataliya Kolb talks about the importance of taking a data-driven approach to roadmapping when defining or fine-tuning a product vision.

Strategies for managing delays in development sprints

You can maintain productivity and meet your deadlines with careful planning, open communication, and a commitment to improvement.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

• Product overview
• All features
• Latest feature release
• App integrations

CAPABILITIES

• project icon Project management
• Project views
• Custom fields
• Status updates
• goal icon Goals and reporting
• Reporting dashboards
• workflow icon Workflows and automation
• portfolio icon Resource management
• Capacity planning
• Time tracking
• my-task icon Admin and security
• Admin console
• asana-intelligence icon Asana AI
• list icon Personal
• premium icon Starter
• briefcase icon Advanced
• Goal management
• Organizational planning
• Campaign management
• Creative production
• Content calendars
• Marketing strategic planning
• Resource planning
• Project intake
• Product launches
• Employee onboarding
• View all uses arrow-right icon
• Project plans
• Team goals & objectives
• Team continuity
• Meeting agenda
• View all templates arrow-right icon
• Work management resources Discover best practices, watch webinars, get insights
• Customer stories See how the world's best organizations drive work innovation with Asana
• Help Center Get lots of tips, tricks, and advice to get the most from Asana
• Asana Academy Sign up for interactive courses and webinars to learn Asana
• Developers Learn more about building apps on the Asana platform
• Community programs Connect with and learn from Asana customers around the world
• Events Find out about upcoming events near you
• Partners Learn more about our partner programs
• Support Need help? Contact the Asana support team
• Asana for nonprofits Get more information on our nonprofit discount program, and apply.

Featured Reads

• Business strategy |
• What is a matrix organization and how d ...

What is a matrix organization and how does it work?

A matrix organization is a company structure where teams report to multiple leaders. The matrix design keeps open communication between teams and can help companies create more innovative products and services. Using this structure prevents teams from needing to realign every time a new project begins.

How can you empower teams to move quickly on complex projects without getting bogged down by stakeholder reviews and approvals? Organizational structure may be the answer. Most work environments have chains of command in place so that everyone has clarity around decision-making authority. 

A matrix organization differs from this classic structure since team members report to both a project manager and a department lead. In the guide below, we’ll discuss what a matrix organization is and how you can use one for complex projects. 

What is a matrix organization?

A matrix organization is a work structure where team members report to multiple leaders. In a matrix organization, team members (whether remote or in-house) report to a project manager as well as their department head. This management structure can help your company create new products and services without realigning teams.

How do matrix organizations work?

Matrix organizations have two or more management reporting structures. While this may seem confusing at first, team members typically have a primary manager for their department. 

Reporting to a department manager functions similarly to a traditional work structure. For example, team members working in IT report to the IT department head. The IT department head reports to the vice president of their division. Eventually, all reporting relationships lead to the CEO. 

The difference in a matrix structure is that team members also report to project managers. Projects often require work from members of various departments like IT, marketing, and finance, which is why having a separate manager for individual projects makes sense. 

No more silos: Optimizing your organizational structure for stronger cross-team collaboration

In this ebook, learn how to structure your organization to prevent silos, move faster, and stay aligned in the face of change.

Types of matrix management

There are three types of matrix management, with each type giving more or less authority to the project manager. You can visualize these management types on a scale with the project manager on one end and the department manager on the other. 

Weak matrix

In a weak matrix, the project manager has the least amount of decision-making power compared to the other matrix management types. When the project manager has limited authority over the project, the matrix becomes weak because the project budget and timeline is in the hands of the department head. Creating a communication plan can keep communication from getting lost in a weak matrix. 

Balanced matrix

In a balanced matrix, the department head and the project manager have equal authority and team members report to both of them. This keeps communication open between everyone in leadership roles and allows the project to move forward smoothly. 

Strong matrix

In a strong matrix, the project manager has most of the decision-making power over the project, while the department head has more limited authority. This creates a strong organizational structure because the project manager has full ownership over the project. The department head can oversee the project but doesn’t make key decisions.

Advantages of the matrix organization structure

The matrix organizational structure is more complex than the hierarchical structure, but it has many advantages. Some advantages of the matrix design include clear project objectives, an efficient use of resources, free-flowing information, and training for project managers. 

Clear project objectives

The matrix organization design can ensure greater clarity on project objectives . When your team reports their progress to both the project manager and the department head, solidifying project goals is critical. When the project manager feels supported by other members of senior management, project organization becomes a priority.

Scenario: Let’s say your team is working on an app development project. Because you’re using a matrix structure, the IT developers report to you as the project manager and the IT department head. The project objective is to create a keyword search app for marketers to use on-the-go. When the IT department head and the project manager communicate a clear project objective to the IT developers, the app gets developed quicker. 

Efficient use of resources

The matrix structure allows for an efficient use of resources because teams include specialists from various departments. This reduces overhead costs and the amount of time needed to complete a project. In a hierarchical structure where every team reports to only one manager, there are fewer managers per team. These teams may require more time to create one project deliverable because they don’t have members with different specialities.

Scenario: The team creating the keyword research app may involve specialists from the IT department, the finance department, and the marketing department. When these team members successfully report to their department heads and their project manager, they increase team productivity , save time, and get the project done more efficiently. 

The matrix team reduces costs because without a combined group of specialists, companies would have to restructure teams and potentially hire new team members every time a new product or service is developed. 

Free-flowing information

Working in a matrix structure creates a free-flow of information between teams because the team reports to multiple leaders. While team members must remember to relay information in a hierarchical system, the matrix makes information flow a requirement. Reporting information to multiple leaders may seem tedious, but with the right project management system in place, it requires little or no extra work from team members. 

Scenario: If the development team on the keyword research app only reported to the project manager, information about a bug fix could get lost. However, relaying information to the IT department head is easy to remember when it’s part of the matrix process. 

Training for project managers

The unique structure of the matrix organization gives project managers a large amount of responsibility. Project managers must lead their team through the project lifecycle. This structure challenges project managers and trains those who want to be cross-functional managers in other departments.

Scenario: During this project, your team encounters some bug fixes and a delay in the project timeline . As the project manager, it’s your responsibility to work with the IT department head to successfully handle all issues. In doing so, you discover a personal interest in IT—and a potential career opportunity in the future. 

Team retention

The matrix organization has a great track record from team member retention because when specialists are placed together, the product team stays strong. These team members work under functional department heads and are then assigned to project managers. Specialists often enjoy working together, and it can improve project performance. 

Scenario: During the keyword research app project, the project team consists of various IT, marketing, and finance specialists because these team members understand the ins and outs of creating an application for phone users. This team of specialists will likely stick together to work on many projects in the future.

Disadvantages of the matrix organization structure

Like the hierarchical reporting structure, the matrix organization also has disadvantages. Most of the disadvantages stem from this structure being complex. While complex designs can have benefits when they work, they also have the potential to cause conflict and make things messy.

Complex reporting style

The complexity of the matrix organization can be a disadvantage because teams may have trouble knowing who to report to and when. While the intention of the matrix is to benefit teams, it may complicate projects and muddy the overall process. 

Solution: The best way to prevent a reporting failure is to ensure every member of the matrix understands who to report to and how to do so. Using an intuitive project management platform that facilitates cross-team work can make the matrix structure less complex. 

Slow response time

The complexity of the matrix can lead to slow response times, which can delay projects. Slow response times come from the need to report information to multiple people. Having more people involved is a good thing, but the downside is that relaying information to more people takes time. 

Solution: Using a project management system will solve the issue of slow response times with the matrix structure. As a central source of truth, Asana can prevent duplicate work and increase visibility among teams and leadership. 

Conflicting guidance

Conflicting guidance occurs if the project manager and department head aren’t on the same page. While the matrix structure is meant to encourage teamwork, it may do the opposite depending on the personalities involved. 

Solution: To prevent conflicting guidance, establish a system that allows managers to interact directly with one another. Team members can avoid feeling like they’re caught in the middle if managers are aligned on project goals and stay on the same page.

Potential friction

The main difference between the matrix and hierarchical structure is that team members report to two managers in a matrix structure. This makes the matrix organization more complex and puts more responsibility on team members. Having two managers can give team members more feedback and guidance, but it can also result in friction.

Solution: To prevent potential friction, it’s essential for the department head and the project manager to communicate. It shouldn’t be the team’s role to choose between managers when conflict occurs. Whether in person or through virtual systems, managers can prevent friction by setting clear project objectives from day one and working together to create a successful product. 

Juggling priorities

It can be difficult for team members to juggle priorities in a matrix structure if managers don’t work together. If the department head believes their tasks are most important and the project manager thinks the same, the team may have trouble determining which manager’s guidance to prioritize. 

Solution: When team members have trouble prioritizing tasks because of miscommunication among managers, it’s up to the managers to discuss the tasks of the team and determine what should be done first. Most issues that have the potential to arise from the matrix structure can be solved with strong collaboration, communication, and clarity across teams. 

Improve the matrix structure with project management tools

Using project management tools is the best way to make the matrix structure work well. With project management, the project manager and the department head can align around project goals, plan work together, and create a clear line of communication. And when these pieces are in place, team members have the clarity they need to work efficiently and achieve your project objectives

Related resources

15 creative elevator pitch examples for every scenario

How Asana streamlines strategic planning with work management

How to create a CRM strategy: 6 steps (with examples)

What is management by objectives (MBO)?

Matrix Monday: Matrix management case studies

This week in our Matrix Monday series, rather than refer to a specific article on matrix management, we are taking a look at a useful resource, Harvard Business Publishing has a  bank of case studies  on matrix organization.

Much of our own  work with clients is confidential and covered by non-disclosure agreements so we can’t offer them as case studies, although some companies have generously allowed us to do so (Global Integration  matrix management case studies ).

The ‘case study methodology’ also has limitations: it spends time analyzing what someone else did, when every organization has its own culture, history and special situations. Transferring learning directly from one to another is a challenge, assuming that the lesson learned is the right one in the first place.

But given that proviso, there are often common themes which make it interesting to read case studies on what other organizations have learnt if you are planning a matrix organization implementation, or want to improve your matrix management.

Some of the case studies in the Harvard bank (which may require payment) worth a read include:

ABB –  three articles on the complexity of setting and reconciling performance targets in a global, matrix company; on internal allocation conflicts; and on the structure imposing ritical constraints.

Acer America – on leading a global product roll out.

Becton Dickinson – on the role of  information technology (IT) in a difficult business context.

Eli Lilly – two articles, one on key strategic challenges and the other evaluating the appropriateness of a focused matrix organization with cross functional teams.

Novartis Pharma – on its huge reorganization.

Pinnacle Mutual Life Insurance Co. – includes a description of the processes used to create profit centers when the company adopted GAAP accounting, and some of the implementation problems that were encountered.

Procter & Gamble – examines the different organizational designs, trade-offs associated with each organizational architecture and the accompanying implementation problems of the myriad organizational designs used by Procter & Gamble from the 1920s onward.

Philips – also takes a look at structures implemented by the company over the years.

As an aside, the library also contains a couple of classic articles on matrix management and matrix organizations:

Matrix Management: Not a Structure, a Frame of Mind – on moving corporate thinking away from structure and into mindset and goals.

Problems of Matrix Organizations – nine matrix vulnerabilities, preventions and cures.

Take a look at our books, webinars, white papers and blogs in our matrix management insights .

Explore our training programs to see how we can help.

Educate yourself further with a few more or our online insights:, 30 years of experience learning with a range of world class clients.

We work with a wide range of clients from global multinationals to recent start-ups. Our audiences span all levels, from CEOs to operational teams around the world.  Our tools and programs have been developed for diverse and demanding audiences.

Tailored training or off the shelf modules for your people development needs

We are deep content experts in remote, virtual and hybrid working, matrix management and agile & digital leadership. We are highly flexible in how we deliver our content and ideas. We can tailor content closely to your specific needs or deliver off the shelf bite sized modules based on our existing IP and 30 years of training experience.

For more about how we deliver our keynotes, workshops, live web seminars and online learning.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Matrix Organization. Case Study in a Romanian Project-Based Non-Governmental Organization

2019, Journal of Community Positive Practices

Related Papers

Jonas Soderlund

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

Series on Technology Management

Mitsuru Kodama

International Journal of Project Management

Mahshid Tootoonchy

Dirk Van Donk

beza teferra

Stefano Armenia

Laurentiu Barcan

The organization involves the regulated structure of roles that employees have to carry out. The structure is regulated in the sense that all the tasks necessary to achieve the goals are shared, and it is hoped that the award was made to people who can carry out the best. Structure is a management tool and not an end in itself.

Terry Cooke-Davies

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Change Management

Aslib Journal of Information Management

Dr Mostafa Jafari

Rodney Turner

Melanie Lavoie-tremblay

Michel Thiry

wossen assefa

Ronald Jean Degen

Industrial and Commercial Training

Steven Appelbaum

Anabela Tereso

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

Joana Geraldi

lars Frederiksen

Business & Management Studies: An International Journal

Mustafa Aslan

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN: 2319-7064

Crispin George

International Journal of Public Sector Management

Mahmoud Yasin

R&D Management

Roberto. Sbragia

Management, Valuation, and Risk for Human Capital and Human Assets

Francesca Vicentini

Bill Naskov

IOP conference series

Mohammed Dulaimi

Revista de Gestão e Projetos

Antonio Cesar Amaru Maximiano

Johann Packendorff

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Senior Leadership
• Culture & Careers
• Parent, Child, & Baby
• Youth Marketing
• Multicultural Marketing
• Pet Products Marketing & PR Agency
• Financial Services & Fintech
• Litigation PR & Legal Tech PR
• Real Estate PR & Prop Tech PR
• Internal Communications
• Public Affairs & Government Relations
• SPACs & IPOs
• HR Tech & Future of Work
• Apps & Marketplaces
• AdTech and Digital Media
• Consumer Technology
• Digital Health & Health Technology
• Wine & Spirits
• Travel & Hospitality
• Food & Beverage
• Entertainment & Sports Marketing
• Apparel, Accessories & Specialty Retail
• Beauty PR & Grooming PR
• Homegoods: Lifestyle & Design
• Cannabis PR
• Crisis Communication & Reputation Management
• Public Affairs & Government
• Cause-Driven/Not for Profit
• Event Marketing
• Digital Marketing
• SEO & Online Reputation Management
• Case Studies
• Integrated Marketing
• Public Relations
• Strategic Planning
• Reputation Management
• Event Management
• Celebrity & Influencer Relationships
• Product Integration
• Digital Marketing & Social Media

212.999.5585

[email protected].

Delta Airlines Cautionary Tale: A Case Study in The Crucial Role of PR in Reputation Management  

Reputation management and business continuity planning has become a cornerstone of successful business strategy. Cybersecurity attacks and data breaches have long been at the forefront of crisis preparedness plans, but as companies become more dependent on technology, the scope of potential crises has expanded. IT outages, once a secondary concern, are now at the top of the list for scenario planning, particularly for companies that rely heavily on technology for scale, speed, and safety. 

The Delta Airlines Case: A Cautionary Tale  

The recent events surrounding Delta Airlines’ reaction to the CrowdStrike outages highlight the critical importance of effective reputation management and crisis preparedness. Despite assumptions that Delta would have a robust plan for IT outages, the airline faced a significant crisis that seemed to defy a tested playbook. With a projected $500 million loss in revenue and the emergence of class action lawsuits, Delta is grappling with reputational concerns that span multiple stakeholders, including customers, shareholders, and employees. 

While the incident was caused by a third-party vendor creating a global outage impacting multiple competitors, as well as spanning numerous industries including retailers and banks, any leniency customers may have felt toward Delta has been completely erased by the company’s crisis response. 

The company’s communication with customers regarding compensation for disrupted travel failed to consider the challenge of resolving such a high volume of issues in a timely manner, leading to a secondary wave of frustration directed specifically at Delta. A strong crisis preparedness plan would have dictated clear policies, timelines, and the best channels for disseminating information, which could have mitigated some of the damage 

Furthermore, Delta’s decision to cancel flights en masse, rather than delay them like some competitors, compounded the problem. This made it more difficult to rebook passengers, who were left scrambling to find seats on nearly full flights during the peak of summer travel. 

The Downside of Public Finger-Pointing  

Rather than adopting a ‘we’re all in this together’ approach, Delta has inexplicably come out attacking, in a head scratching move for reputational experts, CrowdStrike and Microsoft very publicly. They’ve even threatened to sue their partners, creating more negative news for themselves than the other airlines had to contend with. 

Public threats of lawsuits by corporations don’t achieve really any reputational benefits. In this case it added more problems and extended the life of a negative story. Cue the additional headlines about the losses Delta is facing.  The move also limited legal and comms teams as you start to show your hand externally. 

Then, CrowdStrike struck back publicly airing out some of Delta’s dirty IT laundry and reminding them of the limits of liability they contractually agreed to. None of it a good look for Delta. 

Microsoft took their turn too, with attorney Mark Cheffo saying, “Our preliminary review suggests that Delta, unlike its competitors, apparently has not modernized its IT infrastructure, either for the benefit of its customers or for its pilots and flight attendants.”  

This back-and-forth did little to help Delta’s standing with its customers, who didn’t care about the corporate blame game and simply wanted to be compensated and treated fairly. 

What Can We Learn from This?  

Scenario Planning is Critical : Companies must expand their crisis preparedness plans beyond traditional threats like data breaches to include IT outages, especially in tech-reliant industries. 

Clear Communication is Essential : In a crisis, clear, timely, and well-planned communication can make the difference between a managed situation and a full-blown reputational disaster. Make sure your plan covers all the ‘what-if’s’ that can arise and consider all external factors that might have an impact on your company and how you execute your crisis plan.    

Avoid Public Blame Games: While assigning blame might sometimes be necessary, publicly threatening lawsuits against vendors or partners during a crisis can further worsen your own situation. This approach can invite additional criticism from the public and prolong negative media coverage, further complicating crisis management efforts. 

Crisis Preparedness Must Be Comprehensive: An excellent crisis preparedness plan extends beyond technical solutions to include clear communication strategies, customer care plans, and active stakeholder engagement. Regular internal testing, along with continuous review and revision of your company’s messaging and crisis communication plan, is crucial for maintaining effectiveness. Revisiting the plan one to two times a year is recommended to consider new industry information or updates, the evolving news cycle, and any other factors that could impact your prepared plan. 

Why PR Firms Are Crucial in Reputation Management  

PR firms play an indispensable role in reputation management. They bring expertise in crisis communication, helping companies navigate the complexities of public perception during a crisis. PR professionals understand how to craft messages that resonate with different stakeholders, from customers to investors, and how to deploy these messages through the most effective channels. 

Moreover, PR firms offer an external perspective, allowing them to identify potential reputational risks that may not be apparent to those within the company. They can also help in developing comprehensive crisis preparedness plans that include scenario planning, communication strategies, and stakeholder engagement. 

By prioritizing reputation management and involving PR professionals in crisis planning, companies can better prepare for unforeseen events and protect their standing in the eyes of the public. 

Some of the most common scenarios we see companies want to prepare for: Cyber Security/Data breaches, IT/system outages, DE&I issues, Natural disasters, Active Shooters, and Corporate Malfeasance. 

Reputation management and business continuity planning has become a cornerstone of successful...

The Power of PR in Breastfeeding Awareness: Supporting Maternal Health and Baby Gear Brands 

August marks Breastfeeding Awareness Month, a critical time to highlight the importance of...

Navigating the Summer Weight Loss Trend: Strategies for Successfully Communicating the Benefits of GLP-1 Medications 

Each summer many individuals find themselves motivated to achieve their wellness goals, with...

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, performance evaluation in a matrix organization: a case study (part one).

Industrial and Commercial Training

ISSN : 0019-7858

Article publication date: 11 July 2008

The purpose of this paper is to examine and ultimately suggest the most effective method with which to evaluate employees operating within a matrix organization. The paper aims to demonstrate the tools, corporate participation and acceptance levels required in order to ensure employee and manager “buy in” and implementation.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper consists of a comprehensive review of literature demonstrating functional areas within matrix organization as well as employee evaluation methods within various organizations. It is presented in three sections, defining a matrix organization, demonstrating effective evaluation methods and strategies, and finally showing how the two should work together. Critical incidents are interspersed throughout the article in order to demonstrate how the research compares to the methods employed by a leading aviation engineering firm.

Ineffective evaluation methods within matrix organizations can lead to lower employee morale as well as an ambiguous understanding of employee roles within such an organization. Employee and management buy in and support of an evaluation system and its goals are crucial to the success of the program. The multi‐rater system appeared to be most effective.

Practical implications

Several tools exist to help employers effectively evaluate their employees in a constructive and effective manner. Among them are clear job description and corporate structure, followed by a review of performance by both functional and project managers. Additionally, peer evaluations can prove to be constructive and contribute positively to the development of the employee. This paper can be a practical aid for managers in matrix organization that need to successfully and constructively evaluate employees, but are having difficulty doing so in an effective method..

Originality/value

Given the limited research with respect to evaluations within a matrix structure, this paper demonstrates an understanding of a subject that has not been adequately explored. The paper demonstrated in “real time” the critical synthesis for PA and the matrix organization – an absence noted in the literature.

• Strategic evaluation
• Matrix organizations
• Performance management

Appelbaum, S.H. , Nadeau, D. and Cyr, M. (2008), "Performance evaluation in a matrix organization: a case study (Part One)", Industrial and Commercial Training , Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 236-241. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850810886469

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2008, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support