CMGT 500 Week 3 Application Assignment

CMGT 500 Week 3 Application Assignment: Journal Article

In week 3, we learned about organizational structures and how the outside environment has led many businesses to decentralize into a more horizontal design to react quickly to opportunities and threats.  We also learned that more mature industries like GM and GE (see below) operate through divisional structures based on products where smaller units can adapt to the business climate. 

 Other companies opt for a divisional structure based on its functions or geography, rather than the products.  But the newest trend in organizational structures come in the form of hybrid structures which combine the characteristics of the functional and divisional structures; the virtual network structure which is popular among tech start-ups because it allows them to  outsource  most of its processes to other companies.  For the purpose of this paper though, we will focus on the matrix structure.  

  

In “Fundamentals of Organizational Structure, we learned that a matrix structure is one where “both product and function or product and geography are emphasized at the same time” (Draft, p. 108).  But actually making a matrix system functional may be a lot more complex than even its organizational chart above suggests.  Thomas Sy and Stephane Cote argue that a matrix structure can break down into dysfunction because “it inherently creates a state of constant conflict with its multiple boss model and simultaneous pursuit of multiple objectives” (Sy & Cote, p. 442).   This paper will examine the authors' reasons why a matrix organization throws up so many roadblocks and what skills are needed to make the matrix work.

The authors studied several large organizations (over 250,000 employees with revenues exceeding $100 billion dollars) and found three primary problems with their matrix organization.  “Misaligned goals that increase competition among employees” (p. 441).  This wasn’t the healthy kind of competition that moves the company forward.  The authors found the companies often had goals that were in direct opposition to each other and led employees to unproductive turf wars.

  

The second problem the authors found was that workers had only a foggy notion about “who was responsible for what”.  In our reading the matrix organizational design shows clear vertical and horizontal lines of communication, but in practice those lines became blurred.  

Not helping with that confusion, the authors found managers only sought those in their immediate sphere for input on decisions which led to “decisions that are untimely and potentially lack quality” (p.446).  One of the promises of a matrix organization is communication both top to bottom and across departments.   But among the organizations the authors studied, those promises were not kept.

Another advantage of the matrix organization is coordination among employees in different departments, but the final weakness Sy and Cote identified was something they called the “Silo Focus” (p. 447).  Because of the blurred lines of authority and managers seeking limited input, workers end up committing their energy and focus to the one particular area rather than the entire corporation (p. 447). When “employees have not learned to work in a collaborative fashion” ( Nohria, p.8), it becomes a poison pill for the matrix.  

So the authors have laid out the issues facing Matrix organizations our reading pointed out the same problems as well.  Where the authors diverge though, is how to prepare people to work in a matrix.  They are critical that past writings only alluded to the notion that some sort of training is required to make it work.  They argue that employees and managers must possess emotional intelligence to create a smoothly-running matrix.  People with emotional intelligence can “better understand their roles and help others accept the ambiguities” (Sy & Cote, p. 451) that are inherent with the matrix organization.  This kind of emotional intelligence will help people deal with frustration and anger and ultimately help them make better decisions (p.451).  Emotionally intelligent people also have “better relationships and richer social networks” which leads them reach out and collaborate in other areas, as the matrix intended.

This week we read Paul Adler’s article, “The Sociological Ambivalence of Bureaucracy: From Weber via Gouldner to Marx”, where the author at the paradoxical nature of a bureaucratic organization in that it can both enable employees but  also leave them feeling ambivalent about it when they feel they’re being exploited  (Adler, p.253).  Even as organizational structures become more dynamic  to meet 21^st century challenges, the concern continues among scholars that managers and employees  are not getting the necessary training to keep pace.

Bibliography

Nohria, N (1995). Note on Organizational Structure. Harvard Business School.

Adler, P. (2012). the Sociological Ambivalence of Bureaucracy: From Weber via Gouldner to Marx. Organizational Science, 23. (pp. 244-266). 

Daft, R. (2007). Fundamentals of Organizational Structure. Organization Theory and Design. (pp. 88-125).

Sy, T. & Cote, S (2004). Emotional Intelligence: A Key Ability to Succeed in the Matrix. Journal of Management Development 23. (pp. 437-455).