The matrix style of project management came into existence in the 1970s as a result of continuous efforts to improve organizational structure and operations. A matrix organization uses a structure that has functional managers who are in charge of groups of employees who perform similar roles. The structure of such organizations led to managers seeing this change as a threat to their area of control. This results in what can be called, unnecessary tensions between the project managers and the functional managers because of the need to perform different activities with the same set of employees.
Initially introduced to cope up with the growing complexity of projects in the aerospace industry, this structure of project management has been adopted in many cases to deal with internal and external problems of an organization. There are manifold advantages that such a style of management offers. To start with, there is better coordination on shared resources and technologies across the organizations. It also improves the coordination and communication across the business along with increasing the employees’ access to a broad range of skills. Matrix management works best when an organization has goals that have defined clearly and it is properly cascaded to the goals of the horizontal and vertical components within the matrix. Apart from these advantages, the matrix management style also has a few major challenges.
The segregation of the reporting structure to project managers and functional managers can lead to conflict and stress in the organization. These multiple reporting lines can result in people not taking accountability for their work, which in turn can erode the organizational culture. Such organizations are vulnerable to constant and repeated reorganization. Reorganization can disrupt the normal functioning of the organization and the know-how of the same.
Often, we have also noticed that the matrix management has its focus on short-term goals rather than long-term success. The root of this problem lies in the fact that there is no clarity on who is responsible for what and people also have no idea whom to address for information that is needed to solve a problem or take a decision. This not only causes immediate issues but also leads to long-term problems. One of the other biggest challenges to the concept of matrix management is getting “buy in” from those affected. Matrix management is often regarded as another popular fad of the month as it lays emphasis on core competencies because of which the employees are suspicious of management. Companies are resorting to matrix management as a standard for rebuilding organizations and this is evident from the market demands these days.
By: Medha Behera
Posts Tagged ‘Management Style’
The Matrix Management Fad
April 25th, 2010Finding Your Business Management Style
April 19th, 2010
Business management combines an interesting mix of theory and practice, and it is a particularly good topic for management and entrepreneurial types to study. Finding a business management style that suits your personality and the nature of your business is both important and worthy of time investment, as being self-aware and being able to identify strengths and weaknesses of various approaches will enable more effective personal development and ultimately more effective management.
While many have their own individual business management styles, these are traditionally broadly categorized into three main classes of business management approaches.
Autocratic Management
Firstly, there is what has come to be known as the autocratic approach to management, which installs more trust in the leadership as opposed to the individual staff. This involves pulling rank and leaves employees in no doubt as to whom the management is or what decisions are being made. Rather than engaging employees within the decision making process, this business management style typically concerns businesses that require direct, effective leadership to produce results, often under pressure of working in a tough environment. Upon hearing the term autocratic, many tend to visualise a dictatorial approach to management. While that is perhaps the case, it is seldom as strict as this and it is often a necessary management style, for example in the armed forces or in a high-paced trading environment, where there is no margin for deliberation and group consideration.
Democratic Management
Alternatively, there is a business management style known as the democratic style, where employees are effectively engaged in consultation before decisions are made. While some consider this to be more motivating and more enjoyable to work under, it does nevertheless have its own disadvantages. Giving employees a say may undermine the authority of the management, and may ultimately cause inefficiencies in the decision making process. It is also time intensive, and perhaps not as effective in larger organisations with thousands of employees. While of course at a board room level this kind of decision making goes on everyday, it’s one that works most effectively in slower paced business where decisions can be fully deliberated and considered.
Laissez Fair Management
An alternative to those two business management styles and the third main category is what’s known as the laissez fair management style. This is by definition a more hands-off approach to management, which puts the trust of running the business within the hands of employees themselves, and allows a greater degree of autonomy than would otherwise be the case. While this is strong in creative industries, some business people find that this style of management can lead to a fragmented approach to doing business and is less organised and perhaps less professional.
Whichever business management style you liken yourself to; there are advantages and disadvantages of that approach. What’s important is not that you recognise which of these categories you fall under, but rather that you’re aware of the improvements that can be made to make your management more effective and efficient while also improving the relationships you share with employees at all levels of the organisation.
By: Nazir Daud
Management Style and Organizational Culture
March 17th, 2010
The potential benefits of improved job design are unlikely to be realized, if attention is focused on the content of jobs alone. Equal, if not more important, is the process by which redesign is carried out. This has led to recognition of the importance of management style and, increasingly, of organization culture. Central to improving the quality of working life is a participative, open style of management involving employees in decisions that affect them, including the design or choice of the technology itself. Personnel policies, including those related to pay and benefits, should attempt to develop a relationship of trust among all members and sections of the organization, and a confident partnership approach to trade unions.
Supervision involves technical knowledge, human relations’ skills and co-ordination of work activities. Effective supervision is necessary for job satisfaction and high levels of work performance. Kindly and thoughtful leader behavior is likely to generate high worker satisfaction. Supervisors who adopt a considerate manner towards workers tend to have the more highly satisfied work groups. Lack of job satisfaction and unhappiness at work, may also arise from problems connected with managers.
The increasing pace of technological and structural change has made it imperative to address the issues of managing change in ways that would ensure the best outcomes for organizations and for the people in them. An important issue is still the jobs which people are asked to perform. When change is being planned, particularly if new technology is to be introduced, a ‘window of opportunity’ exists to think about the work that people will do and the design of their jobs. The aim is to ensure that the quality of working life is enhanced rather than undermined.
Concern of the quality of working life has also been supported by government legislation, for example in the areas of employment protection, employee involvement, and health and safety at work. Such legislation directs management attention to the importance of the work environment and the context, in which work is carried out, which in turn can have a direct effect on job satisfaction. Improving job design needs to take account of how people perceive their present tasks and involving them in changes which affect them and their jobs. It involves the ways of thinking about people at work.
By: Kadence Buchanan
