The article, Matrix Management: Not a Structure, A Frame of Mind, was written to establish the idea that in many leading corporations around the world strategic thinking has beaten what the organization can accomplish. Though written in 1990, the authors express concerns of today as they admit business challenges of become more multifaceted than ever expected, and while many companies avoid the typical responses to the expanding market, some still fall back on what they know. This is known as a structural trap and is trying to be avoided, almost too much by companies as they attempt to become multifaceted, creating a second trap. Creating ornate matrixes that inhibit a company’s ability to carry out any possibly hope of a graceful strategy is what we are seeing now. The article continues to hone in on how multifaceted organizational attempts often inhibit companies and while simple is not always better, perhaps there is a middle ground companies should strive for. Essentially, the authors stress companies should grow, but remain realistic in order to cater to possible organizational strategies.
While there were many things I learned from the article that were of use, as well as of interest to me, something particularly interesting I learned was how inefficient some companies are run. Moreover, they are seemingly run this way on purpose in a race to be flashier, more complex than the next company, and ultimately less organized. It came as no surprise that a company needed to be appropriately coordinated based on all activities operating within the company. This also meant operating within the boundaries of reality. However, what was so surprising to learn is the complex structural alterations made to companies were delivered from the top down, allowing me to assume leaders of the company had assessed the risks and found them acceptable, or decided to take the risks anyway. Growing such complex organizational structures at such a quick pace places everything within the company in jeopardy, though I was unaware it also altered basic functions, such as day-to-day communications. It is something to keep in the back of my mind to watch for, as it seems the only thing to suffer most, second to the business itself, is the consumer base.
Learning some companies seemingly decide to set aside guaranteed success to compete in a fragile market that seems to be doomed to failure was very interesting, if only because I never expected to learn that it happened often. To deconstruct your own company for the sake of complexity, having seen other companies fall apart and disregard any realistic expectations when creating an organizational structure is quite odd. I was under the assumption all large changes like this took place from the bottom up in order to create an environment that was better primed for change. A CEO, boss, etc. administering any of these demands in the interest of changing the matrix was confusing. Understanding managers had a three step plan for making such changes was also interesting and new, but confusing still because it did not seem to safeguard the company once the new vision reached the bottom. For example, managers explained the new vision clearly. This is necessary, but does not mean adjustments would not immediately need to be made on lower levels based on the company’s structure, or what works. Career path management in order to broaden the views of employees seemed strange, as it was only used when new organizational shake-ups were being forced from the bottom down. In essence, it seemed as though it was a way to force employees to accept the change. Making a company more complex for the sake of complexity rather than changing organizational structure in a realistic manner was evident in the article.
References
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Matrix Management: Not A Structure, A Frame of Mind. Harvard Business Review, 1-8.
