Increasingly, matrix structures are being found in areas (such as business and government departments) where they are not
expected to be found. In other words, matrix
structures are becoming the dominant form of structure. This has major implications for the science of management. The commonplace view of matrix
organizations is that employees have two (or more) bosses instead of one. Understandably, this is anathema to administrators who have grown used to a hierarchical setup.
We are living in a world where there is constant change. In such a world, fixed people, policies and rules can easily become an obstacle. Matrix organizations, on the other hand, are in constant flux as their structure takes shape according to the needs of the product or project. The author says that there is an inherent conflict between specialization and coordination functions. Besides, senior managers cannot make all the decisions because they simply do not know enough. Matrix management implies that product / project managers will share resources with functional managers.
Product managers have a certain degree of organizational power – power that they can use to influence the activities of the various functional departments (packaging, sales, and advertising) to meet the specific needs of the product. Product managers may also be provided with separate budgets to carry out their tasks.
Often, a department has both functional as well as geographic (regional) responsibilities. The regional managers are dependent upon the functional managers – and vice versa. This type of matrix management is known as bi-polar, in that there are two sets of managers with separate responsibilities and opposing interests!
In addition to “product” and “bi-polar” types of matrix organizations, most students of management literature would be familiar with the “project” type of matrix structure as well. Where the functional manager heads the group, but the staff are engaged in one or more projects under the supervision of the respective project managers.
The author says that traditional managers are used to clearly defined goals, given areas of responsibility, and fixed channels of authority. Authority is equated with responsibility; and backed by resources. However, in a matrix structure or organization, this is an ideal that cannot be fulfilled. In a matrix organization, resources are kept separate from the managers who are responsible for meeting goals. As organizational goals are in a state of constant flux - and it is not economical to allocate resources for only one use.
The great advantage of matrix organizations is flexibility – old structures are reused, instead of creating new ones whenever new goals and problems arise. A matrix structure is in a state of constant change and is unlikely to be threatened with obsolescence. Matrix structures have a (different) role for both specialists and general managers. In fact, the very existence of matrix structures is based on the assumption that general managers are not qualified to make all the necessary decisions.