Why A Matrixed Organization Won’t Survive The Zombie Apocalypse

There’s a point in every zombie survival movie where the team of protagonists start to bicker. Despite impending doom from all corners, the cohesion of mutual preservation starts to disintegrate. Perhaps it was due to individuals putting their own best interests first or disagreements on the decisions made. 

It usually then takes someone in the group to finally point out the obvious:

People! Why are we fighting amongst ourselves when we should be fighting them!

This is why I hate matrixed organizations.  

Cooked up in the 70s, matrix management seemed like a good idea at the time. Here are all these big department silos that have built up in our organization - why not create a management structure that makes these silos interact and work with each other more and keep the wider company objectives in mind? 

Good intentions for sure, but you know what they say about good intentions. What has transpired since is a bloated, confused, Machiavellian mess of org charts that are littering the corporate landscape across the globe. 

I’ve seen it affect companies with just a hundred people to companies with forty thousand people. It’s a problem that spares no one. While the symptoms and causes are numerous, in my mind the problem really boils down to some fundamental issues with matrix management and human behaviour.

The problem with matrix management is that while it intends to foster co-operation between silos - it still keeps the silos. Project teams come together from different divisions and functions, but at the end of the day they are still a part of their separate divsions and report up to different heads with different goals and incentives. It’s like being in a marriage but every night you go home to your other family. 

Wait, you say. That shouldn’t be a problem. Everyone’s all keeping the whole company’s objectives in mind. We’re all pursuing the same goal. Yes that’s true but a broader company objective or goal is like saying, “I want to survive the Zombie apocalypse.” A broad, important goal for sure, but one that still gets subverted by more pressing individual incentives,goals and motivations. Everyone wants the company to do well, but they also want themselves to do well, and their team to do well or their division. All of this before they want the company to do well. You might disagree with me on this but tell me how many Vice-Presidents or Divisional Heads have you met that have admitted that their organization should not exist because in the grand scheme of things, it’s best for the company to remove them and themselves? More often than not it’s the opposite: they start to create make-work or try to justify their need or existence. Self preservation over group preservation first. I’ve seen that happen more often than the other scenario. This is a perfect breeding ground for “frenemies”.

So what is the solution? 

First of all, blow up the silos. If you intend to remove the limitations of silos then go all the way. Creating a matrix for these silos is half a solution. So if you’re going to solve the silo issue - remove them completely. None of this dotted line bullshit.

What I do agree with in a matrix, is the need for multi-functional teams. That does work. Remember your survival team is not going to go very far if everyone is a driver but there’s no mechanic to fix the bus. You need different skills. You also need different personalities. Conformity breeds complacency. You want people pushing each other to think of a better way to bust out of here and escape the zombies. 

Secondly, change the incentive. Silos themselves aren’t the issue, it’s the separate motivations, incentives and goals that each silo has that is. Question: if you’ve ever managed a sales team, what’s the fastest and most effective way to change their behavior? That’s right - change the comp incentive. Why do we need different functional goals? If we have company goals - make that everyone’s goal. Period. Do we really need to micro-manage teams and functions that we need to interpret what the company goals mean for the team? Re-interpreting goals is like Chinese Whispers, at some point you’re going to get different versions of the truth and thus you have different teams and functions pursing different incentives. Keep it simple, keep a single incentive and goal for everyone - and let them figure out how to best achieve that. 

Lastly, keep the pyramid but flatten it. Everyone needs a leader. An ultimate decision maker that sets this corporate goal. The hero that leads you triumphantly past the zombies. Design by committee is usually a disaster. This is why I think pyramids structures are necessary. However, what you don’t need, is the layer upon layer of levels between that ultimate decision maker and the teams that are actually doing the work. While you might argue that this would overwhelm the leader - it shouldn’t if you have the right teams of motivated, self-thinkers under him or her. The leader’s real job should be to set the corporate goal and keep a steady hand on the till. What you don’t need is all these “direct reports” who manage their silos (see point #1) and create all this organizational bureacracy. 

All well and good, you’re thinking. But just like matrix management this sounds great on paper - but chaos in practice. The truth is that there are companies out there that already practice this - and do a damn good job of it (I’ll wax poetic about Valve in another post).

As competition gets fiercer, the cost of entry for startups lower and the general business enviornment weaker, I think we’ll start to see alot of companies forced to take a long, hard look at their matrix structures. 

If not, the zombies are going to start breaking down the door real soon.