These resources (which include the content from the book, and where appropriate, downloadable tools) are only available to folks who have purchased the book. Get in touch if you’d like access.
Autonomy & alignment
Matrix structures represent a paradox: the simultaneous pursuit of specialized depth and integrated breadth. This is a worthy pursuit! But what we experience in a matrixed organization is a bureaucratic labyrinth where authority diffuses, accountability blurs, and execution stalls. We complain about these outcomes while forgetting that the purpose of a system is what it does:
It is a system which tends to diminish the visibility of authority and to emphasize consensus as the operative mode. —William Litzinger, et al., 1970
Formal dual-reporting mechanisms create slow, sticky alignment. Consider the contrasting case: A distributed chapter of media specialists across a global CPG enterprise doubled the effectiveness of their multibillion-dollar media investment without reconfiguring a single reporting relationship. Their lightweight structure prioritized expertise rather than authority and achieved what elaborate matrix relationships rarely deliver: real results on a short timeline.
The matrix structure persists because groups often assume that effective coordination must come from formal authority. This assumption leads companies to design their structures around predefined relationships rather than allowing natural collaboration to emerge. As a result, informal networks become limited to casual knowledge sharing, while the “real work” is controlled by hierarchy.
Making a matrix structure effective requires organizations to excel at things that are genuinely difficult: smooth communication across departments; clear roles that everyone understands; politics-free conflict resolution; managers who can handle competing demands without bias. Since most individuals (let alone organizations!) struggle to master these skills, common problems emerge: meetings where no clear decisions are made; strategy sessions that secretly become battles over resources; employees feeling trapped between conflicting performance demands.
Consultants are aware of these problems, but their usual advice is simply to add more rules or layers of management. Unfortunately, these additions make coordination even more complicated without solving the basic issue: balancing specialized teams’ independence with the organization’s need for integrated results.