Cons of the matrix structure:

· Frustaration and confusiona from dual chain of command

· Conflicts between two sides of the matrix

· Many meetings and discussions

· Human relations skills needed

· Difficult to maintain the power balanced

· Out-of-date method

Conclusion

Previously, before the matrix structure came about, most large corporations had been structured in departments. These departments were logical partitions of the company and any given groups of employees reported to the head of the department. In the 1970s, companies began to restructure its employees into a matrix organization, mainly with the intent of developing project managing units.

Even though the matrix structure has some disadvantages, matrix organizations provide clear accountability within a specific business function and allow more efficient allocation of specialized skills across the entire business. By taking advantage of the shared services and skills and not having to develop and manage those skills themselves, the divisional or product line organizations can better focus on their core business objectives. This last point was one of the original driving forces behind the development and popularization of matrix organizations. Today, matrix organizations are used to describe more than just the product-based organizations. For example, many IT project managers use smaller matrix-style structures for project and team organizations to track skills, tasks, and resources across multiple projects to ensure skills and resources are used properly. The matrix structure has also been used at Microsoft, and there are more than 5,000 project managers there out of more than 50,000 total employees.¹⁴ To sum up, if used properly by companies through clearly defining each manager’s duties, continuously being improved to meet the organization’s needs, the matrix is probably the most suitable structure for middle-sized and large organizations.

References

1. Boone E. Louis, Kurtz L. David: Contemporary Business , 1996.

2. “Organizational Structure”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_structure

3. Allen, 1970, p. 63.

4. Gerald A. Cole, Management Theory and Practice, 2004, p. 192.

5. Boone E. Louis, Kurtz L. David: Contemporary Business , 1996, p.206-207.

6. Keeling and Kallaus, 1996,p. 43.

7. Boone E. Louis, Kurtz L. David: Contemporary Business , 1996, p.206.

8. www.pg.com

9. www.harvard.edu

10. Richard L. Daft, Management, p.334.

11. Organizational Structure”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_structure

12. Galbraith, 1971

13. “Matrix Management” , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_management

14. Scott Berkun: The Art of Project Management, p. 13

Bibliography

Boone E. Louis, Kurtz L. David: Contemporary Business , Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press, 1996

Richard L. Daft: Management, Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press, 1997

James M. Higgins: The Management Challenge , New York, Macmillan College Publishing Company, 1994

Gerald A. Cole: Management Theory and Practice , London: Thomson Learning, 2004