Christopher,
I don't think this topic is too weighty for the LO list at all.
People have told me for years that the matrix organization design is
ineffective, unwieldy, doesn't work, etc. I usually sit and let them go
on because I don't think that I can change their minds and don't wish to
waste my energy trying when there are more important things to attend to.
That's not a good attitude foir everything but it seems to work for me on
certain topics.
The reason I would disagree with these people is because I built and
managed a successful and very effective matrix organization way back in
1983-84. There are a few key principles that MUST be followed in becoming
successful at this, though. When I see a matrix attempt that is failing I
can identify at least two of these principles that are being violated.
The most common is trying to adhere to a strict authoritarian management
style even as the matrix is being set up.
When I built this organization I had to do some pretty heavy change
management without the benefit of formal assistance. It is from this
perspective that I want to offer my insights in response to your queries.
> As leaders in companies that are embracing change (I hate those two words
> when they're used hollow-ly), what sources did you use as your "toolbox?"
I gathered my subordinates together and told them up front that we were
going to engage in what was known as participative management. This
wasn't a brand new idea at the time but I couldn't rememebr where I had
heard it. Also, the people I was working with had never heard of that
term. This began a process of education for all of us. We didn't go look
for books. We looked to ourselves and our individual (and collective)
pasts for insights as to what had worked and what hadn't.
> Where did you start the change process? (Please don't just answer "the
> top.")
This was one of the insights that came about collectively as well as from
my own examination of the organizational context in which we were
operating.
We started in the middle. My subordinates and I sat down and started
creating an organizational structure that would achieve the objectives
that we knew would be expected of us as well as those which we wished to
achieve. When we were finished, we had the framework of our organization
and its various relationships.
Then I went to the top with our ideas. I had prepped the upper management
by feeding them information all along as to our general progress. Tyen I
took them the bare bones structure without most of the discussion which we
had done. I let the management ask questions and I answered them as
honestly as I could. I was fortunate enough to have a boss who believed
in me enough to give me some lattitude with this. Having received his
"blessing," we proceeded.
What followed was an interchange between the middle, the bottom, and the
top, in that order. We created procedures in the middle, tested them at
the bottom, modified them in the middle, finalized them at the bottom,
then sent them to the top for information and, where needed, approval. We
repeated this process at each stage of our genesis.
I guess the distilled essence of this is that I found it undesirable to
start at the top. The top gets an expectation that success will follow
today ... tomorrow at the latest. This expectation is usually
disappointed and other problems result that can lead to the demise of many
key change agents.
You can't start and stay in the middle. These are key people but they
lack the power to make things happen and make those changes stick on their
own. Still, they have the main organizational knowledge to make the
changes work.
You can start at the bottom but that rarely works. Still, if you don't
include the bottoearly enough that they feel they are a part of the start,
you can find yourself with a beautiful design that doesn't work due to
saboutage from the bottom. This can be because of hurt feelings, lack of
understanding, and so on.
In short-short, I think you need to start at all levels, if not
simultaneously, at least in close sequential proximity.
> What were some of the less pleasant surprises of this change cycle?
The biggest surprise was my own resistance to the change. Once I
recognized that this was happening I could start to deal with it. The
organization at large resisted to the day I left. Yet, none could argue
with the success of the venture. Coming from that organizational context
I was, of course, subject to pressures to "do it the way we always do it
... the RIGHT way." This meant not doing it the way I was. Resisting
this pressure is much harder than you think. I wasn't initially prepared
for this.
I also wasn't prepared for the pressure from below to proceed more quickly
than I felt was prudent based on our initial successes. I have
encountered this pressure on several occasions in a number of other
contexts. I have found that the best way to deal with this is to have a
good idea of your vision for success, communicate this idea consistently,
and resist the temptation to jump ahead. You should be open to changes
around you that may require altering the plan, but the vision should be
the guide. I must add that in every case where I did as I have said here,
my subordinates who were frustrated with me initially because I wouldn't
move faster came to me later and acknowledged that my even approach had
contributed greatly to the ultimate success because it kept us from doing
band-aid fixes rather 5than finding a lasting solution to problems and
durable procedures for everyday operations.
> Who do you look up to in the realm of leadership?
In my case I looked to my immediate supervisor. That may not have been
the "correct" thing to do but I recognized in him a "frustrated" tendency
to do just what I was doing. As I brought him into what was going on I
saw examples of how to deal with the heirarchy when it tried to stand in
your way, without bruning any bridges.
> Read any good books or web pages lately?
Sadly, no. They are out there I am sure, but I simply don't have the time
these past few months to read as I should and want to.
I hope this helps you in some way.
--Clyde Howell orgpsych@csra.net
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>