Matrix management: what research says about dual reporting
Two bosses, two priorities, one week: the matrix has become the default structure of large organisations. What is really known about it?
Expected benefits, observed costs
Thomas Sy and Laura D'Annunzio (2005, Organizational Dynamics) review work on matrix structures: they improve expertise sharing but increase role ambiguity and priority conflicts, especially when the two lines do not coordinate their demands.
Role ambiguity
Role research, since Robert Kahn and colleagues (1964, Organizational Stress), links ambiguity and role conflict to stress and lower satisfaction. The matrix institutionalises both conditions unless explicitly managed.
The limits
Studies rarely compare structures in a controlled way: they describe organisations that chose the matrix, which rules out strong causal conclusions. Effects depend heavily on the maturity of managerial practices. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What follows for management
The best-supported lever is not structural but behavioural: both managers must align priorities with each other before passing them on. The employee should not be the place where the lines' disagreement is settled.
A practical implication, verifiable in Geneva
For an employee with dual reporting, have their two managers meet monthly to arbitrate priorities on their behalf. The number of contradictory requests received before and after is a simple indicator. It is a setup we install in Geneva organisations. To go further: explore the Complex Management training in Geneva in the canton of Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Complex Management in Geneva
- complex management
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva