Designing matrix organizations that work: Lessons from the P&G case
Ronald Jean Degen
International School of Management Paris
Working paper nº 33/2009
globADVANTAGE Center of Research in International Business & Strategy
INDEA - Campus 5 Rua das Olhalvas Instituto Politécnico de Leiria 2414 - 016 Leiria PORTUGAL Tel. (+351) 244 845 051 Fax. (+351) 244 845 059 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Webpage: www.globadvantage.ipleiria.pt
WORKING PAPER Nº 33/2009 July 2009
Com o apoio da UNISUL Business School
DESIGNING MATRIX ORGANIZATIONS THAT WORK
LESSONS FROM THE P&G CASE
Ronald Jean Degen Ph.D. Candidate at the International School of Management Paris Vice Chairman of Masisa Chile Address: E-mail: email@example.com Phone: +55 41 9918 9000 Cabanha Orgânica Lomas Negras Ltda. Caixa Postal 95 Campo Alegre, SC 89294-000 Brasil
Ronald Jean Degen is in the Ph.D. Program of the International School of Management in Paris, and the Vice Chairman of Masisa in Chile. . He was a Professor at the Getúlio Vargas Graduate Business School of São Paulo where he pioneered the introduction of teaching entrepreneurship in 1980 and wrote the first textbook in Portuguese on entrepreneurship published in 1989 by McGraw-Hill. He just published a new textbook on entrepreneurship that was published in 2009 by Pearson Education.
Designing matrix organizations that work: Lessons from the P&G case ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to illustrate why companies adopted the matrix, what problems they had, the solutions for these problems based on Galbraith (2009) and other authors like Davis & Lawrence (1977), and the state of the art of matrix structure design today like the P&G front-back hybrid matrix organization. The matrix organization concept emerged from the US aerospace industry in the 1960s and was adopted by many companies in the early 1970s. In the late 1970s and early 1980s many companies were experiencing trouble with its operation and many argued like Peters & Waterman in their bestseller In search of excellence in 1982 (p. 306) that the matrix was too complex to work properly. Galbraith (2009, p. 10-14) explains that the reason for the problems were that the matrix in these organizations was wrongly adopted, hastily installed, and inappropriately implemented. He explains that adopting a matrix structure requires a collaborative organization form, proper power, and accountability distribution, complementing changes to the information systems, planning and budgeting process, the performance evaluation and bonus system, and so on. To illustrate the historical evolution of organization structure to the simple matrix and then to more complex matrix organizations we used the P&G case (Piskorski & Spadini 2007). Keywords: Matrix organization, organization structure design, front-back hybrid matrix organization.
Designing matrix organizations that work: Lessons from the P&G case
INTRODUCTION “Matrix organization is one of those management concepts, like Total Quality Management (TQM) or reengineering, that became very popular and then went through the management fashion cycle” writes Galbraith (2009, p.10). He continues explaining that the matrix became popular in the 1970s and early 1980s and was wrongly adopted, hastily installed and inappropriately implemented by many organizations. Therefore, word spread that the matrix does not work. In 1982, Peters and Waterman wrote the death sentence to the matrix: Our favorite candidate for the wrong kind of complex response is the matrix organization structure (p.306). They explain that the matrix organization is very confusing, people do not know to whom they should report to, and virtually none of the excellent companies they surveyed informed that they had formal matrix with the exception of project management companies like Boeing. Galbraith (2009, p.9) says that this assertion is not true. Besides Boeing, Intel, Digital...
References: BARNARD, Chester 1938, The functions of the executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. BROOKER, Katrina 1999, ‘Can Procter & Gamble change its culture, protect its marked share, and find the next tide?’, Fortune, April 26, Vol. 139, Iss. 8, p. 146-152 BROOKER, Katrina 2000, ‘Plugging the leaks at P&G: A first-year report card for CEO Durk Jager’, Fortune, February 21, Vol. 141, Iss. 4, p. 44-45 BROOKER, Katrina & SCHLOSSER, Julie 2002, ‘The un-CEO A. G. Lafley doesn’t overpromise. He doesn’t believe in the vision thing. All he’s done is turn around P&G in 27 months”, Fortune, September 16, Vol. 146, Iss.4, p. 88BRYAN, Lowell L. & JOYCE, Claudia 2005, ‘The 21st-century organization: Big corporations must make sweeping organizational changes to get the best from their professionals’, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2005 Number 3, p. 26 CHANDLER, Alfred D. 1962, Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American enterprise, The M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., p. 2,5, 6, 324, 346, 383-396 CHANG, Ha-Joon 2008, Bad Samaritans: The myth of free trade and the secret history of capitalism, Bloomsbury Press, New York, p. 5051 DAVIS, Stanley M. & LAWRENCE, Paul R. 1977, Matrix, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass., p. 2, 46-52 DEGEN, Ronald Jean 2009, O empreendedor: Empreender como opção de carreira, Person Education, São Paulo, p. 359-366 EUROPEAN UNION (EU) 2009, , viewed January 2009 FAYOL, Henri 1949, General and industrial management, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, London FOLLET, Mary Parker 1924, Creative experience, Longmans, Green and Company, London FORTUNE 500 2007, , viewed January 2009 FORTUNE MOST ADMIRED COMPANIES 2007, , viewed January 2009
GALBRAITH, Jay R. & NATHANSON, Daniel A. 1978, Strategy Implementation: The role of structure and process, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, p. 70 GALBRAITH, Jay R. 2002, Designing organizations: An executive guide to strategy, structure, and process, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, p. 9-16 GALBRAIHT, Jay R. 2009, Designing matrix organizations that actually work: How IBM, Procter & Gamble, and others for success, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, p. 7, 10 HAMILTON, Alexander 1789, Report on the subject of manufacturers, as reprinted in Hamilton – Writings, The Library of the America, New York, p. 679-708 MCLEAN, Bethany 1977, ‘Is P&G washed up?’, Fortune, May 12, Vol. 135, Iss. 9, p.184 NEFF, Jack 2005, ‘Well-balanced plan allows P&G to soar’, Advertising Age (Midwest Region Edition), Dec 12, Vol. 76, Iss. 50, p. S2-S3 (2 pp.) P&G ANNUAL REPORTS 1999 to 2008, , viewed January 2009 P&G HERITAGE BROCHURE 2009, , viewed January 2009 PETERS, Thomas J. & WATERMAN, Robert H. 1982, In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies, Harper & Row, New York, p. 306 PISKORSKI, Mikolaj Jan & SPADINI, Alessandro L. 2007, ‘Procter & Gamble: Organization 2005 (A)’, Harvard Business School Case No. 707-516 TAYLOR, Frederic W. 1911, The principles of scientific management, Harper & Row, New York WEBER, Max 1946, Essays in sociology, Oxford University Press, New York
Please join StudyMode to read the full document