Matrix Structure – Superior to Divisional and Functional Structures Sample Essay

A matrix construction is superior to a functional and a divisional construction. Please. remark on this statement. In your reply. pay particular attending to advantages and disadvantages of each construction and discourse them consistently.

“If the organic structure be lame. the head will non be strong” ( Thomas Jefferson. 1786 ) . If the foundation something is built upon is weak. the whole object will be adversely affected. Likewise. in an abstract mode. it is with any sort of theoretical account or construction. Looking at it from a concern position. one wants to happen the best possible construction or theoretical account to suit an organisation. Organizations exist with a assortment of different constructions. The chief constructions are the “divisional” . the “functional” and the “matrix” construction. This essay shall analyse whether the matrix construction is a more sophisticated organisational construction than the functional or divisional constructions. In order to measure whether a matrix construction is so superior. at first the different constructions will be introduced and discussed. picturing back uping and opposing statements for each construction. The findings will be synthesized and evaluated thenceforth. Due to the length of the essay. the focal point shall simply lie on the chief facets of the matrix construction and non travel into closer item on the fluctuations of matrix constructions.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Using a divisional hierarchy. an organisation is divided into divisions where all activities harmonizing to a specific merchandise group. type of client. procedure or market are grouped together ( Stanford 2007 ) . For illustration. a company may hold a European and an American division working independently with all several sections. The directors of the sections would describe to the supervisor in their state. In contrast. utilizing a functional hierarchy. an organisation is divided into sections harmonizing to their maps ( Anand and Daft 2007. p. 330 ) . For case. a company may hold a European and an American division with functional sections entirely working together. The directors of the sections would describe to the supervisors in their map. hence. the planetary selling director would have studies from each selling director in the several state. The matrix construction can unite divisional and functional constructions making an environment in which low-level directors study to multiple higher-ups at the same time ( Davis and Lawrence 1978. p. 134 ) .

Using the old illustration. the low-level selling director would describe to its higher-up in the several state. nevertheless he would at the same clip besides be describing to the planetary selling director. The divisional construction involves coaction of people in different Fieldss. which may take to an addition of invention and diversified attacks to a job. Furthermore. it may offer high adaptability to alterations and differences in merchandises. geographic locations or clients. However. standardisation troubles might happen and theoretically there can non be every bit much specialisation as in the functional construction. This high grade of specialisation within the different sections of a functionally organized company could potentially take to increased productiveness. On the other manus. this specialisation might increase a groupthink phenomenon in the section. Furthermore. the involvement in continuing and advancing their particular abilities in order to be of higher value to their organisation could harm the cooperation with other sections.

The matrix construction in theory allows an organisation to derive both the advantages of the functional and divisional construction and at the same clip extinguish their disadvantages. The matrix is supposed to supply an environment. which is most suited for utilizing expertness. It besides increases the flexibleness of actions due to stronger connexions between sections. Furthermore. the matrix construction improves the engagement of members in the decision-making procedure. therefore. purportedly increasing motive and committedness ( Larson & A ; Gobeli 1987. p. 130 ) . However. the matrix construction does non merely have advantages. It creates a power battle between the governments due to struggles of involvement and trueness ( Srivastava 2005. p. 183 ) . The instance of ABB besides shows that matrix construction is instead hard to pull off and that its execution is a procedure that should non be underestimated ( Ghemawat 2003. p. 80 ) . Furthermore. an addition in costs due to extra disposal can be observed during the procedure ; in the terminal. nevertheless. it is to ensue in higher productiveness due to better direction ( Middleton 1967. p. 73 ) . In add-on. harmonizing to empirical work by Bartlett and Ghoshal ( 1989 ) . the matrix construction increases the sum of unsolved struggles in low hierarchal degrees. straight reassigning them to higher hierarchal degrees ( Leong & A ; Tan 1993 ) .

In his article “Why does Matrix Fail and the Functional Structure Succeed” ( 2005 ) Srivastava. by agencies of a instance survey of two coal mines in India. shows that matrix construction does non ever work ; one of them was utilizing functional. the other 1 was utilizing matrix construction. The one utilizing matrix construction had assorted structure-related jobs. whereas the other one did non. He emphasizes that the organisation. the civilization and the organisational construction have to exhibit a high grade of tantrum in order for the construction to work. This is purportedly much harder to accomplish in a matrix construction ( Srivastava 2005. p. 188 ) .

Although. the matrix construction combines the advantages of the divisional and functional constructions and eliminates their disadvantages. it introduces different sorts of drawbacks itself. Particularly. the tantrum of the organisation with the construction used plays an of import function in the rating whether the matrix construction is superior. One can non state that it should be used by every organisation. as its efficaciousness depends on a assortment of facets. for case. the size of the company. the adaptivity and proficiency of the directors and the organisational civilization. merely to call a few. Furthermore. it is a really complex construct and at least doubles the managerial work. which with wrong contraption can take to a cost-increase without the benefits of the matrix.

In decision. one can state that the matrix construction is so superior to the functional and divisional constructions. if it is implemented right in an organisation carry throughing the demands and demands. If this is non the instance. the organisation should turn to a different organisational design alternatively. The information presented in this essay is. except for a twosome of empirical based comments. rather theoretical and might. hence. non reflect the existent state of affairs in the concern universe. Furthermore. different fluctuations of the matrix construction ( functional matrix. balanced matrix and undertaking matrix ) have been ignored in this essay. restricting it to concentrate on the basic theory of a matrix construction.

Reference List

Anand. N. N. . & A ; Daft. R. L. ( 2007 ) . What is the Right Organization Design? . Organizational Dynamics. 36 ( 4 ) . 329-344.
doi:10. 1016/j. orgdyn. 2007. 06. 001

Davis. S. M. . & A ; Lawrence. P. R. ( 1978 ) . Problems of matrix organisations. Harvard Business Review. 56 ( 3 ) . 131-142.

Ghemawat. P. ( 2003 ) . Complex Aggregation Strategies. Harvard Business Review. 81 ( 11 ) . 80.

If_the_body_be_feeble_the_mind_will. ( n. d. ) . Columbia World of Quotations. Retrieved October 25. 2012. from Dictionary. com web site: hypertext transfer protocol: //quotes. dictionary. com/If_the_body_be_feeble_the_mind_will

Larson. E. W. . & A ; Gobeli. D. H. ( 1987 ) . Matrix Management: Contradictions and Penetrations. California Management Review. 29 ( 4 ) . 126-138.

Leong. S. . & A ; Tan. C. ( 1993 ) . MANAGING ACROSS Boundary lines: AN EMPIRICAL Trial OF THE BARTLETT AND GHOSHAL ( 1989 ) ORGANIZATIONAL TYPOLOGY. Journal Of International Business Studies. 24 ( 3 ) . 449-464.

Middleton. C. J. ( 1967 ) . How to Put Up a Undertaking Organization. Harvard Business Review. 45 ( 2 ) . 73-82.

Srivastava. B. N. ( 2005 ) . Why Does Matrix Fail and the Functional Structure Succeed: A Study of Two Open-cast Coal Mines in India. Decision ( 0304-0941 ) . 32 ( 1 ) . 170-190.

Stanford. N. ( 2007 ) . Chapter 3: Organizational constructions. In. Guide to Organisation Design ( pp. 46-79 ) . EIU: Economist Intelligence Unit.