We are working with several clients at the moment on matrix management implementations, and we are interviewing their line managers about the key challenges of matrix management.
One of the key challenges that comes up is moving from traditional authority and control in getting things done to getting things done through influence and networks.
Many managers feel deeply uncomfortable with this, and in particular being held accountable for things they don’t fully control. In some organizations it has become a mantra “no accountability without control” and is actually used to prevent the growth of horizontal connections across the organisation.
But accountability and control are different things and, in a matrix, accountabilities are often shared.
It is rare for people to have sole control over the areas they are accountable for. Even the most powerful business unit head relies on functional specialists and central services they don’t fully control to reach their goals.
One of my clients remarked that when you get to a very senior level in their organization networking, alliances and influence become even more important “we are all big dogs at this level so relying on hierarchy and power just don’t work”.
Good managers have always relied on a range of tools and skills. They know that falling back on control and power are often counterproductive to achieving the goals they are accountable for.
In a matrix, we will experience accountability without full control regularly so we need to develop the skills to make this work.
What do you think, do you need control to be accountable?
Join our Matrix Management Group 
Follow us on Twitter
2 responses so far ↓
1 Erin Helcl // Jun 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Accountability without control? That is an interesting question. I think that is depends on the situation. As a leader, I can be accountable to a team’s success without total control. It is my job to give them the tools, coaching, clear objectives and measurements of success. The way they achieve these goals should be greatly up to them, their styles, skills and ability to work with others.
When it comes to something as finite as budget control if I am going to be accountable for it, I want to have control over it, or at least to the amounts people are allowed to spend, then let them spend it wisely to meet their objectives. Does that make sense?
2 Kevan Hall // Jun 4, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Makes sense to me. However, even in budgets, BU leaders may have corporate allocations they dont control or they may have functional budgets, such as HR, that are primarily spent by people they do not have full control over, but these costs may appear in their P&L.
I think full control is largely an illusion in very complex organizations – much as some senior leaders would love it
Leave a Comment