Having worked in several matrixed situations for solving cross-cutting problems, I couldn't agree more with this article by @jeremiahlee on the so-called Spotify model.
"Failed #SquadGoals" - jeremiahlee.com/posts/failed-s…
"Failed #SquadGoals" - jeremiahlee.com/posts/failed-s…
(1) Matrixed work requires certain assumptions to be true
(a) Everyone can thrive in ambiguity
(b) You can naturally and organically determine who should make a decision
(c) You can also naturally and organically know who is accountable for delivery
These are rarely true.
(a) Everyone can thrive in ambiguity
(b) You can naturally and organically determine who should make a decision
(c) You can also naturally and organically know who is accountable for delivery
These are rarely true.
(2) You need some amount of collaboration to get anything done, but if your outcome depends entirely on collaboration, you get democracy, which is a slow way of getting things done. Let's admit it, corporations are not democracies.
(3) Autonomy works well when there is single-threaded ownership in a bounded context and accountability for outcomes. When you remove bounded context and accountability, then you get anarchy with disagreements and passive-aggressivenes. These behaviors make workplaces toxic.
(4) Flexibility to form teams without reporting changes is essential, but when you overdo it, you end up with program heavy cross-company workstreams. It becomes difficult for anyone to understand what's going on, and you end up with endless meetings.
(5) On the plus side, matrixed situations force you to learn how to influence as success depends on influence.
But then again, when there is ambiguity and uncertainty, people tend to align behind reporting lines since reporting lines determine incentives (pay, bonus etc.)
But then again, when there is ambiguity and uncertainty, people tend to align behind reporting lines since reporting lines determine incentives (pay, bonus etc.)
