Learning and Competitiveness: The Role of Matrix Organizational Structures.

INTRODUCTION

Much has been said about the importance of learning as a strategic advantage in a highly competitive global marketplace. Learning is a major contributor to innovation and speed in the marketplace. These attributes are of special importance in rapidly changing industries

and for firms that are first movers. Learning not only enables their innovation strategies, but it is also integral as an intrinsic motivator. As Senge, et al. (1994) states, "If there is one single thing a learning organization does well, it is helping people to embrace change." Therefore, creating organizations that foster learning is both strategically and motivationally desirable and it contributes to the competitiveness of the firm. Many factors determine the learning capability of a firm including culture, processes, people, and organizational structure.

Matrix structures, unlike traditional structures are designed for both performance and learning. The learning capability of a matrix structure enables the organization to innovate and change--to be competitive in a dynamic and complex environment. To date, firms have used the matrix structure primarily for performance and neglected its capacity to engender learning--a unique and important characteristic. In this paper the role of matrix structures is examined to show its relationship to learning and competitiveness. Each of the roles within the matrix structure will be analyzed and distinguished from those of traditional structures. The decision, information sharing, and learning processes will be explored. The cultural and competency requirements of a matrix structure will be described. The matrix structure will be compared to the traditional structure with regard to knowledge creation and knowledge transfer.

Matrix structures became popular in the 1970's and 1980's as a means of dealing with increasing complexity and rate of change in the environment, e.g. markets, customers, suppliers, etc. (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1990). While the matrix concept became popular, structures that were substantially matrix were limited and even those did not experience great success. Too often the matrix structure has created convoluted roles and relationships, decreasing both learning and effectiveness (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1990). In large part, the problem with the implementation of matrix structures was that no one could effectively implement third-generation strategies and structures with second-generation managers in a first-generation culture. The matrix structure requires and demands an alignment with culture, processes, and people, which is similar to the organizational elements (culture, processes, and people) of the learning organization. A learning organization is characterized by: (1) substantial generative learning as well as adaptive learning; (2) leaders who are responsible for building the organization by developing creative tension between vision and current reality; and (2) managers who are designers of the organization and teachers and stewards (Senge 1990).