Power and influence in matrix organisations

Abstract

Since its inception more than three decades ago, there has been a prolific adoption of the matrix organisational design across diverse industries. Despite the ubiquity of matrix organisations, there remains several challenges primarily related to interpersonal relationships; most notably ambiguity of authority as a result of the dual command structure. This study examines the perceptions of the types of power and influence mechanisms used by the direct functional manager and the indirect project manager to influence project personnel. The effect of the types of influence mechanisms used on attitudinal outcomes is also examined with a view to understand the impact on project personnel performance. The research was conducted using a two phase design. The first phase was qualitative with various stakeholders required to validate the constructs of power and influence identified in the literature and identify new constructs. The results from phase one and the literature review findings were used to develop a self-administered questionnaire for phase two. Quantitative data was obtained from 23 functional managers, 28 project managers and 101 project personnel in South Africa, Italy and Canada from one large project execution and technology company. There appears to be a large perceptual gap between managers and project personnel. Two themes that emerge are the perceived use of inspirational and personal influence mechanisms by managers in comparison with the perceived use of coercive punitive mechanisms by project personnel. Relationships were observed between the perceptions of the type of influence mechanisms used on project personnel and their satisfaction with manager, performance and the amount of effort expended. Relationships were also observed between satisfaction with each type of manager and performance & employee engagement. Finally the results indicate a strong relationship between the functional manager and overall job satisfaction, highlighting the role of the direct line management relationship.