When I worked as a Research assistant, there was matrix structure where I reported to immediate supervisor and project manager. As long as there was proper communication between the team member and supervisor there wasn't any issue with the structure. But like most of people experiences mentioned above there were minor issues due to lack of communication. Apart from that I feel matrix structure is useful to engage with other team members and allows collaboration with other teams.
I can not decide on which organization structure is the best. Dr. Simon mentioned pros and cons for each, so I think the best approach is to have a combination of two; a project based and matrix organization. I can see that this might be good idea, but hard to do in practice, specially if the company has a firm structure already. But hypothetically speaking, the combination of both would mean that silos would be eliminated between departments and better flow of communication and task completion will be achieved. In addition, having a matric organization can aid in having more than one point of view for each department, specially when completing documents like the DID and Risk analysis. The matrix would also provide a more cohesive and inviting workforce for new employees. If a specific department is having trouble with a project, he or she can reach out for help to other people working on that's section for other projects.
Yes, this would also increase the number of employee interactions and therefore the chance for disagreement and conflict, but I think it can potentially be more good than bad. Ultimately, the main advantage would be to have people doing the same task (i.e. marketing) for different projects and their input while maintaining the hierarchy of the project-based organization.
In a matrix, employees have more than one boss and work on multiple teams. This leads to multiple streams of goals that compete for time and attention. Resources are shared more widely across the organization and this can create competition for resources. Increased opportunity for conflict in a matrix. Working with more diverse groups of colleagues from different functional, corporate and national cultures, and different perspectives and values, can easily cause misunderstanding.
Currently, I work as a viral vector manufacturer at the NIH. I would consider my team to be a Project-based Organization due to the leadership style of the management team. My facility is comprised of the chief officer who leads the entire Surgery Branch. Under him are three project managers, one for each team ( Vector Production Facility, Cell Production Facility, and Quality Control). The three managers collaborate on project planning and then assign roles or duties to their respective teams. I have been working in this position for about 8 months now, and I agree with some of the advantages and disadvantages discussed in the lecture. Regarding the advantages, projects do tend to run better as the team adjusts and the project advances. Also, information transfers from project to project well because of the management of individual project teams. The disadvantage that I have experienced is limited knowledge sharing between project teams. To avoid this, all three project teams will meet as a whole to discuss laboratory and project objectives.
I’ve worked in a matrix organization for a few years, and the biggest challenge for me was always priority conflict, not personalities. Having both a functional manager and a project manager can work well if roles and expectations are clear, but when they aren’t, it quickly becomes confusing.
In my case, I supported multiple projects while still reporting to a functional lead. The project manager would push for aggressive deadlines, while my functional manager was more focused on long-term quality and process compliance. Both goals were valid, but without a clear escalation path, I often had to decide on my own which task took priority. That uncertainty usually surfaced around major milestones, similar to what others here described.
One thing that helped reduce friction was agreeing early on how work would be tracked and standardized across teams. For example, when collaborating with a lab team, we used shared templates and documentation so everyone was aligned on expectations and outputs. Even something simple like a standardized 96 well plate layout template helped minimize back-and-forth and reduced errors when data moved between departments. Small process agreements like this made communication smoother and prevented blame when timelines slipped.
Overall, matrix organizations can be very effective, but only when communication, responsibility ownership, and prioritization rules are defined upfront. Without that structure, employees can feel stuck in the middle, trying to satisfy multiple “bosses” with competing demands.
