Managing Program Headquarters Units: The Importance of Matrixing

Abstract

In their classic work on matrix organizations, Davis and Lawrence expressed skepticism about the utility of matrix structures for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental programs.' They suggested that rigidities of structure and process that inevitably develop around the expenditure of public funds greatly inhibit the use of flexible organizational designs in the public sector. This article argues that the use of matrix designs, in fact, may be a key to effective performance for an important class of public sector organizations, namely the headquarters units of federal or state programs. These are not the units that actually provide services or conduct operations. Rather, they are the units that are responsible for allocating funds to program operators at the state or local levels, developing program policies and regulations, designing service delivery models or operational techniques, conducting system-wide planning, providing technical assistance or training for operating personnel, and monitoring field operations. Over the course of three recent research projects, the author and his colleagues interviewed nearly three dozen national and state directors of job placement, training, social services, energy assistance, and welfareemployment programs.2 Each of these individuals was simultaneously the director of a dispersed service delivery network and the supervisor of a program headquarters unit. Our interviews indicated that many of them had clear ideas about the design and management of their service delivery systems, but only a few had a similarly coherent doctrine for the organization and management of their program headquarters units. Their efforts to describe such a doctrine often laid heavy emphasis on compliance with conventional bureaucratic norms (functional departmentation, formally specified roles for individuals and subunits, delegation down the chain of command, unit of command). Their descriptions of actual events, however, often yielded a substantially different picture. Ad groupings, special assignments, and informal procedures abounded. Functional boundaries were violated. Intervening supervisory layers within the unit were often by-passed. Individuals frequently worked outside their formal roles. Directors and unit members characterized the reality as fire fighting, ad hoc or ad hominen management, or muddling through. These descriptions suggested that the program directors are being pulled3 in three different directions. First,