Do Your Teams Know How to Succeed in a Matrixed Work Environment?
How your organization is structured matters more than most leaders admit. When employees work across multiple teams and answer to more than one manager — directly or indirectly — you are operating in a matrixed work environment. While this structure promises agility and collaboration, it also introduces complexity, competing priorities, and blurred accountability.
Gallup’s research on more than 14,000 U.S. workers underscores just how common this challenge has become: nearly two-thirds of employees now operate on matrixed teams. The real question is whether people know how to succeed when they work across multiple teams and answer to more than one manager.
Advantages and Disadvantages of a Matrixed Work Environment
- The Upside
When designed and led well, a matrixed work environment can be a powerful performance multiplier. The upside is real: stronger synergies across functions, higher engagement, faster learning, and greater innovation. These gains come from better information flow, disciplined cross-functional collaboration, and more strategic deployment of scarce talent. At its best, a matrix allows organizations to move resources quickly to where they create the most value — without tearing down functional expertise.
- The Downside
When designed or led poorly, however, the matrix becomes a productivity tax. Decision rights blur, priorities collide, and employees spend an outsized amount of time negotiating roles, attending alignment meetings, and managing stakeholders instead of delivering results. Progress slows not because people lack capability, but because the system forces too many trade-offs to be resolved informally and repeatedly.
For individuals, the strain is often palpable. Juggling multiple teams and accountabilities, matrixed employees frequently report cognitive overload, role ambiguity, and competing expectations from different leaders. Misaligned goals and unclear ownership create frustration, while perceptions of unequal contribution erode trust and accountability. Left unaddressed, these dynamics reduce efficiencies while undermining morale, decision quality, and execution speed.
How to Succeed in a Matrixed Environment
Based on extensive project postmortem analysis and change management simulation data, four proven practices consistently separate matrixed teams that thrive from those that struggle. When applied with discipline, these principles amplify the benefits of the matrix — speed, collaboration, and flexibility — while reducing the hidden costs of confusion, overload, and stalled execution.
- Reset Team Expectations
Before people drown in emails, meetings, and competing requests from leaders with different agendas, pause and ask a harder question: does the way your teams work still make sense? In matrixed environments, success depends less on effort and more on clarity. When priorities collide and expectations drift, even strong performers get stuck reacting instead of executing. This is the moment to deliberately reset goals and accountabilities, roles and responsibilities, and ways of working.
Start by pressure-testing the fundamentals. Are priorities, stakeholders, goals, and expectations explicit — or merely assumed? Are roles, processes, scope, and interdependencies clear enough to support fast decisions and clean handoffs? Do people actually have the resources and support required to deliver, or are they expected to improvise their way through structural gaps?
Leadership expectations matter just as much. Are managers truly empowered and expected to act as player-coaches, or are they unintentionally adding noise by pulling in different directions? Is there sufficient psychological safety and team health to surface conflicts early and resolve them productively, rather than letting tension fester underground?
Effective matrixed teams also make their norms visible. How work gets done, how decisions are made, how disagreements are handled, and how information flows should be explicit and consistently reinforced. Just as critical, teams must have the communication, collaboration, and decision-making skills required to operate across boundaries without slowing down.
Because priorities, stakeholders, and strategies inevitably shift, high-performing teams treat alignment as a recurring discipline, not a one-time exercise. They create clear team charters and reassess team health, capabilities, and performance at least twice a year.
The question is not whether your teams are busy. It’s whether they are aligned. Do you know where your teams stand today?
- Clarify the Project Sponsor and Lead
Our organizational culture assessments consistently show a clear pattern: employees who primarily report to a single manager are significantly more engaged than those navigating multiple reporting lines. In matrixed environments, that engagement gap is rarely about motivation — it’s about clarity. People need to know who ultimately owns the success or failure of the work so they know where to go with decisions, risks, and concerns.
Every initiative must have two roles that are unmistakable. The project sponsor owns the why and the outcomes — setting direction, resolving escalations, and making trade-off decisions when priorities collide. The project lead owns the how — coordinating execution, aligning contributors, and keeping the work moving. When these roles are blurred or shared informally, accountability weakens and progress slows.
Managers play a critical role in preventing this drift. Regular check-ins are how leaders surface competing priorities, recalibrate expectations, and reinforce focus as conditions change. Without these conversations, ambiguity fills the vacuum, leading to duplicated effort, missed handoffs, and deep frustration.
The fix is deceptively simple but rarely applied with discipline: explicitly name and socialize both the project sponsor and the project lead for every initiative, no exceptions. Make their decision rights visible and reinforce them when tension arises.
The question to ask is straightforward: is ownership and accountability clear enough for people to execute with confidence?
- Ensure Leaders are Aligned
In a matrixed environment, misalignment at the top is amplified everywhere else. Leadership simulation assessment data tells us that leaders must communicate frequently and candidly with one another to ensure that their initiatives reinforce — rather than compete with — each other and the organization’s growth strategy. When leaders operate in isolation or default to protecting their own turf, the matrix quickly devolves into a zero-sum game that dilutes impact and exhausts talent.
The temptation to stay in one’s silo is understandable. It feels efficient and controllable. In practice, it almost always undermines enterprise results. Teams take their cues from leadership behavior; when leaders push narrow agendas or send mixed signals, employees are forced to reconcile conflicts on their own, slowing execution and eroding trust.
True leadership team alignment requires discipline at multiple levels. Senior leaders must be unequivocally aligned on enterprise goals, strategic priorities, and how resources are allocated when trade-offs are unavoidable. Project leaders, in turn, must model the same transparency, collaboration, and cross-boundary communication they expect from their teams. Anything less creates a double standard that the organization feels immediately.
Alignment is not about consensus on everything. It is about shared clarity on what matters most, why it matters now, and how decisions will be made when priorities collide.
So ask the question that matters: are your leaders genuinely aligned on the few things that drive success — or are they expecting the matrix to sort it out for them?
- Simplify, Reduce, and Adjust — Relentlessly
In matrixed work environments, complexity multiplies quickly. Left unchecked, it shows up as bloated meetings, overloaded calendars, and too many people weighing in on too many decisions. A simple but uncomfortable question cuts through the noise: do all team members truly need to be in every meeting?
When agendas are tight and priorities are explicit, participation becomes intentional rather than habitual. Fewer people, clearer decisions, and sharper follow-through are the natural result. This requires leaders to exercise strategic judgment — to distinguish what is merely interesting from what is essential to individual, team, and enterprise progress.
Action learning leadership development feedback highlights that simplification is not about doing less work; it is about doing the right work with fewer handoffs and distractions. Reducing meetings, clarifying decision rights, and adjusting processes as conditions change demand focus and discipline, especially from leaders. Without that discipline, the matrix defaults to excess coordination and diminishing returns.
High-performing organizations treat the way work gets done as a design problem, not an afterthought. They continuously refine workflows, communication norms, and governance to match reality, not yesterday’s org chart.
So ask yourself: are you deliberately optimizing how work gets done — or are you letting unnecessary complexity tax your teams’ time and attention?
The Bottom Line
Matrixed organizations can be powerful engines of speed, learning, and innovation — but only when they are deliberately led. Success depends on disciplined clarity around expectations, leaders who understand the human cost of complexity, a ruthless focus on what is truly important, and consistent alignment around enterprise priorities. Without these elements, the matrix becomes a drag on execution.
To reset your team to work more effectively in a matrixed work environment, download this Field Tested Team Charter Template
Tristam Brown is an executive business consultant and organizational development expert with more than three decades of experience helping organizations accelerate performance, build high-impact teams, and turn strategy into execution. As CEO of LSA Global, he works with leaders to get and stay aligned™ through research-backed strategy, culture, and talent solutions that produce measurable, business-critical results. See full bio.
0
