I think this is the last in my 5Ms series. I hope it's been a help to people thinking through various aspects of this ministry model.
(Previous posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5)
Today we look at one final aspect of the '5Ms' model, and tease out why it is possible to have this without really benefitting from the whole model and why it is not necessary to implement this aspect to benefit from the whole model.
Also we look at why I don't like matrix management.
What is matrix management?
Matrix management, basically is where a staff member has multiple bosses. A common example is in an IT company, where I might have my regular boss, but then I might be farmed out on a project where I have a second boss.
A more stable example in church is where a 'Mission' staff member who works with a 10am congregation of a large church may be both answerable to the 'Mission staff leader' and the '10am congregation pastor'.
The benefits of matrix management
The benefits of matrix management is that you can have two priorities or projects 'ruling' over an organisation at the same time. A 'Mission' leader will lead in a different way to a 'congregational' leader. But both will bring unique concerns that the other won't see as readily.
At its best this produces a collaborative environment, where the two leaders have to negotiate together how their competing priorities will be worked out – without tearing the staff member who reports to both of them in half!
The problem of 'silos' might be broken by matrix management, because people are forced to work, share, cooperate across the ministry. This might in term develop more well-rounded people, because they are exposed to a whole range of different areas and concerns.
Finally, in a 'project-management' setting, temporary project teams can be created to respond flexibly and quickly to unique needs, by creating little 'task forces'.
You don't need matrix management to adopt the 5Ms model
But you don't need to adopt a matrix management structure in order to adopt the 5Ms model. You could run with a more standard 'line management' structure, and figure out carefully how the 'purpose' staff relate to the 'congratation' staff.
You could still have something of the 'project management' matrix concept, without formalising matrix management as the default. Every time a church gathers a committee to organise the carols or church camp they are doing this.
And of course the opposite it also true: you could create a matrix management organisational structure and still not adopt the other elements of the 5Ms model.
Why I don't like matrix management
As I look at and read about matrix managenent is seems messy, inefficient and unnecessary. Of course occasional matrix project management is necessary and inevitable – there is no such thing as 'pure' line management. But to deliberately build a matrix management structure doesn't sit well with me.
You run the risk over employing too many 'management-level' staff, burdening staff with too many meetings and a demand for too much reporting. And the constant tug of war of competing loyalities seems to be as likely to produce distracting conflict as fruitful collaboration.
It's a matter of which values you institutionalise in a structure and which values you try to foster through a culture. Just because you want a value doesn't mean that you institutionalise it. For example, in our annual reviews, my ministry doesn't focus on private spiritual life and morality – I believe that would compromise the clarity of the annual review process and would run the risk of being manipulative. This doesn't mean I don't care about our staff's personal spiritual and moral life. Rather I seek to foster a culture of concern for these things without institutionalising them.
So I favour more of a 'line management' structure, while at the same time fostering a culture of collaboration, idea-sharing, cooperation, communication. This can be done through other means than formalising them in a org chart.
Another way of relating multiple prioriites (forgive the corporate terminology) is to think of 'internal clients' rather than 'multiple bosses'. So rather than the 'Mission' staff guy having to submit to the '10am congregation' staff guy, he instead has to serve the '10am congregation' guy as an 'internal client'. He needs to find ways to offer services in a way that a meaningful, relevant and helpful to the 10am congregation. If he doesn't, there won't be a lot of take up or buy in.
