Managing the Matrix within the Community
Kristin Staroba
William S. Norman gave the culture at the nonprofit Travel Industry Association of America, Washington, D.C., a gentle shake in January 1995, the day he began as president and chief executive officer. Norman directed the staff, "Throw out the fat rule books. I want us to operate with as few rules and regulations as we possibly can. Let’s invent."
In his first association staff post, Norman applies a management model that draws from years in the military and then manufacturing --- and yet is strikingly non-hierarchical. Norman shakes his head at the suggestion that he had to adapt his management style to the nonprofit sector. He calls it common sense, and sees little difference between running a large business and leading a nonprofit.
The Matrix Philosophy
Norman describes a system we might call matrix management. Two prominent features --- task teams and an unusually free spirited quarterly all constituent meeting --- capture the essence of how the matrix functions.
Norman looks at an organization as ‘a cross functional form,’ or matrix, that should have relatively few barriers between traditional departments (like yoga center and ashram housing). "The cumulative effect of what everyone is doing, is greater than the arithmetic sum," he states. "They build on one another, and I push that synergy."
"For example," Norman explains, "a given person in the organization knows what all the various departments or entities are about, what their goals and objectives are, what they're working on, what the time line is, and where the problems are. She has an opportunity not only to contribute to them, but to know when something she's doing may piggyback [on their work], and make certain we're getting the biggest bang for our buck."
For nonprofits and community organizations, he suggests, improved image is another benefit of an integrated work structure. "Customers, students, and other members know they're not going to deal with departments that handle everything separately, but with an organization that is consolidated."
Create Constituency Buy in with Task Teams
To handle internal issues, Norman assembles an adhoc, interdepartmental task teams (Executive Councilors) of six or seven people. "They have clearly defined precepts of what they are to do, and are empowered to make recommendations," Norman says. The organization’s ad hoc teams are entrusted to research best practice, consulting with other teams, and finding out "what other teams have done in the process of establishing guidelines." While Norman notes that he "ultimately will make the final decision," so far he has never lacked consensus. The decision making process on a given issue occurs in a single session, sometimes taking a full day. "The teams come in one by one and make recommendations," Norman describes. "Then we discuss it and vote on it. When individuals know this is the process, they are very responsible . They have a vested interest in the outcome.
With this consensual approach, we've ended up with far better service and outcomes than we ever could have by bringing in outside help. And what came as a surprise to some --- although not to me " was the number of first rate ideas we came up with," Norman notes with a slight smile.
His favorite example of member empowered solutions is their policies and procedures manual. "We took all the components, called on nearly every member, and divide them up into task teams. We said, for example, 'Go find out what's the best thing happening in meetings procedures and come up with what you think is realistic and appropriate for us to do.'
"I don't have to ask if the members really buy into our policies and procedures," Norman states with satisfaction. "We all put it together. It's a living document."
Improve Work via Open Communication
"To me, open communication is basic to management," Norman comments. He was astonished when he arrived at TIA "to find no financial reporting systems, so there were individuals with projects who had absolutely no idea what kind of budgets they had to work with." He expects members to make decisions, and decisions must be "based upon facts and data. To the degree possible, every member at every level gets feedback on everything we are doing --- plans, research, financial information, committees, and what happens on the board or council."
Norman and others disseminate all that information in quarterly all-constituency meetings. At the first meeting of its kind, Norman recalls explaining at length "where we were, what the vision was, what my expectations were, what they could expect of me. Then I invited feedback, and never have you heard such deafening silence."
Eighteen months later, members have grown used to speaking their minds and asking questions. Queries such as, "Why wasn't that done on time?" "What is that big expenditure for?" "What does this program accomplish?" are openly aired and answered by the responsible team.
"Now they know they're expected to know what's going on," Norman notes. He thinks "community organizations too often have departments working very separately." The matrix has broken down many old barriers.
Similarly, the distance between idea and action has dwindled as Norman has turned meetings into decision making forums. At the same time, he has engendered ease among members. After the budget reports and an update on the mission at a recent quarterly constituency meeting, one constituent posed an even more pressing issue: "Last year there was no constituency picnic. Could they have one this year?" Never missing a beat, Norman and others said, "Yes, and you're in charge of organizing it."