An interview with Andrew Doyle, Partner at High Plains Advisors, former Senior HR Leader Oppenheimer Funds, Merrill Lynch and Toshiba.
Main Article cover image by Sergey Galyonkin is licensed under CC BY-SA
Nicholas:
Okay. So can I just ask, what’s your understanding of a matrix organization? How would you define it?
Andy:
So I would define a matrix organization as one in which people may have multiple reporting lines and multiple relationships. So it may be an across a business line and then a geographic one, or a business line and a functional one. So for example, a finance person who is supporting a particular business reports to that business and then reports back to the CFO organization.
Nicholas:
Got it. And what would you say are the pluses of an organization structure such as a matrix organization? What situations does it serve well?
Andy:
Well, I think it provides a checks and balances, if you will, to make sure that there is complex thinking around decisions, from multiple angles. So in the example I just gave, the business line finance person is the one closest to the situation so they have some expertise about that. The business line though, has some expertise around what is needed for the overall running of that business and how the decisions from finance interact with that. And then, the CFO though, has a bird’s eye view over the financial situation of the entire organization, not just that particular business line. So those two things can hopefully influence and help the business finance person come to the best decision for everyone.
Nicholas:
Oh, that’s great. So, what I hear you saying, the structure offers a more comprehensive view from multiple perspectives of one situation so that you make better quality decisions.
Andy:
Yes, I would say that that’s in theory that that’s the way that works. Not always in practice, but certainly in theory.
Nicholas:
And can you tell me a little bit about what it means in practice? What happens in practice and why sometimes it doesn’t deliver what we would want it to deliver?
Andy:
Well, I think that organizations are inherently political. And so, in an ideal world, those three entities: the business finance, the business, and the CFO, are all having a conversation about what is the best outcome. But the reality is that the business wants what it wants. The CFO may want what it wants, and the business finance person or group is caught in the middle and must try to navigate a tricky political situation to come to the best outcome: to try to please both parties. Which is not necessarily the best outcome for everybody involved.
Nicholas:
So, if we introduce the word soul to that equation, how does leading with soul play a role in helping mitigate some of the downsides of a matrix organization?
Andy:
I think one of the key tenants of leading with soul… is empathy. And I think one of the key attributes of leading with empathy is listening. I think a matrix organization works very well if people are actively listening. There is the reason why that we have them situated throughout the company. They are the experts in those view of the organization than everybody else and so as we listen to them, it can help us make more effective decisions. What I think often happens is people enter these relationships and conversations with agendas, and they do a lot of talking about their agenda, but not necessarily a lot of listening.
That’s why we design matrix organizations in that way. You want to put experts all around the organization who have the best view of that part of the organization, and then have them working with the other parts to make sure that in these complex organizations, the best decision is getting made.
Nicholas:
So, for people responsible for the recruitment and the development of the people that work within a matrix organization, what are our priorities, would you say?
Andy:
Clearly people with strong empathy skills, people who are intellectually curious and then people who are bridge-makers, so to speak. I had an experience where I was working in Toshiba headquarters in Japan, and they were facing the challenge of putting together teams, as they were building a semiconductor factory in Thailand. They had a local Thai HR person and then brought in someone else from Japan as their manager. But people were leaving the organization. Turnover was about 33% and they were having a lot of difficulty really getting off the ground.
The Thai person and the Japanese ex-pat didn’t seem to be communicating very well. I was sent down to help them with the project. I asked the local Thai HR person to take me to his favourite restaurant. I found out that the Japanese person always insisted on them going to a Japanese restaurant. And so, we went to a quite different part of town and then I started to ask questions about, “Okay, what are commutes like? What are this or that like?” And then we began to get at the root of some of the problems. And he started to open up about some of the difficulties of Thai people working for Japanese companies.
And we started to get to the real root of the problem. He clearly had expertise that he was not sharing with his Japanese ex-pat boss, because he had not been made to feel comfortable. His boss had not taken an interest in understanding the culture that he was working in or understanding of the situation. Just simply, “Hey, these numbers are un-acceptable, and we have to do something about it.”
Nicholas:
That’s a good example of the power of leading with empathy. I recall the old Stephen Covey principle, which is ‘seek first to understand before you seek to be understood’.
Andy:
Right.
Nicholas:
Your story describes this well. And these are life skills, aren’t they? Do you think there’s a role for organizations to be actively developing skills like this, or should we just be looking for people who do this naturally?
Andy:
No question that I think this kind of thing can be cultivated and so, one of the things that I did, leaving Toshiba, I joined Merrill Lynch, and now I was on the opposite end. I was the American ex-pat working in Japan. And then I would have the US headquarters people either putting pressure on us or making decisions that were not very well informed. And so, I tried to cultivate some of the things I had learned at Toshiba. So, for one, I didn’t want to be that ugly ex-pat who only eats at American or Western restaurants. I should try to integrate with the culture, integrate with the locals and then go around and teach my other ex-pat colleagues to do the same.
Maybe they don’t speak Japanese. Maybe there are certain things that they’re not comfortable with. But find the place where you’re comfortable and get out there. And then, in terms of our communication with headquarters, understand that there is a reason why we’re on the ground here. And it’s to be the eyes and ears, and to report things in a context and language that headquarters understands. Not to simply just execute the orders of headquarters, because headquarters has deemed something important. It very well may be important, but they need to understand what the ramifications of that decision or policy may be on that local market.
Nicholas:
I remember when I was working for American Express Company in EMEA, and New York wanted this management curriculum to go out across EMEA. There was already some great training that was already happening in the UK and in some countries, in some there wasn’t. So, we had to recognize firstly that there was a real sense of pride in some of the things that were already going on there and this new curriculum was just coming out of New York, like a tsunami, to just wipe out everything else, “This is what you will do from now on.” There was the potential for was all sorts hidden agendas and people pretending to say yes, and then going, “Well, I’m too busy.” And you know what people can be like if they’re not bought in.
Andy:
Yes.
Nicholas:
In fact, in many markets, progress ended up being quite slow in rolling out this curriculum. I took over the role of rolling out part of this curriculum in EMEA, 22 markets in fact, and I peeled it right back. I said, “Okay, I’ve got these programmes. I’ve got these programs that New York had designed that are good programmes, for sure. Right, let’s just put that in the back pocket for now. Let’s go and see the general managers of these markets and find out what they’re trying to achieve, and the people issues they’re facing.” And I just went and met each general manager. I said, “Look, I’ve got some great resources available here for you that have been put together in New York. Some good training, some good material, and tools, but I don’t want to talk about that. I want to firstly understand what your business agenda is. As a market, what are you trying to do? What are you trying to achieve? What are the issues? What are the people issues? What’s getting in the way?”
In every case, there was a need for getting really good quality team leaders who were on board with the local business strategy. It was a big issue for all of them. The general managers really wanted people who could lead people and make certain things happen. And I said, “Well, would you be interested in some training for these team leaders do this better?” “Oh yes, please!” – was always the reply.” I said, “Great, okay. Well, I’m going to need a couple of your local people to do it in local language. So, I need maybe an HR person or a marketing person or someone who’s a good speaker, and we’ll give them some development and we’ll come and help co-deliver it with them and all the rest of it.” And suddenly, we had all these resources lined up. And then all we did is we took this curriculum and did a little bit of re-bundling and adapting here and there and we rolled this curriculum out faster than any other region in the world.
Andy:
That’s a good lead to a second thing that I think is crucial in matrix organizations and a way to cultivate it: pragmatism. There isn’t always just one way to the answer. And sometimes you just need to reframe things, understand your stakeholders and their agendas, and then reframe something so that it’s more obviously meeting their needs.
Nicholas:
Yes.
Andy:
And that’s half the battle. But very often in matrix organizations, to your earlier point about the coffee granule and how it adds a subtle stain to clean water. They’ve seen a couple of coffee granules go in, and now they’re very suspicious that everything that’s coming from headquarters is another coffee granule.
Nicholas:
Yes, their defenses are up, the barriers’ up. And that’s so true. So, in a matrix organization, I have responsibility as an agent in that matrix organization for building my own mutually supportive relationships, don’t I? Whereas in a hierarchy I can say, “Oh, well, who has the power, Andy or me? Well, I’ve got the power so Andy, I want you to do X because I have positional power over you.” But where I am there to implement management curriculum across those markets, I have no direct positional power over the general manager or the HR people.
Andy:
Right.
Nicholas:
So, in a matrix organization, you’re working a lot with building alliances with people, aren’t you?
Andy:
Absolutely. Yes, it’s a lot of relationship building and the people who navigate matrix organizations the best are those who do some form of stakeholder analysis, and with very skillful people it’s intuitive. And they serve all these different masters by getting them what they want, all the while getting the overall objective through. And we talk a lot about emotional competence. I think that political competence is something that’s going to take on even greater importance, particularly in fragmented matrix organizations and fragmented is where we are today in many cases. So, I can’t, in the pandemic, for example, even if I’m working at headquarters, just pop down the hall and stick my head into somebody’s office and say, “Hey, I just need to make sure we’re on the same page.”
It’s much more difficult for people to navigate organizations right now because the interactions are very scheduled and formal. Obviously, you can text or email, but even then, the body language is not helping you elicit whatever information or whatever… What’s the word? Whatever… Gosh, I got stuck there, not emotion, but maybe you catch my drift. I can send you an email and I’m inquisitive, but maybe it comes across to you as angry.
Nicholas:
Yes, we need to think carefully about the subtext of what we’re sending.
Andy:
Yes.
Nicholas:
So, if you start an email going, “Dear Andy, please send the reports I asked for last week right away.” The subtext is you haven’t delivered what I want and I’m nagging you. If it really is a problem, that’s a different conversation, but in a distributed workplace, it’s easy for people to project a subtext, even if it’s not intended.
Andy:
Right.
Nicholas:
Whereas if I say, “Dear Andy, I hope you are well. It was good speaking last week. I hope the weather’s better now. I wondered how you were getting along with the reports we discussed. Is there anything you need from me?” Different subtext. We’re more like friends, we’re allies, we’re just, “Is there anything I can do to help you give me what I need to help you giving me?” So, there’s a reciprocal energy there and that’s working more from the soul, isn’t it?
Andy:
Yes, exactly. And so, to your point, you can put that into an email or a text, but your body language will do a lot of that for you when you are able to do things in person or even in video. But I do think that our work style right now makes the navigating of matrix organizations even more difficult.
Nicholas:
Yes, and with many organisations planning hybrid working, I think you must pay even more attention to the empathy and the relationship building. Take time to do that before you get onto your agenda, as a matter of habit, and do your research too. Know who it is you’re talking to. Know about their values, know about what their issues are, do your homework before you have the conversation so that you can connect with them and make them feel that you understand their world. That’s going to reduce a lot of friction, isn’t it?
Andy:
Yes, and even if you don’t understand their world, that you’re making the effort to, right? Going back to the example in Thailand. Take me to your favourite restaurant in your part of town because I’m interested in learning about you and what your life is like. And did I, in one night learn about everything that, that HR manager is going through? No. But I was making the effort, which made them feel safe to share more context with me about what’s going on in the situation. And I could hopefully that means I could make a better decision.
Nicholas:
That’s good. I think we painted a nice picture of some of the interpersonal skills and the attitudinal human skills, emotional intelligence skills that need to be in there. It could make a great training program, an online learning programme with some actors to make it immersive and realistic. We’re doing more and more of this kind of work with clients, using actors to play back the real inner voices of employees and customers. We call it VerbatimPlayback®.
I also wanted to ask you a little bit on talent management. And the angle I want to come in on is, “As we move into this hybrid world, what are the challenges for talent management and talent development that we’re going to be coming up against?”
Andy:
So, this is something, again, to an earlier point, I think was already happening before the pandemic. We very often refer to it as the future of work, but I think the future is here. And whether it’s the remote aspect of our work or the fact that machines and artificial intelligence are entering into the workplace more and more. I think that the components of work are changing. And so, this is some work we started to do it at Oppenheimer Funds, which dictated a lot of our talent strategy and our development work. So, if you break down the components of work into IQ, EQ, PQ and CQ. So, PQ is political competence, CQ is contextual competence. So, everybody pretty much, I think knows IQ and EQ.
So political competence is just like we’ve been discussing. Your ability to navigate the organization, your ability to influence others of your ideas. CQ is contextual intelligence and I hope this analogy works in England; it works in America. But you were in America, so… If you come to an intersection and there’s an eight-sided red sign with the letters, S and P, your contextual context is going to tell you that that’s probably a stop sign, and that the T and the O have fallen off.
Nicholas:
Yes.
Andy:
Artificial intelligence can’t do that, right? A driverless car coming to that intersection will stop if it sees a stop sign, but if it sees 80% of a stop sign, it’s not going to stop. That’s still the advantage that we have over machines. So, a lot of our education, a lot of our development of high potentials is all around the IQ piece. But our work is moving into the EQ, PQ and CQ components of work. And more and more, the IQ piece will be done by machines. So, traditional education might teach, “What was the year John Kennedy was shot?” “Okay, that’s a multiple-choice question because that’s something I have to memorize for general knowledge.”
Nowadays, you can have that answer in five seconds. “Hey Siri, when was John F. Kennedy shot?” Right? So, education really needs to be in the other three components. And that’s how we’re going to add value to work and to organizations, teaching people to have empathy, teaching people how to influence others and teaching people to improve their contextual competence. And you can do that through helping people become lifelong learners and making sure that people have a broad understanding of many different things. That being a specialist on something is probably a way to get yourself disrupted out of the workforce because that specialty will eventually get replaced by technology.
Nicholas:
Yes. So, it’s how you combine various things in a unique way that AI can’t do. Mind you, I must admit I had two weeks in America wondering what the hell it meant to do Ped Xing. Ped Xing really bothered me. I could not get it. What is this Ped Xing, it’s everywhere? What’s this Ped Xing? What am I supposed to do?
Andy:
And Ped Xing is in truth a West coast term. There would be a lot of East coasters here who would be similarly-
Nicholas:
Confused.
Andy:
Yes.
Nicholas:
There you go. There you go. ‘Heavy plant crossing’ was always one that made us smile over here in the UK.
Great to talk with you Andy. Take care.
Andy:
Thanks Nicholas.
NOTE: Ped Xing is Pedestrian Crossing ahead!
