Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 435–454 | Cite as

Unitary, Divisional, And Matrix Forms As Political Governance Systems



In this study I reassess a set of fundamental organization forms (unitary, divisional, and matrix) as agenda-setting and political governance systems. My method of analysis is based on how political scientists study agendas in committees. Specifically, I first recount that moving from a functional (unitary) to a product-line (divisional) structure increases the types of conflict referred from lower to higher levels of the hierarchy, but does not increase the amount of conflict referred. I then show that moving from a product-line to a matrix structure increases the amount and the types of conflict referred to higher levels of the hierarchy; that it is possible in matrix forms that no conflict is resolved at the lowest levels of the hierarchy; and, that accountability is reduced for those who are able to refer conflict. The study reveals implications for matrix forms that derive from this view of organizations as agenda-setting and political governance systems. This analysis fits with the recent history of matrix forms in a variety of organizations.


agenda-setting authority conflict resolution hierarchy matrix 

JEL Classifications

D23 L22 L23 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahuja M., K.M. Carley (1999) Network Structure in Virtual Organizations. Organization Science 10(6): 741–757Google Scholar
  2. Allison G.T. (1971). The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, BrownGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison G.T., M. Halperin (1972). Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications. In: R. Tanter, R.H. Ullman, (eds.) Theory and Policy in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow K.J. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York, Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrow K.J. (1974). The Limits of Organization. New York: W.W. Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashkenas R., D. Ulrich, T. Jick, S. Kerr (2002). The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure. Revised and updated. San Francisco: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  7. Barham, K., C. Heimer: 1998, “A.B.B., The Dancing Giant: Creating the Globally Connected Corporation”. PitmanGoogle Scholar
  8. Baron D.P., J.A. Ferejohn (1989). Bargaining in Legislatures. American Political Science Review 83(4): 1181–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartlett, C.A., S. Ghoshal: 1989, “Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution”. (Boston: Harvard Business School Press)Google Scholar
  10. Benedetto, R.F.: 1985, “Matrix Management: Theory in Practice”. (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt)Google Scholar
  11. Bernheim D.B., M.D. Whinston (1986). Common Agency. Econometrica. 54(4): 923–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brickley, J.A., C.W. Smith, Jr., J.L. Zimmerman: 2004, “Managerial Economics and Organizational Architecture”, 3rd ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin)Google Scholar
  13. Burns T., G.M. Stalker (1961). The Management of Innovations. London: Tavistock PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  14. Chandler A.D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox G.W., M.D. McCubbins (2005). Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox, G.W., K.A. Shepsle: 2006, “Majority Cycling and Agenda Manipulation: Richard McKelvey’s Contributions and Legacy”, in J. Aldrich, J.E. Alt and A. Lupia (eds.), A Positive Change in Political Science: The Legacy of Richard McKelvey’s Most Influential Writings. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press)Google Scholar
  17. Daft, R.L.: 2007, Organization Theory and Design. (Mason, OH: Thomson/Southwestern)Google Scholar
  18. Davis S.M., P.R. Lawrence (1977). Matrix. Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis S.M., P.R. Lawrence (1978). Problems of Matrix Organizations. Harvard Business Review 56(3): 131–142Google Scholar
  20. Evans P., B. Wolf (2005). Collaboration Rules. Harvard Business Review 83(7): 96–104Google Scholar
  21. Fletcher, D.S., I.M. Taplin: 2002, “Understanding Organizational Evolution: Its Impact on Management and Performance”. (Westport, Conn.: Quorum)Google Scholar
  22. Galbraith J.R. (1974a). Organization Design: An Information Processing View. Interfaces 4: 28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galbraith J.R. (1974b). Matrix Organization Designs - How to Combine Functional and Project Forms. Business Horizons 17(1): 29–40Google Scholar
  24. Galbraith J.R. (1994). Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations 2nd ed. Reading, Mass: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghemawat P. (2003). Complex Aggregation Strategies. Harvard Business Review 81(11): 80Google Scholar
  26. Gibbard A. (1973). Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result. Econometrica 41(4): 587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goggin W.C. (1974). How the Multimensional Structure Works and Dow Corning. Harvard Business Review 52(1): 54–65Google Scholar
  28. Grandori A. (1999). Organization and Economic Behavior. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammond, T.H.: 1994, “Structure, Strategy, and the Agenda of the Firm”, in R.P. Rumelt, D.E. Schendel and D.J. Teece (eds.), Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda. (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press)Google Scholar
  30. Hammond T.H. (1986). Agenda Control, Organizational Structure, and Bureaucratic Politics. American Journal of Political Science 30(2): 379–420Google Scholar
  31. Hammond T.H., P.A. Thomas (1989). The Impossibility of a Neutral Hierarchy. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 5(1): 155–84Google Scholar
  32. Hatch M.J., A.L. Cunliffe (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Hedlund G. (1986). The Hypermodern Corporation: A Heterarchy?. Human Resource Management Journal 25(1): 9–35Google Scholar
  34. 2002, “2 Computer Giants Hope to Avoid Pitfalls of Past Mergers”. January 11, (2002). Available online at Scholar
  35. Jensen M.C., W.H. Meckling (1992). Specific and General Knowledge, and Organizational Structure In L. Werin, H. Wijkander. Ed Contract Economics. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones G.R. (2004). Organizational Theory, Design, and Change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones C., W.S. Hesterley, S.P. Borgatti (1997). A General Theory of Network Governance. Academy of Management Review 22(4): 911–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Larson E.W., D.H. Gobeli (1987). Matrix Management: Contradictions and Insights. California Management Review 29(4): 126–138Google Scholar
  39. Larson E.W., D.H. Gobeli (1988). Organizing for product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management 5: 180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kreps, D.: 1990, “Corporate Culture and Economic Theory”, in J. Alt and K. Shepsle (eds.), Perspectives on Positive Political Economy. (New York: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
  41. March J.G., H.A. Simon (1958). Organizations. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  42. McKelvey R.D. (1976). Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control. Journal of Economic Theory 12: 472–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKelvey R.D. (1979). General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models. Econometrica 47: 1085–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meagher K.J. (2003). Generalizing Incentives and Loss of Control in an Optimal Hierarchy: The Role of Information Technology. Economics Letters 78: 273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller G.J. (1992). Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Mintzberg H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  47. Ordeshook P.C. (1986). Game Theory and Political Theory. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  48. Pettigrew A., C.R. Whittington (1995). Organizational Strategy and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  49. Plott C.R. (1967). A Notion of Equilibrium and its Possibility Under Majority Rule. American Economic Review 57(Sept): 787–806Google Scholar
  50. Prahalad C.K. (1976). Strategic Choices in Diversified MNCs. Harvard Business Review 54(4): 67–78Google Scholar
  51. Romer T., H. Rosenthal (1978). Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo. Public Choice 33(Winter): 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Satterthwaite M.A. (1975). Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10: 187–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schofield N.J. (1985). Social Choice and Democracy. Springer Verlag: Heidelberg and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Shepsle K.A. (1979). Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium In Multidimensional Voting Models. American Journal of Political Science 23: 27–59Google Scholar
  55. Taylor, A.: 1999, “Compaq Looks Inside for Salvation”. Fortune August 16, 1999. 126Google Scholar
  56. Thompson G.F. (2003). Between Hierarchies and Markets: The Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  57. Thompson J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  58. Venerable, G.D.: 1999, “Managing in a Five Dimension Economy: Ven Matrix Architectures for New Organizations”. (Westport, CT: Quorum)Google Scholar
  59. Williamson O.E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: The Free PressGoogle Scholar
  60. Williamson O.E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Public & International AffairsThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations