Case 3.

1 : Moss and McAdams Accounting Firm

This case study examines the organizational conflict at Moss and McAdams Accounting Firm (M&M), a
regional accounting firm with a matrix structure. It focuses on Bruce Palmer, a new account manager, who
faces challenges managing a shared resource, Zeke Olds, who is also assigned to a consulting project under
Ken Crosby. The situation reveals the difficulties of managing personnel and priorities in a matrix
organization.

1. If you were Palmer at the end of the case, how would you respond?
If I were Bruce Palmer, I would respond to Sands diplomatically but assertively. While understanding
Olds’s concerns, I would emphasize the need to maintain the integrity of the Johnsonville audit. I would
propose a meeting involving Sands, Crosby, Olds, and myself to clearly define expectations and ensure
project balance. Additionally, I would document all resource conflicts and suggest that another specialist
assist Crosby’s project. This approach maintains professionalism and ensures both project continuity and
fair workload distribution.

2. What, if anything, could Palmer have done to avoid losing Olds?

Palmer could have acted proactively to prevent the situation from escalating:
1. Establish clear expectations: Secure a formal agreement on Olds’s time division and task priorities.
2. Coordinate regularly: Set up weekly meetings with Crosby to balance scheduling conflicts.
3. Motivate through engagement: Leverage Olds’s IT skills to modernize audit practices and keep him
interested.
4. Escalate early: Inform Sands of ongoing issues before productivity declined.
5. Support work–life balance: Recognize and address stress before it impacted performance.
Through early intervention and strong communication, Palmer could have retained Olds and improved
overall morale.

3. What advantages and disadvantages of a matrix organization are apparent from this case?
The matrix structure at M&M offers flexibility and collaboration but also leads to confusion and conflict.

Advantages
Advantage Example from Case
Efficient resource utilization Olds’s expertise could support multiple projects
simultaneously.
Knowledge sharing Audit and consulting teams collaborate, combining
technical and analytical skills.
Employee development Employees gain experience across diverse
projects, improving career growth.

Disadvantages
Disadvantage Example from Case
Role ambiguity Olds was uncertain which manager’s demands to
prioritize.
Conflict between managers Palmer and Crosby competed for Olds’s time.
Work overload and stress Olds experienced burnout balancing both
assignments.
Diluted accountability No clear decision-maker for resolving cross-
project conflicts.
Communication breakdown Informal coordination led to misunderstandings.
4. What could management at M&M do to more effectively manage situations like this?
M&M management can implement several measures to handle such conflicts more effectively:
• Formalize matrix policies: Create clear guidelines on reporting relationships, workload, and authority.
• Improve resource planning: Use scheduling tools to manage assignments and prevent overloading
employees.
• Encourage coordination: Require regular communication between project managers sharing staff.
• Provide leadership training: Equip managers with conflict resolution and negotiation skills.
• Protect employee well-being: Monitor workload, stress levels, and work–life balance.
• Align performance incentives: Reward managers based on collaborative performance rather than
individual project success.
These actions would promote accountability, reduce stress, and increase overall organizational efficiency.

The Moss and McAdams case demonstrates the complexity of managing in a matrix structure. While the
system enables flexibility and resource sharing, it requires strong communication, leadership, and
governance to succeed. By implementing formal coordination mechanisms and prioritizing employee well-
being, M&M can turn matrix challenges into opportunities for growth and innovation.

Case 3.2 – Horizon Consulting

Horizon Consulting is a custom software development company that specializes in building mobile
applications for multiple platforms. The company is organized into three departments: Sales, Software
Development, and Graphics, with Account Managers acting as project managers. This case focuses on Patti
Smith, an Account Manager at Horizon, who faces resource reassignment challenges following an
unexpected project reprioritization. The situation highlights strengths and weaknesses in Horizon’s matrix
organizational structure and project management practices.

1. How successful was the post-meeting?

The post-meeting following the status report was moderately successful. While the managers were able to
quickly reassign software engineers and resolve the immediate resource issue, the process lacked structure
and long-term planning. The success of the meeting lay in the cooperative attitude and professionalism of
the managers, while its limitations revealed systemic flaws in Horizon’s project management structure.

Successes
• Quick problem resolution – Managers reassigned engineers promptly, preventing project standstills.
• Collaborative teamwork – Account Managers cooperated and negotiated fairly to share resources.
• Leadership support – Jackson Browne’s suggestion to Patti about Axel Gerthoff exemplified positive peer
support and mentoring.

Limitations
• Reactive decision-making – Resource reassignment was triggered by a crisis rather than proactive
planning.
• Lack of structured authority – No clear leadership or functional oversight guided the engineer allocations.
• Informal and subjective process – Decisions relied on personal familiarity instead of data-driven
evaluation.
• Lower project priority disadvantage – Smaller (Purple) projects, like Patti’s Shanghai Wok app, suffered
most from reallocation.

Overall, the post-meeting achieved short-term coordination but lacked the strategic oversight needed for
sustainable project management.

2. What factors contributed to the success or failure of this meeting?

Contributing Success Factors

Factor Description
Collaborative culture Horizon’s open, team-oriented culture encouraged
productive dialogue and cooperation.
Team cohesion Friendly relationships among managers built trust
and enabled efficient negotiation.
Knowledge sharing Senior managers like Jackson provided guidance,
improving decision quality for less experienced
managers.

Contributing Failure Factors

Factor Description
Ad-hoc decision-making No formal resource allocation procedure guided
the reassignment process.
Unclear authority Managers lacked clarity about who had final say
on resource use.
Resource dependency Overreliance on key engineers (like Prem
Mathew) created bottlenecks.
Insufficient planning tools Lack of project-tracking systems led to intuition-
based decisions.
Priority bias Low-priority projects consistently lost resources,
hurting client satisfaction.
In summary, while the meeting demonstrated strong interpersonal coordination, it exposed weaknesses in
organizational process control.

3. What kind of project management structure does Horizon use? Is it the right structure?
Horizon Consulting operates under a matrix project management structure—specifically, a weak matrix
that blends functional and project-based authority.

Characteristics of the Structure

Element Evidence from Case
Functional departments Sales, Software, and Graphics departments each
led by functional heads.
Project-based coordination Account Managers act as project managers
coordinating client delivery.
Shared resources Engineers and designers work across multiple
projects simultaneously.
Dual authority Functional heads control personnel; Account
Managers oversee client-facing execution.
Evaluation of the Structure
Advantages:
• Efficient resource utilization through flexible staff sharing.
• Enhanced collaboration between technical and sales teams.
• Greater adaptability to shifting client demands.

Disadvantages:
• Role conflict and confusion between project and functional managers.
• Unstable project continuity when resources are reassigned.
• Diluted accountability and inconsistent performance control.

While the matrix structure fits Horizon’s dynamic and creative environment, its weak implementation
causes coordination and accountability issues. A shift toward a balanced matrix—where both functional
and project managers share formal authority—would better align resources and responsibilities.

4. Recommendations and Lessons Learned

To strengthen Horizon’s project management practices, the following actions are recommended:
• Establish clear resource allocation policies and escalation paths.
• Implement a centralized project management system for workload tracking.
• Conduct regular coordination meetings between functional and project managers.
• Provide leadership and conflict-resolution training for Account Managers.
• Define measurable project priorities tied to strategic objectives.

The Horizon Consulting case illustrates the challenges of operating within a weak matrix organization.
While flexibility and creativity are supported, the lack of clear authority, structured planning, and
communication processes undermines efficiency. By improving its governance structure and resource
management practices, Horizon can better align its innovative culture with consistent project success.