What one fintech’s missteps reveal about matrix design
A U.S.-based, mid-sized fintech firm started out as a pure technology company. Like many in its space, it defaulted to organizing around its products—expense management, procurement, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and forecasting. Its go-to-market model, org structure, and financials all mirrored these product groups.
For a time, this worked. But as the company grew, cracks appeared. Customers were called on by multiple salespeople from different product lines. Product teams struggled to keep up with rapid expansion into new geographies and industries. Tensions rose between groups. Revenue inched upward, but profitability dropped.
A common trap
This story is not unique. Companies often default to one structure for a variety of reasons: it reflects their roots, it’s simpler, it aligns with how financial segments are reported, or it made sense a decade or two ago.
For example, consider many consumer-packaged goods companies and global brands that are still organized primarily by geography. That structure once helped manage differences in consumer preferences, distribution, and regulations across regions. But as consumer behavior converges, digital marketing enables global reach, and logistics strategies evolve, geography is no longer the obvious anchor. Increasingly, companies need to build brands as global assets rather than fractured regional ones.
What once fit can become a barrier to growth and profitability.
While there’s no such thing as a perfect organization structure, an optimized structure can facilitate alignment, strategy execution, profitability, and even employee engagement. The optimal organization structure starts with clarity around the company’s primary focus and strategy.
Start with purpose, then select your anchor axes
Designing a matrix must begin with purpose. After confirming who we are, what we sell, and who we serve, leaders need filters to optimize the matrix structure. They should ask: Where do we need growth? What are the industry and customer trends? Where can we lead and differentiate? How do we protect our core business? Answering these questions helps define the primary axis by which a company should be organized.
Most organizations benefit from defining one anchor axis—the banner everyone rallies behind to facilitate united focus and alignment across the organization. Sometimes, however, two axes are equally important. For example, a manufacturer or a software company might elevate both channel and product. The key is not to force simplicity where it doesn’t fit, but to be explicit about which axes matter most.
Examples of organizing axes
The key is to choose the axis—or axes—that create the greatest differentiation and long-term advantage, and make those choices explicit so employees, investors, and partners understand them.
Add only what you need
Once the anchor axes are defined, only then should leaders consider adding other dimensions—for customer focus, market relevance, balance, or local responsiveness. Sometimes companies require a tertiary layer. Every added dimension, however, increases complexity and requires deliberate management of the “junctions” where they intersect.
Shared services: the enterprise backbone
Shared services—finance, HR, IT, supply chain, legal, and sometimes marketing—are not axes. They are core enterprise functions that serve the entire organization. Their purpose is to provide economies of scale, specialized expertise, and consistent standards. In most companies, they are structured at the top, not embedded in the matrix. If the primary axis members (e.g. brand or customer segment) vary significantly, shared services may alternatively be positioned within each axis area.
But shared services cannot operate in isolation. To be effective, they must understand the enterprise’s anchor axes and align their priorities accordingly. If the business is organized by product and geography, HR and IT must design talent models and platforms that reinforce that design. Done well, shared services act as trusted partners who enable both enterprise efficiency and unit-level performance.
The role of shared services deserves its own deeper discussion, which I’ll explore in a future piece.
Beyond the chart: roles, processes, leadership
Reporting lines alone don’t make a matrix work. Success depends on:
Without these, structure collapses under its own weight. A Vantage Partners study show why: 44% of leaders in matrices report slower decisions, and only 15% of people in highly matrixed organizations feel their roles are completely clear.
EXPERT TIP: Keep reporting simple. Aim for no more than two lines. One solid for accountability. The other, dotted for alignment.
Final thought: clarity before complexity
Most matrix organizations aren’t optional—they are the natural reality of diversified or multifaceted enterprises. But complexity should follow purpose, not overwhelm it. Whether your company defines one anchor axis or two, the choice must be intentional and transparent. Shared services then provide the backbone: scale, expertise, and alignment with those axes. Done well, these collective dimensions signal strategy, accelerate decisions, and channel leadership attention where it matters most.
