"Who's in Charge Here?" Fixing Accountability in Japan’s Matrix Organizations
"I just need to know what everyone else is responsible for." It’s the first thing we frequently hear when kicking off a team-building workshop for a cross-functional project or a newly formed department operating in a matrix. And it’s not just a one-off comment; it’s a recurring frustration among teams in Japan working within multinational corporations (MNCs).
While HQs design matrix structures with good intentions and solid business logic, the reality on the ground is often very different. In Japan, matrix organizations frequently exist only on paper, while traditional hierarchies and informal power structures continue to shape decision-making. This disconnect might just be one of the key reasons engagement scores remain stubbornly low - employees are left navigating a system that looks modern in theory but feels unworkable in practice.
The problem isn’t just the structure itself - it’s how we implement it. Too often, organizations shortcut the change management process, expecting employees to adapt to a new way of working without providing the necessary skills, mindset shifts, and clarity on roles and responsibilities. A matrix organization requires more than just lines on an org chart - it demands strong collaboration, influence without authority, and clear decision-making frameworks. Without these, people feel stuck in a maze of overlapping responsibilities, unclear priorities, and competing expectations.
So, how do we fix it? Let’s take a closer look.
Lessons from Apple's Directly Responsible Individual (DRI) Model
Increaslingly more organizations adopt matrix structures to manage cross-functional projects and optimize resource utilization. This approach, which gained prominence in the 1960s, integrates functional and project-based frameworks, allowing companies to leverage specialized expertise across various departments. While matrix structures offer flexibility and efficiency, they also create significant challenges in accountability and decision-making. To address these issues, companies like Apple have developed models like the Directly Responsible Individual (DRI) system, which clarifies ownership and accelerates execution.
The Evolution and Rationale Behind Matrix Structures
The matrix organizational structure emerged in the late 1960s as global expansion and technological advancements made business operations more complex. Early adopters in aerospace, defense, and manufacturing needed a way to coordinate multiple teams without duplicating resources or creating rigid hierarchies. The matrix model allowed companies to blend functional expertise with project agility, ensuring that specialized knowledge was applied effectively across initiatives.
As industries evolved, matrix structures became common in multinational corporations and complex organizations where collaboration across functions, geographies, and business units was essential. The belief was that this model would enable faster decision-making, greater innovation, and improved cross-functional alignment. However, many organizations underestimated the challenges that come with this structure.
The Reality of Matrix Organizations in Japan: Flawed Assumptions & Hidden Challenges
The matrix model is built on the idea that employees will seamlessly collaborate across functions, balancing multiple priorities and taking ownership without needing rigid hierarchies. On paper, this structure promises flexibility, innovation, and efficiency. In reality, especially in Japan, these assumptions often fall apart, leading to frustration, disengagement, and inefficiency.
Japanese corporate culture is deeply rooted in clarity of roles, consensus-based decision-making, and structured hierarchies. When HQs introduce matrix models without adapting them to the local business environment, employees often find themselves caught between formal reporting lines and the unwritten rules of power dynamics. Instead of enhancing agility, the matrix can create uncertainty—leading to hesitation, prolonged decision-making, and internal friction rather than the intended collaboration.
Let’s take a closer look at the key assumptions behind matrix organizations and why they don’t always hold up in practice, particularly in Japan.
The Assumptions Behind Matrix Organizations—And What’s Missing
Assumption 1: Employees Can Manage Competing Priorities with Ease
Matrix structures assume that employees can effortlessly juggle multiple priorities across reporting lines, balancing functional goals with project-based deliverables.
Reality in Japan: Employees often experience conflicting expectations, unclear priorities, and pressure from multiple managers. The Japanese business environment emphasizes risk avoidance and alignment, so when accountability is vague, employees may delay decisions, escalate minor issues, or wait for approval rather than taking initiative. Instead of driving efficiency, the matrix can slow down execution as teams struggle to navigate competing demands.
Assumption 2: Communication Flows Seamlessly Across Departments
The model assumes that transparent, cross-functional communication will keep everyone aligned and working toward shared objectives.
Reality in Japan: Silos remain strong. Functional teams prioritize their own mandates, and cross-department collaboration often lacks the structured processes needed for smooth execution. Hierarchical decision-making and traditional nemawashi (informal consensus-building) make it difficult for project teams to get the attention and resources they need. The result? Misalignment, delayed decisions, and bottlenecks.
Assumption 3: Shared Accountability Leads to Collective Ownership
Matrix organizations assume that shared responsibilities will create collaboration and mutual accountability.
Reality in Japan: Instead of fostering ownership, shared accountability often results in no accountability. With multiple people responsible, who takes the final call? Employees worry about overstepping authority or being blamed for decisions. So rather than taking ownership, they defer, wait for instructions, or rely on senior leadership to settle disputes. This hesitation and fear of blame weaken team effectiveness.
Assumption 4: Employees Are Naturally Skilled at Navigating Ambiguity
Matrix structures expect employees to be comfortable operating in decentralized environments, proactively managing relationships and conflicts.
Reality in Japan: Many employees find ambiguity stressful rather than empowering. Without clearly defined roles and decision-making frameworks, they default to seeking approvals, escalating minor issues, or avoiding responsibility altogether. A lack of structured accountability leads to confusion, stress, and disengagement, which can ultimately erode trust in leadership and weaken team performance.
“The biggest challenge I see with matrix organizations in Japan is that people struggle with the ambiguity that comes with them. There’s a constant need for clear roles and responsibilities because without them, employees worry they’ll be blamed for something that wasn’t even theirs to own. Instead of encouraging teamwork, this uncertainty creates hesitation and tension; making it harder for teams to actually collaborate and get things done.”
The Challenges of Matrix Organizations: Why They Struggle in Japan
Beyond these flawed assumptions, matrix organizations face several structural challenges that hinder execution:
✅ Ambiguity in Authority
Dual reporting lines create power struggles between functional and project managers. Without clear decision-making frameworks, teams waste time navigating internal politics rather than focusing on execution.
✅ Diluted Accountability
When responsibilities are shared across functions, no one is fully accountable. This leads to missed deadlines, lack of ownership, and difficulty measuring success.
✅ Complex Communication Channels
Coordinating across multiple departments requires structured communication, but matrix organizations often lack clear escalation paths. This leads to misunderstandings, redundant discussions, and misaligned expectations.
In Japan, these challenges are exacerbated by traditional power structures and decision-making norms. Companies like Apple and GitLab have introduced structured accountability models like Directly Responsible Individuals (DRIs) to overcome these challenges, ensuring clear ownership and faster decision-making.
By recognizing the flawed assumptions behind matrix organizations and investing in the right change management strategies, MNCs operating in Japan can adapt the matrix model to fit local realities, ensuring it drives collaboration rather than confusion.
How Leaders in Japan Can Make Matrix Organizations Work: Lessons from Apple’s DRI Model
Matrix organizations often struggle with accountability and decision-making, especially in Japan, where clear roles, structured decision processes, and risk avoidance are deeply ingrained in corporate culture. Employees frequently hesitate to step into gray areas of responsibility, fearing misalignment or blame. Without explicit ownership, tasks fall through the cracks, decision-making slows down, and collaboration suffers.
One solution that high-performance companies like Apple and GitLab have successfully implemented is the Directly Responsible Individual (DRI) model: a system designed to ensure clear ownership, faster execution, and reduced ambiguity in complex organizational structures.
How the DRI Model Solves Accountability Issues in a Matrix
The DRI model assigns a single individual ultimate accountability for a specific task, project, or decision. Unlike shared responsibility models, where multiple stakeholders weigh in but no one is truly accountable, the DRI ensures there is a clear owner who drives execution and results.
Why This Matters in Japan’s Matrix Organizations
In Japan, where hierarchical decision-making and informal power structures often override formal organization charts, matrix organizations often struggle to answer the simple question:
"Who actually owns this?"
By implementing a clear, named DRI for each project, process, or key decision, leaders can cut through the ambiguity, create ownership, and enable faster execution without undermining the collaborative culture.
How Leaders Can Apply the DRI Model in Japan
The DRI model is more than just assigning names to tasks. Iit’s about creating a culture of accountability and execution. Here’s how leaders in Japan can apply these principles to make matrix organizations more effective and actionable:
1️⃣ Make Accountability Explicit, Not Assumed
Ambiguity kills momentum. Every project, initiative, or key decision should have a clearly assigned DRI, communicated across teams so that ownership is never in question. Avoid assigning multiple people as “co-responsible,” when accountability is shared, it is often diluted, leading to slow decisions and frustration.
How to do this in Japan: Clearly communicate who is responsible during meetings, put it in writing, and reinforce it in follow-ups. The more formal the assignment, the more it will be respected.
2️⃣ Empower DRIs to Own Decisions, Not Just Tasks
A DRI is not a task executor. They are the owner of the outcome. Leaders must ensure DRIs have the authority to make key decisions, not just execute directives from HQ or management. If every decision requires multiple levels of approval, execution slows, and the matrix becomes a bottleneck.
How to do this in Japan: Give DRIs a decision framework. Define where they have autonomy and when they need alignment. Ensure senior leaders back them up to avoid hesitation due to hierarchy.
3️⃣ Balance Speed and Alignment
DRIs must move fast, but they also need structured check-ins with leadership to ensure alignment. The best organizations create lightweight, high-impact review mechanisms, brief syncs, structured updates, or simple status reports, to prevent delays without micromanagement.
How to do this in Japan: Use short, structured huddles (15-20 mins max) to ensure clarity without overburdening teams. Japanese companies often rely on long consensus meetings; replace these with quick DRI-led updates.
4️⃣ Integrate DRIs into Company Culture
For the DRI model to work, it must become part of how the organization operates. Leadership must model accountability by holding themselves to the same standards. Embedding the DRI mindset into performance evaluations, recognition programs, and leadership training ensures long-term adoption.
How to do this in Japan: Use the nemawashi process (informal consensus-building) intentionally to gain buy-in before formally assigning DRIs. This helps secure backing without disrupting the existing decision-making culture.
5️⃣ Adapt the DRI Model to Fit Your Structure
Matrix organizations must balance cross-functional collaboration with clear accountability. While DRIs work well for decisions and execution, strategic alignment still requires strong communication and shared leadership vision. Successful companies clearly define where DRI authority starts and ends, reducing friction in complex structures.
How to do this in Japan: Clearly differentiate functional authority (e.g., budget, compliance) from execution authority (e.g., project deliverables, timelines). If necessary, assign a senior sponsor to back up DRIs when needed.
From Concept to Impact: Making the Matrix Work in Japan
The DRI model works when it is clearly defined, reinforced, and given real authority. Leaders who implement this approach effectively see:
Faster execution with reduced decision-making delays
Stronger accountability and ownership at all levels
More empowered teams with a clear sense of responsibility
If your matrix organization in Japan struggles with unclear ownership, slow decisions, or team frustration, adopting the DRI model could be the missing piece to unlock high performance, better collaboration, and sharper execution.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Axel Wellbrock is an “Organizational Psychologist with an MBA” and the Founder and Representative Director of Kay Group K.K., a leadership and organizational development consulting firm with headquarters in Tokyo. With a wealth of experience as a senior executive in the life sciences sector, Axel brings a unique blend of industry knowledge and coaching expertise to his role. As a certified Leadership and Systemic Team Coach, he is passionate about empowering senior leaders in Japan to carry out their mandates and leave a lasting impact on their organizations and industries. Axel’s work goes beyond coaching; he collaborates with leading organizations in life sciences and various other sectors, guiding them toward transformative success.
Karin Wellbrock is a Partner and Head of Leadership Effectiveness at Kay Group K.K. As a certified Leadership and Systemic Team Coach, she excels in guiding leaders who are new to their roles and facilitating seamless assimilation with their teams.
Sources: Forbes (2021) How well does Apple’s Direct Responsible Individual (DRO) model work in practice, Github,