Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 22 Issue 6

schemes. The structure, therefore, is not something unassuming. It can reflect the theory of each organization, regarding the way it trusts, that the various tasks, should be grouped, in ways that can lead to efficiency and effectiveness. Similarly, Nelson and Quick (2011) argued that the structure of an organization provides the form (or formula) in relation to the combined success of multiple functions within the environment (internal and external). Joris, Brand, Marco and Zoetermeer (2002) concluded that this form of design can be an important factor influencing organizational performance, as there are close links between the structure, the strategy and the performance of organizations. A first remark may be this - as some tasks can be extremely complex and may affect the whole organization, how these employees can communicate with other departments, can be of great importance. Otherwise there is a risk of unilateral growth of performance, to the detriment of the organization. That is, some tasks that have been integrated into a department may begin to serve the purposes of that department solely, to the detriment of the overall organizational development. This is because currently, job roles are not one-dimensional, and they can affect the whole organization. A central question, which has engaged the scientific Management, is whether the organizational structure can affect (and to what extent) the effectiveness of management and consequently the performance of organizations. In fact, this important issue has not been thoroughly studied, according to Ogbo et al., (2015), while it has been studied mainly in relation to large organizations, with a workforce of more than 100 people. McShane and Glinow (2005) argued that organizational structure can affect performance through at least two ways: • The organizing of the overall effort into distinct tasks • And the coordination capacity that is developed, so that employees in different departments achieve common, organizational goals and aspirations The initial grouping of tasks can be a rational process. But afterwards, the ability to monitor/ control the level of coordination between different departments can be one of the most important leadership tasks. In addition to this, culture can affect coordination /communication between various departments, while again leadership must judge whether there is a need for some form of re-engineering. Child (2005) considered that the fundamental purpose of organizational structure, is to contribute to the fulfillment of organizational goals, through the proper allocation of people and organizational resources to necessary tasks and through the common assumption of design responsibility and authority, over the concepts of control and coordination. This can be considered as an anachronistic view, where the emphasis is on control and not on the soft leadership skills of an organization. In addition, something very important is: that the need for adaptability, flexibility and continuous development in terms of knowledge, requires the consideration of other factors, which may relate to the concept of structure. Structure is therefore (although extremely important), not a static construct, but should be conceived as having a dynamic character, as part of the process of evolution of knowledge within organizations. Similarly, the structure of an organization not only affects productivity and economic efficiency, but also the employee morale and the job satisfaction (Eze, O. Bello & Adekola, 2017). This may mean that there should always be a long-term orientation- even if the current structure favors financial results, when it negatively affects job satisfaction / commitment, it should be re-evaluated. It is accepted here that job satisfaction is a central factor influencing long-term, organizational success. It is also worth exploring the indirect role of structure in employee satisfaction. The grouping of tasks and the strict compliance to the structural rules, can lead to the suppressing of important creative forces. For example, a person from one department can think of a customer solution to a problem, which can involve the communicating and exchanging information with people from different departments. If this is not possible (for various reasons), many things can occur: • Initially the employee can consider that there is no possibility of personal development (as his thoughts, that can benefit both himself and the organization, are not externalized). So he/she may feel that there are objective limitations to his/her personal development, which may affect the levels of motivation and satisfaction. • The employee can begin to internalize/ perceive the organization, as discrete channels, which can lead to various issues. The organization must have consistent messages, which must not depend on how each employee conceives his department, in relation to the rest Perhaps the most important element so far is the following - the initial grouping of tasks is not as important as the development of flexibility and tolerance (a matter of leadership and culture) in matters of internal communication. This flexibility can lead in the long run, to structural restructurings, which in the case of external evaluations and consulting companies, can lead to internal resistance. Wolf (2002) emphasized something very important - that structure not only shapes the capacity of the organization, but also the processes that affect 30 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue VI Version I Year 2022 ( ) A © 2022 Global Journals Organizational Structure as a Fundamental Function of Effective Management. The Case of Tesla