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

performance. The important thing here is that the design of the structure can relate with a plethora of scientific schools of thought, which give primary attention to the processes, to the performance of systems, etc. It can be argued that at a deeper level, these schools of thought have adopted the positivist model of research philosophy, where social reality is considered largely measurable and, above all, modellable. It may seem obvious to the average reader that organizational structure and the division of tasks are obviously important (which they are), but what is missing is the understanding of the static nature of these structural decisions. In addition, as the environment evolves so rapidly, questions arise, such as the following: • How often should the organizational structure be reviewed? • What constitutes a successful structure? • Is it a matter of linking the construct, with performance? • And if so, with what aspects of performance? • External (profitability, efficiency, market shares, etc.) • Internal (satisfaction of core interest groups (customers, employees, suppliers, etc.) • Or a combination of the above? • How is the structure related to the core capabilities / aspirations of an organization? For example, if an organization seeks to achieve innovation, how is the structure dynamically evaluated in relation to the achievement of innovation (which is a completely dynamic concept) There are many studies that have measured the effect of the organizational structure on organizational performance, and have highlighted the role of establishing authority and building trust. And these are very important elements, as in an organization, the vision may not be understood at once, and those structures are needed in the sense that they can instill confidence, so that there is a uniform direction, until there is a deeper change of thought. The complexity of the concept of organizational structure is already apparent. The structure can be a barrier in regards to positive change (if it is too strict and creative communication is not favored), but it can also be the means of safeguarding a long-term vision, which can have long-term positive results for everyone within the organization. But even here, the frame of reference/ context must be considered -Tesla is not the same case (which will be analyzed below) as a Greek, small and medium enterprise, where its strict structure does not allow the release of creative forces. Chegini, Yousefi & Rastad (2013) agreed that productivity is a very important variable for an organization and that the main goal of any organization is to do what is required to ensure the highest level of productivity. According to Chegini, et al (2013), performance is one of the most essential and crucial issues for all organizations, and that through achieving productivity, all organizations can benefit from the resources and facilities, in order to achieve advantages. It is considered as important, to address the development, of the two main, views of contemporary management. The first has been named RBV (Resource based view-) and the other KBV (Knowledge based view) (Barney, 1991). Both views have as their primary concern the acquisition of a sustainable, competitive advantage. The first school of thought, essentially states that every organization should focus on resources that will lead to the development of rare organizational capabilities (difficult to imitate), such as structure, workforce capabilities , etc. The second view, refers to knowledge as the rarest, free of imitation resource, and therefore considers all the above to be means of developing an organization's ability to develop its knowledge, which ca be the ultimate way of achieving a sustainable, competitive advantage. In addition, it emphasizes the need for coordination between the departments (important dimension of the organizational structure), the development of strategic alliances outside the organization, etc. (Grant, 2015). Lately, organizations in an effort to adopt the best type of structure in order to achieve maximum performance have encountered many problems. Also many organizational weaknesses may be related to an inappropriate structure, chosen to achieve a specific goal. An appropriate structure depends on both the type of tasks to be performed and on the environment in which the organization operates (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Different structures can provide heterogeneous consistencies and weaknesses, and it is therefore important to find a structure suitable for achieving the desired result on the basis of attaining stability and predictability (Mintzberg, 1983). The problems faced by organizations in choosing the appropriate forms of structure are related to the recent shift from authoritarian to decentralized structures, which emphasize job empowerment, the inherent inability of managers to identify the best form of structure, the difficulties of adapting employees to existing and changing structures and the difficulty of maintaining a stable structure in the midst of an ever- changing, working environment. Therefore, as human resources have been considered the most important organizational resource (something related to the dominant RBV-KBV views) and the environment has become extremely fluid, the design of the organizational structure has become more complex. Modern decentralization needs must now be taken into account. Empowerment, as well as the dynamics of both the external and the internal 31 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