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

environment, must be considered, in order to design new” internal realities”. As the customers satisfaction has been consistently linked to employee satisfaction, all the above must be seriously considered. A number of researchers have identified significant and positive relationship between organizational structure and performance (Chegini, et al, 2013; Rajaeepour, Azizollah, Mahmoud & Shokouhi, 2012; Teixeira, Koufteros, & Peng, 2012; Csaszar, Stephen , Arbor & Michigan 2012). In the scientific literature, researchers have agreed that performance is a major issue in most organizations and have utilized a number of organizational structures, such as the flat structure, the tall structure, the Matrix structure, the geographical, the bureaucratic etc. These structures are expected to lead to different results, depending on resource utilization capabilities. However, there have been no consistent results, which may mean that the concept of the organizational structure of an organization needs further understanding. In addition, it may mean that the concept of organizational structure should not be approached statically (as something that will de facto lead to positive results), but dynamically( as something very important that requires constant revision, by the core groups of the organization (leadership, employees, etc.). b) Definitions of the concept under study The structure of an organization can be defined simply as the set of ways in which tasks (total work) can be divided into separate groups / units and then both coordinated and aligned / integrated ( Bernd &Venohr, 2007). It is therefore the map of relationships, based on which an organization can coordinate the actions/ thoughts of experts with the rest of the staff (like a “maestro”) (Thompson, 1967), while providing the basis of the organizational functioning( Mohammed& Saleh, 2013). From the above definition, it can be said, that the structure does not simply affect the functions, but also the relationships that develop within the organization, something that can have a huge impact on its performance. Organizational structure institutionalizes how people interact with each other and how communication flows are regulated and power relations are defined (Hall, 1987). It also reflects the organization's choices regarding the value of various choices (Quinn, 1988) and provides an invisible link between social and psychological needs (Rezayian, 2007). Essentially, structure reflects the theory of management, in relation to the combination of a series of psychological and social, deeper needs. March and Simon (1958) argued that structure is concerned with behavioral patterns that change slowly, thus offering high levels of clarity and stability. This is a very important point of view, as it essentially states that the most consistent elements of human behavior must be taken into account when designing organizational structures (these can relate to the deeper management theory of things). According to Owolabi and Kingsley, (2007) an organization is a social entity, which separates from its environment, and pursues its own goals, trying to control its own performance. For managers and management, the term organization implies and presupposes a formal intention, that has to do with building job roles, based on each position. It is therefore implied that from its inception, an organization is concerned with trying to control the distribution of the various roles (Blessing, 2008) (although this may not take into account the dynamic nature of the evolution of the roles, organizations and audiences). Akande and Ojokuku, (2008) described organizational structure as the result of the effort of a group of people who took a formal position to achieve a specific goal. Also that it is an institution (or tool), which allows society to draw from the achievement of goals that could not be achieved, solely through individual action. The structure is therefore a necessary by-product of the effort to achieve common goals, that cannot be achieved individually. Nwugballa, (2011) has long been opposed to proprietorship. He spoke about the coordinated effort of many people, to achieve something common, leaving aside the definition of tasks, the establishment of evaluation standards, the various lines / levels of power, etc. He stressed that the absence of all this can lead to a reduction of conflict and internal "confusion". Therefore, the author who goes totally against the trend of control, of the a priori distribution, the development of power grids, etc. This view may be rare, as no similar views have been heard between the old / traditional view (of control) and the modern one (empowerment of employees, provision of autonomy, etc.). Ranson (1980) argued that structure is a complex mean of gaining control, through the application of a framework of rules, roles and power relations, which seeks to empower predetermined goals, allowing specific types of behavior, enhancing commitment between different groups and emphasizing the element of obligation, where necessary. (forthose who reject the claims implied by the framework). In the same context, Underdown, (2003), talked about controlling, coordinating and mobilizing existing subordinates, in terms of organizational goals. III. T ypes of O rganizational S tructure For each organization there are structures of different forms, and each collective form of design and 32 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