July 21, 2024

Tesla is characterized by a functional organizational structure with aspects of a hierarchical structure. Tesla does employ functional centers that cover all business activities, including finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, design, and the offices of the CEO and chairperson. Tesla’s headquarters in Austin, Texas, decide the strategic direction of the company, with international operations given little autonomy.

Department Type Details Advantages Drawbacks
Engineering and Design Functional – Teams are organized by engineering disciplines such as electrical, mechanical, and software. – Functional managers oversee each discipline. – In-depth expertise in engineering fields. – Efficient management of specialized tasks. – Potential for communication gaps between departments. – Limited collaboration between disciplines.
Manufacturing and Operations Functional – Teams focus on manufacturing processes, supply chain, and logistics. – Functional managers handle each aspect. – Streamlined production processes and quality control. – Expertise in manufacturing efficiency. – Possible lack of coordination between manufacturing and engineering. – Silos may form between departments.
Sales and Marketing Functional – Teams handle sales, marketing, and customer relations. – Functional managers oversee sales and marketing functions. – Expertise in sales and marketing strategies. – Clear focus on customer engagement. – Potential misalignment between sales and engineering. – May overlook holistic customer experiences.
Research and Development Functional – Teams are organized by research areas like battery technology and autonomous driving. – Functional managers for each area. – Specialized focus on cutting-edge technologies. – Efficient innovation management. – Risk of fragmentation among research areas. – Limited cross-functional collaboration.
Finance and Administration Functional – Teams handle financial matters and administrative functions. – Functional managers oversee each aspect. – Expert financial management within functions. – Centralized control over administrative tasks. – Possible financial silos between functions. – Administrative redundancies may arise.
Regional Management Divisional – Divisions organized by geographical regions (e.g., North America, Europe, Asia). – Divisional managers for each region. – Tailored strategies for regional markets. – Localized decision-making and adaptability. – Potential conflicts between regions in resource allocation. – Challenges in maintaining global brand consistency.
Product Development Teams Matrix – Cross-functional teams for developing specific vehicle models. – Team members report to both project and functional managers. – Enhanced collaboration between different functions. – Efficient project management for product development. – Potential for power struggles between project and functional managers. – Complex communication channels.

Understanding Tesla’s organizational structure

Tesla is an automotive company like no other, headed by the enigmatic Elon Musk and consistently pushing the boundaries of what many in the industry believe is possible. As a result, it should come as no surprise that the organizational structure of the company is more difficult to define when compared to its peers.

Musk provides little information on how the organization is structured or on the executives that make up Tesla’s senior management. He has made comments in the past that speak of a desire to incorporate a flat organizational structure – a desire no doubt reinforced by his inability to delegate. Indeed, according to a report published by tech news site The Information in 2018, Musk had no fewer than 29 executives reporting directly to him.

From what information does exist, it is likely Tesla uses a dominant functional organizational structure. For instance, there may be a group of employees structured around sales with another structured around engineering. The company may also exhibit other structures or indeed no structure whatsoever, with some former employees noting there was very little bureaucracy or politics in the workplace. To speak to someone from another department, for example, all they needed to do was walk over there and start a conversation.

A lack of structure can also be seen in the way Musk refers to himself as “Technoking” of Tesla to demonstrate how little importance he places on the title of CEO.

Function-based hierarchy

As hinted at earlier, Tesla does employ functional centers that cover all business activities. These include finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, design, and the offices of the CEO and chairperson. Functional team heads form the core of Tesla’s centralized control at its headquarters in Austin, Texas, with international operations given little autonomy.

Each center, in turn, supports two key corporate divisions:

  1. Automotive – which incorporates the design, production, sales, and leasing of electric vehicles and environmental offset credits.
  2. Energy Generation and Storage – a much smaller segment that deals with the design, production, installation, sales, and leasing of solar energy generation products. This also includes relevant environmental incentives and credits.

In terms of financial reporting, Tesla is also comprised of four geographical divisions:

  1. United States.
  2. China. 
  3. Norway, and
  4. Other.

Comparison with Top Related Companies

  • Ford: Ford utilizes a global functional structure but with more emphasis on regional divisions compared to Tesla. Ford’s structure allows for some decentralization, enabling regional managers to make decisions that cater specifically to local market demands. This approach contrasts with Tesla’s more centralized control, which may limit regional responsiveness but ensures a consistent strategic direction from the headquarters.
  • General Motors (GM): GM operates under a regional divisional structure, where each region has significant autonomy to adapt strategies according to local preferences and market conditions. This structure facilitates quick responses to local market dynamics but might lead to inconsistencies in global branding and strategy. Tesla’s centralized approach, while potentially less flexible at the local level, helps maintain a unified brand image and strategy.
  • Toyota: Toyota employs a hybrid structure that combines aspects of functional, geographic, and product-based structures. This allows Toyota to leverage strong central control over strategic functions while also giving attention to regional and product-specific needs. Compared to Tesla, Toyota’s structure is more complex but offers greater balance between centralization and localization, supporting both global consistency and local adaptability.

Similarities and Differences

  • Similarities: All these companies use a functional structure at some level to manage their operations, focusing on areas such as engineering, production, and sales to capitalize on specialized expertise.
  • Differences: Tesla’s structure is highly centralized, focusing decision-making power at its headquarters, unlike Ford and GM, which grant more autonomy to regional divisions. Toyota’s balanced approach contrasts with Tesla’s by providing both strong central oversight and substantial regional autonomy.


  • Innovation and Decision-making: Tesla’s centralized functional structure allows for quick decision-making at the top levels, which can accelerate innovation cycles. This is particularly effective in Tesla’s case, where rapid innovation is critical. In contrast, the more decentralized structures of GM and Ford may benefit from diverse inputs but can experience slower centralized decision-making.
  • Market Responsiveness: Tesla’s centralized approach may limit its responsiveness to local market conditions compared to GM and Ford, which have structures that support more localized decision-making.
  • Operational Efficiency: Tesla’s centralized control can enhance operational efficiency and reduce redundancies. However, this might come at the cost of reduced flexibility in adapting to local markets, a challenge less faced by Toyota with its hybrid structure.
  • Brand Consistency: Tesla’s approach ensures high consistency across all operations, supporting a strong global brand. In contrast, the more decentralized structures of GM and Ford might struggle with maintaining brand consistency across diverse markets.

Key takeaways:

  • Tesla is characterized by a functional organizational structure with aspects of a hierarchical structure. Musk’s preference to avoid delegation means the company embodies characteristics of a flat structure with a higher ratio of subordinates to managers. In certain scenarios, Tesla may exhibit flexible or very little structure whatsoever.
  • With that said, Tesla’s dominant organizational structure is functional. One group of employees, for example, may be structured around sales with another structured around engineering.
  • Functional heads are based in Austin, Texas, and control most aspects of the company’s domestic and international operations. Each functional group supports two key corporate divisions with financial reporting also occurring in four additional geographic divisions.

Key Highlights

  • Complex Structure: Tesla’s organizational structure is challenging to define compared to other automotive companies due to its unique characteristics and the influence of Elon Musk.
  • Elon Musk’s Role: Elon Musk plays a significant role in the company’s structure and decision-making. He has expressed a desire for a flat organizational structure but also tends to be heavily involved in various aspects due to his reluctance to delegate tasks.
  • Functional Organizational Structure: Tesla largely follows a functional organizational structure. This means that the company groups its employees based on specific functions, such as sales, engineering, finance, marketing, and more.
  • Lack of Bureaucracy: Former employees have noted that there is minimal bureaucracy and politics within Tesla’s workplace. Interdepartmental communication is straightforward, allowing employees to interact freely.
  • Title of “Technoking”: Elon Musk’s unconventional title of “Technoking” reflects his unique approach to leadership and his emphasis on innovative thinking over traditional titles like CEO.
  • Functional Centers: Tesla has functional centers that cover various business activities such as finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, and design. These functional teams are based at the company’s headquarters in Austin, Texas.
  • Centralized Control: The functional team heads have a central role in controlling and overseeing Tesla’s operations, both domestically and internationally.
  • Corporate Divisions: Tesla’s functional structure supports two primary corporate divisions:
    • Automotive: Involves the design, production, sales, and leasing of electric vehicles and related environmental offset credits.
    • Energy Generation and Storage: Deals with the design, production, installation, sales, and leasing of solar energy generation products, along with relevant environmental incentives and credits.
  • Geographical Divisions: Tesla also operates with four geographical divisions for financial reporting:
    • United States
    • China
    • Norway
    • Other regions
  • Flexibility: While Tesla’s dominant structure is functional, there is also flexibility in the company’s approach. The absence of strict hierarchical layers and the emphasis on direct communication contribute to this flexibility.

Read Next: Organizational Structure.

Read Also: Tesla Business Model, Tesla Competitors, Tesla Mission Statement and Vision Statement, Who Owns Tesla, How Does PayPal Make Money?, Elon Musk Companies, Who Is Elon Musk.

Read Also: Tesla Business Model

Related to Tesla

Who Owns Tesla

By 2024, most of Tesla’s shares are still owned by Elon Musk, among the company’s co-founders and the CEO. Elon Musk is the top individual investor, with a 20.6% stake in the company. Musk is followed by Lawrence Ellison (founder of Oracle), with a 1.5% company stake. Ellison used to sit on Tesla’s board of directors. And Antonio Gracias, among the company’s first investors, has over 1.6 million shares. Other institutional investors and mutual funds like The Vanguard Group (6.9%), andBlackrock (5.6%).

Tesla Business Model

Tesla is vertically integrated. Therefore, the company runs and operates the Tesla’s plants where cars are manufactured and the Gigafactory which produces the battery packs and stationary storage systems for its electric vehicles, which are sold via direct channels like the Tesla online store and the Tesla physical stores.

How Does Tesla Make Money?

In 2023, Tesla generated $96.77 Billion in revenues. Tesla’s business model primarily relies on automotive sales, $78.5 billion (over 81% of the total revenues); services/others followed with over $8 billion; energy generation and storage generated over $6 billion in revenues.

Tesla Cost Structure

Automotive sales are the most critical segment for Tesla, with over $82.4 billion in revenue from automotive parts; most of the gross profits come from automotive sales, with over $16 billion in gross profits, or a 19.4 % gross margin. However, the “energy platform” (generation & storage) is contributing more and more to it. With revenue of $6 billion, a gross profit of over a billion dollars, and gross margins of 18.9%, this might become a critical component of the business model, thus changing its whole strategy.

Tesla Marketing Strategy

Tesla didn’t have an official advertising budget until 2023, to spend on advertising, as it has almost been null over the years. Indeed, Tesla leveraged a combination of Elon Musk’s ability to generate significant media coverage and build a product that sold via word of mouth and directly to consumers.

Tesla Revenue Per Employee

According to a FourWeekMBA analysis, in 2023, Tesla’s revenue per employee stood at $688,908 compared to $637,144 in 2022 and $542,079 in 2021.

Is Tesla Profitable?

Tesla was profitable in 2023, with a net profit of $14.99B, compared to $12.55 billion in 2022. Tesla has been profitable since 2020. Indeed, Tesla generated $862 million in net profits in 2020. It will further generate $5.6 billion in net profits in 2021.

Tesla Profit Margin

Telsa’s profit margins moved from negative 3.15% in 2019 to over 15% in 2022. As Tesla scaled up manufacturing and improved its economies of scale (with new facilities) and scope, the company became extremely profitable by 2022.

Tesla Profit Margin Per Car

Tesla’s profit margin per car in 2023 was $8,279, compared to $9580 in 2022, over $6000 in 2021, and over $1700 in 2020. As Tesla was working toward mass manufacturing in 2020, the company’s profitability per car increased massively between 2020 and 2023, though in an attempt to gain market shares, it decreased in 2023 compared to 2022.

Tesla R&D Strategy

Tesla R&D’s costs have doubled in absolute number, from almost $1.5 billion in 2020 to nearly $4 billion in 2024. Yet they have decreased as a percentage of revenue, from 5% in 2020 to 4% in 2022 and 2023. These R&D expenses primarily comprise costs associated with personnel for teams in engineering and research, manufacturing engineering and manufacturing test organizations, prototyping expenses, contracts, and professional services.

Tesla Market Cap vs. Revenue

In the peak of 2020 and 2021, Tesla reached a market cap revenue multiple of 21x and 18x, respectively. This means that Tesla was valued at 21X over its revenues in 2020 and 18X over its revenue in 2021. By the end of 2022, this multiple decreased to 4.7X. And by February 2024 the multiple increased to 6X.

Tesla Production

Tesla Production 2023Model S/XModel 3/YTotal70,826 Cars1.77MM Cars

Tesla Production vs. Delivery


Who Is Elon Musk

Elon Musk, seen as one of the most visionary tech entrepreneurs from the Silicon Valley scene, started his “career” as an entrepreneur at an early age. After selling his first startup, Zip2, in 1999, he made $22 million, which he used to found X.com, which would later become PayPal, and sell for over a billion to eBay (Musk made $180 million from the deal). He founded other companies like Tesla (he didn’t start it but became a major investor in the early years) and SpaceX. Tesla started as an electric sports car niche player, eventually turned into a mass manufacturing electric car maker.

History of Tesla

Founded in 2003 by Eberhard and Tarpenning, eventually, the initial co-founders left the company, and by 2004, Musk first became the main investor. After that, by 2008, he took over as CEO of the company. Tesla would go through many near-death experiences until 2018. And yet, by 2021, Tesla will become a trillion-dollar company.

Tesla Business Model

Tesla is vertically integrated. Therefore, the company runs and operates the Tesla’s plants where cars are manufactured and the Gigafactory, which produces the battery packs and stationary storage systems for its electric vehicles, which are sold via direct channels like the Tesla online store and the Tesla physical stores.

Tesla Competitors

As an electric automaker and builder of sports cars and now trucks, Tesla’s competitors comprise companies like Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Lamborghini, Audi, Rivian Lucid Motors, Toyota, and more. At the same time, Tesla is an electric energy production and storage company (SolarCity); it competes with Sunrun, SunPower, and Vivint Solar. And as an autonomous driving company, it competes with companies like Zoox, Waymo, and Baidu with self-driving software.

Real-Time Insurance

A real-time insurance business model enables Tesla to build its insurance arm by dynamically adjusting the premiums based on real-time driving behavior. Reduced insurance premiums hooked with the leasing arm enable Tesla to scale its demand side of the business.

Read Also: Tesla Business Model, Elon Musk Companies, Who Owns Tesla, Transitional Business Models, Tesla Competitors.

Read Also: Who Is Elon Musk? The Elon Musk’s Story, How Does Elon Musk Make Money, Elon Musk Companies, Bill Gates Companies, Jeff Bezos Companies, Warren Buffett Companies.

How did Tesla use a transitional business model to thrive?

Read next: Tesla Business Model, Tesla SWOT Analysis.

Organizational Structure Case Studies

OpenAI Organizational Structure

OpenAI is an artificial intelligence research laboratory that transitioned into a for-profit organization in 2019. The corporate structure is organized around two entities: OpenAI, Inc., which is a single-member Delaware LLC controlled by OpenAI non-profit, And OpenAI LP, which is a capped, for-profit organization. The OpenAI LP is governed by the board of OpenAI, Inc (the foundation), which acts as a General Partner. At the same time, Limited Partners comprise employees of the LP, some of the board members, and other investors like Reid Hoffman’s charitable foundation, Khosla Ventures, and Microsoft, the leading investor in the LP.

Airbnb Organizational Structure

Airbnb follows a holacracy model, or a sort of flat organizational structure, where teams are organized for projects, to move quickly and iterate fast, thus keeping a lean and flexible approach. Airbnb also moved to a hybrid model where employees can work from anywhere and meet on a quarterly basis to plan ahead, and connect to each other.

Amazon Organizational Structure

The Amazon organizational structure is predominantly hierarchical with elements of function-based structure and geographic divisions. While Amazon started as a lean, flat organization in its early years, it transitioned into a hierarchical organization with its jobs and functions clearly defined as it scaled.

Apple Organizational Structure

Apple has a traditional hierarchical structure with product-based grouping and some collaboration between divisions.

Coca-Cola Organizational Structure

The Coca-Cola Company has a somewhat complex matrix organizational structure with geographic divisions, product divisions, business-type units, and functional groups.

Costco Organizational Structure

Costco has a matrix organizational structure, which can simply be defined as any structure that combines two or more different types. In this case, a predominant functional structure exists with a more secondary divisional structure.

Costco’s geographic divisions reflect its strong presence in the United States combined with its expanding global presence. There are six divisions in the country alone to reflect its standing as the source of most company revenue.

Compared to competitor Walmart, for example, Costco takes more a decentralized approach to management, decision-making, and autonomy. This allows the company’s stores and divisions to more flexibly respond to local market conditions.

Dell Organizational Structure

Dell has a functional organizational structure with some degree of decentralization. This means functional departments share information, contribute ideas to the success of the organization and have some degree of decision-making power.

eBay Organizational Structure

eBay was until recently a multi-divisional (M-form) organization with semi-autonomous units grouped according to the services they provided. Today, eBay has a single division called Marketplace, which includes eBay and its international iterations.

Facebook Organizational Structure

Facebook is characterized by a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions. The flat organization structure is organized around the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, and the key executives around him. On the other hand, the function-based teams are based on the main corporate functions (like HR, product management, investor relations, and so on).

Goldman Sachs’ Organizational Structure

Goldman Sachs has a hierarchical structure with a clear chain of command and defined career advancement process. The structure is also underpinned by business-type divisions and function-based groups.

Google Organizational Structure

Google (Alphabet) has a cross-functional (team-based) organizational structure known as a matrix structure with some degree of flatness. Over the years, as the company scaled and it became a tech giant, its organizational structure is morphing more into a centralized organization.

IBM Organizational Structure

IBM has an organizational structure characterized by product-based divisions, enabling its strategy to develop innovative and competitive products in multiple markets. IBM is also characterized by function-based segments that support product development and innovation for each product-based division, which include Global Markets, Integrated Supply Chain, Research, Development, and Intellectual Property.

McDonald’s Organizational Structure

McDonald’s has a divisional organizational structure where each division – based on geographical location – is assigned operational responsibilities and strategic objectives. The main geographical divisions are the US, internationally operated markets, and international developmental licensed markets. And on the other hand, the hierarchical leadership structure is organized around regional and functional divisions.

McKinsey Organizational Structure

McKinsey & Company has a decentralized organizational structure with mostly self-managing offices, committees, and employees. There are also functional groups and geographic divisions with proprietary names.

Microsoft Organizational Structure

Microsoft has a product-type divisional organizational structure based on functions and engineering groups. As the company scaled over time it also became more hierarchical, however still keeping its hybrid approach between functions, engineering groups, and management.

Nestlé Organizational Structure

Nestlé has a geographical divisional structure with operations segmented into five key regions. For many years, Swiss multinational food and drink company Nestlé had a complex and decentralized matrix organizational structure where its numerous brands and subsidiaries were free to operate autonomously.

Nike Organizational Structure

Nike has a matrix organizational structure incorporating geographic divisions. Nike’s matrix structure is also present at the regional and sub-regional levels. Managerial responsibility is segmented according to business unit (apparel, footwear, and equipment) and function (human resources, finance, marketing, sales, and operations).

Patagonia Organizational Structure

Patagonia has a particular organizational structure, where its founder, Chouinard, disposed of the company’s ownership in the hands of two non-profits. The Patagonia Purpose Trust, holding 100% of the voting stocks, is in charge of defining the company’s strategic direction. And the Holdfast Collective, a non-profit, holds 100% of non-voting stocks, aiming to re-invest the brand’s dividends into environmental causes.

Samsung Organizational Structure

samsung-organizational-structure (1)samsung-organizational-structure (1)
Samsung has a product-type divisional organizational structure where products determine how resources and business operations are categorized. The main resources around which Samsung’s corporate structure is organized are consumer electronics, IT, and device solutions. In addition, Samsung leadership functions are organized around a few career levels grades, based on experience (assistant, professional, senior professional, and principal professional).

Sony Organizational Structure

Sony has a matrix organizational structure primarily based on function-based groups and product/business divisions. The structure also incorporates geographical divisions. In 2021, Sony announced the overhauling of its organizational structure, changing its name from Sony Corporation to Sony Group Corporation to better identify itself as the headquarters of the Sony group of companies skewing the company toward product divisions.

Starbucks Organizational Structure

Starbucks follows a matrix organizational structure with a combination of vertical and horizontal structures. It is characterized by multiple, overlapping chains of command and divisions.

Tesla Organizational Structure

Tesla is characterized by a functional organizational structure with aspects of a hierarchical structure. Tesla does employ functional centers that cover all business activities, including finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, design, and the offices of the CEO and chairperson. Tesla’s headquarters in Austin, Texas, decide the strategic direction of the company, with international operations given little autonomy.

Toyota Organizational Structure

Toyota has a divisional organizational structure where business operations are centered around the market, product, and geographic groups. Therefore, Toyota organizes its corporate structure around global hierarchies (most strategic decisions come from Japan’s headquarter), product-based divisions (where the organization is broken down, based on each product line), and geographical divisions (according to the geographical areas under management).

Walmart Organizational Structure

Walmart has a hybrid hierarchical-functional organizational structure, otherwise referred to as a matrix structure that combines multiple approaches. On the one hand, Walmart follows a hierarchical structure, where the current CEO Doug McMillon is the only employee without a direct superior, and directives are sent from top-level management. On the other hand, the function-based structure of Walmart is used to categorize employees according to their particular skills and experience.

Main Free Guides:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *