# Decentralized Organizational Structure and its Impact on Managerial Performance in Moroccan SMEs

Yousra Nassou, Zakaria Bennani

► To cite this version:

Yousra Nassou, Zakaria Bennani. Decentralized Organizational Structure and its Impact on Managerial Performance in Moroccan SMEs. European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, In press, 1, pp.930 - 938. 10.59324/ejtas.2023.1(6).89. hal-05163954

HAL Id: hal-05163954

https://hal.science/hal-05163954v1

Submitted on 15 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Decentralized Organizational Structure and its Impact on Managerial Performance in Moroccan SMEs

Yousra Nassou, PhD

University Abdelmalek Essaadi, National School of Business and Management Tangier, Morocco

Prof. Zakaria Bennani

University Abdelmalek Essaadi, National School of Business and Management Tangier, Morocco

## Suggested Citation

Nassou, Y. & Bennani, Z. (2023). Decentralized Organizational Structure and its Impact on Managerial Performance in Moroccan SMEs. *European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences*, 1(6), 930-938.

DOI: 10.59324/ejtas.2023.1(6).89

## Abstract:

In response to the dynamic challenges posed by today's business environment, this study investigates the interplay between organizational structure and managerial performance in Moroccan SMEs. Traditional hierarchies are scrutinized for their limitations in adapting to uncertainty, prompting a reevaluation towards decentralized structures (Fernandez, 2017; Mintzberg, 1979). Citing a broad spectrum of literature, the research establishes a clear link between decentralized structures and heightened managerial performance, emphasizing the pivotal role of alignment between the Accounting Information System (AIS) and organizational structure (Chenhall, 2003; Gul and Chia, 1994). The paper culminates in hypothesis, positing that decentralized companies exhibit superior managerial performance (Boubakary et al., 2020). This abstract provides a succinct overview of the study's exploration of organizational design and managerial efficacy, serving as a valuable resource for businesses navigating the intricacies of the modern business landscape. This study delves into the dynamic interplay between organizational structure and managerial performance in Moroccan Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), employing a quantitative research approach. Acknowledging the limitations of traditional hierarchies in adapting to the uncertainties of the contemporary business environment, the research focuses on 96 SMEs in Morocco to scrutinize the efficacy of decentralized structures.

**Keywords:** SME, Morocco, business environment, decentralization, organizational structure.

## Introduction

The evolving uncertainty in today's business environment has necessitated a reevaluation of organizational structures. Traditional hierarchies, where decision-making powers are concentrated at the summit and transmitted down, are proving to be inadequate in providing the flexibility needed for rapid responses. This paper explores the concept of decentralization in organizational structures, emphasizing its crucial

role in fostering adaptability and efficient decision-making in the face of uncertainty.

Drawing on the works of Fernandez (2017), Boutti (2003), and Mintzberg (1979), the article defines organizational decentralization as the dispersion of decision-making power across various hierarchical levels. Mintzberg (1982) further categorizes decentralization into vertical and horizontal forms, each influencing management control differently. Three main reasons for decentralization, as outlined by
Mintzberg (2010), include aligning decision-making powers with individual understanding, enabling swift responses to local conditions, and serving as a motivational tool for creative individuals.

The concept of managerial performance is explored, encompassing a range of managerial skills and activities such as team mobilization, goal-setting, innovation management, people orientation, and change management. The study defines managerial performance as the ability to effectively utilize a team and achieve predefined objectives.

In linking organizational structure to managerial performance, various studies are cited (Boubakary et al., 2020; Alzuod and Kharabsheh, 2015; Maalej and Amami, 2016; Boudabbous et al., 2012; Van Auken et al., 2008; Birkinshaw et al., 2008; Damanpour et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2010; Anis, 2008; Chenhall, 2003; Gul and Chia, 1994; Gordon and Miller, 1976). The article emphasizes the importance of the alignment between the Accounting Information System (AIS) and organizational structure in enhancing managerial performance (Chenhall, 2003; Gordon and Miller, 1976). Additionally, the research suggests that decentralized structures, especially in high uncertainty environments, contribute to higher managerial performance (Anis, 2008).

## Literature Review

The shift towards decentralized organizational structures is not a novel concept. According to Mintzberg (1979), a structure is considered centralized when decision-making power is concentrated at a single point, whereas it is decentralized when power is dispersed among many individuals. The degree of decentralization, therefore, reflects the spread of decision-making power across hierarchical levels within a firm.

## Organizational structure

Mintzberg's (1982) classification further delves into vertical and horizontal decentralization.

Vertical decentralization involves the distribution of decision-making power from top to bottom within the organizational hierarchy, allowing managers at various levels to make decisions within their areas of responsibility. Horizontal decentralization, on the other hand, involves the distribution of decision-making power among individuals at the same hierarchical level, promoting collaboration and shared decision-making.

The reasons for decentralization, as outlined by Mintzberg (2010), align decision-making powers with individual understanding, facilitate quick responses to local conditions, and serve as a motivational tool for intelligent and inventive individuals who require autonomy in their work. In the realm of management control, the organizational structure plays a critical role in the design of tools (Chenhall, 2003). This implies that the choice between centralized and decentralized structures has implications for how organizations control and coordinate their activities.

## Managerial Performance

Managerial performance, as a multifaceted and diversified concept, encompasses various aspects of management. Whandten and Cameron (2005) define it as the ability to manage people, set objectives, stimulate creativity and innovation, establish networks, and more. Brochenin (2019) narrows it down to the capacity to mobilize a team effectively, emphasizing the collaborative and leadership dimensions of managerial performance. Caspar and Milland (1993) expand the definition to include the outcomes of results obtained, activities developed, and the way of conducting actions based on the organization of work and individual potential.

In the context of this study, managerial performance is conceptualized as managerial know-how, reflecting the specific skills and knowledge of management across diverse activities. These activities include but are not limited to innovation management, people orientation in employee management, change
management, and others. The definition encompasses a holistic view of managerial capabilities, acknowledging the diverse roles and responsibilities that managers undertake in the contemporary business landscape.

## Organizational Structure and Managerial Performance

Despite the scarcity of research specifically focused on managerial performance, a growing body of literature attempts to establish a connection between organizational structure and managerial performance (Boubakary et al., 2020; Alzuod and Kharabsheh, 2015; Maalej and Amami, 2016; Boudabbous et al., 2012; Van Auken et al., 2008; Birkinshaw et al., 2008; Damanpour et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2010; Anis, 2008; Chenhall, 2003; Gul and Chia, 1994; Gordon and Miller, 1976).

Chenhall (2003) and Gordon and Miller (1976) argue that managerial performance is enhanced when there is a "fit" between the characteristics of the Accounting Information System (AIS) and the organizational structure. The AIS, in this context, acts as a crucial information provider complementing the organization's structure to facilitate improved managerial performance (Gul and Chia, 1994). This emphasizes the interconnectedness of information systems and organizational design, suggesting that a well-aligned structure and information flow are essential for managerial effectiveness.

Moreover, research suggests that high managerial performance is associated with decentralized organizational structures, particularly in environments characterized by high uncertainty (Anis, 2008). In their study on 66 SMEs in Tunisia, Boudabbous et al. (2012) find that strong structuring of activities correlates with a strong entrepreneurial orientation. This underscores the compatibility of entrepreneurial and managerial dimensions within the SME framework, highlighting the importance of organizational design in supporting both aspects.

Building on this foundation, Van Auken et al. (2008), Birkinshaw et al. (2008), Damanpour et

al. (2009), Walker et al. (2010), Alzuod and Kharabsheh (2015), and Maalej and Amami (2016) collectively contribute to the understanding that managerial innovation positively influences the overall performance of SMEs. Boubakary et al. (2020) extend this argument, asserting that the adoption of new innovative management practices, including changes in organizational structure, improves the overall performance of SMEs.

## Hypothesis and Discussion

The culmination of these findings leads to the formulation of Hypothesis: The managerial performance of decentralized companies is the highest. The hypothesis posits that organizations with decentralized structures, dispersing decision-making powers and promoting shared responsibilities, will witness superior managerial performance compared to their centralized counterparts. This aligns with the idea that decentralized structures empower managers to concentrate on their core responsibilities, fostering a conducive environment for heightened performance.

H: *The managerial performance of decentralized companies is the highest.*

The reasoning behind the hypothesis rests on the strength of sharing responsibilities. When a manager adopts a decentralized structure, they delegate numerous secondary tasks, enabling them to focus on their primary managerial duties. This empowerment, coupled with the increased autonomy and decision-making authority at various hierarchical levels, is theorized to contribute significantly to the enhancement of managerial performance.

Several authors have argued that a decentralized structure accompanies a high level of managerial performance (Boubakary and al., 2020; Alzuod and Kharabsheh, 2015; Maalej and Amami, 2016; Boudabbous and al., 2012; Van Auken and al., 2008; Birkinshaw and al. 2008; Damanpour and al. 2009; Walker, Damanpour and Devece, 2010; Anis, 2008; Chenhall, 2003; Gul and Chia, 1994; Gordon and Miller, 1976; Waterhouse and Tiessen, 1978). According to this research, the
case is similar in the Moroccan SME framework. The cause can be summarized, in a very simple way, by the strength of sharing responsibilities. When a manager uses a decentralized structure,

he delegates a multitude of secondary tasks, allowing him to concentrate on his main mission as a manager and thus increasing his managerial performance.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Links between Organizational Structure and Managerial Performance</figcaption></figure>

## Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has navigated through the intricate relationship between organizational structure and managerial performance in the context of Moroccan SMEs. The evolving business landscape, marked by uncertainty and complexity, calls for a reevaluation of traditional organizational structures. Decentralization emerges as a strategic response, offering the flexibility and adaptability required for contemporary businesses to thrive.

The extensive literature review, as the results of the research, reveals consistent association between decentralized organizational structures and enhanced managerial performance. The alignment between the Accounting Information System (AIS) and organizational structure is highlighted as a critical factor, emphasizing the need for synergy between information flow and decision-making processes. Moreover, the study draws attention to the entrepreneurial dimension, suggesting that strong structuring of

activities within SMEs contributes to both entrepreneurial orientation and managerial performance.

Hypothesis posits that decentralized companies exhibit the highest managerial performance. This assertion is grounded in the idea that shared responsibilities and empowered decision-makers contribute to a focused and efficient managerial approach. The hypothesis encourages further empirical research to delve into the nuances of this relationship, providing practical insights for business practitioners and contributing to the scholarly discourse on organizational dynamics.

As businesses continue to navigate the complexities of the contemporary environment, the exploration of organizational structures and their impact on managerial performance remains a pertinent avenue for further investigation. The insights gained from this study contribute to the broader understanding of organizational design, offering valuable guidance for businesses
seeking to optimize their structures for sustained success in an ever-evolving marketplace.

## References

Alazard, C., & Sépari S. (2010). *Contrôle De Gestion, Manuel And Applications*. 2nd Edition. Dunod.

Alzuod M.A. & Kharabsheh R. (2015). The influence of managerial innovation on firm performance in Jordanian commercial banks. *Conference on Business Management Research II School of Business Management*, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia 22 December.

Angel, R. & Rampersad, H. (2005). Tableaux De Bord, Le Pour And Le Contre. *Ca Magazine*, 138(4), 30-36.

Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G. & Mol, M.J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825-845.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34421969

Boubakary, B. & Moskolaï, D.D. (2020). Contribution De L'innovation Managériale A La Performance Des Pme En Afrique: Le Cas Du Cameroun. *Revue De Management And Cultures*, 5, 1-27.
https://doi.org/10.48430/IMIST.PRSM/remac-n3.15841

Boudabbous, S. & Bouraoui, M. (2012). Entrepreneuriat And Performance Managériale: Schéma Théorique And Application Au Cas Tunisien. In *18<sup>th</sup> IBIMA Conference*, Istanbul, Turkey.

Bourne, M., Kennerley, M., & Franco-Santos, M. (2005). Managing Through Measures: A Study of Impact on Performance. *Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management*, 16(4), 373-395.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510594480

Brikley, J.A., Coles, J.L. & Jarrell, G. (1997). Leadership Structure: Separating The CEO and Chairman of the Board. *Journal of Corporate Finance*, 3(3), 189-220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(96)00013-2

Brochenin, B. (2019). *L'engagement collectif dans l'entreprise: La part magique de la performance*. Editions L'Harmattan

Caspar, P. & Milland J.G. (1993). *Apprécier and valoriser les hommes. Réflexions and pratiques (Français)*. Broché. Liaisons; 2e ed. rev. and augm édition.

Chenhall, R. (2003). Management Control Systems Design Within Its Organisational Context: Findings From Contingency-Based Research And Directions For The Future. Accounting. Organizations and Society, 28, 127-168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7

Damanpour, F., Walker, R.M. & Avellaneda, C.N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. *Journal of management studies*, 46(4), 650-675.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00814.x

Gadenne, D. & Sharma, B., (2009). An Investigation of the Hard and Soft Quality Management Factors of Australian SMEs and Their Association with Firm Performance. *International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management*, 26(9), 865-880.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710910995064

Hudson, M., Smart, A. & Bourne, M. (2001), Theory and practice in SME performance measurement systems. *International Journal of Operations & Production Management*, 21(8), 1096-1115.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005587

Kalika, M. (1987). *Structures D'entreprises, Réalités, Déterminants, Performances*. Economica.

Kaplan, R. S., Norton D. P. (1996). *The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action*. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Maalej, R. & Amami, I. (2016). L'innovation managériale and la performance financière : exploration dans le contexte tunisien. *XXVe Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique*. 30 mai-1 er juin, Hammamet, Tunisie.
Mintzberg, H. (1982). *Structure And Dynamique Des Organisations*. Les Editions D'organisation.

Mintzberg, H. (2010). *Structure and Dynamique des Organisations*. Les Editions D'organisations, Paris.

Said, A. A., Hassabelnaby, H. R., & Wier, B. (2003). An Empirical Investigation of the Performance Consequences of Nonfinancial Measures. *Journal of Management Accounting Research*, *15*, 193-223.
https://doi.org/10.2308/JMAR.2003.15.1.193

Taticchi, P. Kashi R. Balachandran (2008). Forward Performance Measurement and Management Integrated Frameworks. *International Journal of Accounting & Information Management*, *16*(2), 140-154.
https://doi.org/10.1108/18347640810913807

Van Auken H., Madrid-Guijarro A. & Garcia-Perez-de-Lema D. (2008). Innovation and performance in Spanish manufacturing SMEs. *International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management*, *8*(1), 36-56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2008.018611

Walker, R.M., Damanpour, F. & Devece, C.A. (2010). Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management. *Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory*, *21*(2), 367-386.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq043

Whandten, D.A. and Cameron, K.S. (2005). *Developing Management Skills*. 6th Edition. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River.
# Annexes

<table><caption>Table 1. Survey items</caption><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">Organizational Structure</td><td>Hiring/Dismissal Decisions</td><td>S.D.Emb.L</td></tr><tr><td>Decision Fixing sales prices</td><td>S.D.FPV</td></tr><tr><td>Decisions Choice of investments</td><td>S.D.ChInv</td></tr><tr><td>Operational Decisions</td><td>S.D.Op</td></tr><tr><td>Decisions New product development/launch</td><td>S.D.NvPdt</td></tr><tr><td>All decisions are made with the participation of the manager</td><td>S.P.Drg</td></tr><tr><td>Decisions taken by the manager and his employees</td><td>S.D.Coll</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Diversité des PMS</td><td>Manager consulted before decisions are made by employees</td><td>S.Cons.D</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomous collaborators</td><td>S.Col.Aut</td></tr><tr><td>Key financial indicators</td><td>DIF</td></tr><tr><td>Customer Performance Indicators</td><td>DIC</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Performance Managériale</td><td>Internal process indicators</td><td>DIPI</td></tr><tr><td>Innovation indicators</td><td>DII</td></tr><tr><td>Planning</td><td>Pplanification</td></tr><tr><td>Search for information</td><td>PRechinfo</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Performance Managériale</td><td>Coordination</td><td>PCoordinatin</td></tr><tr><td>Evaluation</td><td>Pévaluation</td></tr><tr><td>Supervision</td><td>PSupervision</td></tr><tr><td>Staffing</td><td>PDotpersonnel</td></tr><tr><td>Negotiation</td><td>PNégociation</td></tr><tr><td>Representation</td><td>PReprésentation</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 2. Survey Response Rate by Region</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Sending frequency</th><th>Valid response frequency</th><th>Valid response rate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tangier-Tandouan-Al.Hoceïma</td><td>93</td><td>17</td><td>18,28%</td></tr><tr><td>Casablanca-Sandtat</td><td>127</td><td>25</td><td>19,69%</td></tr><tr><td>Rabat-Sale-Kenitra</td><td>84</td><td>11</td><td>13,10%</td></tr><tr><td>Marrakech-Safi</td><td>52</td><td>9</td><td>17,31%</td></tr><tr><td>Fez-Meknes</td><td>32</td><td>9</td><td>28,13%</td></tr><tr><td>The Oriental</td><td>22</td><td>8</td><td>36,36%</td></tr><tr><td>Beni Mellal-Khenifra</td><td>11</td><td>5</td><td>45,45%</td></tr><tr><td>Souss-Massa</td><td>20</td><td>5</td><td>25,00%</td></tr><tr><td>Dakhla-Oued Ed Dahab</td><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>11,11%</td></tr><tr><td>Drâa-Tafilaland</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>16,67%</td></tr><tr><td>Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra</td><td>16</td><td>3</td><td>18,75%</td></tr><tr><td>Guelmim-Oued Noun</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>12,50%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>480</td><td>95</td><td>19,79%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 3. Factor Analysis of the "Organizational Structure" Variable</caption><thead><tr><th>Items</th><th>Components</th><th></th><th>Communality</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>S.P.Drg</td><td></td><td>0,917</td><td>0,855</td></tr><tr><td>S.Cons.D</td><td></td><td>0,895</td><td>0,837</td></tr><tr><td>S.D.Emb.L</td><td>0,817</td><td></td><td>0,667</td></tr><tr><td>S.D.FPV</td><td>0,737</td><td></td><td>0,55</td></tr><tr><td>S.D.ChInv</td><td>0,784</td><td></td><td>0,747</td></tr><tr><td>S.D.Op</td><td>0,622</td><td></td><td>0,405</td></tr><tr><td>S.D.NvPdt</td><td>0,708</td><td></td><td>0,558</td></tr><tr><td>KMO Index</td><td colspan="3">= 0.759</td></tr><tr><td>Bartlandt test</td><td colspan="3">= 0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Total variance explained</td><td colspan="3">= 65.963</td></tr><tr><td>Cronbach's Alpha</td><td colspan="3">= 0.794</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 4 Correlation Matrix of the Variable "Organizational Structure"</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>S.P.Drg</th><th>S.Cons.D</th><th>S.D.Emb.L</th><th>S.D.FPV</th><th>S.DChInv</th><th>S.D.Op</th><th>S.D.NvPdt</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>S.P.Drg</th><td>1</td><td>0,713</td><td>0,121</td><td>0,218</td><td>0,413</td><td>0,159</td><td>0,25</td></tr><tr><th>S.Cons.D</th><td>0,713</td><td>1</td><td>0,194</td><td>0,2</td><td>0,412</td><td>0,256</td><td>0,319</td></tr><tr><th>S.D.Emb.L</th><td>0,121</td><td>0,194</td><td>1</td><td>0,519</td><td>0,569</td><td>0,417</td><td>0,403</td></tr><tr><th>S.D.FPV</th><td>0,218</td><td>0,2</td><td>0,519</td><td>1</td><td>0,536</td><td>0,222</td><td>0,458</td></tr><tr><th>S.DChInv</th><td>0,413</td><td>0,412</td><td>0,569</td><td>0,536</td><td>1</td><td>0,472</td><td>0,585</td></tr><tr><th>S.D.Op</th><td>0,159</td><td>0,256</td><td>0,417</td><td>0,222</td><td>0,472</td><td>1</td><td>0,38</td></tr><tr><th>S.D.NvPdt</th><td>0,25</td><td>0,319</td><td>0,403</td><td>0,458</td><td>0,585</td><td>0,38</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 6 Factorial analysis of the variable "Managerial performance"</caption><thead><tr><th>Items</th><th>Component</th><th>Communality</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PSupervision</td><td>0,803</td><td>0,696</td></tr><tr><td>PDotpersonnel</td><td>0,609</td><td>0,586</td></tr><tr><td>PSupervision</td><td>0,845</td><td>0,76</td></tr><tr><td>PRechinfo</td><td>0,834</td><td>0,693</td></tr><tr><td>PRéprésentation</td><td>0,807</td><td>0,733</td></tr><tr><td>PRechinfo</td><td>0,846</td><td>0,782</td></tr><tr><td>KMO Index = 0.812</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bartlandt test = 0.000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total variance explained = 72.502</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cronbach's Alpha = 0,936</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 7 Correlation matrix for the "Managerial Performance" variable</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Pplanification</th><th>PRechinfo</th><th>PSupervision</th><th>PDotpersonnel</th><th>PNégociation</th><th>PRéprésentation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Pplanification</th><td>1</td><td>0,816</td><td>0,573</td><td>0,639</td><td>0,695</td><td>0,744</td></tr><tr><th>PRechinfo</th><td>0,816</td><td>1</td><td>0,436</td><td>0,693</td><td>0,8</td><td>0,654</td></tr><tr><th>PSupervision</th><td>0,573</td><td>0,436</td><td>1</td><td>0,758</td><td>0,53</td><td>0,548</td></tr><tr><th>PDotpersonnel</th><td>0,639</td><td>0,693</td><td>0,758</td><td>1</td><td>0,75</td><td>0,528</td></tr><tr><th>PNégociation</th><td>0,695</td><td>0,8</td><td>0,53</td><td>0,75</td><td>1</td><td>0,751</td></tr><tr><th>PRéprésentation</th><td>0,744</td><td>0,654</td><td>0,548</td><td>0,528</td><td>0,751</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 8 Reliability and Validity Coefficients of the Scales</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Items</th><th>Loadings</th><th>Cronbach's Alpha</th><th>CR</th><th>AVE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Organizational Structure</td><td>S.Cons.D</td><td>0,752</td><td rowspan="6">0,754</td><td rowspan="6">0,848</td><td rowspan="6">0,573</td></tr><tr><td>S.D.NvPdt</td><td>0,727</td></tr><tr><td>S.DChInv</td><td>0,812</td></tr><tr><td>S.P.Drg</td><td>0,734</td></tr><tr><td>DII</td><td>0,756</td></tr><tr><td>DIPI</td><td>0,827</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Managerial performance</td><td>PDotpersonnel</td><td>0,76</td><td rowspan="6">0,941</td><td rowspan="6">0,943</td><td rowspan="6">0,576</td></tr><tr><td>PNégociation</td><td>0,781</td></tr><tr><td>PRechinfo</td><td>0,759</td></tr><tr><td>PRéprésentation</td><td>0,796</td></tr><tr><td>PSupervision</td><td>0,705</td></tr><tr><td>Pplanification</td><td>0,705</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 9 Discriminant Validity Coefficients</caption><thead><tr><td></td><td>Managerial performance</td><td>Organizational Structure</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Managerial performance</td><td>0,738</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Organizational Structure</td><td>0,461</td><td>0,757</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 10 Hypothesis Testing</caption><thead><tr><td>Hypothèses</td><td>Initial sample</td><td>Bootstrap</td><td>T Value</td><td>P Value</td><td>Significance</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Structure performance managériale</td><td>0,37</td><td>0,32</td><td>2,87</td><td>0,004</td><td>Significant</td></tr></tbody></table>