Strategic Management Lecture # 5 - Organizational Structure

hello and welcome back to strategic management today we will be talking about organization structures and uh this is one of those weeks when i would probably deviate rather substantially from the textbook not because it's not doing an adequate job it does but because there are some other issues that they would like to cover that you would not necessarily find in this textbook so i definitely encourage you to uh pay close attention to the slides uh listen to the lecture and we do not have a quiz and organization structure this week but definitely the issues i will be covering will appear on the exam so i encourage you to pay attention and if anything does not make sense please email me alert me i will be more than happy to post additional slides or maybe send some mass communication so today we will cover several important things uh we'll talk about the fundamentals of organizing the vertical and horizontal dimensions of organizing and those are important although their importance seems to be changing as industries evolve and develop we'll talk about organization structure evolution the stages that a typical organization goes through as it increases in size or maybe in geographic reach and then we will identify typical structures and i'll talk about them in some detail simple structure functional structure multi-divisional structure matrix network organizations and uh finally we'll identify some of the overall trends in organizational design and that would be that so uh let me start with fundamentals of organizing if you think about the reason for organizations existence obviously for organizations to exist they have to make they have to do something more effectively than people can do on their own right so they have to be more efficient more effective and converting some inputs into some outputs and that is the reason for why people actually create those separate legal entities and try to coordinate their activities uh as as as a collection of individuals and not just as a individual people interacting with each other and organizations uh are more effective than individuals because of this principle of division of labor right rather than have individuals uh perform all the tasks within the firm they allow people to specialize so they they break down complex operations into smaller tasks they assign those tasks to unique individuals and then those individuals develop expertise they develop different methods of dealing with those little tasks and uh over time obviously they become more proficient um if you read the textbook it gives this example the classic example from adam smith making pins how people would be a hundred times more effective within the organization uh manufacturing those pins compared to how much they can do on their own and as you divide labor into those smaller tasks there are two problems that you have to address right one is differentiation so you have to break down bigger problems into smaller tasks in a meaningful way all right so you typically do that based on the kind of activity that people engage in uh you know specific operations routines and whatnot sometimes you do it based on maybe manufacturing processes sometimes you do it based on geography but there is always always some reason behind some logic behind breaking down those larger operations into smaller chunks all right so you have to differentiate those activities however once you differentiated the tasks into smaller like big tasks into smaller smaller ones you have to integrate those operations you have to make sure that uh you know people within the organization operate at a similar pace if some operation maybe takes longer than something else maybe you have more people work on it right so you take this relative productivity into account when you differentiate tasks and you assign proper number of people you you select people with proper qualifications to perform specific tasks smaller simpler tasks so you have to somehow integrate those individual differentiated work units to make sure they work together in the coordinated way and uh the organization achieves uh what it is meant to achieve so in the most basic sense if you think about the organization it represents a collection of those tasks organizational units that perform similar kind of tasks and then those pieces of the organization they somehow interact with each other they report to someone they supervise someone else so organization structure is nothing else but really just to report and structure who reports to whom and how this overall organizational task is split into pieces all right so how those pieces are integrated how processes are recognized so basically it is who reports to whom within the organization so you all have seen those organizational charts i'm pretty sure right so you have more than directors you have a president maybe ceo and then a bunch of vps and then you have all those different organizational units typically organized based on functions you know you would have maybe r d and marketing and manufacturing finance hr and all of that and under each of those vps will be specific units for larger organizations uh you also sometimes see those uh um geographic units uh you know maybe europe or north america asia you know things of this nature that are somehow fitted into this overall organizational structure and uh basically this specialization and division of labor bring about two issues two problems cooperation and coordination cooperation this problem emerges because once you break down this overall task into smaller sub tasks people tend to really care only about what they are assigned to do they do not really care if you know the neighboring unit is maybe experiencing some difficulties they have their goals they have their tasks this is what they are compensated to do so in terms of cooperation it's it's it's challenging the other thing is coordination right so uh you may have the best athletes but it doesn't necessarily mean that you have this greatest team and i mentioned that previously when i referenced that movie uh miracle on ice right so you don't necessarily have to have all the best athletes to have the best performing team if you coordinate them right if you're effective then that can take care of a lot of things that otherwise are not necessarily warranted so as an organization how do you make sure those individual units cooperate with each other how do individuals harmonize their activities once you break them down into those individual units well again everything is kind of simple in strategic management so there are four different mechanisms that organizations involve one is just control mechanisms right so there's hierarchical supervision which essentially what it means is that there is a supervisor who makes sure that um individual units cooperate with each other right so it's it's fiat it's uh it's uh there's really nothing pleasant about it but it's someone with authority making sure that those different units work together as they should you also provide performance incentives right if you have as an organization your goal is to maximize maybe the outputs you basically pay people for performance you are you know it could be maybe piece rates for individual workers who would uh maximize their output if they are paid for each unit produced if we talk about maximizing executive performance here we talk about profit bonuses right it is very hard to make sure that it's it's really hard to measure performance of an executive right because uh he or she may spend serious time just you know seemingly chilling in an armchair thinking of some strategic move so you try to lean there their performance to different profit bonuses right if the organization achieves specific growth level or valuation then they get their compensation so just recently tesla had one of those situations where elon musk was awarded a specifically fantastic options pool because he made sure that company valuation hit the predetermined targets how exactly he did that is uh probably of little concern to shareholders but as long as the outcome was where it needed to be he was compensated rather neatly well sadly for him the market became disillusioned with tesla potential pretty soon after so he lost a lot of money because of that but again it does not negate the principle necessarily so as long as there is a certain performance level there is a bonus that the executive could get the other way that organizations make sure that different pieces cooperate is actually quite ingenious right this is based on shared values and it's also known as clan control so in this way you do not necessarily have to have someone in the positional authority who tells you to do things or maybe to help another unit it is really people subscribing to those same values when they see themselves not as a small unit but as a part of a larger organization and when that happens then they effectively self-govern right because they share those same values they want to be on the same page so they move forward uh without the need for managerial fiat or or you know like any authority implementing some specific draconian measures to make sure that everybody is doing what they're supposed to do and finally another soft method the so-called persuasion uh this is what leaders are supposed to be good at uh they motivate people they uh they provide some shared vision they employ rhetoric obviously so you know public speaking and things of that nature help rally people around and motivate them towards pursuit of common goals but these four mechanisms allow you to solve the cooperation problem they help you they help to ensure that even though the workers differentiated and there is this division of labor different parts fit together they move forward and the organization is actually successful in what it's supposed to do in terms of coordination right so okay suppose that there are different parts that are willing to cooperate how exactly you make sure that their activities are coordinated that you know they harmonize that they fit together well um again three different things rules and directives rules are important and when you join an organization uh it's a good idea to learn the policies to to learn as much as you can about how things are done within organization because there is no one best set of rules right but there is a set of rules unique to a specific organization you want to be effective there you want to learn them uh early on if your organization deals with a repeated set of issues right maybe you're a manufacturing company maybe you're a service organization but you know sort of the operations are rather monotonous then routines are equally important they are not necessarily formalized in rules or directives but this is just the way things are done it doesn't mean necessarily they are the best but if there are routines it means that this is the way things have been working apparently you know they they kind of belong together and uh you want to pay attention to those you do not want to necessarily disrupt a routine without a good reason if it works don't fix it kind of thing and then finally if you deal with operations that are highly flexible then non-standardized way to coordinate the activities is through a process of mutual adjustment that is hard to do [Music] it takes a specific kind of individual to be open to such adjustments and this is not necessarily the case for many organizations that they would go through this process but for many businesses such as consultant businesses or many service organizations where the tasks are non-routine mutual adjustment is absolutely the key so that's that's what you do to solve the coordination problem now with any organizational effort right trying to put those units together and make sure that they cooperate um there are two dimensions that have to be analyzed the vertical dimension and horizontal dimension vertical dimension is uh basically [Music] again that same idea who reports to whom right who has the ultimate authority how you structure this authority within the organization level by level layer by layer basically for most firms the ultimate decision making authority rests with stockholders who then elect board of directors who then appoints the ceo who in turn puts together the top management team here we talk about basically vice president and up and uh with respect to uh hierarchical levels within the company we talk about strategic level or top level management tactic uh or middle and operational of frontline management and um all those probably the ones who are under most stress and whose position is riskiest would be the mid-level managers or tactic managers because if things go bad if the organization is not necessarily doing well these people are the ones who are most likely to be let go right so uh that's sort of the the risky part of it the danger part of it the other thing is uh as managers there are different tasks that you engage in right so planning organizing leading and controlling different kind of skills technical skills you know [Music] right if you are if you work for a manufacturing company then as mid-level manager you probably need to know a lot about technology you have to understand what the frontline people are doing as you go up the hierarchy at the very top technology doesn't really matter and you actually see it all the time that people at the very top they change not only companies but industries obviously with different technologies all the time so at the very top technical knowledge technical skills become less critical at the very bottom strategic level skills higher level skills are not essential at the mid level of the organization everything is important right so uh that is probably the most critical element of uh this vertical differentiation that's the key piece of the puzzle so i keep that in mind the other thing that you want to keep in mind is this notion of span of control basically the number of subordinates who report directly to an executive or supervisor and uh it turns out that there are actual limits to how many people you can manage effectively the rule of thumb basically is that you cannot manage more than seven people effectively unless there are some specific circumstances which means a lot of top executives are overtaxed by having too many subordinates reporting to them right if you look at those organizational charts in your textbook that depict general motors general electric and whatnot you're going to see that those people routinely have like 15 different individuals reporting to them straight that is very unhealthy it's uh you know we have our cognitive boundaries and it's hard to manage this many people now some of it depends on the nature of your industry some of it depends on the country and you know the culture that is common for the country so in japan for instance it's not uncommon for supervisors to have you know 50 subordinates and that is considered okay but in many cases you want to be super careful to not overburden uh those individuals with too many subordinates which means in a large organization potentially the number of layers of management levels of management can be exponentially high at some point general electric had 27 layers of management just because of the sheer size if you think about what it means right so oftentimes an idea for a change comes from the very bottom you have frontline employees who interact with customers who identify the problem who possibly can offer a solution they communicate it up to the supervisors that message has to go up 27 times until it reaches the ultimate decision maker who then makes a decision and communicates the decision down those same 27 steps so here we talk about 50 plus levels where a mistake can be made or time is wasted so uh you know because of the span of control it seems that there are natural limitations to how large organizations can be unless you come up with some sort of a managerial alternative with some sort of structure that takes care of all these things uh horizontally the way you split all those tasks into different units uh you basically identify two different groups of units line departments and staff departments if you remember that idea of a value chain that we've analyzed we talked about primary activities and support activities so line departments are basically the ones that are all about primary activities staff departments are all about support activities so really easy to remember uh please remember that uh there will be a question on that in the exam so [Music] staff departments they support line departments but they themselves are not engaged in in any sort of primary activities and uh when it comes to basic approaches to departmentalization right the way those units are organized and the way the tasks are split into individual units there are four main approaches and some emerging ones so the basic approaches are simple structure functional structure multi-divisional structure on the so-called m-form and matrix structure and then we also talk about network and and some other developments but those are the four main ones and um i will spend some time talking about them they basically these approaches explain how hierarchy is structured within the firm well hierarchy it has two main functions within the company bureaucracy right so all those rules and regulations and routines and and again the reporting structure and whatnot but also hierarchy as coordination right so unlike control this has to do with how things are coordinated how how units work together how they make sure that you know whatever issues emerge get addressed in the most efficient way and uh by structuring the hierarchy properly you can economize on coordination right so i hope you can see that here uh the the picture to the right of the slide so on it's it's very easy to see how the communication goes who talks to whom who makes the ultimate decision making so if you structure these five individuals in this specific way you know that coordination efforts are relatively minor so you're actually saving money and probably saving time at the same time you may structure hierarchical relationship in a way that promotes adaptability right flexibility adaptability innovativeness and whatnot so here we have the same five individuals the figure to the left where it's a self-organized team here everybody interacts with everybody else it is harder to reach decisions fast but those decisions that are reached would probably be better decisions so if you have some non-trivial issues you're analyzing this is probably something that will be associated with quality as opposed to with speed okay and so uh based on how you organize your hierarchy within the firm you may have two different kind structures mechanistic and organic mechanistic as the name implies you know it's all about rules regulation the region highly specialized vertical communication centralized knowledge you basically want to have that if your external environment is rather stable when there is no technological uncertainty you know to a significant extent then everything becomes a quest for efficiency and those mechanistic structures make sense organic forms on the other hand they are a lot more flexible they broadly defined so you coordinate them by culture by mutual adjustment knowledge is dispersed within the organization so if the issue emerges there is no one single decision maker who holds all the pieces you actually need to bring those people together and that works well in uh when the situation is dynamic and there is a lot of technological uncertainty and ambiguity so you have to bring those people together you have to ensure they communicate and um that's that's that now um we also have talked about structure up to this point as if it is something that is fairly stable right the organization has developed the structure and then is there to stay that is not necessarily the case it's actually not the case at all organization structures evolve right because firms they grow in predictable patterns initially by volume then by geography then through integration right at the vertical horizontal they either start acquiring competitors in which case we talk about horizontal integration or they start sort of integrating vertically backwards or forward they may be acquiring their own suppliers or the buyers so they start controlling larger chunks of the value chain and a firm's growth pattern determines its structural form so initially most firms when they just started they have simple structure and again i'll talk about those labels just in a few minutes um basically simple structure means that there is this owner manager so the initial entrepreneur and all the staff that he has is basically the extension of his or her authority and so if you do whatever you do right you grow you start facing coordination and control problems uh maybe you hire too many people and because of you know this limited attention span or cognitive discipline not disabilities but limitations you cannot control too many people you have to start breaking them into different groups right so maybe some people who are in charge of marketing some people who are in charge of manufacturing and someone is maybe dealing with finance and legal and whatnot so at that point typically you switch from simple structure to functional structure right so you start creating those departments and then as you grow even further you actually end up in a situation when even that is not enough you have to adopt once again and typically there you adopt a multi-divisional structure again i'll talk about that in your course so simple structure the one that most organizations have when they just created so you have owner manager who makes all major decisions directly who monitors all the activities together and staff serves as an extension of manager supervisor authority no one really specializes in anything everybody is doing every well i mean think about entrepreneurial firms right everybody does everything and uh if there's one person who controls it fine if they those individuals are co-owners then you know they sort of control everything and do everything and this is exciting but challenging at the same time so typically firms can have the structure if they compete by offering single product line in a single geographic market right then there's really no point trying to you know create those different departments but once you start growing this growth creates complexity and managerial and structural challenges all of a sudden as this entrepreneur or owner manager there are too many moving pieces for you to control so you have to create those organizational units departments divisions you know whatever you want to call them uh the other thing is uh owner manager typically not always but rather typically would lack organizational skills and experience so uh you know we all know wildly successful entrepreneurs who create great businesses without formal training but those are really exceptions right so most people do not have what it takes to grow the organization they may be successful creating an organization and reaching a certain level of success but to really move beyond that whatever is easily attainable requires specific inputs require specific skills and um requires structure um those owner managers also become rather ineffective in managing specialized and complex tasks they also get tired right they lose steam at some point they need help and once they start bringing people in with authority to make decisions then you definitely have to have structure in place you have to have incentives in place to make sure that those people make decisions that are in your best interest and not their best interest so you know that it calls for structure that calls for any number of things so and typically what you do at that point you go for departmentalization right you can departmentalize using different logic typically it's done based on functions that people play in organization so production marketing hr manufacturing whatever the case might be obviously for service organizations that will be slightly different but that's not the only way to break the organization into departments you can also do it based on geographies again the textbook talks about starbucks and you know geographic locations being the crucible of this departmentalization you may do it based on the type of customer right so maybe if you're a an organization and you do some of your work for the government and something else for other companies and something else for individuals you may have sort of three departments that deal with that so but primarily most typically companies that go beyond this simple structure stage they adopt a function structure so they departmentalized based on functions that those different units play why is that so important because this is where you really can start pursuing economies of scale and scope right so uh once you start specializing in particular operation you gain expertise you remember right that you increase your outputs you double the outputs the cost per unit of production go down about 20 percent so uh monitoring becomes really easy right if if you're this original owner manager and you have to monitor you know legal hr and finance and marketing and manufacturing let's read it off you really have to be jack of all trades to do that well here you're gonna have i don't know marketing director who supervises all the marketing activities you have someone who's in charge of logistics taking care of you know everything that's there you have someone in well you get the idea right so uh people can develop their expertise performance standards are better man maintained by the same token because everybody is doing roughly the same kind of jobs so that's that's good uh less administrative involvement and very clear decision making and lines of communication if you're a marketing specialist you have a question you know you're gonna go to vp of marketing or marketing director or you know however that division is called within your company the big problem with this approach to departmentalization is that it's really hard to integrate a classic uh conflict and organization is a conflict between r d and marketing right so r d doesn't care about whether or not their next innovation can be solved engineers care about sophisticated technical solutions they want to come up with something that's cool not with something that sells marketing people on the other hand when they deal with customers when they make their promises to the customers they don't know if those promises are even technologically feasible they wanna they simply wanna close the deal they want to sell something without regard for how it is actually technologically if it meets the state of science the state of the art whatever the case might be so those individual units within the organization that are grouped around functions they lack common vision and it's really hard to integrate them still you can use the structures for certain business level strategies so uh you know for instance if you are into cost leadership strategy and uh you just have one business or maybe dominant kind of business you're not a diversified company yeah sure you know you [Music] break yourself down into different functions and you emphasize maybe process improvement something that drives costs down and then really that's that's that you don't pay much attention to some other functions such as marketing right because this is not where your strategic focus is on and uh at some point if you keep growing through this functional structure you also outgrow yourself the same issues if as a marketing director you have too many people who report to you you cannot manage those effectively if you diversify as a company if you start you know again your general motors you have all those different brands of cars and you also do you know many other things other than cars um it comes to a point where you cannot really keep it all in your hand you cannot manage those people you cannot understand everything that's going on so the next uh strategic change that you want to consider then is the so-called multi-divisional structure which is a departmentalization around products customer or geographic regions basically it's the idea of a business within a business so each department will have full set of functions if you are again general motors you have cars you also have gm defense that manufacturers and light armored vehicles for the us army each of those divisions will have their own r d people their own marketing people their own hr there are some things that they may share and there are some technological know-how maybe that they will share across the units but effectively here we're dealing with business within a business so boeing for instance right that builds civilian planes it also builds planes for the u.s military and you know the military pays for research and development that then makes its way into civilian planes so obviously it makes a lot of sense to coordinate those different divisions or different departments again whichever way you want to call them but within their own markets within their own sort of uh you know set of questions they deal with they effectively operate as independent businesses with some coordination from the top obviously in this case you have less information overload you have full-time commitment to a particular product line or customer group or market clear responsibilities broader training you know all that is wonderful it also comes at a cost right there are disadvantages it's difficult to coordinate across product lines so if you're general motors and you have all those different [Music] brands of cars do you really need to have an r d unit in each of those how do you where do you put the line right so how much should belong to each of those units how much should be at the level of the corporate so that's a big question with not good no clear answer necessarily obviously replication of resources because of that and um and some other pressures so it kind of keeps you away from specialization that need to coordinate everything so it it's it's not terribly helpful but uh as you start diversifying as you start to grow through diversification this is probably the most effective structure you can possibly get and in fact this multi-divisional structure it's a fairly recent managerial innovation it's probably about a century old when firms discovered they can't create those businesses within a business and it is often called the most significant managerial innovation of the 20th century so that's something that you want to keep in mind uh with respect to this feed between structure and strategy i do have the slide here i will not go into detail we'll talk about that a lot more later on during the semester so uh you know feel free to read it but uh don't don't dwell on it too much and um the final structure that is identified uh by your textbook um has a sort of a you know structure worthy of uh introduction the so-called matrix structure and what that one does like the idea behind it is actually quite quite smart so if you have a functional organization structure right so let's say you have some marketing people you have some people who do manufacturing and again you know logistics delivery you know whatever the case might be they probably would not be sort of equally occupied or equal loaded at all times and as an organization you want to make sure that everybody works all the time that people are maximally productive that they do not slack and they don't have an opportunity to slap the way that organizations uh try to solve it is by creating the so-called matrix structure where the same individual may be reporting not just to a functional manager right so as a marketer you do not only report to a marketing manager but you also would be reporting to let's say project manager a and project manager b by this way there is a clear vertical communication line for you with your functional manager but other people with authority for specific projects within the company can stake a claim for some of your time and it sounds like a decent idea right so in this way you can probably do more with fewer people and the effectiveness of each individual working time is maximized it's also very nice because it creates multiple alternative opportunities for professional growth so now as a marketer professionally you previously you could only be promoted to be the next vp of marketing or marketing director whatever the case might be now you have this alternative career step where you can become a project manager so it creates this dual career ladder employees learn to collaborate efficient resource utilization including managers time so all that seems fine the big problem with the structure is that it violates one of the most fundamental principles of organizing the unity of command principle and i do not believe your textbook really talks about that in detail what it really means is each individual can only have one boss right only one person with authority over him or her if you have multiple bosses right if you have your marketing manager but also project manager a project manager b if you want to you can actually game the system so that when your marketing manager tells you to do something you say well i would be happy to but right now i'm working on such and such project for that guy or that other guy you may actually create a situation where those managers fight all the time trying to figure out who who has more power while you do nothing right so this unity of command principle is something that organizations sometimes forget about and they really shouldn't so uh there's been a time when metric structures were extremely popular and if you ever hire a consultant trying to increase efficiency they would recommend that you do this i'm warning you it comes with a uh you know it's booby trap right so uh you want to be super careful and if your manager ever suggests that you do something like that or if you are ever in a position where you consider this uh think very carefully it could work out but it could also be very damaging and devastating for the organization and then finally uh something that i have seen primarily in europe nordic europe so right now we talk about all those different structures as mentioned with sort of those evolutionary steps and organizational growth right so uh you start with a simple structure you grow you adopt functional you grow your adult multi-divisional many firms actually choose to manage their growth differently uh so in scandinavian countries a lot of firms independent firms rather than growing through merger and acquisition or or even organically the join networks of other independent firms who are typically collocated within the same region and operate within the same industry and their governments so norway sweden denmark actually provide money to those organizations helping them to compete against larger corporations they think in there is actually quite simple so rather than have them compete with no help they would fail and people will file for unemployment and let's give them some money now let's help them coordinate their activities let's help them with innovation and this way they survive so in the long term this is actually quite effective for the governments uh and uh in terms of innovativeness those networks do wonderful things those networks can combine anywhere from just a few to dozens of firms they do not have to be locked to the same network structure all the time so they can be multiple projects and in some projects you coordinate with firms a and b and others you work with c and d and yet other projects you will sort of forego and you let other firms record to work on those so this is the idea of a dynamic network it's not static it's it's a temporary arrangement so you keep your independence you keep your resources you keep your know-how and you coordinate some of the activities towards the pursuit of common goals obviously that requires the presence of the so-called manager broker a person who assembles and coordinates participants in the network it could be one of the member firm managers or owners it could be even sometimes a government official but again this is a an organizational structure that is not terribly common in the us but is increasingly common uh in the european union and um there are also some other trends in organizational design that i think we probably should at least mention so one is delayering right organizations become more flat over time i talked before about 27 layers of management and general electric that's not sustainable right you cannot expect to compete effectively if all communication takes so long there are so many points at which [Music] things can be slowed down or misinterpreted misunderstood so organizations become flatter organizations adopt uh team-based units by something we called adhocracy where they do not necessarily create formal departments formal divisions they bring together a task force they solve a problem and then move on to solve something else project based organizations very similar idea network structures we just discussed permeable organizational boundaries um again we talked previously about the idea of open innovation right you realize that you don't necessarily have all the best people working for you you cannot hire possibly all the best people permanently so you're bringing people to work on specific projects and you let your people to work on projects initiated by other companies so it's harder to manage it's very fuzzy we're not really sure yet where this whole thing is going but this is definitely something that a lot of firms are playing with uh platform organizations you know think about uber think about airbnb i said uber does not really employ all the people that work for it right so it simply provides a technological platform that allows those people to connect with customers and customers connect with drivers that's a very novel approach right you can actually attain a rather substantial scale without controlling without own and so to speed the resources you employ right you don't own the cars that deal with those passengers you don't hire the drivers who drive those cars so that's that's a very effective approach it appears and um if you ever think of a of an organizat some entrepreneurial endeavor that you'd like to to consider platform organizations scale up very nicely it's definitely something you you would want to consider so i would definitely advise you to take that into account and finally virtual organizations right and this is probably even more important now with the coveted 19 crisis um so in many ways organizations because of the development of information communication technologies don't even have to bring all the people together why they can allow individuals to to perform their duties wherever it's convenient to them which is great because they don't need to provide the resources they don't have to have office space and oftentimes even even computers people buy it themselves and people also appreciate the opportunity to work from one hour or hour and um you know be sort of managers of their own time and combine their duties with maybe pleasure and different trips so um again something that has been around for a short while but will probably be more important as time goes by and with that i think i will end the lecture on organization structures again it is uh a bit distant from what your textbook suggests please read the textbook get familiar with the slides if something of what i said does not make sense let me know i'll be more than happy to share more information otherwise guys enjoy the rest of the week and get ready for the upcoming exam