The next screen side shot question that I'm going to address was on the main forum. And I had to look around to find it. So if you guys want me to answer your questions going forward try to put it in the weekly readings and lectures. because I almost missed this and it was your highest voted general forum question, which was from Frank Olsen who said, how important is the leader? And he wrote that, I've been working in a public organization in Norway for five and a half years. In the last two years it's been without a director, and all in all we're about 560 people working there and we feel no different with or without the head of the organization. What do people think about that? And a variety of you had really insightful comments. And I'm going to highlight a few and give you some reflections of my own. And probably the first thing that people noted, like Juliano Alvez wrote, if you look carefully, I'm sure you're going to find leaders in this organization. So it's feasible that without a formal position being occupied, that the informal organization is such that certain individuals were filling in informally to that position. So, that's feasible. We don't know. I don't know your case, Frank, in particular. So that's one answer that's possible. Another, Stephanie Oberlander, had really neat comments which brought up notions of authority that Max Vaber talks about, who's a sociologist, again. And it fits me because that's kind of the training I had. And she talks about how depending on the kinds of leader, or the type of authority that leaders have within those firms, that they may be more impacted or influenced by the lack or a leader or not. So in particular, she talks about an organization with say a charismatic leader, which can suffer greatly from the loss of that leader. And on the other hand, in corporate environments she talks about a different kind of authority, as opposed to being imbued in the miracles that someone like a Steve Jobs does. A charismatic leader. That it's imbued in the rational legal kinds of laws of that organization. And that's more of a rational legal type of authority. It's based in the rules, in the regulations, and the rationality of it. And she argues that this is probably more the case of your firm. And this might explain why it's surviving relatively well without an charismatic leader or a cult of personality. Now, Abe Debola says, no that shouldn't work well. You need a leader to innovate, to guide, because change will be necessary. So these kinds of authorities that Stephanie remarks are more relevant for static or stable organizations or just reproduction. Whereas I think Abe's point is that if you're trying to change that may require some kind of breaking of regulations and the like. And he mentioned too that having no leader is like a car without a driver. I don't know if that's necessarily the case, but it's interesting. You have this debate going on. Do you need a leader or not? Kenny Thomas picks up on this and he asks whether it's a public institution. From his experience, apparently public institutions have systems in place that kind of don't require innovation. So it makes Abe's point maybe a little less relevant, right? And in some ways this is like Vaber's notion of traditional authority. That you follow something because it's the way things are done. That it's imbued with an office, and that office has authority, regardless of who's in it, right? So it doesn't really depend on a leader too much. Same thing with the rule based kind of notions of an organization, which you'll learn about more now next week. That the particular person that occupies an office doesn't necessarily matter. You can even have someone that fills it temporarily. And because of that, the same rules and operations get enacted. Now whether that's true, I don't know. And in fact, Afka Bootsman makes the point that no, please don't characterize public institutions as not innovating. In fact, she strongly disagrees that they have to innovate greatly. Without innovation in the nonprofit or public sector, they'd be dead because they have shrinking budgets, they have to do more with less, and on it goes. And she makes a good case for possibly the public notion may not fit. But again, we don't know Frank's case terribly much, so we don't know what kind of institution it is. Nor do we know whether the informal organization filled in. Nor do we know whether particular kinds of operations are getting done by rules or what. Finally, Jordan Craft actually makes a nice insight too. And he discusses whether this is a decentralized versus a centralized structure. And this is going to come up repeatedly in the course. And he talks about spiders and a starfish, which is an interesting metaphor. The idea being that in a hierarchical structure with clear leaders, if you lose the leader, the organization becomes directionless. It doesn't know where to go. Now, in the case of a decentralized organization, or the starfish, if you cut it up, it seems to still function relatively well, or at least the subunits do. And this was the question that Jordan had, was, well, is this the case for your organization? As we go forward in the course I think you're going to find that there are cases of organizations that are decentralized, that do rely and informal forms of organization. And do follow kinds of rule based authority that may not rest in a person so much as the office or in the collaborations of people that are of lower status in the organization. And these are going to be flat structures. Like you could imagine a consulting firm with projects where people coordinate and get work done. You'll also see it in the organizational learning section of the course, where something like the World of Warcraft. While kind of a peculiar example, here you have millions of people who get together in guilds and warring parties that coordinate their behavior. And solve novel problems and innovate without kind of formal hierarchies and the like, or even rotating participants and roles. So it's kind of interesting to hear those things. So, it's not to say that it's not important, leaders obviously are important in many instances. And possibly even in decentralized structures, for projects or for temporary kinds of coordination efforts, you do need probably some degree of hierarchy and leadership. Now, the variation on which an organization's dependent on a stable leader versus one that rotates, is the kind of thing to keep thinking about as we move forward in the course. So thank you for this question.