REGARDING
ORGANIZATIONS

The Organizations Notebook

Due Thursday, November 15, 2001

Eugene Cha, geno@brown.edu

Sociology 103 / Harrington

Monday, November 12, 2001

entry on your own experience | this entry will be about grace covenant campus church, a campus-based christian church at brown university. i am currently attender of grace covenant campus church.

Growing up in the church is one of my fondest memories. It is from church that I remember some of my closest friends, most humorous moments, and most compelling convictions. Sometimes I would tell people, “I’ve been going to church since before I was born,” referring to the time when I was in my mother’s womb while she attended church with my father. In countless ways, my experience with the church has shaped who I have become, why I think the way I do, and how I respond to different situations.

But I do wonder, sometimes, why the church is organized the way it is… specifically the Korean-American churches that I have grown up in, and especially the church I now attend. Interestingly enough, I rarely think of the church primarily as an organization, whereas something like “Brown Ski Club” is more immediately—and perhaps more succinctly—an organization to me. In any case, Sociology 103 has helped me to see the church through an organizational lens, affording frequent moments for me to apply the concepts I learn in lectures and readings.

The organization is Grace Covenant Campus Church, a ministry of the Korean American Presbyterian Church denomination that had its humble beginnings when a handful of Korean-American RISD students met for Christian fellowship back in 1992. Since then it has grown into a fully-staffed, Brown-recognized religious group that worships weekly in Manning Chapel and boasts 100+ in attendance every Sunday. This year and last, the church is currently undergoing an unusual transitional period with three full-time seminary students serving as the functioning church leadership. The last pastor—“Pastor Billy,” as he is affectionately remembered—left before my class came to College Hill, so those who are current sophomores and younger have no clue who he really is, whereas a good number of others do. Additionally, some members of the church are peers of the current leadership, as two of the three who constitute the pastoral leadership are Brown graduates from the class of 1998. As one may imagine, this invites a whole array of interesting relational and organizational dynamics.

I think one concept of Sociology 103 that seems very fitting is that of institutional theory and its emphasis on process rather than product. Very clearly the goal of the church is not one of easily-identifiable product but of ongoing process. In many ways, the elements of faith in a supreme being and the interaction and fellowship with other believers add a fluidity that disrupts the very processes that lead to a finalized product. And even if we were to consider a final product, what would that final product be? Perfect Christians? Moral Christian education? Models of Jesus Christ? And another question: who is to say what that final product is, and with what authority?

As such, the church is unmistakably an institution that espouses the idea of process with the goal of gathering together a group of believers for shared worship, fellowship, accountability, education, and edification. I do question, however, what it means for the church to be considered “legitimate,” seeing how legitimacy is such an integral component of institutional theory. The church is seen as a legitimate house of worship, but vast variety exists with different faiths, different views on religion and spirituality, and different cultures and periods in time. How is legitimacy defined when there are so many variable factors, and when there is little room for agreement among different houses of worship and religious groups? For example, Christians fundamentally disagree with Buddhists when it comes to characteristics of a deity and notions of life after death. In fact, most Christians find Buddhism and other faiths “illegitimate” in the sense that accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is the only way to receive forgiveness and enjoy eternal life with God in Heaven. In such instances, what exactly is legitimacy and for what reasons is it important that we know this?

Perhaps I need to take a step back and see the church (including Grace Covenant Campus Church) as a more general religious group. Several of our recent readings have referred to religious groups as proactive charity and volunteer organizations, noting how they are resources in developing downtown areas and contributing to the public good of society-at-large. With this view, perhaps the idea of legitimacy is given to less complication.

Returning back to a more specific discussion about Grace Covenant Campus Church (also known simply as Grace Covenant), I sometimes wonder how it is doing as a campus-based religious organization, and I have actually had serious issues about how exclusive the group comes off to newcomers. Imagine walking into the first floor of Manning Chapel… You are welcomed by a “Welcoming Team,” a group of people who serve through saying hello, passing out church programs, writing nametags, and ushering individuals to the pews. The first thing you are likely to think as you are welcomed is, “Wow, everyone is Asian.” You walk upstairs to the main chapel on the second floor and find yourself among more Asians; some praying intently, others chatting softly. You sit down, skim through the program, and see the names of student leaders and other volunteers. John Oh, Nicole Rim, Esther Kim, Will Hong, Eddie Park… If you would like to get involved with soup kitchens, contact Gina Kwon… Please stay after and talk to Nancy Han if you are interested in missions. Then service begins with a series of worship music and praise songs, and every member of the “Worship Team” is Asian as well. Once worship is over, one pastor welcomes the congregation and another begins to preach the message, and both are Korean-American.

I write this anecdote not to deride the church congregation for being mostly Asian-American but more to highlight how peculiarly homogeneous the members of this organization are and how a non-Asian newcomer might feel in this house of worship. Of course, this trend is nothing new. The comment has been made that Sunday mornings are one of the most segregated times of the week because of race-specific worship congregations. The problematic issue for Grace Covenant and the Christian church in general is that no church should be racially exclusive, and yet, this is the message that is presented by Grace Covenant, reaffirmed by other churches, and—yes—institutionalized into general expectations for churches across the board.

It is precisely small nuances like these that make the church as an organization both exciting and frustrating. Discussions at a leadership retreat in the past year touched upon ways Grace Covenant could make itself more accessible to non-Asians. Indeed, it was an issue of structure when one churchgoer suggested that the solution lay in the idea that newcomers have to see people who are like them also actively involved in the church. It doesn’t help, the argument goes, when a non-Asian newcomer and finds everyone not only in the congregation but also in leadership an Asian. The newcomer finds it difficult to identify, and is uncomfortable and discouraged to come back again. True or not, this dialogue—along with ideas for the welcoming committee and pastor accessibility—was a dialogue of how to organize the church differently to be more newcomer-friendly.

When it comes to Grace Covenant, I am reminded of William Ouchi’s discussion on clans. He mentions the normative requirements of reciprocity, legitimate authority, and common values and beliefs, and the informational requirements of traditions. The items that strike me as most applicable are common values and beliefs, for what gathers a church together but a shared creed?

Also of note is the presence of a flat hierarchy and family-like dynamics and language; indeed members in the church are brothers and sisters with one Father in Heaven, constituting one body of believers that is headed by a readily available pastor. Furthermore, a significant dependence on trust and cooperation as a means of efficiency is often emphasized in the church. There is a cooperation among fellow believers who care for and pray for one another, a trust from the congregation to the pastor that s/he will speak the message of God. Rarely do decisions, relationships, and transactions require formal economic and bureaucratic analysis. Instead, members are invited to contribute and serve the organization in the name of a common faith and in the interest of the entire church as a whole.

For this reason, the community of churchgoers at Grace Covenant tends to be an intimate and tight-knit group—both a good and bad thing. A good thing in that members are closely attached to the organization’s goals and that members find cooperative work enjoyable and beneficial, but a bad thing in that those who are more involved or more familiar with the organization and its members are viewed as composing an exclusive inner circle. In my experiences with Grace Covenant, I have found that a common complaint among churchgoers is that they do not feel “a part of the church—“ or more correctly—a part of those who are heavily involved in church functions and leadership. “It’s impossible to really enjoy church and get to know people unless you get super-involved,” was one friend’s sentiment. And I am inclined to believe that such is the case across many church congregations, particularly Korean-American ministries where the pressure to be Christian or not is very palpable and imposing.

I can see very vividly why it is difficult to maintain intimate relationships with other members of the church if one, say, only attends on Sunday for worship service and leaves right after. On the other hand, for those who attend “religiously”—going to the Wednesday night prayer meeting and Friday night Bible study, as well a men’s lunch every Monday and early morning prayer every Thursday, and don’t forget the bowling and potluck social on Saturday afternoon and if you want you can come over to my place and we can make chicken cacciatore together for the potluck—church easily becomes the place where social relationships form and flourish. In fact, church is the sole social environment for some members and these relationships not only build commitment with each other but also build commitment towards the church and the church’s foundational goals.

As I stated at the beginning of this entry, church was home to some of the best people and moments of my life, and I can now see this dynamic through an organizational lens that helps to make sense why the church does what it does and how the church has been such an influence on me. With such clan-like features that are meant to be personal and intimate, no wonder I still feel bad when I occasionally miss out on worship service Sunday morning. But to return to an inquiry at the beginning of this entry, I see more clearly why the church is organized the way it is. I feel that the church is not organized the way it is because it must aspire to some ideal form of organization, but that the church is organized the way it is because of the nature of what intangible issues (faith, hope, prayer, evangelism) it must deal with. Grace Covenant continues to suffer in ways that—in some ways—make it a poorly-organized group of individuals. For example, while there is trust and cooperation, organization loyalty and internal cohesion, so there are relaxed standards and complacent feelings that manifest themselves in unmet deadlines, overlooked responsibilities, and shuffled priorities. It would be easy to see inefficiencies in Grace Covenant and in many other churches for that matter, and managers could spend days numbering the church’s organizational woes. Then again, maybe we just need to sit back and agree with a popular Christian bumper sticker: christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.

Tuesday, November 13, 2001

entry on course readings or lectures | this entry focus on the theme of the profit-motive in the private sector, with refrences to the taxonomy of public/private/hybrid.

I am tempted to say, “No, nothing at all,” in response to the prompt’s question, “Do the readings and lectures help you understand anything?” But I know that’s just not true, though it might have been cute.

I think one theme over the course of the semester that has persistently caught my attention and interest is that of the profit-motive and of self-interest, and how these factors play into organizational behavior and structure… I guess you could say the very sociological and human components of the entire discussion about organizations. Now I know this is broad, but I’ll try to limit it to a discussion on readings and lectures that have pertained mostly with taxonomy and the difference between the public and private sectors.

It seems to make perfect sense when we discuss how the public sector is most suitable to address regulation, redistribution of wealth, and the provision of public goods. Inherent in each of these is the strangely sad admission that human beings are a selfish people. I say “strangely sad” because, although we view selfishness as something undesirable, selfishness is something so pervasive and real that it has become accepted and affects things like organizational theories of the public and private sector.

There is a hint of shame in considering free riding a better option than forking over money for a provision of some good or service. Just this past weekend in Boston, a few friends and I passed by an Indian music group performing robustly near Government Center. They sounded great and we stopped to listen, but I didn’t bother to surrender to the words thanks for your donations and purchase our cd written largely on a black container in front of the performing group. In essence, I was a free rider; the musicians were providing a public good and I didn’t have to pay anything to enjoy it, although the “right” thing would have been to give them at least some pocket change for their time and energy.

When Hal Rainey discusses public goods and free riders in “What Makes Public Organizations So Distinctive: Reexamining Common Views,” he prefaces with the recognition that markets “have a limited capacity to handle certain types of problems, for which government action is required” (23). And why are markets incompetent in certain cases? The answer is profits, which translates loosely—in my book—into selfishness.

The idea of a government needing to intervene because markets and people are directed by the profit motive is something I have thought little about. It does make sense, though, and it makes me appreciate the government more for why it does exist and what it does to “govern” society. Professor Harrington in a lecture one day mentioned how thankful the American people must be to have a powerful government that is capable of responding as it has to the terrorist attacks of September 11^th, 2001. Interestingly enough, the government is birthplace and home to a wide variety of public sector endeavors, responding to the problems of free riding, among other issues.

A question that comes to my mind is why I feel it so easy to label the private sector as self-seeking and the public sector as not. And although this distinction seems overly bare and clear cut as to be valid, I feel that our readings and my experiences testify to the same truth. The lecture on Useem touched upon the power wielded by large corporations and their respective networks, and I am somewhat fearful to think that such enormous influence lies in the hands of people who just want to make money. While we have admitted that private firms are out there to make money, things begin to get a bit hairy when the private sector begins to invade the public sector and pressures the government (through financial resources, favors, etc.) to make polices that favor some private firm or corporation. It’s scary to think that private firms can control the mass media, a hugely influential form of communication that feeds into millions of homes everyday. The general fear is one of corruption, which isn’t new but whose unending familiarity is hardly reassuring.

This is why a discussion on public-private hybrids proves a bit perplexing for me. As I read David Osborne and Ted Gaebler (1992) I felt overwhelmed by the possibilities of public-private hybridization. Though it seemed natural to want the private with the private and the public with the private, Osborne and Gaebler present several case studies of the public and private sector working together to make things more efficient and, hence, more beneficial to society. I was reprimanded in the statement, “Those who still believe government and business should separate tend to oppose these innovations, whether or not they work. But the world has changed too much to allow an outdated-mind set to stifle us in this way” (43, italics added). Yes—I had to tell myself—private firms are capable of good, they can be selfless. But is this really the case?

Whatever the case is, the fact remains that private sector elements can benefit and enhance public enterprises. Whether or not these joint ventures represent more an emphasis on self interests or on society’s interests is less an enigma when we consider how business practices have helped projects like economic development and traffic reduction (as cited by Osborne and Gaebler). A problem arises when we have someone like Marc Bendick (1984) conclude that “the most disappointing finding that emerges from this review of recent experience with harnessing the private sector to solve social problems is the prevalence of unsubstantiated claims” (165). So then, what are the substantiated claims?

Returning back to the opening issues of the profit-motive and self-interest, I want to conclude with some thoughts and questions that have been forming in my mind. I understand that the private sector is inherently focused on self-interest; that is, how can we as a firm make more money, gain more power, improve our reputation, etc.? I see the public sector contrasting to the private sector in that its main focus is not making profits but providing a common good or orchestrating a service that goes neglected by private firms. I understand that private firms can help the public sector in becoming more efficient and therefore more effective, because private firms capitalize on efficiency.

So what’s the problem? I’m not sure. It’s something along the lines of understanding the reasons but feeling weird about them. Maybe I just need more time to digest the ideas of hybridization. Related issues might shed some light; earlier in the semester we discussed different historical trends, and we talked about a time when human relations was en vogue. At last it seemed people’s personal needs and cares were being considered, and no longer were people simple machines working detached from their normal human self. But, when managers begin to focus on things like, “Well, we need to make them feel more at home by inviting them to company dinners,” I find it hard to see how managers would do that without the profit-motive still in mind. Ultimately, the reason why people’s needs and cares are being considered is not one of authentic altruism and goodness; rather, the end goal is increased efficiency, increased productivity, and thus more profits. Again, I understand the reasons but I feel weird about them. Perhaps this is an oversimplified argument but the same kinds of dynamics, I feel, are present when considering the hybridization of the public and private sector.

I may need to consider this issue more in-depth to come to a more comfortable understanding of the forces involved with the profit-motive and self-interest, but these are just a sampling of my thoughts from lectures and readings we’ve had. I’m sure that as the class progresses and with more study I will more fully understand how these forces play out particularly in the taxonomy of the private and public.

Wednesday, November 14, 2001

entry on a newspaper article | this entry is based on the government (specifically, the two houses of congress) and also includes discussion on private passenger-screening companies. the newspaper article on which this entry is based was found in today’s edition of the new york times.

The organization detailed in this article is the House and Senate, or more generally, the government sector.

An article from the November 14, 2001 edition of The New York Times entitled “Senator’s Compromise Measure Would Use Federal Screeners Only at Busiest Airports” details the deliberations over a proposal to place federal screeners in 31 airports nationwide. The organizations involved are primarily the two houses of Congress, although lawmakers, political parties, and private screening firms are also mentioned in the article.

As I first skimmed the article, I was reminded of an earlier New York Times article from class entitled “Passenger-Screening Companies Lobby for Expanded Role.” Discussions relevant in that October 11, 2001 article are relevant to this article as well; thoughts about how passenger-screening companies were organizations formed out of historical necessity (a la Stinchcombe) and about how having the airlines responsible for passenger-screening measures is an ill-conceived arrangement fueled by keeping profits maximized and—consequently—security minimized.

This latter issue touches on the role of the private sector and its inherent profit-seeking motive (addressed in yesterday’s notebook entry). The October 11 article states, “Because it falls upon the airlines to hire screening contractors and pay them, contracts typically go to the lowest bidder.” The result is a workforce of passenger-screeners that is minimally paid and thus feels that its work is hardly important. Especially in light of the recent terrorist attacks of September 11, the government realizes that this can no longer be the case. The economics of the business are “flawed,” and “the federal government [needs] to come into the picture to drop the airlines out of the equation.”

The November 14 article feels like a direct response to these new pressures, but I think about how the new measures fit in the organizational taxonomy of public and private. The October 11 article mentioned that the Senate felt strongly about a federal takeover of airport security, “on the ground that only the presence of government security personnel will restore public confidence.” Essentially, this means that airport screening firms like Securitas, ICTS International, and AHL would now be contracted under the public sector (the government) instead of the private sector (the airlines).

This sounds like a form of hybridization more than a total public takeover of the private sector, because the November 14 article states that federal employees would supervise the screening, even if it was done by private contractors or law enforcement officers.” What I don’t seem to comprehend fully well is how efficient federal employees would be in comparison to those employees hired by private firms. Clearly, passenger-screening companies would be much more competent and experienced than the federal government when it comes to airport security, and the October 11 article opened with the lobbying of those companies for an expanded role because “they are the only ones who know how to do it right.”

Unfortunately, the November 14 article is incomplete in describing exactly what a federal takeover of aviation security would look like. Though the article mentions that all screening personnel at 31 airports would all be federal employees under the new proposal, there is little indication about how well these employees would work in relation to employees of private passenger-screening companies. What will happen to these private companies should this proposal pass and federal employees begin to fill the shoes of private company employees? Is there firm conviction that increasing the role of the government in the issue of aviation security will substantially increase (revive?) the public’s faith in the air industry?

The exact degree of hybridization—if it may be called hybridization under this new proposal—is uncertain in the November 14 article, and this ambiguity gives rise to a concern over efficiency. First, as touched on previously, how efficient will the government really be? I recall here a tidbit from the “Why the Public Sector Is Not Business By Other Means” handout in class that states that less exposure to market means there will be less incentive to reduce costs or increase efficiency, but that—despite an ill reputation—public agencies are actually more efficient than generally believed. Because of September 11^th, I’m sure federal takeover of aviation security would enhance the quality of passenger-screening services in airports nationwide. But what happens when the public agenda shifts once again because of new concerns and new crises? How will funding—and thus, quality—fluctuate with time and the direction of governmental priority? And can we be guaranteed of a persistently reliable service several years down the road?

The answer should be yes, considering another point from the handout that distinguishes the public sector from the private sector that states, “It’s hard for public sector institutions to fail, and we want it that way in order to assure social and political stability.” This stability is the same stability that the Senate was shooting for in its support for a federal takeover of airport security. As John D. Rockefeller IV stated in the October 11 article, “It’s the job of the U.S. government to keep America safe.”

An interesting thing about the organization of the government (the houses of Congress) in this article is that it suffers both from responding to public concerns after a crisis and finding itself in truly limited capacity to fully address all the public issues that vie for attention, resulting in slow processes that must trickle through layers of bureaucracy before policies are actually in effect. Because the entire public interest is at stake as a result of September 11^th, and since the federal government is dealing with organizations not within its own public sector but in the private sector, things are undoubtedly complicated. Indeed, the November 14 article confirms the immediacy necessitated by September 11 and now Monday’s crash of American Airlines Flight 587.

One last thing I would like to consider is the institutional pressure for the government to look legitimate and responsive to the public’s concern. With Monday’s crash of American Airlines Flight 587, there is a heightened anxiety with air travel and if the government does not respond somehow, it may risk appearing weak and irresponsible. One senator commented, “Congress had to pass legislation quickly to alleviate ‘a crisis of public confidence in the aviation industry.’” Can this organization really accomplish that? The general sentiments seems to be, “It better.”

Thursday, November 15, 2001

entry on organizations in art or entertainment | this entry is about sony pictures entertainment, a company under the sony corporation of america that works in audio, video, communications, and information technologies.

Motion pictures are only a little over 100 years old. French brothers Auguste and Louis Lumiere, building on Thomas Edison’s work, had their first screening of a motion picture to the general public in December 1895. Today, the motion picture industry has grown exponentially, and much of the arts and entertainment have relied and benefited from the film industry.

In this entry I want to consider Sony Pictures Entertainment, home to familiar movies (like Charlie’s Angels and Stuart Little) and TV shows (like Jeopardy! and Days of Our Lives). First, it is interesting to note how vast a reach the Sony name has. In reading about its corporate information, Sony Pictures Entertainment is but one of many different organizations housed under the Sony name. I’m sure many of us have had at least one item in our possession with the Sony logo, whether it is a television set, batteries, Discman, Playstation video game console, personal computer, CD, or PDA. I start to think about how such large organizations necessitate the structure of a bureaucracy, and to the best of my knowledge, Sony—as a private firm—is highly bureaucratized and dependent on market forces. Indeed, Sony employs 181,800 people worldwide and posted over $58.5 billion in consolidated annual sales for the 2000-2001 fiscal year ending March 31.

The Sony Corporation, of course, is an organization that formed because of the developing social technology, another reference to Stinchcombe. As audio, video, communications and information technologies were developed and improved upon, Sony formed to push those technologies and reap a profit from them. Even now, as technologies of the Internet and of video gaming improve, Sony continues to be an organization that leads if not contributes to the related industries. For example, the recent birth of Sony Online Entertainment—an organization under the Sony Pictures Entertainment structure—was caused by massive growth in the number of those who utilize the Internet. This new sub-organization now boasts 360,000 online subscribers who play games on the Sony Online Entertainment website, spending an average of 20 hours per week and paying Sony a monthly fee. (Notice how Sony reaps a profit from this, and how individuals are willing to pay in exchange for the entertainment.)

It’s a little confusing to explore Sony Pictures Entertainment more in-depth because there seems to exist countless layers of different organizations and affiliations. For instance, under Sony Pictures Entertainment is the Columbia Tri-Star Motion Picture Group, which includes Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures Classics, and Screen Gems. I rarely thought about Sony whenever I saw a movie prefaced by the Screen Gems logo (Screen Gems has distributed movies like Snatch), and yet the two are closely affiliated.

Worth mentioning here is that the Sony Corporation of America that we are all familiar with is a subsidiary of the Tokyo-based Sony Corporation, therefore adding an international breadth to Sony’s organizational empire. When it comes to Sony Pictures Entertainment, the profits possible from international scope does not go untended: a specific Columbia Tri-Star International Television business extends across the entire world, touching base in countries like Brazil, Germany, China, France, England, and Australia. I imagine the end result is greater profits, greater publicity for Sony, and greater loyalty to the Sony Corporation—even if through alternative names like Columbia Tri-Star.

But just because Sony Pictures Entertainment is a private firm and therefore finds itself characteristic of the private sector, it is nonetheless vulnerable to the public’s concerns and institutional pressures. I recall reading an article about how motion picture companies like Columbia Tri-Star were pushing back the premieres of some of their more violent movies as a response to September 11, 2001 and the general public sentiment thereafter. Though privately run, Sony Pictures Entertainment serves the public a great deal by providing entertainment in its many forms, and thus must still continue to be conscious of who and what they are providing. With the entertainment industry (particularly visual media forms of TV, movies, and Internet) so influential on society, Sony might need to be more cautious of its services than, say, our classic cardboard box company.

One last thing to consider is the existence of networks and other collaborative relationships within the motion picture industry. The Sony Pictures Post Production Facilities, under the Digital Studios Division of Sony Pictures Entertainment, offers its resources to competitors such as The Walt Disney Company, DreamWorks, Paramount, Fox, New Line, and Miramax. Furthermore, Sony Pictures Entertainment’s DVD Authoring Center assists Artisan Entertainment, DreamWorks, Paramount, MGM, and Universal. In class we discussed Powell on networks, mentioning that networks are reciprocal patterns of communication and exchange and that their structure is based on these repeated interactions to cultivate a spirit of trust and reciprocity.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the major motion picture companies, including Sony’s, worked together in certain environments or met every now and then to discuss the future of the motion picture industry. Especially considering that new technologies are constantly developed and improved upon, information transfer must be quick for all to take advantage of them. One reason why networks are important is that they are the locus of innovation due to quick information transfer and flexibility amidst uncertain changes and situations. Networks also provide a more conducive environment to experimentation and exploration, and resource-dependency concerns are alleviated with the provision of a wider variety of resources. These perks are helpful for anything involving technology.

I think it is most intriguing for me to see the overwhelming size of the Sony Corporation; of its enormous power in the entertainment industries of film, video, music, and video gaming. It will be interesting to see how Sony expands, should it choose to. Its stake in the video gaming sphere was only a recent one. Their Playstation video game console was introduced in the face of Nintendo’s systems and has become a popular alternative. The same thing is happening with Microsoft’s Xbox, another video game console that rivals both Sony’s and Nintendo’s stake in the video game market. As more organizations (firms) enter the market, competition will promise to be fierce, and quality will improve as prices will (hopefully) lower. Whatever the case, one thing seems to be sure: The Sony name is here to stay, and it will remain one of the most powerful organizations in the entertainment industry.