The bald and stocky Mr. Chapek and the graying but still debonair Mr. Iger struck an immediate contrast, even though both were dressed in navy suits and open-collar white shirts and both were named Bob. To avoid confusion, some referred to them as “Bob One” and “Bob Two,” or “Big Bob” and “Little Bob” (even though Mr. Chapek was taller and heavier). And then there was “Handsome Bob” and “Boring Bob.”
The New York Times has pieced together what happened inside Disney during those fateful months by talking to scores of people directly involved. Many of them talked extensively for the first time about what transpired, some only on the condition of anonymity because of their nondisclosure agreements with Disney.
That’s so interesting! I have a ton of sympathy for Chapek after reading that. I don’t think he had the skills needed to be a successful CEO, especially once things went sideways, but I have the deepest sympathy for how he was undermined. But I can see how one wouldn’t, so many mistakes were of his own making.
Yes! I think this is some of the source of my sympathy foe Chapek. Also, this paragraph summerizes the board mistakes nicely, and it is a perspective I hadn’t seen.
In the annals of corporate governance, there are surely few failures that rival the Disney board’s handling of Mr. Iger’s transition. The influential shareholder advisory service ISS called it a “failed succession” and cited “major missteps” by the board. Among the more startling were the board’s failure to formally interview Mr. Chapek for the job, its failure to fully consider the unworkable reporting structure in which Mr. Chapek reported to both the board and Mr. Iger, and its failure to curb the debilitating conflict that erupted between the two men.
Also - because I work in political affairs - when given the opportunity to take a position by simply signing a letter with your peers - take it! If he had just signed that letter, the rest would not have happened.
I find it interesting that the name Josh D’amaro is not mentioned once in this article. That means a few things to me 1) he isn’t on anyone’s bad side 2) he himself is not playing the “leak things to the press” game but 3).he wasn’t seen as a threat (aka possible successor) to anyone.
I think that this is an ESH (everybody sucks here) situation. The article certainly didn’t do Iger any favors but I think we all already knew that he was not good enough of a leader to actually train/mentor/grow a successor. He’s just the much more charismatic of the two.
I would like to know who Chapek paid to get the article written though. While, yes, I think that he definitely was sabotaged in some areas, it sounds like there were too many unforced errors as well.
After my sister’s tenure as a person reporting her team’s progress to a director who reports to a Chief something Officer, I’m paying way more attention to the interactions between the Board and the Chief something Officers as described in the article. Between the lack of transparency and the media leaks and the plain lack of spine, I’m supremely glad I’ve no chance of trying to navigate that morass.
I’m only about halfway through, but I agree it is not really kind to either man.
I think it’s important to be written for history and because Disney is a multi-billion dollar organization with over a hundred thousand employees and millions of customers, and we’re all affected by how it is run. And other corporate boards need to study this case and make sure they don’t let stuff like this happen to them.
That said, I don’t particularly like the drama of it all. It’s events that happened–human interactions. I try to be objective about it and not let it sour my opinion of any person or the company itself.
Finished reading, and wow that was a wild ride. Organizational politics are so frustratingly petty.
Another thing that stuck out to me is how ordinary The Walt Disney Company is in comparison to every other corporation I’ve worked for or with. No matter how big the organization is, it still comes down to a group of people sitting in a conference room talking about the numbers and how to fix them.
There is so much pressure on people like Bob Chapek, who direct billions of dollars of capital resources, and the decisions they make matter so much, even though it’s very hard to predict what will work until you try. It’s a miracle sometimes when things work out.
You should read Storming the Magic Kingdom by John Taylor. It’s from 1987, back when there were still Disney family involved. Greenmail. Struggles for control of the company. Trying to prevent being bought out.
Sometimes it’s not pretty to peek behind the curtain.
But I don’t really want to know. I’m interested in the history, the decisions, and the events, but not the interpersonal drama aspect of it. I’d rather believe everyone just gets along. LOL
Yep, you don’t ever want to dare peek behind the curtain! That can really take the shine off of any organization that appears to be great to the casual observer.
