The connection is referring to a person put in charge that is inept, has no clue about how things should be run, but is in control regardless to the bungling moves. Scott was always over his head and many under him had to go along with his decisions. Despite the missteps he isn’t replaced even though he shows he can’t produce. The feelings recently is that Chapek wasn’t the right person for the job and his unpopular moves have harmed Disney. The Office was in many ways true to many companies that put someone in place that really can’t do the work needed for the health of the office and company.I didn't really understand the connection to the Disney CEOs, but I just wanted to say that I do love me some Michael Scott.
While Michael Scott is a valid analogy, I think of Dilbert's Pointy Haired Boss when I think of Bobby C. Except for the hair, of course...The connection is referring to a person put in charge that is inept, has no clue about how things should be run, but is in control regardless to the bungling moves. Scott was always over his head and many under him had to go along with his decisions. Despite the missteps he isn’t replaced even though he shows he can’t produce. The feelings recently is that Chapek wasn’t the right person for the job and his unpopular moves have harmed Disney. The Office was in many ways true to many companies that put someone in place that really can’t do the work needed for the health of the office and company.
Ineptness comes in the form of many faces. The ability to be incompetent and bungle the job continuously and then be able to retain your job is a skill many excel at.While Michael Scott is a valid analogy, I think of Dilbert's Pointy Haired Boss when I think of Bobby C. Except for the hair, of course...
View attachment 648276
Oh no, I understand that. I just don't understand how folks believe they can assess a Disney CEO's job performance, since the entirety of most folks' opinions about the relative worth of a CEO is solely dependent on everyone's opinion of the parks (to the exclusion of all else). The parks is only a sliver of what the CEO does and oversees and not the focus. IDK, seems unfair to me but everyone is entitled to speculate on a message board I guess.The connection is referring to a person put in charge that is inept, has no clue about how things should be run, but is in control regardless to the bungling moves. Scott was always over his head and many under him had to go along with his decisions. Despite the missteps he isn’t replaced even though he shows he can’t produce. The feelings recently is that Chapek wasn’t the right person for the job and his unpopular moves have harmed Disney. The Office was in many ways true to many companies that put someone in place that really can’t do the work needed for the health of the office and company.
I agree. I'm not a flame Bob guy. But since the focus of this site is for most people parks and resorts focused their anger is directed towards his programs and policies that have made it more difficult for many to plan, afford, enjoy and take trips.Oh no, I understand that. I just don't understand how folks believe they can assess a Disney CEO's job performance, since the entirety of most folks' opinions about the relative worth of a CEO is solely dependent on everyone's opinion of the parks (to the exclusion of all else). The parks is only a sliver of what the CEO does and oversees and not the focus. IDK, seems unfair to me but everyone is entitled to speculate on a message board I guess.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.