The Reason Why I Can’t Criticize Bob Chapek

[TsWade2]

Hi,
I know a lot of you criticize the current CEO Bob Chapek for things he’s done, but the truth is, I can’t criticize him. I know you guys are going to make fun of me, but here’s my reason why I can’t criticize. I’ve been a fan of Disney since I was kid and I will never hate it. When I’m in 20’s I started to criticize the executives for being a bunch of greedy people for ending hand drawn animated films and making Mickey Mouse and Friends being aimed for preschoolers. And I’ve been obsessing about it for a long time, until I reach my 30’s, I realize that hating and obsessing at the executives is very unhealthy of my mental health and I sometimes I have a headache for it. Look, I’m not doing this to defend Bob Chapek. I just don’t want to complain about him. Do I think he’s perfect? No. Do I think he’s my number one choice? Not quite. But, for one thing I know is I need to hear on what he wants to do with the company first before passing judgement. Y’all are welcome to criticize Bob Chapek all you want, but hating on executives (Even though I can disagree with them from time to time) is bad for my mental health. I hope you all understand. Thank you.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Okay.

 

[So Over It]

Okay.

Well that'll show 'em.

 

[So Over It]

Hi,
I know a lot of you criticize the current CEO Bob Chapek for things he’s done, but the truth is, I can’t criticize him. I know you guys are going to make fun of me, but here’s my reason why I can’t criticize. I’ve been a fan of Disney since I was kid and I will never hate it. When I’m in 20’s I started to criticize the executives for being a bunch of greedy people for ending hand drawn animated films and making Mickey Mouse and Friends being aimed for preschoolers. And I’ve been obsessing about it for a long time, until I reach my 30’s, I realize that hating and obsessing at the executives is very unhealthy of my mental health and I sometimes I have a headache for it. Look, I’m not doing this to defend Bob Chapek. I just don’t want to complain about him. Do I think he’s perfect? No. Do I think he’s my number one choice? Not quite. But, for one thing I know is I need to hear on what he wants to do with the company first before passing judgement. Y’all are welcome to criticize Bob Chapek all you want, but hating on executives (Even though I can disagree with them from time to time) is bad for my mental health. I hope you all understand. Thank you.

Nothing to apologize for. It's a complicated role to head a major company. First rule of leadership is everything is your fault, so the hate CEOs receive is certainly understood. Bob has done a lot I don't agree with, but I get some people really like him also.

 

[TsWade2]

Nothing to apologize for. It's a complicated role to head a major company. First rule of leadership is everything is your fault, so the hate CEOs receive is certainly understood. Bob has done a lot I don't agree with, but I get some people really like him also.

Thank you for understanding.

 

[CaptinEO]

You can disagree with someone and criticize them without obsessing over them.

If someone spends every waking hour cursing a company CEO's name there is something seriously wrong with them.

Chapek is cut from the same cloth as all the Disney Co higher ups from the last 20 or so years.

He's no different than Paul Pressler, Bob Iger, and late era Michael Eisner to name a few. I don't think Chapek has done anything more than continue down the path the company has been going on.

 

[epcotWSC]

No one who runs Disney Co. is cut from the same cloth as Walt Disney. That's the problem with all of them. As long as you have people who have been through the corporate grinder running this company (along with many others) rather than truly creative people who love the product, then corporatism will win out over true visionaries.

 

[Disney Irish]

No one who runs Disney Co. is cut from the same cloth as Walt Disney. That's the problem with all of them. As long as you have people who have been through the corporate grinder running this company (along with many others) rather than truly creative people who love the product, then corporatism will win out over true visionaries.

Walt was never CEO of the company, the distinction goes to Roy his brother who lead the company from 1929 until shortly before his death in 1971.

So while Walt was the creative force behind the company it was his brother Roy who headed the company.

 

[TsWade2]

You can disagree with someone and criticize them without obsessing over them.

If someone spends every waking hour cursing a company CEO's name there is something seriously wrong with them.

Chapek is cut from the same cloth as all the Disney Co higher ups from the last 20 or so years.

He's no different than Paul Pressler, Bob Iger, and late era Michael Eisner to name a few. I don't think Chapek has done anything more than continue down the path the company has been going on.

I can disagree on things, but I'm doing my best not to be obsessed or being negative.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Walt was never CEO of the company, the distinction goes to Roy his brother who lead the company from 1929 until shortly before his death in 1971.

So while Walt was the creative force behind the company it was his brother Roy who headed the company.

If truth be told, Disney would likely not be the company or even a company today if it had not been for Roy who dealt with the money side of things.

 

[TsWade2]

If truth be told, Disney would likely not be the company or even a company today if it had not been for Roy who dealt with the money side of things.

That is a very good point.

 

[amjt660]

Good discussion

I agree that Walt needed Roy - but don't forget that Roy needed Walt

I do not think the recent leaders have had the balance between the creative side and the business side

It is the balance that has allowed Disney to continue to grow and evolve.

I think that is what is missing now - the strong creative voice at the table to ensure that the profit still comes while the customer is blown away by the product.

Max

 

[Disney Irish]

Good discussion

I agree that Walt needed Roy - but don't forget that Roy needed Walt

I do not think the recent leaders have had the balance between the creative side and the business side

It is the balance that has allowed Disney to continue to grow and evolve.

I think that is what is missing now - the strong creative voice at the table to ensure that the profit still comes while the customer is blown away by the product.

Max

Disney is a different company now than it was when Walt and Roy ran it. There could not be a single creative voice today as the company is not this small independent movie studio with a single theme park anymore. And that is what most don't realize, it can't work the way it used to.

Each of the divisions is effectively their own company that feeds into the larger corporation. Each of the heads of the divisions should have their own "Walt and Roy". For example Kevin Feige is the creative force behind Marvel, he is the "Walt" for Marvel. He reports to Alan Bergman who is the "Roy" for all Disney Studios Content.

Point is that the company has their "Walt" and "Roy" is each division that all report into Chapek who is the "Roy" over the entire company as the CEO. Now this is not to say that Chapek is the ideal person for the job, just that he fills the role. We'll see if things have a better outlook a year from now when the pandemic is further in our rear view mirror.

 

[amjt660]

Disney is a different company now than it was when Walt and Roy ran it. There could not be a single creative voice today as the company is not this small independent movie studio with a single theme park anymore. And that is what most don't realize, it can't work the way it used to.

Each of the divisions is effectively their own company that feeds into the larger corporation. Each of the heads of the divisions should have their own "Walt and Roy". For example Kevin Feige is the creative force behind Marvel, he is the "Walt" for Marvel. He reports to Alan Bergman who is the "Roy" for all Disney Studios Content.

Point is that the company has their "Walt" and "Roy" is each division that all report into Chapek who is the "Roy" over the entire company as the CEO. Now this is not to say that Chapek is the ideal person for the job, just that he fills the role. We'll see if things have a better outlook a year from now when the pandemic is further in our rear view mirror.

I agree with point - and just to be clear i was not suggesting that a single person would be the creative force for the entire corporation.
But I guess my point would be that in most areas ( your exception of Marvel is valid) I think the creative force is not as strong as the business one.

To that end I ask for help to better understand:

Who is the creative ying to the business yang (Chapek) at the highest level?

Who are the creative and business counterparts at the theme park level (and are they balanced?)

These are not rhetorical questions by the way - I want to know your thoughts


Max

 

[Disney Irish]

I agree with point - and just to be clear i was not suggesting that a single person would be the creative force for the entire corporation.
But I guess my point would be that in most areas ( your exception of Marvel is valid) I think the creative force is not as strong as the business one.

To that end I ask for help to better understand:

Who is the creative ying to the business yang (Chapek) at the highest level?

Who are the creative and business counterparts at the theme park level (and are they balanced?)

These are not rhetorical questions by the way - I want to know your thoughts


Max

As stated before Disney is a different company today than it was during Walt and Roy's time. The company's management team is a different structure today since the company is a media conglomerate. And so there is no tandem "creative" person at the highest level, and there hasn't been since Walt's was alive at least in my opinion. As stated before you can't have a single creative person at the highest levels as the company is no longer this small studio with a single theme park company, its too large. No single creative person could go across all business units and provide inputs on everything, as no single person would have knowledge on all aspects of of the company to provide those creative decisions that need to be made.

So again this idea that Disney needs a "creative" at the highest levels is a fallacy, as it would never happen again because it can't happen again.

As for the theme park level, Josh D'Amaro is the business side (remains to be seen if he has a creative side as well). But Barbara Bouza who is the head of WDI is the creative side of all of DPEP.

 

[amjt660]

No single creative person could go across all business units and provide inputs on everything, as no single person would have knowledge on all aspects of of the company to provide those creative decisions that need to be made.

Thank you for the information regarding the theme park structure

It is interesting that we believe no one can be the overall creative lead over such a large conglomerate such as Disney, or Apple, or Tesla

But we will trust one person to be the overall leader over the same multifaceted organization

The truth is that that cannot be done either.

The CEO relies on a team (hopefully a strong one) of experts in vast aspects of the company.
It is the personal bias of that individual that can impact the direction the company takes

If the person is skewed too far in any one direction - or has blind spots for certain aspects of a business - it can cause a business like Disney to see large changes in direction when new leadership is put in place

We can only hope that there are other strong voices for those aspects of the business (be it Creative, Finance, Human Resources, etc) who can be at the table to try to provide balance.

And also that the CEO has the maturity and foresight to recognize their "weaknesses" and use the available resources to fill the void.


Max

 

[Disney Irish]

Thank you for the information regarding the theme park structure

It is interesting that we believe no one can be the overall creative lead over such a large conglomerate such as Disney, or Apple, or Tesla

But we will trust one person to be the overall leader over the same multifaceted organization

The truth is that that cannot be done either.

The CEO relies on a team (hopefully a strong one) of experts in vast aspects of the company.
It is the personal bias of that individual that can impact the direction the company takes

If the person is skewed too far in any one direction - or has blind spots for certain aspects of a business - it can cause a business like Disney to see large changes in direction when new leadership is put in place

We can only hope that there are other strong voices for those aspects of the business (be it Creative, Finance, Human Resources, etc) who can be at the table to try to provide balance.

And also that the CEO has the maturity and foresight to recognize their "weaknesses" and use the available resources to fill the void.


Max

At a certain point companies grow beyond a point where a single leader can oversee everything. That is when it changes from being a "startup" like Disney was with Walt and Roy to being an actual corporation.

Once that happens a CEO builds a team around them to provide guidance on the overall outlook of the company. The CEO paints the broad picture of their vision of the direction of the company, and then relies on their team to execute that vision.

You don't need someone who is creative being the CEO, as they wouldn't have the ability to be creative in that role. As CEOs don't typically get involved in the smaller creative decisions of a larger company like Disney. They are concerned with the bigger picture of the overall business. So any true creative leader wouldn't want to be CEO of a company like Disney as they would never get to be creative. Rather a creative leader would want to be the head of a division within Disney, like Kevin Feige is with Marvel.

This is why its a fallacy to think Disney would be better with a creative as the CEO. What most fans really should be wanting is a creative head of DPEP, WDI, and the Studios, and then a CEO to allows them to execute.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

At a certain point companies grow beyond a point where a single leader can oversee everything. That is when it changes from being a "startup" like Disney was with Walt and Roy to being an actual corporation.

Once that happens a CEO builds a team around them to provide guidance on the overall outlook of the company. The CEO paints the broad picture of their vision of the direction of the company, and then relies on their team to execute that vision.

You don't need someone who is creative being the CEO, as they wouldn't have the ability to be creative in that role. As CEOs don't typically get involved in the smaller creative decisions of a larger company like Disney. They are concerned with the bigger picture of the overall business. So any true creative leader wouldn't want to be CEO of a company like Disney as they would never get to be creative. Rather a creative leader would want to be the head of a division within Disney, like Kevin Feige is with Marvel.

This is why its a fallacy to think Disney would be better with a creative as the CEO. What most fans really should be wanting is a creative head of DPEP, WDI, and the Studios, and then a CEO to allows them to execute.

Disney has the problem of putting big egos in the CEO position who like to think of themselves as creatives, but who really aren't in the traditional sense of the word. What the other poster is saying is that with a business-only head in charge of the company, the product as a whole suffers - which has borne out in many of the big choices that have been made.

What they really need is a partnership at the CEO level...so they can avoid huge missteps like hugely expensive lands that feel dead due to short-sighted cuts, or insisting that everything have an IP tie-in (oversaturation WILL happen at some point). It would be very non-traditional, yes, but then again, Disney isn't exactly your every-day corporation, either.

 

[Lilofan]

Disney has the problem of putting big egos in the CEO position who like to think of themselves as creatives, but who really aren't in the traditional sense of the word. What the other poster is saying is that with a business-only head in charge of the company, the product as a whole suffers - which has borne out in many of the big choices that have been made.

What they really need is a partnership at the CEO level...so they can avoid huge missteps like hugely expensive lands that feel dead due to short-sighted cuts, or insisting that everything have an IP tie-in (oversaturation WILL happen at some point). It would be very non-traditional, yes, but then again, Disney isn't exactly your every-day corporation, either.

Interesting idea, it could work if two power sharing arrangements ( 2 CEOs ) get along in an unique company like Disney.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Business wise, shareholder value wise, it’s probably best to have a Chapek type in charge. There will always be super creative folks to think up very cool stuff, but there needs to be a miser who can control the spending.

Sort of like Walt and his brother.

This is even more important today since every move TWDC makes is to try to better the share price.

Does this hinder the creativity? YES. Does this result in TWDC making decisions a lot of fans disagree with? YES.

But as bad as the decisions look to a lot of fans, the decisions made are truly in a attempt to make TWDC stronger for its most important entity, the shareholder.