- Dec 29, 2022
- 3,271
- 9,762
This link should work for the first handful of people who click on it. If this is the start of a heavily-researched book, I am in.Sunday's NY Times has an investigative in depth article on the inner workings of the Iger/Chapek situation. Titled, The Palace Coup at the Magic Kingdom". NY Times generally blocks access, so you'll need to be a subscriber, pick up a print copy, or get a free initial access, to read it. It's a fascinating article that even goes beyond some of the stuff we already knew.
Appreciate the link, and nice!This link should work for the first handful of people who click on it. If this is the start of a heavily-researched book, I am in.
This is all true, but at the same time, nobody would have survived as CEO under the same conditions Iger placed on Chapek. It's astonishing how badly Iger comes across in that piece (at least for me, in terms of the things I value and am looking for from the leader of this company).Chapek did a real no no when he secretly met with hated investor Norman Peltz and lobbied the directors to include Peltz on the Disney Board of Directors. That alone was basis enough for termination, not counting that he (Chapek) continued to exhibit that he lacked the necessary management skills to run a media company, let alone theme parks.
Another guy who took the fall (read: was forced to take the fall) for Iger (Shanghai was his passion project and intended to be his "legacy").One of the points I found interesting, that I hadn't read before, is that Staggs lost his standing primarily due to the way over budget, late completion, of Shanghai park that he was the principle on. He was the ultimate "Thank You, Shanghai" victim.
Well, neither comes on well. But, there's no way Chapek should have ever been elevated to that position. At best, he should have never been anything but middle management. He was lucky stars through his whole career until it collapsed. It's telling that he hasn't received a high level prominent position anywhere.This is all true, but at the same time, nobody would have survived as CEO under the same conditions Iger placed on Chapek. It's astonishing how badly Iger comes across in that piece (at least for me, in terms of the things I value and am looking for from the leader of this company).
Another guy who took the fall (read: was forced to take the fall) for Iger (Shanghai was his passion project and intended to be his "legacy").
Yes, but that's all on Iger!But, there's no way Chapek should have ever been elevated to that position.