To m readers: Below are some short blog posts I first posted to my LinkedIn page. -- Enjoy!
Know Thyself: Lessons from Bob Chapek's Tenure as Disney CEO
Leadership discussions often ignore one essential precondition for success: the age-old adage “know thyself.” Bob Chapek’s failure as CEO at Disney, appointed in 2020 and fired in 2022, shows that a lack of self-knowledge can have costly consequences in the C-suite, where competing interests, subtle power plays, and indirect signals can make or break a career. As one Disney executive described the C-suite, it is a snake pit and no place for the faint-hearted.
In 2005, Bob Iger succeeded Michael Eisner as Disney’s CEO. Over 15 years, he acquired Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm studios, and 21st Century Fox. Disney's stock price grew 11.3% per year for 15 years, five times from the starting price of $24 per share. In 2020, wrestling with retirement and ambivalent about losing his role at Disney, he chose Bob Chapek as his apparent successor, though under conditions that constrained Chapek’s authority and freedom of maneuver.
Take, for instance, the moment in 2019 when Iger first broached the idea of stepping back as CEO. Though he would formally pass the title to Chapek, Iger had no intention of relinquishing his control. Iger proposed that the board appoint him as executive chair and Chapek CEO. Chapek would report to him and, uncommonly, would not be a board member even though he was CEO. The board hesitated but then agreed. Iger chose to remain in the executive suite of offices and even retained his prestigious office space, an unconventional setup highlighting Chapek’s compromised authority.
The writing was on the wall for Chapek at this arrangement’s start. When CNBC interviewed the two executives in February 2020, Chapek said he had “huge shoes to fill and hailed Iger’s “magic.” But as the New York Times reports, “Mr. Iger’s usually relaxed demeanor stiffened. His gaze shifted down, away from Mr. Chapek, and he looked increasingly uncomfortable. He crossed his arms. Mr. Chapek was intimately familiar with Mr. Iger’s body language and expressions. As the New York Times reports, in its long-form essay on Bob Chapek, the latter thought, “This is not good.”
And indeed, it wasn’t. When the board appointed Chapek at Iger’s insistence, an independent board member flew to Chapek’s home to confirm his appointment. But she did not invite him to meet the board to explore this vision for the company, particularly when streaming was upending entertainment. It was as if Iger had appointed Chapek and not the board. Indeed, the board member counseled Chapek, “Give him a wide berth on creative matters. Don’t step on his toes.” But, of course, the beating heart of Disney is its creative spirit.
What was going on here? One hypothesis is Chapek swallowed his pride to advance. It was the price he was willing to pay. It was a rational choice. I don’t think this explanation works. The Times piece provides several other examples in which Chapek was sidelined and even humiliated; he was called “boring Bob,” was snubbed at a party in Iger’s house, and excluded from the decision to close Disneyland because of COVID. He was the only Disney executive to call Iger “boss,’ colleagues thought he was obsequious, and his wife told him that” he was little more than Mr. Iger’s “lap dog.” Chapek told his friend that Iger’s treatment of him was “killing me.” It was as if he had put a sign on his back that said, “Hit me.”
He even shot himself in the foot. Consider the following vignette. On a flight to Disney’s annual shareholder meeting, Chapek sat at the front of the plane with Iger and other Disney executives to review some materials in preparation for the meeting. Iger pulled out his iPad to share recent photos of dinners and yachts, regaling the group with personal anecdotes. Chapek, visibly flustered, attempted to steer the conversation back to the agenda, only to be sidelined by Iger’s social storytelling. Chapek eventually retreated to the back of the plane, leaving Iger in command of the front cabin.
What was going on here? Consider the following alternative hypothesis. Chapek’s choices were not rational. Instead, Chapek was the victim of his submissive streak, perhaps even a masochistic one.
Indulge me with the following method of inference. Let’s consider the vignette on the airplane again. If I identify with Chapek’s “going to the back” of the plane, if I imagine I am him, just for a moment, I am led to the following fantasy: “I am leaving this group of powerful executives at the front of the plane and retreating to the back, so that people will miss me and come back to get me. This will prove that I am loved even though I am ineffective.”
Is this a speculation? Indeed, you might think it outrageous to use my fantasy of Chapek to discern him. I don’t even know him! But let me propose that introspection is a method for understanding others as long we empathize with them rather than judge them. And consider the following as support for my speculation. Iger did go to the back of the plane and tried to get Chapek to return, and Chapek said no! As the Times reports, when this happened, “Mr. Iger suddenly felt as if he were at the wedding altar with the bride walking down the aisle. He realized he’d made a terrible mistake. But it was too late.” My interpretation: Iger felt no compunction in dominating Chapek he enjoyed it. But he was shocked by the latter’s withdrawal. At that moment, he lost all respect for him. And Chapek, acting out of awareness, experienced himself as “rejecting” Iger, imagining in this way that he could control him, even though Iger experienced him as passive and foolish. That is the unconscious at work.
There is no doubt that Chapek was an effective operations executive. He rose from the VHS tape division to run the Disney parks and resorts effectively. If Chapek took the MBTI, he might score ISTJ. But he lacked the extraversion, charisma, and identification with creative people to be a Disney CEO. Indeed, the creative people at Pixar and in the studios chafed under his leadership and believed he was undermining their autonomy and standing. They advocated for his firing.
My hypothesis: Chapek is the kind of person who believes that working very hard and even suffering while doing so is the way to gain approval and love. This is no way to survive in the snake pit of the C-suite.
Chapek’s reported experience raises interesting questions about the nature of insight and self-understanding. He saw from the very beginning that Iger was undermining him. He knew that the situation was “killing” him. But he was in his situation’s grip because it evoked trends in his character that reinforced submissiveness and even masochism. These trends offered him secondary gains even if they caused suffering. I hypothesize that he did not have this dimension of self-knowledge; he could observe himself but not understand himself. You need both to succeed.
Biden’s Pardon: The Tension Between Person and Role
Many columnists have analyzed the political ramifications of President Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter. This action bolsters former President Trump’s narrative that the Biden family has engaged in criminal behavior and that Biden has weaponized the Department of Justice to target Trump. Yes, Biden is a father. But he still represents the Democratic Party, even as he approaches the end of his political career. His pardon weakens the party at a moment when its leaders need strength to oppose and resist Trump. As Bret Stephens observed in The New York Times, “It fuels corrosive cynicism.”
This controversy also underscores the age-old tension between “person and role.” Leadership scholars and consultants often emphasize the importance of leaders bringing their whole selves to their roles. Leaders, they argue, are most effective when they integrate their passions and hopes into the work of inspiring others. Attending to their feelings and intuition can also provide vital guidance, particularly in turbulent times.
Yet Biden’s pardon seems to illustrate the opposite dynamic. Leaders sometimes must suppress aspects of their personhood to meet the demands of their roles. Consider Jean Riboud, the former and extraordinarily successful CEO of Schlumberger, the oil services company. Riboud demonstrated an ability to make difficult, impersonal decisions in the organization's service. For example, adhering to company policy, he asked his closest confidant of 40 years, Claude Baks, to retire at the mandatory age—a decision that deeply embittered Baks, who hoped to remain. Similarly, Riboud would reassign high-potential leaders to new roles without warning, believing this approach avoided complacency.
Yet he was far from unfeeling. Riboud was a passionate supporter of the arts, playing a key role in sustaining the Cinémathèque Française, an international film archive. His leadership demonstrated that becoming a leader often requires a delicate balance between connection and detachment—an ability to “live apart and sometimes act indifferently in the service of one’s role.
Biden is in his twilight years. It makes sense that he privileged his fatherhood over his presidency, even at the risk of spoiling his legacy. His decision highlights the enduring tension between person and role—a tension every leader must navigate.
The culture code
Some of you may be familiar with the work of Clotaire Rapaille. If you have not read "The Culture Code" or "The Global Code," I highly recommend them. Rapaille posits that codes describe people’s unconscious associations to a product or service. So, for example, in France, where seduction is valued, L’Oréal could market its products to highlight how they increased women’s sexual allure. But in the U.S., where seduction is seen as manipulative, It highlighted how its products helped a woman feel confident and healthy “because you’re worth it.” He is famous for assisting Chrysler in discovering the code for its Jeep, which was “horse.” This led to design choices, such as larger headlights to look like the horse’s eyes and a frame that allowed drivers to feel the wind on their faces. One culture code that I love is the code for checking your email – “bodily functions! “
You can see how focus groups would fail to give you these insights. Rapaille’s method, which he keeps as a trade secret, appears to induce a kind of psychological regression. For example, he has people lie down, close their eyes, and listen to music. At another point, he asks them to tell stories starting with the sentence, “once upon a time,” which triggers the experience of being a child or childlike. The purpose is to uncover and recover the unconscious imprint that connects a product to a person’s psyche.
You will recognize the hidden “Freud” in this way of thinking. Indeed, in another work of his that I will write about, Rapaille argues that culture expresses in a refined way what he calls our “reptilian” mind, which overlaps with Freud’s Id. Both ideas are grounded in the idea that we are primarily bodies and that culture refines or sublimates body impulses. So, for example, we drink water when we are thirsty. But we drink wine to indulge in the cultural practices surrounding its consumption, e.g. evaluating its bouquet or showing off our expertise. So, we use the bodily impulse, quenching a thirst, to connect ourselves emotionally to other people and intellectually to compelling ideas.
Freud famously said, “The ego is first and foremost a body ego.” Imagine if you started to think of all products and services, no matter how abstract or technical, as simply translations or transformations of our bodily experience! Rapaille does.
Donald Trump and the Culture Code.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, mastered the art of influencing Donald Trump. “Instead of sending government relations executives or lobbyists, Cook would appeal to Trump directly, through phone calls and meals.” Cook understood Trump’s executive functioning through a “culture code” or metaphor: the family business.
Personal relationships carry more weight than formal roles in a family business." The patriarch often operates without institutional restraints. Boards of directors, for example, serve as advisors rather than enforcers. Loyalty, grudges, secrets, favors, promises, and sacrifices influence decisions. Trump grew up immersed in this environment, shaped by his father’s real estate business, and built his enterprise where his children held commanding roles. This background likely serves as his unconscious map for navigating the executive role.
The family business culture code overlaps with another metaphor: the royal court. In such a setting, rules are weak, and proximity to the patriarch is the key to influence. The court is rife with intrigue, creating an atmosphere of instability. Courtiers, unsure of whom to trust, vie for favor.
Both the family business and the royal court operate within external constraints. A company must make money to survive, and a monarch risks deposition if he loses a war. Similarly, Trump’s presidency posed a central question: Would his personalism—his self-concept as a family business owner—and the court intrigues he fosters clash with or adapt to the institutional constraints of the presidency? Would Trump eviscerate institutions, as he did the Republican Party, or would those institutions hem him in? I bet for "hemming in."
The concept of the “culture code” originates with Clotaire Rapaille, who describes it as a master metaphor, unconsciously held, that evokes strong feelings and shapes behavior. Consider the role of “secrets,” a hallmark of family businesses and royal courts. As children, we encounter the mystery of parental secrets—what they do behind the bedroom door, for instance. These early experiences of secrecy evoke visceral associations that linger into adulthood. A culture code is an outcropping of the “cultural unconscious”—a reservoir of archetypes and ingrained patterns that shape our actions without our awareness.
Dear reader, you may find my “free associations” speculative. However, take seriously the broader idea of the cultural unconscious and its many codes. Understanding them can help you “decode” organizational settings and predict their evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment