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.

If you are interested in this way of thinking about leaders and organizations, please consider enrolling in the Dynamics of Consulting Program sponsored by my firm, CFAR (https://www.cfar.com/). ?You can see a program description here https://www.dynamicsofconsulting.net/ and you can contact me at [email protected]

?