Walt disney case analysis

The review of the Walt Disney Company corporate governance structure will on a large extent demonstrate the challenges that face organizations. For instance, corporate governance is often limited by the difficulty of drawing a line between enhancing shareholder value and eliminating the conflict of interest among board members. The management model employed by Michael Eisner was marred significant failure to utilize the power and control in enhancing shareholder value. The failure of corporate governance value is evident from the events that characterized Michael Eisner leadership at Walt Disney Company. Analysis of Michael Eisner’s Leadership According to Bolman and Deal (2017), organizations are typically political in nature since they bring together people with diverse perspectives about several things portraying the need to create synergy through building formidable coalitions.

The inability of Michael Eisner to manage Walt Disney political environment elicited protracted incidences of lies, backstabbing, meanness, and spying enumerating the deterioration of their corporate value. The jungle metaphor depicts the organizational style used by Michael Eisner in the management of the company. Michael had degenerated into a destructive leader after the shareholders failed to develop a framework that limits the temptation of management abusing their power and influence. Eisner had managed to dominate and control the board of directors making it difficult for any member to challenge some of his decisions which failed to maximize organizational progression (Uzarski, & Broome, 2019). The jungle metaphor represented his high level of paranoia which made him search for individuals well known to him and threaten any dissenting voices so as to ensure overall control.

The decision injured shareholder’s wealth to a tune of $ 140 million for the termination of Ovitz contract eliciting sharp criticism on the management model which does not attain substantive growth. The significance of the toxic triangle is to establish the risk that comes with a leader depicting such characteristics in the execution of their duties. The natural occurrence to an individual, when put in a position of power, has always been the desire to assert control and disregard contrary opinion in certain instances. The toxic triangle explains the reasons behind leaders evolving from transformative individuals to exhibit characteristics of destructive qualities on how they lead an organization (Forbes, & Watson, n. d. The downfall of Michael Eisner was largely attributed to the style of leadership employed and making it difficult for him to achieve exponential growth within the competitive market.

The coalitions within Disney were extensively ideological based on individuals within the board frustrated by the control and dominance of Eisner without subsequent results for the growth of the organization. The company had a coalition loyal and supportive of the initiatives employed by Michael Eisner since they were convinced by the efforts put in place to position the entity at a competitive advantage (Karpeles, 2005). Nonetheless, there was another coalition that subscribed to a different school of thought based on the deteriorating performance together with the making of decisions which did not represent progressiveness. The difference between the coalitions was due to the concern on how Michael handled a dissenting opinion, the lack of an alternative authority within the organization and the absence of leadership to competently guide the decision making on significant strategies.