Latest / Boardroom Conversations with Fexingo: CEOs, Strategy, and Corporate Leadership Explained / How Disney Chose Bob Iger's Successor Twice
Transcript
- Lucas: So in February 2020, the Walt Disney Company announced that Bob Iger was stepping down as CEO and that Bob Chapek, who had been running the parks division, would take over. At the time, it felt like a pretty smooth handoff — Iger was staying on as executive chairman, Chapek was a known quantity inside the company. And then, of course, the pandemic hit about a month later. Luna: Right — talk about a trial by fire for a brand new CEO. Chapek had barely settled in before every single revenue stream Disney had — theme parks, movie theaters, cruise lines — just shut down. Lucas: Exactly. And look, I think Chapek deserves some credit for how Disney navigated the immediate crisis. They accelerated the Disney+ launch in Europe, they figured out the whole hybrid-release situation for Mulan and later Black Widow. Those were tough calls. But the succession story here is less about the pandemic and more about what happened afterward — because by November 2022, Iger was back as CEO, and Chapek was out. Luna: Which is pretty unusual. I mean, Iger had already handed over the keys. For him to come back meant the board essentially admitted they got it wrong the first time. Lucas: Yeah, and that's the angle I want to dig into. Because Disney's succession process actually happened twice in three years — and the second attempt was structurally very different from the first. So let's start with the 2020 decision. Iger had been CEO for fifteen years. He'd acquired Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, launched the Shanghai park. He was sixty-nine years old. The board had been talking about succession for years, but they kept extending Iger's contract. Luna: Classic founder ceo problem, even though Iger wasn't technically a founder. He was so identified with Disney's identity that the board couldn't picture anyone else in the role. Lucas: Right. And when they finally did pick Chapek, the process itself was opaque. They didn't do a broad external search. They didn't bring in candidates from outside the company. Chapek was chosen from a shortlist of internal executives — and according to reporting after the fact, even some senior Disney executives were surprised by the timing. The announcement came on a Tuesday afternoon, and Iger went on CNBC the next morning to say he was 'fully confident' in Chapek. Luna: But then Iger stayed on as chairman. That's always a tricky dynamic — the outgoing CEO hovering over the new one. It can undermine authority even if that's not the intention. Lucas: It absolutely did here. There were public instances where Iger would make comments about Disney's strategy or culture that subtly contradicted Chapek's direction. And Chapek, for his part, made some choices that I think the board and Iger found concerning. He reorganized the company to put more power in the hands of the distribution team, which essentially sidelined the creative executives who had been the heart of Disney's content machine. He clashed publicly with Scarlett Johansson over Black Widow's streaming release. He made comments about 'content of the park' versus 'content of the soul' that felt tone-deaf. Luna: And then there was the political fight in Florida over the Don't Say Gay law. Chapek initially stayed silent, then got pressured to speak out, then angered both sides. It was a mess from a stakeholder management perspective. Lucas: That was probably the final straw for the board. By late 2022, Disney's stock was down about 40 percent from its 2021 peak. The streaming division was losing money — Disney+ had grown subscribers fast, but at huge cost. The board realized they had a leadership crisis, and they went back to the one person they trusted. Iger came back with a mandate to fix things and find a real successor this time. Luna: So the second time around, how was the process different? Lucas: Completely different. Iger made it clear from day one that he was back for only two years — his contract runs through the end of 2026. He also stepped down from the board himself, so there was no repeat of the chairman ceo duality. And he initiated a real, structured succession process. The board formed a dedicated succession committee. They looked at external candidates — people like Kevin Mayer, who had been at Disney and then left, and even some outsiders from tech and media. And they did something very deliberate: they announced the new CEO internally nine months before the public announcement. Luna: That's smart. Gives the incoming person time to transition, to be seen as the leader before Day One. Lucas: Exactly. And they also made sure that Iger — sorry, the new CEO — had a clean slate. In early 2024, the board announced that Bob Iger would be succeeded by Dana Walden and Josh D'Amaro as co-CEOs — with Walden overseeing content and D'Amaro overseeing experiences. Wait, actually I want to be careful here — I'm not sure I have the exact names right for the eventual successors. The point is the structure: they chose co-CEOs with clear domain splits, which was a deliberate move away from the single ceo model that had failed with Chapek. Luna: Co-CEOs are rare in large public companies. It can create friction if the domains overlap. But Disney's businesses are so distinct — content creation versus parks and cruises — that it might actually work. Lucas: That's the theory. And it signals something important about what Disney learned. The 2020 succession was about finding a single person who could 'manage' the company. The 2024 succession was about designing a leadership structure that reflects the actual complexity of the business. I think that's the lesson for other boards: succession isn't just about picking the right person — it's about picking the right structure for the company at that moment. Luna: Let's talk about the board's role in both processes. Because the board approved both decisions — so what changed in their own composition or approach? Lucas: Good question. After Iger returned, the board went through significant turnover. Several directors who had been on the board for over a decade didn't stand for reelection. Iger himself pushed for more independent voices. The board added directors with media experience, with technology backgrounds. They also created that dedicated succession committee, which met regularly and reported back to the full board. So it wasn't just a different process — it was a different board culture. Luna: Yeah, because the 2020 process was basically Iger and a small group of insiders. The 2024 process was institutionalized. Lucas: Right. And I think that's the takeaway for any board that's going through a CEO transition. You need to start early — years early. You need to consider external candidates seriously, even if your internal candidate is strong. You need to separate the outgoing CEO from the process so they don't unduly influence it. And you need to be willing to change the leadership structure, not just swap out the nameplate. Luna: What does this say about Iger's legacy? He's now the CEO who left, came back, and left again — but with a more durable plan. Lucas: I think it actually strengthens his legacy. The first succession was a failure, but he had the humility — or the board had the pressure — to bring him back. And then he used his second term to fix what he broke. That's rare. Most CEOs don't get a second chance at succession. Iger did, and it seems like the process this time is much more robust. Luna: It's also a reminder that succession is not a one-time event. It's an ongoing conversation. The board should always be thinking about it, even when the CEO is performing well. Lucas: Absolutely. And if today's episode was useful to you and you want to keep it ad-free, buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo helps. That's buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Even a small contribution makes a difference to keep these conversations going. Luna: Yeah, it really does. We don't run ads, so listener support is what keeps the show available to everyone. Lucas: So back to Disney — one more thing I find interesting. The second succession was announced internally in mid-2023, almost a year before the public announcement. That gave the incoming CEOs time to build relationships with each other, with the board, with key executives. It also gave the market time to adjust. When the public announcement came in early 2024, the stock barely moved. That's the sign of a well-managed transition — no surprises. Luna: Markets hate uncertainty. If the stock doesn't react, it means the market already knew and approved. Lucas: Exactly. Compare that to 2020, when the stock dipped on the news because investors were caught off guard. The difference is night and day. So for any board listening — and I know some of them do — the lesson is: start early, be transparent, and don't let the outgoing CEO dominate the process. It's uncomfortable, but it's better than having to do it twice. Luna: And sometimes you have to admit the first time didn't work. That takes courage. Lucas: It does. And Disney's willingness to do that, to bring Iger back and then to design a truly different succession, might end up being the most important part of his legacy. Not just the acquisitions or the creative hits, but the governance lesson. Luna: Alright, that's a good place to leave it. Thanks, Lucas. Lucas: Thanks, Luna. Talk next time.