Schadenfreude was originally a German word indicating satisfaction, pleasure, or even glee at someone else’s misfortune. It is not an especially attractive sentiment, but it is a deeply human one. Which is precisely why the word has wormed its way into the English language.
I do not know Bob Chapek, former CEO of The Walt Disney Company. But if he’s not experienced schadenfreude in recent months, he’s a saint. For Chapek was manhandled by Disney’s current CEO, Bob Iger, before, during, and after Chapek became his successor. Iger, in other words, not only preceded Chapek as Lion King of Disney but after Chapek was unceremoniously pushed out, succeeded him. And now it’s Iger’s turn. It’s Iger who’s now in trouble.
Iger had served as Disney’s CEO for a decade and a half when, in 2020, he finally retired. Chapek got the nod as Iger’s successor, but the nod was half-hearted and so was the board’s endorsement. Iger moreover made plain during the interregnum that he did not think highly of Chapek either personally or professionally. Through no fault of his own Chapek’s timing was also bad. Among the unanticipated stumbling blocks was Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis, who made life miserable for Chapek during his tenure at the top by launching against Florida-based Disney World a series of attacks that ended ultimately in a culture war.
When it became clear that Chapek was not up to the task, doomed no matter what he did or didn’t do, to remain in the shadow of his vaunted predecessor, Chapek was escorted out and Iger was ushered back in. Hopes for Iger’s resumption of the role of Lion King were sky high. He had previously proven so exceptionally skilled in his role as Disney’s leader, it was automatically assumed he could repeat his past performance.
But the successes of leaders depend not only on them but on their followers – and on the contexts within which they and their followers are situated. As Iger has come to understand all too well, during the couple of years that he was out and Chapek was in, things changed. People changed and the circumstances within which Disney was operating changed. While Iger-the-leader was the same, the challenges he faced on reclaiming his top slot were far greater than just a few years earlier.
Last week Bob Iger was interviewed by CNBC’s David Faber. Iger seemed to have aged ten years in two. He looked much older and acted and reacted like a leader under stress. Which he is. “Bob Iger Isn’t Having Much Fun” ran a recent headline in the Wall Street Journal. The article described him as being under pressure, as straining to put out “fire after fire” including streaming losses, an aggressive activist investor, TV woes, and a stock price that was, at best, stuck. Moreover, the piece made clear whatever was going wrong could not just be blamed on Iger’s predecessor, on Chapek. “Some of Disney’s biggest challenges,” the article argued, “are rooted in decisions Iger made during his first stint in the top job,” including, for example, his choice to “enter into an arms race over streaming.”
Nor was the Journal alone in its assessment. The Financial Times featured a similar piece titled, “Iger Feels Heat Over Disney’s Performance,” and an article in the New York Times noted that questions were mounting about the “company’s vaunted movie studios and theme parks.”
Can you imagine Disney in trouble?! Can you imagine Disney in trouble with the leader who would be savior at the helm?!
Given what happened to Bob Chapek during his short tenure at the top – he was publicly humiliated and then given the boot – it would be impossible to blame him if he were watching Bob Iger’s declining fortunes with a smirk or even a smile. This is not to say that Iger’s second bite of the apple is doomed to failure. Rather it is to underscore that in the short term at least his halo has been visibly, and badly, tarnished. It’s why Chapek’s Schadenfreude would be, if it is, an understandable response. Very understandable.