Politics at Waltz Disney
Politics at Walt Disney
When the word Disney Land is mentioned, many tend to form imaginations of good times as well as all the right movies that they have watched. The company at Walt Disney has been famed for producing some of the best-renowned films that have been termed as blockbusters. The organization has come up with good movies, but that does not mean they have not gone through some organizational turmoil. The group has seen its highs, as well as its lows, and politics has been known to play a significant role in the operational cycles.
Conflict, Politics, and Conflict Resolution
Walt Disney has seen some battles and that would mean that the organization was growing with ever resolution. That is because all entities that undergo a particular amount of conflicts are said to be growing as long as the conflicts do not supersede the expected benefits. The C.E.O at Walt Disney during the year 2000, one Michael Eisner was under a lot of pressure to ensure that the organization did not land into financial turmoil. The body was facing some problems that were attributed to the organizational structure. The stakeholders felt that the team was running into losses since the C.E.O had put in place structures that could not be expected to match the current state of the business environment (Jones, 2013)
The centralized structure that has been prevalent in the organization is one of the reasons why the organization was failing. Michael Eisner had come up with a strategy whereby the organization had to run all its ideas through a rigorous process before they were adopted. The actualization process took long, and that can be said to contribute to the losses that the organization was undergoing (Jones, 2013). Other competitors were beating them since they wouldn’t adopt new ideas at a fast pace as compared to other filmmakers. The organization was also undergoing some challenges that were attributed to the lack of cooperation and competition among stakeholders.
After a while, the company was forced to bring in a new overall manager in a bid to try and ensure that it would recover from perennial losses. According to Jones (2013), Iger was brought in to replace Michael Eisner so as to try and see if they would salvage the company. He came up with a couple of strategies that would go a long way in ensuring that he was able to pull the entity out of the financial muck. He had to study the organizational structures so as to identify what was wrong and come up with corrective measures. He came to a conclusion that the bureaucratic structure was to blame for all the problems within the firm. He dismantled the strategic central office that had the mandate to approve all ideas. The position was mainly made up of high tier managers who were formerly under Eisner and had to run all ideas through him. Iger felt that the process was long as well as time-consuming, and some of the ideas that were rejected by the bureaucratic structure were viable.
The act of doing away with the bureaucratic structure ensured that the managers were reassigned to functional areas. That improved the number as well as the quality of ideas that were coming up in the entity. The workers felt more comfortable approaching their managers with their ideas as opposed to having their ideas scrutinized by the panel. It also helped ensure that the extra layers that were present in the organization through the compound structure were eliminated (Jones, 2013). The organization reduced its labor force since some of the unnecessary areas were also cleaned up. The efficiency of the organization increased to a steady level, and that was attributable to the changes implemented by Iger. He also helped ensure that the organization was adopting the current trends of doing things, and that gave the entity a fighting chance against its competitors.
The events in the object can be a locus of conflict, and many would agree that the change of guard within the organization was in poor taste. That shows that conflicts were manifest within the firm. Conflict is a type of clash of interest, one that occurs when the goals of one group overlap with those of another (Gore, 2013). Take the example of an organization whereby the procurement department requires 30 million as its operational budget. On the other hand, the finance department aims to reduce the budget and, therefore, allocates 25 million to the department. Each department has its goals that dictate the funds needed as well as those dispensed. The two functional areas may collide with each other in respect to the monies disbursed. Conflicts will always in the business environment since each organization strives to be the best, and the conflicts may be internal or external.
Conflict may either make or break the organization, and that is dependent on the level of the same that is exhibited. At very low concentrations, the entity may not elicit any tangible benefits, but as the levels of disagreement increase, then the organization will tend to see some positive feedback. That is because, as the conflicts increase, people will tend to engage on issues that may benefit the entity since their entanglements are on a productive note (Donaldson and Joffe, 2014). As the conflicts progress, they may turn into nasty incidences whereby the workers may be hostile to each other hence they may not be productive to the firm. Any serious company ought to understand that the workers are likely to lock horns, and they should ensure that they can maintain the conflict at reasonable levels.
Effect of Power on Organization Structure
The power that is manifest within an organization may have different sources depending on the kind of organization in question as well as the structure under consideration. The sources of power may be either vertical or those accruing to the lower level participants within the firm. One may exercise power over others due to the formal position that they hold and that gives them legitimate authority to dictate what needs to be done. For example, at Walt Disney, the area occupied by individuals such as Eisner and Iger gives them the power to act for the employees. The act of holding a particular position gives the power to the responsibilities as well as the mandate that accrues to the same (Davies and Brown, 2014). Resources may also be a premise on which one may command more power within an entity. Certain functional areas within the organization can influence others by virtue of the fact that they have more resources. The other areas are forced to depend on them so as to utilize the resources that are at their disposal (Gore, 2013). For example, the finance department can exercise authority over others since they control the budgetary allocations that are crucial to every area.
The entity may also witness the power distribution based on the decision premise as well as the information center. That means that he who holds more information can control more functions within the organization hence they yield more power. The engineering department may exercise control over the finance department when it comes to technical matters within the entity since they hold more information (Lee, Kozlenkova and Palmatier, 2015). Power grounds will always shift in the organization depending on the situation at hand, since each will require a varying level of complexity to handle.
Organizations need to evaluate their organizational designs as well as their structure so as to be in line with the global environment. The business may need to adjust its structure so as to ensure that it can live up to the competition prevailing in the market. The company will need to study the current trends in the environment and come up with ways of adjusting. The structure may need to change if the entity is not up to speed and in many case firms that were organic in the structure have had to adopt the mechanistic structures. Any business that hopes to weather the competition storm ought to ensure that it can compete on a level ground by adjusting its design and the structures present in the organization. Walt Disney was able to rise and dust itself since it adopted new structures that guaranteed its success at the current market trends.
Davies, C. A., & Brown, G. (2014). Using design principles so to deliver the strategy in a new organizational structure. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 30(4), 1-12. Doi: 10.3233/SJI-140860
DONALDSON, L., & JOFFE, G. (2014). FIT – THE KEY TO ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN. Journal of Organization Design, 3(3), 38-45. Doi:10.7146/jod.18424
Gore, A. (2013). Transforming organizational structures. Washington, DC: Office of the Vice President. Print
Jones, G. (2013). Organizational theory, design, and change. (7th Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lee, J., Kozlenkova, I., & Palmatier, R. (2015). Structural marketing: using the-the organizational structure to achieve the marketing objectives. Journal of the Academy Of Marketing Science, 43(1), 73-99. Doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0402-9