Analysis of case
According to the case, Michael Eisner was in conflicts with Disney’s competing companies, board members and partners. To better illustrate, I separate each disagreement below.
From the side of Weinstein brother,
One of the reasons causes the conflicts between them may be Incompatible Goals. Since Disney was eager to purchase Miramax films, founded by the Weinstein Company, he obviously wanted to pay fewer funds as a buyer. On the contrary, as a seller, Weinstein brothers expected to earn more money from this trade. There may be another cause that is personality difference. Eisner desired to control everything he deals with. If someone did not do as he expected, he ...view middle of the document...
Usually in a company, chairman of the board plays a role as highest officer while President and CEO reign in administrative management. But in Disney, the roles of chairman and president had been weakened and the power of CEO expanded. The result was that the chairman and president shrouded in the shadow of Eisner’s power, leading to a great deal of internal power disputes.
From the side of Steve Jobs,
The conflicts may come from personality differences and limited resources. After reading some articles, I found that Eisner was a dictator. Even essentially he was an employee of Disney, he was eager to control the whole corporation. His arbitrary style and characteristic of self-assertiveness straddled the industry. It is very easy to cause offence when other people hold different opinions against him. Since both Disney and Apple want to share the cake of media and entertainment market, they tried the best to fight for the ways of attracting customers. However, Eisner used some unscrupulous methods such as making some negative comments about Apple and criticizing the software of Apple which damaged the interests of creators openly. All these might cause disagreement between them.
As far as I am concerned, the top two causes of conflict are personality differences and Incompatible Goals. As I mentioned above, Eisner worked like a dominator which means he loved the feeling of having the power in his grip. Thinking himself as a feudal emperor, he would seldom consider other’s opinions. He would also compel his business partners or colleagues to follow his decisions without other suggestions. His arbitrary character will cause the problems from incompatible goals inevitably. It is impossible that different individual have the selfsame benefits, much less different groups. When two firms expect to join hands, both of them have to give up some advantages which might be unfavorable to the negotiation object in order to match both of their needs. In this situation, Eisner’s arrogancy may make the relationship worse.
When it comes to the conflict management styles, I think Eisner’s is kind of competition while Iger’s likes the style of compromise. From the case, we can find that Eisner constantly fought with others including board members and business partners. He tried to reach his goal regardless of other’s ideas and feelings. Iger, in turn, would like to sacrifice something valuable, for example money, to his negotiation objects. He considered other’s situation and respected their goals while he attempted to maintain the interests of Disney.
In my memory, Bob Nardelli, the ex-CEO of Home Depot has similar styles with Eisner. He held a conflict of compensation with board of directors and he refused to give ground, leading to the results that in 2006 shareholders meeting, only he answered the questions from shareholders when the question when was one minutes to each person. He also had strained relationship with Wall Street. He blamed many...