Module 3 Case The Political Frame Assignment Overview

Module 3 Casethe Political Frameassignment Overviewin The Module 3 C

In the Module 3 Case, you will write Chapter 3 of your thesis-style paper – relating to the Political Frame. Using specific examples of “politics” as defined by Bolman and Deal, you will analyze the downfall of Walt Disney Company CEO Michael Eisner through the Political Frame as a lens. Begin by reviewing the Walt Disney Company website, relevant articles on Eisner's tenure, and additional research from the library and internet. Write a 6- to 7-page paper that assesses the Disney company using the five assumptions of the Political Frame:

• Organizations are coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups.
• Enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality.
• Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources—who gets what.
• Scarce resources and differences make conflict central and underline power as the most important asset.
• Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying among stakeholders.

Analyze the political behaviors surrounding Eisner’s departure, identifying key political forces, applying the “jungle” metaphor, describing coalitions, and exploring conflicts and resolutions. Discuss how two or three of Bolman and Deal’s assumptions inform the case, and examine the “Toxic Triangle” model in the context of Eisner’s leadership and downfall. Support your analysis with 3–4 scholarly sources, demonstrating critical thinking and interpreting facts from research. This paper will also serve as Chapter 4 of your ongoing thesis-style project.

Paper For Above instruction

The downfall of Michael Eisner, the former CEO of The Walt Disney Company, exemplifies a complex interplay of organizational politics, power dynamics, and coalition conflicts—core concepts illuminated by Bolman and Deal’s Political Frame. Analyzing his leadership through this lens reveals how political behaviors and interests shape organizational trajectories, especially in high-stakes settings like corporate leadership. This paper explores the political forces that precipitated Eisner’s exit, employing the “jungle” metaphor to depict the competitive, power-driven landscape of Disney’s boardroom, and examines the coalitions and conflicts that emerged during this pivotal period.

Introduction

Michael Eisner’s tenure at Disney was marked by both remarkable accomplishments and intense internal conflicts that culminated in his resignation in 2005. The organizational landscape he navigated was fraught with competing interests, enduring coalitions, and political struggles—factors that are central to Bolman and Deal’s Political Frame. This analysis applies this framework to dissect the political environment within Disney, emphasizing how power, coalition-building, and conflict influenced key decisions and ultimately contributed to Eisner’s downfall. Understanding these political dynamics provides valuable insights into the organizational processes that unfold in charismatic leadership and crisis.

Key Political Forces Leading to Eisner’s Downfall

The political landscape at Disney was characterized by a coalition of powerful stakeholders whose interests conflicted with Eisner’s leadership style and strategic direction. Shareholders, the board of directors, senior executives, and activist investors each had distinct goals—profit maximization, strategic renewal, risk mitigation, and corporate governance—creating a fertile ground for political maneuvering. Notably, the board of directors, once supportive of Eisner, became divided as concerns over strategic missteps and corporate governance issues surfaced. White (2005) highlights how internal disagreements and a perceived accumulation of power by Eisner fostered resentment among board members, who viewed his leadership as increasingly autocratic.

The influence of external pressure also played a role, with activist investors and media scrutiny challenging Eisner’s authority. The “jungle” metaphor—symbolizing the cutthroat, competitive environment—aptly describes the Disney boardroom’s dynamics, where coalition members jostled for influence and control, reminiscent of a wilderness where only the strongest survive. These political forces coalesced around interests in succession planning, strategic refocus, and shareholders’ demands for accountability—ultimately undermining Eisner's position.

The Jungle Metaphor and Disney’s Political Climate

The metaphor of the “jungle,” popularized by Bolman and Deal, captures the chaotic and competitive nature of organizational politics where survival depends on navigating alliances, rivalries, and power plays. In Disney’s case, this metaphor vividly illustrates the environment in which Eisner operated—an arena rife with treacherous alliances, covert negotiations, and conflict-ridden coalitions. The intense battles among factions, especially between those loyal to Eisner and his opponents, exemplify the “jungle” setting where political skill and strategic bargaining are crucial for survival and advancement.

Such a metaphor underscores how coalitions form based on shared interests, and how power shifts as individuals and groups maneuver to enhance their influence. Eisner’s authority was challenged by emerging groups leveraging political leverage, media campaigns, and alliance-building to weaken his position—paralleling the survival-of-the-fittest imagery of the jungle.

Coalitions and Conflict Resolution at Disney

Within Disney, several coalitions formed—some supportive of Eisner, others opposing him. Loyalists included long-standing executives and board members aligned with Eisner’s vision, while opponents, including activist investors and certain board members, pushed for strategic change and leadership renewal. The conflicts stemmed from differences in management styles: Eisner’s autocratic leadership clashed with the board’s desire for oversight and accountability, leading to a division that intensified over time (Karpeles, 2005).

The resolution of these conflicts involved strategic negotiations, public relations campaigns, and internal power struggles. Ultimately, the formation of a new coalition—led by Michael Ovitz’s departure and the rise of board members demanding change—shifted the power balance. These shifts exemplify how bargaining and jockeying for influence are inherent to the political process within organizations. Eisner’s inability to adapt politically, despite his operational successes, exposed the vulnerability of leadership rooted solely in charismatic authority.

Applying the Assumptions of the Political Frame

The assumptions of the Political Frame shed light on the Disney case: first, organizations as coalitions are vividly illustrated by the competing groups aligned either with or against Eisner. Second, the enduring differences—values, perceptions, and interests—powered the ongoing conflict. Third, resource allocation—such as control over strategic initiatives—was fiercely contested, with each coalition attempting to sway decision-making. Fourth, conflict and power struggles were central, with authority shifting as coalitions jockeyed for influence. Lastly, bargaining and negotiation shaped major decisions, exemplified during Eisner’s final tenure, reflecting a turbulent but realistic organizational landscape.

These assumptions elucidate how power plays, entrenched interests, and political skill—or the lack thereof—determined organizational outcomes, including leadership change. Eisner’s downfall was not merely a result of poor performance but the culmination of a protracted political struggle characterized by entrenched coalitions and strategic conflicts.

The Toxic Triangle and Leadership Vulnerability

The “Toxic Triangle,” comprising destructive leadership, susceptible followers, and conducive environments, offers insight into Eisner’s leadership demise (Forbes & Watson). Eisner’s behavior as a charismatic yet increasingly autocratic leader created an environment where dissent grew, and followers either aligned with or resisted him based on their interests. Susceptible followers, influenced by organizational culture and lack of oversight, enabled destructive behaviors. The toxic triangle suggests that leadership vulnerabilities, when combined with organizational toxins and susceptible followers, precipitate downfall—an analysis fitting Eisner’s case. The model emphasizes that leadership failures are not solely personal but embedded within the organizational political context.

Conclusion

The case of Michael Eisner’s departure from Disney exemplifies the complex interaction of political behaviors, coalition conflicts, and power struggles within an organization’s “jungle.” Bolman and Deal’s Political Frame provides a compelling lens for understanding how organizational politics influence key decisions, leadership stability, and strategic directions. Recognizing these dynamics highlights the importance of political skill in leadership and the necessity for organizations to manage competing interests proactively. Ultimately, Eisner’s downfall underscores the significance of political awareness, coalition management, and ethical leadership in maintaining organizational health and stability.

References

• Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• White, D. (2005, October 1). When Mickey finally turned on his master. The Daily Telegraph.
• Karpeles, M. D. (2005). Boardroom lessons from the Disney/Ovitz case. Corporate Board, 6-10.
• Forbes, W., & Watson, R. (n.d.). Destructive corporate leadership and board loyalty bias: A case study of Michael Eisner’s long tenure at Disney. City University London.
• Ferris, G. R., et al. (2010). Politics in organizations: Understanding the strategic context. Organizational Dynamics, 39(3), 229–239.
• McKinney, K. (2012). Power and influence in organizations. Routledge.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. Pearson Education.
• Crozier, M. (2014). The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. University of Chicago Press.
• Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.
• Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.