One or Two? Why Disney May Thrive With a Co-Leader Model After Bob Iger

marriedtoadisneyad
4 days ago
6 min read

Hey Ohana,

A couple week’s ago, Matt was invited to be a guest on the WDW Radio podcast with Lou Mongello (definitely check it out episode #854) to play a round of “In-or-Out.” The game sees Lou and his guests either agree or disagree with various statements related to Disney. Every question led to great conversations, but one definitely had us thinking a little bit more. Essentially, it boiled down to whether or not we thought Disney should have a single CEO or a dual-CEO set up after Bob Iger retires (for a second time). We had a great chat on the episode, but such a large question warrants an even deeper look and so… this article (and perhaps an episode on our pod in the future).

________________________________________________________________________________

As Bob Iger’s current chapter at The Walt Disney Company moves toward its eventual conclusion, the question of succession has become more than a simple “who’s next?” conversation. It’s increasingly a structural one: Should Disney be led by a single all-powerful CEO, or would the company be better served by a co-leader system?

Disney isn’t just any corporation. It’s a hybrid of legacy storytelling, cutting-edge technology, global parks operations, and Wall Street expectations. Pile on top of that the idea that it is truly a family-forward company with one of the most avid fan-bases in the world, it becomes clear that leading such a company would be one of the most difficult undertakings in the business world. The idea that one person can expertly steer all of that—especially in today’s fractured media environment—may be more wishful thinking than practical strategy

And history suggests Disney already knows the answer. Let’s take a look at some of the pros and cons of each set up.

The Case for a Single Leader: Clear Authority, Faster Decisions

There’s a reason the traditional CEO model dominates corporate America. A single leader offers:

Pros

Clarity and speed: One decision-maker means fewer bottlenecks.
Unified vision: A single voice can create consistent priorities.
Clean accountability: Success or failure has a clear owner.

But that doesn’t mean leaning on a single person to run your company comes without its downsides.

Cons

Overextension risk: Disney is too big for one brain to fully manage.
Blind spots: One leader can miss warning signs or overcommit to a strategy.
Succession fragility: The company can become dependent on one personality.

In short: a single-leader system can be brilliant when the CEO is brilliant—and dangerous when they aren’t.

________________________________________________________________________________

Disney’s “Two-Leader” DNA: Walt and Roy Built the Blueprint

If Disney were a person, it would be born from a partnership.

Walt Disney and Roy O. Disney

Walt was the visionary: the dreamer, storyteller, and relentless creative force. Roy was the stabilizer: the financial mind, the business operator, the one who made sure the dream didn’t collapse under its own ambition.

This pairing worked because it created productive tension: Walt pushed boundaries, Roy protected sustainability.

While it wasn’t always harmonious, it was balanced, and it helped Disney become more than an animation studio—it became a global brand.

Key takeaway: Disney’s earliest and most iconic era was powered by two complementary leaders, not one.

Walt and Roy Disney. Brothers. Partners. Pioneers

________________________________________________________________________________

When Co-Leadership Works: Eisner and Wells as a Cautionary Success Story

Michael Eisner and Frank Wells

In the 1980s and early 1990s, Disney experienced a major resurgence under Eisner, with Frank Wells as president. This duo is often cited as one of Disney’s most effective leadership pairings because they brought different strengths. When Eisner’s creative instincts, dealmaking, and ambition paired with Wells’s operational discipline and structure combined, we witnessed one of the most successful eras in Disney’s history.

For years, the company thrived under this combination. But the real lesson came after Wells’ death in 1994. Without that stabilizing counterpart, Eisner’s leadership style became more volatile, and Disney’s internal cohesion suffered over time. Creative tensions rose. Leadership conflicts grew. The company eventually lost momentum and unity.

Key takeaway: Co-leadership didn’t just help Disney succeed—it may have prevented Disney from unraveling later.

Eisner and Wells continued to prove the dual leadership model could be very successful.

_______________________________________________________________________________

The Modern “One-Leader” Era: Bob Iger’s Strength—and Its Limits

There’s no question that Bob Iger’s solo leadership delivered historic results. From major acquisitions (Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, 21st Century Fox)and brand expansion into global dominance, to parks growth and franchise-driven strategy, it’s hard to deny that Iger’s leadership has propelled Disney even further than ever imagined. Pair that with strong investor confidence for much of his tenure and it’s no wonder people may call for finding the “next Iger” to lead the company.

Iger’s example is honestly the best argument for a single leader. It proves that one strong CEO can align an empire and execute at scale. But the downside is also visible, especially in hindsight.

The risks of a single-leader Disney (in general)

Even a successful solo CEO model can create problems:

Centralization: Too many decisions funnel upward.
Culture dependence: The company becomes shaped around one person’s instincts.
Succession vulnerability: When the leader leaves, the company can struggle.

Disney’s recent leadership turbulence after Iger’s first departure—and his eventual return—highlighted a hard truth: even the strongest single-leader model can leave behind a fragile transition. Just because the guy before did a great job, doesn’t guarantee the next one will!

Key takeaway: A solo CEO can be powerful, but the system can become too reliant on that one individual.

Iger is considered one of the most successful CEOs in modern business history.

________________________________________________________________________________

Why Disney’s Next Era Might Require Two Leaders, Not One

Disney today is arguably more complex than it has ever been. It’s not just films and parks anymore—it’s also:

Streaming economics and subscriber growth vs. profitability
Sports rights and ESPN strategy
Theme park capital investment and pricing pressures
Technology infrastructure and global competition
Franchise management and creative risk-taking

A co-leader model can work if it’s designed intentionally, not as a compromise.

What a smart Disney co-leader structure could look like

The strongest version of this system would likely be one based on past successful examples:

One leader focused on creative/content/brand direction (Walt, Eisner)
One leader focused on operations/finance/distribution and execution (Roy, Wells)

That’s not a gimmick—that’s essentially the Walt/Roy blueprint adapted for a 21st-century entertainment giant.

Dana Walden and Josh D'Amaro are considered the two front runners to succeed Iger. Could they make a good team?

________________________________________________________________________________

The Biggest Risk of Co-Leadership: Confusion and Power Struggles

Of course, co-leadership isn’t automatically better. It can fail for a number of reasons. If roles overlap too much, authority is unclear, or ego and politics replace alignment, things get dicey and the confusion could outweigh the benefits having two leaders. Essentially, if the company doesn’t know who has final say, how can they be sure to ever be able to really resolve an issue.

In other words, two leaders can become two competing CEOs—which is a recipe for paralysis. However, Disney’s history shows that when roles are distinct and complementary, the model can be exceptional. That is why if Disney does lean into the two-leader model they can’t just look for the best creative and the best business minded people, but they also must take into account the relationship between those two.

________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion: Disney Is Better When It Has Balance at the Top

Disney has succeeded under singular leadership. Bob Iger proved that. However, it has also floundered exceptionally, Bob’s original successor “may have proved that.”

But Disney’s most enduring strength—its ability to merge creativity with business discipline—has often been strongest when two leaders share the burden, each bringing different instincts to the table.

From Walt and Roy to Eisner and Wells, the pattern is clear: Disney thrives when it has both a dreamer and a builder, a visionary and an operator, a storyteller and a strategist.

As Disney prepares for life after Iger, the company doesn’t just need a new CEO. It needs a leadership structure that matches the scale of its challenges.And in the end, the most “Disney” solution may be the one it started with: two leaders—one company—one shared mission.

And after saying ALL that, who knows… Maybe the next Bob Iger is waiting to take the reins and continue to expand the company to even higher heights. Maybe Disney will go the “two-heads-is-better-than-one” direction and it’ll be an epic failure. Honestly, you never know. In our humble opinion though, it may be time to return to Disney’s roots and what better way to start than doing what Walt (and Roy) did?

But we want to hear from YOU! Let us know what you think, should Disney go with a single CEO or a Co-CEO structure after Iger’s departure?