The book written by Bob Iger (CEO of Disney) is definitely more biographical than business-focused—which actually makes it a fun read. Iger basically spent his entire career in the same organization. First at ABC, then at Disney (once they acquired ABC). Anyone who climbs the ranks within a single company like that is clearly skilled at managing stakeholders and navigating organizational complexity (I mean that in a positive way). That said, apart from a few specific anecdotes, the book doesn’t deeply explore how he did it—which makes sense, but still feels like a missed opportunity.
Iger does share his ten principles of leadership, which I’m including below for reference. But in my view, they’re not particularly novel or worth digging into:
- Optimism
- Courage
- Focus
- Decisiveness
- Curiosity
- Fairness
- Thoughtfulness
- Authenticity
- The relentless pursuit of perfection
- Integrity
A Human Story, Not a Business Manual
While the direct “business learnings” are modest, the book delivers a compelling human story. It’s especially enjoyable to get a behind-the-scenes look at covering the 88 Olympics on ABC, dealing with David Lynch and launching “Twin Peaks” or the the acquisitions of Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and Fox. That part resonates well with the recent past in mobile games, especially for those of us interested in IP strategy.
I’ve always believed that mobile game operations and management can benefit from modeling themselves on “traditional” entertainment – rather than pure tech – and there are some great insights here from someone who started in television and ended up leading what is arguably the most powerful IP engine in the world.
Iger shares thoughts on innovation, managing creative talent, and striking the balance between protecting the creative process and remaining mindful of business outcomes. He also touches on owning the mistakes that inevitably come with bold decisions.
One quote stood out to me on how to give feedback on creative work. Good advice for all of us:
I never start out negatively, and unless we’re in the late stages of a production, I never start small. I’ve found that often people will focus on little details as a way of masking a lack of any clear, coherent, big thoughts. If you start petty, you seem petty. And if the big picture is a mess, then the small things don’t matter anyway, and you shouldn’t spend time focusing on them
On Central Product Teams and Strategic Planning
One of the most interesting parts of the book is Iger’s critique of a central corporate group at Disney called “Strategic Planning.” When Iger joined Disney – before becoming CEO – this group functioned as a centralized, data-oriented unit composed of top-tier MBAs. Their role was to provide data and insights to then-CEO Michael Eisner.
But, as Iger describes it, their real job was to provide the data Eisner needed to feel secure, while Eisner himself retained all creative control (please keep in mind people in Strategic Planning or Eisner would certainly have a different assessment of the group’s contribution). In other words, the output was about managing the CEO’s emotions, not driving business decisions. Iger didn’t like this group for two main reasons:
- It undermined the autonomy of business unit leaders, damaging morale.
- It introduced layers of process that slowed down decision-making—an obvious problem in fast-paced creative environments.
He gives a telling example: as Disney was preparing to open a park in Hong Kong, Strategic Planning convened a meeting to determine ticket pricing. The project belonged to the Parks and Resorts team. When Iger asked why the pricing meeting was held by Strategic Planning, they answered: “We have to make sure they’re doing the right thing.” To which Iger responded:
If they can’t figure out what pricing should be, they shouldn’t be in their jobs. But if we believe they should be in their jobs, then they should be in charge of pricing
Unsurprisingly, Iger disbanded the Strategic Planning group soon after taking over as CEO. What the book points at here is a recurring problem around central product/business performance groups. They can easily be perceived as an internal police force rather than a partner for the business units. There is also something else that is specific to creative/entertainment industries. Every decision carries the risk of failure. Data can help make better (i.e. more informed) decisions. But it can’t completely derisk decisions. The best data in the world won’t ever make a decision a sure thing. Ultimately the product owner must carry the responsibility for the decision’s outcome. And every decision in the creative industry involves some part of instinct – and data can’t replace that. So a central data-focused group that provides recommendations/instructions to make decisions, but that doesn’t live with the consequences is deeply imbalanced and misses what’s at the core of making a successful entertainment product.
Reflections on Central Product Teams in Games
I do know in mobile games central product teams can be problematic. They certainly are controversial depending on who you ask. Iger’s description focused on ego problems – so it’s easy to agree with his critique of “Strat Planning”. More than other disciplines in the industry, product has a big “expert” component to it. And anything that involves expertise will also involve the high emotions that go with recognition, competence and autonomy. So it can always be hard to navigate.
Iger clearly describes what central product teams should not be. But I still believe there can be a space for central product expertise. Ultimately it depends on the people and organization. If you’re a small, decentralized company which is mostly creative driven, then it makes sense to have this critical skill in the org – even if not directly on the ground floor for the team/game. That’s the case easy to agree with. Bigger organizations with a lot of product expertise can also benefit from a central product team. In that case it’s important for everybody to check their ego at the door and create a space of dialog and debate – hope that confronting different points of view can lead to a better conclusion. The problem becomes when different points of view are fighting to be the “single source of truth”. In my opinion that’s a very problematic way to approach knowledge-production in an organization – especially when dealing with entertainment products where there isn’t one single valid way to look at things. Also focusing on being right rather than action points and real outcomes is not productive. This is where “learning to feedback” – how to give it, but also how to receive it – can greatly help. “Thanks for the Feedback” is a great book for this (might write something on that in the future).
Now there is a final scenario where central product teams are critical. Say you’re working on new games. If you’re a company like Supercell where game teams have a great deal of autonomy and decide to continue working on a game or not then you probably don’t need a central group. But if you’re a gaming exec in charge of a portfolio of new games and you have 3-5 new games being worked on, then you need some kind of centralized vision to compare all these different bets and provide some clarity. You can’t have 5 game leads reporting on 5 different sets of metrics and be expected to make a decision on which projects to fund. But of course, in this case the central team is not about supporting game teams but about providing structure and a coherent framework. It’s role is supporting the portfolio manager making sense of different products. Still valid and legit. In this case you don’t need to have a very large central product organization to support game teams. It’s more at the company level to make sense of disparate product.
In my opinion, central product teams work best when they support creative ownership or provide portfolio-level clarity. When they enable decentralized decision-making, not control individual projects. Some examples:
- Enable decentralized decision-making (by supporting expertise)
- Provide portfolio visibility (especially across new games)
- Avoid acting as truth arbiters or internal gatekeepers
- Stay accountable to outcomes, not just insights
Central product teams can be powerful—but only if they earn trust, respect creative risk, and stay laser-focused on enabling clarity over control. Ultimately, it’s not about who’s “right.” It’s about who’s responsible—and who’s willing to live with the consequences.
Alexandre Macmillan 