Originally Posted By dshyates I also believe the "Its suck" argument was settled by Disney when they announced they appealed to the board for $1.2 billion to fix the place. Argument over. We don't keep harping about how lame a lot of the place is because they are bulldozing a lot of the sucky stuff to be replaced with true Disney quality. Good by and good riddance to the shiny hubcap and generic mall fountain. Hello honest to god Disney park.
Originally Posted By woody At what point do you consider yourself to be an executive rather than middle management. I think the difference is title. Anyone with President or VP title is executive level.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I think the difference is title. Anyone with President or VP title is executive level. >> The workplace is inundated with self-important titles. In the corporate world, executives are defined by who the companies disclose as their officers in SEC filings.
Originally Posted By dshyates "In the corporate world, executives are defined by who the companies disclose as their officers in SEC filings." Those guys are operating officers. That is who has to be reported. But no where does it say that the operating officers are the only executives. Thats just plain silly. The Disney company would have only 5 executives. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_executive" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C orporate_executive</a>
Originally Posted By danyoung >I also believe the "Its suck" argument was settled by Disney when they announced they appealed to the board for $1.2 billion to fix the place. Argument over.< It's amazing to me, though, how many people are still arguing over whether Disney is fixing DCA because it sucks or if they're just reinvesting in a successful park. Doesn't really matter, but it's still being debated.
Originally Posted By dshyates I am of the opinion that if it were a successful and popular park they 1. wouldn't have had to appealled to the board for the money, as there would be no need and there would be plenty of cash. 2. Would spend the money adding and not bulldozing major portions and rebuilding. 3. And they are bulldozing the exact things people have pointed at as the reasons why the park sucks. The sun court with its lame beyond belief hub icon is history. Rt. 66 is gone. Pier slathered with a thick layer of themeing to relieve the sterile schlock that was originally built. Carnival rides, gone (with the exception of the definition of why DCA sucks: Mulholland) A great deal of this money is to redo, not add. I don't even comprehend how thay are spinning this as a popular park that is reinvesting. Thats just "Plane Crazy". I do get that it wasn't a black hole that sucked Disneyland, Anahiem, the LA Basin, and all of SoCal into financial oblivion, but that doesn't make it a success.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^Thank you Dshyates, I don't know how THAT keeps getting missed over and over again. And oh yeah, HKDL is suppose to be getting a billion or so rehaul and I don't exactly hear the same 'its a sucess, so they are reinvesting in it' argument. Just nothing but pure spin like any corporation out there. Give me a break, its been a crappy park from the beginning, no one showed up, people complained, everyone who had in designing it has been fired or quit and now the new people who is charge of it is trying to correct their mistakes and people are responding positively (finally) to the massive changes to it all. End of story.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "If you want to see trough, effective leadership at the resort then look at the couple years that Matt Ouimett ran it. He was no cog in the machine and he certainly wasn't middle management.. then again, neither is Ed Grier. Although he does act like he's a middle manager." Funny you say that, because as a customer I can't see anything different in the way the place is run now and when Ouimet was in charge.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "They run a division just like Ed does." When did DLR become a division?
Originally Posted By jonvn "When you don't know what my job actually is " When you make statements like you do, it doesn't matter what you claim you do. Lots of people claim all sorts of things. "Ed Grier is not middle management. Neither is Greg Emmer.. these are head exectutves," They are not head executives. You claim to work in large companies? Then you'd know what you are saying is ridiculous. These guys are in the middle. "But believe whatever you want." I will believe what is actually reality. Not some twisted version of it that makes Disney some special place where the normal rules of business don't apply. Thanks. Thanks for the personal attack from Bob Paris. That always makes for a worthwhile argument. Nice to know I have a bad rep at so many sites. Of course, I have helped start and run some, as well, but we'll just leave that off the bit of character assassination.
Originally Posted By jonvn "DL is not a "division" of the Walt Disney Co " No, it's not. These clowns don't know anything. "I agree that the leadership positions at DLR are mid-level management in the overall leadership structure for the Disney Parks & Resort organization." Your post is exactly right. And, gee, you managed to make your point without ranting about them personally. Funny how that works.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think it's very clear to those of us who closely watch the Disney company that the president of DL does indeed have great power to implement change, either positive or negative. Pressler and Harriss - negative. Ouimet - incredibly positive. " Any manager has a lot of say over what happens in the area that he has overview of. But it is strictly limited, and they are watched to see that they meet their goals. I don't understand what people think. That you become a manager and you get a fiefdom? You have responsibilities and requirements you must meet. There are corporate goals and corporate methods. Sure, some people do a better job than others. Pressler and Harriss, they tended to focus more on in park entertainment than what was done before. One of the first things Ouimet did was cut a lot of that out to spend the money on other things. It's a matter of where individuals wish to focus their priorities.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The presidents of the resorts are part of the executive team for the Theme Parks and Resorts division. " This does not make them corporate top management. that makes them top management within the division. Of course the division is going to have top managers in it. How else can it function?
Originally Posted By jonvn As to the reason the place is getting a lot of investment, there really is very little reason to think that they are not doing this to bolster sales at the park. People wish to ascribe whatever reason they want to for this, but the fact remains that they would not be doing this if they did not think they would see a return on their investment, period. They didn't do this because they thought the sun icon looked crappy. They are doing it, because they want more cash. If there were an edit feature, I'd be able to merge all these posts...sorry.
Originally Posted By woody A top manager in a corporation is equivalent to an executive in a smaller company. They are not middle management as I understand it. Use Pressler as an example. He headed a large section of the corporation, then we to The Gap as CEO and President. Certainly, he was a qualified executive.
Originally Posted By dshyates based on this definition. The president of The Disneyland resort hardly qualifies as middle management. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_management" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M iddle_management</a>
Originally Posted By dshyates I should say Senoir Management of a Disvision. Which in fact would be a middle mangement of a Corporation. As they do have to assemble data and report to Upper Management of the Corporation.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Use Pressler as an example. " Pressler was the head of a corporate division. Senior management is generally a team of individuals at the highest level of organizational management who have the day-to-day responsibilities of managing a corporation. That is from wikipedia as well. That doesn't work, either. Within the division, perhaps, but not at the corporate level. I think we're starting to split hairs here. They are simply not top management. And now we can cue Bob Paris to find something else bad to say about me....
Originally Posted By jonvn "Which in fact would be a middle mangement of a Corporation. As they do have to assemble data and report to Upper Management of the Corporation." Geeze, dude, this is exactly what I'm saying...
