Walt Disney worked in founder mode. That was partly enabled by his brother running the purely “business” end that would have taken up much of his time. So Walt was able to get involved all the way down to the smallest details.
The downside is that when he died he left an organization that relied on that strong founder making things work.
Bob Iger is a delegator that handles the business, he doesn’t get deeply involved in the creative direction, he needs good creative leadership to report to him.
When talking about Disney, I also think it's worth tossing Michael Eisner into the mix as a comparison point for a non-founder who operated in something really close to the "Founder Mode" that the article describes. He got involved in creative decisions, and - speaking to the article's mentioning of micromanagement - famously said that 'micromanagement is underrated.' His style seems close, at least, to the style the article mentions.
It's funny, because a lot of people think about a small number of bad decisions during his tenure (the amount spent on EuroDisney, souring the Pixar relationship) but I actually think Eisner's run at Disney is one of the best non-founder stints at a large company in modern American business.
I agree, although maybe Eisner was a bit of a hybrid, and was able to be a bridge between the founder model that Disney relied on for years and the current structure.
The downside is that when he died he left an organization that relied on that strong founder making things work.
Bob Iger is a delegator that handles the business, he doesn’t get deeply involved in the creative direction, he needs good creative leadership to report to him.