Walt Disney Productions Organizational Synergy Diagram, 1967

Howard Lowery is currently auctioning an interesting historical curio that I hadn’t seen before: an organizational diagram showing the varied synergistic relationships between the divisions of Walt Disney Productions in 1967. Needless to say, a synergy chart for today’s Walt Disney Company would require a much bigger piece of paper than 11″x14″. Click to embiggen.


  • http://www.frankpanucci.com Frank Panucci

    The little Mickeys and Plutos running along the organizational lines make the chart easier to digest, while coating the stomach with a protective pink barrier.

  • ScoJo

    Really interesting!

  • rnigma

    W.E.D. is what’s now Imagineering, right? What were Mineral King and MAPO?
    I recall Disney once had a division called TNT (Television and Non-Theatrical).

  • Kartoonz Kritik

    MAPO was a part/arm of WED (Manufacturing and Production Organization).

    Disney’s Mineral King Ski Resort was a WED project in the 1960s. Walt had become interested in skiing around this time, and decided to build a ski resort in the Mineral King Valley. The project hit opposition by the Sierra Club, and ultimately was abandoned – in part because of Walt’s passing in 1966.

  • mee

    The Mineral King lawsuit actually has one of the most fascinating legal opportunities in it — the Sierra Club was challenged for lack of standing, and Justice Douglas presented the idea that Mineral King itself as a natural body could have standing to sue in its own right for protection from development. It was a 4-3 decision, so his opinion came as a dissent:

    http://www.mtdemocrat.com/opinion/trees-of-el-dorado-county-should-trees-have-standing-in-court/

    In 1972 the Sierra Club sued the Disney Corp. to prevent the development of a ski resort in Mineral King Valley next to Sequoia National Park. The Supreme Court ruled that the club as a membership corporation lacked standing and could not bring the suit, thus ruling in favor of Disney. But the ruling opened the door to a suit by an individual or individuals of the club which was later brought. The development never developed, and Mineral King is now a part of the national forest.

    But what has come down from the original case is the dissenting opinion of Justice William O. Douglas who wrote that if a ship has a legal personality, which it has, “So should it be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees” and so forth. “The voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled…. Perhaps they will not win…. That is not the present question. The sole question is, who has standing to be heard?”

    (“legal personality” is an interesting phrase, harking to “corporate personhood” — ships and other nonliving entities already had standing in court to sue and be sued in and of themselves, but not living nonhumans and natural bodies like animals and Mineral King.)

    Douglas had read and was responding to a law review article by Christopher Stone, Should Trees Have Standing?

    http://www.rightsofmotherearth.com/trees-standing/

    Justice Douglas’s dissent is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club_v._Morton#Douglas.27_dissent

  • Ed Grant (Bashful)

    I was lucky to be on the 1967 re-release tour of the Disney classic Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. We did 18 cities in 21 days. Hard work but a trip of a lifetime.