Thread regarding Nike Inc. layoffs

Just look at ATC...

Nike is now infested with people managers, the talent is gone, the people managers are so ignorant they ask people several times their junior to explain basic concepts to them. Nike is a perfect example of over management and underskilling. When a company is all about image, they get su-ked in by image conscious leaders who might look good... but know f all about anything useful other than look pretty and flatter their bosses.

@bc Nike in a nut shell

@OP I’m sure plenty of these are to tick the DEI boxes.

OP - you think they are worse, but the company and leadership considers them invaluable. Most of the folks here complaining about leaders are sour because they didn’t get promotion

Because they go to the right parties and afterwork booze ups while others are doing the work. It's a skill you need to master if you want to avance in this company. Preferrably wiggle your way in 2 or 3 levels up from SD so your manager can't do anything anymore.

@ay +1. Hard to believe TH is GM of anything. When are we going to take a hard look at the soft skills required to be a people leader and get rid of leaders with toxic personality traits that impact motivation and morale?

This post is so spot on. It's astonishing how the actions of a few toxic leaders are now shaping the engine of the company, product creation. Such a disservice to the dedication of its founders. In Shoe Dog Phil talks about countless stories of perseverance, passion, and unwavering character—qualities that built this brand from the ground up, even when they faced so many failures. Unlike those trailblazers, today's leadership seems out of touch with the reality of hard work, and those with genuine work ethic are targeted for speaking out. Decisions about roles and direction are being made by individuals whose leadership has been questioned repeatedly and is known for her toxicity. It’s troubling how the organization fails to recognize the impact of such counterproductive leadership and how glaring the consequences have become.

Because they have skills

The worst "leaders" focus on managing up not down which is what keeps them as "leaders" and immune from rifs.

The best leaders (notice the no quotes) prioritize managing down which puts them outside the circle above. So they get riffed.

The story never really changes.

Of you have an accent you are a manager...

I left Nike many years ago and had the worst managers in my career during that decade run. I guess nothing ever really changes. One particular manager I worked for had a reputation along the lines of "no one has ever had a good word to say about working for THAT guy"

Flash forward to now and I see he is still there. Its laughable. He hated the people who worked for him and actively looked down upon them.

1. You must learn Keynote.
2. You must become your manager’s manager deck machine.
3. You must use 1 and 2 to go through a hellish CSR cycle.
4. You must make your manager’s manager fall in love with you.

I hear you. TH in charge of running. Chin drop. Enough said.

IMO it is because the people making the decisions have absolutely no clue about the job requirements necessary and whether the people who they place in role are good, bad, qualified etc, its more tied to their relationship with them. In my experience the people who get promoted and rise are not the people who do the best work, they are the people who are best at networking and pushing their personal brand and getting facetime/friends with the leaders who are making the decisions. For me this re-org was especially bad with so many people getting jobs they are not even remotely qualified for.

Workplaces are not meritocracies, period. People can be the worst managers or the worst problem solvers but as long as they get along with the right people, they're gold. As ha been said many many times before, it's not what you know, it's WHO you know. This has been true for ages so it shouldn't be surprising.