Did y’all hit your heads or something?
D-mb as rocks. You could disappear tomorrow and nothing would change.
Actually, I take that back. More work would get done because we wouldn’t be interrupted by your d-mb questions and obsession with meta work.
You do nothing to help us sell more shoes.
Nike needs an Amazon-style purge of middle management.
The infamous Nike matrix. I don't miss being a lowly BA trying to get anything done when there were multiple layers of management multiplied by all of the category/function intersections that had to sign off on everything. God forbid you had to try to get anything done during the summer or winter because half of them would be MIA for weeks.
@de+1jqvrdk1h
Many ETWs and ICs in product creation couldn’t agree more.
I'm guessing the Atlanta director runs the network team and if that is him then couldn't agree more. Look at you go building up your "satellite office" so you can continue living there (because hey no RTW needed for you) and ignoring the majority of your team in WHQ. Same with a shorter person in GT who setup a "satellite office" in San fran just so she could stay at home.
The senior director and first VP level have got to be the most worthless people at Nike.
When I left Nike, I was an E-band, reporting to a VP.
Who reported to a VP.
Who reported to a VP.
Who reported to a VP.
Then finally it rolled up to the head of product, MS. The level of incompetence was stunning.
All that said, it was a nice place to ride out covid, work 10-15 hours a week, collect checks, and look for a real job before they could lay me off for not being “diverse”.
Our director out of Atlanta does nothing to promote a team atmosphere. He is busy building culture and parties in Atlanta while his team in WHQ gets nothing other then watching other teams gather for lunches, events, or he-l...even snacks. All of the issues...none of the perks.
Directors at Nike are lower level managers at other companies.
We’ve got such bad title inflation for leaders. Which is (intentionally?) a benefit for job hoppers trying to leverage Nike’s brand for their own personal career growth outside the company.
It makes no sense
True story… my buddy is a director, reporting to sr dir who reports to another sr dir who reports to a vp, who reports to another VP who who reports to the CMO but is really dotted line to another VP in a geo.
Ideally S bands are the ones who should be motivating their teams and fostering great workplace cultures. The reality is there are good ones who do this well. The others are managing up, trying to claw their way to a VP role — their leaders are often blind to how awful they are at team management.
I worked for one who thought she was the “chosen one” — her old team spoke about how awful she was, her new team all hates her, along with her peer set. She would cancel team 1:1s just so she could plan WON events and eat lunch in the Serena cafe for 2 hours. She’ll stick around though because she is in a protected class now and it no longer matters that she is incompetent or a toxic team leader that enjoys retalliating.
AH this is about you.
And if Directors (level 50) don’t get to make and decisions of substance, imagine the crumbs left over for those of us at level 45! AH stock is trading near 60. I think we will have no choice but to do another round of cost-cutting. Ideally, that will be with a scalpel this time as opposed to a chainsaw.
I'll share my perspective as a director who's held similar roles at previous companies. When I joined Nike I received a raise, but my actual scope and responsibilities fell far short of what the job description promised. The problem isn't just a bloated middle management layer; it's also a bloated VP layer, which has a trickle-down effect. Any company with multiple layers of VPs reporting to VPs is likely stuck in a bureaucratic rut. Decisions require multiple layers of approval, leaving you feeling powerless and at the mercy of whichever VP is making the most noise.
Directors, in particular, are stuck in a difficult spot. Those who manage people spend most of their time mediating petty squabbles and personnel issues, rather than driving strategic decisions. On the other hand, directors who are individual contributors (ICs) spend most of their days building PowerPoint decks and analyzing data, but have little input on actual strategy. You'd be surprised to learn that even directors often can't make basic financial decisions without needing approval. The result is a leadership team that's more focused on politics and presentations than driving real business outcomes
Great idea, can you summarize it in 3 bullet points?
100%!! There are some good ones but again the ratio of middle management vs. individual contributor is insane at Nike (almost every orgs). Can’t imagine how Nike can be productive and sustainable with this type of bureaucracy…
Especially those in Atlanta and GT.
the amount of s bands and vp's at this company is disgusting when the backbone of the work is done by ETWs...
GROSS