Do these ex consultants just make decks no one in the business actually uses?
15 replies (most recent on top)
There are lawsuits out there with strategy at the center of it.
You made no compelling argument why the strategy function shouldn’t be considered culpable for the current woes at Nike (excluding Tariffs).
We need a strategy function that is capable of producing thoughtful and compelling narratives, and at times counter narratives… that aid in steering this place in the right direction. Grounded of course in data and expertise. Of which, you have none.
The primary role of strategy at Nike is to create decks that are aligned to the fiefdom building point of view of a given leader.
Strategy, you were supposed to be unbiased and articulate. You were supposed to leverage your MBA’s and “industry expertise” to ensure there are guardrails against silo’d decisioning. In what world has this not been a failure?
The thought that strategy should be an established pipeline for “Nike-Ready” leaders is horrifying. You certainly aren’t good at strategy, and you couldn’t operationalize your way out of a wet paper bag with a running start.
…and I have not met a single strat people manager I would trust to manage people. Low on integrity, with only a self serving mindset. Every single one that is thrust into the business has peers and their direct team in anguish over the sheer ineptness.
“You made great decks for SVP so and so for 18 months… how about a Sr Dir role in a function you have no experience with; and maybe a team to manage… even though you’ve been a career IC… also; don’t bother with having to apply for it… we’ve already selected you”
I don’t think it’s fair to place blame solely on the talent within the Strategy function. There are many competent individuals on the team — but competence alone doesn’t always translate to being the right fit for Nike’s unique business. A significant portion of the team lacks a genuine connection to product, and many aren’t personally engaged in sport. It’s difficult to build impactful strategy without a deep understanding of the core consumer and business, regardless of what MBB firm you may have come from.
Another key issue is structural. It’s tough for strategists to operate as true “independent thinkers” when some leaders across the company have a tendency to steamroll dissenting perspectives.
My belief is that the function should evolve: keep a lean, high-caliber enterprise strategy team to support ELT-level priorities, and reframe the rest of the functionally aligned strategists into more embedded business strategy, chief of staff, or strategy & ops-style roles. This would not only better develop future Nike-ready leaders, but also allow the company to fully unlock the value of its strategy talent.
To the OP’s question, they do not do anything of true substance. Haven’t ever, won’t ever.
If you imagine all of the missteps over the preceding five years; this function has been at the center of it. Creating artful decks with just the right amount of flair, to sell a narrative pre-ordained by inept leadership.
They have not been creating or divining of strategy; but rather, the sales job of leaders simply out of their breadth.
It is no coincidence that the person (DH) leading this function has been recently exited. How could this function, responsible for the strategy that has driven us into the ground possibly survive without a material shakeup… given the strategic missteps over the past number of years. Sure, you can chalk this up to JD’s management… but aren’t we paying egregious post MBA post consultant salaries to help guide our strategy? Isn’t the single remit of strategy to… guide our strategy? Where were the thoughtful analysis of the repercussions of over indexing franchises? What about narratives around the implications of sh-----g the bed with our wholesale accounts? Got it, they just made great keynotes to export the echo chamber of leadership.
I’m sure many in strategy will happily complain and say… I said this or that to leader whoever… I tried to warn of the implications… Well, you didn’t say it compellingly enough for it to matter… did you?
Can we not measure the macro success of the strategy org by the success or failure of the given strategy? If not, is it the number of pretty decks created? Which… copilot can do just fine at this point.
So, to the OP’s question; they have not, and will not produce anything of true substance that drives a material direction shift for the company. Rather, the time spent is largely on the latest PowerPoint template for the next QBR… or the next time BS needs to be sold into an AOP template.
The more lasting and long term impact however, has been pointed out by another poster. The strategy function has been a breeding ground for seeding “leaders” elsewhere in the org. Scaling and seeding incompetence into the org, at a rate that cannot be comprehended. Wherein those responsible for creating failed strategies are given fast lane access to leadership roles of functions that they are questionably qualified for. Including VP and GM roles.
This last piece, on the radar of no one… is what will haunt us for the next decade.
This company is filled with them leading functions now. They are not ready to lead, completely out of their lane. They do not know how to execute. Period! Meetings about meetings and countless deck building, let’s not mention wasted months on CSR (and still talking about it).
Former strategy placed in leadership roles to play house and build their resumes. There needs to be change.
NAO is another one of those “strat”-o-spheric orgs. Nike would do just fine without it and will help the company save a few millions. We don’t need so many “strategists”. The “Strat” is definitely not working, else we wouldn’t be here today. All the strat teams should share the blame :)
Problem is that all this investment in strategy - has led the worst ‘strategy’ by HON since Olaf the Viking ordered 8000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.
When I used to work with people in “strat” on CSR decks it always blew my mind when I found out the 45 level people leading this work had MBAs from Cal, Stanford and Dartmouth. FFS go be a founder not je-k off on fake product market fit metrics.
A bunch of young entitled twats who think they are doing super serious work ! They are constantly “planning” the CSR
Those who are in charge of the strategic process defer to people with the biggest title or loudest talker, which doesn’t equate to strategic thinkers and communicators. Just because someone is a VP, doesn’t mean they are strategic… There are people in the org at lower grade levels who deeply understand their space and how to craft a strategy who are not involved at all in the strategic process.
I laughed when I read that last comment. Having a MBA or Anything more advanced in strategy is going to waste.
Imagine working in “strategy” at Nike with an MBA 😭
Strategy is a great example of why Nike can’t succeed. I sat in a multiple meetings with the team. Probably over $20 million of annual salary talent sitting in the room. 45 mins of an hour meeting was spent discussing the most appropriate words for headings on 2 slides … and the font. I’m not joking. A complete waste of time, resources and money. Zero value.
pretty decks
I spent just a year and a half in strategy at Nike and absolutely hated it. We’d waste time debating slide decks and abstract ideas with little real impact. That stretch felt like a decade, despite my 15 years total at the company. Honestly, I don’t know how people stick with it unless they realize they’re not bringing a real skill to the table.