Thread regarding Nike Inc. layoffs

@10e No turnaround. But that has less to do with employee retention and much more to do with i.) broader and larger market forces; and ii.) poor management decisions over the last six years (which include but are not limited to losing talent).

Nike’s market dominance over the last nearly 50 years was always an exception rather than a rule. Nike leadership arrogantly forgot this and made a series of bad decisions that, together, opened the flood gates for other market participants to step in and “out-Nike Nike”.

I could write a short novel about those mistakes. Relevant to this post however is the question, “Would Nike be better positioned and/or more likely to execute a turnaround if people who were let go instead still remained?”

Perhaps. But again, those other factors have a life of their own. And a life that, at this point, wouldn’t be altered a great deal depending on who is sitting in the ever-evolving musical chairs.

@wq

While I agree with you that nobody at Nike is irreplaceable and people over-inflate their impact, the company needs to keep their talent now more than ever. Unfortunately, the company continues to do the exact opposite and push really talented and experienced people out, re-org after re-org in favor of butt sniffers. The same people who may have helped turn Nike around by now have been let go or have left.

How is this working out? Any signs of a turn around, yet?

@ew+1kt9kqh6y your last sentence should be highlighted. I see people come to this site all the time announcing their intention to quit, as if they think it’s some sort of threat or ultimatum to Nike.

Joke’s on them because Nike literally doesn’t care if people quit. If anything the company would probably like to see more people voluntarily leave. Having some 75,000 employees ensures that no single employee is ever too important or irreplaceable. Sure, some people are more difficult to replace than others. But no one should ever, ever, ever think “Nike would be in trouble if I quit!”

Nah. An employee quitting might make for a short-lived inconvenience for their direct team. Even if it does however, that will be paved over in one way or another within mere days, weeks, or at most a month or two.

I mention this because I still regularly encounter people who mistakenly believe their absence would be a bigger problem for the company than it really would be. I understand how & why people think that way. Nobody wants to directly acknowledge they’re ultimately a very small cog in a much bigger wheel and thus not as important as would be nice to believe. As you found out when you quit.

The company is still saturated at the mid to higher levels with people that don't really have any skill for the business, but are all "athlete background and personality" and good at chummying up with people making decisions. It's impossible to get rid of these because the company's culture has always been "oh you know the sport you must be really good at making shoes and apparel and growing a company then".

@ep: “strong contributors who helped drive the company’s success are overlooked and under-rewarded.” And “Hardworking employees are used for what they can deliver rather than being developed, promoted, and given opportunities to grow into the roles, teams, and projects where they could thrive.”

That’s exactly why I voluntarily left Nike after many years there. My annual performance reviews were always above average. I even managed to earn several difficult-to-obtain “Exceptional” ratings as evidence of both my work quality and Herculean output.

What did that get me? A pat on the back and more work. What it definitely didn’t get me was promotions. Mostly because if your managers aren’t willing to advocate for you, you aren’t going anywhere. And why would they advocate for me anyway, given that promoting me would have meant losing a high-producing worker bee for presumably someone who wouldn’t be as all-in and productive as I was.

After going nearly a decade (!!!) without a promotion I finally woke up and realized if I wanted career advancement it would need to happen somewhere else. So I made the decision to leave. I can honestly say I’ve never regretted that decision. I only regret being a stooge as long as I was.

I understood Nike would be just fine without me. Nonetheless when I quit they lost a really hardworking, dedicated, difficult to replace employee. And I’m certain they didn’t care even a tiny bit.

I have a few things on my list that, in my opinion, explain what is wrong with Nike:

1. Associating with Kim.
2. Not promoting internal talent and instead wasting money bringing in outside resources who often know very little, while strong contributors who helped drive the company’s success are overlooked and under-rewarded.
3. The layoffs were handled terribly. Some people absolutely needed to go, and that was justified, but they also let go of many strong employees while keeping some of the wrong ones.
4. Some people in higher management roles should have been part of the layoffs as well, and I honestly don’t understand why they were kept.
5. Ideas and credit constantly flow upward instead of going to the individual contributors who actually do the work. Management often seems more focused on protecting themselves, pushing teams harder, and chasing the next promotion than supporting their employees.
6. Before the layoffs, the culture was extremely toxic. High performers were often attacked, harassed, or undermined instead of being recognized and rewarded. There was a lot of gaslighting from management.
7. There are too many people with unhealthy egos who put others down to feel bigger and take credit for everything around them.
8. There is not enough innovation because people have very limited freedom to create and experiment.
9. The company does not recognize or nurture talent properly. Instead, talent is minimized, buried, and constantly given excuses for why it should not be promoted. It honestly reminds me of narcissistic behavior where people gaslight others instead of acknowledging their value.
10. Hardworking employees are used for what they can deliver rather than being developed, promoted, and given opportunities to grow into the roles, teams, and projects where they could thrive.

All of this results in poor culture, lack of innovation, employee frustration, burnout, and talented people eventually leaving for better opportunities.

The answer is quite simple. Nike leaders refuse to listen to the front line ideas that will benefit the company, or any senior worker feedback in general. Why promote the worker that's been an asset over the last 10 years when you can just hire some id--t that knows nothing of the company?

Not innovating and/or making products that consumers want to buy.

Better competition.

It became about if you checked a box more than if you could do the work and suprise suprise...if you check a box, but su-k at your job... the output is gonna su-k.

It used to be about the hustle... go woke. Go broke.

not enough people want to buy the shoes