Do you all think inflated titles such as Directors may see more house cleaning than other roles? My org is full of inflated director roles where managers can easily report to Sr. Director.
11 replies (most recent on top)
directors reporting into directors who report into other directors. repeat the same for senior directors. then the vps who report to another vp who then reports to yet another vp. that's nike
In my org there is no difference between E bands and U bands. Same work and responsibilities. Higher ups sometimes don’t even know who is manager vs director bc they are basically interchangeable.
Likely there will also be role debanding from
S to e and e to u in old world. This might cause some to leave which works for them too. Deband means lower psp and stock. Lower pay when they backfill. You look at some orgs and it’s more directors than u bands. That’s nuts. And you have directors reporting to directors and s to s.
Grade 45 and grade 50 won’t be targeted any differently due to “increased” wages.
The old U band to E band was a massive jump back in the day. To be promoted from U to E was a windfall of about 50-75k and Stock Choice. Now the difference between 40-45-50 is a more manageable process for Nike. Basically increments of 10k-20k on the low end.
We all missed the big pay days if you’re going from 40-45. The biggest benefit there is the Stock Choice.
Might be more fair or maybe I’m jaded. There was a lot of people I know moved from U to E and got massive pay days. Now the jump up isn’t as beneficial as it was.
@elo+1qDtALsi What I have noticed is that those with overinflated management titles typically come from Kohls. They are in their positions because their Kohls boss or someone higher up the food chain wanted them there for their loyalty.
If you are going to be a director, you have to have people management experience. C'mon...this is a no-brainer.
If I were in management at all, regardless of how well my CFE was last year, I would be holding off on any big purchases and getting my resume in order. Bane was brought in and their primary focus is making sure roles have the correct “span of control”. I don’t have a crystal ball but based on what’s been publicly said management will make up the bulk of that 450 mill in severance.
Yes, director roles will be targeted. We have already seen they started with the C-suite. Next up are VPs, senior directors, and directors. Lots of room for cuts in management, to be sure. There is so much duplication of responsibility or outright lack of responsibility. There is definitely a lack of accountability, which our coaster leadership loves to cultivate. All that kumbaya bullsh-t has seen its day— time to get back to hard knocks and a strong offensive line.
Usually, directors have previous management experience before. Otherwise, they should start as Sr. Managers before moving up to directors. There are many directors within GT that have little to no people management experience. That would be fine, but many of them are just incompetent and terrible.
RAT created new roles within management so that he could consolidate power from other parts of the company. In response, other parts of the companies elevated their managers to one level higher to combat the dysfunction. So now we have an arms race of people with inflated titles and pay. Things haven't been the same since JD and his crew, including RAT, came to Nike.
Directors reporting to Directors, and Sr Directors reporting to Sr Directors will be targeted.
Director titles are indeed inflated at Nike. It doesn't align with industry levels. In some cases the control of span for even Sr Directors is very small.
I think the new bands and splitting e band into 2 levels will have something to do with it, yes.
Especially if the 45s who were paid as E are now seen as inflated compared to new band salary targets