The average tenure I’ve seen let go is around 20 years. Some way above that, some in the 15 range. Was the objective to get people out that knew how awesome this place used to be?
11 replies (most recent on top)
let this be a lesson to those who think they can work a decade+ at a company: your just a # and expendable
I worked for someone many moons ago who has built the original Nike.com, he told me during the 2017 RIF that Nike was ageist and it’s only gotten truer since. It’s really a shame because some of the 15-20 year vets I know that got let go are some of the sharpest, wisest, patient and knowledgeable individuals. Replaced by hype beasts will jump ship for MAANG at any opportunity given.
It’s a consulting mindset up or out. The goal is to churn the bench to find new talent and reduce cost. Many companies operate like this. Nike hasn’t so much in the past. Keep their feet to the fire.
Most of the people in our department were under <5 years total Nike experience with at least 1 eliminated at 10 year. There were a few more tenured employees moved around, however I wasn’t sure if those were options.
not to be alarmist, but there is most definitely a fire in the theater
If the goal is to remove expensive ones…the decision is obvious, get rid of the most expensive useless leader in the company - JD
Clearly the past at Nike was a complete failure and we need to bring in more new folks to double down on things like CDA, Rat's product management/platform strategies, etc. Because those new strategies brought to us by the new outside leaders were soooo successful.
Over the years I’ve seen several 20+ year employees shown the door. Even worse every single one of them was very good at their jobs. If a person decides to make a career of Nike they need to understand it’s a one-way decision. You might want to stay at Nike until retirement but that doesn’t mean Nike will allow you to stay until retirement. Once you become “old” and expensive for your role the target on your back grows exponentially larger.
"Outlived growth" seems like code for ageism...esp when the co has lost its way, they're getting rid of the people who were capable of making it what it was even just up until a few years ago. The narrative, the history, used to be sacred, passed down in stories, etc. Without the people who made it special, it will become more generic, I imagine, and lose its specialness. Just another sportswear co struggling to differentiate itself.
Part of the Succession Plan the happened pre CDA, out with the old, move up the younger to lead the future. Concern here is skills, when you only work at the berm you only know berm or you came in from the outside and put on the berm goggles and you only know berm. Expect things to stay exactly the same.
Goal to get rid of expensive and those who have outlived growth. Watch. Jd video.