Thread regarding Nike Inc. layoffs

Selection Criteria for Layoffs

Does anyone know what selection criteria is being used to evaluate who keeps their job and who doesn’t?
Is the reorg shakeup a smokescreen to eliminate people with personnel issues reported to HR? Or even overpaid VP’s whose cost outweighed their contribution? We’ve been told this is being done to eliminate redundancy between Category based and the new MWK based orgs, and the movement away from Territory-centric focus to one of Key Cities, Geographies, and Strategic partners with the new ‘One Nike Marketplace’. Does that translate to an elimination of positions within Territory accounts up & down the old matrix? Will we stop supporting Territory accounts entirely and move them to .net, or even worse focus solely on the 14 key strategic partners supporting Nike’s Digital sensing Inventory network? Finally, will this massive reorganization alignment remain longer than the 3 years of “CDO/Key City plan” which has been upended by people’s desire to move away from highly dense urban centers to spread out suburbs & countryside thanks to COVID?

by
| 7427 views | | 15 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+168PJ6so

15 replies (most recent on top)

Lay-off criteria actually focuses on

  1. The number of lunches and 1:1s you’ve had with the “right” VPs in the last year
  2. How many people saw you having said lunches
  3. Who your friends are
  4. How visible you were on that lay-up project you “led” (eg how many offsites did you present at?)
  5. Whether you drive an Audi or not.
by
|
Post ID: @cptl+168PJ6so

No....ER and HR complaints do not mean sh– because they hide them, overlook them and protect the violators. There is no criteria except you do not fit the mold of the white boys club. Or maybe your name is difficult for them to pronounce. Maybe your skin color is not white enough. Maybe you have an accent. Maybe you stand up for yourself and do not kiss a– nearly enough. Maybe you are smarter than your boss and your boss’s boss. Maybe you JUST F—ING EXIST. Nike is the worst company on the planet.

by
|
Post ID: @4sgt+168PJ6so

I know of two VPs with ER issues that were let go. Based on the new strat it was highly likely they were related to the ER

by
|
Post ID: @3bys+168PJ6so

Granted, many people will get caught in the shuffle but basically HR and leadership will do whatever they want - eliminate people who p-ss-d off the wrong person, eliminate higher salaries (meaning “older people”), keep people with the right “friends” etc. That’s why so many folks focus on “managing up” and trying to be perceived as a “team player” rather than doing things and giving candid insight that would actually benefit the company.

by
|
Post ID: @2ccz+168PJ6so

I find it pretty ironic that a company founded on a coach/athlete relationship fails pretty hard at focusing on that type of dynamic with their own employees.

by
|
Post ID: @2vvu+168PJ6so

@1orz it sounds like your managers have been inflating your 4.2 GPA.

Perhaps you got a Successful rating, which is the standard, like the rest of us. Only a select few should be getting Highly Successful or Exceptional; if you are getting these reviews year after year, the system is flawed.

You only need to be worried if you got an "I" - inconsistent. That indicates there is a performance problem, not a Successful. Don't be terrified, you're fine.

by
|
Post ID: @2xid+168PJ6so

@1orz+168PJ6so

The irony being "coaching" should be a reflection on how well your manager helped you improve in areas where you needed it, or to excel in areas where you wanted to grow.

by
|
Post ID: @1odk+168PJ6so

For what it's worth, there's a serious flaw in CFE based decisions, in that CFE ratings are primarily deterministic by financials, and not purely performance driven.

A set number of Exceptional and Highly Successful "tokens" are handed to organizations based on $, and as they trickle down the stack, hard working dedicated promoters can be shunt out of a higher rating due to poor management or lack of financial incentive provided to an org.

I personally, along with many of my colleagues, received lower than deserved marks on CFE this year because of financial tightening. Managers told us they were sorry, or their hands were tied, and on and on - condensing to "they couldn't give what we deserved", there just weren't any more Exceptional or Highly Successful "tokens" to give. (Over 30 colleagues have come forward with a similar story)

To anyone reviewing our files - they would see a streak of Highly Successful and a handful of Exceptional ratings, for a decade or more in some cases, with a Successful this year. That terrifies us - what if that's viewed as a decrease in performance? I pray that @cou and @1iwf are right - and it's truly talent mapped with cross reference beyond CFE or the direct managers input alone.

Would be great to have a Deserved/Actualized CFE Rating to highlight when the rating was due to financial influence - or decouple it altogether.

by
|
Post ID: @1orz+168PJ6so

Sadly, your performance ratings will mean nothing...or next to nothing. What org you work in will mean the most, followed by how essential and/or redundant your role is. Next comes race, gender, salary, and age. In some cases, reputation/sponsor might come into play.

by
|
Post ID: @1iwf+168PJ6so

The org framework is created and then the people who are perceived to be the best fit for those roles are assigned to them.

It’s as simple as that.

by
|
Post ID: @cou+168PJ6so

The criteria before the 2017 layoffs took into consideration how long someone was at Nike in combination w/their Coaching for Excellence evaluation. The 2017 layoffs looked at length of employment & age; your performance review didn’t have any weight. Most of us back then had been at Nike 15+ years & were 40 or older. Some younger people were laid off so it would look like they weren’t discriminating by age. We were assured after the 2009 lay-offs that contractors would go first. That was a lie. The talk around IT at the time was that because the new CIO didn’t know who we were, that meant we weren’t important. That CIO was gone in less than a year.

by
|
Post ID: @hat+168PJ6so

i know performance on your cfe has nothing to do with it. i've seen people who do the barr minimum with s every year get to stick around and those who got hs every year (based on actual good work and leadership) get the boot. so getting hs on your cfe isn't an indicator that you're safe, ratings mean nothing other than the merit increase pay but not doing it this year

by
|
Post ID: @aea+168PJ6so

Some people were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. (e.g a category VP role and they are eliminating the category offense)

On the other hand, some people were in the right place but karma finally caught up with them.

For example, if the big idea is Consumer Direct Acceleration (an area receiving investment) and they got rid of the VP of NA NFS it shows they finally got rid of poor leader. This person had been allowed to be a bad leader for a long time (just ask their teams in Global, APLA and NA). Congrats to those who finally made the change. The Munchkins are dancing in the isles of the NFS stores. NKE stock should tick up for the next few days on that exit alone.

by
|
Post ID: @mck+168PJ6so

I can’t tell you what the criteria is in 2020. I can tell you that I was highly success CFE in 14,15,16, and ran afoul of an SVP in 2017. I was a vendetta hit. If you feel worried than you should be worried.

by
|
Post ID: @vce+168PJ6so

These are the exact questions I want answered on Tuesday’s call.

by
|
Post ID: @muh+168PJ6so

Post a reply

: