I am puzzled? Is this normal? Do other companies do the same?
8 replies (most recent on top)
Let’s reorganize, fire a bunch of random people and find out
I’m one of the “good ones” and even I’m looking at the poster like, “Shut the fu-k up”
Small re-orgs happen fairly regularly. But they brought in a new CIO, cleaned out all the Technology leadership, installed a bunch of outsider Silicon Valley bros who had no idea how the org worked, and so a bunch of people who dont know the company designed the re-org. And it was so bad they're re-orging the re-org. Its just poor leadership all the way around.
@1ncv, I concur; these are proper reason why big companies go through reorganization. In Nike’s case, there isn’t analysis or anything as noble or thoughtful at that thought. Nike does it because its leadership has no clue what they are doing and it just happens to be the only tool they use for cost saving to boost revenue. What they are not realizing is that they have ki---d the culture. Nike is no where near what it used to be; it reached the point of no safe return. Good luck to you though.
You do it as often as you need to do it, of course.
The larger a company gets, and the more successful, the more things come up as "nice to have" and the more ideas get presented as ways to further boost productivity in certain areas identified as bottlenecks. In leaner times, the same bottlenecks may not be as prevalent as before. The "nice to have" is something optional as a company looks to bring margins back into line, etc...
It really is all "just business" but of course the regular Joe doesn't see it that way.
Think of it in terms of your own home. When you're doing better, perhaps you eat out more. Maybe you have cooler toys and subscriptions that are 'nice to have' but not necessary. As things get more expensive, or you suffer income setbacks or major expenses, you cut back. You let some things go, you sell other things... you don't eat out as often. These are all just natural things, but when a business takes action everyone sees it as evil somehow.
It's a fatiguing crock of dung, and with so many other organizations offering 100% remote, this (endless, 2+ year) round of reorgs has been a risky, costly proposition.
I truly wish someone would do the cost analysis. Nike does not.
Existing thread regarding re-orgs:
https://www.thelayoff.com/post/@OP+1gkyJFd1
Brief answer, yes, re-orgs are a management tool and considered a "good thing" by the executive class. That does not mean they are actually beneficial or productive for the company. The level of disruption and lost productivity that occurs is often not accounted for and instead, it's all a spreadsheet exercise led by finance and HR to move chess pieces around like musical chairs. Once you get a company as large as Nike it's a bit of a joke to think any human being can really design the "right" organizational structure.
Most of the time, companies re-org because that's what the highly overpaid consultants tell them to do. Other times it's because new executives come in and want to put their fingerprints on the company. And frankly sometimes it's because leaders are bored and want to shake things up or build a larger empire within their control.
This isn't to say re-orgs are entirely unnecessary or unwarranted...but the frequency they seem to happen doesn't match the usefulness or value that they actually bring. I've been at Nike for over a decade and after a while you see a pattern of the pendulum swing one way or the other in terms of re-org strategy...which tells you it's as much about the whim of who is in charge as much as it might be an actual legit business strategy.
Leaders gotta show their own leaders that they're doing something...