Thread regarding Nike Inc. layoffs

Agree with 1sjm. Not only a core issue, it is promoted as a core skill. Giving people 'more visibility', 'executive time' leads to early on training in careers that who you know and how you are being looked at are more important than getting measured on delivering what you promised.

Yes, and that’s the primary reason why I left. There was only so much dumb--s work I could handle without losing my mind.

All points are valid and I will offer further perspective. As a senior leader (now gone), I'll share the double-bind some leaders were stuck in. The CFE process was originally designed to set individual goals, in alignment with functional goals that all role into overall company/brand goals. When you meet and or surpass individual goals, the hope is (in a meritocracy) rewards are commensurate at review time and in August. Leaders have a vested interest in supporting, developing and recognizing their teams. I believed if you led the people right and treated them with decency and encouragement, the business growth would follow. Sadly, things changed a few years ago. Leaders "managing up" became a symptom when senior executives started playing a heavy hand in CFE ratings for budgeting purposes, cronyism, etc. This was veiled in "calibration" sessions, wherein ratings were easily overturned by peers and superiors, often regardless of goals attained, performance metrics. The direct manager's evaluation was deemed too soft or devoid of "coaching with courage," some misstep neither recent, or relevant. Note; this excluded obvious breaches in code of conduct, zero-tolerance behaviors. The end game was to make sure budgets lined up and money and rewards could be steered to the "hi-po's" (high performers, high potentials), another subjective process. The leader that defended their people and their evaluation of their annual performance, were leaders that could become ostracized and find themselves isolated and left out in the cold. For some senior leaders, they just read the playing field and chose to game it, as a survival and self preservation strategy. That's when you would see leaders not really engaged with or representing their staff. They were too busy, not only managing up by showing up and speaking up (even with nothing to add) to high profile meetings, by socializing after hours, by working the locker room chance-meetings, (doesn't work well for women) and by over-spending on fancy powerpoint decks, rig rooms, etc. To not only survive, but to make sure a leader's own CFE went well, it was also essential to curry the favor of your supervisor's peer group, as they ultimately, they could determine your performance rating, your rewards, your team's resource allocations and finally, your access to promotions. Woe to the old-school leader, who doggedly focused on goal-setting, goal achievement and the overall health of their team and the brand. I hope some of these authentic values are enjoying a renaissance and for those who hold these values and are currently leaders, I wish you a safe climate for voicing your values and being authentic.

the Senior director and VP level are the fly in the ointment for Nike. There are great operators below this level. Senior directors are focused on their own personal brand and managing up. That’s it. VP’s a mixed bag and with at least 400 of them in Beaverton alone it shows the waste. Many senior directors just focus on building the right relationships and from there they can hide for several years before being found out as frauds. They just pass off performance issues to those below them. When those leaders are euros it is even worse.