Serious question for current and former Nike employees:
At what point does internal politics become corruption?
Do you think Nike has crossed that line? If so, where do you see it most, promotions, hiring, performance reviews, vendor relationships, executive decision-making, or somewhere else?
Looking for thoughtful discussion based on firsthand experience.
"Corruption is not bad. Corruption is only bad if I'm not involved. But if I'm part of that corruption, I'll defend it!"
@ef if the GT analytics team were let go, I doubt anything of value would be lost. What do they deliver besides busy work... Anything?
There are layers upon layers of managers, architects, developers...
Name one real world problem that has solved.
So very deep. It’s not just with leaders with GT, our analytics teams are rampant with favoritism. The head honcho chose his loyalists over performance and the morale sunk. He protected his bootlickers during RIF and quality has degraded terribly. He has left for greener pastures, hoping he would take all the leeches with him.
This happens often at Nike and many other companies. The real challenge is how to hold leaders accountable for these decisions while also positively influencing new leaders who may not yet be in the right role.
Redirecting, guiding, and whether we like the term or not managing up is an incredibly valuable skill. It often gets a bad reputation, but when done well, it’s really about building alignment, creating clarity, and helping teams succeed. It’s never easy, and I wish organizations spent more time teaching these skills so people feel empowered to shape outcomes rather than doomed by a change in leadership.
There are Indian cliques within GT who all help each other get new roles and promotions. I’m surprised there’s no lawsuit for this yet
@c1 Innovation bubble
I saw this happen firsthand in Innovation. An incoming VP brought over a lead developer from Running and promoted her directly to Principal, passing over people on the team who had years of experience and were widely viewed as ready for that promotion.
It wasn’t just the promotion itself that created resentment—it was the way she approached the role. Rather than building trust with an established team, she came in determined to impose her own way of working and was dismissive of anyone who didn’t immediately adopt it. That leadership style created friction instead of collaboration.
From my perspective, it was an example of how parachuting someone into a senior role without earning the confidence of the team can undermine morale and damage a healthy culture. I found her leadership approach ineffective and difficult to work with, and she remains in a leadership position within Innovation today.
Just look at Innovation and see who are "senior principal" levels and how long they've been at the company compared to their peers.
Corruption runs deepest in promotions. VPs hiring their friends as SDs. Marketing right now is brutal because of this across sport categories.
@bd Interesting perspective. I guess that’s what the view looks like when you’ve been blessed by the promotion fairy instead of the merit process.
This post is ridiculous. Be an adult. Every corporation on earth has clics, makes hard decisions, bad choices. Leaders bring in people they know and trust. Happens everywhere. Control what you can control. Work hard move on. This is not a Nike thing. Happens every where.
If by corruption you mean incompetence? Yes.
No one really here talks about how the VP+ leaders are responsible for bringing in really really really bad talent.
I feel like corruption requires some degree of planning and intent
Define corruption. If corruption means letting incompetent, unskilled people take over specially at the leadership levels, then yes, corruption is rampant at Nike. If you fail forward based on who you know not what you know, then corruption is rampant at Nike. If cost cutting means letting go of a few lower grades while retaining, shuffling and moving around highly paid senior leaders and having layers of management with no value add, then corruption is rampant at Nike. If leaders define success in terms of vague, non specific KPIs then corruption is rampant at Nike.
And for all this, no one at higher levels is held accountable then corruption is rampant at Nike.
Its hard to have the best talent when a role is already predetermined for one specific individual so all the other candidates do not get looked at seriously.
“At what point”
Really good to come in with “corruption” predefined. It’s a nebulous term.
If you’re with Willamette Week…you’re gonna have to try harder to get leads for your next story.