I’ve been at Nike for a while in a level 35, I just assumed directors and sr directors made a little more than me. Then talking to colleagues that are friends, didn’t realize directors make 200k+, sr directors 300k+. I feel like 75% of my team is directors & sr directors and now everything happening makes more sense. Not sure if those numbers are correct, but if they are with the amount of directors and sr directors at the company I understand why we are cutting all these jobs. 4 of the directors on my team don’t even have a report lol.
14 replies (most recent on top)
@a9, it's not that directors and sr. directors are completely unemployable elsewhere. The real problem is more nuanced: for most of them they aren't employable elsewhere for anything even close to what Nike pays them. I've seen this first-hand from a few people in those roles who got canned from Nike. They all got jobs after leaving Nike...but in almost all cases their new jobs came with a substantial reduction in total comp.
Worst I saw was a sr. director making $280k annually. She got a new job at a different company after five months. New salary? $120,000. And without an annual bonus, options, ESPP, etc. I consider her one of the lucky ones though in that she did at least get another job, and she had been smart enough to save a substantial portion of her pay. She told me, "I knew this [my Nike job] might not last forever and structured my life accordingly."
The people who really suffer are the ones who make those large salaries and need every penny just to pay their monthly bills. I know a few of those people too. Layoffs for them tend to introduce a humbling lesson in living within your means. Reminds me of the movie "The Company Men", where Ben Affleck's character loses his job and he can't find new employment paying anything close to what he's used to. He quickly realizes the mortgage, car payments, club memberships, and even his social status were all predicated on the whims of his fickle corporate employer. A great movie for anyone who has never seen it.
Saying SD make too much is complaining about the wrong thing. Advocate yourself and try to move up the chain
@ah bwahahaha bro wtf? I haven't hired any jr devs for under $100k? Why didn't you look at other jobs/companies before? I guess you deserve what you expect. The senior directors I know have a TC target of $400-500+K, though I assume they haven't hit that because of Nike's dismal performance the last 4 years or so. Y'all making chump change.
Nike pays top dollar to get talent and then you have the issue of pay parity where people not deserving land in the same ranges. Just the nature of corporate America.
$200K for a team leader at any level is bare minimum on the market. Not high at all. $300k for an SD in a specialized area also makes sense. Compound that by if they need to compensate to move to Portland.
Advocate for yourself or better yet hope for a leader who advocates for you. I heard of one who got their teams comp reset because they were low and some landed $30k raises.
If you are not a leader of a team or org and/or not in a specialized role don’t except that type of money. I don’t want to deal with the expanded hours and responsibility that comes with that kind of pay so they can have it. I’ll enjoy family time instead. Just depends on your priorities.
@ah bwahahaha brk wtf? I haven't hired any jr devs for under 100k? Why didn't you look before? I guess you deserve what you expect. The sensors I know have a tv target of $400-500+K, though I assume they haven't hit that because of Mike's dismal performance the last 4 years or so
@ah dude, WTF?? And you did not leave yet??
@ah non SWE senior roles are like 85-115k range, so you are on the lower end but still in the ballpark.
The number seems correct at least not drastically far from the average. The team I used to work at has 1/3 Dirs + SDs and our team is very small (<10). All they do is creating bunch of non-sense meetings, check-ins, team huddles or whatever you want to call it. If they are gone tomorrow, we will be just fine. Honestly I rather we get rid of one of them to hire two more ICs. The paycheck they received just don't match the value they are creating to our team or company in my opinion.
Since JD era, I keep hearing flattening the org from leadership but reality is the total opposite. I don't think we can come back and compete the way we want if we keep this type of insane and unsustainable ratio...
I'm senior in my tech role and have been at Nike more than ten years. I only make 86k. Nike underpays the regular staff.
@ab The crazy part is that the past several layoffs were predominately Dr+ yet they refilled those positions so fast afterwards, it didn't accomplish anything. It needs a two prong approach. First cull the herd, then implement accountability to VP's for budgeting these roles, and implement strict requirements (i.e. must have X directs within 6 months or automatic demotion) to prevent imbalanced org trees. I've seen both sides of the fence on this one and it feels like both sides are crying foul at the other while the patients are running the asylum.
The amount of SDs and VPs is honestly insane. It’s way past due to flatten the hierarchy and combine orgs
@a9 which is a big reason Nike leadership is so toxic. These people are everywhere where and they’re only goal is how to move target onto someone else’s back.
Directors and sr directors at Nike are a joke. Once they’re laid off they’re completely unemployable elsewhere and they know it so they cling on as long as possible.
Don’t worry, those grades are always targeted during reorgs. To stay at a director or sr. Director level for more than 5 years is a miracles. Most tenure is the old guard, usually they hang around until 10-15 years until they get got.
New directors / sr. Directors usually have life cycle of 3-4 years max.