The ones from around five years ago and earlier made sense. I knew I was safe because I was more skilled, had been here longer, and people liked working with me. Since then, it's felt totally random, like they're just picking names out of a hat. I haven't felt safe in my position since that change happened.
58 replies (most recent on top)
@491 You realize how stupid you look comparing 25+ years of change and assigning the negative impact to....diversity?
@me
how many white males did they hire in india, china, africa, south america, ...
to increase their diversity
the national debt in 2000 before your 'diversity' ~ 6 trillion
the national debt in 2026 after your 'diversity' ~ 39 trillion
if you make us any more 'successful' we will be living in cardboard boxes
I knew I was safe because I was more skilled, had been here longer, and people liked working with me.
Naïve masturbatory garbage. Skilled? You’re posturing for a failing business. Compliant and complacent. Job security is Nike being at the bottom of your list of prospects. Stop fcking waiting for them.
Exactly. Let’s not wallow in facts.
Thank you @s9 for some "voice of reason" and being decent.
Hating and blaming others isn't going to magically fix your world people, it's just going to maintain the anger, there are no solutions hiding in there, only handy sayings that you can spout instead of actual problem solving.
Last poster is right. It seemed corrupt but business was at its peak before people started complaining about equality and diversity.
@sh white trending down correlates with our dismal stock performance. Let’s go back to the all white boys club when business was booming!!!
Nike U.S. Leadership (Director+)
2020: Non-white 26.9% | White ~73.1%
Source: Nike FY20 Representation & Pay report2021: Non-white 30.3% | White ~69.7%
Source: Nike FY21 Representation & Pay report2022: Non-white ~33% | White ~67%
Source: Nike Impact Report (FY23 references FY22 at 33%)2023: Non-white 34% | White ~66%
Source: Nike FY23 Impact Report2024: Non-white ~35–35.5% | White ~64.5–65%
Source: Nike FY24 “Representation by the Numbers”
Just because the white representation trended down, doesn’t correlate to the ability to survive layoffs for one group or another.
Thanks for kicking this post off. Hoping everyone can survive the next couple of rounds; but for the thousand or so that don’t; go do better things.
Hopefully gas prices can come down soon so we can get back on the right track. lol.
Cool story. Which ones impacted the Nike business?
@sc there were more conflicts started before Iran. Please read the news
@sb sounds like you are not that smart as you only espousing rhetoric and not facts
Exactly. The conflict that started 17 days ago is a key reason for Nike’s financial woes.
If only you were smart enough to be able to have this conversation.
If execs were financially incentivized to hire more white people… would you have a problem with it?
@s9 and ai
@s7 it’s amazing and sad that in a whole page dedicated to layoffs that the main topic is dei.
Rhe contributing factors to layoff include:
Economic shift of jobs overseas
Tariffs
Unnecessary wars causing gas prices to go up so that there is less to spend on luxury goods
Sounds like that same old bigoted argument. We are losing our jobs so let’s blame those poc people.
@rn so if the. Numbers are not a direct correlation to dei then what was the point of including the numbers in the post?
Dead argument. DEI is here to stay.
No one that benefits from it is going to be able to see the logic, and that it is flawed and abused. Not worth your time.
@mw+1kkp7mhap This is a straw man argument. #getacluedude
buddy. Re read it.
“By definition, does “Non-White” = DEI hire? No,”
It is spelled out fairly clearly, and articulates with specificity that non white does not equal DEI.
My guy, slow down before you post.
@rk the poster said Dei is non white which is not the correct definition.. Dei includes white women.. what part of that do you not understand ?
@rj The numbers are literally published by Nike. What do you not understand?
@r9 dei includes white women and excludes Indians so your numbers are wrong
The data and facts disagree with you. The below is from public disclosures, on Nike’s corporate workforce; looking at Director and above.
2016: 78-80% = White // 20-22% Non-White
2024: 62-65% = White // 35-38% Non-White
The numbers are comparable below the director level. By definition, does “Non-White” = DEI hire? No, but DEI hire isn’t what exec bonuses are derived from.
In less than eight years leadership representation of non-white has gone up by more than 50%.
@ny there is bias, by you. This is a contrived situation that has never occurred in reality the way you laid it out. What's actually happening is the reverse. The "white dude" was hired 99% of the time in your hypothetical, except when the white dude was less competent.
@nm
For what it’s worth… I don’t know that there is any “skapegoating” of POC. All the angst I have and those I’ve talked with is squarely with a senior management group that figured out a way to monetize performative social justice… bilking a publicly traded company for even more money.
I’m a straight white guy and celebrate having a more diverse Nike. Did we get here with execs abusing it… you tell me. At Nike, have you ever been told to not hire someone that looks like you? Have you ever been told you don’t need to worry about applying because of your race? Maybe you have. It’s not right. To whomever it happens, it’s discrimination. The above absolutely unequivocally and definitively has happened at Nike.
For me, and all of my social Nike circles; the frustration is with the process. And the management level doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
It’s performance for the benefit of their own pockets. If it wasn’t purely performance, why do we still have such low diversity at leadership levels.
Hope this helps.
If you reread it… the exercise was to assume they were of equal qualifications.
“…And you have two equally qualified candidates for a role. With the same experience. With the same panel feedback. One is a POC, and one is observably not.“
There is no bias here.
@mw why do you assume the poc is less qualified ? Why do you assume the white person is more qualified ? It seems to be based on your implicit bias and the bias of many posters here.. let’s face it dei candidates are not replacing whites at Nike
It's really silly how much this thread is on POC. Having taken part in a couple of these that is never something that comes up. Scapegoating POC is silly
Purely hypothetical scenario. Let’s say you’re a hiring manager. And you have two equally qualified candidates for a role. With the same experience. With the same panel feedback. One is a POC, and one is observably not.
If you hire the POC, your bonus will go up 20%. Who do you hire, and why?
Realistically, how many more years of experience or qualifications would the non POC candidate have to have to be seriously considered, that would result in you personally recieving less compensation.
Now, let’s say you are an exec at Nike; and 90% of your compensation comes from non salary awards; like hitting DEI targets. In this scenario; where the bulk of your compensation comes from discretionary awards… how would you approach this decision… weighing two equally qualified candidates? Would you try to influence your TA partners? Would you try to influence hiring decisions made by your team?
Aaaaannd now you’ve created a resentful group of people. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Has history taught us nothing?
To be clear… the policy is such that senior management receives an increase in compensation (through bonus) if their organizations race and gender metrics are met. There is nothing about discriminating towards another group so that they can meet these arbitrary metrics. And, we can totally trust senior management at Nike to do the right thing.
@mg listen.. you have made own definition of dei that has no basis in reality..
…and you are in a position of authority on the topic, and can confirm no Nike layoff has ever considered race, gender, or age? You’re saying we’ve never had consultants like Bain or Accenture help lead analysis in partnership with HR to derive a list? And that they definitely didn’t have and or request access to this information?
Agreed. We should continue this policy!
I love it when my TA partner pre screens all white men from the candidate pool. Or when my manager tells me to not hire someone that looks like me. Or when an HRBP asks whether or not our end of year calibration has resulted in enough representation. And when we’re asked if we can find a more diverse representation for maxim photos.
It makes total sense for a business to monetize quotas for senior management positions to meet.
@av dei is not related layoffs but hiring only.. sorry your info is wrong
@ff sounds like you don’t understand the meaning of the word discrimination.. that policy as you just described does not say anything about not hiring white men. It sounds like it does exactly what dei was meant to do. It makes managers look outside of their normal biases to hire someone that may be just like them. But it certainly didn’t prevent white me from being hired. You do know that dei candidates still have to qualify for the job and just aren’t random hires off of the street ? I’ve seen more unqualified white men at Nike that don’t have college degrees or were hired bc they knew someone. Most poc I see that are hired or qualified or over qualified for their roles
@km Any sufficiently opaque selection system is indistinguishable from randomness.
- Arthur C Clarke
@fe is correct. Layoffs are not at all random. They’re based on HR data points that meet Nike’s goals, and that can likely survive inevitable legal scrutiny.
Being older, more highly compensated, and/or being in the same role too long are particular data points that aren’t helpful for those facing layoffs.
Make no mistake: your actual performance and likability very seldom come into play. I know that simply from seeing a surprisingly large number of well-liked high performers let go. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said to myself, “They let THAT person go??? He/she was a rockstar!”
It’s 2026. The days of layoffs mostly being linked to fair metrics like contributions and performance have long been over. That’s exactly what makes layoffs scary. You could be “Mr./Mrs. Nike” - a near perfect employee - but when the layoff hammer comes that really won’t matter. If your metrics fit what they’re looking to cut, you’ll be gone. It would almost be more fair if it WAS random!
@bv
Nike is the only place I know of that has created a policy to specifically discriminate and exclude straight white men. So, no. Just Nike.
Are there other places where we should monetize managements ability to discriminate based on gender and race?
Nike has race and gender quotas that if met, result in senior management receiving more compensation. This comes to life though hiring, promotion, and retention (layoffs).
We can point to it and say… what a great and progressive policy. But it isn’t. It’s performative. It is a means for senior management to milk a publicly traded company for more money through increased bonuses…
If they really cared about diversity, why do we still lack diversity at the top?
What if it was the other way around? Where executive pay was increased if they hired, promoted, and retained a higher number of white men? No, that would be racist. And discrimination. If it is racist one way, it is racist the other.
Nike has created a racist and discriminatory policy that enables senior management to increase their bonuses if they meet a prescribed quota. This is fact. Great, celebrate it. But be prepared for the unintended consequences of alienating a significant portion of your workforce.
Again, what is wrong with building a company based on merit?