Inside The Coup At NikeFrom the tim

Inside The Coup At Nike
From the time Nike founder and Chairman Philip H. Knight anointed William D. Perez as his successor in November, 2004, the two men had a regularly scheduled meeting on Monday mornings at 9. The get-togethers had been Knight's idea. They gave CEO Perez, a surprise choice who had previously held the top post at S.C. Johnson & Son Inc., the manufacturer of Glade air fresheners and Drano, an informal forum for bouncing ideas off the legendary figure who all but personified the company.
When Knight took a seat at the round conference table in Perez' office on Jan. 9, it seemed like any other mundane Monday meeting. The discussion methodically progressed through several unremarkable issues, Perez says. But Knight was saving a bombshell for last. Abruptly declaring that Perez had failed to mesh with the rest of the Nike team, Knight told him it was time to go. Perez was stunned. "He caught me off guard," he said in an extensive interview with BusinessWeek. Knight declined to comment on the details of Perez's account. "I and the Board decided that the company could be better managed with a proven, seasoned industry veteran," he said.
BAD CHAPTER
Perez says he asked Knight for a few days to absorb the news and prepare his family for upheaval. He also asked the board for an opportunity to appeal the decision and was granted a 15-minute audience on Jan. 18. But on Jan. 20 the board sided with the company's largest shareholder and approved Knight's recommendation to name Nike veteran and co-President Mark Parker as chief executive. "He will become the best CEO this company has ever had," Knight crowed in a Jan. 23 conference call.
No amount of corporate spin can conceal one of the worst chapters in the history of Nike Inc. (NKE). It marks the third time the mercurial Knight, 67, has tried giving up his throne.
Nike's leader and board members have long acknowledged that the company's top strategic priority is managing succession. But despite the company's hip image and record performance this year, it's hard to imagine they'll have much luck enticing strong outside candidates to consider joining the company in the near future. "It's almost like a death wish coming into that company from outside," says Stephanie R. Joseph, president of the Directors' Network Inc., which runs workshops and seminars for board members.
That perception could become problematic because Knight and the board, when they hired Perez, acknowledged the insular company's need for fresh blood. Knight also recognized Nike's reputation as a difficult place for transplants to thrive and promised to go out of his way to make Perez feel at home. "There will be a little bit of a bumpy period," Knight told BusinessWeek a month after he hired Perez, but "I'm committed to making it work."
The fact that Perez failed, despite Knight's stated intentions, underscores how hard it is for new CEOs to fill the shoes of charismatic corporate founders whose personality and ego are closely tied to their companies. History is full of examples of legendary leaders who, because of their own shortcomings or problems with their successors, had trouble handing over the reins. In Perez' view, Knight's name belongs near the top of this list. "From virtually the day I arrived, Phil was as engaged in the company as he ever was," Perez said. "He was talking to my direct reports. It was confusing for the people and frustrating for me."
DEFT JUGGLER
The wounds are still raw for the man who just got dumped from one of the most glamorous jobs in American business. He retreated to his second home in Naples, Fla., immediately after the dismissal. "It's been very tough on my family," said Perez, 58, noting that his wife had left a job she loved as a high school Spanish teacher in Racine, Wis., when he took the Nike post. He added that Knight "piled it on in the media" after the news was announced.
So why did Knight even hire Perez? Because he wanted someone with strong financial and managerial discipline and a track record overseeing the growth of a profitable consumer-products company. In running S.C. Johnson, Perez had deftly juggled the managing of multiple brands in multiple countries. Knight and the board took more than a year searching for the right candidate. After reading 75 résumés, conducting 15 interviews, and meeting extensively with three or four final candidates, Knight picked Perez, a self-described introvert with a quiet, analytic bearing.
Hoping to give his successor sufficient time to understand Nike's $11 billion global sneaker and apparel business, Knight put nothing on Perez' plate during the first six months. His sole job was to travel, listen to employees, and meet business partners. The honeymoon ended, says Perez, as soon as he began to assert his leadership. He triggered a widespread staff revolt, one that he was never able to overcome, with his first big move: hiring Boston Consulting Group to help him conduct a sweeping review of the company's strategies and practices.
The study required managers to spend two hours responding to a detailed survey. "Perez started asking questions of 20-to-30-year veterans that have never been asked before," says one Nike manager. "Surveys are not Nike's specialty. It's not Nike's culture."
The consultants had two goals: figuring out how to control the double-digit rise in operating expenses and examining whether Nike had the right growth strategy in place. Almost all of their ultimate recommendations hit longtime staffers, quite a few of whom came from rival firms McKinsey & Co. and Bain & Co., like bombshells. Boston Consulting proposed boosting sales by, among other things, opening outlet stores -- a move that the image-obsessed Nike team feared would degrade the value of the brand. The firm wanted to cut costs by outsourcing day care, janitorial, and security services. "The intent was to raise awareness in the company to control operating expenses," Perez said. "I was trying to accelerate the pace, but most of my resistance came from Phil."
Knight and Perez also clashed over a highly charged political battle between the company and the city of Beaverton, Ore., which was trying to annex the Nike campus against the company's wishes. This summer, a friendly state legislature stopped the city from its annexation claim and gave Nike its independence for another 35 years before the issue would be reviewed again. "I thought that was fine," Perez says. "But not Phil. He wanted to sue Beaverton. I thought that was a bad idea because it would have created ill will with the public and with the lawmakers that had helped us out." But what rankled Perez even more was the larger question: Why was Knight even devoting any time to such a minor issue?
Perez, who came from a consumer-product marketing background, says he sometimes wondered if Nike's famously creative, irreverent advertising was actually conveying relevant messages about the product. The first commercial he saw was a 30-second spot aimed at last year's NCAA basketball tournament. The commercial showed ants crawling onto the basketball court. After 28 seconds, a voice would say "Nike basketball." His concern: The ad explained nothing about the product, and it had minimal brand presence. "I came from a rational world of communications," Perez said.
Nike insiders, meanwhile, were developing a parallel set of concerns about Perez. "He didn't have an intuitive sense of Nike as a brand," said one of them. "He relied more on the spreadsheet, analytical approach as opposed to having a good creative marketing sense."
In the end, Knight said that he could tolerate only so much friction. "I think the failure to really kind of get his arms around this company and this industry led to confusion on behalf of the management team," he said at the Jan. 23 press conference. In a later interview with BusinessWeek, Knight claimed to have learned from the misadventure. "Communication is huge, and I didn't know that would be as big of an issue with Bill," Knight said. "There is no question communication between Mark Parker and me will be better than between me and Bill." That's probably true. It's hard to see how the dialogue between Knight and Perez could have been much worse.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Di dalam kudeta di NikeDari waktu Nike pendiri dan Ketua Philip H. Knight diurapi William D. Perez sebagai penggantinya pada November 2004, dua laki-laki memiliki sebuah pertemuan yang dijadwalkan secara rutin pada Senin pagi di 9. Kumpul-kumpul telah Knight's ide. Mereka memberi CEO Perez, pilihan kejutan yang sebelumnya telah memegang posisi puncak di S.C. Johnson & Son Inc, produsen Glade penyegar udara dan Drano, forum informal untuk memantul ide dari sosok legendaris yang semua tapi dipersonifikasikan perusahaan.Ketika Knight mengambil tempat duduk di meja perundingan Putaran di Perez' kantor pada Januari 9, tampaknya seperti setiap Senin lain duniawi pertemuan. Diskusi metodis berkembang melalui beberapa masalah yang biasa-biasa saja, Perez mengatakan. Tapi Knight menabung bom untuk yang terakhir. Tiba-tiba menyatakan bahwa Perez telah gagal untuk mesh dengan seluruh tim Nike, Knight mengatakan dia sudah waktunya untuk pergi. Perez tertegun. "Ia tertangkap saya lengah," katanya dalam sebuah wawancara ekstensif dengan BusinessWeek. Knight menolak berkomentar mengenai rincian account Perez. "Saya dan Dewan memutuskan bahwa perusahaan dapat lebih baik dikelola dengan seorang veteran industri terbukti, berpengalaman," katanya.BAB BURUKPerez says he asked Knight for a few days to absorb the news and prepare his family for upheaval. He also asked the board for an opportunity to appeal the decision and was granted a 15-minute audience on Jan. 18. But on Jan. 20 the board sided with the company's largest shareholder and approved Knight's recommendation to name Nike veteran and co-President Mark Parker as chief executive. "He will become the best CEO this company has ever had," Knight crowed in a Jan. 23 conference call.No amount of corporate spin can conceal one of the worst chapters in the history of Nike Inc. (NKE). It marks the third time the mercurial Knight, 67, has tried giving up his throne.Nike's leader and board members have long acknowledged that the company's top strategic priority is managing succession. But despite the company's hip image and record performance this year, it's hard to imagine they'll have much luck enticing strong outside candidates to consider joining the company in the near future. "It's almost like a death wish coming into that company from outside," says Stephanie R. Joseph, president of the Directors' Network Inc., which runs workshops and seminars for board members.That perception could become problematic because Knight and the board, when they hired Perez, acknowledged the insular company's need for fresh blood. Knight also recognized Nike's reputation as a difficult place for transplants to thrive and promised to go out of his way to make Perez feel at home. "There will be a little bit of a bumpy period," Knight told BusinessWeek a month after he hired Perez, but "I'm committed to making it work."The fact that Perez failed, despite Knight's stated intentions, underscores how hard it is for new CEOs to fill the shoes of charismatic corporate founders whose personality and ego are closely tied to their companies. History is full of examples of legendary leaders who, because of their own shortcomings or problems with their successors, had trouble handing over the reins. In Perez' view, Knight's name belongs near the top of this list. "From virtually the day I arrived, Phil was as engaged in the company as he ever was," Perez said. "He was talking to my direct reports. It was confusing for the people and frustrating for me."DEFT JUGGLERThe wounds are still raw for the man who just got dumped from one of the most glamorous jobs in American business. He retreated to his second home in Naples, Fla., immediately after the dismissal. "It's been very tough on my family," said Perez, 58, noting that his wife had left a job she loved as a high school Spanish teacher in Racine, Wis., when he took the Nike post. He added that Knight "piled it on in the media" after the news was announced.So why did Knight even hire Perez? Because he wanted someone with strong financial and managerial discipline and a track record overseeing the growth of a profitable consumer-products company. In running S.C. Johnson, Perez had deftly juggled the managing of multiple brands in multiple countries. Knight and the board took more than a year searching for the right candidate. After reading 75 résumés, conducting 15 interviews, and meeting extensively with three or four final candidates, Knight picked Perez, a self-described introvert with a quiet, analytic bearing.Hoping to give his successor sufficient time to understand Nike's $11 billion global sneaker and apparel business, Knight put nothing on Perez' plate during the first six months. His sole job was to travel, listen to employees, and meet business partners. The honeymoon ended, says Perez, as soon as he began to assert his leadership. He triggered a widespread staff revolt, one that he was never able to overcome, with his first big move: hiring Boston Consulting Group to help him conduct a sweeping review of the company's strategies and practices.The study required managers to spend two hours responding to a detailed survey. "Perez started asking questions of 20-to-30-year veterans that have never been asked before," says one Nike manager. "Surveys are not Nike's specialty. It's not Nike's culture."The consultants had two goals: figuring out how to control the double-digit rise in operating expenses and examining whether Nike had the right growth strategy in place. Almost all of their ultimate recommendations hit longtime staffers, quite a few of whom came from rival firms McKinsey & Co. and Bain & Co., like bombshells. Boston Consulting proposed boosting sales by, among other things, opening outlet stores -- a move that the image-obsessed Nike team feared would degrade the value of the brand. The firm wanted to cut costs by outsourcing day care, janitorial, and security services. "The intent was to raise awareness in the company to control operating expenses," Perez said. "I was trying to accelerate the pace, but most of my resistance came from Phil."Knight and Perez also clashed over a highly charged political battle between the company and the city of Beaverton, Ore., which was trying to annex the Nike campus against the company's wishes. This summer, a friendly state legislature stopped the city from its annexation claim and gave Nike its independence for another 35 years before the issue would be reviewed again. "I thought that was fine," Perez says. "But not Phil. He wanted to sue Beaverton. I thought that was a bad idea because it would have created ill will with the public and with the lawmakers that had helped us out." But what rankled Perez even more was the larger question: Why was Knight even devoting any time to such a minor issue?Perez, who came from a consumer-product marketing background, says he sometimes wondered if Nike's famously creative, irreverent advertising was actually conveying relevant messages about the product. The first commercial he saw was a 30-second spot aimed at last year's NCAA basketball tournament. The commercial showed ants crawling onto the basketball court. After 28 seconds, a voice would say "Nike basketball." His concern: The ad explained nothing about the product, and it had minimal brand presence. "I came from a rational world of communications," Perez said.Nike insiders, meanwhile, were developing a parallel set of concerns about Perez. "He didn't have an intuitive sense of Nike as a brand," said one of them. "He relied more on the spreadsheet, analytical approach as opposed to having a good creative marketing sense."In the end, Knight said that he could tolerate only so much friction. "I think the failure to really kind of get his arms around this company and this industry led to confusion on behalf of the management team," he said at the Jan. 23 press conference. In a later interview with BusinessWeek, Knight claimed to have learned from the misadventure. "Communication is huge, and I didn't know that would be as big of an issue with Bill," Knight said. "There is no question communication between Mark Parker and me will be better than between me and Bill." That's probably true. It's hard to see how the dialogue between Knight and Perez could have been much worse.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Dalam Kudeta Di Nike
Dari waktu Nike pendiri dan Ketua Philip H. Ksatria diurapi William D. Perez sebagai penggantinya pada bulan November 2004, dua orang mengadakan pertemuan yang dijadwalkan secara rutin pada pagi hari Senin di 9. kumpul-kumpul telah Knight Ide. Mereka memberi CEO Perez, pilihan mengejutkan yang sebelumnya memegang posisi puncak di SC Johnson & Son Inc, produsen penyegar udara Glade dan Drano, sebuah forum informal untuk memantul ide dari tokoh legendaris yang semua tapi dipersonifikasikan perusahaan.
Ketika ksatria mengambil tempat duduk di meja konferensi bundar di kantor Perez 'pada 9 Januari, tampaknya seperti pertemuan hari Senin duniawi lainnya. Diskusi metodis berkembang melalui beberapa masalah biasa-biasa saja, Perez mengatakan. Tapi Knight menyimpan bom untuk yang terakhir. Tiba-tiba menyatakan bahwa Perez telah gagal untuk mesh dengan sisa tim Nike, Ksatria mengatakan kepadanya sudah waktunya untuk pergi. Perez tertegun. "Dia menangkap saya lengah," katanya dalam sebuah wawancara ekstensif dengan BusinessWeek. Ksatria menolak untuk mengomentari Rincian akun Perez. "Saya dan Dewan memutuskan bahwa perusahaan bisa lebih baik dikelola dengan terbukti, berpengalaman veteran industri," katanya.
BAB BAD
Perez mengatakan ia meminta Ksatria selama beberapa hari untuk menyerap berita dan mempersiapkan keluarganya untuk pergolakan. Dia juga meminta dewan untuk kesempatan untuk mengajukan banding atas keputusan tersebut dan diberikan penonton 15 menit pada 18 Januari Tetapi pada 20 Januari papan berpihak pemegang saham terbesar perusahaan dan disetujui rekomendasi Knight untuk nama Nike veteran dan co-Presiden Mark Parker sebagai kepala eksekutif. "Dia akan menjadi CEO terbaik perusahaan ini yang pernah dimiliki," Knight berkokok dalam panggilan konferensi 23 Januari.
Tidak ada jumlah spin perusahaan dapat menyembunyikan salah satu bab terburuk dalam sejarah Nike Inc (NKE). Ini menandai ketiga kalinya lincah Knight, 67, telah mencoba menyerah tahtanya.
Pemimpin dan anggota dewan Nike ini telah lama mengakui bahwa prioritas utama strategis perusahaan adalah mengelola suksesi. Tapi meskipun gambar pinggul perusahaan dan kinerja rekor tahun ini, sulit untuk membayangkan mereka akan memiliki banyak keberuntungan memikat calon luar yang kuat untuk mempertimbangkan bergabung dengan perusahaan dalam waktu dekat. "Ini hampir seperti keinginan kematian datang ke perusahaan yang dari luar," kata Stephanie R. Joseph, presiden Direksi Jaringan Inc, yang berjalan lokakarya dan seminar untuk anggota dewan.
Persepsi itu bisa menjadi bermasalah karena Knight dan papan, ketika mereka menyewa Perez, mengakui kebutuhan insular perusahaan untuk darah segar. Knight juga diakui reputasi Nike sebagai tempat yang sulit untuk transplantasi untuk berkembang dan berjanji untuk pergi keluar dari jalan untuk membuat Perez merasa di rumah. "Akan ada sedikit dari periode bergelombang," kata Ksatria BusinessWeek sebulan setelah ia menyewa Perez, tapi "Saya berkomitmen untuk membuatnya bekerja."
Fakta bahwa Perez gagal, meskipun niat Knight menyatakan, menggarisbawahi betapa sulitnya adalah untuk CEO baru untuk mengisi sepatu dari pendiri perusahaan karismatik yang kepribadian dan ego terkait erat dengan perusahaan mereka. Sejarah penuh dengan contoh dari pemimpin legendaris yang, karena kekurangan mereka sendiri atau masalah dengan penerus mereka, mengalami kesulitan menyerahkan kendali. Dalam pandangan Perez ', nama Knight milik dekat bagian atas daftar ini. "Dari hampir hari saya tiba, Phil adalah sebagai terlibat dalam perusahaan karena ia pernah ada," kata Perez. "Dia sedang berbicara dengan laporan langsung saya. Itu membingungkan bagi orang-orang dan frustasi bagi saya."
DEFT Juggler
Luka-luka yang masih mentah untuk orang yang baru saja dibuang dari salah satu pekerjaan yang paling glamor dalam bisnis Amerika. Dia mundur ke rumah kedua di Naples, Florida., Segera setelah pemecatan. "Sudah sangat sulit pada keluarga saya," kata Perez, 58, mencatat bahwa istrinya telah meninggalkan pekerjaan yang dicintainya sebagai guru Spanyol SMA di Racine, Wis., Ketika ia mengambil pos Nike. Dia menambahkan bahwa Knight "menumpuk pada di media" setelah berita itu diumumkan.
Jadi mengapa Ksatria bahkan menyewa Perez? Karena ia ingin seseorang dengan disiplin keuangan dan manajerial yang kuat dan track record mengawasi pertumbuhan perusahaan konsumen-produk yang menguntungkan. Dalam menjalankan SC Johnson, Perez telah cekatan juggled mengelola beberapa merek di beberapa negara. Knight dan papan mengambil lebih dari satu tahun mencari kandidat yang tepat. Setelah membaca 75 riwayat hidup, melakukan 15 wawancara, dan pertemuan secara luas dengan tiga atau empat kandidat akhir, Ksatria memilih Perez, introvert diri dijelaskan dengan tenang, bantalan analitik.
Berharap untuk memberikan penggantinya waktu yang cukup untuk memahami Nike $ 11000000000 sneaker global dan bisnis pakaian, Ksatria meletakkan apa-apa di piring Perez 'selama enam bulan pertama. Tugasnya satunya adalah untuk melakukan perjalanan, mendengarkan karyawan, dan bertemu mitra bisnis. Bulan madu berakhir, kata Perez, segera setelah ia mulai menegaskan kepemimpinannya. Ia memicu staf pemberontakan yang meluas, yang ia tidak pernah bisa diatasi, dengan langkah pertama yang besar. Menyewa Boston Consulting Group untuk membantu dia melakukan review menyapu strategi dan praktek perusahaan
Manajer studi yang diperlukan untuk menghabiskan dua jam menanggapi survei rinci. "Perez mulai mengajukan pertanyaan dari 20-ke-30-tahun veteran yang belum pernah diminta sebelumnya," kata salah satu manajer Nike. "Survei tidak khusus Nike Ini bukan budaya Nike.."
Para konsultan memiliki dua tujuan: mencari tahu bagaimana mengontrol kenaikan dua digit dalam biaya operasi dan memeriksa apakah Nike memiliki strategi pertumbuhan yang tepat di tempat. Hampir semua rekomendasi akhir mereka memukul staf lama, beberapa di antaranya berasal dari perusahaan saingan McKinsey & Co dan Bain & Co, seperti bombshells. Boston Consulting diusulkan meningkatkan penjualan, antara lain, membuka outlet toko - sebuah langkah yang tim Nike terobsesi gambar-dikhawatirkan akan menurunkan nilai merek. Perusahaan ingin memotong biaya dengan perawatan Outsourcing hari, kebersihan, dan keamanan. "Tujuannya adalah untuk meningkatkan kesadaran dalam perusahaan untuk mengendalikan biaya operasional," kata Perez. "Saya mencoba untuk mempercepat kecepatan, tetapi sebagian besar perlawanan saya datang dari Phil."
Knight dan Perez juga bentrok selama pertarungan politik sangat dituntut antara perusahaan dan kota Beaverton, Ore., yang berusaha mencaplok kampus Nike terhadap keinginan perusahaan. Musim panas ini, sebuah badan legislatif negara ramah berhenti kota dari klaim pencaplokan dan memberi Nike kemerdekaannya 35 tahun lagi sebelum masalah ini akan ditinjau kembali. "Saya pikir itu baik-baik saja," kata Perez. "Tapi tidak Phil. Dia ingin menuntut Beaverton. Saya pikir itu ide yang buruk karena akan menciptakan niat buruk dengan masyarakat dan dengan anggota parlemen yang telah membantu kami keluar." Tapi apa yang melukai Perez bahkan lebih adalah pertanyaan besar: Mengapa Ksatria bahkan mencurahkan waktu untuk masalah kecil seperti itu?
Perez, yang berasal dari latar belakang pemasaran konsumen-produk, mengatakan kadang-kadang dia bertanya-tanya apakah kreatif, iklan sopan terkenal Nike sebenarnya menyampaikan pesan yang relevan tentang produk. Komersial pertama yang dilihatnya adalah tempat 30 detik yang bertujuan untuk NCAA turnamen bola basket tahun lalu. Komersial menunjukkan semut merangkak ke lapangan basket. Setelah 28 detik, sebuah suara akan mengatakan "Nike basket." Keprihatinannya: Iklan menjelaskan apa-apa tentang produk, dan itu kehadiran merek minimal. "Saya datang dari dunia rasional komunikasi," kata Perez.
Nike dalam, sementara itu, telah mengembangkan satu set paralel kekhawatiran tentang Perez. "Dia tidak memiliki rasa intuitif Nike sebagai merek," kata salah satu dari mereka. "Dia lebih mengandalkan spreadsheet, pendekatan analitis sebagai lawan memiliki rasa kreatif pemasaran yang baik."
Pada akhirnya, Knight mengatakan bahwa ia bisa mentolerir hanya begitu banyak gesekan. "Saya pikir kegagalan untuk benar-benar mendapatkan semacam lengannya di perusahaan ini dan industri ini menyebabkan kebingungan atas nama tim manajemen," katanya pada konferensi pers 23 Januari. Dalam sebuah wawancara kemudian dengan BusinessWeek, Ksatria mengaku telah belajar dari kecelakaan tersebut. "Komunikasi adalah besar, dan saya tidak tahu itu akan menjadi sebagai besar masalah dengan Bill," kata Knight. "Tidak ada pertanyaan komunikasi antara Mark Parker dan saya akan lebih baik dari antara aku dan Bill." Itu mungkin benar. Sulit untuk melihat bagaimana dialog antara Knight dan Perez bisa saja jauh lebih buruk.