The paper "Nike’ s Organizational Structure" is a great example of a case study on management. According to its founder, Phil Knight, business is typified by war without bullets as such; Nike is renowned for its ever-expanding portfolio. In this respect, the products associated with the company offers significant brand value in the global arena. As a competitive company in the industry, Nike has championed its image in the sporting arena, and it has garnered myriad customer support and realization. As its signature strength, the brand name has gained global awareness in various sections attributed to its robust marketing and organizational approach.
Much of its success is attributed to the way it structures its organization. As a bureaucratic centered organization, it has effectively maintained effective management processes. This paper, therefore, seeks to study Nike’ s organizational structure with respect to Weber’ s paradigm of bureaucracy. These feature its organizational matrix and various organizational attributes; where an in-depth analysis of Nike’ s coordination and structural mechanisms will be highlighted, in line with theoretical concepts. Bureaucratic Organization Purpose With its headquarters’ situated at Beaverton, Oregon, Nike Company majors in the sale of athletic footwear and apparel in the global market.
With the majority of customers in the US, it has significantly gained global awareness. Its products are distributed under Nike Inc and Nike brand, as well as, affiliates brand such as Shaq, Dunkman, All-Star, Jack Purcell, Cole Haan, Bauer Nike Hockey, Chuck Taylor, to name a few. The company’ s brands include apparel, footwear, equipment, and additional six different categories namely; women’ s fitness, tennis, football, golf, running basketball and the men’ s training and sporting gear. In this respect, its products are sold in Nike owned stores, in addition to independent manufacturers out of the U. S.
In support of its product manufacturing, it works alongside 137 contract factories in the Americas, 238 factories in South Asia, and 104 factories in EMEA. Nike’ s Goal The company’ s goal is aimed at extending its legacy of innovative thinking and developing a business opportunity that differentiates itself from other companies in gaining a competitive advantage. Tentatively, Nike seeks to develop products that support athletes in all aspects of reaching their potential. Tentatively, one of its overarching goals is aimed at creating an impartial and empowered workforce through fostering innovation between the teams.
This approach has been pioneered through divergent strategies that have positively influenced Nike’ s supply chain. Tentatively, the company believes in the power of sports in utilizing the potential. In this respect, the company has invested over $ 315 million in products, grants, and donations in support of the youth across various paradigms. Nike, on the other hand, is geared towards sustainability by working alongside other companies in the industry to devise a meaningful and reliable approach to achieving zero discharge of hazardous waste by 2020. Structure Organizational transformation and teamwork have been an imperative aspect of the company’ s corporate structure.
The organization structure at Nike was initially described by a matrix structure, compounded by multiple reporting lines and responsibilities. The company’ s organizational structure was changed from a general manager’ s orientation (governed by a marketing manager) into a matrix model that focused on functional oriented division (R& D, sales, marketing, operations, and productions). Over the years, however, communication and interaction were increasingly complicated preventing the lack of risk-taking by team members and team tasks.
Daft, R.L. (1998) Organization Theory and Design. South-Western College, Publishing,
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. & Salter, A. (2008) The management of technological innovation.
Oxford. UK: Oxford University Press.
Frisch, A. (2008). The Story of Nike. Minnesota: Creative Education. Pp. 1-46.
Taylor, J.E. & Levitt, R. (2007) Innovation alignment and project network dynamics:
An integrative model for change. Project Management Journal, 38, pp. 22-35.
Olsen, J.P. (2006) Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 16 (1): 1-24.
Smith, D. (2006) Exploring innovation. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Worthen, B., Tuna, C., & Scheck, J. (2009) Companies more prone to go ‘vertical’. The
Wall Street Journal. Available at: