CASE ANALYSIS

1. In what ways did William Perez encounter process conflict at Nike? How about
relationship conflict?

William Perez encountered process conflict at Nike when disagreements emerged within
the group over his new leadership style and methods of management towards goals. Long time
employees were displeased on how he tried to question existing processes and on how he
relies on analytical marketing instead of being more creative to match the existing brand of the
company. Such lack of alignment with values and working style resulted in relationship conflict
as employees resisted the change brought about by Perez. Furthermore, the relationship
conflict extended to the founder, Phil Knight, as Perez faced challenges in executing his role.
Knight's persistent interference in Perez's initiatives caused confusion and frustration, hindering
Perez's ability to effectively lead and manage the company. In essence, the process conflicts
initiated by Perez's leadership style not only strained relationships among employees but also
worsened tensions with the company's founder, contributing to a complex and challenging
leadership situation at Nike.

2. In what respects does Nike’s managerial hierarchy appear to be conducive to conflict?

Nike's managerial hierarchy has elements that appear to be conducive to conflict. The
company strongly values internal promotions and cohesion among long-term employees,
creating a culture of loyalty and familiarity. However, this may lead to resistance when external
leaders, like William Perez, attempts to introduce new ideas. The hierarchy, largely reliant on
internal talent, may resist diverse and outsiders’ perspectives, hindering innovation when
leaders with different backgrounds join. Additionally, the company's cultural emphasis on its
brand and specific marketing style may clash with leaders favoring alternative approaches,
causing conflicts over strategy and decision-making. These factors collectively make Nike's
managerial environment more prone to internal tensions and conflicts.

3. Phil Knight has said, “It’s been 40 years that the company has grown around my
idiosyncrasies. They don’t even know that they’re idiosyncrasies anymore, and of
course neither do I, “If you were working with Phil Knight, what steps would you take to
avoid relationship and interpersonal conflict?

Collaborating with Phil Knight demands a strategic approach that aligns with his
profound influence on Nike's culture. Initially, I would invest time in keen observation, analysis,
and study of the established company culture, especially those shaped by Knight to ensure that
I can blend in smoothly and not risk getting pushed out. If my working style does not perfectly
align with all the other employees, I would make a conscious effort to internalize the prevailing
culture. Prioritizing open communication, I would actively seek feedback to address any
misalignments promptly, preventing conflicts from escalating. Moreover, I believe that
establishing a transparent delineation of duties and fostering a mutual understanding of roles
and responsibilities for each position would be instrumental. This approach will minimize
clashes, mitigate confusion, and ensures interference-free progress toward the company's
overarching goals.

4. “Nike’s early management meetings,” reports a writer familiar with the company, “
were rowdy drunken affairs. When fights broke out… Knight would rarely interrupt. He
liked to see the passion.” At what point does the strategy of conflict stimulation appears
to break down at Nike? In your opinion why does it break down? Does it have to break
down?

The strategy of conflict stimulation at Nike appears to break down when the initially
embraced rowdiness and passion in early management meetings transform into disruptive
internal conflicts, hindering the effective leadership and integration of external figures. The
founder, Phil Knight's hands-off approach during rowdy meetings once reflected a tolerance for
passion and energy. However, as the company evolved, this strategy seemed to break down
when conflicts became more than just passionate debates, leading to a lack of cohesion and
interference with chosen leadership. In my opinion, the breakdown occurs due to a shift in the
nature of conflicts – from constructive passion to disruptive internal clashes. To prevent a
complete breakdown, Nike might benefit from a more balanced approach, fostering healthy
conflict that stimulates innovation and growth while avoiding the negative consequences of
excessive discord. It doesn't have to break down if there's a more strategic and adaptable
approach to managing conflict, ensuring it remains constructive and aligned with the company's
goals.