Assessment Brief: Students are required to critically analyse the provided management case study by

answering the case study questions. Careful analysis and application of management principles is expected. The focus of the analysis is the application of the content studied in Weeks 1 - 7 and the

prescribed text should be used as the primary source. Further research to support the analysis is essential.

The Analysis should: 1. Critically analyse the case.

2. Clearly identify and justify the management principles applied to the case. 3. Critically evaluate the questions posed to the case. 4. Do additional research to gain a broader perspective of the case and topics.

5. Answer the questions in Question and Answer format.

6. Be submitted electronically in Word format, 12pt. and 1.5 line spacing. 7. Be fully referenced according to the Think: Education Standard (see Academic Skills

section of the Learning Portal).

HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 3 Case Study T1 2016-V3.docx v3 Page 1 of 4 Marking Criteria: Case Study Analysis  Responses accurately and clearly communicate answers to the case study questions

 Theory used is accurately explained and applied to support answers  Theory is supported with appropriate references that are cited correctly both in-text and in the

Responses accurately and clearly communicate answers to the case study questions /15

13-15 10-12 7-9 4-6 1-3 0 All responses provide a direct and accurate answer the

question that is communicated

clearly with no grammatical or spelling errors

Theory used is accurately explained and applied to support answers /10 9 - 10 7 – 8 5 – 6 3 – 4 1 - 2 0

All responses to questions are

supported with

relevant theoretical knowledge that is

explained correctly and integrated seamlessly into the answer to the

Theory is supported with appropriate references that are cited correctly /5 reference list. Majority of

responses provide a direct and

accurate answer to

the question that is clearly communicated with minor

grammatical or spelling errors

responses provide a direct

and accurate answer to the

question but the communication lacks clarity OR has major grammatical or spelling errors All responses to question are

supported with relevant theoretical knowledge that is

explained correctly BUT not integrated well into the answer

Majority of responses to questions are

supported with relevant theoretical knowledge.

Explanation of theory has minor errors or clarity

issues, but integrated well in the answer

reference list citations are used

perfectly according to the Think: Education standards

Total mark / 30 5 4 3 2 1 0 In-text and

reference list citations used accurately but

have minor errors according to the Think: Education Standards. Referencing style used is used

correctly but is not the

required according to the Think: Education Standard HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M

MGT101A Ass 3 Case Study T1 2016-V3.docx v3 Page 2 of 4 The Case: Decision-making troubles at Nike Phil Knight started Nike by selling athletics shoes from the back of his car. His company has

grown to be the major player in the athletic shoe industry and was one of the most profitable companies in the world in the 1980‟s and 1990‟s. Nike‟s image as a hip company with cool products was epitomised by famous basketball player Michael Jordan, who helped popularise the brand with teenagers across the United States. Because Nike seemingly could do no wrong and almost all of Knight‟s past decisions had led to increased growth and profits, the turn of events at Nike is puzzling. In the 2000‟s, CEO Knight not only missed a number of important business opportunities that

Nike could have benefited from but also failed to adequately respond to emerging challenges and threats. Nike experienced declining profits because of lacklustre sales due to inventory shortages of popular products and surpluses of unpopular ones. In addition to a lack of

responsiveness to changing customer needs, Nike was charged with operating sweatshops and other labour abuses in overseas manufacturing facilities. Knight was slow to respond to these charges: it appears he made some questionable decisions and Nike‟s performance suffered as a result. How could the tide have turned so strongly against a much-admired company? Many of Nike‟s problems stem from faulty decision-making at the top and the failure of its

managers to change the basis of decision-making as conditions in the environment changed. The Nike mind-set emphasises the importance of the internal development of products, with

managers believing that Nike‟s designers know best how to develop popular products. Their almost fanatical emphasis on doing things the "Nike Way" led to an inward-looking approach to decision-making. Nike‟s strong corporate culture prevented both its designers and its

Interestingly enough, Knight had hired outsiders who brought new ideas and tried to help the company change with the times. Frequently Knight and other managers vetoed the initiatives these outsiders championed because they did not seem to fit with Nike‟s culture. One

example is of Gordon O. McFadden who was hired as president of outdoor products at Nike. He tried to persuade Knight to acquire North Face Inc., an outdoor products company, to take advantage of the booming hiking market. McFadden thought the North Face acquisition would put Nike at the top of the outdoor gear market. Knight eventually shot the idea down because Nike has not been in the habit of growth via acquisition – Nike‟s company culture

dictated that designers knew best how to develop the "right‟ products. Nike‟s cultural mind-set also led its designers to emphasise the performance of athletics shoes, over the trendy or fashionable styles in vogue. This caused Nike to miss out on shifts in certain segments of the market; for example, a shift away from white athletic shoes to more versatile darker shoes for city living. In its emphasis on performance, Nike also devoted

too many resources to developing very expensive high-performance shoes like the Shox line. Although managers were brought in to change Nike‟s rigid mind-set and help it to make decisions in tune with the times, their efforts were thwarted. Often they left the company.

manager at Kinko‟s Inc., Ellen Turner, was hired as chief marketing officer; she was bent on

overhauling Nike‟s marketing and sales departments. She soon understood that she had little support within Nike to back her initiation of needed changes and left the company within six HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 3 Case Study T1 2016-V3.docx v3 Page 3 of 4 months. Decision-makers at Nike need to realise that conditions in the market and the environment have changed. What may have worked in the Michael Jordan era might not work today. Source: Waddell, D., Devine, J., Jones, G.R. & George, J.M. 2009. Contemporary Management. McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd, North Ryde, NSW. Case Questions:

1. From the case it seems that most of the problems Nike faced during the 2000‟s was due to faulty decision making. Critically evaluate where Nike‟s decision making went wrong by applying the six decision making steps to the most critical of their

management decisions.

2. It seems evident from the case that Nike has a strong corporate culture. How would you describe the culture at Nike and why do you think this culture prevented them

from sound decision making? 3. Given the details available of the case, what can you infer about the organisational structure of Nike? Can you identify a link between the organisational structure and corporate culture of Nike?

4. You are tasked with advising Nike on their planning and goal setting for the future. Suggest a new mission statement which would support a new direction for the company and provide one strategic goal, one tactical goal and one operational goal

that will support this new proposed mission. 5. The case indicates that Nike was involved in labour abuses in overseas

manufacturing facilities. Do some research on Nike‟s past manufacturing practices

from an ethical point of view. Briefly discuss the findings, then make recommendations to Nike which could prevent a repeat of these practices in the future.

6. Identify which environmental factors (General, Task and Internal) have had greatest

impact on the performance of Nike. 7. Research and find at least one journal or scholarly web article which would support any part of the analysis you presented for this case. Be sure to reference this source

appropriately both with a citation in the relevant part of the text, and with a full reference at the end of your text.