All About Nike

Nike Inc. is considered to be the leading dominant figure of post-fordist achievement (Katz, 1994: 31). Nike Inc. ™ is a transnational organizational culture which thrives on the unity of all of its employees—currently at 26,000. Nike Inc.’s changing trends and approach to its internal labour force are constantly undergoing a post-fordist transition. Particularly, the integration of newer methods to rapidly increase production and reduce labour costs is a key feature of post-fordist industrial change. This essay will assert that Nike Inc.’s organizational culture coincides with post-fordist industrial change by arguing the fragmentation and the pluralism of Nike Inc.’s employees, the relative flexible specialization of this organizational culture as well as Nike Inc.’s ability to respond to demographic changes.

Nike Inc. as an organizational culture is fragmented and is, in effect, pluralistic. Nike Inc. has strategic alliances, each of them bordering on multiple locations around the world; Nike Inc.’s factory locations are divided across the overseas based on the technological achievements of those chosen facilities. For example, Nike Inc.’s organizational culture stems across the globe influencing countries such as: South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Philippines, Thailand, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, United States, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia (Aker, 2000: 34). Nike Inc. coordinates efforts in designing shoes using technology in countries such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (producing 10,000 pairs of shoes per day) while less developed countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Philippines produce the generic casual line of shoes (producing 70,000 to 85,000 pairs of shoes per day) (Romaniuk, 2003: 77). Nike Inc. has connections throughout the world and is fragmented between employee relationships due to the intensive pluralistic environment. This integration of multiple cultures and the diversification of organizational values come from the social, political and economical of multiple countries that Nike Inc. is affiliated with; hence, through this dynamic coordination of production and labour as well as the integration of multiple values from twelve different countries, Nike Inc. is post-fordist.

Furthermore, Nike Inc. is able to coordinate factory movements throughout the world with technological ease. For example, Nike Inc. has had short-term partnerships (ranging from one to three years) to increase production for straining times which demand higher production to meet consumer demand (Katz, 1994: 113). Once consumer demand is reached, Nike Inc. closes the factory in order to save labour cost. This has an inadvertently negative effect in the location Nike Inc. opens a factory, however, Nike Inc. is able to efficiently increase production and value with their short-term partnerships. These short-term partnerships fragment employees because they are dissatisfied that they got laid off (Stabile, 2003: 199). The particular mix of production partners and their capabilities changes from year to year as a result of factory improvements, market fluctuations, and technological progress. The result of the cooperation of these production partners is fragmentation based on locale differences. Each of these production partners follow their own systems of values, beliefs, and norms that are mutually exclusive to that locale (Aker, 2000: 50). These short and long-term partnerships are characteristic of post-fordist industrial change, especially because of the global coverage of resources and influence from these partnerships (Amin, 1994: 28). Throughout the use of these subcontracting partnerships, the final result is both a fragmented and pluralistic organizational culture which brings to perspective the ideas conveyed in post-fordism.

Nike Inc. also exemplifies post-fordism in terms of this organizational culture’s flexible specialization. Flexible Specialization refers to a system of manufacturing alternative to mass production that revolves around vertically disintegrated industrial districts (Nadesan, 2001: 23). In terms of Nike Inc.’s organizational culture, Nike Inc. is not flexibly specialized because Nike Inc. still relies on vertical integration to reinforce production (Stabile, 2003: 200). This is a necessity for Nike Inc. because it is able to calculate the overall productive value for the year and ensure cooperation from all their production partners. Since Nike Inc. is a transnational organizational culture, managing production facilities in several countries may require vertical industrial districts. Nike Inc. uses a vertical industrial districts style because this system allows them to adequately track and catalogue their produced shoes.

On the other hand, Nike Inc. is flexibly specialized in terms of machinery and labour, although these are adjustments made to reinforce fordist production values rather than decentralizing production to various small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Katz, 1994: 42). Nike Inc. does not utilize SMEs because of the difficulty in tracing and cataloguing the number of shoes produced per day. In addition, these adjustments in flexible machinery promote a reduction of labour which revolve around the introduction and streamlining of mass production techniques by simplifying work stations and updating existing machinery (Aker, 2000: 42). For example, a Nike Inc. manager described a recent advancement in ‘upper’ stitching: a new machine was introduced that could automatically position the needle and trim excess thread for the operator. This kind of labour saving change is hardly revolutionary and can be specifically associated with the continuation of fordist means of production (Katz, 1994: 73). The only elements of Nike Inc.’s system that could be classified as flexible machinery is the computer-aided design and computer-aided engineering used in the Beaverton facility and some numerically controlled moulding machines used by one or two South Korean subcontractors. Essentially, labour, through the use of technological advancements, is purposefully reduced because miniscule, time-consuming, tasks are replaced by technology. Although Nike Inc. may not be flexibly specialized in terms of a vertical disintegration, Nike Inc. has found an alternative method of achieving flexibility—labour and machinery. These two flexible components play side-by-side in order to enhance production and to accelerate capital accumulation, a characteristic of post-fordist industrial change. As an organizational culture whose primary objective is achieving capital accumulation, this organization utilizes the concepts of post-fordism in order to advance their influence in the business sector.

Nike Inc. is an exemplary organizational culture that illustrates the post-fordist concept of demographic stability and consumer targetting. While producing shoes in third world countries, Nike Inc. brands shoes with the essence of boldness and athletic elitism. Nike Inc.’s organizational culture’s values become branded in the Nike Inc. Swoosh. As an organizational culture, Nike Inc.’s values are mythologized in heroic excellence, enthusiasm, and the powerful assertiveness of “Just Do It.” This is a uniquely post-fordist behavioural characteristic of Nike Inc. as an organizational culture. Nike Inc. brands the swoosh with a mythologized lifestyle, initially based around the use of Michael Jordan as the embodiment of that myth, flying through the air in suspended animation, buoyed up by Nike Inc.’s hi-tech shoes. As Katz explains that “Magic had accrued to the most carefully made shoes, and this perception was clearly the result of a hundred intricate cultural signals–many of which had indeed been manufactured as a way to manipulate the shape of popular desire” (1994, p. 269). In essence, individuals purchase these “cultural signs” that reinforce a belief in a potential to get things done, to accomplish athletic achievements and “Just Do It”; hence, the way in which Nike Inc. targets a particular consumer demographic is characteristic of post-fordist industrial change. More importantly, the way in which Nike Inc.’s connections are intensively organized is also an attribute of post-fordism. For example, in 1988, the Nike Inc. brand name had nearly 400 different basic models of athletic footwear simply because Nike Inc. was able to swiftly respond to demographic shifts and interests in the most strategic, methodical way. In a very quick efficient manner, Nike Inc. is able to coordinate efforts to produce newer models of shoes to suit demographic interests; hence, stabilizing their chosen demographic and maintaining the allegiance of devoted Nike Inc. consumers. As an organizational culture, Nike Inc. is an excellent symbol of post-fordist industrial development since this organization has the ability to target consumer desires and to coordinate efforts to stabilize all efforts to keep the same demographic by responding to the changes in consumer demand and/or newer interests.

This analysis of the organization of production within Nike’s athletic footwear division reveals that the organizational culture has developed an intricate industrial system. Shoe production takes place under several subcontracting arrangements that allow the company a high degree of flexibility in dynamic and fluid markets. These subcontracting arrangements further increase pluralism and fragmentation, attributes of post-fordist industrial developments. In addition, Nike Inc.’s organizational culture may not be flexibly specialized, but this organization furthers a flexible compromise in terms of labour and machinery rather than disintegrating industrial districts, also a characteristic of prominent post-fordist achievements. Furthermore, Nike Inc.’s organizational values are instilled in the brand name which furthers the relationship between the consumer and the organizational culture. These relationships are undergoing constant dynamic changes and Nike Inc. replies in post-fordist ways to ensure consumer demand is met with relative ease. Essentially, Nike Inc. as an organizational culture functions as a prime example of post-fordist industrial change.

Bibliography

Aker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand Leadership. New York: Free Press.

Amin, A. (1994). Preface. In A. Amin, Post-Fordism: a reader (pp. 1-30). Oxford: Blackwell.

Katz, D. (1994). Just Do It: The Nike Spirit in the Corporate World. New York: Random House.

Nadesan, M. H. (2001). Post-Fordism, Political Economy, and Critical Organizational Communication Studies. Management Communication Quarterly , p. 259.

Romaniuk, J. (2003). Brand Attributes — ‘Distributing Outlets’ in the Mind. Journal of Marketing Communications , 73-92.

Stabile, C. A. (2003). Nike, Social Responsibility, and the Hidden Abode of Production. Gender, race, and class in media: a text reader , 196-203.

Cool Related Posts:

Top Young Historians: 108 – Bethany Moreton, 39 « HISTORY MUSIN..

Refractory » Acculturation of the ‘Pure’ Economy: Sci Fi, IT and ..

The Informational University, the Uneven Distribution of Expertise and the ..

A global ruling class? | khukuri

Globalization:A World-Systems Perspective | Hichem Karoui

SolidarityEconomy.net » Blog Archive » The Democratic Dialec..

The Precariat and Climate Justice in the Great Recession | Great Recession