The current report deals with different concepts and leaderships of an organisation to strengthen the management strategies and operational efficiency. The report will also reveal the roles and responsibilities of Nike at its various operational levels along with the leadership style in the company. The discussion initially starts comprising of the explanation of three different levels of decision making along with their functional area of managing the company operation. Following the same, the report explains the Corporate Social Responsibilities to judge the efficacy of the company in leading the business. Key purpose of this report is to evaluate the urge of Nike management in incorporating changes along with the level of adaptability on the upcoming changes and improvements. Nike being one of the leader manufacturer and retailer of sports and general accessories are liable to address the changes in the business to deliver most updated version of its deliverables and tangible
1. Three levels of organisation and responsibilities:
Three levels of an organisation involve operational level, tactical level and strategic level whereas the number of decisional levels depends on the nature of the business and the flow of information within the company. The roles and responsibilities in three different levels of Nike are as follows:
Operational level is the base level in an organisation where the individuals in the company are responsible to perform in daily operation. Therefore, from the staffs to the departmental heads are responsible to monitor and control the day-to-day operation of the company. In the opinion of García-Sánchez et al. (2017), key purpose of this level, specifically the team lead of the company is to motivate the team members to perform for the goal to be achieved in favour of the company. The store managers, marketing managers of Nike are in this level to attain the target of sales through production and marketing practices.
Tactical level involves the middle level managers that works on the regional operation or divisional operation where the same is responsible to escalate the instruction of the strategic level to the operational level for process continuation. In this context, Dellve et al. (2015) stated that middle level managers hold major responsibilities as the same needs to comply with the objectives of the company as well as the retention of the employees. In Nike, HR manager, Regional manager are under this level. According to Tortorella and Fogliatto (2014), the same level of managers are also liable to motivate the departmental heads and team leaders in different section of the company to drive the same towards organisational goals and objectives.
Strategic level refers to the top level where the strategies are developed and conveyed across the company sections. Therefore, the individuals in this level needs to have efficiency in forecasting the sales and demand of the products to set the objectives for a certain period of time. CEO of Nike along with the members of the company board falls under this section to develop the company mission and vision to be attained through effective implementation and planning.
Therefore, compliance of the legal norms and effective execution of the operational planning for the sake of organisational goals and objectives needs proper coordination of these three levels of the decision makers in the business. Moreover, in case of the multinational companies like Nike, the decision making process at three levels needs to be concentrated towards a unique goal with the similar perception to run the operation accordingly.
2. Roles and styles of leadership and management with the leadership styles, adopted by Nike:
Leadership refers to the technique of driving a number of individuals working in an organisation to ensure the compliance of organisational rules and norms along with the assurance of meeting its business objectives. However, in the opinion of Clarke (2013), leadership depends on the nature of the industry and the HR policies of the organisation. Moreover, Nahavandi (2016) added that leadership depends on the knowledge and skills of leader and the level of understandings among the team members within a work group. Types of leaderships in an organisation are as follows:
Autocratic leadership is centred to the tome level individuals having empowerment of making ultimate decisions. In this context, Du et al. (2013) stated that autocratic leadership follows one-way communication process where the subordinates are liable to follow the instruction without making any input in the same process.
Bureaucratic leadership involves the team members and other subordinates in the decision making process through a brain storming process. According to Clarke (2013), bureaucratic leader believes on the equal contribution in the business outcomes. Most of the corporate houses are following this leadership style to motivate their employees for better contribution.
Facilitative leadership more focused on only the output of the operation rather than the skills and knowledge development and contribution of individual in company goals and objectives.
This is leading process where the leaders allow the team members to apply their own mechanism according to the flexibility and preferences. In the words of Nahavandi (2016), Laissez-Faire offered the empowerment to the subordinates to operate the process on best of understanding.
According to the given articles on Nike based on the opinion of its CEO, the same individual believes on the rapid changes in the company and incorporation of innovation in the products with delivering significance of the innovation in the products. Therefore, Parker has said to have a complicated structure being a large scale company in the footwear manufacturing firm (Safian, 2012). Moreover, Parker has also incorporated the street arts in the shoes to improve the products and service innovation in the era of rapid change in the global industries in terms of customers’ preference and needs. In line with the opinion of Du et al. (2013), Laissez-faire leadership therefore, complies with the flexibility of the workers to create innovation in products and input changes in the products for better performance and wider acceptability among the global customers.
3. Effects of globalisation on Nike:
Globalisation involves the adaptability of the company strategy according to the external changes and internal potential of the organisation. According to Mowforth and Munt (2015), globalisation enforces the corporations to adopt the changes in the external environment to ensure long term sustainability of the business. Customers’ preference in terms of products and services is a factor influencing the company to incorporate changes in the business operations. In the opinion of the CEO of Nike, the working is on a rapid change and thus, creating obstacles in growth and expansion towards the concerned organisation (Safian, 2012). Nike has also faced the obstacles in terms of the rapid global expansion while facing the complexity of the business. In this context, Potrafke (2015) stated that global expansion and rapid growth of the company has also faced lack of adaptability due to acceleration of the globalisation and growth of the company. However, in presence of the higher connectivity through the digitisation, the company has attained a steady growth during the last decade. Supporting to this opinion, Steiner (2013) added that digital connectivity allows effective communication among the staffs and the customers to better address the market demand and changing environment of the economy and society.
Globalisation has both positive and negative impact on the company in terms of growth and competition. Globalisation has allowed the cross border companies to incorporate the technical integration aligning with the traditional way of operation. Therefore, globalisation has delivered the access of potential customers across the globe enhancing the revenue and profitability as well. In the opinion of Mowforth and Munt (2015), global expansion often creates the obstacles in terms of sound rivalry in presence of the local companies and government intervention in the company operation. Nike has also faced some difficulties, specifically in the developing or underdeveloped countries. Due to trade policies and resistance of global expansion in third world countries, Nike has yet to invest in the countries for the global expansion. In that case, the government of the country is highly focused on prioritising the local and domestic firms rather than focusing on the foreign investment. Therefore, unequal importance of the business within the same industry has created great difficulties towards the company to run the operation smoothly. In context of the same, Potrafke (2015) delivered the information that liberalisation process in the third world country has delayed implementation due to strict regulation and trade policies in favour of the domestic businesses and political stability.
4. CSR and responses of Nike on CSR:
CSR stands for Corporate Social Responsibilities that has become one of the crucial elements in the company performance and corporate imagery of the company among its stakes. CSR also includes the accounting of the social and environmental activities to ensure the sustainability of the local community and the business operation for the long term. Therefore, effective CSR practices in the organisation offers significant number of benefits to its stakeholders to sustain the business for longer profit and competitive positioning while operating under intense rivalry. On the other hand, Carroll (2015) stated that CSR delivers the social improvement along with the environmental upliftment and thus, assures resource optimisation and minimisation of waste for social health and improved lifestyle of the local community. Being one of the major stakes, Nike needs to create a transparency among its customers and local community to ensure acceptance of the business. In this context, Korschun et al. (2014) observed that compliance of legal procedures and national constitution is another responsibility of the company to prove its legal existence among the competitors. According to the CSR report, Nike holds good position among its stakes due to its transparency in operation and fair trade practice across the globe. During 1990’s, Nike has faced a sound protest against its sweatshop and the violation of child labour where significant number of local people has build a protest against the sweatshop of Nike (Safian, 2012). In addition, the company has also violated the labour laws and human resource policies to avoid the products among a wider customer volume across the globe.
Concerning to this state, the former CEO of the company, Phil Knight has disclosed a decision of making transparency among the public. According to this speech and promise, the company has transformed the latest issues into an ethical and fair trade practice through disclosure of every step of the company. Such initiative has transformed the negative image of Nike to a positive imagery of the business attracting the customers towards purchasing the products from the brand. The corporate issue as mentioned above has been successfully addressed in the year 2005, through disclosure of contract details of each factory of the company. In the same year, Nike has published its first version of the CSR report disclosing the working condition and the practices it conducts in its operation. Carroll (2015) stated that fair trade practice and transparency of business activities among external individuals changes often the perception of the stakes about the company and influences to regain its market share.
According to the above discussion, it is transparent that management of a business needs proper alignment of the decision making process, compliance of the rules and effective human resource policies and practices. Therefore, the management of the company needs to have focus on its diverse operational segments to produce the output based on the organisational mission and vision statement. In that case, the strategic level individuals are liable to set the objectives on the external changes and current state of the internal potentials to produce a feasible output complying underlying legal framework. In case of Nike, the company has followed the change management models along with potential leadership with motivational input for better production and market share. According to the opinion of Parker, Laissez-Faire leadership is most potential leadership style to allow the staffs to work according to convenience. As a reason, the CEO obtained that flexibility and empowerment in working rules provides enough space to the staffs to develop creativity in products and thus, ensure wider acceptability of the same. In that case, globalisation allows accessing the skills and knowledge from different regional segments to accumulate a number of excellences assuring quality of the products. Moreover, transparency in Nike has been a good decision to showcase the ethical and fair trade practice among its stakes for better resource acquisition and sufficient capital for spontaneity.
- Carroll, A.B., (2015). Corporate social responsibility.Organizational Dynamics,(2), pp.87-96.
- Clarke, S., (2013). Safety leadership: A metaâ€analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,86(1), pp.22-49.
- Dellve, L., Williamsson, A., Strömgren, M., Holden, R.J. and Eriksson, A., (2015). Lean implementation at different levels in Swedish hospitals: the importance for working conditions and stress.International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics,3(3-4), pp.235-253.
- Du, S., Swaen, V., Lindgreen, A. and Sen, S., (2013). The roles of leadership styles in corporate social responsibility.Journal of business ethics,114(1), pp.155-169.
- García-Sánchez, E., García-Morales, V.J. and Bolívar-Ramos, M.T., (2017). The influence of top management support for ICTs on organisational performance through knowledge acquisition, transfer, and utilisation. Review of Managerial Science, 11(1), pp.19-51.
- Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Swain, S.D., (2014). Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees.Journal of Marketing,78(3), pp.20-37.
- Mowforth, M. and Munt, I., (2015).Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalisation and new tourism in the third world. Routledge.
- Nahavandi, A., (2016).The Art and Science of Leadership -Global Edition. Pearson.
- Potrafke, N., (2015). The evidence on globalisation.The World Economy,38(3), pp.509-552.