Did Nike Outgrow Design and Innovation?
My recent post on Nike’s Design Drain sparked a lively debate. A key question emerged: Do companies grow too big to innovate and adapt, only to become irrelevant?
Let’s dive into that.
A company’s relevance is best shown by its commitment to design and innovation.
In the 2010s, design and innovation were prominent in corporate C-suites. McKinsey noted that companies excelling in design grew revenues and shareholder returns nearly twice as fast as their peers.
However, the post-pandemic emergence of AI abruptly shifted the focus from design to cost efficiency and protecting margins.
Almost overnight, the game changed from “playing to win” to “playing not to lose.”
Think IBM, Johnson & Johnson, and Expedia.
And now… Nike too?
More on that question later.
Back to our thesis. Can companies get too big to use design effectively?
Yes. Here’s why: Risk aversion becomes ascendent, causing a shift to defense by protecting market share, bogging down in bureaucracy, and chasing endless growth to please Wall Street.
Meanwhile, smaller, agile companies out-innovate them by taking risks. It’s the classic tale of big companies getting too comfortable and small ones seizing the opportunity.
And yet, design isn’t just about “collabs,” newness, and style; it’s about standing out, strategy, and systems thinking.
McKinsey research shows that top design companies boost revenue by 32%.
So, why cut design? With ever-shrinking margins, it’s tempting to double down on efficient tech solutions to deliver short-term gains.
The slimming effects on the bottom line are irresistible. Scott Gallaway calls it Corporate Ozempic. But with this alone, they lose their market edge.
Harvard Business School highlights that when humans think like designers, they drive innovation. Technology choices aren’t black or white. But without human input, AI remains just cold code.
We need empathy, not just algorithms. Strategy, not just execution. Products must resonate with people, not just work.
Cutting design rips the heart out of innovation.
Look at Intel and IBM. They lost their edge by focusing too much on efficiency and not enough on innovation. They ignored customer needs and now are irrelevant.
Is the same happening at Nike? There are mixed signals.
First, the good news: Nike’s design leadership doubled its C-suite presence, adding a Chief Innovation Officer alongside the Chief Design Officer, signaling a deeper focus on innovation and design.
Unfortunately too: in four years losing design legends like Sergio Lozano, Nate Jobe, Chad Knight, Tom Rushbrook, Tania Flynn, and Dylan Raasch — is a seismic shift.
Further, layoffs have shed dozens more seasoned design leaders, which is more than a talent loss; it has fractured the culture of innovation.
Missing these creative forces, the road ahead looks a lot less inspiring.
So yes, companies can get too big to pivot and compete.
Is Nike in this space? It’s too early to tell. But there’s hope.
Especially if they take a page from Phil Knight, who, when pressured in the 1980s to dilute the long-term vision and values of the company, defiantly said NO.
Nike, remember why you exist. Elevate design and innovation with passion. Serve the athlete. Be on the offense. Always.