I will readily admit that corporate culture stems from those who built the company. I know this and everyone should know this. If an Asian person builds a company and they grew up around Asians then the company will reflect that life. Insert any culture into the previous statement and it still rings true. The inherent problem with this is that as the company grows and begins to reach a more diverse market, companies can grow out of touch which lends itself to problems within the company and outside of the company.
America is a country built on the back of indentured servitude, slave labor and unfair economic policies based on race. The keyword here is race. America is also a country that allows for those willing to fight, to find a way to build a life. America is a blade that when it is unsheath and swung, it slices the molecules of the air disturbing everything in its path until the blade reaches its target splitting the target apart.
The blade of America is divisive because that’s what blades do. A country can’t be anything more than what it is, right?
Unfortunately race can’t be eradicated as the country is unwilling to acknowledge the mistreatment of minorities. Mistreatment, that when you really step back and look at the timeline of history, is barely 3 years older than Nike. Nike, not Blue Ribbon Sports, was born in 1971. Dr. King was murdered in 1968. This means that Blacks have only had the right to vote or reasonable access to the same positions as Whites for around 40 years out of 400. This becomes worse when you realize that issues like red lining and bussing was the norm throughout the 70s and it becomes a lot more difficult to consider when you look at the effect of drugs and guns placed purposefully into Black neighborhoods during the 80s.
Bleak isn’t it?
The recent uptick in dialogue about diversity in the footwear industry is parallel to any industry. I established this when I wrote a response to the current “war on Nike’s locker room culture”.
Nike’s Current Diversity Crisis Could Be Happening In Almost Every Major Company | Reality Check
The problem with the way Nike is run is grounded in how the company was founded. I italicize ‘problem’ because Nike wasn’t intentionally sexist and racist, any more than adidas was racist when it was founded (remember Jesse Owens? adidas made the shoes that beat Hitler). As I said before, what can we expect from Nike, adidas, Under Armour, New Balance, or any major brand that was more than likely founded by a young White male? We hire and bring in who we are with all of the time. There isn’t anything wrong with how a company is founded as more than likely those closest to you are going to be supporting you and helping you to build your business. Your business will reflect this. With all of the discussion about the mistreatment of women in the workplace, the conversation does not move towards the mistreatment of people of color and now that the emphasis is on locker room culture…
I FEAR THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR WILL BE PUSHED FURTHER DOWN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND,
when important positions are made available. The industry has focused their attention on Nike. In response Nike has removed the following people:
Trevor Edwards, Jayme Martin, Steve Lesnard, Helen Kim (an Asian woman), Simon Pestridge, Tommy Kain, Ibrahem Hasan
The positions that have been filled (where the public has been made aware), by White women which brings into question what diversity means. By definition diversity is defined as, “The condition of having or including people from different ethnicities and social backgrounds.” While the headlines from various media outlets are using the keyword of “diversity” for the changes taking place in the footwear industry, the reality is that by definition what is taking place is the promotion of people based on gender and not ethnicity. This means that the workplace within footwear still lacks diversity even as the executive positions are being filled with new people and this is dangerous as the groups that diversity in employment was created to serve are becoming further marginalized and diminished although there is hard evidence that an abundance of very capable and qualified people are available for executive positions.
I was speaking with a former executive of a major apparel company and this is the question that was posed,
Why does the corporate world look at diversity differently than everyone else? Universities look at race when it comes to diversity, not (let’s) promote women and call it diversity.
Another executive raised several interesting points:
1) To be fair to the footwear industry, the challenges and opportunities that are being brought to light currently are symptomatic of challenges that exist in corporate America at large. Gender discrimination, pay inequity, homogenous top management teams, lack of empowerment from the top down, various forms of nepotism, etc. it’s bigger than shoes. That said……
2) …within footwear, the power of diversity (diversity of thought, culture, race, gender, age, experience, nationality, etc) is valued, but it is not always rewarded. That is to say that brands love the dimension, reach, and cool factor that various facets of diversity (where diversity can = culture) can provide, but those that are rooted in it are often not positioned to lead.
3) Cultural divides play a role in the footwear industry being where it is as well. The culture chasm that exists is exacerbated by the similar-to-me effect, in that folks tend to gravitate toward folks that look, think, and act like them. This flies directly in the face of diversity and dampens the power of culture.
4) The winners in this game will be those who openly seek out diverse talent across a spectrum of human and professional culture and openly embrace and unleash it, versus admiring from a distance like one watching animals at a zoo.
What exactly is it that I hope to create with this post? Awareness. This is not an attack on women. It is a reminder than diversity by definition means culture and race. While there have been multiple articles written by Footwear News and by the Portland Business Journal and there will be more posts that are presented, these posts were only written once attention was drawn to the omission of color from the original Footwear News article. I said in the PBX article that it’s unfortunate that this dialogue was created from frustration. What I failed to add was that frustration has long been the parent of movements and we should all welcome the uncomfortable moments that create change. In the long run our industry and lives are always made better by the things we fear the most…
In 2016 Fortune.com ran an article on diversity at Nike. In it they presented information and a chart showing the makeup of employees at the Swoosh:
The article went on to state:
While Parker lauded the progress, he added that the company wants to continue to bolster representation of women and people of color on the Nike roster.
Across America’s biggest corporations, one trend worth noting is that while many companies are making greater strides to increase diversity among their ranks, that inclusion is less apparent in top management and board member roles. At Nike, diversity thins out at the top as well. Women hold just three of Nike’s 14 board seats. And 11 members of the board are white. U.S. leadership/management is 80% white, a figure that has remained relatively consistent in recent years.
Nike’s board is notably more diverse than main U.S. rival Under Armour (UA). At Under Armour, all 10 board members are white and nine of them are men.
Nike says that it has added more than 800 female managers to its staff between fiscal year 2012 and 2015. The company also says that racial and ethnic diversity within Nike’s “People Manager” team has increased by 5% over that period. Still, it acknowledges more needs to be done.
“This represents positive progress, but we also recognize that there is still work ahead,” Nike said.
In 2016 Nike acknowledged the issue with diversity in management and executives. It’s 2018 and the same issue with diversity in executive positions that existed remains. Under Armour has added one person of color to their executive board. I talk about this in the Nike Diversity article above. Below adidas reflects the entire reason this article was written. adidas doesn’t utilize culture or race as a measurement for diversity. They utilize gender under the guise that this is diversity. adidas’ primary endorsers in entertainment and sports(soccer = Paul Pogba, football = Von Miller, basketball = James Harden and entertainment = Kanye and Pharrell) are all Black yet diversity for the Three Stripes isn’t even analyzed in the same manner that Nike utilizes. Which creates another question, why is it that Nike is the only company facing scrutiny?
Diversity in employment is a touchy subject. Every executive I spoke with was intimidated by the prospect of utilizing their names. The footwear community in Portland is a tight knit group. A person who has the ability to rise to the top could find themselves on the outside looking in for raising questions about diversity in their company. People talk and moving from one company to another is akin to betraying in the Corleone family. You end up with either a horse head or like Fredo. Which is unfortunate, but once again… it’s the reality we are in when the problem is failing to promote based on merit and talent as opposed to nepotism and friendships.
I would love to get back to analyzing marketing and discussing kicks, but if it takes for me to write a post every week or two to address this and keep it at the forefront, then I will lose my sneakerhead and business crowd because I have the least to lose and there has to be a consistent voice. If any brand would like to share their diversity information with me I would love to show how you are taking steps to solve this issue. I will write the post and present it here on the site. My e-mail is cburns@arch-usa.com I truly look forward to hearing from you.