Nike Inc. is considered the dominant figure in post-Fordist achievement (Katz, 1994, p. 31). Nike ™ is a transnational organisational culture that thrives on the unity of all its employees-currently 26,000. Nike Inc.’s changing trends and approach to its internal labour force are constantly changing. Notably, integrating new methods to increase production and reduce labour costs rapidly is a crucial feature of post-Fordist industrial change. This essay will assert that Nike’s organisational culture coincides with post-Fordist industrial change by arguing the fragmentation and pluralism of Nike Inc.’s employees, the relatively flexible specialisation of this corporate culture, and Nike’s ability to respond to demographic changes.

Nike’s organisational culture is fragmented and pluralistic. Nike has strategic alliances, each bordering on multiple locations worldwide; Nike’s factory locations are divided overseas based on the technological achievements of those chosen facilities. For example, Nike’s organisational culture stems across the globe, influencing countries such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Philippines, Thailand, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia (Aker, 2000, p. 34). Nike Inc. coordinates efforts to design shoes using technology in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (producing 10,000 pairs daily). In contrast, less developed countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines make generic casual shoes (70,000 to 85,000 pairs per day) (Romaniuk, 2003, p. 77). Nike Inc. has connections worldwide and fragmented employee relationships due to the intensive pluralistic environment. Nike’s corporate diversification comes from the social, political and economic aspects of the various countries with which Nike is affiliated. Therefore, Nike Inc. is post-Fordist through this dynamic coordination of production and labour and integrating multiple values from twelve countries.

Furthermore, Nike can coordinate factory movements worldwide using technology. For example, Nike Inc. has had short-term partnerships (ranging from one to three years) to increase production for straining times that require higher production to meet consumer demand (Katz, 1994, p. 113). Once consumer demand is reached, Nike Inc. closes the factory to save labour costs. This can inadvertently harm Nike’s factory opening location; however, Nike can efficiently increase production and value with short-term partnerships. These short-term partnerships fragment employees because they are dissatisfied they got laid off (Stabile, 2003, p. 199). The mix of production partners and their capabilities changes yearly due to factory improvements, market fluctuations, and technological progress. It results in fragmentation based on locale differences. Each production partner follows a set of values, beliefs, and norms mutually exclusive to that locale (Aker, 2000, p. 50). These temporary and long-term partnerships are characteristic of post-Fordist industrial change, primarily because of the global coverage of resources and the influence of these partnerships (Amin, 1994, p. 28). Taking advantage of subcontracting partnerships, the final result is a fragmented and pluralistic organisational culture, bringing to perspective post-Fordism ideas.

Nike Inc. also exemplifies post-Fordism in flexibility in the specialisation. Flexible specialisation refers to a manufacturing alternative to a mass production system that revolves around vertically disintegrated industrial districts (Nadesan, 2001, p. 23). Nike Inc.’s organisational culture is not flexible because it relies on vertical integration to reinforce production (Stabile, 2003, p. 200). Naturally, this can impact the overall production value for the year and ensure cooperation from all their production partners. Since Nike Inc. is a transnational company, managing production facilities in several countries may require vertical industrial districts. As a result of Nike Inc.’s industrial district design, they can track and catalogue the shoes they produce effectively.

On the other hand, Nike Inc. is a flexible company that specialises in machinery and labour. However, these are adjustments used to reinforce foreign production values rather than decentralising production to various small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Katz, 1994, p. 42). Nike only works with SMEs because it is difficult to trace and catalogue the number of shoes produced daily. In addition, these adjustments in flexible machinery promote a reduction of labour, which revolves around introducing and streamlining mass production techniques by simplifying workstations and updating existing machinery (Aker, 2000, p. 42). For example, a Nike Inc. manager described a recent advancement in ”upper” stitching: an automated machine was introduced to automatically position the needle and trim excess thread for the operator. This kind of labour-saving change is hardly revolutionary. It can be specifically associated with continuing foreign production methods (Katz, 1994, p. 73). The only elements of Nike’s system that could be classified as flexible machinery are 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. Through technological advancements, labour is systematically reduced because minuscule, time-consuming tasks are replaced by technology. Although Nike Inc. may not specialise in vertical disintegration, it has found an alternative method of flexibility: labour and machinery. These two flexible components play side-by-side to enhance productivity and accelerate capital accumulation, a characteristic of post-Fordist industrial change. As an organisational culture aiming to maximise capital accumulation, this organisation utilises post-Fordism to advance its influence in the business sector.

Nike has an exemplary organisational culture that illustrates demographic stability and consumer targets. While producing shoes in third-world countries, Nike Inc. brands shoes with boldness and athletic elitism. Swoosh. Nike’s values are mythologised in heroic excellence, enthusiasm, and assertiveness of “Just Do It.” Naturally, this is a uniquely post-Fordist behavioural characteristic of Nike Inc. as an organisational culture. Nike Inc. brands the swoosh with a mythologised lifestyle, initially based around Michael Jordan as the embodiment of that myth. Jordan flies through the air in suspended animation, buoyed by Nike’s hi-tech shoes. As Katz explains, “Magic had accrued to the most carefully made shoes, and this perception was the result of a hundred intricate cultural signals–many of which had indeed been manufactured tomanipulate popular desire” (1994, p. 269). Individuals purchase these “cultural signs” that reinforce athletic achievement potential. Nike’s targeting of a particular consumer demographic is characteristic of post-Fordist industrial change. More importantly, how Nike connections are intensively organised is also an attribute of post-Fordism. For example 1988, the Nike brand had nearly 400 basic athletic footwear models. This was simply because Nike could swiftly respond to demographic shifts and interests strategically and methodically. Nike can expeditiously and efficiently coordinate efforts to produce newer shoe models to suit demographic interests. This will stabilise their chosen demographic and maintain the loyalty of devoted Nike consumers. As an organisational culture, Nike is an excellent symbol of post-Fordist industrial development since this organisation can target consumer desires and coordinate efforts to stabilise all efforts to keep the same demographic by responding to changes in consumer demand and new interests.

This analysis of the production organisation within the Nike athletic footwear division reveals that the organisational culture has developed an intricate industrial system. Shoe production occurs under several subcontracting arrangements that allow the company flexibility in dynamic and fluid markets. These subcontracting arrangements further increase pluralism and fragmentation, attributes of post-Fordist industrial developments. Nike’s culture may need to be more flexible. However, this organisation promotes a flexible compromise regarding labour and machinery rather than disintegrating industrial districts, a characteristic of prominent post-Fordist achievements.

Furthermore, Nike’s organisational values are instilled in the brand name, furthering the relationship between the consumer and the corporate culture. These relationships are constantly dynamic, and Nike responds in post-Fordist ways to ensure consumer demand is met efficiently. Nike’s organisational culture is 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.