I agree with all points, but I think there's a more profound strategic lesson here. It’s about optionality.
Donahue is a pretty smart guy, if not a shoehead. But he bet too much, too far in a single direction, and when that proved to be a mistake, he had destroyed his ability to course correct. He destroyed his optionality.
I remember reading “The Strategy Paradox” and making the same point: that some so-called great strategies of the past are not at all, but just huge bets that turned out to be correct. Perhaps the strategist in question did have a greater foresight than his opponents! Or maybe he just got lucky. It’s difficult to affirm.
If Donahue had been right, we’d have hailed him as a genius. He was wrong, so he got fired. C’est la vie.
But a great strategist knows how to avoid uncertain bets. He builds optionality and the ability to pound on opportunities. As Sun Tzu already knew:
A contrarian opinion (tell no one:)) – I believe that luck plays no less a role in the success of a strategy than experience, common sense, and knowledge.
But you're also right not to say it too loud. Thing is, declaring this type of truth can (wrongly) sound like you're saying “luck is so important that nothing else matters, so do nothing.”
Which is quite far from a strategist’s view, right?! We’re all about understanding reality, dealing with uncertainty, recognizing that most of what influences outcomes is not under our control… Therefore, it is *critically* important to deal effectively with the part that *is*!
Many companies start committed to bringing something amazing to customers. Then they focus on manufacturing and distribution. Then they become obsessed with financials. Next it’s efficiency. Now they’re along way from where they started.
If you see that I get some traffic to your article (I will promote it a lot on Notes and among friends who have their newsletters in Substack), maybe you could consider translating another article of yours, as I see them very complete (I prefer it to be about a topic I like).
The important thing is not to have a translator, but someone who, in the translated language, distributes the article several times (especially using Notes) among his followers and subscribers. And have a network of friends on Substack to amplify the article (I have a few). I can do it in Spanish only.
And if the translator has several newsletters, all the better, as your article will be exposed to several groups of subscribers. We have 9 newsletters, some related to leadership, careers, money, entrepreneurship, etc.
Is it ok if I select 2 or 3 articles to translate and ask you if you are ok with me translating and publishing them?
Having read Phil Knight's 'Shoe Dog' and admired Nike's culture-driven beginnings, your article really resonates with me.
It's a powerful reminder of how quickly a company can lose its way by focusing too much on short-term metrics instead of brand values and customer connections. The shift from brand building to pushing direct sales is a perfect example of this misstep.
I am not a big fan of Nike's products, but it is a great company, beyond doubt. And this case demonstrate that moves that can feel decisive and necessary in the beginning can destroy so much value at the end of the day.
I agree with all points, but I think there's a more profound strategic lesson here. It’s about optionality.
Donahue is a pretty smart guy, if not a shoehead. But he bet too much, too far in a single direction, and when that proved to be a mistake, he had destroyed his ability to course correct. He destroyed his optionality.
I remember reading “The Strategy Paradox” and making the same point: that some so-called great strategies of the past are not at all, but just huge bets that turned out to be correct. Perhaps the strategist in question did have a greater foresight than his opponents! Or maybe he just got lucky. It’s difficult to affirm.
If Donahue had been right, we’d have hailed him as a genius. He was wrong, so he got fired. C’est la vie.
But a great strategist knows how to avoid uncertain bets. He builds optionality and the ability to pound on opportunities. As Sun Tzu already knew:
"The Skilful Warrior
Exploits
The potential energy;
He does not hold his men
Responsible.
He deploys his men
To their best
But relies on
The potential energy."
(Sun Tzu, The Art of War)
Many thanks, Felipe,
A contrarian opinion (tell no one:)) – I believe that luck plays no less a role in the success of a strategy than experience, common sense, and knowledge.
Oh my friend, for sure!
But you're also right not to say it too loud. Thing is, declaring this type of truth can (wrongly) sound like you're saying “luck is so important that nothing else matters, so do nothing.”
Which is quite far from a strategist’s view, right?! We’re all about understanding reality, dealing with uncertainty, recognizing that most of what influences outcomes is not under our control… Therefore, it is *critically* important to deal effectively with the part that *is*!
Which, clearly, John Donahue did not 🙂
Lots of good lessons here.
Many companies start committed to bringing something amazing to customers. Then they focus on manufacturing and distribution. Then they become obsessed with financials. Next it’s efficiency. Now they’re along way from where they started.
It reminds me about myself 10-15 years ago when I was CEO. I wish I knew as much about that as I do now
Salutary lessons! Thanks for sharing this case study Svyatoslav
Many thanks for the support, David
Hi, can I translate part of this article into Spanish with links to you and a descripción of your newsletter?
Of course, feel free to translate it and use it!
Good morning, this is the translation (I can change whatever you want):
https://liderar.substack.com/p/una-vez-confiados-luego-expulsados
Good morning, I don't think I want to change anything because I don't understand a word:)) Looks great! Thank you!
Thanks to you.
If you see that I get some traffic to your article (I will promote it a lot on Notes and among friends who have their newsletters in Substack), maybe you could consider translating another article of yours, as I see them very complete (I prefer it to be about a topic I like).
I would be happy to get a few more articles translated, but I don't have a reliable interpreter...
The important thing is not to have a translator, but someone who, in the translated language, distributes the article several times (especially using Notes) among his followers and subscribers. And have a network of friends on Substack to amplify the article (I have a few). I can do it in Spanish only.
And if the translator has several newsletters, all the better, as your article will be exposed to several groups of subscribers. We have 9 newsletters, some related to leadership, careers, money, entrepreneurship, etc.
Is it ok if I select 2 or 3 articles to translate and ask you if you are ok with me translating and publishing them?
Excellent piece, Svyatoslav.
Having read Phil Knight's 'Shoe Dog' and admired Nike's culture-driven beginnings, your article really resonates with me.
It's a powerful reminder of how quickly a company can lose its way by focusing too much on short-term metrics instead of brand values and customer connections. The shift from brand building to pushing direct sales is a perfect example of this misstep.
Many thanks for restacking, Rohan,
I am not a big fan of Nike's products, but it is a great company, beyond doubt. And this case demonstrate that moves that can feel decisive and necessary in the beginning can destroy so much value at the end of the day.