Nike and Reebok Case

Was the rejuvenation of Nike and the decline of Reebok due mostly to the talents

of a Phil Knight versus a Paul Fireman? Does the success of an enterprise

depend almost entirely on the ability of its leader? Such questions have long

baffl ed experts.

Several aspects of this issue are worth noting. The incompetent is usually

clearly evident and identifi able. The great business leader may also be, but

perhaps he or she simply lucked out. In most situations, competing executives

are reasonably similar in competence. They have vision, the support of their

organizations, and reasonable judgment and prudence. What then makes the

difference? A good assessment of opportunities, an advertising slogan that really

hits, a hunch of competitor vulnerability? Yes. But how much is due just to a

fortuitous call, a gamble that paid off?We know that Phil Knight had a history of great successes. After all, he beat

Adidas, and brought Nike from nowhere to the premier athletic apparel fi rm in

the world. Add to this his handling of a great challenge by moving Nike, for a

second time, into the heady air of market leader. Was his ability as a top executive

so much greater than that of Fireman? Would his absence have destroyed

the promise of Nike?

Perhaps the basic question is: Can one person make a difference? Does that

person

...