Last week, Nike CEO John Donahoe stepped down after four years at the helm of one of the most iconic brands in the world. While Nike’s swoosh continues to dominate global sportswear, Donahoe’s tenure is viewed by many industry insiders as a misstep. Some say he was the wrong leader from the start—a “bean counter” more focused on balance sheets than the product innovation that helped build Nike’s empire.

Andy Greenaway, a seasoned creative leader in Asia, took to LinkedIn to voice his thoughts on the leadership shift. In his post, Greenaway didn’t mince words: “CHOOSE THE RIGHT LEADER (BECAUSE IF YOU CHOOSE THE WRONG ONE, YOU’RE SCREWED).” He pointed to Donahoe’s lack of experience in the apparel business as a primary reason for his failure to steer Nike toward continued growth. “Donahoe is an outsider who didn’t really have any knowledge or expertise in the apparel business,” Greenaway wrote, adding that the former CEO’s focus was more on financial metrics than on the culture and vision that made Nike a global leader.

Catch our take on why John Donahoe wasn’t the right fit for Nike and its brand:

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Under Donahoe’s stewardship, Nike’s stock took a significant hit, wiping out $28 billion of its value. Profit margins tumbled, which led many to question the brand’s long-term strategy. This decline was particularly troubling for a company that had consistently been a top performer in its industry, with a track record of cutting-edge product lines and innovative marketing campaigns. Nike’s allure, built on its “Just Do It” ethos, seemed to lose its edge under Donahoe.

One of Donahoe’s most controversial moves was slashing sales teams and reducing investment in research and development (R&D). Additionally, he shifted much of Nike’s focus from its traditional retail partners to its direct-to-consumer channels, a pivot that many industry experts argue didn’t play to Nike’s strengths. As Greenaway put it, “He shifted products from Nike’s retail partners to its own stores. He also laid off hundreds of marketers who had an intimate knowledge of Nike’s customers, intending to replace them with data-driven insights.”

Former Nike branding executive Massimo Giunco weighed in on the strategic shift, pointing out that Donahoe’s focus on cutting costs and ramping up digital sales ultimately diluted the brand’s purpose. “For the first time in Nike history, long-term vision wasn’t about sustainable growth anymore… it was about the supremacy of Direct To Consumer, led by digital.” Giunco’s remarks highlight the tension between Donahoe’s digital-centric vision and Nike’s roots in performance-driven product development.

Innovation Takes a Back Seat

One of the defining characteristics of Nike’s success has been its relentless focus on innovation, particularly in sports-specific products that resonate with athletes. Yet, under Donahoe’s leadership, product creation shifted from a performance-based focus to one centered on broad demographics. Instead of designing footwear and apparel for specific sports such as basketball, football, or tennis, Nike began producing generic products for men and women—more in line with fast-fashion brands like Zara or H&M. This change alienated some of Nike’s core consumers, especially athletes who have long been at the heart of the brand’s identity.

Hubert Rau, a business and marketing professor, echoed this sentiment in his LinkedIn comment: “Brands like On, Hoka, New Balance, and Lululemon are making a dent in Nike’s market share.” While Rau acknowledges that Nike still holds a dominant position, he argues that the company’s move toward generic product lines has opened the door for niche brands to gain ground. “The Swoosh aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, but the competition is more fierce than ever,” he added.

Stephen Drummond, a brand strategy consultant, was even more critical of the company’s leadership choices. “He was chosen by their board, and they chose to support those key decisions too. Boards too often duck responsibility for their own poor calls,” Drummond wrote, pointing to a broader systemic failure at Nike’s highest levels.

Financial Wizardry Over Purpose

At the core of Donahoe’s leadership was a focus on financial performance rather than brand vision. Many, like Greenaway, believe this approach was a fatal flaw. “Fundamentally, Donahoe was a number cruncher. He didn’t believe in brand, he didn’t believe in innovation, and he didn’t believe in partnerships,” Greenaway asserted in his post. The focus on cost-cutting and short-term gains, rather than long-term brand-building, seems to have backfired.

Pascal O’Neill, a strategic marketing advisor, offered a similar critique, stating, “When the culture of true Consumer Insights vs Consumer Needs will be re-established, these managers will be out of a job.” His comment underscores the growing frustration among brand strategists with leaders who prioritize data and analytics at the expense of authentic consumer engagement.

The sentiment was also echoed by Kate Neale, a creative partner and producer, who commented, “Bean counters’ objectives are different; they’re job is to record history, they don’t make it.” Neale’s words encapsulate the widespread perception that Donahoe’s emphasis on numbers ultimately stifled Nike’s ability to innovate and stay ahead of its competitors.

Lessons in Leadership

The fall of Donahoe at Nike is a stark reminder that even the most successful brands can falter if they lose sight of what made them great in the first place. As Andy Greenaway concluded in his post, “Donahoe has exited Nike with millions in his pocket, while Nike itself is billions out of pocket.” The disconnect between leadership and brand purpose, he argues, is a warning to companies everywhere: Choose your leaders carefully, or risk long-term damage.

In hindsight, Donahoe’s downfall might have been inevitable. As Richard Beaumont, a leadership expert, quipped, “Wonder if he got to keep his laptop.” While that remark may have been made in jest, it points to a broader truth—leadership at a brand like Nike is about more than just the bottom line. It’s about understanding and nurturing the culture, innovation, and legacy that made the company iconic.

Nike’s story under Donahoe serves as a cautionary tale for leaders across industries. In a world where competition is fierce and consumer loyalty is fragile, numbers matter—but they aren’t everything. Vision, purpose, and innovation remain critical to staying ahead in the game.