What Nike’s history really teaches about growth

Nike’s rise to a $100bn brand is often told as a story of bold bets and iconic moments. But as historian Scott Reames makes clear, its success is less about single decisions and more about a pattern of behaviours, hiring the right people, embracing uncertainty and repeatedly returning to core strengths when things go wrong.

At the centre of Nike’s early growth was an absence of certainty. Founder Phil Knight, Reames says, “was an entrepreneur, but he wasn’t omniscient. There was no blueprint”. That lack of a playbook shaped how the business operated. Rather than over-direct, Knight hired individuals with “dogged determination to get things done” and, crucially, “stayed out of their way”. It created an environment where autonomy was not a perk but a necessity.

This approach came with risk, but also speed. Early employees were expected to figure things out themselves, often without guidance. That lack of structure could frustrate; one employee repeatedly wrote asking for direction, but it also forced ownership. Over time, this became a defining trait. “It’s okay to fail but make sure it’s for the right reasons and then learn from it,” Reames explains of the culture that emerged.

Crucially, this mindset extended beyond leadership into how the company built its products and brand. Nike’s early team was unconventional, an anthropology graduate designing shoes, an architect becoming one of the most celebrated footwear designers. The common thread was not experience, but curiosity and willingness to experiment. In many cases, that combination proved more valuable than formal expertise.

Yet even with strong foundations, growth was far from linear. The 1980s exposed vulnerabilities that threatened the business. Nike lost ground to Reebok after “badly miscalculating” the aerobics boom, while simultaneously diluting focus by expanding into too many categories. It is a familiar pattern: success breeds expansion, which in turn creates complexity.

The recovery came not from doing more, but from refocusing. Nike doubled down on innovation, most notably visible Air technology, and paired it with bold marketing. The result was a resurgence in momentum. “All of a sudden it’s like the ship is starting to right itself,” Reames says. By the early 1990s, the business had regained leadership and “never looked back”.

High-profile partnerships played a role, but they were not standalone solutions. The signing of Michael Jordan is often viewed as transformative, yet Reames frames it as part of a broader convergence. “There couldn’t have been a better incubator”, a moment where athlete, product, media and culture aligned. Success came from the combination, not the individual elements.

Another overlooked factor is the importance of narrative. Reames’ role as Nike’s first historian revealed how fragile institutional memory can be. Early on, the company struggled to agree on basic facts about its own history. Capturing those stories was not just about accuracy, but about reinforcing identity. As organisations grow, that shared understanding becomes harder to maintain, yet more important.

Recent challenges underline the same principle. Nike’s struggles in the early 2020s were not due to a single misstep, but to “too many things going on simultaneously”, structural change, leadership transition and external shocks like Covid. Complexity, once again, proved difficult to manage.

What stands out across the decades is a consistent pattern. When Nike succeeds, it combines clarity of purpose with freedom to act. When it struggles, it often drifts away from that balance.

For business leaders, the lesson is not about replicating Nike’s scale, but its discipline. Growth introduces noise: more products, more people, more decisions. The challenge is knowing what to hold onto. As Nike’s history shows, the answer is rarely found in doing more, but in doing the right things, repeatedly, over time.