Role Overview
The Director of Running reports to the Senior Director of Performance and functions as a mini-General Manager for the entire running category — owning end-to-end running product strategy, innovation pipeline, franchise architecture, commercial P&L, and athlete integration across both footwear and apparel.
Assessment Framework
Pipeline Status
46 candidates assessed across all stages| Candidate | Company | Stage |
|---|
Hiring Manager Overview
A curated view of the 13 candidates currently under active review, with key context on the search strategy and recommended next steps.
The scope On has defined — a mini-GM of Running with end-to-end ownership — exists at VP/GM level at Nike and adidas. Director-level candidates at these brands are structural specialists. The strongest candidates with the right breadth come predominantly from mid-size performance brands (ASICS, Saucony, Under Armour, New Balance, HOKA) where Directors genuinely own the integrated proposition On requires.
Focus on ASICS, Saucony, New Balance, HOKA, Under Armour — where Directors genuinely own the end-to-end running proposition. Highest probability of success.
Target strongest specialists who show readiness for broader ownership. Pitch: "Own the entire running vision." Requires rigorous cultural and commercial screening.
A VP/GM title would unlock candidates who have already proven the exact scope at scale. Requires discussion on internal equity implications.
Hiring Manager Review — 13 Candidates
Currently under active review by the hiring teamActive Pipeline
14 candidates currently active • Click cards to expand full assessment
Inactive Candidates
19 candidates — previously engaged. Several strong profiles worth re-engaging as search progresses.
This group contains strong profiles that were paused for timing or circumstance reasons — not ruled out. Market conditions at several companies (restructurings, ownership changes) create ongoing re-engagement opportunities.
Compare Candidates
Select up to 4 candidates to compare side-by-side across all 5 competency dimensions
Select candidates to compare (max 4):
Analytics
46 candidates assessed across 20+ companies — market mapping complete as of February 2026
Saucony, ASICS, Under Armour and New Balance produce 75% of Strong Proceed candidates. Directors here own the full P&L — the scope On needs.
8 Nike candidates assessed, 0 Strong Proceed. Their Director roles are too specialised — the mini-GM scope lives at VP/GM level, one title above target.
Europe-based candidates convert at 3× the rate of US-based. 2 candidates already in Switzerland. Relocation friction is the #1 drop-off risk.
Gender Split
Pipeline Stage
Action Status
Geography
Source Companies — Candidate Volume
Competency Pool Averages vs Max (5.0)
Top 12 Candidates — Weighted Score Ranking
Strategy 25% / Technical 20% / Execution 20% / Commercial 20% / Cultural 15%
Tenure in Current Role
Pillar Avg — HM Review vs Active Pipeline
Company Conversion — Strong Proceed Rate
Validates the structural insight: scope breadth at Director level correlates inversely with brand scale
| Company | Sourced | Strong Proceed | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saucony | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| Under Armour | 2 | 1 | 50% |
| ASICS EMEA | 5 | 2 | 40% |
| New Balance | 4 | 1 | 25% |
| adidas | 7 | 1 | 14% |
| Nike | 8 | 0 | 0% |
Geographic Detail
| Region | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| US West Coast | 19 | 41% |
| Europe | 14 | 30% |
| US East Coast | 10 | 22% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
Female Candidates (11 of 46)
| Name | Company | Stage |
|---|
Education Highlights
| Candidate | Credential |
|---|---|
| Ted F. | MBA, Boston College |
| Shivam Bhan | MSc Biomechanics, Waterloo |
| Gerard Klein | MBA, NCOI |
| Doug Smiley | Stanford Leading Innovation + JD |
| Nadia Parthun | Harvard Business School Exec Ed |
| Stephan Munchmeyer | MIT Sloan Executive Education |
Tenure Analysis by Pipeline Stage
| Stage | Avg Tenure | Median |
|---|---|---|
| HM Review | 6.8 yrs | 5.2 yrs |
| Active Pipeline | 7.1 yrs | 6.0 yrs |
| Inactive | 8.1 yrs | 7.5 yrs |
Availability Signals
Director of Running
Talent Market Analysis • Candidate Pool Assessment • Strategic Recommendations
February 2026 • Confidential
Executive Summary
This report presents the findings from our comprehensive market mapping and candidate assessment for the Director of Running position within On's Performance Product organisation. We have systematically evaluated 46 candidates from across the global running industry against a structured assessment framework aligned to the role's requirements.
Our analysis has surfaced a significant structural challenge that will shape the search strategy and, we believe, warrants discussion before proceeding to candidate engagement. The core finding is a fundamental misalignment between the scope of the role On has defined and the organisational level at which that scope exists within the primary target companies.
- 46 candidates evaluated from 20+ companies across the global running industry.
- A structural scope-to-title mismatch exists between what On wants (a mini-GM who owns the full running proposition) and where that breadth sits at Nike and adidas (VP/GM level).
- The strongest candidates with the right breadth and integration come predominantly from mid-size brands where Directors genuinely own the full proposition.
- This report outlines three strategic pathways for discussion and recommends a blended approach led by mid-size brand targeting.
1. The Structural Challenge: Scope vs. Title
1.1 What On Is Asking For
The brief describes the Director of Running as a "mini-GM of Running" — someone who owns:
- Global running product strategy end-to-end (footwear + apparel)
- 3–5 year platform roadmap architecture
- Technical product decisions (foam systems, plate technology, biomechanics)
- Franchise lifecycle management (hero platforms, daily trainers, marathon racers)
- Commercial architecture (price-value mapping, margin optimisation, volume planning)
- Athlete integration and insight translation
- Brand storytelling alignment
1.2 Where This Scope Exists at Nike and adidas
At Nike, the organisational structure fragments running product leadership across multiple senior positions. The person who owns the full breadth described in On's brief is the VP/GM of Global Running — a role that sits materially above Director level. Below that, running is subdivided into specialist functions:
| Function at Nike | Typical Title | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Full Running P&L & Vision | VP/GM Global Running | End-to-end running business ownership. This is the scope On wants. |
| Running Footwear Product | Senior Director / Director | Footwear product lines within running (e.g. Women's Running, Men's Running, Racing). Typically owns product strategy for their sub-segment only. |
| Running Footwear Development | Senior Director / Director | Technical product creation and development. Deep engineering/materials expertise. Does not own commercial strategy or P&L. |
| Running Commercial/GTM | Senior Director / GM (Regional) | Go-to-market, sales planning, and commercial execution for running. Often regional (EMEA, NA). Owns revenue but not product creation. |
| Running Innovation/NXT | Senior Director / Director | Future concepts and advanced materials. Typically 2–5 years out. Does not own in-market franchise management. |
| Running Apparel | Senior Director / Director | Separate product leadership from footwear. Own function and team. |
The same structural pattern applies at adidas, where running product, running development, running category management, and running innovation are separate functions, each led by a Director or Senior Director who specialises in their domain.
The consequence is straightforward: at Nike and adidas, the Director-level candidates have deep expertise in one or two pillars of On's brief, but none of them has been required to integrate all five. The person who integrates all five is the VP/GM — and that person is typically too senior for a Director title, both in terms of compensation expectations and career narrative.
2. What the Candidate Data Shows
2.1 Assessment Methodology
All candidates were assessed against five competency pillars derived directly from the role brief, with weightings reflecting relative importance:
| Competency Pillar | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Global Running Strategy Ownership | 25% | End-to-end global running product strategy, 3–5 year roadmap architecture, platform-level decision-making |
| Technical & Innovation Fluency | 20% | Foam systems, plate tech, biomechanics, ability to engage as peer with R&D and design |
| Franchise Shipping & Execution | 20% | Track record of shipping hero running franchises at global scale under time and margin pressure |
| Commercial & Brand Acumen | 20% | Price architecture, margin targets, volume planning, premium positioning, portfolio economics |
| Cultural Fit & Leadership Style | 15% | Collaborative, intellectually curious, growth-stage mindset, comfort in flat/design-forward cultures |
2.2 The Critical Observation
The most telling data point is where the strongest candidates come from. The candidates with genuine breadth across all five pillars come predominantly from mid-size brands:
| Candidate | Company | Current Role |
|---|---|---|
| Stephan Schneider | adidas | VP Running |
| anthony marguet | ASICS EMEA | Senior Director Performance Running |
| Ted F. | Saucony | VP Product/Merchandising & Sports Marketing |
| Dave Cory | Saucony | VP Product Management |
| Doug Smiley | Under Armour | Sr Director, Product — Run FW & Apparel |
| Danny Orr | New Balance | GM Running |
| Gerard Klein | prev. ASICS EMEA | Sr Director Performance Running |
| Shivam Bhan | Wilson | Sr Director Product & Technology |
The pattern is clear: at mid-size brands (ASICS, Saucony, New Balance, Under Armour, HOKA), a Senior Director or VP of Running genuinely owns the end-to-end proposition — strategy, product, commercial, athlete relationships — because the teams are smaller and leaders wear more hats. At Nike and adidas, that same breadth only exists at VP/GM level.
3. Nike & adidas Candidate Deep Dive
3.1 Nike Candidates — The Specialisation Problem
| Candidate | Role | Strategy | Technical | Execution | Commercial | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Megan Hartley* | Sr Dir, Running & ACG FW Product Creation | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★☆ | Cultural risk |
| Natasha Lewis | VP Running Footwear | ★★☆ | ★★☆ | ★★☆ | ★★☆ | Scope; 17yr tenure |
| Rachel Bull | GM/VP Running EMEA | ★★★ | ★★☆ | ★★★ | ★★★ | Nike-only career |
*Note: Megan Hartley assessed from available market intelligence; not included in this candidate pool.
The pattern across the Nike candidates is consistent. VP/GMs have the strategic and commercial breadth but score lower on technical fluency. Product Creation Directors have strong execution scores but only within their sub-segment. No single Nike Director scores ★★★ across all five pillars.
3.2 Contrast: Mid-Size Brand Candidates
The mid-size brand candidates score more consistently across all five pillars because their organisations require leaders to integrate functions that are separated at Nike:
| Candidate | Company | Strategy | Technical | Execution | Commercial | Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| anthony marguet | ASICS EMEA | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | Full breadth + Salomon DNA |
| Ted F. | Saucony | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | Endorphin franchise; multi-brand |
| Doug Smiley | Under Armour | ★★★ | ★★☆ | ★★★ | ★★★ | 4 brands; FW + apparel scope |
| Dave Cory | Saucony | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | Multi-brand builder; VP scope |
| Stephan Schneider | adidas | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | VP Running; German proximity |
4. Strategic Pathways & Recommendations
Focus on ASICS, Saucony, New Balance, HOKA, Under Armour, Brooks, and Salomon.
Why this works: The data shows this pool produces the highest-scoring candidates against On's specific requirements. These are leaders who have built and scaled running platforms, managed franchise lifecycles, owned price architecture, and maintained athlete relationships — all simultaneously. Their challenger brand experience also means they are more likely to adapt culturally to On's flatter, faster operating environment.
Priority targets:
- anthony marguet (ASICS EMEA) — Sr Director Performance Running. 15 years at Salomon + ASICS. Amsterdam-based. Closest profile to the role.
- Ted F. (Saucony) — VP Product/Merchandising. Owns the Endorphin franchise. Multi-brand (Reebok, adidas). Challenger brand DNA.
- Dave Cory (Saucony) — VP Product Management. Builds brands from the ground up. Strong commercial and creative instincts.
- Doug Smiley (Under Armour) — Sr Director Run FW & Apparel. Four-brand running pedigree. Owns dual footwear + apparel scope.
- Stephan Schneider (adidas) — VP Running. Long-tenure brand builder. Germany-based, proximity to Zurich.
Why this works: Nike and adidas produce world-class product leaders with unmatched technical training, innovation exposure, and scale experience. The right person from this pool brings technical credibility and process sophistication that smaller brands often cannot match. For the candidate, On offers something Nike never will: total ownership.
Priority targets:
- Natasha Lewis (Nike) — VP Running Footwear. Title near-exact match. Needs screening for strategic breadth beyond footwear product.
- Rachel Bull (Nike) — GM/VP Running EMEA. Europe-based. Strong commercial running leadership. Would need VP or Head of title.
- Gerard Klein (prev. ASICS EMEA) — Strong prior breadth at ASICS. Available. Top priority in inactive pool.
Why this matters: Title signals scope, seniority, and organisational authority. A VP/GM of Running at Nike or New Balance will not take a Director title, regardless of compensation, because it reads as a demotion in their career narrative. This is not vanity — it has real implications for future employability and how they are perceived by their network, by athletes, and by the industry.
The trade-off: Elevating the title may create internal equity challenges if the Senior Director of Performance role is filled concurrently. However, this is a solvable organisational design question if On is serious about attracting proven GM-level talent.
5. Our Recommendation
We recommend a blended approach that leads with Pathway 1, pursues Pathway 2 selectively, and opens a dialogue on Pathway 3 as a contingency.
5.1 Immediate Actions
- Begin active outreach to the Pathway 1 priority targets (Marguet, Ted F., Cory, Smiley, Schneider). These represent the highest probability of success against the role as currently defined. Several are in market conditions (UA restructuring, Saucony ownership dynamics) that create approach windows.
- Approach the Pathway 2 targets in parallel (Lewis, Bull, Klein) with a tailored "step into total ownership" pitch. Screen specifically for commercial instincts, growth-stage adaptability, and willingness to operate in a flatter culture.
- Present this analysis to the hiring team and discuss whether Pathway 3 (title flexibility) should be activated. Our recommendation is to have this conversation before approaching VP/GM-level candidates, so we can present a credible proposition from the outset.
5.2 Revised Sourcing Priority
| Priority Level | Companies | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Focus | ASICS, Saucony, New Balance, HOKA, Under Armour | Organisational structures produce leaders with the integrated breadth On needs. Market conditions create talent availability. |
| Secondary Focus | Nike, adidas, Brooks, Salomon | Target only the strongest Director-level specialists who show readiness for broader scope. Screen heavily for commercial acumen and cultural adaptability. |
| Opportunistic | PUMA, Mizuno, Decathlon/Kiprun, Scott Sports | Monitor for exceptional individual profiles. Lower probability but worth maintaining awareness. |
We welcome the opportunity to discuss these findings and align on next steps.