Adidas or Puma? It matters more than you think

,

There are tribes we don’t realise we are part of.

Over the past few months I’ve been noticing how often our sense of belonging quietly shapes how we see things—and how we act.

A story from the world of sport captures this powerfully.

In a small town in Germany, two brothers, Adi and Rudi Dassler ran a successful shoe company together. During WW2 a misunderstanding triggered a fallout between them. They split up and one founded Adidas and the other, Puma.

That might have been the end of it.

But it wasn’t.

The division spread through the town. People chose sides. What shoes you wore shaped your friendships. Relationships formed - or didn’t - based on brand loyalty. Marriages across the divide were rare.

What started as a personal disagreement became something much bigger—an identity people organised themselves around.

Today, Adidas and Puma are two of the world’s most recognisable sports brands—an enduring reminder of how deeply human divisions and loyalties can scale.

It’s easy to see the origins of these two great companies as an eccentric historical story from a small town in Germany.

It’s harder to see it in ourselves.

How this shows up today

In organisations, similar dynamics play out all the time—just in more subtle ways.

I often see this with leadership teams, where alignment on the surface can mask competing loyalties underneath.

We tend to believe we’re making rational decisions based on evidence and experience.

But often, we’re also protecting the group we identify with—our function, our team, our organisation, even our past decisions.

It’s not so different from sport.

Fans can watch the same moment in a match and see completely different things—each convinced they’re seeing reality as it is:

What’s shaping these perceptions isn’t just what happened in front of our eyes

It’s also about who we feel aligned with.

A few questions for you to reflect on

• What “tribes” are you and your colleagues part of at work?

• Where might loyalty be shaping your own and their judgement?

• What becomes harder to see when you strongly identify with a group?

I’ve seen versions of this repeatedly in organisations going through mergers, where teams may formally become one company long before they feel like one tribe.

This demonstrates that leadership often requires the ability to step slightly outside your own group—without losing their trust!

If this made you think of someone navigating team dynamics or organisational politics, feel free to pass it on.

And if it resonates with something you’re seeing in your own organisation, I’d always welcome a conversation.

‘Til next time.

John