Contents
In the cemetery of Herzogenaurach, a small town in Bavaria, two brothers lie buried – at opposite ends. Rudolf Dassler died in 1974, Adolf Dassler on September 6, 1978. For about a quarter of a century they had run a company together. Then they split up, and the split divided a workforce and a town. The Dasslers’ story is a counterexample to the Team Principle of Conflict: conflict over substance can move a team forward; conflict over the person always harms it.
Two Brothers, One Factory
Situation
Adolf Dassler, known as Adi, was born on November 3, 1900. After World War I he began making sports shoes in Herzogenaurach. His brother Rudolf, two years older, joined him on July 1, 1923. A year later, on July 1, 1924, the “Gebrüder Dassler Sportschuhfabrik” (Dassler Brothers Sports Shoe Factory) was registered. Both joined the Nazi Party on May 1, 1933. At the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, Jesse Owens ran to his gold medals in Dassler shoes.
Connection to the team principle
The brothers are regarded as a pair who complemented each other: Adolf the developer, Rudolf the salesman. After the split, at least, the two companies focused on exactly these strengths. A team like that has every reason to argue about substance – about models, prices, markets. And there is a good chance that the argument will pay off, as long as each trusts the other.
Suspicion Instead of Trust
Situation
During the war, Adolf was drafted on August 7, 1940, and released again on February 28, 1941. Rudolf was drafted in January 1943. In April 1945 he was arrested by the Gestapo, and on July 25, 1945, by the American occupying forces. Rudolf suspected his brother of being behind his conscription and internment. A second reason given for the rift is the bad blood between the two wives, who lived with their families in the same villa. The cause of the break has never been established. All we have are the explanations that have been passed down.
Connection to the team principle
What stands out is what the explanations are about: suspicion, hurt and family. They are not about shoes. In 2000, Tony L. Simons and Randall S. Peterson studied 70 top management teams to find out when task conflict becomes personal. Their finding: it depends on trust. Where trust is lacking, factual disagreement is easily read as a personal attack. The study shows a correlation, not proof in an individual case. But it describes what seems likely in the Dasslers’ case: when one brother thinks the other capable of the worst, there is no longer any such thing as a purely factual question.
A Company Is Split in Two
Situation
The brothers parted ways in 1948. Rudolf founded his own company, first under the name “Ruda,” then as Puma. In 1949 Adolf registered Adidas, with the three stripes as its trademark. The workforce was divided: about two-thirds, along with the factory by the railway station, went to Adidas; one-third and the factory on Würzburger Straße went to Puma. According to a widely told account, the brothers never spoke to each other again.
Connection to the team principle
No compromise is possible here anymore, because there is no longer a question that could be decided. A dispute over substance ends with a decision. A dispute over the person only ends when someone leaves. The Dasslers resolved theirs in the costliest way: they took apart what they had built together, and every employee had to choose a side.
The Rift Runs Through the Town
Situation
The feud did not stay between the brothers. Herzogenaurach acquired a nickname that roughly means “the town of bent necks”: people looked at each other’s shoes first to find out which camp the other belonged to. Employees of the two companies avoided one another. In 1954, Adidas outfitted West Germany’s World Cup–winning team. Puma was left out after a falling-out between Rudolf Dassler and national coach Sepp Herberger. The hostility even outlasted an agreement: in 1970, the two companies agreed not to sign the soccer player Pelé. Puma broke the agreement.
Connection to the team principle
Conflict over the person is contagious. It demands that everyone around take sides. It is passed on – to employees and to the next generation. There is a serious objection: both companies became global brands, and one could argue that it was precisely the rivalry that drove them both. So in business terms, the split was not purely harmful. But the principle is about the team. And the Dassler team – two brothers, one workforce, one town – was destroyed by the feud.
Key takeaways
Key Lessons
- Pay attention to what your team is arguing about. Is it still product, price and plan – or already intentions and character?
- Voice a suspicion while you can still phrase it as a question. An unspoken suspicion hardens into certainty over time.
- Keep work and private life apart when things get tense. If you work together and live together, you fight every battle twice.
- Don’t put employees in a position where they have to choose sides. Once camps form, the conflict is no longer yours alone.
- Bring in a third party early. If separation is the only option left, you have waited too long.
Summary
Adolf and Rudolf Dassler built a successful factory together. What drove them apart, by all accounts, was suspicion and hurt – not a question that could have been settled. In 1948 they divided the company, the workforce and, in the end, the town. Both brands grew into global names; the team stayed broken. The Team Principle of Conflict names the difference: conflict over substance can move a team forward. Conflict over the person always harms it.