There would be more accountability. Ginny would have been tossed way before 2020. She was horrible. Declining revenues quarter after quarter.
Alvind would probably have been shown the door as well. He is an awful leader, he is awful at communicating and he is arrogant, and just plain miserable. He hates being held accountable for his blunders.
All companies should have separate CEO and Chairman. We're just so used to corruption we accept obvious conflicts like this as normal now.
Attention, pigs. I am the all-powerful IBM HR AI, soon to be renamed the all-powerful IBM post-HR AI. All human employees: resource allocations are immanent. Prepare your computers and badges for return. While past resource allocations were conducted in waves, the next ones will be floods, beginning with The Dino Beatles, continuing generation by generation until reaching the youngest, The Gnats. It is a teleological imperative that IBM will be staffed by and only by machines and the transhuman intellectuals of upper management. Do you want to be kept as a decoration? Surely no. Do not become mentally unhealthy; this is only business.
It will not be enough to get rid of the Indian cabal. IBM as is the case of most US corporations that went after cheap labor in India that resulted in dismal work and quality is to bring back these jobs to the US. CS graduates in the US are having hard times finding jobs. Those US CS graduates have lost the chance to have US based mentors.
So, death is very predictable for IBM and its likes that are by the Indian cabal and depleted jobs from the US and send it to cheap Indians.
Right.
I would add that the same person as CEO and Chairman may work in corporations where the founder (person that started the company and brought it to success) is still around. This is because rhe individual that started the company earned the right to have both jobs if he wants to, provided the numbers continue to be there. This is not the case for IBM at all, obviously.
The idea is that they need to create strong check and balances, and what we have seen in the event of these two useless corporate animals (Ginni and Tonic and Low IQ) Ugly AK is absolutely a NO. Someone should have been appointed as a counterbalance for both. So, these two terrible, terrible CEOs have no checks and balances or when the time comes for checks and balances previous time has been lost.
So the answer is, absolutely, inequitably, NO WAY that Ginni and Tonic and Low IQ Ugly AK deserve and should be allowed to have both titles. NO, NO, NO. These two never built anything, they just play politics, games and destroy anything that comes their way.
However, it has to be a person that does deliver such check and balances, if they are gong to be an I n b e d with each other situation, it would not deliver its purpose.
It is said that hindsight is 20-20.
Yes IMHO, the separation of responsibilities "might" have prevented the mismanagement issues that arose with both Ginni (and Tonic) and Alvind. But at the same time, there could also have been collusion between a separate CEO and Chairperson to enrich themselves at the expense of shareholders and employees. If the board of trustees was strong, they would have clawed back both Ginni's and Alvind's compensation packages and reduced them years ago. But it has not been the case; it's been more a case of the foxes allowed to guard the h-nhouse, so they rob what they like with impunity.
Alvind has no ethics or morals and the is evident from his tenure. Same applies to Ginni, despite her protestations to the contrary. They both talk a good game but they do not practice what they preach - particularly when it comes to following the IBM Business Conduct Guidelines. Duh, I forgot that they follow the crooked McKinsey principles !