IBM's habit of replacing older employees with younger ones might save us some money, but it's also causing us some serious issues. The younger generation doesn't seem as committed. That's just a fact. They don't go above and beyond their job descriptions, and they will barely ever sacrifice their free time for the company. Plus, they're quick to jump ship if there's an opportunity to do so. So, while they're cheaper, we could face serious problems in a few years when the older, more dedicated workers are all gone. This is a long-term nightmare in the making.
15 replies (most recent on top)
To the person who posted that they almost cried watching footage about IBM’s involvement with NASA, I am right there with you. Before my in-person interview at IBM, I studied its storied history - total page turner. It made very emotional. When I got the job, I actually cried. Wow, I am actually an IBMer, I felt.
We can sit here all day long and complain about how much things su-k. However, every IBMer - regardless of band / experience - is empowered to solve problems. I’ve never seen this at any other company. If you see something, you should say something and do something. It can be something small, as helping a colleague prep for a client meeting. It can be something big, like building and deploying AI models that predict customer churn. Just find a problem you want to solve, and solve it. Just that simple. The money, title, etc.. will follow.
OP why did you use the word habit? This is a Corporate strategy for over 7 years now
I may not live that much longer. But I will always remember the early days; https://newsroom.ibm.com/apollo-image-gallery?l=10
@1abh+1oNygWVL Two words: Rob Thomas. He may well be the last!
I hope they do not make Rob Thomas the next CEO when Arvind retires. Sure seems like they are grooming him. I hope I am wrong.
1abh You could not be more correct. IBM suffers from the inability to make hard decisions, resulting in 1/2 baked decisions becoming the order of the day. I suspect it’s a result of internal exec management being focused inwardly and not considering how the world is changing outside of IBM. That builds complacency, lack of innovation, and definitely slow decision making resulting in mediocre results at best. This can easily be demonstrated by looking at the last 4 CEOs. Akers muddled along even as IBM cratered in value as the market moved on him. Gerstner focused outwardly and repositioned IBM into a services company that was 1/3 leaner changing IBM’s go to market strategy. Sam fell into the old IBM way of doing business and focused on doubling down on Gerstner services strategy even though that strategy had run out of gas. Ginni tripled down on the Gerstner strategy, and lost 40% of IBM’s value. (sounds like Akers all over again). AK is trying to change strategy like Gerstner did, focusing on hybrid cloud (think enterprise offerings), SW modernization(think re-writing IBM’s cobol monopoly into LINUX), and consulting (think moving into a cloud world) but has refused to address the inwardly focusing IBM cost and innovation issues. His exec management team is completely letting him down. Now as he approaches retirement, I believe only an outside CEO will see the internal IBM issues and address them, as internal exec’s have too much baggage and bias. Hopefully the IBM board will have the same idea. If not, IBM is in for another 1990’s crater
If our next CEO is not from outside IBM, they will be our last CEO
Why oh why did the IBM board and executives past and present let our company fall to where we are now?
Greed. Pure and simple. IBM has been financially engineering results for the benefit of big bonuses and equity payouts for the "leadership" for so long, it's about all they know how to do. The executive ranks are nearly fully stocked with narcissists and sociopaths who only know how to step on people to get what they want. I can't even imagine what it would take to fix it.
As bad as the situation may be with millenials, Gen Z will be even worse. They want no part of what IBM has to "offer."
It is not like IBM has employees chained to the desk. Many on this board know deep down that they don't have a better option than IBM as long as they can avoid getting laid off. Either they are too lazy or too scared to look for a job that might be better than their current IBM job or they can't find another job despite trying. I have a feeling that if IBM cut salaries by half, many people would still stay and continue to complain on these boards instead of taking action of leaving for another job. My 2 cents.
These posts are so sad. I almost cried seeing a couple of shows about IBMs involvement with the space program and NASA. IBM led the build of the computer systems and controls for the Saturn V rocket. Why oh why did the IBM board and executives past and present let our company fall to where we are now?
@upk+1oNygWVL As a millennial representative of that "younger" generation, I can corroborate what you are saying about the dynamic at IBM. Why are does this company have so many managers and "leaders?" The last thing I need is yet another person telling me how to do and not do my job. I am not alone when I say that I am actively looking for new roles that will afford me more independence, respect, and compensation. Witnessing the farce that is "watsonx," I have no faith in this company's future prospects.
There is a long-term nightmare that has been in the making for quite a while; IBM is an old-tech company and incapable of moving beyond that. They are close to irrelevant in the (Hybrid) Cloud space. And if you take Red Hat out of the picture, they become even less relevant. They are going to choke on watsonx because they have already taken step one: over promise. Step two, under deliver, is already being planned out. This will be like Blockchain on steroids.
What they do have is a powerful but very awkward to use platform: Z and all the software that goes on it. It still runs most ATM transactions and a massive number of credit card swipes. But the system is so convoluted that very few young people want to touch it. In addition, almost all Z customers would love to get off the platform and most are busy ensuring that new work is not added to the platform.
It's hard to know which came first: the chicken or the egg. IBM has an incredibly top heavy (and creaky) organizational structure that has insanely high overheads but allows for some pretty first class treatment for Z customers. Without the costly organizational structures, responding to Z customers (who pay a lot of money) in a first class manner would not be possible. So the structure is built for the very high margin but not really high volume Z world. It's not really appropriate for being big in Cloud or AI. (It's not even well suited to Power or Storage.)
So there is definitely a nightmare coming which is by now pretty much unavoidable. But it's not going to be better or worse with a different cast of rotating young employees coming into (and leaving) the company.
You got it wrong... the older joined a different IBM years ago... they loved it. Was an honor to work at the most innovative company yeas ago. A combination of Google, Meta, Amazon and even Microsoft of today.
That IBM's no more. Young employees don't feel about IBM as the older employees felt years ago. Most probably they joined because they couldn't get in a first tire company and plan to have a job until they can find something better!
Why would anyone feel "loyalty" with today's IBM? Only the old do after many years they liked the old IBM's ways. Today seems no one likes it but those after 20 and 30 years at IBM don't know anything better to move to. A few who could have moved. No loyalty at IBM's the norm on both sides!
Imagine thinking not sacrificing your free time for a corporation is problematic.
IBM (and many other companies) don’t incentivize employees to stay 5+ years. If you’re good and want to move up you’ve gotta change jobs, it’s the way of the world now.
Replacing older with younger employees has been causing IBM serious issues ever since the practice started all those years ago. "The younger generation" is committed to the same thing as IBM's executive management...the bottom line and the sizes of their bank accounts. They know that the company will not sacrifice for them, and so they will not sacrifice for the company. There's no reason to...he-l, the company will not even sacrifice for itself, so why should the employees do it?