I can understand people not liking it here, but please stop saying things that are factually not true just because you hate the company. Ask any recruiter, having IBM on your resume is a huge asset. The company still has a good reputation and carries significant (positive) weight wherever you apply. You can say a lot of negative things about IBM - trust me, I have - but don't make people think that trying to hide that they work here is a preferable option to listing IBM on your resume when that couldn't be further from the truth.
5 replies (most recent on top)
You can't be serious?!
Brand ranking is meaningless without context. No serious recruiter or hiring manager will judge "Google" vs "Amazon" vs "IBM" without more details on the applicant's own situation. IBM is neither an asset on a resume nor is it necessarily a liability. Salespeople, chip designers, software developers and IT staff regularly move back and forth between IBM and other employers. Personal opinions ("the big leagues") to the contrary, IBM is a reputable name that will start a conversation with a potential employer.
However, a conversation-starter is ALL it is. IBM is a reputable name, just like Google, Microsoft and Apple are (among many others). You don't even have to be from the "successful" parts of IBM to get great gigs elsewhere. Smart employers know that there is much value in employees from "troubled" situations. Difficult-to-sell products, ugly management situations and troubled development projects often produce sparkling gems of employees looking for greener pastures. Don't get me wrong -- it's nice to find the spectacular employee with great credentials who only worked in successful environments...but that isn't realistic.
Back to "the big leagues"...if the applicant is an up-and-coming superstar, then "major" vs "minor" league thinking might give that applicant an edge. Most applicants aren't superstars...they are workers who are largely interchangeable with everyone else who has similar qualifications, and smart employers know it. This is true when it comes to college hires, and it's true in the corporate world. Kids from mid-ranked state schools get hired all the time at the big employers, along with employees from all over the place.
IBM is f***ed up, but don't let that stop you from advertising that you were a part of it. Go ahead and put it on your resume.
According to visualcapitalist.com, the top 4 brands in in the world in order are: Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft. Tesla is in the top 10. Facebook is at 14. IBM comes in at 71 which is in the same league as Dell and Cisco and Uber and miles behind Oracle and Huawei.
First of all, the recruiter will always say wonderful things about what you put on your resume; that's the recruiter's job.
Once you get past the recruiter, probably IBM will be viewed similar to the ranking at visualcapitalist.com. It's okay but not necessarily in the big leagues. So at this point (phone interview, technical interview) you have to lean heavily on what you actually did. The IBM name alone is not going to get you a pass at this stage. It's also not as good as a really exciting startup because it definitely doesn't show "I'm out there every day focusing on innovation and success." Let's face it: we have a lot of floaters and everyone knows that and that does not help with the brand ranking.
If I were hiring I'd be looking a lot harder at WHAT you've done and less at WHERE you've done it.
As a person who has been in the IT industry for almost 30 years, I can say that working at IBM in NOT as prestigious as it once was. When I think about IBM, it's about mainframes, moving jobs to India, and botched application implementations. Tech companies stay on top by being innovative and having top notch talent with proven track records. IBM has not had either of these in a very longtime. But keep selling those AS400s.