Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#111

Post by wolco »

briandear wrote: post #67
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the enthusiasm for tearing down Mayer gross, but to be clear: subtract the value of the alibaba stock and all that disappears.

Would it be less gross if she were not a woman? When other CEOs make decisions that ruin a company, they get critized too. Steve Balmer was a frequent object of ridicule. Other women execs such as Sandberg aren't treated badly -- the enthusiasm for tearing Mayer down comes from the fact that she was lauded as some kind of exceptional executive when she was really just a lot of high minded talk backed by questionable…

I agree using a protected status classfication to justify what happened at Yahoo is gross. She made the company less profitable and a place few would apply.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#113

Post by homakov »

S_A_P wrote: post #93
homakov wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of consulting was that? Anything about development?

Yes. I write custom code for several commodity trading risk management software platforms along with integration, implementation, interfaces, etc.

That sounds complex, not something you want to outsource to a random freelancer

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#114

Post by alistproducer2 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #108
alistproducer2 wrote: post #8

Marissa Mayer did the same thing shortly after getting to Yahoo. I think the results there speak for themselves. There's never a case where a move like this will boost morale or attract/keep top talent. IMO moves like this are all about showing dominance and being a "person of action." It's corporate politics showmanship at the expense of results.

Remember, though, Marissa's move came because a very large number of Yahoo remote employees weren't working. I went through something similar at Intel about 10 years ago when "telecommuting" became a code word for not really doing any work. I don't think IBM is in the same situation, though. Telecommuting works or fails based on a company's culture, work ethic, and employee accountability.

If an employee can do nothing and remain employed, the issue is not where the employee does nothing from. It's the fact that the company doesn't expect anything from said employees. Telecommuting has nothing to do with it. Lack of a managerial layer that a.) makes sure employees have anything to do or b.) consistently accept late deadlines or a total dereliction of duty has everything to do with it. I'm not getting paid million of dollars a year like Mayer, or any c-suite executive is, but I managed to figure that out. They know it too, but again, it's easier to pick the lowest hanging fruit (the abused "privilege" of your employees) and say "look at how decisive I am making this major cultural shift."

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#115

Post by S_A_P »

homakov wrote: post #113
S_A_P wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I write custom code for several commodity trading risk management software platforms along with integration, implementation, interfaces, etc.

That sounds complex, not something you want to outsource to a random freelancer

I hope you are being sarcastic. But I understand the point you make. For the systems I work on the number of skilled workers that can move quickly on a project is in the dozens. It's definitely a risk but the few in the niche do ok. The problem is that big consulting thinks they can stick a talented developer in there and not require the 18 month learning curve to ramp up.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#116

Post by markbnj »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #110
organsnyder wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A month's severance is a lot cheaper than paying for unemployment benefits.

Does a months severance pay eliminate the need to pay for 6+ months of unemployment?

No, in my experience accepting a severance payment does not prevent you from claiming unemployment benefits, however the severance is treated as salary and you can't collect benefits until however many pay periods it represents have passed.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#117

Post by zzalpha »

pm90 wrote: post #53
zzalpha wrote: post #13

What I find a bit odd is that this is ostensibly about becoming more innovative. But does anyone really believe that major strategic business and product innovation occurs at the level of the individual contributors and teams who will be affected by this change? I mean, sure, cool new features happen at that level, but you can't tell me the iPhone would've fallen out of a "water cooler" conversation between a couple…

> I mean, sure, cool new features happen at that level, but you can't tell me the iPhone would've fallen out of a "water cooler" conversation between a couple of C++ devs on a Wednesday afternoon in the office. I think you are severely discounting the advantages of having people nearby/ in the same office. I'm not against working remotely, but personally do prefer a mix between working in the office and WFH. Its a lo…

None of which addresses my point.

I'm not talking about innovation in the small, where a dev comes up with a clever new bit of user experience or a snazzy new algorithm. That stuff is nice but it's incremental.

I'm talking strategic innovation, the stuff that makes or breaks big companies like IBM when they're struggling to compete in 2017.

I would never claim there aren't advantages to co-located engineers.

But I struggle to believe that one of those advantages is big picture innovation as implied by the article.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#118

Post by joshstrange »

I use to think that remote work was goal I should be aiming for but after have a few friends did it and I thought more about it I've decided I would hate it. On the surface it sounds great and while I fully support working from home a few times a month I can't support any more than that.

One of my good friends that did it has an interesting take, he said that since he was more introverted he thought he was perfect for remote work when in fact it made him miserable. His dad worked remotely for a large part of his life but was an extrovert. He concluded that contrary to what may seem like common sense introverts do worse in remote work because the office is where they get a majority of their human interaction while extroverts are going to make that happen regardless of if they go into an office every day.

I have no experience with working from home for a long period of time but I know calling into meetings is the worst and that there are a TON of decisions/conversations that you get ZERO input on (most of the time you don't even know they happened) when you are remote. I have never been so happy that I didn't get a remote job I interviewed for a few years ago.

As much as I hate companies giving a perk and then taking it away I can't help but think this is the right move for IBM.

PS: Yes HipChat/Slack/Jira/GitLab/GitHub/etc/etc/etc can help with this but you are fooling yourself if you think that the people in the office are going to record every single interaction/conversation/etc of note. Remote-only teams might be an exception but even then you really do lose the ability to roll over to co-workers chair and have an impromptu conversation.

Post reply on HN