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

51–60 of 118 posts

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

#51

Post by rtkwe »

pm90 wrote: post #4

Disclosure: I'm a developer at IBM, but not speaking in official capacity. The comment here is completely personal. I went through this article and it seems like a lot of FUD. The line to note is: > Though not every department at IBM will be asked to colocate, many will. So yes, some departments have been "asked" to colocate. However, AFAIK nobody is being "forced". My team lead was asked to colocate but decided to s…

My mom works for IBM (and has for ages) and it really seems like this is more a way for them to shed some workers without layoffs because the completely arbitrary nature of who is getting the ultimatum to move to the nearest office.

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

#52

Post by danso »

pm90 wrote: post #28
geodel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I think this is first step to separate out people who are unwilling to relocate. Next they will look at the work they are doing, if deemed non-critical I assume they will be first to go.

I mean, isn't that the case with any job? So sure, this might be an extra consideration when the time for layoffs comes around. My intention was not saying that nothing changed; emphasis on colocation is definitely a real thing. But IBM is not "ending remote work", as the headline says (it should be changed to the actual article title, which is more reasonable). It is most certainly allowed.

Definitely agree with the title change, thanks for your insight as an employee.

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

#53

Post by pm90 »

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 lot easier to whiteboard designs and explain concepts. Its easy to ask a question and get an answer. There's also the other aspect of building a shared culture and getting to know your coworkers. That promotes a sense of comraderie so that when e.g. someone on the team has to take time off, there is a deadline for a deliverable or there is a service outage, the team works much more quickly and cohesively to solve problems. This also allows a better division of labor and I've seen this lead to many innovations as one person on the team focuses exclusively for a small time on solving a problem.

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

#54

Post by krona »

jmcdiesel wrote: post #41

IBM is so weird. I haven't worked for them, but I work with 2 former IBM Engineers in Austin... both of them say the same weird things.. like, you can't get two monitors (when one asked, he was declined, then his boss pulled an old CRT out of a closet and gave it too him... a 640x480 CRT from what must have been 184 years ago) ... And other weird tales that just seem antithetical to a tech company..

IBM isn't a tech company. It's a brand with an impressive marketing department that sells experiences, not products. The rest of it (the stuff you don't see unless you get close enough) is an accumulation of spaghetti acquired in an ad hoc and aimless fashion.

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

#55

Post by spcelzrd »

markgavalda wrote: post #16
brational wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perhaps the end goal is voluntary resignations? That's the only explanation that makes sense.

Why not simply fire those who they don't want to work with anymore? They're clearly used to do that at IBM and it would be much more controlled and cost effective.

You have to pay them to leave. You have to endure the publicity of large scale layoffs. This way, you are progressive, agile, and team oriented.

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

#56

Post by tomaskafka »

spcelzrd wrote: post #44
padobson wrote: post #14

A theory among some employees is that IBM is using co-location as a downsizing effort. I hope it's not an accurate theory. Downsizing this way means your most self-motivated, productive employees are likely to leave long before those who drive to the office because they feel they have no other choice. Like Best Buy and Yahoo at the points at which they decided to co-locate, IBM is a business that needs to do somethin…

It's the best way to get a large amount of your workforce to leave voluntarily. No workforce reduction paperwork. No severance packages. Yahoo did it. Nokia did it. In fact, the companies who pull this trick are almost all shrinking and past their prime. But don't worry, IBM has tens of thousands of strap hangers who've been surviving layoffs for decades. The bottom line will get brighter. The future of the company w…

> It's the best way to get a large amount of your workforce to leave voluntarily.

Damn. I finally get it. Thanks!

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

#57

Post by cwilkes »

dbg31415 wrote: post #24

> In a video message, Peluso, formerly the CEO of fashion startup Gilt, explained the “only one recipe I know for success.” Its ingredients included great people, the right tools, a mission, analysis of results, and one more thing: “really creative and inspiring locations.” Why is this news coming from the CMO? Anyone know?

I had to read the article multiple times as I thought the same thing. One paragraph mentions that the CMO is only talking about the marketing org, but that the sentiment is repeated elsewhere in the company.

#winning

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

#58

Post by halbritt »

geodel wrote: post #40
throw2016 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure many of us know or have known people who browse facebook, twitter and youtube at work all day. Anecdotal evidence or the actions of of a tiny minority is hardly helpful to any meaningful discussion and can be used to 'close down' any initiative.

It might be anecdotal which I doubt but then how do we know this is action of tiny minority. I should add I do work from home certain times but I take it as privilege rather than a right to work whenever it is convenient to me.

Your employer is making more money off of your work output than they're paying you. I think you may be confused about who may be the privileged one in the relationship.

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

#59

Post by briandear »

devopsproject wrote: post #31
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.

> I think the results there speak for themselves 151% stock increase? Nearly double market cap?

I can't even name a single Yahoo product I ever used beyond circa 2000 search. I don't even know what that company does anymore. Google owns half the internet, Apple makes stuff you can buy in stores.. Yahoo? The company that can't even secure email passwords? Hurray for Melissa!

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

#60

Post by halbritt »

markgavalda wrote: post #16
brational wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perhaps the end goal is voluntary resignations? That's the only explanation that makes sense.

Why not simply fire those who they don't want to work with anymore? They're clearly used to do that at IBM and it would be much more controlled and cost effective.

In a large bureaucratic corporation, individuals are never "fired". They are "managed out".

Check out the book Corporate Confidential.

Post reply on HN