Slashdot Mirror


IBM, Remote-Work Pioneer, is Calling Thousands Of Employees Back To the Office (qz.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Less than a year into her tenure as IBM's chief marketing officer, Michelle Peluso prepared to make an announcement that she knew would excite some of her 5,500 new employees, but also, inevitably, inspire resignation notices from others. In a video message, Peluso 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." IBM had decided to "co-locate" the US marketing department, about 2,600 people, which meant that all teams would now work together, "shoulder to shoulder," from one of six different locations -- Atlanta, Raleigh, Austin, Boston, San Francisco, and New York. Employees who worked primarily from home would be required to commute, and employees who worked remotely or from an office that was not on the list (or an office that was on the list, but different than the one to which their teams had been assigned) would be required to either move or look for another job. Similar announcements had already been made in other departments, and more would be made in the future. At IBM, which has embraced remote work for decades, a relatively large proportion of employees work outside of central hubs. (By 2009, when remote work was still, for most, a novelty, 40% of IBM's 386,000 global employees already worked at home). [...] "When you're playing phone tag with someone is quite different than when you're sitting next to someone and can pop up behind them and ask them a question," Peluso says. Not all IBM employees see it that way.

15 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Stealth Layoff by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe they just figured out how to get rid of a bunch of employees without having to pay severances or unemployment.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Stealth Layoff by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is however really the most demented way to do it, because only those that are good at what they do (and hence have other prospects) will leave. The ones staying will include all that have no prospects. Do this several times and you may as well close down the department and re-start from scratch.

      Why again are the people that make such decisions so much money? Oh right, because they know how to give the appearance of knowing how to do their job.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Stealth Layoff by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm guessing if you "telecommute" or work from home in India....you are immune to this new rule and you will continue to be allowed to do so....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Stealth Layoff by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is exactly how Reddit did it.

      And Intel. The husband of a friend of mine (and his family with him) were forcibly moved several States over so as to keep his job when they closed several offices all around the US, causing them to sell their former home for a fraction of it's value and purchase a new one, smaller, and for an inflated price due to the huge influx of people there stressing the local house market.

      The alternative offered? To "quit" his job and lose severance and other benefits.

      Why he (and them) complied? Because he's near retirement age and doing anything else would be end-of-life economic suicide.

      As for all the former employees who "quit", that certainly looked amazing on the responsible executives' resume. Not to mention the bonuses due to all the cost savings etc.

      Shareholder capitalism is an illness.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    4. Re:Stealth Layoff by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's seems backwards to me. People who are near retirement would probably be better off holding on to their home and retiring earlier than planned rather than taking what is potentially the loss of one or more years' income in a single hit.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. The first to quit are the good ones by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every reorganization, every revamp, every change means that some people will not like it. And those that don't like it have two options: Grin and bear it, or hand in a resignation note.

    Question for 100 points: Will good people, who are sought and have zero problem finding a new job, be in the first or in the latter group? And where will people who know that they have no chance of ever being hired again because they're lazy, dumb or both be?

    And now ponder what group you'll retain with your constant, idiot changes!

    For fuck's sake, when you take over a company, you needn't piss all over it to mark it as yours! It ain't a tree and you're not a dumb dog.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:The first to quit are the good ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Corporate America is, whether deliberately or not, cultivating a culture where loyalty is unheard of, no employee gives a damn about the success of the company, and no employee thinks twice about leaving after only a year.

      And that's exactly what Corporate America deserves: employees who simply don't care about anything but themselves. Ironically, "I'm loving it."

  3. Work/home balance by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's notable that some of the largest reversals of remote work in recent memory have been spearheaded by women.

    The irony is delicious.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Work/home balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what stuck in my craw about Marissa. She gets rid of all remote employees, no one can be exempt, not even us working mothers! We all must pitch in for the good of the company and do our part, even us working mothers! Then she installs a fully staffed nursery for her own kid directly adjacent to her office. Oh yes, such a sacrifice you're making, Marissa, you poor working mother, who gets to have her kid at arm's reach all day every day at work.

      God damn selfish, hypocritical cunt! Someone should seize all her assets and redistribute them to every current and former mother working at Yahoo.

  4. Re:They're going to lose a lot of good people. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, Marissa Meyer did it - and, in the end, she got tens of millions of dollars.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Worked@IBM in 1980's, left, because sucked. by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFS:

    one more thing: "really creative and inspiring locations."

    Having worked for IBM back in the 1980's (in Boca Raton, FL), I can provide a datapoint: IBM labs (the MITRE Kanji printer labs, specifically) were incredibly uncomfortable, required long, annoying walks from the parking lot and between locations and buildings, and were run in an extremely uncreative manner. To describe the environment, I'd go with "windowless, cold, and cavelike." Truly a shitty place to work. Whereas working at home... okay, now that is a creative, inspiring location. Because like pretty much anyone who puts a home together, I designed it specifically to be that way to my specific interests and inclinations.

    Now... it's been a long time, and perhaps if they re-hired me, they'd amaze me with a comfortable office with a view, a nearby, well-stocked cafeteria, an in-office hutch for my dog, and a secretary to handle the reams of make-work reports. Or perhaps there are no more reports (cough... cough... sorry, can't even write that with a straight face.) I find this, or any reasonable equivalency to it... unlikely. But perhaps they are actually in a position to do this now.

    But then again, my experience there was so bad, I'd never respond to an IBM recruiter again, even if I was in the market for a job, which I am not.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Worked@IBM in 1980's, left, because sucked. by Kobun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love that they are banking on people being able to interrupt others' trains of thought as a major benefit of this transition. Anything that helps them die faster.

    2. Re:Worked@IBM in 1980's, left, because sucked. by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, one of the key benefits of working at home is control of the environment, and that most assuredly includes who gets to interrupt, or not, and when.

      Working in company offices, I did some pretty good work. I tried hard, despite being very uncomfortable and unhappy. That was the job. But working at home, I did great work, became financially independent and most definitely happy. I loved (still do) my office and would (still do) burn huge numbers of hours in (t)here really Getting Shit Done. I also established myself in a very low cost-of-living location, doing high pay-in-employment work. Remotely. That's a really nice side effect of remote work, or at least it was for me. Hearing about real estate expenses in areas like Silicon Valley and various similar enclaves, I can only shake my head at the difference. I spent less in total (under $100k, all told) on nearly 6,000 sq feet of totally custom (and admittedly very eclectic) environment than most of the people in those areas spend on one bedroom apartments in less than 4 years ($2300/mo.) It really matters to your quality of life where you put your roots down.

      TBH, I think one of the most programmer-hostile things a company can do is say "you have to work where we are." The tech exists, and has for some time, to make that completely unnecessary. Even if "constantly interrupt and monitor" is part of the company's operations protocols, that too is 100% doable. Throw the employee a fast connection and a good desktop, a webcam and a mic... whatever you need to do to keep in touch, you can do. Should cost a metric fuckton less than providing them office space "at" the company, too. I have never, ever, heard a decent argument for the requirement that warm flesh be present in the room in order to get good work done, or out of any employee. Frankly, if the employee can't work like that and do good work, they sure as **** aren't doing great work for you in any bloody office.

      But, you know. I'm old, cranky, successful, independent, and can say these things with no fear my supervisor will see them. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  6. Because "One-Size-Fits-None" by xanthos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *sigh* Will MBA schools please start teaching all the C-level wanna be's that while treating all your employees the same is the easy route to follow it is rarely the best route. Sacrificing known productivity increases from remote work for some mystical hoped for innovations seems to be a bad bet. I can actually see it making sense for the highly creative individuals doing marketing campaigns, but I can't see it being of much use to those whose job is to track and squash code bugs.

    Here's a theory that should fit most Slashdotter's world view:
    The real driver is that the bosses are missing the adulation of the crowds and the face to face sucking up denied them by remote work.

    --
    Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
  7. good news by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is great news. The explosion of talent into new venues should make for a resurgence in creativity. All the people that will now look for work in their own location or better yet, start up their own business should revitalize things. As for IBM, they need to slim down anyway.