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.

13 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is exactly how Reddit did it. Eliminate WFH employees, eliminate everyone that doesn't want to or can't physically relocate, and you've downsized while making it seem like it was the departing employees choice to leave.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.........
    4. 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.
  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.
  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 ghoul · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I sacrificed my family life to get where I am. Why does SHE get to work from home and pick up her kids?" Sounds familiar
      I work in consulting and a lot of my employees work as contractors. I meet with the client managers for feedback regularly and I get maximum complaints about our female employees taking days off or WFH to deal with school, sickness etc. Funny thing its mostly the female Client managers complaining not the males. Maybe the males expect women to be taking time off to deal with kid issues. But its wierd that its always women complaining about other women taking time off to deal with kids. I have even had one say "I dont take time off when my kid is sick . Why does your contractor take a half day to go watch a recital?"

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  4. 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.
    3. Re:Worked@IBM in 1980's, left, because sucked. by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I know...the ability to "interrupt" is a horrible one.

      I've been working from home for a few years now, and I even turn off the damned IM products they have tried thrusting upon us...latest one, Lync.

      I can't get a damned thing done without someone trying to annoy me on lync, and it usually is NOT something that is a priority item.

      I will fire it up and join a meeting when needed, or desktop sharing is absolutely required, but for 99% of my time, I do not need it and it is detrimental to my work and concentration.

      Fortunately, I've been around long enough where no one really presses me on it like they do others...but I find email to be best way to work, it is asynchronous, and AND...I think it leaves a much better paper trail for CYA when needed at future times.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  5. Re:Result:Loss of the lots of talent. On purpose? by Gavrielkay · · Score: 5, Informative

    When this edict was handed down in my IBM department I quit. Found a new telecommute position for more money, more freedom, better products and management that actually appreciates employees. IBM was once a great place to work, but that was a decade ago. Now I'm only ashamed I stayed as long as I did.