5 ms·

Care to elaborate on IBM "Work Life Integration (tm)" and why it caused the mass exodus?

colordrops 11y ago
A quick google search seems to indicate that IBM wanted to allow their employees more flexibility with their schedules and ability to take leaves. I don't understand how this is a bad thing.
- freditup 11y ago
  I worked for IBM for a period and all the teams I was around were very family-friendly when it came to work/life balance. Much more so than other younger/cooler tech companies I've worked for and read about. There were downsides at IBM for sure, but this wasn't one of them.
- granos 11y ago
  The problem was their justification. It went something along the lines of "Employees are often thinking about their personal lives while at work, so they should also be thinking about their work life while at home." I'm sure the intentions were good, but the presentation was terrible. Also, it was only one of many factors, but its a catchy line so I chose to call that one out. Other include: * Far worse benefits package and no attempt/willingness to make us whole in that regard * About half the team was told they would no longer be eligible for raises because their salaries were above the top of their IBM pay band * Several people lost large amounts of 401k matching because they missed their partial vesting date for that year (some by a few weeks) because the transition was done as being fired and then hired again * Likewise we were not eligible to start contributing to the IBM 401k for some amount of time * The IP agreement was Draconian (and we aren't in a state with nice moonlighting laws) * They took away our office's coffee budget, which seems small and petty but it was a damned nice thing to have * Two of the worst performers were promoted to be engineering managers because they didn't know what else to do with them.... I was only there for a few months after the merger. Talking to some who lasted longer made me very happy to have left. In all about 3/4 of the engineering team was gone within 9 months.
  - funkysquid 11y ago
    I find it strange that large companies envy the things smaller shops are able to do, and they'll spend the money to buy them up, but they won't spend the time to understand the culture that let them build what they built. Put employees first and you'll find they can do some pretty amazing things.
    - brazzledazzle 11y ago
      It is really bizarre. I think it really comes down to managers/execs realizing that but there's an imbalance of power towards risk averse groups like legal, finance and HR who have been given the latitude to make stupid decisions. CEOs of these large companies really need to step up and take control of these groups who develop an unreasonable amount of risk aversion due to a long history of dealing with issues that have a great deal of gravity for them even though they're fairly minor for the organization overall. There are some companies that get this right, but a general shift hasn't happened yet and there's probably quite a few CEOs that can't justify the political expense and fallout without the backing of a major culture shift in businesses at large. It might be years or even decades before that happens and it's going to be sad to see small agile companies fall to it in the meantime.
    - johnward 11y ago
      No only that. You will see some mega corp acquire some smaller company for their proprietary tech. Then replace that tech with something else, often open source, or just not use the technology they acquired at all. Are they just going for acquihire? Swallowing up competitors? It blows my mind.
      - bro-stick 11y ago
        It might be jealousy combined with power to destroy something cool and maybe eliminate something a competitor might leverage. If they're fewer cool companies thriving, it makes the sucky behemoths look less terrible by comparables.
        11y ago

A quick google search seems to indicate that IBM wanted to allow their employees more flexibility with their schedules and ability to take leaves. I don't understand how this is a bad thing.

freditup 11y ago
I worked for IBM for a period and all the teams I was around were very family-friendly when it came to work/life balance. Much more so than other younger/cooler tech companies I've worked for and read about. There were downsides at IBM for sure, but this wasn't one of them.
granos 11y ago
The problem was their justification. It went something along the lines of "Employees are often thinking about their personal lives while at work, so they should also be thinking about their work life while at home." I'm sure the intentions were good, but the presentation was terrible. Also, it was only one of many factors, but its a catchy line so I chose to call that one out. Other include: * Far worse benefits package and no attempt/willingness to make us whole in that regard * About half the team was told they would no longer be eligible for raises because their salaries were above the top of their IBM pay band * Several people lost large amounts of 401k matching because they missed their partial vesting date for that year (some by a few weeks) because the transition was done as being fired and then hired again * Likewise we were not eligible to start contributing to the IBM 401k for some amount of time * The IP agreement was Draconian (and we aren't in a state with nice moonlighting laws) * They took away our office's coffee budget, which seems small and petty but it was a damned nice thing to have * Two of the worst performers were promoted to be engineering managers because they didn't know what else to do with them.... I was only there for a few months after the merger. Talking to some who lasted longer made me very happy to have left. In all about 3/4 of the engineering team was gone within 9 months.
- funkysquid 11y ago
  I find it strange that large companies envy the things smaller shops are able to do, and they'll spend the money to buy them up, but they won't spend the time to understand the culture that let them build what they built. Put employees first and you'll find they can do some pretty amazing things.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    It is really bizarre. I think it really comes down to managers/execs realizing that but there's an imbalance of power towards risk averse groups like legal, finance and HR who have been given the latitude to make stupid decisions. CEOs of these large companies really need to step up and take control of these groups who develop an unreasonable amount of risk aversion due to a long history of dealing with issues that have a great deal of gravity for them even though they're fairly minor for the organization overall. There are some companies that get this right, but a general shift hasn't happened yet and there's probably quite a few CEOs that can't justify the political expense and fallout without the backing of a major culture shift in businesses at large. It might be years or even decades before that happens and it's going to be sad to see small agile companies fall to it in the meantime.
  - johnward 11y ago
    No only that. You will see some mega corp acquire some smaller company for their proprietary tech. Then replace that tech with something else, often open source, or just not use the technology they acquired at all. Are they just going for acquihire? Swallowing up competitors? It blows my mind.
    - bro-stick 11y ago
      It might be jealousy combined with power to destroy something cool and maybe eliminate something a competitor might leverage. If they're fewer cool companies thriving, it makes the sucky behemoths look less terrible by comparables.
      - 11y ago