5 ms·
> perhaps the end goal is voluntary resignations? That's the only explanation that makes sense.
by brational 10y ago
> perhaps the end goal is voluntary resignations?
That's the only explanation that makes sense.
- markgavalda 10y agoWhy 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.
- GoToRO 10y agoThey don't know who those people are :)
- spcelzrd 10y agoYou 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.
- halbritt 10y agoIn a large bureaucratic corporation, individuals are never "fired". They are "managed out". Check out the book Corporate Confidential.
- rad_gruchalski 10y agoBecause the cost of firing (dismissing) someone depends on where they have their contract. It might be zero cost in the US but the US is not the World. In Europe it would cost them tons of money to remove hundreds of jobs in a single swipe. OTOH, let people leave, no cost for them.
- gspetr 10y ago> That's the only explanation that makes sense. It does not have to make sense, could simply be a case of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor IBM could be a place where you just might encounter a pointy-haired boss from Dilbert.