6 ms·
I'll offer a counter point to this, we hired a senior SVP from IBM about 2 years ago (he spent his entire career at IBM). IBM also tried to sue him when he left
by 1290cc 9y ago
I'll offer a counter point to this, we hired a senior SVP from IBM about 2 years ago (he spent his entire career at IBM). IBM also tried to sue him when he left. My company is a "born in the cloud" company so we have values and an attitude that I would consider in alignment with modern, inclusive, customer positive values, etc. He passed interviews and all the numbers showed he was a high performer etc.
We brought him on hoping he would use his experience to grow our cloud business into "the enterprise". What we found was we had hired a guy that scoffed at ideas like UX, frequently bullied his team and the extended team in calls. Would often go off on monologues and was extremely rigid in his top down approach to management. It was a complete culture shock to the team and customers. We understood that some of these things were part of the deal but what we didnt expect was a near zero openness to ideas.
He had classic double speak of stating his door was always open to differing opinions or ideas but a week later he would be telling the company on conference calls that if people didn't like it there was the door. He brought in his entire exec team from IBM and things continued to go down hill from there. Some of his own team would make fun of our sales leaders until one of them called these guys out and discovered they had little to no understanding of how cloud pricing and subscription worked. It was a big moment.
My experience of him and his team makes me wonder if IBM is doing the right thing, if that experience is common across IBM they are going to struggle to compete with firms like my own and even worse attract talent that has no interest in being bullied for decades before a promotion.
- ojbyrne 9y agoThis doesn’t seem like a counterpoint, assuming he was an executive/decision-maker at IBM. i.e. if he was a “layoff-er” as opposed to a “layoff-ee.”
- hitekker 9y agoThe article describes the rank-and-file employees being fired, not the middle-to-upper management behind the layoffs, a piece of which your company unfortunately hired.
- matt_s 9y agoI worked at a different, large Fortune 500 company and this behavior was also common there in the upper ranks. The sheer time wasted in political infighting makes me think anyone in a Fortune 500 with a SVP or VP title (or higher) basically doesn't produce anything for the company. They are administration and supposed to set strategic goals but are probably too out of touch to know where their company/division needs to go. There is a long series of blog posts called the Gervais principle. Completely nails the behaviors and evolution of large organizations. Worth a read (again). https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/