2 ms·
There's a lot of talk about how this is supposedly a good idea for both sides, but here's what actually happens: The people working in the "lesser" part take a
by groby_b 6y ago
There's a lot of talk about how this is supposedly a good idea for both sides, but here's what actually happens:
The people working in the "lesser" part take a very close look at who the new management is, and what their market chances are. The most likely outcome here is "meh".
At that point, most career-hungry people who have contacts in the other side of the company start extending feelers, because it's better to be in a growth area than in a steady ship if you want to have quick career growth. The few who've also got contacts outside the industry weigh the rest of the industry for their prospects.
Meanwhile, middle management isn't stupid and knows this is happening. Large turf wars break out, everybody trying to secure the most interesting projects for their teams so they can attract the best remaining people. The resulting office politics drive most of the remaining people who have options outside to leave as well, because it's a cesspit.
At this point you have created a solidly mediocre company. It'll likely plod on for a long time, on a slow downward slope. Every calculates what comes first, implosion or retirement, and chooses accordingly.
Life is, for lack of a better word, solidly grey.
But sure, on paper it's a great opportunity for both sides.
- nervous-at-IBM 6y agoCurrently working in what some have called "crap" IBM. And you are describing the initial reaction amongst many of my colleagues. Except those in India. The general consensus is IBM will do as it has done for years. Instead of fixing problems and making things more efficient or better, the new "crap" IBM will simply ship allot more jobs to India to achieve profitability.
- groby_b 6y agofwiw: I don't think there's necessarily a "crap" company coming out of this. That's what I was referring to when I said people will take a close look at the new leadership. Sometimes, a split makes sense. But, based on past experience, the balance of probability points to not getting a good leadership team, and things flow from there. I'm sorry you're caught in this :(