4 ms·
> But I don't mean that happens because of their age, but because of how long they are in the company and also how comfortable they are with all the non-sensica
by hourago 4y ago
> But I don't mean that happens because of their age, but because of how long they are in the company and also how comfortable they are with all the non-sensical processes and red tape that company has (internally we called it IBM - International Bureaucracy Monster).
Blaming all the people that has been long in the company without individually evaluating their performane is bad and lazy management. To target people by age, as only older people can have been so long in the company, it's discrimination on a protected class.
Are you really justifying firing people indiscriminately based on age, or other proxy parameters like decades working for the company?
- dakial1 4y agoSorry, maybe I was not clear enough. My point is that age is not the problem, but company tenure is (not for all, but for most). Specially on those who managed to survive the corporate darwinism (by operating the company's red tape and processes) and reached the leadership role. I've met many older (40+) excellent technical people at IBM and usually their situation was that they were afraid of change and became used to IBM insanities, but gradually they are taking the leap of faith and jumping ship (AWS is taking them by the bucket). The feedback I get from those who left is that they can't believe they put up with IBM's crazyness for so long, as the other companies seem so lean and rational in comparison. One thing IBM still has a talent for is training tech professionals as I met some truly great ones there.