This is simply a way to do a layoff and better yet for the accountants the folks least likely to move are the ones with kids/families, which also happen to be the ones who are earning at their highest. 25 year olds can move on short notice, 45 year olds cannot, but its illegal to fire everyone who's over 30.<p>The article is also correct, talent is leaving. When you announce something stupid like this, only 2 types of people remain: a) lifers and b) people who lack the network or talent to find something else. When all you have left is types A and B you get stagnation at best and decline at worst.
The first paragraphs of this article are so nakedly biased that it's hard to take the rest seriously:<p>> IBM's financial performance has shown steady improvement ever since the mid-'90s, when the internet made "work from home" practical, using tools that IBM pioneered, like email, groupware, and Web conferencing.<p>> IBM hasn't had an unprofitable year since 1994, and its revenue per share has more tripled since then.<p>This makes it sound like IBM is doing great, instead of mentioning that IBM's revenue has fallen for <i>twenty</i> straight quarters, when other large tech companies have been booming.<p>> During that period, IBM has created more innovation than any other company. In 2016 alone, IBM filed more patents than Google, Apple, and Microsoft combined.<p>Equating number of patents filed with "innovation" is absurd. IBM files a ton of patents because they are in the patent licensing business.
I'm going to speculate wildly, and declare that IBM has several serious self-driving-car-related engagements that it must commit to, while exiting other engagements that involve stagnant technologies.<p>It's migrating away from some existing specialized staff, to make room to onboard other staff with different skills as part of a play to attack a set of problems that will be kind of a big deal.<p>IBM doesn't typically do a lot of real things directly. They operate in the B2B realm. They exited personal computing when mobile devices emerged, and have since focused on what we now term as AI/ML.<p>Everyone knows there's an avalanche afoot, with huge chunks of the job market hanging in the balance, depending on what gets automated the hardest, first. All signs point to trucking, motor freight, and last mile shipping. IBM has probably set its gaze upon that territory, and will probably handle tech support for some big well-known conglomerates over the next few decades, with a hand in that area, assisting safe bets that can afford their price.<p>Don't act like Watson hasn't been a thing. This shift probably has deeper meaning.
I don't think the author knows what motivated IBM to make the change and just tries to make it look like IBM is Yahoo! Yahoo was a failing company trying desperately to reboot its revenue and culture. IBM on the other hand is an extremely successful enterprise that nurtures a company culture that has become a legend of its own. IBM has so far succeeded morphing into different shapes and forms to adapt to a very competitive market and ever shifting technology paradigms. Why assume, with such passionate and condescending arguments, that IBM does not know what it's doing?
IBM management badly wants to achieve the kind of financial success enjoyed by tech companies like Apple that have never encouraged remote work. Employee morale at IBM is already low because of previous mass layoffs, so maybe management has decided this is a good time to clean house again.<p>I agree with the author that this policy change could drastically alter their corporate culture in unexpected ways. Depending on how this plays out in the next few months, I might decide to reduce or eliminate my investment in IBM common stock.