Does IBM have many, or even any roles like this? The only rational assessment of "roles that could be replaced with AI" is first-level customer support, or perhaps translation, both of which I'd expect IBM outsources rather than hires for. Of course the answer is probably that this is based on an irrational assessment.
From what my ex-coworkers are saying it applies to Taos, and BoxBoat - and RH was accquired long before either of them so I'm assuming it applies to them as well.
I mean, I guess I get it for certain things. Silly to mandate it though. Anyone who has work requiring them to be in the office should be in the office. My in office time jumps up to 3-5 days per week when I have a new employee until they’re somewhat self sufficient. My in office time jumps when I have to prepare hardware for a project *in house*. My in office time plummets when I’m doing a software project hosted on one of my customers systems.
I guess what I’m saying is just be pragmatic and get your stuff done.
P.S. One of my senior guys is a road warrior, highly effective and I see him in the office maybe three times a year.
Work from office mandates may serve as a proxy for companies on the decline. When things are going well, companies are more willing to take risks that could impact the top line, when things are going wrong it’s all scrutiny and bottom line optimization.
Conversely, it could be companies feel so confident and comfortable that they don't mind potentially losing staff (or being outcompeted for staff) when they impose WFO mandates. Don't want to WFO for us? Fine, we'll find someone else who will.
Deja vu? [1] I thought the last time was earlier than 2017 because I seem to recall it happening while I was busy administering IBM products like Rational Jazz and Websphere but I guess not.
Between this and the recent elimination of 401k matching, IBM is sending a strong signal that it’s not a place I’d ever want to work. Hard to imagine they will be able to attract or retain talent.
I wonder if you are competing against IBM for a contract with a company that you could use this to your benefit:
See IBM is so far behind on the Internet and collaboration technology that they are requiring their managers to have to be physically present. They don’t even trust their own ability to remotely collaborate.
Controversial opinion time: I was chomping at the bit for remote before COVID.
Hell, I still chomp at the bit for remote work. It's genuinely better in almost every way for me; I get that people have kids and it gets annoying to work from home for those people or that people want to be social: I am not those people, I am sorry. I have ADHD and I am not able to actually sit and focus in the office, especially these torrid open office environments that have been foisted on me for 15 years.
However, I believe being close to an office where everyone can come together is of crucial importance.
The company I work for is remote first, and we come together from all across europe once a quarter. It's hugely expensive to do this and that money would be better spent on more important things. Not only that, when we come together people are tired, uncomfortable and often overcompensate. A week trip will usually result in 9-10 days of low productivity for example.
But during that week so much communication happens, so many things become unblocked and what's more important: people start to trust each other a bit more.
I had a psychologist tell me once: "it takes 9 good interactions to offset 1 bad one", well, most interactions while working over the internet are stressful and anxiety inducing. Interactions in person can be pleasant, helpful, enjoyable.
Going for lunch or playing a board game (or having a drink) can all help build a rapport and doing it casually is only possible if you can actually drop by.
I sincerely think being physically located near your closest colleagues can seriously help with company culture and paper over obtuse over-communication which is required if you are doing remote-first correctly.
All of this of course applies triple to managers; who's entire job is communication.
I landed at wanting to work remote when I have clear direction on what my team wants to do, and meeting in person to hash out the big details. The in person bandwidth feels much greater (at least for me).
Balancing both strategically lets us plan efficiently together and work efficiently at home.
This is my ideal scenario kinda. A company that is remote first but has offices near where you can go and work with your co-workers when it makes sense.
It just seems like most places these day is one or the other in terms of remote or fully in office.
> It's hugely expensive to do this and that money would be better spent on more important things.
Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas.
> Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas.
Cost of living has historically been factored when determining salary, right?
I don't live in a high cost of living environment (I live in Malmo, Sweden; pretty cheap by Swedish standards overall) and I won't earn as much here as I would if I was working in Zurich or Stockholm.
What you say here comes across as hugely entitled since presumably you are already paid a really high salary and want to make even more relative to others in your area? By virtue of you being able to work remotely even if it comes at a cost to your productivity?
As a counter: Large companies (such as IBM) typically have their campuses located outside of major metropolitan hubs where office space is cheap: is your predilection, then, that they should pay you now less? If they force a move to a lower cost of living area because they decide that?
You are paid for a job in a place, and getting to that job is part of the salary for that job in some circumstances.
You wouldn't expect Police officer to be paid the same in NYC vs Bryan, Ohio. If that police officer were to move to Bryan from NYC though: their travel costs and cost of living are on them, They would be paid to work in NYC.
My comment was not in relation to my own situation.
That aside, the situation you describe emphasizes my point. If the company is paying more for folks to live near the office, then the costs of travel for remote workers can and should be less than the additional compensation would be.
What is it about in person that makes people think more communication gets done? I swear it's the opposite in basically every experience I've had. When we work in ways that are better for remote things go more smoothly because we're actually communicating. Nearly every time I see people get together, less is accomplished. I attribute a lot of it to the slowdown of communication due to the inefficiency of in-person meetings. Things that could've been a few quick messages end up requiring everyone to stop what they're doing and wait.
I've been fully remote for years and overall, remote wins for me.
But there are some things I think are good about periodic in-person meetups.
What is it about in person that makes people
think more communication gets done?
- The real-time nature is helpful for some tasks, although you can accomplish that nearly as well with Zoom/Meet/etc.
- I haven't found an online alternative that truly matches the ease of use and "flow" of a physical whiteboard.
- When in-person meetings are "special" rather than an everyday norm, people seem more likely to bring their "A" game.
- Lot of informal (yet important and job-related) conversation and collaboration happens in informal settings: hallways, at lunch, over drinks, at the water cooler, etc.
> A week trip will usually result in 9-10 days of low productivity for example.
My employer does the same. I have to travel a long way and for me it's even longer recovery. However, we go to a nice place each time and actually I think the week is very constructive for forming relationships and you get experiences that you don't get going to the office 9-5.
And I don't actually care about productivity except tangentially: I want my employer to do well so they continue to pay me. If going to a fancy hotel every 6 months is part of what they see as efficient business then I'm not going to complain. And they are doing very well so it's either positive or neutral.
> “IBM is focused on providing a work environment that balances flexibility with the face-to-face interactions that make us more productive, innovative and better able to serve our clients,”
Despite all the evidence that shows people are not more productive, innovative or happy working from an office. In fact, the reverse.
It's about commercial real estate values, and a management culture that finds itself unable to manage remotely.
Did IBM start paying more after acquiring those guys?
I don't follow anymore but I'm sure you're right there's still a ton of revenue from the old businesses and their locked-in customers. Probably like a white dwarf, it'll keep burning almost forever, cooling slowly.
Retired IBM manager here. This has nothing to do with working together. This is another attempt by IBM to get rid of the older workers (again). Most teams are scattered across the world, and in the US they are all over the place. It's just another "Resource Action" targeted at older workers disguised as some kind of great idea to be more productive.
Exactly - Managers with kids in high school (aka expensive employees) won't move. People who are 25 (aka cheap employees) might. It's been done for years by IBM and many other companies.
When it happened at my job 20+ years ago this was the exact pattern - good news for me is that I was 23 and wanted to move (new city matched my lifestyle much better). Only 1 person in my org who was in their 40s (based on my guess) out of 20 moved. He was single with no kids. All of my same-aged friends did move as well. At least then the paid severance if you didn't take the offer.
Once the tech economy improves, I see there being large employment shifts by those who prefer remote work. Times change, and instead of fighting change, employers should learn how to embrace it.
A buddy works at IBM and told me one of the “perks” is you can earn “Blue Points” that you can spend in some wacky internal marketplace. He got me a DVD of Carrot Top’s magnum opus “Chairman of the Board”
IBM: move near an office and come in three days a week, or tender your resignation and forfeit all of your Chuck E Cheese tickets!!
Doesn't it translate to: "After, good employee left, let's promote the underachievers to management. I'm eager to see how their unique 'skills' will steer us to new heights of inefficacy."
44 comments
[ 6.5 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadIBM CEO has also paused hiring for roles that could be replaced with AI
I guess what I’m saying is just be pragmatic and get your stuff done.
P.S. One of my senior guys is a road warrior, highly effective and I see him in the office maybe three times a year.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ibm-a-pioneer-of-remote-work-ca...
See IBM is so far behind on the Internet and collaboration technology that they are requiring their managers to have to be physically present. They don’t even trust their own ability to remotely collaborate.
Hell, I still chomp at the bit for remote work. It's genuinely better in almost every way for me; I get that people have kids and it gets annoying to work from home for those people or that people want to be social: I am not those people, I am sorry. I have ADHD and I am not able to actually sit and focus in the office, especially these torrid open office environments that have been foisted on me for 15 years.
However, I believe being close to an office where everyone can come together is of crucial importance.
The company I work for is remote first, and we come together from all across europe once a quarter. It's hugely expensive to do this and that money would be better spent on more important things. Not only that, when we come together people are tired, uncomfortable and often overcompensate. A week trip will usually result in 9-10 days of low productivity for example.
But during that week so much communication happens, so many things become unblocked and what's more important: people start to trust each other a bit more.
I had a psychologist tell me once: "it takes 9 good interactions to offset 1 bad one", well, most interactions while working over the internet are stressful and anxiety inducing. Interactions in person can be pleasant, helpful, enjoyable.
Going for lunch or playing a board game (or having a drink) can all help build a rapport and doing it casually is only possible if you can actually drop by.
I sincerely think being physically located near your closest colleagues can seriously help with company culture and paper over obtuse over-communication which is required if you are doing remote-first correctly.
All of this of course applies triple to managers; who's entire job is communication.
It just seems like most places these day is one or the other in terms of remote or fully in office.
Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas.
Cost of living has historically been factored when determining salary, right?
I don't live in a high cost of living environment (I live in Malmo, Sweden; pretty cheap by Swedish standards overall) and I won't earn as much here as I would if I was working in Zurich or Stockholm.
What you say here comes across as hugely entitled since presumably you are already paid a really high salary and want to make even more relative to others in your area? By virtue of you being able to work remotely even if it comes at a cost to your productivity?
As a counter: Large companies (such as IBM) typically have their campuses located outside of major metropolitan hubs where office space is cheap: is your predilection, then, that they should pay you now less? If they force a move to a lower cost of living area because they decide that?
You are paid for a job in a place, and getting to that job is part of the salary for that job in some circumstances.
You wouldn't expect Police officer to be paid the same in NYC vs Bryan, Ohio. If that police officer were to move to Bryan from NYC though: their travel costs and cost of living are on them, They would be paid to work in NYC.
That aside, the situation you describe emphasizes my point. If the company is paying more for folks to live near the office, then the costs of travel for remote workers can and should be less than the additional compensation would be.
I would agree that communication in open office environments actually goes down.
But genuinely there is a major difference in the sheer volume and quality of information when we come together.
But there are some things I think are good about periodic in-person meetups.
- The real-time nature is helpful for some tasks, although you can accomplish that nearly as well with Zoom/Meet/etc.- I haven't found an online alternative that truly matches the ease of use and "flow" of a physical whiteboard.
- When in-person meetings are "special" rather than an everyday norm, people seem more likely to bring their "A" game.
- Lot of informal (yet important and job-related) conversation and collaboration happens in informal settings: hallways, at lunch, over drinks, at the water cooler, etc.
My employer does the same. I have to travel a long way and for me it's even longer recovery. However, we go to a nice place each time and actually I think the week is very constructive for forming relationships and you get experiences that you don't get going to the office 9-5.
And I don't actually care about productivity except tangentially: I want my employer to do well so they continue to pay me. If going to a fancy hotel every 6 months is part of what they see as efficient business then I'm not going to complain. And they are doing very well so it's either positive or neutral.
Despite all the evidence that shows people are not more productive, innovative or happy working from an office. In fact, the reverse.
It's about commercial real estate values, and a management culture that finds itself unable to manage remotely.
I don't follow anymore but I'm sure you're right there's still a ton of revenue from the old businesses and their locked-in customers. Probably like a white dwarf, it'll keep burning almost forever, cooling slowly.
When it happened at my job 20+ years ago this was the exact pattern - good news for me is that I was 23 and wanted to move (new city matched my lifestyle much better). Only 1 person in my org who was in their 40s (based on my guess) out of 20 moved. He was single with no kids. All of my same-aged friends did move as well. At least then the paid severance if you didn't take the offer.
IBM: move near an office and come in three days a week, or tender your resignation and forfeit all of your Chuck E Cheese tickets!!
IBM is doing everything they can to push people out without any responsibility on their end