Thread regarding IBM layoffs

Is IBM a top-down autocrazy?

It is harder to run an idea meritocracy in which disagreements are encouraged than a top-down autocracy in which they are suppressed. But when believable parties to disagreements are willing to learn from each other, their evolution is faster and their decision making is far better.

  • Ray Dalio
by
| 2119 views | | 9 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+1cRmLYiA

9 replies (most recent on top)

"How is this related to layoffs?" Well, this may the very reason IBM is coming apart. I even speculate this may the root cause?

@ujm+1cRmLYiA ,do you not see a link here?

by
|
Post ID: @1qpd+1cRmLYiA

Yes, yes and yes. Disagree with manager and see your life and career goto gutter.
Ibm managers have lot of time to plan revenge

by
|
Post ID: @ubf+1cRmLYiA

I like that comment. "manage the business or manage the stock". Neither has gone well it seems.

by
|
Post ID: @fxu+1cRmLYiA

I love the word autocrazy. I wonder if we'll be hearing used someday when AI goes rogue.

by
|
Post ID: @kus+1cRmLYiA

But isn't that human nature anyway (to selfishly work towards his/her own wealth and power at the expense of others)?

by
|
Post ID: @dyf+1cRmLYiA

The key thing to understand in any organization is INCENTIVES. Is any mid-level manager incented to save the company money? Or improve its profitability? No. They are incented to increase their headcount and capital spending, ideally at the expense of the manager next door, because that's how they increase their own importance and therefore rewards.

As for the individual contributors, what's in for them for improving the company's results? Almost nothing. Even in those rare years that there is a bonus, it's such a trivial amount that nobody is motivated by it - certainly not compared to the rewards for favoring self-interest.

No, the only people who truly get rewarded when the company does better is a handful of execs (and a few outsiders with large stock holdings). And in some companies, the disparity gets so bad that people want the company to fail in order to punish the execs (see: HP under Fiorina).

The best way to think of any large organization, not least IBM, is as a set of feudal fiefdoms. The king gives resources to earls in return for a commitment of taxes (read: revenues), who in turn do the same to lesser lords and so on all the down to lords of the manor, who have actual peasants digging the fields (etc.). And everybody in that structure is going to do what's best for their own wealth and power - not what's best for the king.

by
|
Post ID: @avz+1cRmLYiA

IBM equals 65 plus useless fu--s who are only interested in filling their own pockets.

by
|
Post ID: @ssq+1cRmLYiA

Some sources think so.

https://www.discerningreaders.com/ibm-is-a-lost-federation.html

by
|
Post ID: @kyv+1cRmLYiA

Post a reply

: