Alvind's Pipmunks were trying to say that their featured VC id--t has a work life balance. Oh, really ?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/i-m-the-head-of-vc-at-ibm-my-day-includes-10-miles-with-my-doodles-sign-language-and-meetings-with-startups/ar-AA1MIEq6?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W099&cvid=2ad8df3cd70a4e43aaef3f86740a6bb1&ei=26
There are so many like her who have zilch credentials or actionable results to show for - many are there to fill a quota - everyone knows this and so does she!
Absolutely correct. Someone that knows the job, has the experience and background.
Aren't be all supposed to be hired that way? (technically speaking)
I was going to use the "Coldplay kisscam" example, but the post may get in trouble :-)
"Whatever the manager deems successful" isn't how the performance of an employee should be technically measured, There are organizational goals and everyone has a part.
Yes, I know that life doesn't work that way. But whoever posted the Intel profile for the same role, yes, exactly, you expect a solid background for such a relevant role.
The life-work balance piece gives pause... no? We'll have omelet for sure though.
@eh - Absolutely correct. This particular role at any other Tech company would be someone with a Harvard or Stanford MBA, a STEM undergrad from a top school, and several years of experience working in Venture Capital, Private Equity, or Investment Banking. Not someone who used to be a Program Manager for a government client before becoming some Leader of DEI for her little corner of IBM.
@f0 I said "She appears to be successful at that job". Assuming that her success matrix is linked to "performance" is the problem. Success is whatever her manager deems it to be - and at the C-Suite level where IBM operates, that tends to mean the ability to manage and enhance the relationships with Client C-Suite execs - a.k.a. "schmoozing". Many would LIKE it to be performance/revenue based, but a quick look at IBM's revenue/earnings each quarter shows that IBM does not value that metric. .
Also - I am deemed successful in my job yet my Linked-In profile is devoid of specifics, accomplishments, history. Why? Because Linked-In does not matter in my success matrix - but my clients opinions of me and what I do for them does. Making judgements of others capabilities/successes based on what is listed in a social media profile is meaningless. Yet that is what many people do today.
@bz please take a moment to look at her bio and LinkedIn profile. There is NOTHING THERE for skills or accomplishments. NADA. Just 1 line statements about the roles she had in government and diversity at IBM for 15 years. Compare that to the bio's of Intel's VC org here: https://www.intelcapital.com/team. That does not prep you for being the head of IBM VC IMHO which is a critical role if IBM is to survive and thrive. And I think you are reading in "the commenter took offense"; my read was the commenter was commenting and expressing opinions and observations and nothing else other than this is another example of how and why IBM went from being the most admired and essential company on the planet for decades to whatever it is now.
Yeah, I felt like drinking a Ginni and Tonic after reading that is, promoting marketing people that "seem to do their job well". Like shrinking the company year after year in a Ginni and Toni style (not her comp though!!)... Yay!
We have a clear indication when it comes down to the VC work that is going to be successful!
"I try to come in person as much as possible. Breakfast is a must for me, and I usually grab a smoothie or anything egg-sandwich-related on my way in."
Those eggs, those eggs, means everything. Sharing the vegetarian thing is powerful too.
@bp "There are SO MANY VPs at IBM like this..." because IBM is a Marketing and Finance company FIRST and a technology company second. IBM prides itself on having access to the C-Suite offices of its current and future clients. IBM curates high-level employees that are successful in marketing to C-Suite personnel.
She appears to be successful at that job and thus is rewarded - which the deleted-commenter seems to take offense to, using what they see as derogatory terms in an attempt to belittle the decision to have this person in that job. If they aren't making money for IBM, they won't be there for too long. Or maybe they will be...but that's IBM's decision to make, not the commenters.
There are SO MANY VPs at IBM like this, that spend all their time posting on LinkedIn, attending conferences, and being interviewed by the media but not doing anything for IBM or its customers. Like the AI Influencer guy who recently posted about his last day at IBM but it turned out he was just moving to Red Hat. What a joke.
@b6 I did not see anything racist in the comments now deleted. The person stated it was a turn off to read about someone with an important role like that talking about putting out outfits and drinking water and walking. Now if the article talked about how she/IBM invested in Airbnb or Tesla or Anthropic or Amazon or Paypal etc etc etc and made IBM $100,000,000,000 that would be interesting. As many learned from the recent Charlie Kirk tragedy, when conversations and debates are stopped that is when really bad things happen and division happens. It is very easy to mention victimhood or racism as it tries to shut down freedom of speech which is extremely healthy.
The article is atrocious and very tone deaf but I think the comment was more deleted because of the increasing blatant racism/s-xism against anyone who isn't a white male (with the obvious exception of Rob Thomas...) is getting ridiculous on this site.
The deleted reply was salvaged: http://techrights.org/n/2025/10/07/The_Comment_TheLayoff_com_Has_Just_Censored_for_Criticising_a_R.shtml
Oh wow ! the first reply to the post has been deleted already.....guess that truth in advertising doesn't apply to IBM VPs, especially when their behavior is so shallow.
Hmmm. AI? Certainly not IBM reality.