I have written a response to Forbes' 2020 World's Best Employers List that ranked IBM as #3. It is a long read . . . no apologies for that.
https://www.fordiscerningreaders.com/challenging-forbes-worlds-best-employer-ibm-brand.html
The summation of the article:
"Did Forbes “Get” the right information and convey to its readership an “Understanding” of what it takes to be a great employer in the 21st Century? I believe not. All it did was generate a list—evidently, a weakly qualified list. IBM employees might as well apply their Forbes’ “Best Employer Ever” decal to their home office whoopee cushion.
"If Forbes is to be seen as a credible source of information for business, it cannot rely on its 20th Century brand—something IBM’s chief executive officers have been doing for two decades. As Watson Sr. and Jr. built IBM, B. C. Forbes and Malcolm Forbes built the 20th Century Forbes’ brand. And it, just like IBM, must rebuild and reestablish itself in the 21st Century. The means to accomplish this is to be of service. Forbes must provide a service to its customers, its customers’ employees, its customers’ shareholders, and its customers’ communities.
"For Forbes this will require the vetting of all its information, but it is especially important when presenting a “worldwide best employer” award. It requires an understanding of basic employee motivations. It might consider adding a Gallup employee engagement expert into its process, [The author has no affiliation with Gallup other than to receive its newsletters.] and it should consider testing its social metrics against a multitude of economic metrics as a sanity check.
"Two decades of declining sales productivity at IBM indicates a corporate systemic problem, and red flags are waving everywhere concerning the corporation’s employees."
I cover four areas in-depth to dispute Forbes' findings:
IBMers Aren't Buying What IBM is Selling
Engaged, Enthusiastic and Empowered Employees are Productive
Contradictory Industry Data about the Corporation
IBM Documents its Actions, Not the Effectiveness of its Activities
Cheers,
- Peter E.