that story is BS, and IBM still allows WFH for all the account teams and several others
do a head count at one of the centers on any given day, there is your answer
6 replies (most recent on top)
-
the author never worked for IBM
-
ibm failed, not the program - the program and participants were fine - ibm failed to figure out how to continue it
-
study paid by ibm - does not say that, it does feel like that
-
we continue to pitch wfh to our clients on the consulting site - ask anyone @ gbs
-
cancelling wfh helped with attrition, many did not want to commute 1+ hours to be in the office - the initial deal was wfh, ibm changed rules in the middle of the game
Never work at home. When joined IBM 4 years ago, my up-line manager told me not allowed work at home.
Remote working is just a saying for me, none sense!
Not buying that. Brick and mortar is basically a dead horse. Adapt or die.
2014 Forbes article- Telecommuting Is The Future of Work
https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanbiro/2014/01/12/telecommuting-is-the-future-of-work/#36bc63633c86
Its grown considerably since 2014, Forbes was spot on.
From FlexJobs site
Remote Jobs Continue to Climb
Remote job listings increased 11 percent from 2015 to 2016, and 52 percent in the last two years, signaling sustained and solid growth in remote job listings.
Yahoo and IBM are forcing employee's back to office. LMAO
We all know who the next AOL's are here. BTW, when was your last raise? Exactly.
wake up
A Failed Implementation of Work at Home
IBM’s work-at-home implementation was anarchistic—it was every man for himself. Once the real estate cost savings were realized, interest was lost in funding work-at-home as a strategy to improve productivity. The local management teams were not offered the opportunity to determine where, how, or the degree to which work at home should be implemented; there was little discussion with first-line managers on how to maintain close working relationships with and between their now-remote employees; some managers who were fully competent with a face-to-face workforce failed utterly at maintaining long-distance relationships—they are more difficult to maintain; there was no discussion of how to replace IBM’s lost face-to-face sales and technical-sales mentoring system for new employees; and there was no input taken on how to enhance IBM’s leading-edge, quality sales and management education for the work-at-home environment.
Little of the $9.5 billion dollars in savings found its way back to the first-line management teams for local team building, or local sales and technical education events, as any savings was siphoned off to fund stock buybacks, not improve productivity. Such implementations would have required a tangible investment of dollars, and the reengineering “cuts” continued everywhere including back-end sales support, back-end technical-sales support, and front-line sales applications: many commented during this time, “At least after I hit ‘Enter,’ I can now relax with a cup of coffee in the comfort of my home waiting on the application to respond.”
Non-production is unproductive whether it is at home or in the office, but in the home office it is dangerously opaque. Ineffectual work-at-home processes, if not tracked closely, may only reveal their positive or negative effects on a corporation’s bottom line after many years; therefore, an accurate analysis of Lou Gerstner’s reengineering projects requires the perspective of decades to evaluate their long-term impact.
Even then, work at home was only one failed implementation of many that has destroyed decades of employee productivity.
Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/one-chart-why-work-home-failed-ibm-peter-e-greulich
Sorry - forgot the link for the story (by ElReg):
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/08/ibm_teleworking_is_great_for_everyone_but_us/