IBM reviews

Just like anyplace, there are some good managers and some bad managers. Good managers open to improving the way things work, not just the way things look on a chart. Good managers also try to develop their staff and help them advance their career interests. Bad managers often look out for themselves, not for the staff. They will pressure people to make unrealistic goals; do not plan well and then work everyone into the ground when the plan is broken. Careerwise it seems to take a long time to advance unless you have been at the right place, or connect with the right people. But that's true everywhere.

It's difficult to consider where to start... Anyone with a sense of entreprenurship or creativity was stiffled. Albeit, this was more the impact of just a few key managers but it doesn't take many spoiled apples to ruin the lot. People with specialised skills were delegated to roles in projects that they were completely unqualified for, only because global strategy decided that the company's market structure would be redefined overnight. Eventually, a strategy was defined that IBM will deliver projects' strategic knowledge .... applied knowledge could be outsourced. Long live power point specialists. Another frustrating issue was the catastrophic lask of cooperation between different departments. It was often easier to get the support of colleagues from competitor firms than to convince a coworker from the next office to visit a client's site to help address showstopper issues. As a consultant, one has a professional obligation to provide clients objective recommendations. The expansion of IBM into consulting provided synergies for firm, however the objectivity of consultants was also compromised as best solutions were suddenly those that supported the sale of other IBM products.