Posted on 01/19/2024 11:30:57 AM PST by ShadowAce
IBM Consulting this week told its US-based executives and people managers that, effective immediately, they must work from a corporate office at least three days per week, or face the consequences.
John Granger, SVP of IBM Consulting, told staff in an email this is a company-wide policy that extends beyond the Consulting division. He issued a similar, if less emphatic, memo in 2022 that called for being in the workplace three days per week, "wherever possible," and exempted those designated as "work-at-home" employees from the office or client-site attendance.
The email sent this week, however, tells those affected that they should "separate from IBM" if they don't wish to comply.
IBM Software issued a similar directive in September 2023, and at the time, we're told, the Consulting group expected to implement the policy at a later date. That day has now arrived.
Big Blue's antipathy toward remote work predates the workplace exodus precipitated by the COVID pandemic. Back in 2017, IBM tried to end telecommuting by telling workers they had to work from one of six strategic offices, a policy some employees saw as an attempt to drive older workers out.
An IBM employee who spoke with The Register, and asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, described the enforced return-to-office policy as "attrition by design," noting that the IT giant would have to spend some money to relocate and promote lower-band (younger) employees but would save money overall by shedding more experienced, more expensive workers.
Our source also noted that Big Blue is ordering people back to the office at a time when the venerable employer is closing regional hubs.
"Winning in the marketplace demands our collective focus and alignment on innovation, speed, and execution," Granger's note states. "We believe alignment includes face-to-face interaction as it drives the engagement, productivity, and the culture we need to bring world-class client services and products to market."
That belief about productivity may be misplaced. According to economic research published earlier this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, remote work has no significant effect on productivity.
"After controlling for pre-pandemic trends in industry productivity growth rates, we find little statistical relationship between telework and pandemic productivity performance," the study says.
"We conclude that the shift to remote work, on its own, is unlikely to be a major factor explaining differences across sectors in productivity performance. By extension, despite the important social and cultural effects of increased telework, the shift is unlikely to be a major factor explaining changes in aggregate productivity."
Part of the problem for managers is that many lack ways to assess the productivity of remote workers.
They also lack a way to assess office occupancy. According to our IBM source, Big Blue's team can tell when employees arrive by the time they swipe their badges through building security systems. But there's no badge swipe upon exit, so there's nothing to prevent workers from showing up and then departing shortly thereafter.
Be that as it may, IBM Consulting is moving ahead with its plan, requiring executives and people managers to "immediately begin working from a client location or an IBM office" at least three days each week, unless eligible for exceptions like medical conditions or military service.
Those who are currently not working from an office or client site must relocate by August 1 so that they can work on-prem, or to shift to a related role outside IBM Consulting for a position that's approved for remote work, or to simply leave the biz.
Granger's note, also shared here on social media, says executives and people managers who will be required to relocate will be informed of this by the end of January 2024, and will then have 30 days to decide if they are willing to make the move.
It's perhaps worth noting that insiders sometimes say IBM stands for I've Been Moved.
Asked to comment, an IBM spokesperson told The Register, "IBM is focused on providing a work environment that balances flexibility with the face to face interactions that make us more productive, innovative and better able to serve our clients. Consistent with that approach, we’re requiring executives and people managers in the United States to be in the office at least three days per week."
Those affected by the policy appear to be less enthusiastic. In a post to LinkedIn, Tony Moura, IBM Federal Garage Lead, said, "So, I'll drive to an office that's 30 minutes away, incur the cost for tolls which will equal $11.25 for the day, and lunch. Just to sit with no one that is on my team because they're all over the country to simply do what I'm doing right now." ®
You are wrong. I work much harder at home than I ever did in an office. Maybe you are projecting.
I work more hours simply because I no longer have to spend 2+ hours commuting anymore.
I roll out of bed and get right to work.
100% agree unless you’re taking inbound calls on the clock with measurables.
I trained many new employees.
On those occasions I would spend one week in an office with them—theirs or mine—a very intense week with long days.
The rest of the coaching was done remotely until I was comfortable they had mastered their work.
In some cases it took a few months, in others it took up to a year.
There was no need for ongoing face to face meeting.
It was very easy to measure their output and to answer any questions they had.
When you’re a federal contractor the Feds set the rules!
It’s been like that for like forever. What’s new is those rules are stomping their way into the commercial workplace through the HR corporate officers.
Coincides with a downturn in IT hiring. Smart move.
They're not making this decision from a position of strength. They likely found out that some of their remote workers were outsourcing their work to others.
I regularly work with an IBM support team. The good individuals don't stay long. The ones that stick around are mediocre to clueless. They have some systems training but zero grasp of what the client needs and how to stave off inevitable issues. They're very reactionary instead of proactive.
“They likely found out that some of their remote workers were outsourcing their work to others.”
Good catch.
That makes sense.
The workers were too productive—so productive they could hold down two jobs at once and get both done well (by subcontracting)....
Our team has daily meetings with a director during certain project cycles. On the days he's in the office, it's an absolute waste of time. No one can hear him because a nearby loudmouth drowns out his phone when she's talking. She's so loud it's almost as though it's a comedy skit.
There is no back-to-the-office for people who were never in it. Since the beginning of the lockdowns, we've hired people across multiple states. The remote workers are much better than the locals. It's not even close.
We've had a few people get hired and then move on a year or two later without them ever having met some of the people they worked with daily. They got poached by other companies and ironically one major strength their new boss sought them out for was how well they work remotely due to our efforts to lay out all the tools and processes to make it happen.
Remote work wasn't new to us but the lockdowns forced upper management to get on board. Our IT teams had remote workers 20 years ago and some of our non-IT teams started remote work 10 years ago.
I have MS Teams meetings to share screens with dozens of people during the week and it's far more efficient than trying to set up meetings in person.
No I will not! That’s what my experiences with telecommuting workers tells me.
That’s your problem a hole
Incorrect. It depends entirely on the individual and the team they are attached to. I worked remotely for many years of my professional life, including for several companies like IBM. On the two occasions when I did go back inside for a period of months, my employers literally exclaimed over how productive I was compared to the rest of the staff.
Then again, I am a woman. We are the ones who had to work twice as hard to receive half as much credit.
But the article is about the Consulting practice.
Certainly untrue of all supervisors. Just the deadwood supervisors who lack vision and great communication skills. And certainly untrue of all remote workers. Why would creativity suffer when a worker can think and work without constant interruptions or duplicative meetings with the less-productive staff who require hand-holding or flank-covering?
No. Yours childishly upset like a triggered Democrat over another’s opinion. And I didn’t even use a curse to answer you.
About 13 years ago, I had been feeling good about having made it through my career without ever having to use Notes, when what happens? I end up in a consulting gig for a year or so where the organization uses Notes. And believe me, it was well past its prime then. Almost no one was using it at that point. C’est la vie!
I honest to God had a little utility on my desktop called KillNotes. When Notes would crash, I couldn’t restart Notes without rebooting my laptop. KillNotes would clean up all the leftover processes so I could restart Notes after a Notes crash, and not have to reboot. Just damn!
It wasn’t an opinion, it was a blanket indictment.
Of you had insulted my wife to my face I’d have decked you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.