Lou Gerstner wrote, "People truly do what you inspect, not what you expect." … Lest we forget, these "inspection pages" exist because chief executives are "people" too.
Arvind Krishna: 2020-24 IBM Employment Security
|
|
Date Published: April 11, 2022
Date Modified: September 18, 2025 |
Arvind Krishna: 2020-24 IBM Employment Security
- Arvind Krishna's 2020-24 IBM Employment Numbers
- Evaluating Arvind Krishna's 2020-24 IBM Employment Security
Too many authors, historians, and corporate executives do not understand the difference between "job" security and "employment" security. The 20th Century IBM absolutely never promised "job" security. An individual's "job" was only secure as long as they performed. Opportunities were always available to try a new job, but fail at a "new job" and a person would not necessarily be fired, just returned to their previous job where they had performed.
When executives failed, this job change was sometimes called a "lateral move." This, though, gave an individual a chance to recover: to once again perform at a job they were good at and, given some time, more maturity, and additional training, to try again or to try another job that was more suited to their skills. It is easy to understand the critical nature of addressing poor performance, especially at the executive level. Tom Watson Sr. and Jr. both practiced "lateral moves" with their executives to address poor performance.
As for employees, first-line managers were pushed to their limits to determine if a person in a particular job was failing because of desire or ability. If it was desire, management was expected to create an environment that was conducive to support or inspire employee self-motivation. If it was ability, management was expected to put training in place or consider moving the individual to an area where their abilities would be the best match for a job.
This was a heavy burden on first-line management, but it was part of the management "job." If a person couldn't do this particular job, they could expect to be removed from management and moved back to where they had once performed. Peter E. Greulich covers a time when he was given such an ultimatum by his Administration Manager in "A View from Beneath the Dancing Elephant."
If an employee had the desire and the ability to perform, and they performed in their job they were secure in their "employment." If a particular type of "job" ended, they could expect to be offered another job (yes, possibly in another part of the country) and retrained if necessary, but they were again expected to perform to the highest standards in the new job. If an employee did not desire to work at the company or lacked the ability to perform . . . most of the time they would leave of their own volition because few are truly happy in a job they don't desire to do and/or have the ability to perform at. There were always the few, though, that had to be fired. This too was part of the management "job."
These concepts were the foundation for building and maintaining a "tradition" of full employment. It is a common misperception that IBM had a "policy" of full employment. Procter and Gamble had such a "policy." IBM never did. But it was one of the company's strongest of traditions because it was based on the employees' trust that management would do everything possible before considering the "nuclear options" of layoffs—referred to in the 21st Century IBM as right-sizing, resource actions, or workforce rebalancing.
In the 21st Century, IBM is practicing employment "insecurity." It doesn't matter what job or how well a person performs in any particular job, layoffs, right-sizing, resource actions, or workforce rebalancing threatens an individual's employment security. An instance of how IBM's most profitable division with some of the highest-performing individuals in the corporation were impacted in the 21st Century by a resource action is available on this website: [Read: How an R.A. Day Kills Productivity].
Let's take a look at Arvind Krishna's performance in this area from 2020 to 2024, and place it within the context of the 21st Century IBM employment practices since 2011 and 1999.
When executives failed, this job change was sometimes called a "lateral move." This, though, gave an individual a chance to recover: to once again perform at a job they were good at and, given some time, more maturity, and additional training, to try again or to try another job that was more suited to their skills. It is easy to understand the critical nature of addressing poor performance, especially at the executive level. Tom Watson Sr. and Jr. both practiced "lateral moves" with their executives to address poor performance.
As for employees, first-line managers were pushed to their limits to determine if a person in a particular job was failing because of desire or ability. If it was desire, management was expected to create an environment that was conducive to support or inspire employee self-motivation. If it was ability, management was expected to put training in place or consider moving the individual to an area where their abilities would be the best match for a job.
This was a heavy burden on first-line management, but it was part of the management "job." If a person couldn't do this particular job, they could expect to be removed from management and moved back to where they had once performed. Peter E. Greulich covers a time when he was given such an ultimatum by his Administration Manager in "A View from Beneath the Dancing Elephant."
If an employee had the desire and the ability to perform, and they performed in their job they were secure in their "employment." If a particular type of "job" ended, they could expect to be offered another job (yes, possibly in another part of the country) and retrained if necessary, but they were again expected to perform to the highest standards in the new job. If an employee did not desire to work at the company or lacked the ability to perform . . . most of the time they would leave of their own volition because few are truly happy in a job they don't desire to do and/or have the ability to perform at. There were always the few, though, that had to be fired. This too was part of the management "job."
These concepts were the foundation for building and maintaining a "tradition" of full employment. It is a common misperception that IBM had a "policy" of full employment. Procter and Gamble had such a "policy." IBM never did. But it was one of the company's strongest of traditions because it was based on the employees' trust that management would do everything possible before considering the "nuclear options" of layoffs—referred to in the 21st Century IBM as right-sizing, resource actions, or workforce rebalancing.
In the 21st Century, IBM is practicing employment "insecurity." It doesn't matter what job or how well a person performs in any particular job, layoffs, right-sizing, resource actions, or workforce rebalancing threatens an individual's employment security. An instance of how IBM's most profitable division with some of the highest-performing individuals in the corporation were impacted in the 21st Century by a resource action is available on this website: [Read: How an R.A. Day Kills Productivity].
Let's take a look at Arvind Krishna's performance in this area from 2020 to 2024, and place it within the context of the 21st Century IBM employment practices since 2011 and 1999.
Arvind Krishna's IBM Employment Numbers
- Krishna: 2019–24 IBM Employment
- Full-time employees: Down 22.9% from 362,200 in 2019 to 279,200 in 2024
- Full-time complementary employees: Down 34.3% from 21,600 in 2019 to 14,200 in 2024 *
- Total worldwide full-time employee headcount: Down 23.6% from 383,800 in 2019 to 293,400 in 2024
- Krishna & Rometty: 2011–24 IBM Employment
- Full-time employees: Down 35.6% from 433,362 in 2011 to 279,200 in 2024
- Full-time complementary employees: Down 56.9% from 33,023 in 2011 to 14,200 in 2024 *
- Total worldwide full-time employee headcount: Down 37.1% from 466,385 in 2011 to 293,400 in 2024
- Krishna, Rometty, Palmisano & Gerstner: 1999–2024 IBM Employment
- Full-time employees: Down 9.2% from 307,401 in 1999 to 279,200 in 2024
- Full-time complementary employees: Down 69.8% from 46,976 in 1999 to 14,200 in 2024 *
- Total worldwide full-time employee headcount: Down 17.2% from 354,377 in 1999 to 293,400 in 2024
It is important to note that these are "worldwide" headcount numbers as IBM does not offer any geography specific headcount numbers like most other corporations around the world. This means for example that during Palmisano's tenure although employment numbers increased he was using "worldwide" resource balancing to ensure he made his yearly earnings-per-share numbers. So, there were significant, heart-wrenching reductions in the United States and Europe while work was transferred to lower-wage, but also lower productivity geographies. It was during this transition that IBM stopped publishing its employment numbers. No one today knows just how many IBM employees are left in the United States of America.
IBM last released its geographic and United States headcount numbers in its 2007 and 2008 Annual Reports.
Samuel J. Palmisano was less than transparent on his methodology of increasing earnings-per-share with U.S. and Europe workforce reductions. Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty and Arvind Krishna have continued to be opaque in this matter through the latest annual reports. So, it is impossible to provide accurate information about how these reductions may have impacted the United States, Europe, or any other geography.
How many employees still remain in the United States or Europe is a closely guarded secret held somewhere in IBM's Human Resources Department.
Reach out to me if you have the specifics: [link to contact information]
IBM last released its geographic and United States headcount numbers in its 2007 and 2008 Annual Reports.
- In IBM's 2007 Annual Report it provided the following information for the last time on employment in India: "The company has been adding resources aggressively in emerging markets . . . India experienced the largest growth, up 22,200 to approximately 74,000 employees at year end."
- In IBM's 2008 Annual Report it provided the following information for the last time on U.S. employment: "The U.S. remained the largest country, with 115,000 employees, while resources increased in Asia Pacific and Latin America and were essentially flat in Europe. The company continues to add resources aggressively in emerging markets, particularly in the BRIC countries-Brazil, Russia, India and China-where employment totals approximately 113,000."
Samuel J. Palmisano was less than transparent on his methodology of increasing earnings-per-share with U.S. and Europe workforce reductions. Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty and Arvind Krishna have continued to be opaque in this matter through the latest annual reports. So, it is impossible to provide accurate information about how these reductions may have impacted the United States, Europe, or any other geography.
How many employees still remain in the United States or Europe is a closely guarded secret held somewhere in IBM's Human Resources Department.
Reach out to me if you have the specifics: [link to contact information]
Being of service or caring about stakeholders other than customers—especially when it concerns employees, is sometimes called paternalism. When Watson Jr. talked about employment security, he did not view it as paternalistic but instead as a means of increasing employee loyalty, goodwill, and diligence on the job. These character traits in an employee improved an employee's productivity. It was just a good business practice.
Watson Sr. summarized best this father-and-son view of paternalism and employment security when he told his banking peers, “In attempting to counsel or advise those whom we employ, we must not adopt a paternal attitude. … When independent thought and action should be the order of the day, employees resent an attitude of paternalism. It is a well-known fact, however, that an employee’s efficiency suffers if his mind is ill at ease, and that worry over financial troubles is one of the most powerful sources for the destruction of mental peace.”
Employee efficiency suffers when employees constantly worry about their employment security.
Watson Sr. summarized best this father-and-son view of paternalism and employment security when he told his banking peers, “In attempting to counsel or advise those whom we employ, we must not adopt a paternal attitude. … When independent thought and action should be the order of the day, employees resent an attitude of paternalism. It is a well-known fact, however, that an employee’s efficiency suffers if his mind is ill at ease, and that worry over financial troubles is one of the most powerful sources for the destruction of mental peace.”
Employee efficiency suffers when employees constantly worry about their employment security.
* A complementary employee (with an "e" not an "i") came into existence during the IBM Crisis of 1992-93. It is defined in IBM's 2021 Annual Report as: "The complementary workforce is an approximation of equivalent full-time employees hired under temporary, part-time and limited-term employment arrangements to meet specific business needs in a flexible and cost-effective manner."
Evaluating Arvind Krishna's Overall Performance
- How Does IBM Support Workers, Customers, Shareholders, Communities and Environment?
It seems that JUST Capital's positioning of IBM in its overall rankings since Arvind took over the corner office captures and documents the deteriorating perception of the IBM brand in the marketplace. IBM's brand has dropped in every JUST Capital survey over the last five years: falling from 11th to as low as 60th place, then up to 50th place:
- 2020 Results: 11th Place Overall - Arvind Krishna
- 2021 Results: 19th Place Overall - Arvind Krishna
- 2022 Results: 48th Place Overall - Arvind Krishna
- 2023 Results: 60th Place Overall - Arvind Krishna
- 2024 Results: 50th Place Overall - Arvind Krishna
The reason we don't use "Forbes' Best Employers" Yearly Listing is here: [Challenging Forbes Best Employers' List].
- How has Arvind Krishna performed for his employees, customers, shareholders and communities.
Information in the following charts is from JUST Capital's 2025 Overall Rankings information. More detailed information is available on their website and it is highly recommended to review the information underlying this data.
This chart reflects IBM's inability to perform as either the "Industry Best" or "Overall Best" in any of JUST Capitals' five categories: Workers, Customers, Shareholders and Governance, Communities and Environment.