If my foresight were as clear as my hindsight, I should be better off by a damned sight.

J. L. Mott, President of the Iron and Steel Association, 1873

IBM's Twenty-First Century CEO Performance
Published July 19, 2021
Updated April 11, 2022
 IBM's 21st Century Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Performance
  •  Arvind Krishna's Performance
As always, the perspectives shared here are not Wall Street quarterly perspectives but a businessman’s perspective of years, decades, and, at times, centuries. So, don't expect to find insights into minor bumps on the business roadmap like one or two quarters of revenue growth.
Jim Whitehurst's exit is a major pothole
​After all, Ginni had some of these positive, short-term growth "irregularities" too, but, after the final results were in, she turned in horrible year-over-year and long-term, revenue growth numbers. 
​This is the set of web pages that is updated at the end of each year with the most current yearly results and will continue until Arvind Krishna relinquishes the corner office to his successor. After two years in the corner office, he owns IBM's performance.
​Hopefully, when he retires I will publish the third update in the THINK Again Series from THINK Again: The Rometty Edition to THINK Again: The Krishna Edition.

Until then, enjoy this information.
At the end of Arvind Krishna’s first fiscal year as chief executive officer his performance markers were nine downers and a flat note.

​It was not a very impressive start. Is Arvind Krishna proving to be evolutionary, revolutionary, or more of the same?
What happens now that Jim is gone?
Let’s graph Krishna’s 2020 performance, and then put that performance within the context of the corporation’s 21st Century results. 
Wednesday, July 15, 2020 marked the end of The First 100 Days for Arvind Krishna, IBM’s chief executive officer, and James M. Whitehurst, the corporation’s new president. ​

​What does this one-hundred-day checkpoint reveal?
Arvind missed his chance for change
Is there an IBM “New Deal?” ​Or is Arvind serving up the same old Gerstner-Palmisano-Rometty (GPR) stuff?
The announcement of the breakup of IBM will only exacerbate the company’s current most-pressing problem, not cure it.

​The spike in stock price is a “Wall Street” phenomenon, not a “Main Street” or “stakeholder” affirmation of the decision.
A John Akers' déjà vu moment​
​Reality will set in soon enough because when it comes to business fundamentals, Main Street and corporate stakeholders have proven themselves better able to understand long-term realities than Wall Street.
Martin’s chief executive track record (CFO) is that of a financially-minded individual whose actions seem to indicate that he has little understanding of what it takes to build, maintain, and grow a sales organization.

​From the press release it is stated that Mr. Schroeter was IBM’s CFO from 2014 to 2017.
Really! After this IBM performance?​
​Does his track record as IBM's CFO indicate that he was a good choice?
  •  Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty's Performance
Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty never understood that the individuals in her salesforce who gave their customers one hundred percent could carry only twenty-five percent of the burden. They needed a chief executive officer who could build an organization to provide the other seventy-five percent that makes selling possible.
​Perhaps her failures over the last eight years can mentor today’s chief executive officers, and if these past mistakes are corrected, all stakeholders should see better corporate performance ahead—if not, they should expect more of the same.
 The following key performance indicators examine the Rometty years (2012-19) and answer the highlighted questions:
Questions answered by Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty's key performance indicator (KPI) #1:
  • What were shareholders’ returns during this time frame? 
  • How did these returns compare with a similar investment in some commonly held, lower-risk index funds? 
  • ​Was Rometty’s pay commensurate with her shareholder performance?
Question answered by Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty's key performance indicator (KPI) #2:
  • What has been a major side effect of the corporation’s focus on growth through acquisitions instead of internal research and development?
​Questions answered by Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty's key performance indicator (KPI) #3:
  • How much money did IBM spend on share buybacks?
  • From the perspective of market value and share price, was this money well spent?
Questions answered by Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty's key performance indicator (KPI) #4:
  • How much money did Rometty spend on dividends?
  • Did raising dividends every year compensate for the market’s lack of confidence in Rometty’s leadership and short-term strategies?
Questions answered by Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty's key performance indicator (KPI) #5:
  • How did the Red Hat acquisition affect market value?
  • What is the cornerstone of this acquisition’s success?​
  • ​Does the acquisition play to IBM’s strengths?
Questions answered by Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty's key performance indicator (KPI) #6:
  • How much did productivity fall?
  • What revenue and profit numbers could IBM have achieved in 2019 if it had kept its 2011 employee productivity in line with inflation?
Questions answered by Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty's key performance indicator (KPI) #7:
  • Was IBM in transition or decline?
  • How many times did IBM have positive revenue and profit growth in the last eight years?​
  • ​Historically, was its performance better or worse?​
Questions answered by Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty's key performance indicator (KPI) #8:
  • How much have revenue and profit fallen in the last eight years?
  • Why did the divestiture of the x86-Server Division impact corporate sales and profitability?
© 2022 Peter E. Greulich. All Rights Reserved
​
Information posted on this site recognizes the legal right of copyrighted material. The following material is considered in the public domain effective January 1, 2022: (1) works published in the United States prior to 1927, (2) works published in the United States after 1926 but before 1964 with a proper © copyright notice that were not renewed in their 28th year, and (3) works published in the United States before 1978 that have no © copyright notice, and (4) all unpublished works created over 120 years ago. Other documents used here that do not fit these criteria are used in good faith and a belief that such usage would withstand a test of fair use. Any concerns with the public domain or fair usage of material on this site will be removed until a discussion can resolve the matter with its permanent removal or republication. Just use the "Contact" menu item above or the "Contact Us" hyperlink provided here: [Contact Us]