Sunday, May 04, 2008


Is IBM and Microsoft a better employer than Oracle?

One interesting observation I have noted is that whenever Oracle acquires a company, the employees stay along just long enough to collect their retention bonuses and then bail. It seems that whenever Microsoft and IBM acquire, folks tend to hang around a lot longer.

Some of this is attributable to real leadership where Bill Gates was a much better leader than Larry Ellison. Bill Gates realized that he was a technologist and turned over daily management to others. Larry on the other hand makes his presence felt and possibly participates in decisions that are best left to others.

At some level, Oracle, Microsoft and IBM are large enterprises who haven't figured out best practices for retaining top talent. IBM seems to have figured out the basics of allowing their employees to work from home without being hypocritical. All of these companies give folks the tools they need to collaborate on the net, yet are notorious for their sprawling campuses and forcing employees to relocate and work from the office.

None of them have figured out that maintaining such large offices is not only a waste of money but also counterproductive to the "green" policies they attempt to sell to others. How much pollution would be prevented if big employers such as Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Sun, Google, EMC and others started embracing a virtual workforce?

My two cents says that folks are savage in cliche behavior such as face time when reality says that the folks who believe this really use office space as a way to micro-manage.

Oracle assesses (and rewards) employees by comparing them to other employees, rather than against internal goals. So even on a successful team, individual members are compared against each other. This tends to foster competition rather than cooperation, and a less congenial working environment.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home
| | View blog reactions

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?