IBM Global Talent Management
IBM Global Talent Management
case study–PART A
Development of this case was made possible by a grant from the Society for Human Resource Management
and the National Academy of Human Resources. Information presented was current as of the time the case was
written. Any errors are solely the author’s.
Note to HR faculty and instructors: SHRM cases and modules are intended for use in HR classrooms at
universities. Teaching notes are included with each. While our current intent is to make the materials available
without charge, we reserve the right to impose charges should we deem it necessary to support the program. However,
currently, these resources are available free of charge to all. Please duplicate only the number of copies needed,
one for each student in the class.
10-0432-part A
Case Study Part A
Introduction
In early 2003, Randy MacDonald, the senior vice president of human resources
for IBM corporation, was in the midst of a 10-city-in-two-weeks business trip that
would take him from IBM’s headquarters in Armonk, NY, to several cities in Central
and Eastern Europe, Africa, India, China and several spots in Asia. His schedule was
a fitting metaphor for IBM’s strategic and human capital challenges.
Randy was reviewing his recent meeting with Sam Palmisano, the CEO of IBM.
Randy had been the chief HR executive at IBM since 2000, joining when Lou
Gerstner was in the middle of his tenure as IBM’s CEO. Lou had been an outsider
to IBM, arriving at a time of great turmoil, when the corporation was near
bankruptcy, and remaking the organization with an eye toward global consulting
services. Sam Palmisano was an IBM insider, a 31-year veteran of the venerable
company, who had helped bring Gerstner’s vision to reality and now was building on
that legacy of Gerstner.
In their meeting, Sam and Randy discussed IBM’s strategic view of the evolution of
global markets, IBM’s strategic position as a leader in global transformation and the
evolving needs of IBM’s clients. These views later led to an article in Foreign Affairs
Magazine in 2006.1 In that article, Sam Palmisano described IBM’s predictions
about the evolution of new organizational forms, where the production of goods
and services flowed globally to the places where the greatest benefit could be created
at the most efficient cost. It was already apparent that supply chains were becoming
much more global and transcending organizational boundaries. IBM’s clients were
increasingly seeing that same trend in other areas, such as marketing, R&D, sales
and engineering. Future organizations (IBM’s clients and those that hoped to serve
them profitably) would evolve from the traditional “multinational” approach, which
“organized production market by market, within the traditional boundaries of the
nation-state.”2
These ideas also recognized that trade and investment flows across national
boundaries had liberalized, protectionism was reducing, and technological advances
vastly lowered the cost of global communications and business computing, leading
to shared business standards throughout much of the world. This changed the
idea of what was possible through globalization. As Sam put it in the Foreign
Affairs article, “Together, new perceptions of the permissible and the possible have
deepened the process of corporate globalization by shifting its focus from products
to production—from what things companies choose to make to how they choose
to make them, from what services they offer to how they choose to deliver them.
Simply put, the emerging globally integrated enterprise is a company that fashions its
Sam coined the phrase “Globally Integrated Enterprise” (GIE) to describe what he
had in mind. He foresaw that IBM’s clients would increasingly be moving toward
a GIE and that IBM needed to get ahead of that trend. This had implications for
every aspect of IBM, including significant implications for IBM’s supply chain, IT
systems, strategy, marketing and services development and deployment. Underlying
all of these implications were significant challenges for IBM’s human capital and its
approach to human resource management.
“We no longer have to replicate IBM from floor to ceiling in every country. We are optimizing key operations in
the right places in the world—eliminating redundancies and excess overhead–and integrating those operations
horizontally and globally […] This is about doing the right tasks, with the right skills, in the right places.”
Sam Palmisano, May 20, 2005, Analyst Meeting
The customer was saying, “know my business and provide value propositions that
are unique to me.” Yet, IBM’s workforce systems and decisions tended to be focused
on accurately projecting demand and creating sufficient supply of talent against a
multinational model that often operated separately within countries or regions. IBM
sales and service experts were highly skilled in IBM products and solutions, but it
was their unique knowledge about the client’s industry and global implications that
increasingly would become key differentiators.
Key for any globally integrated organization is the critical capability to move human
capital skill and expertise to business opportunity—to put it more simply: to get the
right person, with the right skills, at the right time, place and cost.
Randy and his colleagues realized that this would mean a significant change in how
IBM defined its workforce, the information systems that employees and leaders
used to understand and make decisions about workforce capability, and the way
the capabilities of IBM’s employees, teams and units connected to client needs
and IBM strategy. Some consulting firms had begun to implement systems that
used the language of competencies, capabilities or skills to depict the “inventory”
of workforce capability and then matched that inventory to the pattern of their
clients’ needs. Such organizations generally had fewer than 100,000 employees,
with fairly focused professional service domains. IBM was considerably larger,
operated in multiple product and service sectors and would increasingly need to
tap human resources throughout the world. In addition, a realistic idea about the
true availability of capabilities would potentially require integrating information
on hundreds of thousands of IBM job applicants in many countries and more than
90,000 contractors. The scale of the task was many magnitudes greater than what
had been attempted by others. The investment in IT systems would likely be upward
Other large organizations had focused their talent management systems on a subset
of capabilities, such as leadership competencies, or on subsets of the workforce, such
as high-potentials or certain particularly critical job groups. Yet, even in the most
advanced organizations, the vast majority of workers were not part of development
programs aimed at leaders or a few vital jobs. Indeed, one initiative that GE’s new
CEO, Jeff Immelt, had pioneered was to focus the power of Crotonville on what
was regarded as emerging vital disciplines such as marketing and innovation.5 IBM
seemed to need something that went well beyond even current cutting-edge efforts.
History of IBM6
IBM was founded in 1911. Thomas J. Watson joined the company in 1914, and
as CEO, he instituted many of the policies for which the company would become
famous, including salespeople wearing suits, corporate pride and loyalty, implied
lifetime employment and strong values and beliefs, such as the slogan “THINK” to
embody a strong and intelligent work ethic. After 40 years of growth and success,
Watson Sr. turned the company over to his son, Thomas Watson, Jr. in 1952.
The next era was to see IBM become dominant in one of the most notable growth
industries of the century. For example, IBM developed the 360 computer, an
innovation at its time because it was based on semiconductor chips and had
interchangeable components. It was a significant and revolutionary departure from
vacuum tubes that had been used before and rapidly became the dominant design.
In addition, IBM innovated in areas such as computer languages (FORTR AN),
disk storage and point-of-service machines for banks and supermarkets. Indeed,
IBM became so dominant in the industry by the 1960s that the company became
the target of a 13-year antitrust action by the U.S. Justice Department, which was
unsuccessful.
In the 1980s, IBM successfully introduced the IBM PC, which was an immediate
sales hit, exceeding all forecasts. By the mid-1980s, IBM was firmly established as
a solid and safe source of business computing solutions. Yet, even as the computer
industry was changing with the advent of the PC, IBM’s main business was still built
around the mainframe computer.
That changed in the 1990s. In 1990, IBM was the second most-profitable global
company, posting a net income of US$6 billion. This promising position in a
growing industry changed quickly. In 1991, the company posted earnings of
negative US$2.8 billion, an unthinkable occurrence in a company known for many
decades as a source of solid growth and reliable financial performance. Now, IBM
was derided by critics as being behind the times, out of touch with its customers
and internally focused. Many felt that IBM failed to recognize the move toward
client-server computing, the growing importance of the network and the need
to interconnect computing elements such as mainframes, midrange and personal
Lou Gerstner joined IBM as CEO in 1993, with many analysts and others expecting
that this computing industry outsider would break up the company and sell off the
pieces. However, Gerstner soon asserted that this was not the plan and that the value
of IBM rested in its synergies, not in the separate value of the different businesses
and units. A period of relentless cost-cutting and the growing chorus from
customers that IBM needed to create solutions, not products, ensued. Units such
as the PC division were streamlined around fewer products and more focused and
effective marketing and product lines. The IT organization cut costs dramatically,
reducing the number of CIOs from 128 in 1993 to only one in 1997. By 1994, IBM
was again posting solid financial results, with profits of US$5 billion on revenues of
US$64 billion. IBM was profiting from the growing Internet and business spending
to prepare for the year 2000 and beyond.
Sam Palmisano had run IBM’s integrated global services group from 1996 to 1999.
In 2000, Gerstner began the transition toward Palmisano’s leadership of IBM by
making him president and COO just as the industry went into free-fall with the
dot-com bubble burst. In March 2002, Palmisano, a 31-year veteran of IBM, took
the reins as CEO. By 2003, IBM was on solid footing and had acquired PWC
Consulting from the Price Waterhouse Coopers organization to further support
its ability to become “One IBM” worldwide and the global innovator in services
that were integrated, available on demand, locally innovative and yet globally
synergistic.
Palmisano and the IBM leadership concluded that to be successful, IBM would
need to derive as much as 70 percent of its revenues outside the Americas by the
year 2009. In 2003, the percentage of revenues from outside the Americas was
only about 57 percent, consisting of US$34.8 million from the United States,
US$3.5 million from other countries in the Americas, US$29 million from
Europe/Middle East/Africa, US$19 million from Asia Pacific and US$2.6
million from others.
An answer to the question of who was on the bench and who was unavailable was
based on very antiquated methods, reflecting little consistency and coordination.
There was a general feeling that IBM was plagued by the dual problem of having
a lot of unneeded duplication in its talent, while at the same time suffering from
business-stopping gaps due to a lack of the right talent. The Finance group had an
indicator for at least part of the problem. IBM’s utilization rates were below the best
in the industry. The Finance group had a monthly report that calculated how the
utilization rates translated into lost consulting business opportunities.
While the competitive markets of the 21st century made policies like “no layoffs”
impossible to credibly pursue, the paradox was that the generation of workers
coming of age seemed to increasingly value organizations that made significant and
well-considered investments in their people. Particularly in emerging markets, IBM’s
global brand and vaunted reputation for enlightened human resource management
made it a strong candidate for talented young people interested in developing
cutting-edge capabilities and a global career.
That said, the reality did not always live up to the imagery. For someone to move
from Argentina to New York, it often depended on whether that person or his or
her manager knew the right person to call in New York to make the connection,
identify the role that could be filled in New York and manage the process of making
the move, rationalizing compensation and benefits, etc. In an interview with the
Harvard Business Review, Sam Palmisano recalled the feedback from a unique 72-
hour Internet discussion, called “jam,” about IBM’s future, initiated by Palmisano
and his team in 2003, where 50,000 IBMers posted nearly 10,000 comments.
One example the CEO cited was employees’ descriptions of extremely frustrating
situations. They’d say something like: “I’m in Tokyo, prototyping software for a
client, and I need a software engineer based in Austin right now to help in a blade
server configuration. But I can’t just say, ‘Please come to Tokyo and help.’ I need to
get a charge code first so I can pay his department for his time!”8
As one leader put it, “It was the transparent opportunity for learning that they
wanted. They were not arguing for higher pay, but for us to give them the chance
to take advantage of IBM’s global workforce footprint, so they could develop
themselves. Development had become the vital factor in the employment deal, and
it offset pay, but we had to find a way to allow folks to use the system now that the
opportunities were so visible. A big lesson is that in developing countries, people are
here to learn.” For example, the opportunity to become a certified IT architect in a
specific number of years is a huge draw in developing countries. IBM was in danger
of losing one of its most cherished and valuable distinctions precisely at a time when
the future employees IBM needed most—and those who were the most sought-
after—were making that distinction more valuable.
This was also the answer to a question that would be raised by investors or business
leaders: “Why couldn’t IBM cut costs and improve deployment simply by reducing
the dilemma to a matter of labor arbitrage? Why couldn’t IBM just reduce expensive
and unneeded workforce elements and replace them by hiring workers in emerging
countries that had cheaper labor?” The answer, of course, was that it was not always
the case that the talent in emerging countries could do what the more expensive
and more experienced talent in developed countries could do. Clients wanted the
best of both worlds, a local workforce that could deliver like the best in the world.
Thus, the dilemma was more subtle. How could IBM deploy its more experienced
and expensive workforce located largely in developed countries to projects
that increasingly were located in developing countries, while at the same time
systematically upskill the developing-country workforce to offer IBM a long-term
cost and effectiveness advantage? It seemed that somewhere in that equation there
was actually a win-win whereby the existing IBM workforce was deployed not only
to do the work but to be part of the talent development process. This seemed a much
more humane and logical approach than perpetually chasing lower-cost labor around
the world.
Sam Palmisano had summed it up. In the Harvard Business Review interview in
2004, he related his experience with the feedback he received in 2003 from 50,000
IBMers:
Yet, as the HR leadership team considered what would happen when such contacts
occurred, they realized that the language used to describe the work in different
countries, professions and even different projects was like comparing apples and
oranges. This is one reason that employee movement so often hinged on making
the right personal connections. Just like in most organizations, at IBM this was
often the only practical way that two opportunities in different countries could be
compared to each other. The managers would have to sit down and really hash out in
detail what they meant by things like work tasks, qualifications, key success factors,
etc. Many organizations had adopted skills inventories or competency-based systems
to provide a kind of common language against which many aspects of the talent
management system could be directed. Thus, it was not unusual for organizations to
impose a competency or skill-based system that had been designed by HR and then
require that the organization use that system to describe employee performance,
employee capabilities, the outcomes of learning and career development experiences,
the qualifications of applicants, and the bases on which employees were paid. Such
systems had appeal, because if you had a common language, it allowed all of your
talent systems to “talk to each other.” However, such systems were usually applied
either in very technical areas, where skill sets were defined, or with leadership
development, where broad competencies like “vision,” “flexibility” and “ability to
execute” were used. If the language was too specific, it would provide very little
additional integration than the myriad work descriptions IBM already had. On
the other hand, if made too generic, it would fail to capture potentially important
nuances.10
By definition:
At its core, WMI is a series of strategies, policies, processes and tools that enable
optimal labor deployment, built on a foundation of learning.
WMI enables the optimal workforce strategy and integrated supply chain for human
resource and talent management.
2. Talent and mobility requires a common taxonomy, common profiles for all
sources of labor, decision support.
A transparent system that could forecast and depict both IBM’s future talent
demand and also individual capabilities would encourage IBMers to see where the
system forecasted future demand and then make personal investments to prepare
themselves for those opportunities. Yet, the world was fast-changing. It seemed
quite likely that the system could not predict the future with perfect accuracy.
So, one result would be that the game might change, even after the talent system
predicted that certain development paths would hold true for years and were worth
Indeed, “be careful what you wish for” was on the minds of the HR team, for if
IBM could create a system that was so compelling and transparent and engage
its entire talent pool to use that system as a clear indicator of the ebb and flow
of opportunities, the resulting volume of transactions, administration and user
support might easily swamp any reasonable-sized HR support organization,
dooming the system to failure before it began.
nn Perhaps the most vexing and fundamental dilemma facing the new system was
whether and how it could become a truly global talent management system. Even
if IBM’s HR leaders could solve the dilemmas above, they would still face some
daunting challenges in trying to make the system work across the many countries
and regions in which IBM operated. Different countries had very different
privacy standards with regard to allowing information about employees to cross
national borders. If Austria decided that it was not going to allow data about IBM
employees in the country to be shared outside the European Union, then how
could the system hope to give managers outside the EU a complete picture of
talent trends and availability? Should the system operate in one language or many?
nn Would IBMers be willing enough to move across national borders? The issues of
inter-country mobility, expatriation or localization, tax treatment, remuneration,
portability of benefits, etc. were legendary challenges in making global workforce
movement work. For example, when IBM employees move from one country to
another, both countries expect IBM to withhold appropriate personal income
taxes. They expect IBM to figure out a system to do that. IBM had a long history
of managing through these challenges, but a truly global workforce management
initiative would multiply the volume and complexity of these decisions
significantly.
The Paradox
Like so many great opportunities, this one carried significant risks and potential
payoffs. The HR leadership and many of IBM’s top business leaders believed
there were potentially billions of dollars in untapped shareholder value, immense
opportunities for current and future IBM employees, and a unique opportunity to
advance the practice of talent management and human resources if the WMI could
be successfully implemented. On the other hand, the history of such large-scale
talent management endeavors was rife with examples of systems that were never
really embraced by leaders and employees, failed to capture enough nuances about
the work to be very useful or collapsed of their own weight through administrative
complexity and high cost. Was the prudent decision to move ahead with a historical
innovation, or to avoid starting down a path that had proven so difficult for others?
On what basis should they make this historic decision?
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2008). Investing in people. London, UK: Pearson.
Ready, D., & Conger, J. (2007, June 1). Make your company a talent factory.
Harvard Business Review.
Development of this case was made possible by a grant from the Society for Human Resource Management
and the National Academy of Human Resources. Information presented was current as of the time the case was
written. Any errors are solely the author’s.
Note to HR faculty and instructors: SHRM cases and modules are intended for use in HR classrooms at
universities. Teaching notes are included with each. While our current intent is to make the materials available
without charge, we reserve the right to impose charges should we deem it necessary to support the program. However,
currently, these resources are available free of charge to all. Please duplicate only the number of copies needed,
one for each student in the class.
10-0432-part B
Case Study Part B
Introduction
In 2003, Randy MacDonald, the chief human resource officer for IBM Corporation,
recommended to IBM executives that IBM embark on the Workforce Management
Initiative (WMI). The economic and social trends of the 21st century clearly pointed
to an era in which IBM and its vital customers and employees would face a global
evolution in which the traditional national and multinational organizational forms
would increasingly give way to truly globally integrated enterprises that not only
operated in many regions and countries, but placed individual elements of their
value creation processes where global considerations made them most optimal.
Such organizations would rely on advanced information and computing capability
to integrate and adapt in such areas as supply chains, marketing, manufacturing,
finance and information systems. Already, advanced organizations were reaping the
benefits and realizing the dilemmas of the ability to create global supply chains that
were often only partially contained within their organizations, for example.
After careful consideration, the IBM HR team had concluded that such
organizations would soon desire an approach to human capital that was as globally
integrated and analytically savvy as their approach to technology, money, customers
and operations. Indeed, it was not farfetched to say that unless organizations could
develop globally integrated approaches to their human resources, the full potential
of global approaches in other areas could never be realized. This conclusion was
only the beginning, however. For, while there were examples of such global human
capital integration on a small scale in some areas, no organization had successfully
developed a way to provide a transparent view of workforce capabilities and needs
that could guide planning, employee career decisions, business leader talent and
strategy decisions, and at the same time be engaging and compelling enough to
become a natural part of the management processes. Certainly, nothing had been
attempted at the scale of IBM, which at the time had approximately 350,000
employees, 90 thousand contractors and tens of thousands of job applicants.
Randy and his colleagues had initially sketched out the broad vision and objective
of the initiative (See Part A of the case for the initial vision). Sam Palmisano, IBM’s
CEO, supported this vision and tasked the HR organization to make it a reality.
They realized this meant investing more than US$100 million over a five- to seven-
year time period, but they were convinced that the value would far outweigh the
cost. Nonetheless, they expected to see tangible evidence of the payoff as the new
approach was implemented. The exhibit on the next page shows the logic behind the
expected payoff from the WMI.
Making this a reality required achieving broad goals: (1) capturing and maintaining
workforce data, and (2) implementing a workforce management organizational
structure that established the supply chain roles within the business units, country
and geography.15
What does WMI do? It enables the optimal workforce strategy and
integrated supply chain for resource and talent management.
While such a system would likely bring utilization rates more in line with industry
standards, it would not achieve the more significant goals of truly integrating the
elements of talent supply and demand and helping leaders and employees make better
decisions about their personal development and the development and deployment
of the human capital that resided in those employees under their supervision. What
IBM envisioned was a system that would be the foundation for what has been called
a “decision science” for talent. Such a decision science had been described as shown
in the box on page 22.
For IBM, the starting business metaphor for the WMI was the well-established
decision science behind supply chain frameworks from operations management. As
shown in the exhibits above, the idea was to consider existing employees, vendor-
supplied contractors, applicants and learning as alternative sources of talent supply,
each residing in particular individuals, countries, regions, etc. Like a supply chain
for raw materials or components, the WMI system would provide visibility to various
sources of supply using similar language to describe current workforce capabilities
and availability, as well as updating the system as capabilities were added through
such things as training, experience or hiring. Ideally, that same language would
also describe the workforce demand, reflecting capabilities needed for projects, jobs
or roles anywhere in IBM. Finally, the language would provide a way to translate
business goals and objectives into specific talent requirements. The parallels to
supply chain management were compelling.
nn A decision framework—the logical connections between decisions about the resource and the
organization’s goals. A talent decision framework would need to provide a common language that
defined the demand and supply of talent in a way that could consistently connect workforce planning,
development and deployment. The framework would also be built upon logical principles of supply chain
management that would show how decisions in one area connect to important outcomes. For example,
like supply chain systems, talent decision system would illuminate the tradeoffs between decisions to make
or buy talent resources. It would depict talent decisions in terms of quality, quantity, time, cost and risk.
nn Management systems integration—the seamless connection between the talent system and other
well-established management systems such as finance, marketing and manufacturing. A talent decision
system would need to translate financial and operational business objectives into specific talent needs and
availability, so that it fit easily into the existing business planning and budgeting systems. The decisions
made with the system need to be clearly connected to tangible effects on the traditional business success
measures.
nn Shared mental models. Good decision science systems teach leaders and employees how to think
more clearly and effectively about the resource as they use the system. The financial analysis system, for
example, is based on concepts like internal rate of return so that users actually learn to think that way
when they make decisions about money. A talent decision system could be the vehicle to get employees
to think more clearly, consistently and effectively about their capabilities and development. It could help
leaders think more clearly and effectively about how to deploy human capital. It could help planners
better understand the connection between decisions about talent and business outcomes.
nn Data, measurement and analysis. Good decision science systems direct attention to the places
where measurement and analysis matter most, and they develop measures that reflect the principles of
rigorous decisions. The financial management system very selectively pulls measures from the accounting
system that reflect its fundamental principles of risk, return and liquidity. In the same way, a talent decisions
science would not simply present a large array of numbers like turnover, utilization, performance and skills,
but would select and organize measures using a logic and common language that highlighted where the
greatest risks or opportunities resided.
nn Focus on optimization. A good decision science not only describes the deployment and availability
of a resource, but also leads to more optimal results. In the case of a talent system, it would need to go
beyond simply providing a consistent language or taxonomy for talent demand and supply. It should lead
to decisions that differentially invest where there is the payoff and invest less where the payoff is small.
Particularly in the arena of talent, this often meant going against firmly held beliefs that it was unfair to
treat people equally or to have different policies for different segments of the workforce. Yet, this kind of
“talent segmentation” was exactly the equivalent of “customer segmentation” in marketing.
Adapted from: Boudreau & Ramstad. (2007). Beyond HR. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing.
What was the equivalent of SKUs in the realm of talent and the workforce? Frank
Persico, the HR leader who oversaw the creation and management of the Workforce
Taxonomy, noted that “the supply chain metaphor has some limits when applied
to people. People and their governments have privacy concerns about releasing
information. Also, with something like physical materials or parts, the physical
attributes (size, color, etc.) are obvious ways to describe them. With people, what’s
important is often the attributes you can’t see, such as knowledge, skills, dispositions
or experiences. There were few guidelines on which of these were the right ones to
measure, or how deeply and in what detail to describe the workforce to optimize the
system.”
Persico noted: “We rationalized the idea of the WMI as insights into talent supply
and demand. The idea was originally to convert revenue to talent demand and to
remove the slack from the system. There was a supply chain logic here. But realize
that talent is not perfectly fungible. At some point, it’s still people.”
“For example, it was clear there would be a growing long-term demand for
information technology architects who knew service-oriented architecture as well.
Yet, because IT and service disciplines tended to be separate career paths, with
separate educational and labor market channels, finding someone who had both
skills was very hard. The skills were out there, but they rarely were manifest in the
same person! Unlike raw materials that can be blended or components that can be
manufactured to specifications, there are limits to what labor markets produce. Thus,
translating business predictions into talent needs, one could conclude that the world
would need 50,000 of such individuals, but only 20,000 of them would be created.
Thus, creating a supply chain for talent meant looking not simply at how well one
could deploy the 20,000, but how to create another 30,000 on top of what existed
today.”
Job Descriptions
Perhaps the most common language was the array of job descriptions, each of which
contained information such as job titles, duties, qualifications, etc. IBM, like other
organizations, had a vast system of job descriptions, often very useful for setting pay
levels, describing job activities and discussing performance goals. However, IBM’s
job description system, like virtually every job description system, had not been
designed to support anything like the WMI. The same job might go by different
names in different professional areas. The same job title, such as “IT architect,”
might have very different descriptions in different business divisions or different
professional disciplines. Thus, while the job description language might produce a
WMI that could track whether one region was demanding more “IT architects” and
another region had some “IT architects” who were idle, more often than not the
same term might be describing very different capabilities.
During a periodic review of the Taxonomy, it was determined that the client
briefing manager’s core responsibilities were closely aligned to those of the sales
program management specialist. The client briefing manager role was deleted
from the Taxonomy, and employees who were in this job role were reassigned
the sales program management specialist job role. In order to include the unique
capabilities of a client briefing manager, specific skills were created. As industries and
technologies change, these periodic reviews capture job roles that morph from their
original descriptions to combine and create a new job role, thus ensuring the validity
and currency of the Taxonomy.
Competencies
Another common way to establish a consistent language of capabilities was a
competency-based management system. There were many examples of such
systems, generally derived by considering what individual attributes distinguished
high performers from low performers, and usually applied to leadership. These
attributes, such as vision, integrity and communication ability, could then be used
as the organizing structure for activities like performance management, training,
remuneration or career development. Such systems could provide enormous value
by integrating the different HR systems and activities, but the tradeoff was that
in order to generalize, they often had to be very generic. Business requirements
seldom presented themselves in ways that could be easily translated into such generic
competencies, so a clear and tangible connection to strategy and budgeting systems
seldom existed for competency-based workforce initiatives.17
In IBM, a competency was defined as not only knowledge but the ability to apply
the knowledge. Competencies such as trustworthiness, passion for the business and
drive to achieve are inherent in all IBMers, and IBMers are expected to demonstrate
these competencies in the performance of their jobs. Competency models have
evolved in the area of leadership and are used as a touchstone or reference point
for skills but not as the basis for a job role. Competencies do not necessarily have
learning activities associated with them. A competency does not have a one-to-one
relationship with skills and vice versa. A particular competency can be associated
with a skill, multiple skills or a set of skills. In discussions with the Talent Team, it
was determined that competencies described work at too high a level of abstraction
to be used for deployment and were too broad to be used for customizing learning
plans.
In the end, IBM’s HR leaders could see that none of the traditional job information
sources were really sufficient to support their vision of WMI. Each of them had clear
advantages and drawbacks. The trick would be to take the best from each and create
a new approach that could alleviate the drawbacks and capitalize on the advantages.
Not only was having employees and managers using the system essential for the
system to affect real decisions, it was also essential to the very feasibility of the
system. Frank elaborated that “just a handful of HR folks manage the taxonomy.”
He noted that this cannot happen unless a great deal of the work of updating,
populating and verifying the data in the system is done outside of HR by those who
use the system. If HR staff did this, the support cost alone would make it unfeasible.
Frank noted the key role that Randy MacDonald had played: “Randy was the
‘hammer’ that made it happen. He got the business units to support the use of the
system, and they agreed to allow the process to define the roles, would cooperate in
putting their roles and people on the system, and use it to see and find talent. They
would also need to sacrifice by allowing the system to standardize based on the
governance rules, even when they believed they had a ‘special case’ because special
cases would really bog the system down.” Randy personally presented the WMI to
most of the senior leaders in IBM, because it required broader agreement and deeper
commitment than most HR programs if it was to work.
IBM business units would be able to use the Taxonomy to optimize their operations.
For example, IBM Global Business Services (GBS) would use job roles and job role
skill sets to deploy their employees to appropriate contracts and positions based on
the skills listed in client contracts and project descriptions. IBM Global Technology
Services (GTS) would use the Taxonomy in their “Go-to-Market” model for their
So, IBM leaders and the designers of the system realized that the WMI had to
provide deep insight on what every IBMer could do, in a consistent structure and
language. It needed to be universal and to encompass full-time employees, as well
as applicants and contractors, to represent the full deployable workforce. When the
project began in 2003, IBM had hundreds of thousands of full-time employees,
more than 40,000 applicants and more than 90,000 contractors. What sort of
taxonomy would produce sufficient detail to be useful, but not be swamped by
trying to do too much?
Expertise Taxonomy levels were derived from drivers of business value. IBM set out
to define a system based on job roles. Job roles were designed to identify a language
recognizable throughout IBM to identify the skills, expertise and requirements that
applied to jobs. IBM would need to design the Expertise Taxonomy so that the job
roles did not overlap significantly and could be meaningfully distinguished. IBM
started by developing a logical hierarchy that would align IBM’s business units and
services with external industries in a way that enabled employees to easily identify
where they fit based on the language of the Taxonomy.
Job Role
After SJC comes the job role. A job role is a named, integrated cluster of work
responsibilities and tasks that must be performed by a single employee. An
employee’s total responsibilities may encompass more than one job role, but the
employee may only designate one as his or her primary job role. An example of a job
role under the SJC technical services is client infrastructure specialist. The exhibit
above contains the language IBM used to describe the roles of application architect
and procurement consultant.
The exhibit below shows the relationships between the different levels of the
Taxonomy described here.
Exhibit
Thus, strategic planning could define anticipated projects, embed the roles needed for
those projects into the workforce plan and seamlessly match those role requirements
to applicants and overall applicant population characteristics. This allowed an early
assessment of whether IBM’s applicant patterns seemed to match the future needs.
If the system worked, once it became visible, transparent and available, the power to
make automatic matches and projections based on real business needs would create
the needed language and processes to give birth to a living human capital “market”
encompassing almost a million individuals.
More than just being a living market, planners can also watch the market and direct
it or adjust it. With incentives, encouragement and targeted HR programs, IBM
envisioned being able to shift talent based on changes in competitive cost or location
characteristics and as business demand shifted. IBM could alert this talent “market” to
arising opportunities, not simply respond to the needs of the present. The system also
provided a way to integrate learning and development opportunities. These would also
be described using the common taxonomy. Thus, development “assets” (training, work
experiences, external education, etc.) would be analyzed and coded into the Taxonomy
and clearly linked to identified needs. This would allow IBMers not only to see what
skills were increasing in demand, but to precisely identify how they could set out to
enhance those skills.
This would transform the learning management system to go well beyond just a set of
courses to become a true reconciliation between talent needs and development “assets”
to meet those needs. IBM envisioned a “just in time” approach to training, where
real business needs would trigger immediate responses in terms of developing new
courseware or directing courseware to precisely where it was needed.
For IBM, the answer was almost the opposite. HR needed to get out of the business of
defining the work. After all, those doing the work and those overseeing the work were
the legitimate experts. HR could add its greatest value by creating and implementing
a better system for understanding and reconciling differences. The HR team realized
that indeed HR should not and probably cannot be the subject matter expert about
the content of the work. HR usually doesn’t have first-hand knowledge; those doing
the work won’t grant HR the credibility. Moreover, even if HR had the requisite
knowledge, it was simply infeasible to assign a large enough cadre of HR professionals
to continually analyze the work, sense changes and update the system. Their insight
was that in the IBM system, HR would define and oversee the system of work analysis,
but it would rely on subject matter experts doing the work to actually provide the
content of the work descriptions. HR would ensure that the system was comprehensive
and updated when necessary and provide a way to resolve disagreements about what is
unique and what is not. In essence, HR would function more like a good accounting
controller, who defines the system for describing the financial health of a business, but
the business leaders populate that system with appropriate numbers.
As Frank Persico described it, “The solution was that anyone could propose that they
had a new and different role, whether you were in software, consulting, manufacturing
or anywhere in the company. The person that felt they needed a new role definition
to fit their situation would submit their proposal and language into the system. Our
team considers the proposal—for example, whether the software architect definition is
actually different from the business-systems architect. We developed a process of work
The HR team also noted that this process works with just a handful of IBM HR
people overseeing it. The key is that it is the subject matter experts who come
together to propose what jobs and skills they want when a new job role defined.
They must propose a description to HR. The Taxonomy team diligently looks at
these submissions for duplication. There are hard calls about what is sufficiently
different and what is not, but they must err on the side of having a less complex
taxonomy, not a more complex one. Several of the HR leaders noted, “We really
spent time thinking deeply about this process. There were a lot of opinions about
how you would certify a role, capability, etc. into the system.”
Several HR leaders described the evolution of the system. “The first phase was to
capture all the work in the Taxonomy. Now, over time they can observe which
areas are being changed in the Taxonomy as people use it. You get more and
more information as they make changes to the original set.” Thus, a key factor in
understanding the system is how Frank and his team came up with the original set
of roles and how those roles are modified and revised as the system is used.
By 2008, the number of roles needed to define IBM’s workforce capability was 331.
By the end of 2009, it was under 300. Considering the massive size of the IBM
workforce, contractor base and applicant pool, each role covered more than 1,000
employees, hundreds of contractors and hundreds of applicants worldwide.
As the system has matured, the success metric is not so much whether all the jobs are
covered in the system, but more nuanced and sophisticated patterns. For example,
IBM analysts can now examine the qualifications and development experiences of
a sales force and compare them with the sales quota achievement pattern. They
can analytically connect, and understand, whether certain qualifications and
development experiences are actually associated with improvements in sales quota
achievement.
Ted Hoff noted: “We had to cobble together the vendors to create a global
recruitment event in our system. The world really wasn’t ready for the idea. Issues
such as global privacy, information sharing, language compatibility, etc. suddenly
needed to be resolved. The idea that every IBM applicant would submit information
in a similar way and that information would immediately be available across the
The Taxonomy has improved capacity management, which lowered the number of
people “on the bench” and improved fill rates to over 90% in global delivery. With
the Taxonomy, IBM could more precisely, efficiently and effectively match upcoming
supply and demand, which allows it to proactively manage future bench and future
open seats, thereby increasing utilization and reducing open seat conditions. One
improves cost, the other improves revenue.
An HR leader related a specific case in point: “Hyperion is an area of focus for IBM
right now, and frankly, in the past, it has had a feast then famine demand signal. By
putting those resources in one JRSS, it has helped IBM closely manage their growth
and follow a specific sourcing strategy: Hire upper levels, hire some selective lower
levels, etc.”
In short, the Taxonomy and the system supporting it enabled IBM to smooth the
“demand signals” coming from projects and unit talent requests and then to respond
to them in a far less costly way.
As Frank Persico recalled, “Our full-time employees were reasonably well known.
It was in the contractor space that had the greatest potential. Contractors would be
brought in on the belief that they have the skills that the supplier says they have, but
in fact, they often didn’t. It wasn’t that the suppliers were misleading us. Rather, it
was that the language the suppliers used to define contractor capabilities didn’t line
up well with the language we used to define our business needs. So, there was lots
of room for improvement in the degree to which we actually matched contractor
skills to their best possible use and to make sure that what we were paying them was
actually commensurate with what they were doing. Just knowing which contractors
were actually working while being paid was helpful. The operations could really
clearly see how applying the Taxonomy allowed us to rationalize what we paid
contractors by having much greater insight into their skills, deployment and value
added.”
The WMI system had indeed cost millions, but it paid for itself just in the hard
savings from better contractor management, not counting the improvement in
full-time employee management. Persico observed that the payoff equation was
best understood through a financial management lens, not an accounting lens. “We
found that if leaders took an accounting approach, they would become fixated on
the costs of the system, time spent working with it, etc. However, if they reframed
it into a financial investment question, then the value through better contractor and
employee management was clearer, and it became clear that the large investment
paid off.” (The actual payoff breakdown is shown later in this case.)
Of course, getting the contractor labor pool incorporated into the IBM WMI
Taxonomy was not always easy. Suppliers of contract labor were quite attached to
their systems for describing the capabilities of those they placed. In the end, IBM’s
leaders worked with contractors to help them make the transition, but if they would
not, they risked simply not being chosen as a contract labor supplier.
One IBMer described it this way: “Prior to the establishment of the Taxonomy, IBM
had worked with the core suppliers on standardizing the nomenclature that we used
when requesting contractors. IBM had done this to be able to set up a rate matrix for
frequently required skills, so they could place purchase orders for these contractors
in a ‘hands-free’ mode [placing the order without a lot of approvals] if the suppliers
offered them at or lower than the matrix price. The Taxonomy actually allowed
IBM to do two things: First, it expanded the percentage of purchase orders that
IBM could put into the rate matrix by having a greater number of job roles. Second,
because the suppliers now used the same taxonomy as IBM for regular employees,
IBM could now more easily match regular employees with those available from
contractors, revealing places where regular employees who might be ‘on the bench’
could substitute for contractor employees and cancel PO with suppliers.”
The similarities to the world of supply chains are striking. In that discipline, a
classic problem is the “bullwhip effect,” which occurs when demand signals become
Part A noted that a significant historical IBM reputational advantage had been the
opportunity for employees to develop and move globally. As IBM became larger
and more complex and as the workload in fast-developing countries increased, there
was a danger that job applicants and employees would perceive a compromise in
this reputational advantage. IBM might be falling prey to the same drawbacks that
plagued other talent management systems. Leaders at IBM might be seen as “too
busy” to attend to employee development, and the opportunity to capitalize on
IBM’s global footprint to offer unique opportunities for global development would
be compromised. Ironically, this would have happened just as the emerging labor
markets of the world placed a huge premium on a company’s ability to develop its
people globally!
A significant advantage of the WMI was its positive impact on IBM’s ability to
deliver on employee development. The transparency and comprehensiveness of
the system and its reliance on a common language describing both work needs
and development opportunities meant that employees and their leaders had an
unprecedented capability to see what areas of the business were generating strong
demand for certain capabilities and precisely how an employee might get those
capabilities. Rich Calo, vice president for enterprise support, noted that “employees
realize that they can be much more confident that they are seeing real future
opportunities and that they have opportunities to prepare themselves for them. We
actually see an effect on our employee retention, particularly among those for whom
the opportunity to develop and advance globally is a high priority. Increasingly,
these are the kinds of folks most sought-after by our businesses and by our
competitors.”
Part A noted the dilemma of Poland, with an expanding economy and a true talent
war. On the one hand, you need to fully employee everyone just to meet business
demands, but on the other hand, to attract the necessary people you need to make
good on IBM’s unique ability to provide career development. How can you find time
to develop when things are so busy? The WMI provided an answer. By developing a
system in which HR provided the governing structure, but employees and managers
naturally used the system to describe their work and their capabilities, IBM ensured
that the system could be comprehensive, transparent, cost-effective and useful to
employees. It was a tangible indicator that IBM had invested millions to make
development opportunities more apparent.
That said, the WMI also made it apparent that globalization required a very different
“deal” for IBMers than the traditional idea of no layoffs and stable employment in
similar positions for an entire career. The new reality is that no organization can
make any guarantees. Things change quickly, and even the best predictions about
future talent demand and supply must be revised often. So, how can an organization
have a sustainable employment “deal” that might engender loyalty and long-term
commitment, when it probably can’t make any long-term predictions about the
capabilities it will need?
The answer was that change had to become an integral part of the system. Frank
Persico said, “The dilemma often comes when change occurs and an employee
must forsake a multi-year development path that they and their manager set up
and committed to a year ago. The WMI predicted that IBM would value certain
capabilities in three years, based on our best predictions, and managers encouraged
their employees to embark on three-year plans to get prepared. After a year, things
may change, and we must go back and tell folks that their plan may need to change
as well. We foresee that in the future these targets will change much more rapidly.
We know that nothing is fixed, but on the other hand, we don’t know what the new
jobs are, but we do now have a way to translate the signals from the business much
more quickly into action with our talent or actions that our people can see they can
take to get prepared.”
How does such a system fit with IBM’s desire to attract and retain top employees
and make investments in their future value? IBM’s WMI team explained: “At first,
it can seem harsh that people will commit to a multi-year plan to develop toward
a target role that we said will be in demand, and then things change and we must
Thus, the IBM that Sam Palmisano joined in 1973 had a deep and pervasive
commitment to “respect for the individual.” In the early years, it was embodied
in policies such as “no layoffs” or “lifetime employment.” The 21st century would
not allow those kinds of policies to survive, but the WMI promised a more modern
version of those same values. One member of the IBM team noted that for IBMers
today, the “deal” is that if they “stay relevant to the talent market within IBM,”
they will be rewarded and will advance and can have a marvelous lifetime career at
IBM. As they explained it, “You become personally visible if you put yourself into
the system so that folks can find you using the Taxonomy. As more people come
on board, those who choose not to play (whether employees decide not to put
themselves into the system or leaders choose not to put their needs into the system)
begin to stand out as not involved. This becomes rarer and rarer as the system
becomes the living market within IBM. Being out of it means missing some real
opportunities.”
IBM’s HR leaders also noted that the system is a great help to managers who want
to be responsive to employee aspirations, but also need to have tough conversations
when an employee is over-reaching. In the past, those conversations did not always
have the benefit of data, so a manager was often in a position of offering a general
opinion about an employee’s capabilities and prospects. “As a manager, you now
have a fact-based way to describe where an employee is versus where they want to go.
It adds significant substance to development planning that was not there before. No
longer is it vague and informed only by what the manager may know. Development
options now present themselves to you if you’re on the system because the
Taxonomy translates your assessment and aspirations into gaps that can be addressed
by accessing our learning assets. IBM’s 40,000 learning assets (such as internal and
external classes, online instruction, etc.) are tagged to specific skills and capabilities,
providing a direct path to skill gap closure.”
For example, Dan D’Elena, IBM’s Global Business Services (GBS) unit, is
investing in enhancing what IBM calls the “Professional Marketplace.” GBS is
adding more detailed information about each of the IBMers in the division, but
not the traditional employee information. GBS is working to include increasingly
detailed information about the types of clients each IBMer has worked with in
order to be able to pinpoint professionals who have had exactly the right kind
of experience for a new client need. Jon Prial, in IBM’s Software Group (SWG),
led the effort to enhance the capabilities of the Expertise Assessment system. In
particular, SWG saw the value of adding detailed information about the precise
version of IBM’s software offerings that an IBMer has worked on. This required
expanding the data fields in the Expertise Taxonomy, increasing the capabilities of
the personal development (PD) tool application.
Since the system had been in place, IBM had grown its workforce in emerging
and fast-growing markets while simultaneously flattening the headcount growth
in areas where business needs were slowing. The system supported decisions
that allowed IBM to both grow and shrink at the same time—a hallmark of
organizations that will meet future challenges.
The WMI’s effectiveness has been tested in a variety of situations. This kind of
“pressure testing” has revealed the system’s effectiveness but also challenges. Rich
Calo noted that the acquisition of PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ (PWC) consulting
arm was an informative test. This acquisition brought with it many new and
unique roles that needed to be considered and integrated into the system. “When
we acquired PWC, we integrated new employees globally. So, every new IT
architect had to be entered into the Taxonomy, because PWC had many different
descriptions for roles and responsibilities.” Other examples occurred in specific
regions. When IBM acquired a company in Shenzhen, China, the same thing had
to happen, systematically and seamlessly. The roles, projects and individual talent
had to be incorporated into the system. Every acquisition is different, and each one
presents unique challenges to the system.
Still, as the IBM team and Randy MacDonald observed the success of the system,
their attention turned to several dilemmas.
Second, what were the implications for IBM’s larger dealings with various
countries around the world? As the WMI system became more pervasive, it
was more important that it contain data on all of IBM’s workers, capabilities
and needs. Yet, the world was still defined by a myriad differing approaches
to information-sharing, privacy, etc. Different countries each had their own
traditions, codified into employment laws that IBM followed to do business
there. Some of these traditions and laws prevented or discouraged providing the
information that IBM needed in its system. Or, sometimes the information was
allowed into the system, but could not be shared beyond country boundaries—
something that seriously threatened IBM’s ability to see and move talent globally.
How aggressively should IBM work to change these rules? Could it tolerate large
“blank spots” in the system as a cost of doing business? Or, had the importance
of talent in IBM reached the point where IBM should refuse to do business
in countries where rules would compromise the global system? Had things
reached a point where considerations of talent transparency might actually drive
decisions about what countries IBM would work with? It was conceivable that
the WMI could actually help target IBM’s lobbying efforts by identifying those
regions where it would be most valuable to get certain governments to clear a
path by changing policy. How should IBM’s top leadership incorporate these
considerations into IBM’s business decisions?
Develop HR Manage taxonomy Perform capacity Recruit employees Plan development Identify, select Performance, pay
strategy and resource planning portfolio and assign and incentives
profiile
Source contractors
Develop workforce Perform Manage Benefits
management Assess supply operational development
strategy optimization Perform programs
onboarding Workforce
Manage supply programs
Develop learning Develop individuals
strategy Perform
Manage demand offboarding
Perform transfers
talent implications of strategy? What should be the role of the global learning and
development organization in delivering development “assets” that were responsive
to increasingly independent decisions by employees to choose and pursue their
development paths? How should the leadership and career development system
change now that the WMI provided real-time information on the talent implications
of changing business demands? Should the leadership system move away from
traditional activities such as succession planning?
The box above shows the array of “technologies” that had been developed to
make the WMI a reality. IBM’s HR leaders depicted the technologies as associated
with various stages of the employment “life cycle” from strategy to planning
to deployment, and incorporating both programs for strategists, managers and
employees.
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2008). Investing in people. London, UK: Pearson.
Ready, D., & Conger, J. (2007, June 1). Make your company a talent factory.
Harvard Business Review.
Development of this case was made possible by a grant from the Society for Human Resource Management
and the National Academy of Human Resources. Information presented was current as of the time the case was
written. Any errors are solely the author’s.
Note to HR faculty and instructors: SHRM cases and modules are intended for use in HR classrooms at
universities. Teaching notes are included with each. While our current intent is to make the materials available
without charge, we reserve the right to impose charges should we deem it necessary to support the program. However,
currently, these resources are available free of charge to all. Please duplicate only the number of copies needed,
one for each student in the class.
10-0432-part C
Case Study Part C
Introduction
Between 2002 and 2009, IBM had created a unique workforce management
initiative (WMI) that reflected the increasing need for global organizations to
have a transparent and comprehensive view of their talent supply, requirements and
implications for business strategy. The system was successful, being used by more
than 80% of all IBMers as a natural way for individuals to track and plan their
development and performance, for managers to estimate talent requirements and
availability, and for IBM’s strategic planners to gather data from this “living market”
to estimate future opportunities and challenges.
Develop HR Manage taxonomy Perform capacity Recruit employees Plan development Identify, select Performance, pay
strategy and resource planning portfolio and assign and incentives
profiile
Source contractors
Develop workforce Perform Manage Benefits
management Assess supply operational development
strategy optimization Perform programs
onboarding Workforce
Manage supply programs
Develop learning Develop individuals
strategy Perform
Manage demand offboarding
Perform transfers
IBM’s HR Organization Before Being Redesigned to Reflect the Globally Integrated Enterprise
svp, hr
Workforce
Diversity Comp. & Benefits Learning Global Talent HR On Demand
Relations
Global Global
Integrated Systems & Software Sales & Corporate &
Technology Business
Operations Tech Group Distribution Admin
Services Services
While it was state of the art by traditional standards, the strict divisions between
HR roles would not allow enough fluid movement and integration across those
roles. For example, prior to the global HR transformation, the top row of boxes
below the senior vice president of HR had an HR leader supporting each of the
major HR functional areas such as learning, compensation and benefits, diversity,
and workforce relations. The bottom set of boxes shows the assignments of other
individuals to be HR leaders for the major business units and service areas of IBM.
Not only was this division of expertise potentially more expensive, it limited the kind
of flexibility needed by a more dynamic and globally integrated organization.
Sales operations
IT
Marketing processes
Customer fullfillment Global support
functions Communications
Procurement • Consolidate C&N
• Reengineer
Finance
Global logistics • Eliminate
• Automate Human resources
Legal
Real estate
What this meant was that HR would need to approach itself as an end-to-end
globally integrated solution. What engineering and solution principles might help
HR become more efficient and effective in how it moved talent around the world?
How could existing HR resources be used more effectively? How might the different
HR roles (business partner, center of expertise, operations, global center, etc.) be
arrayed most effectively to support this?
The answer came in many forms, some reflected in the broad organization design
and mission of HR, and others reflected in subtle changes in HR roles. This was
apparent in the new organization structure for HR that emerged as the implications
of an end-to-end solution perspective on HR became clearer. The new organization
structure is shown in the exhibit on page 48.
IBM’s HR Organization Before After Redesigned to Reflect the Globally Integrated Enterprise
SVP, HR
GBS & GTS & Service Delivery & S&D & Labor & STG & Geo HR SWG & HR
Recruitment Compensation HR Delivery Empl Rel Support Business Dev
Design, Deploy & Design & Deploy Deliver Design & Support Design, Deploy & Design, Deploy & Deliver
Deliver Employee Comp Employee Svc Ctrs (Based in geos) Deliver Geo HR Commerc Engage & SO
Recruitment Exec Comp Vendor Mgmt Labor Relations Coverage M&A
Staffing Ops Sales Incentive Progs Employee Relations Divestitures
Recognition Programs
Unit Facing Comp Teams
Design, Deploy & Deliver Design, Deploy Deliver Design, Deploy & Deliver
Leadership Develop (ER, TR, TT) Diversity Progs/Constituencies Global Admin HR Globalization &
Management & Exec Development Perf Mgmt Progs Equity Operations (Off Svcs) Transformation
Executive Search Capacity Planning: WMI Shareholder Relations HR Program Management
Unit facing Leadership Dev Teams Mobility & Exchange Progs Govt/External Relations HR Intelligence
Change Mgmt/OD-OE Labor Cost: Restructuring Compliance Reviews Retirement Benefits
Learning Programs & Methods Employee Experience HR Development Health Benefits & Safety Svcs
BU Support-Research & CHQ HR Unit facing Wkfce Mgmt Teams Develop & Deliver HRIT
Execute EO Compliance
A growing realization was that with global changes in the labor force, the heaviest
WMI workload was going to be in Asia. Yet, HR administration and support had
traditionally been housed in the United States. The support center was a 24/7
operation to be sure, but if the heaviest demand was going to occur during business
hours in Asia (the middle of the night in the U.S.), did it really make sense to have
U.S. HR staff working in the middle of the night instead of moving the support
center to Asia?
The GIE model and WMI required something different. This organizational
model change requires integration between line HR and staff HR initiatives and
day-to-day activities. The idea was that about 100 HR folks would run the WMI
full time, but it would work because more than 500 HR business partners would
understand it and help their business units use it on a day-to-day basis. This meant
that the WMI processes needed to be simple, intuitive, easily learned and applied,
and the organizational model had to be integrated in a way that enabled such
implementation.
The “dual-hatting” of top HR leaders, described in the exhibit on page 48, played
a key role. This had the effect of keeping the global processes as simple as possible.
It is easy for such processes to grow in elegance and complexity when the person
responsible for them is solely focused on enhancing them and constantly adding
the latest innovation. However, when the person running a global process also
has responsibility for supporting a unit with thousands of employees, the amount
of available time becomes very limited. This sets a natural priority so that only
the most vital and impactful innovations are made in the process, and the process
itself is relentlessly simplified. Otherwise, no one would have time to do both jobs
effectively!
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2008). Investing in people. London, UK: Pearson.
Ready, D., & Conger, J. (2007, June 1). Make your company a talent factory.
Harvard Business Review.
Development of this case was made possible by a grant from the Society for Human Resource Management
and the National Academy of Human Resources. Information presented was current as of the time the case was
written. Any errors are solely the author’s.
Note to HR faculty and instructors: SHRM cases and modules are intended for use in HR classrooms at
universities. Teaching notes are included with each. While our current intent is to make the materials available
without charge, we reserve the right to impose charges should we deem it necessary to support the program. However,
currently, these resources are available free of charge to all. Please duplicate only the number of copies needed,
one for each student in the class.
10-0432-Teaching Notes
Table of Contents
Instructors can formulate classroom discussion and board plans around several
different disciplinary frameworks, including change management, workforce
planning, talent globalization, the tradeoffs between organizational customization
and standardization, and the nature of the HR value proposition.
A typical discussion agenda might include the following topics and questions:
1. What factors characterized the competitive environment that IBM faced in 2003?
2. In 2003, what was IBM’s decision regarding how it planned to compete in that
environment? What was going to make IBM unique? On what dimensions did
IBM plan to excel, and on what dimensions did IBM expect competitors to excel?
4. What things about IBM’s culture, history, values, organization and workforce
offered support for creating a globally integrated enterprise? What things offered
potential hindrances to the globally integrated enterprise?
6. If you were a board member or a member of IBM’s executive team and you were
presented with the vision of the “Workforce Management Initiative” shown in
the case and told that implementing such an initiative would take several years
and cost up to US$100 million, would you embrace the initiative or resist it?
Why?
7. Consider the questions posed in the last section of the case study (pages 13-15).
How would you design the change-management initiative and the WMI itself
in answer to these questions? Why would you make those choices? What do you
think Randy and the IBM HR and executive team decided to do?
NOTE: If the class will continue to analyze Part B, the final question above provides
a very good transition into that case. Or, an instructor might provide Part B as a
supplemental set of material for students to read; it shows how IBM decided to proceed
to address the dilemmas outlined at the end of Part A.
Schuler, R., Briscoe, D., & Claus, L. (2008). International human resource
management (Routledge global human resource management). Routledge.
Wright, G. (2009, May 19). American companies seeking to go global can face big
HR hurdles. SHRM Online. Retrieved September 17, 2009, from
www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/global/Articles/Pages/BigGlobalHRHurdles.
aspx.
Smith, J. J. (2008, Oct. 1). Most multinational firms not tracking expats’ ROI.
SHRM Online. Retrieved September 17, 2009, from
www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/global/Articles/Pages/Expats%E2%80%99ROI.
aspx.
The Part B case focuses on the design of a talent management language that
can provide seamless connections between the talent demands as they occur in
businesses and projects and the talent responses that are undertaken by employees,
managers and HR leaders.
This part is suitable for a course in human resource management or the portion of a
general management course that deals with connecting human capital investments
and programs to organizational strategy.
Several learning areas can be used to structure case analysis and discussion:
Part C of the case focuses specifically on the design of the HR organization and
the changing roles of HR professionals as a result of adopting the workforce
initiative that supports IBM’s globally integrated enterprise. Students obtain a deep
understanding of how IBM modified the traditional HR structure, which largely
separates the roles of corporate leader, business partner, functional expert and
operations manager, and instead attempted to combine many of these roles. The
seamless connection between operations, business support and functional leadership
is striking. The case provides an opportunity to consider questions about the optimal
structure and design of HR functions and staff functions generally.
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2008). Investing in people. London, UK: Pearson.
Ready, D., & Conger, J. (2007, June 1). Make your company a talent factory.
Harvard Business Review.