Huibert,

Many thanks for writing your blog entry. There are many of us who have become very disappointed in Palmisano’s recent performance — I haven’t even seen him in a video for over a year. For all I know, he could be spending all his time on the golf course or facing long-term hospitalisation. People directed the criticism that Gerstner ran IBM like a mutual fund, and I feel Palmisano has continued this strategy. The criticism that those close to the top make is that, whereas Gerstner was a genuine, hard-nosed strategist, there is no real analytical insight behind Palmisano’s thinking, and he keeps his friends in jobs long after they should have been sacked.

I believe this industry will continue to be led by inventor-businessmen such as Gates, McNealy and Ellison. The problem with running IBM as a mutual fund is that you end up having no long-term commitment to any individual market. Competitors know that IBM will soon give up after a
couple of years of disappointing results in a particular market. All they have to do is hang on longer. Arguably HP is reaping that benefit by hanging on longer in the PC market. In my view, a key measure of IBM’s declining influence in the IT industry is the percentage of shelf space taken up by IBM products in the IT section of bookshops. 20 years ago, that could be anywhere from 30 to 50%. Today, I’d guess it’s rather less than 5%. Goodness knows when the last time that a book about an IBM product made the Amazon IT books top 10. It’s very sad.

Best wishes, and a merry Christmas.

While I do not agree with everything this person says (I personally totally support the decision to sell the PC company to Lenovo and I know that Sam Palmisano was in Mexico recently visiting customers), I think that this mail clearly shows some malaise within IBM with what many perceive as a lack of technological leadership. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, as it impacts negatively our ability to hire and retain technological talent.