Pros: Mobility within the company, and the culture that encourages it. I worked for 1.5 years on one team and then moved to another for another 1.5 years that was under different leadership. Excitement of being at Watson post-Jeopardy when it transitioned from a research effort to an entire product group. The first team, situated in the Watson CTO org, was in a special projects group that valued innovation and attempted to cultivate an edgier company culture. The second team, situated closer to Watson research efforts, also had exciting projects, provided great mentoring, and helped me improve greatly as an engineer. Fantastic work/life balance, set your own hours, etc. Paternity leave was adequate.

Cons: - No to very little in the way of bonuses each year. - Difficult to move up in the org. Manager wanted to give me a band adjustment, but wasn't allowed to do it for anyone. - First team I worked on had a director who was overly demanding, disliked in the org, manipulative, and disqualified for the job technically/creatively. This director would frequently ask in the morning what you'd accomplished the previous night and encouraged working through the weekends—a nasty flip-side of a company trying to change its culture. This director was eventually shut down, but only after years of bad behavior. - Second team was frequently moving from project to project, and not linked to efforts that brought a lot of value. Manager barely managed and was focused more on his own research and credibility as an academic than the well-being of his team. He also didn't have many friends in the org. This team was remote, and in my year and a half there, the company only flew me out once for the initial interview. The second time I went at my own expense, since my family was visiting a friend in the city. Typical of IBM having very constrained budgets for travel.

Pros: Work-life balance was good. There was significant flexibility. I was not micromanaged (partly as a result of good managers; not all enjoyed this). Some great technical folk. It can be fun to work on great products. Some resources were excellent, and that could make work fun and productive.

Cons: Culture and morale became very poor with all the layoffs and poor management at many levels (above 1st). Pay was uncompetitive. It became a financial product company: products felt like an afterthought, which made product development not fun or successful. Poor at attracting, developing, and retaining top-quality talent. Not good at getting rid of low-performers (many layoffs, but they seemed to be only weakly correlated with performance on the job). Even so, it became very "stack-rank" driven, putting co-workers at odds rather than encouraging collaboration for the best product/company result.

Pros: Very good flexibility and work-life balance. Broad technology portfolio provides diverse opportunities to learn and develop multi-disciplinary skills. World-wide presence provides opportunities for international assignments, although these are limited.

Cons: There is little to no upward mobility, especially on the hardware side of the business. Driven by declining prominence in the market. Doesn't adapt quickly to changing market trends. Poor compensation compared to leading companies in the technology space.