Risk is a funny thing in the corporate world. Most people think CEOs and managers are paid to take big swings, but honestly, the vast majority of professional life is spent trying to avoid looking like an idiot. That is where the phrase nobody ever got fired for buying IBM comes from. It isn't just a dusty marketing slogan from the seventies; it’s a psychological survival tactic that explains why your office still uses clunky software or why your boss refuses to hire that brilliant, tiny startup you recommended.
It’s about safety. Pure, unadulterated career safety.
Back in the heyday of the mainframe, IBM was the "Big Blue" titan. They were the gold standard. If a Chief Information Officer (CIO) signed a massive contract with IBM and the system crashed, people blamed IBM. The CIO was safe because they’d made the "logical" choice. But if that same CIO took a chance on a smaller, cheaper, faster competitor and that system crashed? Well, then the CIO was the reckless amateur who gambled with the company’s data.
They were fired.
The true origin of a corporate myth
You won't find this phrase in an official IBM brochure. It didn't come from a Don Draper-style pitch meeting in a smoky boardroom. Instead, it bubbled up from the industry itself during the 1970s and 80s. It was a meme before memes existed.
At the time, IBM held a staggering 70% share of the computer market. Companies like Amdahl or Control Data Corporation were trying to claw away pieces of the pie by offering better specs at lower prices. But they couldn't compete with the "peace of mind" factor. To buy IBM was to buy a massive support network, a reliable brand, and, most importantly, an insurance policy for your own job.
Industry veterans like Gene Amdahl, who actually left IBM to start his own firm, felt the sting of this proverb firsthand. He realized he wasn't just fighting better engineering; he was fighting the collective anxiety of every middle manager in America. This period is often cited by historians of technology, such as James W. Cortada, who has documented IBM’s dominant culture extensively. The sheer weight of the brand meant that "good enough" from IBM was better than "revolutionary" from a nobody.
Why we still feel this way in 2026
You might think we’ve moved past this. We haven't.
Today, the names have changed, but the instinct is identical. Replace "IBM" with "Microsoft Azure," "Amazon Web Services (AWS)," or "Salesforce." When a CTO decides to migrate a massive database to AWS, they aren't just looking at the latency or the cost per gigabyte. They are looking for the brand that nobody will question.
It's the "Default Choice" bias.
Think about the last time you had to pick a vendor. Did you go with the scrappy underdog who promised the moon, or did you go with the industry leader because "that's just what everyone uses"? Choosing the leader is a defensive play. It is a way to outsource your accountability. If the world-famous tool fails, it's a "market-wide outage." If the niche tool fails, it's "your fault for picking it."
The hidden cost of playing it safe
The problem with the nobody ever got fired for buying IBM mindset is that it kills innovation in its tracks. It creates a "tax" on new ideas.
✨ Don't miss: Signs your boss wants you to quit: The quiet signals most people miss until it is too late
If every decision-maker is terrified of being the one who broke the status quo, the status quo becomes a prison. Large corporations become stagnant because they are essentially just collections of people trying not to get fired. This is why "disruption" usually happens from the outside. Startups don't have the luxury of buying the expensive, safe option, so they are forced to find the better, riskier one.
Innovation requires a tolerance for failure that most corporate hierarchies simply don't support. We talk a big game about "failing fast," but the reality is that most HR departments don't have a checkbox for "Noble Failure on a Non-Standard Vendor."
When the "Safe" choice becomes dangerous
There is a flip side here. Sometimes, buying the big name is actually the riskiest move you can make.
Remember Kodak? Or Blockbuster? Or even IBM during its lean years in the early 90s before Lou Gerstner turned it around? There were points in history where "buying the standard" was actually a one-way ticket to obsolescence. If you keep buying the old guard while the world moves to the cloud, or AI, or whatever comes next, you are effectively managing your company into the ground.
You didn't get fired for the purchase. You got fired because the company went bankrupt five years later.
A few signs you're trapped in this mindset:
- Your team spends more time filling out "vendor risk assessments" than actually testing the software.
- You find yourself saying "We can't go with [X] because nobody has heard of them," even though their demo was perfect.
- You are paying a 40% premium just for a logo on the support ticket.
- The decision is being made by a committee that won't actually use the product.
Moving beyond the IBM reflex
So, how do you actually break out of this? How do you make smart bets without putting your head on the chopping block?
It starts with changing the internal narrative. Instead of asking "Who is the safest vendor?" ask "What is the cost of staying with the status quo?"
I’ve seen companies successfully move away from this by creating "Innovation Sandboxes." They give a small team a tiny budget to use the "risky" vendors. If it works, they scale it. If it fails, it was an "experiment," not a "mistake." This protects the individuals involved while allowing the company to actually progress.
Another trick is the "Pre-Mortem." Before you sign that massive contract with the industry giant, imagine it's two years from now and the project has failed. Why did it fail? Often, you'll realize that the "safe" vendor's lack of flexibility or slow support was the very thing that killed the project.
Honestly, the world moves too fast now to rely on a 50-year-old proverb about job security. Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, but plenty of people have watched their careers stall out because they were too afraid to try anything else.
Actionable insights for the modern decision-maker
If you're currently staring at a proposal and feeling the pull of the "safe" brand, here is how to handle it:
- Audit the "Safety" Premium: Calculate exactly how much more you are paying for the big brand. If it's more than 20%, you need a concrete list of reasons why that extra cost is justified beyond just "brand name."
- Isolate the Risk: If you're worried about a new vendor's stability, don't give them the whole project. Give them one department. One region. Prove the concept before you bet the farm.
- Document the 'Why': Don't just pick the underdog because they're cool. Document their technical advantages, their speed, and their specific fit for your problem. If things go sideways, you have a paper trail showing a data-driven decision, not a whim.
- Look for "Vanguard" Users: See who else is using the smaller vendor. If other respected companies are already there, the "nobody has heard of them" excuse disappears.
- Evaluate the Exit Strategy: The biggest risk isn't the vendor failing; it's being locked into a vendor that stops innovating. Always ask: "How hard is it to leave if this goes south?"
The goal isn't to avoid IBM—they still make plenty of great things. The goal is to make sure you're buying a solution, not a shield.