The real mechanism for corporate governance is the active involvement of the owners.

The value that some analysts put on revenue vs. what they put on profit is out of whack. If you can grow real cash earnings, that's 80% of what you ought to do, and the revenue component is 20%.

Compensation needs to be predominately performance-driven. If CEO compensation was performance-driven, which I believe it was in IBM's case, nobody would ever argue. If the shareholders didn't make billions and billions of dollars, I wouldn't make millions of dollars.

The next thing is: we can make IBM even better. We brought IBM back but we're gunning for leadership.

What I'm trying to do is deliver results, not promises; results, not vision; results, not concepts. The world is cynical about IBM's promises.

A lot of people saved IBM. Yes, I was the leader of that team, but I could never have done it without a group of IBMers helping me.