Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

Rankings

After reading so many posts on here about rankings I have realized that even though the rankings are a ridiculous practice that the company still needs them because we have so many people that don’t do anything of value for the company and they have to do a rankings system as justification for having so many pointless positions.
Also, the posts about losing execs makes perfect sense as a business to reduce waste especially at that level. Why do we have so many people in Houston when we can’t get enough people to work in the Permian/Delware? Use the extra money from reduced Houston employees to bring in quality employees where the company needs them.


by
| 62 views | | 10 replies (last 6 days ago) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1m0nqeme8

10 replies (most recent on top)

@j7 they have a small percentage of good managers that could lead the way and promote people based on merit and quit using DEI practices and nepotism to promote people and we would be fine. Of course that will never happen because it makes too much sense.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @je+1m0nqeme8

@gr yeah sure, but to do that you would need actual managers. XOM doesn’t have any of those.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @j7+1m0nqeme8

This will surprise you, OP, but there's a way to manage people out if they are not performing without forced ranking ratios for the whole organisation. Especially in "at will employment" states. quite the opposite is happening. supervisors are delaying needed action so they have fodder for the ranking session.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gr+1m0nqeme8

@ab thank you for making my point. We need to continue reducing all of the pointless positions in this company and hire people in areas we really need help like the Permian/Delaware. This company wastes billions a year on unneeded positions in Houston and in the field office safety and management roles.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @e6+1m0nqeme8

@a7 you hit the nail on the head… Rankings are useful if you have someone that is no good or really does need improvement, but it seems with the we-ponized forced rankings the people who need to be cut and aren’t worth keeping have a sponsor which leaves only one option since a certain percentage must be cut and that’s to NSI a good employee who has no sponsors!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c3+1m0nqeme8

@bc not super intelligent

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @by+1m0nqeme8

@a7 what does NSI stand for?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bc+1m0nqeme8

Go troll career connect. The amount of middle management is suffocating.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ab+1m0nqeme8

Most modern jobs are adult daycare. Especially any role most women hold.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aa+1m0nqeme8

Having a ranking system is good.

Having a "we-ponized" ranking system that requires you to place a certain percentage of workers in a designated group as NSI...........stupid.

Yes if you have an employee who is truly not performing than it should be documented and that worker be relieved of their jobs.

That is not what is happening.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a7+1m0nqeme8

Post a reply

: