I thought we were “not copying Exxon”
This is a direct copy and paste from the Exxon playbook
20 replies (most recent on top)
5% PIP is actually good because if company remove wurst 5% every year eventually after 20 years there aint no employees and therefore no bad performance. Also managers cannot be bottom 5% because mathematically they are above employees in org chart. Chevron should maybe PIP customers too who buy least gasoline. This is how excellence works.
This nonsense was started by Jack Welch of GE fame. Every year they would let go the bottom 5 to 10%. It was called cleaning out the rot. I never saw any of the managers get let go. They are all top performers. It was always the worker bees.
@rj my team shrinked from 10+ last year to just 2 people now… several folks quit either for not willing to relocate to hou or don’t think their new managers qualified to be their boss…
Not buying a 5% PIP. Too expensive with minimal upside. Another ESP (enterprise selection process) like in 2015-2016 targeting bottom 5-10% more likely.
@tb it was strongly emphasized in the global wells townhall as well so I call bullsh-t on nothing formal coming out.
@p9+1 I still on an LT. with senior leaders in an asset. There is nothing formal that has been presented. If a supervisor send something, they have jumped the g-n.
@rj functional level.
If the pip guidance is true, is it at the team level or functional level? There are like 3 ppl on my team so 5% doesn’t really work.
But all of FE or HSE or IT or HR, that may be possible?
@p9
As much as I would like to not believe you, I actually believe you. We have 10 in our team and if they PIP someone and force them out, the rest of the people will be at a loss because we will lose knowledge that we need to et work completed. Oh well
@ms management has already been told this is definitely happening. My supervisor sent an email explaining that 5% of people are going to be terminated every year and will be the lowest performers. So if you have already had a less than stellar mid-year review, you can safely assume you're probably going to be in the does not meet expectations category. Expect to be terminated at the end of the year or in March in that case.
This has not happened. There is no formal guidance on how to rank either. With all this centralization it’s going to be a mess. Is an HSE 23 going to be ranked against a PE 23? Some groups have 1 or 2 of the same PSG only.
@ek I’m telling you first-hand that your description of the XOM process is grossly inaccurate
@ek
If Chevron adopts that philosophy, they will need to get rid of half the managers and 1/3 of the employees. And another 1/2 of the MSP contractors. The inefficiency of the organization is rampart and results in low value to staffing cost ratios.
@ex Same can be said for Subsurface, Exploration, and IT.
@ek - Close friends in each company, CVX, XOM. Blah Blah Blah. They all same the same of each other. This echo chamber here occasionally makes a few valid points but yours is not one of them. Let's just say you're not going to get any truthful critique here.
lots of fat to cut in S&T tbh
I worked for Chevron and several of my family and friends work or worked for XOM.
Exxon's ranking system is very professionally administered and is designed to weed out the least performing in a group of very high performers. A lot of the criteria is performance based with a high weighting towards what you accomplish in meetings, what you bring to the table to increase XOM's profitability and following up on commitments to the team. You have to be a high achiever AND fit in well with the team. Basically, its either perform or die. And don't sc--w up!!!
Chevron's system....... well, I'll stop there.
@a7 XOM here - it was actually 13% last cycle. I'm sure MW will stop at 5% though!
Because Exxon is the only company in history that has ever routinely cut a bottom percentage of performers?
Ummm.
K
No no, you guys. It's completely different because exxon cuts 10% via PIP instead of 5%.