Slowly as each department announced their plans it seems the cuts are around 20%. Can we conclude 20% overall reduction.
Normally this sort of thing would be picked up by the bigger papers. Seems the tactic of limiting info and doing bit by bit is working….
17 replies (most recent on top)
@Biwl+1tjxxSFh I've noticed that pattern as well in my broader departments reorg/layoffs
The rumor going around is that leadership was told to layoff the highest salaried employees all other thing being equal. From what I’ve seen of the layoffs and the surprises of getting rid of the most experienced longest tenured staff that seems to hold water.
The NBD group of about 300 had a 22% cut. The DW team I am on just went through a 30% reduction and the rest of DW is heading toward a 20% reduction. So indeed it does seem like 20% reduction across shell on average. Wael and Sinead need to prove to investors that they have firm control and are able to implement cost cutting measures. This will give confidence to investors and encourage them to purchase more shell shares.
Get rid of consultants like McKinsey, highly overpriced and often worthless and misleading advice. Problem is top leadership at Shell have a McKinsey obsession and think they are the smart ones to help shape and run our business, with no tracking and repercussions to consequences
Lubricants lost more than 20% a year ago. Those people left end of March and other groups are still going through MOR. The total once complete may be more than 20-%. I wish the company would actually practice what they preach and be transparent.
Don’t worry all the best already have job offers.
Take the 20% from the top. JG2+ employees without direct reports will hopefully be removed in the new organization structure. Good place to start- there are too many over-promoted pseudo business opportunity managers hanging around occupying useless positions in the org, lacking any expertise at all in commercial, finance, deal-making or project management. They have no understanding of value or strategy and focus solely on bossing people around and maintaining appearances upwards, rather than making meaningful contributions.
When another company can manage with 20% of the expensive Directors, EVP, SVP, VP, GMs, the focus should be on getting rid of some really worthless top leadership.
“Effectively"? Shell typically operates somewhere on the spectrum between chaos and catastrophe, so it’s doubtful this will be carried out "effectively". Great aspiration, though, so keep it up.
@2qro+1tjxxSFh- that’s because for each unqualified DEI candidate they brought in post Reshape, we had to hire or keep 2 employees to train them/ or prevent them from destroying things.
the 30-40% should come out of the leaders numbers. never seen company with so much middle management. "leaders" with one report. chop out the front line and it's only a matter of time before a major incident occurs.
@1vrz+1tjxxSFh That is what baffles me is how after ReShape we went down to roughly 80k staff, yet within 2 years we had more people than before ReShape. That is also considering all of the divestments and sales too so we actually had fewer assets to support.
Should be 30-40% but leaders dont have the stomach for it
Remember 20% reduction takes us back to end 2021 numbers. Somehow organisation was allowed to blow up in the last two years.
Shell is bloated. Need to let out a lot of air.
What additional information are you looking for? The message seemed very clear.
When another company of comparable size can do it with 1/3 employees less, why shouldn’t they cut?