Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

@r2. I like this! Who are we missing out on? Who should be pulled up? The bench is weak, where is the talent hiding?

The good news is that JC will be moving on. The bad news is that he will get to act as king maker one last time in the HSE selection process. In HSE, competence has not mattered in terms of getting jobs, what matters is how well you su-k up to JC and his inner circle that determines job selections.

@p1, interesting insight into the mindset of your “leader”

So which is worse…a few individuals’ careers affected for using this site, or an entire function steadily losing their careers because leaders can’t fight their way out of a paper bag?

During a recent meeting, we discussed some of the posts on this site, and my manager mentioned that they are primarily from former employees who were let go several years ago. However, one of the team members pointed out that many of the posts address ongoing issues within our organization. In response, our manager warned that engaging with this site could negatively impact one's career. She then asked if anyone had further comments on the matter, and the conversation ended there.

It seems that leadership within the HSE department is not fully acknowledging the significant morale and competency challenges that currently exist within the organization. By attributing these concerns to past employees, it dismisses the very real and present issues we are facing today. The problems highlighted on this site reflect current challenges, not those of the past. Instead of shifting blame, we need to take ownership of these issues and work towards addressing and resolving them for the betterment of the organization.

Oh no. Best strap in for a few more years - if you still get to be here.

You’re still going to su-k our as--s for a job
You are welcome

Thank You Thank You Thank You for that post.

I am here at Chevron in HSE. I think our leaders are really bad. They are bad.

I did not leave 5 years ago. I am here. I am here. I am here.

I am tired of people dismissing post saying it is someone from the past.

We got problems people and you will not listen when we have meeting and you will not listen when we do our surveys and when we post on here you say it is some ghost from the past that was let go in transformation.

God dmit. Get over yourselves. We are currently employed at Chevron in HSE and EMC and we don't like you as leaders. You are terrible leaders. You are self loving narcistic asholes.

There seems to be an overwhelming and continued focus on Transformation, but it's time we take a step back and reflect on the situation at hand. As many of us recall, we've already endured three significant downsizings within HSE since Transformation and now, we’re faced with yet another major reduction. The level of frustration among employees is palpable and likely to intensify in the coming weeks. If the current climate feels challenging, it's crucial to reassess your position, as the situation is only expected to worsen.

Looking at the recent announcements, it’s impossible to ignore the troubling trends that have emerged—particularly the growing influence of nepotism and the overemphasis on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), which have become increasingly apparent and unsettling for many. In addition, we must acknowledge that Transformation is now 5 years behind us. It’s unrealistic to assume that employees who were impacted back then are still invested in Chevron's HSE and EMC organizations, or that they are concerned about posting here or anything anyone in this company are doing. In fact, I personally know six individuals who regularly contribute to this site that are young and frustrated with their careers, and all of them express nothing short of disdain for HSE and EMC leadership.

As frustrations continue to mount, it’s inevitable that more individuals will begin to voice their concerns about leadership’s shortcomings. Additionally, if there are skeletons in the closet, those are likely to be exposed in due time. It’s time to shift the focus away from transformation and place it squarely on addressing the deep dissatisfaction and anger among the current workforce. If senior leadership continues to place blame on individuals who left years ago for the current state of affairs, it’s clear they are out of touch with the reality that those of us still here are the ones facing the brunt of the decisions being made, and we are voicing our concerns publicly.

At this point, the focus should be on identifying and addressing the issues within leadership's control, particularly around communication, accountability, and employee engagement. If the current path of downsizing continues without any real effort to solve the core issues, things will only continue to deteriorate. It’s essential that senior leadership recognizes the mounting frustration among the workforce and takes responsibility before the situation escalates any further. The time to act is now, or we risk facing an even more challenging future.

As a 38-year-old white male working in HSE, I have to say, I'm both surprised and, frankly, saddened by the apparent belief among leadership at Chevron that people still care enough about them to post about them here—especially after five years. It’s almost as if they think the personnel who left long ago are still focused on them. It’s time for leadership to take a step back and recognize that the world has moved on. Frankly, it’s time for some of them to get over themselves.

Too much focus on writing policies and procedures. Too little focus on in the field support and application of HSE.

No one cares about HSE or EMC in chevron. Again. Sorry you were let go in transformation.

I work in EMC, and it’s arguably one of the most poorly managed departments at Chevron, right alongside HSE. Can you guess the common factor?

In EMC, our leaders tend to be verbally abusive and display a complete lack of effective leadership.

The attitude in EMC starts at the top—that’s all I’ll say.

I agree with your observation. When comparing Chevron's HSE function to other companies, it is clear that Chevron's headcount is significantly larger. Having previously worked with two other oil companies, I can confidently say that their headcounts are at most a quarter of Chevron’s, yet they consistently demonstrate far better performance. This is not an exaggeration; it’s simply a fact. The HSE function has become overly bloated, with an increasing number of project managers and a disproportionate reliance on contractors to manage the workload.

Similarly, EMC, which once had a team of highly skilled experts, now seems to be predominantly reliant on contractors.

We need to find a way to address this issue. As the saying goes, change starts at the top, and the leadership of these organizations has had ample time to course-correct. Unfortunately, the same patterns persist without meaningful improvement.

Why is HSE viewed as a function?

Peers roll environmental and safety measures into the responsibility of those actually doing the work (i.e. D&C, ops, facilities, etc.). This allows them to use their expert judgement to balance tradeoffs and make appropriate decisions.

If said peers include HSE, it is broadly a lean support role akin to IT or HR. I've known one independent with activity cadence around 1/3 that of Chevron's Midcon that had one HSE person in house. That's it (and they blew Chevron out of the water on damn near any outcome measure).

Hopefully this round of reorgs broadly puts Chevron's HSE organization where they belong. In the trash.

The problem with our HSE is it primarily does business with itself. Job success should be measured by how well they work with the teams they support. Instead it’s performative power points.

Btw, this just gets worse with the new centralized org structure…

Well they have disconnected STAC HSE from the rest of the company’s HSE. I am hoping to see change in how things are done.

I just don't see how anyone could possibly defend our HSE organization.

It is just plain bad.

@ap+1jqhrnty9 - you nailed it my friend.

This organization has created so much red tape that they don't even know what the answer is to half their issues.

The OEMS is sh*t.

To the individual who insists that Chevron is 'perfectly fine,' you are undeniably part of the issue. I am also astonished that you would imply WL is a 'loser' or 'butthurt.'

WL has been, and continues to be, a mentor to me. I intend to remain at Chevron for many years to come, but it is individuals like you who contribute to making this a toxic environment.

Failing to acknowledge our shortcomings and subpar performance—whether the person responsible for the post left a decade ago, five years ago, yesterday, or is still employed—is a critical problem within HSE. The truth is the truth.

Can anyone, genuinely, make the case that this is a top-tier organization? Perhaps second-tier at best. But right now, this company is at rock bottom, and it’s long overdue for a change. I sincerely hope the Engine takes decisive action to address this, particularly the dire situation within HSE.

What truly exposes the disconnection of our leadership in HSE is their complete denial of the problems at hand. When someone dares to point out an issue here, the go-to response from leadership is to deflect blame, often pointing to someone who left the company years ago. Rather than confronting the issue, they choose to downplay it, claiming that those speaking up are just troublemakers. According to them, the HSE team is perfect—world-class, without a single flaw.

This pattern of finger-pointing, avoiding accountability, and self-congratulation has become the norm. Instead of addressing real concerns, it's easier to blame others and ignore the fact that no substantial improvements have been made. And for those offering such dismissive responses, maybe it’s time to reconsider your approach instead of hiding behind whatever distractions or misguided justifications you rely on.

Let’s just keep ignoring the real issues and continue making excuses. Blaming someone who left 10 years ago is a convenient cop-out, but it doesn’t change the fact that the criticisms might actually be valid. Have any of you taken real action to make things better, or is this all just about protecting your fragile egos? The lack of accountability in this group is glaring, and it’s evident to anyone who’s been here long enough. I've been here five years, and I can tell you, this situation is far from 'great' or 'wonderful.'

How much do you want to hear? Maybe the bureaucratic nightmare that was the 4 OE actions? The inability to get a simple, enterprise FEA tool across the finish line? CoW standards with very broad sets of requirements open to interpretation knowing full well many BUs don’t have the internal expertise to write the necessary procedures / plans? A COEM process that mentions leveraging data across BUs in a common SOR but has never done so cleanly. Outdated investigation tools / methods that are cumbersome, time-wasting, and are the very opposite of competitive performance. Rebranding of assurance / compliance process every few years despite audit and reporting principles having stayed largely the same in industry. Ridiculous CPMS workbooks and tools that are intended to create bureaucracy and the extra jobs to manage them.

I’m sure I’ll come up with some others if you give me a couple minutes.

MW took over in 2018, and the 3-4 years leading up to that he was the board favorite for his willingness to slash jobs, partnering w Notorious JGG. Bottom line is Ops across CVX is spread too thin and has been since MW was picked to take over.

All HSE does is report incidents they have no influence on what happens in the field. Field personnel are responsible for safety and if they have business partners working in the field CVX's onsite rep is responsible. That being said if our CVX management doesn't support safe operations then incident rates will go up, like they have. We used to believe that we do it safely or not at all. We seem to have devolved back to get the job done, safely if possible as long as it doesn't cost any time or money.

I’m in HSE and my opinion is that Chevron has this idea of “anyone can do it.” I see people placed into advisor and management roles who have no experience in HSE and little experience in field facing roles. Most of my peers don’t have a degree in their field, and certainly don’t have field experience as a “hand.” (You don’t need a degree, but it is a good vetting tool and teaches you basic principles & management philosophies.) HSE management is remote with little field exposure (think MCBU HSE is ran out of Houston). Most tragic, HSE is often looked at as a stepping stone to get to another position somewhere else. There is no real clear direction within our own HSE organization other than “prevent SIF’s.” As far as buy-in, HSE has no power. Speak up and you get ostracized from OPS for slowing them down. When I've came into new BU’s ops literally tells me to stay out of their way (until they get to know me realize I’m helpful). Don’t get me started on many HsE advisors…most can’t even explain how the processes they oversee work. It is a mess. Get qualified people in positions and you’ll see it fixed.

Explain to me exactly how an environmental professional can stop a release from happening? Or how a safety advisor can make ops more diligent?

The issue is Ops is spread thin, and FE is full of inexperienced staff.

Yes, those ex-employees are not just very but Extremely hurt. BUTThurt, to be exact. Preparation-H level butthurt.

Deeply inaccurate. Go look at bp if you want to see what bad HSE and governance looks like. Chevron is doing just fine, a lot of ex employees that were in the function and were let go are still very hurt and very active on this site. Also WL knew nothing about HSE and managed upward only.

I will inquire about the possibility of sharing the actual metrics from 2015 to the present. They are readily available, and the data clearly shows a significant decline in every category. On Monday, I will consult with a few colleagues to determine if I am authorized to share these metrics with third parties. If I receive approval, I will post them here. I want to ensure that I am following the proper protocols and avoiding any potential issues.

Another observation from last year's internal survey within Chevron is that the HSE function has very little respect among employees. Some of the comments in the survey were notably harsh, with one particularly striking remark suggesting that the entire function should be dissolved repeated multiple times.

In response to @a4+1jqhrnty9's question, when Health, Safety, and Environmental (HSE) staff and leaders provide minimal or inaccurate guidance, it creates a significant issue. Moreover, when the HSE team, which is expected to possess in-depth knowledge of the processes they oversee, lacks an understanding of these processes, it further exacerbates the problem.

This is a team that should be consulted for support in addressing HSE-related concerns, but when they are either unaware of the situation or disengaged, it leads to substantial challenges.

We've observed a concerning increase in injury rates across all of our locations. Although I do not have direct access to data regarding environmental spills, feedback from my counterparts suggests that these incidents have also risen significantly, particularly in the Permian region.

Our overall HSE metrics, when compared to 2015, show a significant noticeable turn in the wrong direction.

I hope this perspective proves helpful.

Chevron HSE has the same challenge as the broader Chevron workforce. Too many bureaucrats and too few that actually understand how the field works.

Low incident rates com from hiring good engineers and operators, rewarding them for doing their job well, and getting out of the damn way. Good companies do safety well because it is part of the job, not because you have a couple hundred HSE id--ts nagging them.

Chevron hires and promotes the wrong people, rewards the wrong behaviors, and loses the best technical and operational talent as a result.

I remember the shift as well. It started around 2018. We just kept getting leaders with no experience but they had one thing in common, young women with no field experience.

I agree with the old timer. You can't blame the personnel that got the role as I am sure they were doing their very best. It is the people that put them in these roles to meet metrics.

Specifically which aspect of HSE are you implying are lagging? An increase in incidents cannot be attributed to to HSE alone - it’s more so an OPs issue. And it depends on what type of incidents you’re talking about (environmental vs injury).

Well said old person.

I am approaching this as a candid post with a genuine question. I consider myself fortunate to have spent 37 years with this organization, during which I’ve witnessed much and successfully navigated various challenges.

When I first joined, the department was called HES, and we had an exceptional team. The personnel were required to have hands-on experience in front-line field roles, along with specific degrees, to be part of HES.

I believe we were at our peak between 2005 and 2015. During this time, we had strong leadership across the business units and functions. These leaders engaged with us regularly, and we had the direct involvement of our VP of HES, BM, and WL.

A significant change occurred when WL left. The broader business environment shifted, and with it, the company’s vision evolved. HES was rebranded to HSE, and there was a noticeable shift toward a greater emphasis on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), rather than primarily focusing on safety. In the process, many of the top field leaders, who were highly respected for their expertise, began to leave. This created confusion among staff, particularly regarding the rapid promotion of some individuals, especially women, into HSE GM roles. Meanwhile, the VP of HSE became largely absent from our day-to-day operations.

So, I find myself wondering: Are these changes interconnected? As someone with extensive field experience, I believe they are. When you remove the core of an organization—the people who are deeply knowledgeable, respected, and passionate about the work—its foundation begins to erode. I can recall the moment when I first sensed this shift occurring.

I don’t believe anyone here is intentionally doing a poor job, but it’s akin to asking someone with no aviation experience to fly a commercial jet. While they may be eager and well-intentioned, the results are likely to fall short without the right expertise.