Is anyone having meaningful discussions about the SPS results? With organizational leadership as low as it is, the LT response continues to be something along the lines of, “well we’re going through a reorg so that’s why we’re rated low.” That’s been the message since 2020. Does anyone have any thoughts around how to get the message to land when there is an actual bad leader at either a VP or EVP level? Trying to brainstorm and ask for advice on how other people have tried to explain it. The notion that the SPS is our voice is gone ever since they removed the free text fields.
20 replies (most recent on top)
I am aware the Managers receiving low SPS results will be sent to training and also have regular check ins with HR (like monthly meeting). But there is no performance improvement tied to this. So what's the point? HR just covering their *ss.
On another note, I was a JG3 with great SPS results. Know what i got for it. NOTHING! A big fat goose egg. Other than the personal satisfaction that i was a good and well-respected leader from my people.
This is proof the SPS is a paper tiger. Nothing in the big scheme of things. Utterly useless. Just something to appease the masses that drink the kool aid thinking they 'have a voice'.
My team lead spent less than five minutes going over the results. So pointless
agreed. my team was 15-25 points down on each metric so i assume they will just keep making excuses and not address it this year
Haven't heard sh-t about SPS results so guess they don't plan on talking to us about them.
@pc , The part about the SPS seems unchallenged. The related tangent seems to draw some ire.
@pd+1k7mm0azr you say that @PC lies; but, you can verify this if you are still employed by Shell. Go to the HUB, search ethics compliance. Go to the ethics compliance page. That page gives takes you to the stats. ( I don't have it memorized and have left Shell so I cannot search it for you.) So, you (@pd+1k7mm0azr) can look at Shell's own stats show that they are the truth. They are published internally.
@qq+1k7mm0azr, thank you for validating the part about the Diversity targets... I've seen gender quotas but not race or religion. I challenge you to look at Shell's ethics and compliance summaries, those can be searched on the Hub. They are published at least every 6 months but I think that you could find some quarterly. I believe if you check those they will validate the specific words I used. Also, if you know someone with lived experience ask them, they'll likely recount the same as I have written. I've personal experience, please validate it with someone you know. Its true in my case, it is true in others' cases too. Are there cases where things worked correctly? Yes, if they are viewed with the right political lens and right demographic being protected.
There is very little protecting you from being fired for no reason or a capricious reason. Being fired for being disliked by your boss is considered legitimate (as long as you cannot demonstrate that the reason is race, religion, s-x, or ancestry) and HR will not protect you from that, they will protect your boss instead. Being fired for no reason is the easiest for HR to defend.
Even though Org Leadership is geared at the VP/EVP level, if you rate it low it will more negatively impact your Team Lead than the leaders at that level. If a Team Lead has high Team Leadership and low Organization Leadership, management views that as a red flag that the Team Lead is soft.
not sure how true some of this is but I can say with certainty that GPAs have diversity targets on them
i mean. theres literally hard copy proof that anyone can just grab on viva engage from any number of leaders from line manager level and on up at any time. it could be more blatant
it sure would be nice if the supposed anti DEI, anti foreigners taking jobs when the work is done on us soil administration would do something about it.
@pc lies
There are no consequences to low SPS scores. A leader with low scores is invited to take Shell leadership training. A person can either attend or not, there is no consequence to either decision. There is no followup.
There are no checks to see year after year changes or year after year low scores.
On a related note, HR complaints are also mostly ignored, with only 10% being followed up; 90% are dismissed without even a phone call or email. If there is a follow up, it may come 2-4 months after the complaint is made. There are no followups for anonymous reports, EVER! HR will alert the supervisor you made a complaint. HR is trained to talk to the supervisor first. During that time the offending supervisor can begin work to terminate you, and may have you terminated before the followup. Remember, the law says that it isn't illegal for a boss to hate you and fire you for any reason other than your gender, religion, race, or color.... but not liking you is a valid reason for them to fire you. I've observed that the Dutch laws support that you can remove a person with majority race, religion, GENDER, to replace them with a person from a minority of that... This spills over into the US. That is way harder to prove, but you still see SVP's with gender quotas for senior leaders on their GPA in the US. And their actions show they are living up to their quota goals.
@kp (OP here) very sorry to hear and this rings all too familiar. My team lead is very good (92) but above them, it varies from 34 to 53 at the highest. Just don’t get it…
My team lead has justified the low scores already as not their fault or the organizations fault because of reorg, people leaving, things like that. The thing is that 2-3 disgruntled direct reports don’t make the scores that low.
Leadership does not care unless the scores have turned in their favor.
I would love to see every American employee answer N/A to every question. Even that much participation in this charade is beneath us, but opening the link at shields you from managers.
@dh I've seen it have some impact at the TL level, as they are being compared to other TLs who have better scores and they may not have a lot of high level support.
At the VP/EVP level I don't think it means anything given that some of these org leadership scores have been consistently poor for years and nothing really changes.
Does anyone know of an instance where a supervisor’s/manager’s/exec’s low SPS score resulted in an actual followup to investigate for corrective action? Me neither.
The SPS is just theater
The salary question certainly doesn’t mean anything. Consistently in the 50s and the salary ranges haven’t budged in 3 years and now the lowered share award guidance and forced 5%+ lowers. The company hates and wants us to leave to increase the attrition rate.
@an Ah okay thanks. That discussion point you describe may play out next year with P&T going away and moving into our new business. Don’t want to say many more details but thanks for the feedback. Fingers crossed there will be a changing of the guard in 2026.
@ag
I have seen low SPS scores used as a discussion point during reorg for a manager that the organization wants to move along or get rid of. But it's used to justify what the org wants rather than as a driver to evaluate leaders. Others with low SPS seem to emerge ok with excuses about the "difficult" team that they manage.
I do appreciate the response (I almost typed “engagement” but too on the nose talking about SPS haha). Have you seen #2 play out before? Was it a particular low score that pushed out a manager? The leader to which I’m referring; had a lot of 1s given to them this year. Consistently low rating (<60) for three years now. In your experience, at what point are those scores taken seriously if an EVP isn’t mentoring?
SPS is not your voice. It is used (1) to help shape vague GPA goals for managers and (2) as justification to sh----n leaders who are a problem to their line. #2 is used very selectively. If the sh---y manager is, say, mentored by an EVP, then the SPS scores "do not reflect the reality."