Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

@g8+1jxhsv6p1
The other managers will not fix the problem because they are all scratching each others backs. They are all trying to make it to their 30 years+ of service and 90 points toward retirement to maximize their own retirements while they layoff the US workers. God Speed to the employees who are laid off and to those who remain to stabilize the mismanagement of the staffing resources.

Like someone below said, Implementation Lead “positions” appear to be used as boxes to retain PSG 26+ staff that couldn’t be placed in a “real job” during their respective selection event.

So like what always happens at Chevron for these PSG 26+ people, they are put in these “fake” jobs for some period of time, and then likely another series of holding pattern jobs when an Implementation role isn’t needed, until they can be absorbed into real jobs.

And senior level management (PSG 29/30) who are too lazy to do the Implementation themselves, support this farce. It’s so they don’t have to roll up their sleeves and do the actual implementation work themselves. Some, not all of the senior level managers placed in roles are quite frankly, useless. I wish their peers on Management Committee had the courage to call them out.

ID: @be+1jxhsv6p1
You are living in the future world of planning. Chevron is so far away from implementing AI and cross functional teams it is amazing. The consultants tell executives the future is AI and I agree with that. One of the problems Chevron has is the leadership teams do not know how to implement the improvements. Hiring people in foreign countries is cheaper but the skills to make improvements are expensive. The current management at Chevron does not listen to the people who perform the work so the workflows will not be documented efficiently. If the workflows cannot be documented then the costs cannit be improved. The Engineer will be a cheaper labor supply but the workflows will take a long time to implement.

@a1+1, you are exactly right. Months of "planning" meetings, followed by months of "implementation" meetings, followed by... the same old organization, now with some jazzy name (sound like 2020 all over again?). After that, all these people on implementation teams will be quietly put back into meaningless and ineffectual positions, like adding more sandbags to the Chevron balloon.

@be+1, Wow! so many buzzwords (sound good, mean nothing)! Do you work for McKinsey, or are you a high-pot on somebody's staff? Those sound like the "direction" for Chevron's continued decline.

I’d rather have McKinsey do the SCM transition than who they picked internally, what a joke

“Chevron’s path to cost efficiency isn’t about trimming at the edges—it’s about cutting at the core. Corporate strategy, exploration, and middle management are bloated. Lay off non-operational roles, consolidate tech and planning groups, and shift headcount toward completions, production ops, and automation. Fewer PowerPoints, more horsepower.” – ChatGPT

@a1 I think u missed the point of the post.

The point was that we already pay McKinsey - it’s a sunk cost, and they’re still around. Yet we have these implementation teams stood up to give reports to McKinsey to review. We work for them. Not the other way around. And it’s a damn shame.

@ap they are implementing the enablement of cross-functional teams and AI. The innovation will shift paradigms. Truly a game changer for Chevron.

What does an implementation team implement?

You want to pay McKinsey a couple $MM a month to run implementation? Why.

At some point your $B in annual G&A spend needs to earn its' keep. Learn to run your own business or GTFO. Chevron isn't a Charity.

Without implementation teams, where else would we have landed expats that are hard to repatriate, cross-functional “leaders” who have a difficult time returning back to function, and just overall waste of space in the organization but leaders want to keep them.

Look at all the implementation teams across the functions and businesses. That’s the type of people running the show. It’s just people chevron leaders want to keep, but have nowhere to put them, or people who should have retired a long time ago but have been stealing from the shareholders by milking expat assignments.

So once again, chevron loses by having to pay for McKinsey to direct these employee implementation teams full of employees who shouldn’t even be around anymore.