I’m looking at all the people between me and MW on the upstream ladder… 9 layers total. Looking closer, I truly don’t understand how this org chart got approved. MW has (arguably) at least 3 layers of unnecessary management between him and the front lines. Take MN for example - he only has 3 (and that is being generous) real employees reporting to him. Within those three, CN seems to be running 70% of the company.
Even MW’s team is pretty small if we look at the very top. Arguably the only people of consequence that report directly to him are RB, EB, FM, and MN. That’s it? What gives?
I know at least a few low-level senior execs read this forum. How about we send MN & BN into retirement with a nice package, give BN’s job to CN; and have Shale & Tight, Exploration, Offshore, and International/miscellaneous all report directly to MW along with a midstream person & the various corporate support leaders. Dump everything else in operations underneath those people in one, big, beautiful org chart.
Is the idea that MW isn’t involved in operations in the slightest, and MN/CN are expected to handle everything? I’m not a McKinsey management expert, but generally it seems like the more you understand what your company actually does on a day-to-day basis, the higher quality your decisions. I find it hard to believe that the current structure facilitates this kind of transparency for MW.
Didn’t MW explicitly call out this problem in SETH ‘24 when he blamed middle-management filtering for clouding the disaster that was FGP? So why did we go and keep the same number of people between MW and the front lines?
In 2030, maybe we should try flattening the pyramid instead of narrowing it. Food for thought!
Happy WFH Monday everyone.