Only good workers and friends so far I can tell but still hopeful some of these disgraceful leaders will be held to account.
Heard of anyone yet?
24 replies (most recent on top)
Very strong probability that many of those "dead weight 52+ folks" were once young high flyers like you, but as they approached retirement, they were thrown to the bottom of the rank list, forced to work a few more years to avoid losing pension and possibly restricted shares, all the while having been completely humiliated and told their former accomplishments and sacrifices mean absolutely nothing. Trying to hang on until age 55 to finally reach normal retirement. Not easy to get up every day and go to work knowing that your whole career now means nothing to anyone. And that empty worthless feeling stays with you long after retirement.
Sorry you got axed, but believe me, those older guys still left behind have likely suffered greatly over the past few years. It is hard to work 5+ more years while going from a top ranked exec to the bottom of the barrel for no reason, other than to make room for new high flyers like you.
So cut them some slack. What would you rather have happen? Hang around a few more years at EM and get kicked to the curb, or get out now while you can build a career elsewhere. In the long run, you may have come out a winner here. I wish you well.
I was both a manager and in the executive ranks with high performance reviews. I was axed yesterday. My downfall was my age I believe. I was probably one of the youngest in the exec ranks. I think there were too many untouchables (52+) in my grouping which forced them to go way up into the rankings. Got to ask yourself if you are a shareholder how keeping some of this dead weight (which will leave anyway in 3 years or less) to ax good performers to hit short term numbers is going to affect long term performance of the company. Couple this with the survivors being launched to the bottom of the treadmill rankings with additional workload, no raises, no 401k match. If oil goes up significantly next year, Katie bar the door, they will lose everyone. No sane individual will buy their “we are all about long term career here” (which some brave individual brought up during one of the executive teleconferences I was in).
Retirees keep their Restricted Stock, but Terminees do not.
@bzf+18dpc2Yo Don’t they collect dividend on all RSUs, regardless of maturity?
I mean, I don’t see an incentive or mechanism to get them voluntarily of the tit beyond the treat of accountability.
They keep making money for doing nothing or worse than nothing while the ship sinks.
I expect there will be cuts at the executive level. They can put very intense pressure on executives to LEAVE by allowing or cancelling unvested RSU as an incentive. I suspect the March layoff will be focussed on filling executive roles and eliminating excess executives.
“Managers became managers because they are top performers When the going gets tough, you don't lay off the top performers.“
- LOL. Wonder why the company is in doldrums with all these “top performers” performing!
@zsa+18dpc2Yo I counted 80 geos laid off in UIS from the expected 125 total.
Didn’t learn from any manager or VP gone, although it’s expected they would told later, so fingers crossed.
A lot more geos terminated in UBD. Unclear if they were managers; probably not.
30% prior ranking +
70% long-term fit =
100% arbitrary
I know of at least 3 supervisors/managers that were let go in the geosciences. Of course, I know of >45 geoscientists that were let go too. I'm not sure what our worker-bee to management ratio is.
My guess is most senior managers and executives would have fallen in the voluntary program. If they were young enough to be grouped in the involuntary program they're likely high flyers and wouldn't be considered anyway.
I do know one executive level person who fell in the voluntary program and a lot of pressure was put on that person to take the package. Of course they didn't. Why give up a goose that lays golden eggs.
Have not heard of any managers or supervisors getting the axe. It would not surprise me though.
It's also not performance based. I know 3 ppl in GSC who where excellent or higher in the last assessment but still involuntarily told to leave. They were 45+ years old and could be considered 'company men/women' so they fit all the criteria that the bs HR formula said 70% long term fit (whatever that means) + 30% performance.
Completely shocking for them
Managers became managers because they are top performers When the going gets tough, you don't lay off the top performers.
I was labeled "very good" but still got laid off. I think the biggest item was the "long term fit with company core values", which is super subjective. I asked for specific feedback on the decision, but of course I got the generic answer we all heard. My supervisor was barely involved if at all.
I'm an experienced hire with 2 years of service. I may be wrong, but I noticed experienced hires were targeted more than others, even with the PIPs back in July.
One can always have a separate layoff for management layers. Need not have to combine them with worker bees.
But they won’t because they are all part of the swamp!
If an exec/manager is 52+ they are safe. So most don’t have to worry. Those below are probably top ranking so again probably safe.
This was a layoff of performers good and below. 30% of the score was performance and probably all that mattered. This next years pip will get another round of people that will be blindsided because the nature of the system and those ranked good if there is another layoff next year will be on the block.
"delayering" by cutting almost exclusively the bottom layer, yeah, right...
3,500 (1,600 PIP + 1,900 layoffs) people being let go should lead to at least 35 divisional managers getting laid off. But not one will pay the price - so pathetic! BP cut a lot of middle-layers of management but not here!
Some supervisors in our site are being stepped down into technical roles.
You really group supervisors in with Execs? I’m ready go take up the pitchforks and torches and March on Irving as well as the top floors of the buildings in Spring but my supervisors I don’t blame for this. They weren’t the ones who made decisions gag have led to this.
That time will come.
Nada
What is xom really trying to achieve? Without meaningful cuts to the managerial roles, no real problems will be solved. It feels like xom has not real plan other than buying time and hope for oil price recovery
Same in our department. It boils my blood that no supervisors, managers and execs have been impacted.
Nope