While some selections made sense with the best candidate being selected, others made no sense at all. Some very experienced good people were left standing.
38 replies (most recent on top)
@eh please tell me u told them to eff off
@my I wouldn’t be so quick to assume every job owner made their decisions purely on merit. While some certainly took the process seriously, there have also been cases where familiarity, past working relationships, or assumptions about ability seemed to outweigh actual evaluation.
This thread is way too focused on selection reps. And you are missing the point. The job owners make the call. And job owners did their due diligence to ensure they are hiring the very best candidates. If you think it is all about your selection rep, you are just looking for an excuse. They are just a conduit of information. There is so much more to it.
I honestly don’t understand how it makes any godda-n sense to have a selection rep who has never met you and doesn’t know anything about you. My selection rep had like 30 or 40 people I think. Met with this person for less than 30 minutes, gave them some background and that was it. Selection rep wasn’t even the same organization as many of us and had no idea what any of us did.
@gr I sure hope you're wrong but I'm worried you may be right.
I think it’s funny I have talked to people that have been selected for roles and they believe they are safe for another 5 years. They don’t realize this is only the first stage to transfer the work to lower paid people in foreign countries. The next step is to document the work and knowledge do Chevron can transfer the USA jobs to India.
The layoffs will continue every year until the USA workforce is a minimal level
@gp we've been told the entire time that selections wouldn't be based on PMPs. If selections weren't based on PMPs, what else did you honestly believe it'd be based on? Your reputation within the company is based on your ability to perform. No poor performer is going to have a good reputation. Real simple. Also highly unlikely an attorney would take a case on something as unreliable a layoff website. I understand you're upset over the process but the best thing is to focus on finding another job to pay your bills instead of wrapping yourself up in something that's just going to make you feel worse.
@gg I'm speaking to the inconsistent process for the event. Being told one thing and the end result was based on something different. The lack of consistency in the method for selection can be twisted by any attorney as discrimination. In today's environment, anyone can get sued for any situation. Chevron is a big company and it doesn't take one attorney much effort to file a lawsuit. Will these go to court? Probably Not....but the settlement money is what he/she would be targeting. All it takes is one attorney to start it and then the rest come like a herd advertising other class action suits.
@fc none of this is evidence any discrimination took place. Disliking someone doesn't mean they were discriminated against for protected reasons.
All this is great material for a lawsuit.
@f4 there’s also instances of the other way around when job owners didn’t have the right info and didn’t select somebody even though the selection rep provided the accurate background for an employee..
@eh There were instances where selection representatives spread misleading information about candidates they personally disliked, in an effort to prevent them from being hired. Fortunately, some hiring managers took the time to conduct their own due diligence.
It’s unfortunate that some individuals lack the integrity and courage to act ethically and make fair decisions.
@eh, sounds like you had a bad selection rep. That su-ks. Try to post in the open PDC. Sounds like the business still needs you.
My selection rep asked for one sheet guide to help him, help you. But when I spoke with him, he didn’t know anything about me, my intentions, or even what I did. 20 years down the drain. What’s best that even after being let go with my last day in the office last Friday, the company called me today to ask for technical support. These id--ts fired me, had no replacement,, no hand over, no KY. Thousands of customers and they don’t even know what I did. Id--ts.
You build the org around the business deliverables, put some proven leadership in place that can carry the message blindly. then build up teams around key individuals. Fill in the teams with some strong up and comers, any additional spot you fill with the reliable and predictable folks that get their job done and don’t challenge anything. Branch out with support functions…try to put some decent team leaders who have led productive teams regardless if they have deep knowledge of the support role. Pepper in admin roles as needed or requested
Family and Friends
OMG I'm SOOO happy that we can all chat now. Tell me when the bell rings because I still have to finish my punch box and cookie.
@cz I don't even know who YP is. So no.
@cb are you talking about YP?
Prior poster - sounds like "said girl" played the game well!!! What about all those PHD Indians - who only go to conferences and publish papers - are they in wave 2 or still standing
@c5 I'm not who you were replying to but wanted to give my 2 cents. I think what they meant is job owners don't want a team full of cliques based popularity alone. I'll give you an example from my function. There was a girl that did an OK job at the work we did on the team but she was constantly bragging about how awesome she was, frequently put others down, yelled at other people when they didn't do what she expected, and was generally known as someone that punched down and was very difficult to work with. A different coworker and I started noticing that she behaved one way to peers and then put on a completely different mask in front of people she thought mattered. We even started noticing she wasn't doing all the things she was supposed to be doing but claimed to be doing.
However, if you were to hear this girl talk about herself you'd think she was the only competent person the company ever hired and the only one getting anything done. I genuinely don't know a single peer that liked her. However, she made it a point to tell us how she was really good at making strong relationships. This person had an infamous reputation around MCBU. Because of her behavior, people were constantly complaining to her supervisors about her and they were constantly having to coach her. However, somehow, she still thought the sun rose and set because of her abilities.
Well, she got left standing. Her behavior was a direct reflection of her performance. I don't think anyone is surprised she was left standing. I don't think everyone left standing is an extreme case like her but I hope this example at least sheds light on the fact that not only do you need to have a good reputation but a somewhat visible one as well.
@bv “….any good manager…” is the key words in this post.
@bv your entire point is contradictory and you’re completely oblivious to it.
You say job owners don’t care about popularity and that this isn’t high school, but then emphasize that people take notice, that it matters how you go about things, and that strong candidates deliver results with a humble smile and in a respectful manner.
That sounds a lot like saying perception, likability, and visibility do matter, just under different labels. Let’s be real: the line between being “popular” and being well-regarded because of demeanor, relationships, or visibility is thin. So while it’s great to believe it’s all about results, there’s clearly a social element at play too, whether we want to call it popularity or professional presence.
Having been in one of the room's, I did not have access to performance ratings of past years. Maybe other functions did, but not ours.
I have news for you. Decisions are not made in a “room”. Decisions are made on the effort you put in every day. PMPs are not for making “decisions”, they are just one data point. Decisions are made on what you accomplish and how you go about it. And people take notice. And any good hiring manager / job owner will do their due diligence and talk with people. No serious job owner would want a team a “popular” people, this is not high school. Job owners want people that deliver great results, do it with a humble smile and go about it in n a respectful manner.
Maybe it’s nothing more than Eenie, Meenie, Miney Moe.
@ak I don't know how it went in your function. Perhaps the team leads were not sought out for their inputs the same way supervisors in my org were. Most supervisors my function were not in the same round as the 25 and below.
@ah wild response, most team leads were in the same selections as the individual contributors. Also a lot of cases where supervisors were placed in positions outside of the discipline they are experienced in.
@ah Then what was the point of having selection reps?
@af did the selection reps actually need to do any due diligence when the supervisors of said jobs were the ones picking who they wanted on their teams? Like seriously, what kind of due diligence is needed to execute the wishes of the the people who will be supervising the employee?
@ae if you don't think your performance gives you a reputation or a type of popularity whether that be good or bad, you are sorely mistaken. Your ability to get along with others and work well with others is part of your performance.
@ad I know of specific examples where selection reps did no due diligence. Didn’t reach out to previous supervisors, pretty sure there were shortlists and blacklists provided..
So it was all based on popularity and not performance?
I'm AA below and chiming in again. Another supervisor told me she was given the names of the people that applied for jobs and was able to shortlist them. She was not the job owner of those jobs. So decisions were not really made by the job owners unless there was someone that was shortlisted by 2 supervisors. These decisions were not made in a vacuum of the room. Supervisors had time to reach out to the candidate's own supervisor before shortlists were due and talk to people to find out how well these people performed and whether people enjoyed working with them. Selection reps may not have known you very well but the people behind the scenes were doing their research on the applicants.
A supervisor told me that decisions weren't necessarily made based off performance from PMPs. It was based off reputation. So if you have a reputation of being a low performer or a reputation of being difficult to work with, those are the people that were chosen to be let go.
it’s about normalizing PSGs in the technical career ladder, management career ladder stays untouched. D/S PSGs are lower n there were some high PSG in there, so chop them off n everything will b normal. It’s going to b even worse for wave 2. This reorg is nothing to do with stuffing the ENGINE, those minions are going to b lowest on the totem poles. Chevron Fellows are being sent to run the ENGINE chapters. Amazing isn’t it.. what a brain drain wastage.
Seems like a lot of bias and making sure buddies are safe.