Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Let’s hear your best reorg fiascos

This week my new boss brought me behind the current to help untangle reorg chaos. He is new in role, so totally lost, and wanted my help on work flows, etc. Long story short, they eliminated multiple jobs with zero plan/guidance as how those responsibilities should be done. When I asked “what’s leaderships guidance?” The response was hand waving about centralization. When I ask what the skills/capacity are of the centralized team, more hand waving. It was then suggested, as a high performer, they’d like me to take on responsibilities of one or more of these roles. Here i pushed back, noting: 1) this was not what I applied for; 2) they dropped my role a psg, 1 below my current psg, and the new role would be a psg above the old role - so unless they adjust the psg, im not doing anything more (because what’s my incentive). I also suggested we needed better guidance from whomever established the new org design to understand what’s intended, and it was made clear to me there was no intentional design here, just a concept they want to make so. The lack of leadership from LT is appalling. And, I don’t see a way out.

But it got me thinking if it’s this much a cluster fu-k in my little corner, the rest of the biz must be as bad or worse. So let’s hear it! What’a broken in your corner of this clusterfu-k?


by
| 6270 views | | 28 replies (last November 19) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1k9j2p6f8

28 replies (most recent on top)

@q2 boot li---r!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1sb+1k9j2p6f8

Chevron relied on McKinsey to evaluate its culture and create a strategy to change it. The leaders leveraged that McKinsey report to create the poorly designed and executed layoff plan for cost reductions and maximum shareholder returns. The report was initiated as market analysts consistently called out Chevron’s inability to manage projects well, complete projects or hit milestones.

The Chevron leadership placed the blame on the workforce and used the McKinsey report to get the results that they were seeking.

McKinsey led them down the dark path - knowing that employee morale, loss of intellectual assets, knowledge transfer and digital security would all be the unintended consequences of the changes.

What McKinsey didn’t foretell was the extreme amount of hatred that would ensue ruining the legacy and reputations of once beloved and trusted leaders who are now the company’s most hated employees.

McKinsey is still profiting from the fallout and making money on the repair costs associated with breaking an iconic company that was once known for its compassionate leadership and a great place to work.

McKinsey is the biggest winner in the entire process and will continue to make huge profits for the next three years. If this company doesn’t survive these massive restructuring efforts, McKinsey will still walk away with so much money, no regrets and a clean slate that no one will know what happened nor question their ability to consult.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1rz+1k9j2p6f8

One word: ENGINE. 🤦🏿‍♂️🤦🏿‍♂️🤦🏿‍♂️🤦🏿‍♂️

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wz+1k9j2p6f8

@qh I'm not who you're replying to but I see nothing wrong with hoping someone gets the same treatment that they hope for others.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vz+1k9j2p6f8

@qh Moderator posting.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @r7+1k9j2p6f8

@qb rather childish post. So someone has a different opinion you throw your toys. Stop being emotional..perhaps if we got rid of emotional wrecks like you, chevron wouldn't need to offshore. Too many bed wetters in the US. Add value not emotion.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qh+1k9j2p6f8

@q2, may your future be filled with offshoring of your livelihood to cheaper locales, and your ability to hold said shares diminished.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qb+1k9j2p6f8

As a shareholder i value the fact chevron are optimising their teams. Happy we are reducing expensive labor by utilising india, its tough for folks but if we look honestly its the right decision.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @q2+1k9j2p6f8

S&T is a cash cow milking machine for MW bonus

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pq+1k9j2p6f8

@m9: I really hope the "watching a well oiled machine" statement was not referring to the AGILE debacle. What a can of air whipped horse $hit.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @n5+1k9j2p6f8

The biggest fiasco is watching a well oiled machine turn into a lumbering pile of stench. The change in the overall morale / attitude itself is incredible and it is mind blowing to think it was done on purpose.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @m9+1k9j2p6f8

Wow. More confirmation of what I saw in S & T. So glad it was possible for me to retire. Only wish I had realized that there was no prize worth winning and had taken the EOI.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @k3+1k9j2p6f8

@e6 Haha, ABU SCM, with their pitiful 10% reduction. I don't think there's a single brain cell between the lot of them.

So many other ABU teams were decimated, but fortunately SCM was spared.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hw+1k9j2p6f8

@fc This is the core issue.

In our org, we have duplication of the exact same deliverables across two other groups. So 3 working essentially on the same thing, with ensuing turf wars, of course, because now that it has become obvious that this reorg is a clusterfu-k, it’s every man for himself. So what does this do to people like me? We stop giving a sh-t. What are they gonna do? Fire me?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ge+1k9j2p6f8

I don’t mind the dramatic restructuring, it’s their right and I think everyone agrees we needed to streamline. What i cannot fathom is how little guidance has been provided. Someone made decisions on org structure based on some time of assumptions how things might work, and yet none of those assumptions or guidance is cascading down. I’m told to take work to centralised segment or ENGINE, yet when I do, they’re not ready or flatly refuse those tasks. And when gaps are presented to leaders, we just get corporate speak with no solutions. Unlike most reorgs, I don’t see these things working themselves out. It’s structurally broken. But hey, let’s make sure everyone is in seat in the office and OE moments are part of every meeting.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fc+1k9j2p6f8

I can't control anything the ELT does or thinks. The ELT is so lackluster and incompetent, I would rather engage with tape worms I picked out of fecal matter. What I can control is my own attitude and behavior. I still get paid well for the work I do and I still, at least for the time being, have health insurance. I can 100% control how many hours a week I work, regardless of work piling up with too many personnel cuts and do work actually going away or magically becoming more efficient. In fact, there are even more useless deliverables because there are now an absurd number of people who want to be part of the decision-making.
Maybe the HMP homing kit they provide employees should include a stopwatch so we all know the exact moment we hit 40 hours every week (which includes time waiting on elevators and hunting for a free desk which works with your laptop). Turning off their work laptop every day is something every employee can control.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ef+1k9j2p6f8

@c6 We’re hearing the same thing — there was never a real design behind this, just a push to cut costs. Cost reduction is the only priority, and we’re still not done. That’s the mission: keep cutting, regardless of the impact on quality. There’s no plan to bring jobs back onshore even if it fails — all that matters is the expense cuts. The message from above is to “make it work.” Raising concerns or pointing out how broken things are won’t get traction. If anything, things are likely to get worse. Whenever we ask for clarity, we’re just told to “be flexible,” because nothing else has been planned.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @e6+1k9j2p6f8

@b0 hahaha. Look at ABU SCM, they have jobs replicated in Perth and site and think no one has noticed because the jobs are in different teams. They must think people are stupid. It is costly, inefficient and pointless.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dg+1k9j2p6f8

'I also suggested we needed better guidance from whomever established the new org design to understand what’s intended, and it was made clear to me there was no intentional design here, just a concept they want to make so. The lack of leadership from LT is appalling. And, I don’t see a way out."

There is no accountability for those that designed this sh-t show. That is what ELT is all about incompetence supporting incompetence and blaming on on the lone worker scrambling to make it work. "FAIL"

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c6+1k9j2p6f8

Hello, this is exactly what staff reductions are about. Keep the output the same but reduce headcount by eliminating redundancies. Redundancies means any job that is any any way similar to any other can be combined into one. Hi-pots are kept on staff as they can pick up the slack. If you don't go along, you may have to get along.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bw+1k9j2p6f8

This is happening in many teams across the new org. It’s disappointing but the leadership is accountable for the decisions they make. I like the post that says Chevron leadership has de-incentivized the roles. I completely agree the incentive to help make things better is gone when we see our job positions posted for roles in India. The LT is delusional when they think people will create documentation and train the new India employees how to perform their jobs. Cvx should hire people that can perform the work.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b9+1k9j2p6f8

Our team cannot produce at our current staffing level. A technical issue that just hit our team has six people unable to produce anything. No solutions are being offered by leadership. They let a critical person go on our team and now the whole team is at a standstill. We lost our “engine”, but they still want this car to move. Not happening. What a fiasco.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b2+1k9j2p6f8

Not ABU! S&T here…

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b1+1k9j2p6f8

@aj hello ABU

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b0+1k9j2p6f8

What psg did you get bumped to

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @az+1k9j2p6f8

Unless (lower value) work tasks are eliminated, there is no way fewer people can perform business like they did before re-org.

Consultants (sometimes) benchmark headcount in a function w/ other companies and then sell LT on that being the "right" sized organization without understanding work flows or if there are differences between CVX and these other companies benchmarked.

Seen this--- been there----dealt w/ this dysfunction and just kept moving forward figuring it was just consultants selling LT on "model organization" while aligning w/ CEO's mandate to cut costs during downcycle in a cyclical industry

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ar+1k9j2p6f8

I’ve seen this exact scenario play out multiple areas. A core issue is mid level managers don’t have technical chops, so they lack the intuition to come up with solutions. And the rank and file are apathetic. But what did they expect simultaneously implementing psg compression with demanding more be done? We’ve incentivized the bare minimum.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aj+1k9j2p6f8

It’s as bad or worse in every corner I’ve seen

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1k9j2p6f8

Post a reply

: