But there sure must be better ways to organize than having such rigid procedures, endless meetings and layers upon layers of mostly mediocre management. I can bet you that reorg will not address the vast majority of issues Chevron really has. Massive layoffs and offshoring may boost short-term profits and inflate stock value, but they also result in a loss of talent and potential. Most structural issues always remain.
10 replies (most recent on top)
Chevron executives need to focus on the things we are su-king at, and gold people accountable to deliver, that's their job, and they are failing.
@ijv, No you certainly can WFH all that you want, for sure, just without pay, LMAO!
All they care about is the next quarter. They cannot see any further ahead and do not want to.
The layoff is not for structural issues. It is to cull the heard. Additionally without any procedures it will become a 3rd rate company, similar to an indian or mexican company where what the boss says goes.
Chevron executives are fixing the issue. They're down from 65k in 2024 to 45k today. These reorgs will see them decreasing headcount further.
Ultimately, I think that they agree that they only need a few rockstars. However, the need to de-layer and eliminate a lot of unnecessary people in order to allow those rock-stars to run.
And those rock-stars ultimately won't want to do the routine workflows which are being shipped to India. The independents would contract-out or eliminate (avoid) doing this low value work. Chevron has elected to do their own form of "contracting out", but the result will largely be the same.
@hje Ok Boomer
No big words or WFH, got it.
Sounds like some chat GPT and pro-WFH gobbledegook below. The OP posted - "big company and all" broken English. So maybe y'all can comment appropriately, naturally and not write or cut and paste, a book.
I agree to an extent—efficiency means we need fewer fillers and more standout employees.
The highest salaries should go to those with the experience to prevent multimillion or even multibillion-dollar problems and create opportunities. We don’t need more people, particularly not less experienced ones.
We absolutely need to address structural issues. The cost of employees isn’t the real problem—it’s how we operate and how disconnected many are from revenue-generating activities.
I’m not convinced anything currently planned will fix this. It requires someone at the executive level who is curious and creative. Unfortunately, we clearly lack those types of leaders. Instead, many seem more interested in attending summits and projecting an image rather than tackling hard problems.
If we’re falling behind in a specific area, a high-ranking executive should be tasked with fixing it—and if they fail, they should be fired. With big compensation comes big expectations.
Chevron culture and traditions are based upon their history of operating all over the world with limited means to communicate or share data. They needed reliable standards to ensure their business in Sumatra or Angola was run in a prudent manner.
Modern world doesn't have that challenge. People can communicate from anywhere and you don't need any of the intrinsic inefficiency associated with redundant silos and unnecessary standards. In that sense, I understand your complaint.
However, modern world also affords (I) the ability to run a business with far fewer people and (II) the ability to leverage cheaper global labor pools. Neither of those are positive from the perspective of a highly paid, western Chevron employee.