Curious if the company will be better off by letting go of people making it to top 30% as they have been taking the company in a certain direction which may not have worked well. Is throwing the lower ranked 20% (10% now and 10% later?) in the current ranking system really what is going to save the company in the long run? Who is the real problem?
13 replies (most recent on top)
Because the employee with the high school diploma and no management experience knows better than the PhD’s!
Most employees know that is a lie. Looks like guilty dog barking trolling the lay-off boards.
Bottom 20 is there for a reason, so don’t kid yourself. I’d agree those around 40-60% have a reasonable argument that they should be treated more equitably.
@ben+ agreed. They would be better off doing nothing. All the projects that went ahead concurrently, and now put to a halt.. will come back to haunt Exxon now. No accountability frankly.. the coming earnings results will speak for itself
The ones with the gold make the rules. So it’s obviously not their fault. It has to be someone else’s fault.
Top 30% based on wage and CL lead us here. It will be right to remove them. Blaming the bottom 20% is just wrong as they are essentially for daily operations. Exxon declines due to the bottom 20%? Assuming they are all hard workers.. We know they have no power within to change things..
External board has no Incentive to go against the CEO.
No major decisions have happened or will happen without Dallas so accountability should start there. Thin out Dallas to the bare minimum, empower the company presidents, sell Irving and relo those that are left down to Spring.
Obviously a loaded question by OP.
Lay off bottom 20%, including executives and cut compensation for remaining 80% by 30%. Eliminate EBU and RSU for all executives until ROCE back above 10% and net cash gen can pay the dividend without more borrowing
Why blame the bottom 20 for their poor leadership?
Interesting thought experiment.
I’ve long believed past decisions should be used in performance evaluations. Executives who make FID decisions, cut turn around spend, add too many fluff positions to generate data they only look at for 5 min should be constantly judged.
Ironically XOM would have been better off just staying the same and growing it’s cash pile over the last 10 years.
Curious how many people generate stewardship data that managers look at for less than 5 min and make zero decisions with.
Top 30 made all the bad decisions that led us here
The bottom 20%. There are plenty in the bottom who contribute nothing to the company except a drain on the paycheck.
The top 30% at least align the people that can solve problems to the areas needed best.