Is ranking system a legacy of Exxon or Mobil? Or did both have ranking system pre-merger?
14 replies (most recent on top)
The current ranking system (the one that saw me PIP'd) is nothing like the former Exxon system. h-Mobil employees need to stop blaming everything on Exxon (except for OIMS). As a h-Exxon employee, I could lay the blame for ESG's and EM management's "woke" culture squarely on the Mobil heritage. That appears to be at the root of the current problem with the ranking system - spending all of your work time in UW, WIN, PRIDE and other ESG activities and thinking up word salad phrases (like "We Are ExxonMobil") for Yammer is more important than technical accomplishments. Spending all of your spare time schmoozing up to your managers is the icing on the cake.
You were obviously raised on tiger milk and then graduated to the Exxon kool-aid. Mobil wasn't in bad shape in the late '90s at all. In fact, they were THE most attractive acquisition target in the entire O&G industry.
With the massive industry consolidations that happened at that time, Mobil simply was not big enough and did have the cash flow to escape being acquired. It was inevitable.
But make no mistake, Exxon was by far the WORST think that ever happened to Mobil. The Mobil people, processes and culture were destroyed in the takeover.
This is all on old Exxon. Own it.
I didn’t work for Mobil but everyone I met that came from the Mobil side were great employees.
I didn’t even know and would say Exxon. It is definitely something Exxon would do.
It is heritage Exxon as described in 1977 with very little modifications since then
https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/so-you-want-to-be-chairman-of-exxon/
Spot on @1uem+17EkxXEK.
Masterpiece Theater. Exxon would never had done this.
Hated all Oil companies, except for Mobil.
They were different.
Can't defend the Exxon system but spare me the belated Mobil love. There were several rounds of layoffs at Mobil in the late 90s - it was a failing company, ripe to be acquired. They were lucky Exxon came to their rescue - they kept their name on the company name and dominance in the Downstream R&D, where Mobil cronyism still rules. Many of today's failings can be ascribed to the Mobil cronyism and buddy-buddy system. But that was 20 years ago - Mobil hangers-on just show they are a- really old and b- sore losers. Move on everybody -we are 10 times worse than either heritage company today.
Who's the person that said heritage-XOM? You are not an employee, but if you are, you should be shown the door this Friday.
There is no perfect ranking system, we all know that.
As a "HERITAGE-MOBIL" person I liked the fact that my manager pretty much said the following.
Most of you did what the company expected of you. You added value and helped us to achiever our goals.
You'll move up in your SG level.
Now, some (10% of the group) exceeded expectations and added a huge amount of value to the team and the company. You will get a bigger raise.
Unfortunately there were others that were not meeting expectations. But I will talk to them as see how it can change. If it doesn't then you need to find another job.
Unrelated but indicative of the culture, I remember as a kid in the 80s Mobil sponsoring PBS. I vividly remember the oil sloshing in the O as lead in credits to whatever my parents were watching.
It played a very small part in my acceptance decision in the early 2000s. Man have things changed even in my time here
@ylr+17EkxXEK MobilExxon would have failed within 5 years. Mobil was s—ing wind at the time of the merger, and starting to decline.
Exxon owns 100% of the absolute worst ranking systems of all time going back before the so called merger. Horrible systems and terrible implementation year after year. Mobil also did ranking, but not zero sum forced ranking, and salary treatment between the groupings was much less dramatic than what Exxon uses.
Mobil recognized that for the majority of employees, there simply was not a huge difference in skills and contributions, so the only groups that had large salary differentiations based on ranking were the very top and very bottom. Much fairer and accurate system.
Mobil used ranking to reward people, not punish them.
It is derived from Exxon. The ranking system had essentially morphed into a clustering of employees in 5 quintiles (buckets). Employees were assigned numbers within each quintile and most were clustered with similar numbers within each quintile. The new system also has 5 buckets but there no numbers assigned to each person, just group names like Good. In reality, the new system is not much different but it does allow the company to have a top 10% category and those employees will be treated very well. There is also less concern about the size of rating changes from year to year. However, in practice, for the vast majority of employees this means large downward changes are easier but not the case for large upward changes.
in 1998 and 1999, mobil fired about 20% just before the merger based on their ranking system... Today's ranking system is heritage-XOM, The ranking system today is very similar to what existed in the early 1980s. In 1990s to 2016, the ranking system converted from buckets to a 0 to 100 was very difficult. This system morphed into buckets because it was hard to determine whether someone was a 50 or 51 (too Granular). The system morphed into clusters or buckets. The revisiosn only formalized buckets of relative ranking. Mobil, CVX and other IOC all use a relative ranking system, with specified percentages of people in each bucket.
I am 58, got PIPed in July and left, found new nice job.
I am heritage Mobil. Mobil had no lunatic ranking system like Exxon. Mobil was a great company, excellent culture.
Engineers helped one another in Mobil.
The stupid ranking system in ExxonMobil is all Exxon toxicity.
Had the company merged to be MobilExxon and had all the bureaucrats in Exxon sent to the gas chamber back then and had we inherited a Mobil culture, things would be very different today.