From my perspective, there is a lot of redundant management here. Still, can large companies like SLB be organized without so many managers? To what extent would a company be more efficient without “unnecessary” multiple management layers?
3 replies (most recent on top)
SLB has only survived by the acquisition of other companies, it lacks skill and innovation to create and design any engineering products for itself.
Weighed down by a huge number of useless managers who have little or no understanding of the industry but go along with the tick box culture in order to climb up the greasy pole of promotion.
Many companies with good engineering products that were taken over by SLB have now been totally destroyed by this toxic culture, Camco being a typical example but there are many others too.
Now with much more focus being on clean energy and away from fossil fuels slb needs to innovate and diversify into renewables to survive long term, otherwise the slow decline that is obvious to many will intensify and more job losses will result as the inept and out of touch directors try and protect the balance sheet to satisfy the short term investors.
100% true, great post.
Slb is nothing but a job creation scheme.
If your toilet breaks down. You call a plumber to fix it. For now.
If in future you create houses which are able to detect issues and fix themselves. Who would need a plumber.
Now think about quest. How does "quest" take you from a legacy house to modern day technology. It just cant.
Does schlumberger has fundamental engineering or business knowledge to do something spectacular in future. Only future would tell.
Schlumberger has made great acquisitions in the past. No doubt. But to grow organically you need great culture. If most management teams have grown up filling out sheets or jumping 6 ft when customers calls jump. I doubt that team would have what it takes to create anything new, challenge status quo, or infact do anything other than fill out a form or check a box.