We keep hearing from the ELT and others how they are “accountable” for everything that has gone sideways in the company in the last 5 years (albeit recently, before 2024 this terminology wasn’t used), but what does that actually mean? We have gone from first or second in total shareholder return to dead last amongst our peers…. Are there any consequences, is someone actually holding others accountable and what does that look like? I know at the middle management and team lead level this certainly is not the case. Sc--w up after sc--w up are resolved by promoting the person in question while typically bringing in the most over worked and overladen individual to fix the sc--w up (as a hint to CVX leadership; having another meeting is not a solution, that doesn’t generate revenue, actions do, but this is what is always falling short; no one holding folks feet to the fire to follow through and deliver “the right way”). Rinse and repeat. And then at the executive level the solution is to bring in outside consultants to “fix” the mess that they have created…. If you have to bring in someone from outside the company to fix your own mess, perhaps you should not be in the role you are in as an executive….
21 replies (most recent on top)
Accountability is only for PSG 24 and below. Anyone above that simply states that the plan was great but the execution by the masses was bad.
Yes the good example of this was MW taking a deep interest in FGP as it fell behind, his influence was positive, but way too late.
The executives need to make the Organization work, they don't need to do the work. The lack of interest from them bleeds down to the next level GMs who then decide the best way to succeed is to manage upwards. The 300-600k TC folk can't do ja-----t if the high management isn't interested and providing the right incentives. A small company has a distinct advantage, it's much clearer what needs to be done, and it's harder to baffle people with bullsh-t.
(@fa+1jgknphek) What's the point in having all these highly paid Chevron employees if executives have to do all the work?
This isn't school. There isn't a teacher there to make sure you're turning in your homework or answering the problems correctly. You are paid very well to get the job done. That's it.
Step foot at an independent and see how work gets done. People don't need executive edict or a pat on the back. They simply do the job they were hired to do (find oil, capitalize developments prudently, drill cheaper wells, deliver projects on time).
MN is built of accountability
Yes those things are self evident, however, it's very passive not to hold executives accountable for making sure they happen, if they don't pay attention to how this is being achieved, what good are they? We could put a bunch of african grey parrots in charge, and we will have the same results, it might be better.
You don't need an executive to tell you that you should find oil (if in exploration), not over-capitalize (if in development), not spend more than your peers to drill a well (if in D&C), and not build useless tools.
Death by KPI isn't the solution to Chevron's malaise. They have too many of the wrong people, and who apparently lack the self awareness to recognize their contribution to the issue.
It also needs to be possible to break the chain of command, perhaps anonymously, to report any issues. OE has this because of the nature of it, but it's too easy in other metrics for people to hide the sh-t in the sh-t cave until the smell can't be ignored, there needs to be a way to avoid this, especially on large projects.
@bz you have a point, however, it's leadership that needs to look at the outcomes and set clear strategies, with no BS metrics. We just don't get that, we get aspirations, then it's up to everyone to interpret it. A serious approach would be to set a target, such as reserves, ROCE, carbon reduction, etc .. and then measure everything based on those, make sure your direct report has a credible plan to achieve this, and hold them accountable, they will then do the same for their reports.
The only place I see this happening is OE, I think MB has done a good job at making the metric more visible to every employee, this needs to be done for every fu--ing metric we are going to be measured on, with the same amount of detail.
It’s always been about failing up!
It's funny how much blame is externalized at Chevron. News flash, we're paid $300-600k TC to drive outcomes. If we're not doing that, then we're not worth the pay.
There are credible concerns relating to exec strategy (E.g. going too light on E&A). However, they're not the ones drilling dry holes, building useless process and tools, or requiring 4x the people to do the same thing as our peers.
Cutting costs is the fastest and easiest way to goose cash flow and get promoted. Rinse and repeat.
Say what you will about Joe G (retired), he was ruthless about consultant spend and getting it reduced. Unfortunately it has creeped up again since 2015 because leaders can't think for themselves. What do we pay leaders for? It's disheartening and I no longer have faith in MW even though I was once a fan. I don't know how the accountability issue gets fixed with the same henchmen in place for decades. I would like the board to take a stronger stance but they are likely looking out for themselves (and paychecks) also.
Chevron has been 'going sideways' since at least 2015. That was when we shelved Chevron Way, started valuing diversity over performance, "excused" responsibility for some massive (we're talking billions) cost overruns, dropped any pretense of career development, and stopped acknowledging our true successful professionals.
No sorry, sc--w up =promotion in the company
Accountability = Promotion
In the famed words by Inigo Montoya “I don’t think that word means what you think it means”.
It never existed for obvious reasons. They only claim success and fight over it, but for the failure, it is all pointing fingers to others.
For MW they waived the mandatory retirement age. Go figure.
This, 100%. The beautiful thing about getting to a high PSG level and quickly rotating between new roles is that you never need to deliver anything sustainable, you can create/slash some program, do some workplace posts and internal PR with your consultants and sail on.
It’s been spread over committees and project teams so that no one person ever has to take responsibility for bad decisions. Been this way for 20 years.