Is this a sane way to run a company?

At well-run companies, poor performers are let go on a regular basis.

Chevron is different.

For a period of 4-5 years it’s impossible to get let go, no matter how much you are just phoning it in.

Then, like clockwork, it’s time for a reorganization because suprise surprise the company is lagging behind its peers.

Does this result in poor performers leaving?

Quite the opposite. As soon as the best performing and therefore most mobile employees are informed their position is under threat they start checking their options externally. As a result some will leave before the process has started, some will EOI and get paid to leave and some leave not long after being reconfirmed in their roles. Many teams end up with more boxes to fill than people by the time selection starts, which have to be filled by the same old poor performers.

What’s the end result? The company goes through a year of turmoil one year out of five, during which no one is fully focused on creating value, nor wants to take important decisions nor give anything but the most conservative advice.

At the end, there are new names for the boxes in upper management but the same people in them, some of the best performers have left and a hatchet has been taken to successful teams by people who have no idea about what is required for success in their specific business, teams now have illogical reporting lines, conflicting responsibilities, new members with inappropriate experience and behaviours etc.

The businesses then have to spend the next 1-3 years fixing the damage done, and then before long it’s time for another reorganization because the last one did not work, but trust me bro, just one more reorganization, this one will work bro, just one more time.

When one year in 5 is chaos, and another one to three are spent fixing the damage, and there is inverse selection for good performers - is it any wonder the company lags behind its peers?

Is there some law of nature that dictates that Chevron cannot just rank and yank employees every year like more successful companies instead of shooting itself in the foot with reorganizations every 5 years?

Comment! It's anonymous!

13 replies (most recent on top)

Ditto on the Exxon comment. They snip low performers or excess folks every year, like clockwork.

1 every 5? Reorg frequency is higher than
That! Chevron wastes so much time reorging. So much money wasted on consultants to do the obvious.

I’m not buying the “rankings aren’t being included “ , PDRs , job owners have all this information very easily through workday , while it’s not on the talent I 100% believe it will factor in.

@a9+1jrfvz3m9
They don't need to. We're all toast

This reorg seems like it’s by design that the lower performers and the behavior problems won’t get a position. It will be interesting to see who is left standing.

So DEI doesn't work well then. Who knew?

OP...As an experienced hire, you nailed it.

THIS IS the reason why Chevron is performing so poorly - I used to be in an LT team and even the main manager said that "these guys in this team cannot get other jobs oustide this team, they dont want to learn new things and just want to do support work"....

I thought to myself... She should be fired plus her LT for not doing their f*n job... Fish rots from the head

I worked at Exxon Mobil as a contractor after Chevron. I didn't ask too many questions, but it appeared the bottom 10% usually got cut every year. It took two years to do that. If you were a slacker, didn't fit in or meet expectations, you were in danger.

The review system had at least two people, maybe three, doing reviews on every person. Harder to be a buddy/buddy set-up. The reviews were tough. As a contractor, I didn't spend as much time in meetings, but those were very efficient .

Everyone I worked with was top of the line. Very diverse, very competitive. Results driven.

Trust your managers to pick the right people. If they cannot or they retain their buddies to the detriment of the team, then fire your managers.

It's not hard, but it takes time to build feedback loops: Practice this behavior, observe this outcome, do/don't practice this behavior again. Same as raising a toddler.

So what I am hearing the DEI is useless at this point? good to know.

The reason your proposal at the end of your post wouldn't work well at Chevron is because the ranking system would be skewed the same way as the current promotion system (i.e. buddy promotes buddy), so the rankings would be affected the same way. For your proposal to work, Chevron would have to implement a 3rd party competency assessment system where a 3rd party would assess all the Chevron employees on how competent they are at their jobs every 2-3 years or so. That would be the only non-biased way to accomplish what you're proposing.

And they are not using past performance ratings this time

Nailed it!

Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Is this a sane way to run a company?

13 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply