The 2 shady Chevron people that came to our town hall last week lied to our faces when they said they spent months talking to Hess leaders about us. It’s quite obvious to everyone that performance was not considered in the selection process.
9 replies (most recent on top)
Welcome to Chevron. While we don’t lie, we don’t exactly tell the truth either. “Get to know each and every one of your employees by meeting for months with leaders” is probably referring to a singular introduction email and asking “how morale is going.” If you land a job here, learn this skill fast and use it on your PMP (performance evaluation). The people who can turn taking a cr-p into “set aside time to self reflect on projects to better focus on fostering an atmosphere of relaxation” are the ones who get promoted. Good luck.
@gj right on the money. Been at Chevron over a decade. Performance matters zero.
What you just described @OP… welcome to Chevron. Where we tell everyone to play nice .. OR else. And where performance doesn’t matter. Sorry you were pulled into the s$&@-show. Been here 12 years. Just getting worse.
@a7 On the 25th floor at least, overwhelmingly it was managers and PhD staff who were kept for GOM. Two exceptions, and neither of them landed in CVX GOM.
As a CVX employee, performance is absolutely not considered. For example, in our current reorg, the selection reps do not have access to our performance ratings. It's just a dog and pony show.
@aa I heard Hess leaders provided recommendations (good and bad lists) but they were completely ignored. Based on what I’ve seen, I agree with you that selections were made based on cost alone.
I'm in the Bakken & it does seem that a higher number of people were retained relative to other groups (aside from Land, they seem to have been cut heavily). Imo.
It’s clear that the Guyana staff and executives were selected months in advance. I personally know several petrotechs who were moved from Bakken or GOM to Guyana as a way to retain them. As for the rest of us, I don’t believe our profiles were truly reviewed, nor do I think any meaningful feedback was requested from Hess. It seems more likely that AI or an algorithm was used to make decisions based primarily on cost effectiveness.
I agree, based on everything I have seen, the approach seemed to be the following:
- Keep Guyana staff 100% (until they can be replaced by Chevroids).
- Cut everyone else by 90% with the remaining 10% selected randomly (possibly via a number being assigned to each employee and a random number generator making the picks)