Thread regarding ConocoPhillips layoffs

If ratings are based on a calendar year, then we should be setting goals in Q4 for the next year so we are ready. Performance should be reviewed in January based on the actual 12 months of the previous year. The "how" should be dealt with throughout the year in the form of coaching, discipline (up to termination) and should reflect on the individual, their supervisor and the manager. The "what or so what" should form the bulk of the appraisal rating. Finally, an independent committee could review rating across supervisor groups and BUs to ensure consistency of approach and fairness. There should be no surprises. We invoke the term process very frequently and then apply the rules to fit whatever narrative we are chasing.

Early in my career, we conducted independent post audits of every new well and recompletion for three years after the well came online. We had an independent experienced corporate reserves group with respected experts to review all our determinations. Most importantly, these processes held management accountable and revealed what was profitable and what wasn’t. We didn’t make acquisitions and then write down $30 billion in losses with no repercussions. We didn’t pass on promising disposition offers just to eke out a few more years of living in Colorado (Niobrara) and then sell for pennies on the dollar with no repercussions. Don’t look, don’t tell, don’t question. No future.

The answer here will never be done: audits of projects and promises. Subsurface especially I’m talking to you.

It’s easy.
If you’re a “team player” and kiss up nonstop to your boss, you’re golden. Read: high-pot.
If not, you’re just one of the cogs in the machine. Interchangeable and disposable.
SPIRIT values!

It’s important to be clear that performance reviews and ratings are two very separate activities. Reviews (in theory) are things an employee or manager have substantial ability to influence, and even stretch goals can be met through effort and creativity. But ratings are designed to be a) zero sum and b) competitive. I used to tell people who reported to me that they could meet goals but that ratings depended on how their performance would be assessed against others in different teams.

In practice, this often meant that “bubble” employees (those on the boundary of 1/2 or 2/3 ratings) were at the mercy of the weakest negotiator in a chain of managers. Failing to understand that calibration was a negotiation, not some objective data driven technocratic exercise, has likely meant that those with naive or underprepared managers have lost out over the years.

Is this fair? No, but life isn’t fair. It was run up the ladder several times during my time at COP, and each time the CEO said “not changing it.” Every manager is incentivized to bring home more bacon for their own team. Some bosses of bosses do a good job of seeing their reports play fairly with others, and some don’t. That’s how the game gets played.

Not sure how far that answered OP’s questions. In my view there are better ways to manage and incentivize staff, but I don’t see the current structure changing soon.