Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

XOM loves to manufacture reasons for PIPs

Nobody is safe from it. I've learned that the hard way.

by
| 2624 views | | 14 replies (last December 20, 2023) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1ptX1ttz

14 replies (most recent on top)

Or specially if you are a white male in your 40s and started at the firm as a graduate, you think you are invincible. who have never worked anywhere else, make poor decisions day in day out based on their narrow experience and world view thinking they r on the path to become executives…

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Hpdt+1ptX1ttz

So true. I have seen it with the hiring of some of the worst employees. One came in and talked about all they accomplished alone. No team work and he was a complete BSer. We protested and said he would not be a good fit. The manager said shut up we are hiring them and they were the future of exxon. This person was lazy and arrogant. He finally got fired because of conflicts and fights. Another was a woman who was contractor and unstable. She was very angry and lazy. The hiring manager had a hard on for her. During the process several people came forward and told the truth about her. The manager said we will focus on her resume and interviews. She could turn it and him on when she wanted to. When she interviewed it was like she was someone else. She is still here and lazier than ever.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Hfnr+1ptX1ttz

I was in a ranking meeting where a bottom quintile person outperformed a top quintile chosen person.

VP said the bottom person did not really differentiate himself and should remain near bottom.

VP said we failed to provide opportunity for the chosen one such that it was not the chosen one’s fault of low performance due to lack of challenge.

At wrap up of meeting, a high PM retirement eligible decided to spotlight this and compared the two cases. VP said the comparison was not allowed because only allowed to test each person to the one directly above or directly below. Comparing a top quintile to a bottom quintile forbidden.

It was apparent that the fix was in for the sponsored id--t.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @7hys+1ptX1ttz

@OP+1ptX1ttz

The early career "chosen ones" are safe for twenty years. The rest of us are on a "1-year contract" as employees.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3ohs+1ptX1ttz

There is no ranking. It is all for show.

At some point you are marked and you stay there. Once you are past 50 you can only go down, or out. Actual ranking would require real work. How else would you ever end up with do-nothing/highly ranked untouchables and a-s-busting/low ranked high contributors? Anyone, who worked there knows, that the management are mostly useless powerpoint pushers, who compete in who will make a snappier looking diagram, which more than often means nothing at all, while the upper management are busy managing their own portfolios and could not care less.

Why rank people, when is so much easier and faster to lie to them and to extract development opportunities from you-know-where.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3yaf+1ptX1ttz

At least if you decide to take the PIL, you will be getting something versus a forced resignation because you decide not to relocate and the company washes its hands of you.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3mzh+1ptX1ttz

One problem of relative performance is that certain sponsored persons are placed at the top and certain productive subject matter experts are placed at the bottom due to age discrimination.

In the EM culture, the person presenting the PowerPoint on Campus about a projects success is ranked higher that the person working far from home 7 days per week in terrible conditions to ensure success.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3kbs+1ptX1ttz

The distribution of relative performance is easy to understand. Being @zzh0les communicating the results is unprofessional. We are all professional adults here.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3mtt+1ptX1ttz

Setting the % of “Needs Significant Improvement” prior to an assessment is just a layoff target and unrelated to needing improvement.

Almost every reason for giving NSI is fabricated lie to achieve a target %.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2lhz+1ptX1ttz

What did you think would happen? It is a forced distribution. Of course a reason has to be created. The reason is on a relative basis you were seen as the most expendable. It has nothing to do with absolutenperformance. It isn’t that hard of a concept!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1hvu+1ptX1ttz

@nju+1ptX1ttz

Let’s not be s-xist. I’ve seen plenty of that same behavior, in spades, from men. And yet, they continue to be promoted.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @joh+1ptX1ttz

Major players in Clinton, place is a zoo

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rkc+1ptX1ttz

Nitwit Supervisors just follow orders and are learning the protocols, procedures and EM communication. They don't decide or really do anything else.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cnt+1ptX1ttz

Especially if your young female inexperienced Supervisor has an IQ nearly 80 points lower than you and is extremely intimidated by you.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @nju+1ptX1ttz

Post a reply

: