Everyone can agree we have WAYYY to many PSG 26-27 directors and advisors with no direct reports and extremely fuzzy matrix-style duties. Most can not show they added any business value in any given year but that they gave their two cents on some very successful results achieved by BU work teams. These people really need to go as they typically simply get in the way and actually diminish value rather than adding it. Many are defrocked managers who can no longer deliver technical work so they are placed in this purgatory. Reservoir Management directors are a typical example. List your others.
11 replies (most recent on top)
During Transformation, they targeted 20-25 PSGs over 50. The 26+ ranges rewarded themselves with big fat raises. Don’t expect this one to be any different.
Disagree with one of the comments whining about age and how these old timers' experience is needed so they should somehow be retained just to sit around and talk to (waste time of) folks in the corridors. Asinine take and what a lame selfish excuse! I actually personally know an older employee that worked almost 30 years as a tech contributor and retired during one of the recent transformations! That is the kind of older folk we need, not the garbage that cling on forever adding zero value.
I think you meant PSG26-29, mate. There are hordes of zombies at this level who had zero value. They are like barnacles attached to the side of the leadership ladder, with no organization below them. You could probably add in lots of people with the word "Reserves" in their job title as most of these, even in the BU, are not adding value but just process watchdogs for a runaway process. Search for "Exxonmobil reserves" in Linkedin profiles. Zero hits. Same for Chevron, over 2000 hits.
Apparently chevron offered the Syrian rebels some advisors and the response was we have suffered enough.
Here’s my wish list, as unpopular at it may sound:
Global Advisors add very little to no value. They exist for the sole purpose of centralizing for the sake of centralizing without knowing why they need to centralize.GAs are lucky cause they can spin a good tale and management is so disconnected from the work they don’t know any better.
Product Line Managers entire job is post silly gifs in the time wasting meetings. They don’t know the work but try to give guidance and push their authority that amounts to nothing and waste even more time.
Anyone with the “advisor” in their title, digital advisor and such. What a sweet cushy job.
I would increase the individual contributors and give them a direct pipeline to the work and user and have the scrum master simply fill more of a coordinator role, by schedule meetings and such. I dare say even get rid of most of the Agile roles.
Anyway, this won’t happen, the name of the game is standardization, and Chevron has too many people in key roles that needs useless roles to exist.
I’ve noticed that many managers at the PSG 25 and above seem to lack the skills necessary to lead their teams effectively. They fail to bring out the best in their groups, often wasting time with aimless actions. It’s unclear whether this is due to intentional inefficiency or sheer incompetence. Eliminating these underperformers could save Chevron significant time and resources.
There's so much hatred here for obvious reasons. Chevron in general tries to take care of people who stayed and worked hard. One day, if you stay with the company long enough you would like to be treated as such. As you get older, specially, in Petroleum fields, your ability to contribute hands on technical work diminishes, due to age, new workforce talent, and change of technology and pace of change, still,you might have a lot of experience on dealing with change, navigating through processes, knowing people or teams who can deliver, etc, that is why you ha e those roles, obviously some are kept after transformation because other jobs were eliminated and the expectation was to move those folks in few years to new roles or they would retire.
If these leaders are so smart and qualified, why do they need more than 1 advisor? I'm sure if you did some type of benchmarking you'd find we're the only ones doing that silly stuff.
How many chevron leaders does it take to change a light bulb? None, they're all in a meeting trying to work out why every CES survey result is awful.
Gravity does not exist in ABU SCM.
Absolutely. Waayyy too many of them. Heck even take a look at many newly minted Fellows. Such bogus cr-p. All they do is blow hot fckn air.