Did it ever happen? Or was it always that those of us who do the work get shown the door and those who do nothing but order us around without even knowing what we're doing who survive? Honestly, it makes no sense to me for XOM to have such bloated management.
18 replies (most recent on top)
@3thb … thank you for sharing this info , I spoke with many people in the org and they have heard about this initiative, but no one has heard much how this was so severely dismissed by the ceo and the board. Seems a complete housecleaning is in order … my question is really around if Elon was Darren would the result be better or worse. I think Elon would go thermonuclear…
The CEO and Presidents will always dismiss the brutal truths if they agreed with the internal H/R study.
Image the number of lawsuits by current and former employees if our Board of Directors agrees that there is internal documentation documenting bias and discrimination in our management systems.
I am surprised that these internal studies would be recorded and shared with the Presidents and Directors. Most likely the "recordings" have been deleted using our corporate document retention work process.
There are two types of consultants.
One type of consultant tells senior management what they want to hear so that the consultants are invited back for additional consulting.
The other type of consultant tells senior management *what they need to hear and these consultants are never invited back for additional consulting.
Our senior management has made a XOM career out of hearing "what they want to hear*** only. That is why they were promoted to senior management.
I was told about these brutal truths workshops. Visual answers of folks who almost left or unhappy with the processes. But no one told me what they did with that info. As for myself I am seeing HR trying to level up things but the root issue is not being addressed. So it looks like that’s on purpose.
@3thb … that is crazy if true. I find it hard to believe but not implausible. Wow if true!
The year after Darren took on the CEO position, he and the Board initiated a major study to try to identify the root cause(s) of the broken leadership culture and framework. Over the course of 6 months, a series of 2 day global workshops were held in a dozen locations across the world. The workshop participants were selected from senior technical staff that were deemed as people whom would speak their mind and not sugar coat or filter their opinions. Each workshop was opened up by one of the company presidents, and they stated they all knew the leadership culture had failed and was broken. They then said the workshops would be recorded and reported back to Darren and the Board without filters. Each participant was asked to make a pseudonym and never state their name or workgroup. Each workshop was two days long and was wrapped up with final recommendations that were to be reported back to Darren and the Board. The main findings from the feedback of the ~300 most senior and respected global technical staff (generally cl 28-31) were summaries as the performance assessment system was broken and the compensation system was completely biased such that those whom spoke the truth were designated to lowest rgp and those whom bootlicked were designated to highest rgp. When the results “aka brutal truths” were communicated to Darren and the Board, they said the results were wrong. HR was then told to go back to a small subset of the workshop participants and “test” if the results were accurate or not. The smaller groups then reconfirmed the results were indeed correct, and when the senior HR staff reported back the confirmation of results, the Presidents and Board and Darren decided to dismiss the results and HR was requested to revise the brutal truths to manageable truths. And then state the leadership culture was not broken but needed mild improvement. HR was disgusted by the blatant dismissal of the truths spoken by the most senior technical staff but could do nothing about it and those in hr whom pushed back were ultimately downgraded and dismissed over the course of two years. The end result that Dallas decided to communicate was the leadership framework just needed minor improvements. They decided the truths and recommendations made by these workshops would not be suitable to implement as it would require reduction of management, overhaul of performance assessment process, and reframing of the compensation system. So with this frame of reference it became clear senior leadership only provides lip service when confronted by reality and takes no action when the answers were provided to fix a broken system.
@1eor: actually its not overheated enough. This place used to be a meritocracy (mostly anyway - nothing is perfect) now its fallen so far down the dei rabbit hole - its doomed. Thats bad for stock holders as well as honest hardworking employees.
There used to be managers in supply chain who only had 1-3 direct reports, or even zero (manager title only). I’m aware of some of these getting collapsed into group lead type roles and everybody reporting directly to the manager. Suffice to say the next group leads will end up being a CL lower than the demoted supervisors.
If you're focused on Diversity by itself you're not seeing the big picture. Sure that's happening, but it seems like once these managers/advisors get anointed they grasp the role with every fiber of their being. It's crazy watching them reinvent the wheel, like starting a new informal workgroup which already exists. Hey how about focusing on developing your direct reports and learning in detail what they do so you can best advocate for them in the rank meeting. That's your job...not looking for your next one. I dare you...
@ggo The rhetoric around DEI is so overheated that it almost has to be read as satire. Are people really this fragile?
Almost nobody who throws around the word “woke” pejoratively knows where it came from or uses it properly. Hint: if the first place you heard it was on cable news, you’re using the word incorrectly.
The Product owner needs to go as well. What I’m finding is everything is a one off, different flavors of accountability for the chain of command. Most of the people I know that have sponsors have brand name on their side. Politics basically. Unless you get lucky with a good super these sponsored guys are getting the moves or proper exposure. HR is trying to shore up some of the financial gaps but they are not resolving the root issue of holding supers accountable to offer the basics to their people. HR and financial audit teams need to kick it into gear next year for us who are staying around and doing things right.
All good positions are controlled by woke HR. Doesn't matter how good you are. Need a sponsor and/or the right DEI category.
Please please please get rid of 2 thirds of the 'advisors'. They are now sticking their noses in to anything and everything to justify their existing. They are making issues out of thin air. It's unbelievably dysfunctional
My organization used to have analysts, supervisors, then managers.
Last year, they removed the supervisor layer, made the analysts “advisors” and kept the managers. Since then, the advisor roles have decreased with no backfills and one of the managers moved with no backfill. A decent amount of the heritage analyst work was moved to Curitiba, which is how the advisors absorbed the supervisor responsibilities.
In Finance at least, there are quite a few less management roles, but the managers are not necessarily cut. They just become high paid advisors.
True that HR has taken away staffing duties from specialty departments and now gives out assignments based on sponsorship instead of qualifications.
Also giving many expatriate positions to BTC staff that are less qualified.
Way over due in Clinton,
Not thinned out, just demoted to n ally no responsibility.
HR has taken full control of all staffing positions and give the best jobs to unqualified sponsored Planning Advisors.
Qualified people PIP’d and unqualified given high risk positions. This trend will be a future root cause that will be covered up quicker that a cat’s po-p.
It’s a structural issue with Exxon. We look like GE 2.0