So did everyone get the message that forced ranking will apply, meaning if you’re in a team of stellar performers, someone will still end up in one the bad categories. Way to motivate the workforce! Of course this is all to get those who are bottom ranked to either quit in frustration or be PIPed out. What a cluster this company has become.
14 replies (most recent on top)
@jk
I have never met her (RB) and if I saw her in the hallway I would not recognize her, but everyone I talk to says the same thing about her. Whew!
@ja I got plenty of recognition for the work I did from several different business leaders. Part of that is I wouldn’t ask for permission, I’d just do it and make sure I did it well so that the business would back me when some process pusher tried to get me in trouble.
Deliver value to the people who matter, and then let your manager share in some of the recognition. You look good, they look good. But it requires some ba--s and some initiative, not sitting around waiting on your hands for someone to come tell you what to do.
I wasn’t a pet - some of the managers who gave me a 2+ would have loved to give me a 2-, but in the calibration meetings I knew I had other leaders I’d delivered value to who would stick up for me.
I do feel bad for folks not in the main locations. It’s tougher out there for sure and the need to make contributions visible is even higher when you’re remote
In IT, ask RB. If she not fu--ing someone over. She’s fu--ing them.
@e8
“Time yo grow up” that’s a good one. You must be the “chosen one” if have never received lower than a 2+.
I am happy for you but that is not the way it is for many people. I was in a product line years ago and the people who were located in Houston and San Ramon would always get the 2+ and above rankings and the field engineers located in the BU’s would get the the 2- rankings to counter balance the curve. Many of those people in the field deserved better but didn’t get the opportunity. I believe your explanation but open your awareness and believe mine.
@ar the people who make this claim are 80% of the time lazy or just bad at their job. I’ve been here almost 20 years and worked for a dozen different managers at all levels. Some were great some were horrible. But I never got lower than a 2+ and always at least one EE even from the bad managers that I didn’t get along with very well.
Yes there are manager pets but if you’re good at your job you’ll get ranked just fine because everyone else knows you’re good too and your manager can’t expose their favoritism by ranking you lower. The key is providing value to the business and people who can speak to how good you are, not just hiding and hoping your manager gives you good rankings. Time to grow up
@ar could not agree more with your thoughts on our managers behaviour. The point you miss is there are way too many managers.
A 50% reduction in "managers " would improve moral and productivity
I didn't get the message. Maybe that in itself is a sign.
how to let your entire workforce know that you're completely out of ideas, without telling them that you're completely out of ideas.
So, who will MW be stack tanked against? Hopefully his peers at just about every other fortune 50 company.
But MW said there will be no forced rankings in the SETH. Used those exact words. What a smarmy gollum that guy is.
@aa
You are out of touch with reality. There are too many managers at Chevron that protect their pets and if at lest one person in the team needs to be ranked lower, it will definitely not be their friends. This type of forced ranking destroys morale and works against team productivity. I heard recently that everyone on the team needs to create an “AI” improvement, yet the younger people that are good at programming do not have the experience to come up with ideas to automate and the older workers that have the ideas to automate do not have the experience in “ AI” to independently automate something.
So the pets will be protected and the people the managers don’t like will be scape goats and they will be terminated.
There’s no such thing as an entire team of high performers at Chevron. And if there were they would be offset by multiple teams full of low to mid performers to keep the ranking balanced.
People freaking out over this are the ones who know they’re in trouble because they su-k at their job.
Every single person in O&g leadership at the majors is out of touch w reality. They continue to rely on dinosaur era ratings to motivate staff when anybody w a sense of reality knows that these systems discourage collaboration and in turn hurt the company because the culture promotes touting one’s own work over making the company successful.
Years ago at Exxon everyone locked their office door if they stepped out because competitive team mates were known to destroy work products right before an important meeting, review, etc. Dog Eat Dog!
I think this method has proven to destroy team cohesion, because people try to sabotage their team mates by gatekeeping or by other means so as to make sure they come to the top of the sort.
Yet another corporate management trend alongside offshoring to completely tank morale.