Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

There will usually be a reviewer of a much higher CL around, that usually won't change the situation. In the end all will flock to support friends or foes.

Your first responder has a good summary of the actual cut meeting process.

But I have to question the so-called basis of the 70% and the 'qualitative' element.
Long-Term? ExxonMobil doesn't think that way.
Values? ExxonMobil doesn't have them. Money, maybe, but that's questionable too.

@wns+1a6pMZh8 A lot of truth to it.. I have sat in the session.. and your supervisor have to be very prepared to bring threats down. Many times we have spoken/ aligned before the session and already know how to tackle the performance assessment.. it’s a team work..

Friends goes up and foes / threats are torn up. Not about how they contributed to the bottomline, as we can always brush it off by saying it is base workload..

Singapore employees are too expensive, Vietnam is cheaper now. Same for India and China.

Yes, can't agree more. I was in the ranking session last year, HR had to orientate us and before you know, everyone seems to have the same target few in mind to go top or bottom. Favourites go up, nobody's kids go down. Make sure you go in and put your team as the top 10% or best of the best, you will suffer if you don't. It was tense, and honestly unfair due to biasness and knowing the consequence if you try to tarnish a favourite, or defending an underdog.

As per @yzj+18fGgWaX, here is now it is done:

'Immediate boss has some input, and then everything is bounced 2-3 levels up the line for final decisions. Sponsors rescue their favorites, managers talk about old baggage for people that is totally unrelated to recent contributions in order to provide some reason to throw them to the bottom, etc. Few in the room know you unless you have been around a while with some exposure to senior management. Often one negative comment from anyone sinks you unless someone else speaks up to save you, which seldom happens. Disagreements are worked out on the sidelines. Usually involves I'll support X if you will support Y, and then I am ok with cutting Z. Fill the buckets and they get lunch.

Then HR and Legal run the disparate impact analyses and recommend necessary adjustments to get everything bullet proof in terms of diversity, discrimination, etc. A few tweaks are made and it's done.

Everyone has plausible deniability if they all keep quiet, which they do. You might be surprised at who screw*ed you. May be someone getting back at you for something that happened ages ago, not necessarily anyone in your direct line of reporting.

That's how EM bakes the cake. '