Anyone else agree that a huge flaw in identification of leaders is the lack of “on ramps” to the HiPo track after the first couple of years? Seems to me that if you aren’t identified as HiPo in the first couple of years you should quit and try elsewhere.
28 replies (most recent on top)
Many highly ranked CL29 earn More than poorly ranked executives. Being a bottom quintile exec is not good for your career. Many poorly ranked CL 30/31 were laid off.
The hi–po “grooming” I’ve seen in many cases in EMIT are perfect examples of Sunk Cost Fallacy.
The companies primary concern is having an adequate supply of qualified people to lead the company in the future. Because the journey to top management takes decades, the HiPo entry point has to be with young early career people. It is a pyramid system, many are selected but only a few make it to the top. Most HiPo careers stall out somewhere along the way filling the ranks of supervisors or lower management. There is the occasional late bloomer that is fast tracked, but for everyone else if they become a star later in their career they will not get promoted because they will certainly not make upper management so the investment in grooming them would be a waste.
I was never a HiPo but hung out with some in the early 2010’s. Long story short result was attending my first party where people were doing co––––e and had to pick up one of the HiPos after he crashed his truck in the way home. Crazy times. After that I decided maybe it was better to stay with my own kind.
Seems to me if anyone was given the opportunities, training, and attention that HiPos are they would do just as well as the HiPos. Are leaders born or made?
Has anyone ever stopped to question if having people move every year and pass through so many roles is really the best way to make a leader?
@dbp
Unfortunately, I’m not sure how they will be treating people going forward that were already labeled hipo or non–hipo. I just know they changed the system this year and decided that they would no longer be assigning exec or non exec potential until the 5th year mark. In my opinion, I would think that means if it’s your 5th year and they seem that your highest potential is a 29 at that point in time, it’s going to be very difficult to ever end up in CL 30+.
I am going to call BS on the myth that HiPos work more than others. Nothing more than a lie to make people feel better about not being a HiPo.
ID: @dbp+1aw3wbrr Unfortunately, that is the expectation of management from employees. They like to blame the employees for everything, and demand apologies. My supervisor had also made very biased comments against me, and I could apologize or be fired immediately. I spent the next six months looking for jobs and left, but they stopped doing HR exit interviews and I don’t think they cared about the feedback I provided about the supervisor’s bias.
You are NOT a HiPo unless you are willing to work 65–75 hour weeks for 40 years. Sorry but most top executives do not have a balanced work life. If you want a family life, with 40 hour weeks you need to be SUPER EFFICIENT, and WILLING TO SAY NO TO TRAVEL and international assignments. Unfortunately, once you say no. The first time you say NO, you are no longer a HIPO, when there are long lists of others who will say yes to heavy work loads.
Read about XOM ranking themes on Glassdoor.com
CONS
"Outmoded, Subjective Ranking System" (in 263 reviews)
"Work life balance, highly competitive" (in 193 reviews)
"Long hours, most projects require a lot of travel, ranking system" (in 99 reviews)
"Forced ranking rewards politics and visibility; no apparent concern from management on long term sustainability" (in 80 reviews)
"Deadlines don't move, Continuously evolving work environment every year" (in 54 reviews)
Great story. Thanks for sharing and congratulations.
Would you be willing to share your skill set (engineering, IT, project management, etc) and industry or company you moved to?
A lot of being identified as a HiPo is right place right time du–b luck.
Ultimate potential and ranking are different. HiPos can stay HiPos even if their year to year ranking goes up or down. Just because you are ranked high one year doesn’t mean you are a HiPo. Supervisors don’t even get to set ultimate potential. It is done by a good old boys club of high level managers and executives. Ever been told you need a sponsor? This is why.
@ysw+1aw3wbrr
If that is true, what does that mean for people already walking around with their labels? ...or experienced hires? And ge–z, why is this not shared with employees. All they hear is horror stories but not about changes.
@org+1aw3wbrr
Not just 22yr old maturity...what about those supervisors with track records of biases? My first supervisor seems to have had a wake of mis–assessed employees behind him. Occasionally, I bump into others who reported to him early in their career. After 2–3 stories almost identical to mine, all in relation to with a specific group of diversity employees, I realized it wasn’t a coincidence. Oddly, I felt mildly better at that realization; as I had internalized some very toxic conversations he had with me as ‘throwing me under the bus.’ And here comes the maturity part maybe...I didn’t know that I should have stood up for myself and called him out on his bad behavior. Instead, I...you guessed it....apologized to him and said I would be a better employee in the future.
@req+1aw3wbrr leaving a person on the hipo track was a product of the old ranking system, where a person’s RGP was “sticky”. That’s one possible upside to the new system, that a “top 10” person that’s actually awful could be knocked down multiple pegs (I’ve heard of this happening, though it’s extremely rare and usually the offender has to really make someone important mad).
@qcw+1aw3wbrr
That is a brilliant post, but I do have one disagreement. I think they are more prone to leaving a person that is not very good on the hipo track because removing them would reflect badly on the “backer’s” decision making.
I have seen two hipos promoted in the uncon department that are not fit to be in the company period. When you promote high profile people that have unbelievably negative opinions of them from the masses (everyone I know thinks they are both id--ts), it just demoralizes the population further.
I’d also add that there is a very high up upstream executive so unqualified for their position they did not know the difference between earnings and cash flow (argued with someone I know during a presentation), requiring remedial financial tutoring. How does that happen?
could not agree more –– had my career destroyed before it started because my first year out of college my BTC based supervisor (whom I never met) decided i was bottom third. Admittedly I had a learning curve, as I had a lot to learn and mature about at 22... left the company a while ago and am now thriving (for much more $$$$ than i would have ever made at XOM, left the company at $82k now am at $250k).
Moral of the story – people grow and can become high performers in their mid to late 20's and the concept of your first rank at 22/23 dictating the rest of your career is... absurd.
Second moral of the story – xom isn't worth trying to force a culture fit, either you really buy into it and enjoy it, or you're forever going to be bashing your head against the wall.
New potential identification system starting this year: you are now identified as either exec potential (CL 34) or non exec (CL 29) at your 5 year mark with the company.
@cpj+1aw3wbrr that depends on your definition of “doomed”, as well as location and business line. EMIT in the US, for example, has the most 28–29 positions compared to other countries, but they are a very small subset of roles vs. the number of people with a P–T 29. This means the vast majority of P–T 29 people never reach their max potential and instead cap out at 26 or if they’re fortunate, 27. You can still make quite a good living at a 26 or 27 in a relatively “easy” position, all else considered.
OP: On the contrary, if one is selected as a HiPo by the ExxonMobil culture, they should feel doomed. EM produces worst managers. There are only two hippo (pun intended) scenario:
(i) One is a pathetic human being to be selected for yes man characteristics that EM leadership looks, and
(ii) If someone is really talented, this is the worst company to work for top intellects. the company will turn you into an arrogant, spiteful zombie.
My ultimate potential is CL 29. I have 10 years with company as an experienced hire. I know I am not seen as HiPo but am I doomed?
I may print your post out and frame it for my home office lol. Do you think it would be legible in zoom if it is in my wall?
I am sure they do feel good because it is the system that picked them and enriched them.
Nothing more common than a HiPo who thinks they walk on water and treats any they think is not their equal like trash. It’s called managing up in ExxonMobil speak. Basically they only care about treating those who can advance their career well and step all over everyone else. A bunch of self entitled as-----s who think they are gods gift to the world when in reality they are id--ts who got lucky at age 22.
Obviously there are exceptions but the system seems to actually encourage HiPos to turn into as-----s if they weren’t an as----e to start with.
The HiPo system is probably the biggest glaring example of the myth of meritocracy that is our ranking system
I hope Darren and our board feels good thinking they can pick the next CEO at 23 yrs old, one year out of school, with no relevant work experience...because that is what the hi–po system is trying to do. It’s absolutely absurd. AND amazing employees don’t make that first cut because they are too fill in the blank that first year. Too quiet, too different, too willing to voice their ideas, too little charisma, too enthusiastic about a culture that is different from old–school ExxonMobil? Or maybe their first boss just didn’t like them...because hey....every SLS/manager out there is an unbiased expert at judging potential, right? It’s really sad.
To the experienced hire: All the lifers hate the hi-po system to. Luckily it is only 1-2% of employees. ...but yes, someone likes them first year on the job, and they get fast-tracked for about 10 years. They can do no wrong, and are moved so fast that their bad decisions cannot catch up with them. Some are good, some are id--ts. I do see the id--ts get weeded out, but only after they are too high in the management system and then create a career of lasting damage as one of our stellar middle managers.
This is a problem of our own making. We have such a hierarchal structure with so many ‘check the box’ positions, that the only way anyone gets to the upper level of the company is to be fast-tracked for 10 years. A more smart approach would be a flatter organization, longer duration in a role with larger promotions, and success measured by different metrics. (Stick out your changes and see if they actually improve the organization.)
Yes, absolutely. The inability to have a career track if you are an experienced hire or not identified as Hi–Po you are constantly looking elsewhere for any career growth. This boggles me because for such a large corporation that touts endless opportunities and role selection, there really is nothing to grow into. For the trolls that will respond to me with a "you're bottom 8%, blah blah you should be pipd blah blah" go F yourselves because i am ONLY talking about highly ranked and high performing employees