Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

For context, I started in 1978 and left just before "Mobil". I retired from another company in early 2019 in what was the equivalent of CL-29 in Exxon. I left Exxon for personal reasons, not related to assignments, or people who I was working with. I worked in EUSA, Imperial in Canada, and EEC. I enjoyed all of my assignments, especially EEC. I felt we had good leadership. Others on here might remember different, fair enough.

JT was a tough s-b but he was very clear in expectations. When Dallas wanted to get out of GOM Deepwater, MJ provided funding for a jo--t EEC/EPR DWRS (actually 2) which was the springboard for getting into DW west Africa (which Chevron wanted no part of). My team leader was great, all that way up. KB, MF, AR, MJ. One could follow these people and they genuinely wanted to hear from us. I presented directly to AR in Australia and the approval was given to drill for oil at Turrum.

I disagree that the 80s were different that the 90s. The 70s to 1985 were different than 1986+. I was in production in 1985 out in a District (that existed in EUSA back then; they were eliminated after 1986) ) and that event essentially passed me by. When EEC was formed I put my hand up. Remember, the oil price during 1998 was the equivalent of $11 today, and yet "we" made it work. Technology drove everything, and I felt the EEC Planning group was well run by GB, and he could always clearly explain why we were in certain parts of the world, and no others, and they had a very long term view of asset development. I can remember one time talking about Scarborough and GB said, yeah, current first gas if 2025!.

While oil prices were lower than in 1986, I viewed there was good focus on key metrics to continue to add resource and reserves. Actually, there is a study done by Exxon, that Longwell presented about 2002, clearly showing that large oil discoveries correlate with technology & access and not oil price.

One observation I will share is that initially in my career, I though Exxon moved people to a team leader position when they were still too inexperienced. However, I did observe that if that individual did not work out in the role, they moved them back to the technical CL. I was never a TL, never wanted to be one. I received many more, and more cool, assignments by being a technical specialist.

One last comment. After the verdict of the first OJ trial, FZ invited the team out for lunch at TGIF at Greenspoint. He made the comment "I haven't been in here since the verdict of the OJ trial". We went around the table telling where we were at that time. I was last and said "I was sitting on a beach in Rio", everyone laughed, and then FZ says "no, it's true that's were he was - working!"

I don't know Exxon after "Mobile", but prior, Exxon was an important part of my career and am still happy to have been there at that time.

@1jlm Reminds me of in the late 90s when the EEPUK MD (BM) made a policy that forbid anyone from going to the pub at lunch. GC was hilarious when he said, "that's her policy and not mine".

I left Exxon just before Mobil for personal reasons, not related to job satisfaction at all. The decade when Girassol-1 came in. I remember the day after and KS explained how the shale velocity estimates were off and therefor significantly much more oil than expected.

I don't remember the "more drinking" but I do remember exceptionally close teamwork.

We’re actually a technology company with a bright future.

It was bad everywhere from 1984-1989. 1986 was a triple crash for upstream, downstream and chemicals. In 1990 the job market picked up with consumption growth and if u had survived you had a job. XOM always had the best benefits.

The industry has always been tough and had bumps and bruises until 2004. We had a strong decade and everyone forgot we are in a commodity business and we got bloated.

Our competitors are more efficient and more importantly they actually fire poorly performing managers. This time around for downstream at least we are on a demand decline curve that will force draconian changes.

Part of our current challenge is we do to much unneeded work, study internal nonsense and have to much staff as a result. We are so risk averse that we lost our shirt for decades in trading and did not make the right strategic investments when we had money.

Think of us a US steel in 1970 or IBM in 1990. We will be here in 20 years but very irrelevant. There is no pivot we can make we are heading to the “reef” and will shipwreck there. We will be a future Harvard business school case.

In 1-2 years they may be a period of calm sort of a “dead cat bounce” before we collapse under our own weight.

In the 80’s there was a lot more drinking. There was this one VP’s kid who used to always have a little too much during “business” lunches and then take a little snooze in his office.

Two very big differences between 90s and now. One is that the upstream still had assets that produced high volumes at relatively low costs in part thanks to new research developments like 3-D seismic and Seq. Strat and two even during the really bad price dips (<99 cents kcf for natty gas and $8 bbq oil) our 401 k match, educational reimbursement and 3:1 donation match were not dropped. I find these 2 differences are big clues to the state of the company today vs. late 80s and 90s.

You are talking about 2 very distinct decades here. Very distinct.

• The Eighties - the CEOs were pretty grizzled, But they understood - the skinny ties are back in. Smart old dude ranch dudes. They knew you never throw away and old tie. So they just went to the closet (not that kind) and grabbed some sleek real Thai silk ties from the 50's and put them on. Bolos were acceptable, too, in the Eighties.
• The Nineties - completely different make-up. As a matter of fact, the first decade where the CEOs wore make-up. Just a blushing up and highlights in the hair. On the tie front - they were wide and subtly colorful. Count Mara, Countess Mara? Those were very popular in all corporate areas, but especially O&G. Wide as a pizza slice.

Hope that helps, Opie.

Sounds like the typical brainwashed xom employee. We are the best of the best. Are you kidding me?

For those who stayed through the 80’s and 90’s why did you stay? Do you regret it? My biggest fear is making it to late 40’s or early 50’s and losing job then as I’ve seen this happen to a large number of people I respected.

Between 1986 and 2004, salary increases were horrible and promotions were infrequent. CL28 was very hard to get to and took VP approval. After 1986 layoff, 1% raises were common, in a 3 % inflation environment. But we still were overpaid relative to other companies. When Bo-m came (2004+), attrition was very high and XOM had to respond with big pay increases to slow attrition. We lost many good people to other IOCs and independents. In 1980s and 1990s, that was rare, we lost people to independents, not majors. This next cycle will look the same as 1990 to 2008. Those who survive will be the best in the oil industry and majors and independents will come looking for talent in XOM.

@ibt+1bIjvVYU
We turned in our “Dream Sheet” annually. Handwritten.
1) What have you achieved this year?
2) What are your strong skills?
3) What do you feel needs improvement?
4) What are your goals, future positions?
5) Are you willing to move domestically? International?
All this completed simply in an hour or two.

FLS review. His personal review, unseen by us, had little to do with the Dream Sheet, of course. Reviewed by ranking committee of FLS’s and SLS.
Ranking on bell curve. Now strong and supportive FLS’s got their team higher on curve than weaker personality FLS’s.
Results given to us.
Promotions offered based on ranking and willingness to relocate and goals.

Mistrust in ranking sessions was strong, but the whole process was easy and much better than today’s.

Thanks for that history! Was there such distrust in management back in that era? Was there actual integrity and honesty in the performance system back then?

The only difference is there was no social media like this.
We complained to trusted colleagues who felt the same, as there was no anonymity such as this board.
Think if we started posting our real name to our comments on this board.

Things started getting going downhill around 82, hiring and spending cut backs, and several small layoffs with the big layoff in 1986, up to 60% in some division and district offices. Good thing was that they did it mostly that one day, not as an ongoing dribble of layoffs. After that if you were still standing your job was safe. Morale was low for years and the company didn't seem to be aware of it. Raises were far between and small. In early 90s there was a small bo-m of sorts and there was a big exodus lots of folks going to better jobs. Salary treatment ramped up and the company started having lots of townhalls and meetings to try to address the morale. Late 90s were good times. Anything else you want to know?