As most know, XOM is very, very top heavy relative to peers. Been hearing of some work targeting execs and middle level management. Any truth to this?
The company is tight in so many places and another 8% of worker level does not seem responsible.
19 replies (most recent on top)
F&L merging with Chemicals is definitely going to happen.
I deal with both and am shocked that every location has not already merged their management. Stupid to have 2 of every management position, separate SAP systems, different policies, different procedures.
Long overdue.
The working level people should be safe because due to December 20 layoffs, PIPs and attrition, they are operating lean.
@1xgt+1dJvGhF7 F&L and Chemicals merging? How likely is that?
Please start in Annandale R&D operations way fat, total Cluster.
I am assuming we can hire 2 or more hotshots for the price of 1 manager. Sounds like a deal to me.
If they are going to do it. They need to start with Permian. One is operation, Two Facilities, then three, the rest.
Sounds too good to be true, so I assume this is false. What would we do without managers managing other managers? ;-/
@OP One can only hope.
EM, along with every company in the industry of any size, has a bloated, unproductive, and expensive corps of middle managers, most of whom do little aside from calling virtual meetings and generating Power Point presentations containing corporate buzzwords and meaningless graphical data.
If there’s any justice in this world, the aforementioned parasites will end up managing gas stations and chain restaurants along the I-45 corridor. “Tossing salads” at the local Olive Garden seems like a suitable task for most of them.
All chiefs and no Indians. Extremely top heavy and inefficient organizational structure
@ OP:
That was supposedly the main goal for the lay offs in Europe: dalayering, cutting out middle management and execs. Guess who got laid off and guess who is still thriving, now more than ever...
I'm from Singapore and the ratio of managers and supervisors to MPT individual contributors is like 1:2 here. It's ridiculous.
In the past with h-Exxon during the frequent downsizing of the upstream in the 1990s,
management/supervisor were redeployed as technical contributors and the real technical people were laid off.
Watch carefully for the language: there will be consolidation of management / supervisory positions. This means that there will be fewer such positions (but don’t expect miracles). But these does not mean that they will fire the redundant. Most will be given pseudo technical / pseudo contributor jobs (the ones that go to meetings and assign work to others). And, if there are resulting reductions, they will come of the actual contributors because all managers below CL 30 are ranked higher than the rest.
I heard the other day from my DH that the F&L and Chem merger will likely result in "refining resources rationalization"- which you could assume would include redundant management.
“ another 8% of worker level does not seem responsible”
Yes, absolutely agree, but how many things EM has done in the last years are or at least seem responsible.
Bottom line: as said in other posts, “reductions” at managerial level mean those clueless people being moved in technical positions - you’ve got to love the idea of excluding them from the PIPs!
Any actual reduction will come always and only from non-HiPos.
There is so much fat at the middle management and exec level at XOM, it’s ridiculous. But they will keep riding the gravy train till the company goes belly up. In the meanwhile, they will keep sacrificing 8% of the worker bees.
WeAreExxonMobil
I heard from a reliable source (L3 manager who didn’t like this idea) that EMIT has considered temporarily scrapping some of the management positions and forcing people to go back to being technical for a bit. It’s not for sure happening, it was just an idea thrown out and discussed by some L3 and higher. With that came the possibility of excluding them from PIP for a year, depending on how technical the role was and how lining it had been since they had been a technical person.
Of course, the simpler solution would be to have increased pay at the GBCs a lot and let the US attrition ride, but the business never lets us pick the simple and smart solution.
Why does the “Global” Marketing Manager manage 3 more “managers” who in turn manage 0 to 3 people each? The only people doing work are the 3 people at the bottom. The two layers up just go to meetings.
Yes. No CCP vaccine and you are gone.
God I hope this is true. Why does my DH need to manage two SLS