Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

OP, you are not competing because ranking at EM isn’t a competition. Depending on being sponsored or just liked, you are given a more or less plum assignment (more or less “impact”). Your ranking is based on this impact, in other words you’re ranked based on the nature of the assignment you’ve been able to secure.

You are competing against a rigged system.

The written ranking rules describe a somewhat fair system.

The ranking process is not administered in a fair way.

Politics, favoritism, revenge, bias, discrimination, reverse discrimination, nepotism, and extreme sponsorship of chosen HiPos add up to a rigged system.

Good Luck

This is an old story. Without the politics you maybe you can do a few things but the sups and managers here only manage some of their people. Next your ranking group is not even close to the same in role and expectations, if there are expectations. Like our country, I just see alot of chaos and division. Then that select few take advantage .

It is true that the list is manipulated after the rank meetings.

I had multiple of my reports in a proper order at the closure of the rank meeting, then when the results showed up in their profiles for me to communicate, they were in a different order. Mare specifically they were in the wrong order based on performance, but they must have been in the correct order based on politics.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our Senior Management plainly admitted that the system is rigged instead of all the blatant lies.

The “fixes” that managers and executives do to the ranking are so rampant that even the executives do not realize how much the rank is rigged.

All the pre- rigging is done by phone calls, nothing in writing. Each input is pre filtered and manipulated by the manager before submitted.

Then in ranking meetings, Senior Management make certain statements about individuals that let all attendees know if it is career su----e to show support or not show support for certain individuals.

Then HR has its turn with the list and moves minorities significantly up the list to meet unrealistic targets of minority distribution.

Then Senior Executives have their turn for final behind the scenes movement of HiPos.

All these manipulations are why the communications are months after the rank sessions.

If the system was not rigged, we could all be told or ranking the week after rank sessions.

Sponsorship choices from above seem a mystery sometimes.

I have seen some good choices in young employees to accelerate upwards and I have seen outright mistaken choices of incapable arrogant id--ts.

I do know that official sponsorship is very systematic and documented with an approved map showing next few planned assignments and CL level chart to show the plan to move the chosen individual through multiple learning /management assignments while increasing the CL level at a remarkable pace, sometimes increasing 1 CL level every year.

Getting on that HiPo track is like winning the lottery. No real effort required after chosen, just avoid all risk and claim the accomplishments of the group you are managing that year.

What do you mean "chosen/have sponsorship."
I am rather new with XOM. How do you get sponsorship?

I was told outright that I was the best performer in my group, but certain chosen people had to be placed above me for political reasons.

I transferred out of that group and onto an overseas project because of that.

Project executive placed me on the project list as 1 of 15. He received a phone call from a VP instructing him to resubmit the list with my name at number 8 on the list.

You are competing with a politically flawed system, unless you have sponsorship.

Another data point, I know a manager that submitted his rank list in the correct order based strictly on performance. He received a very threatening phone call instructing him to resubmit the list with the 2 females in his group as first and second.

Most attendees of ranking meetings are not aware of the manipulation of all the input prior to the meeting. Ignorant attendees actually believe that the people submitted at the top of each list is authentically the top performer.

Dream on.

“Who am I competing against?”

You’re competing against a set of rules. It’s more a matter of “what” than it is a matter of “who”.

Supervisor here- if you are told you are really doing a great job and it’s just “the system” where you are grouped with higher CL’s … you have a sh---y supervisor. That’s a cop-out, and either you weren’t competitive because s/he didn’t give you the right opportunities and representation to be competitive (and doesn’t have the ba--s to admit it), or you’re not that great and your supervisor wants to avoid the conflict and have a real conversation. I’ve been in many assessments and we actively accounted for CL levels when assessing relative performance.

Not healthy is a good summary.
Probably EM has just given up on corporate capitalism.
You can be part of that - or not.

If you want to spend your career fretting over who you are competing against instead of thinking about how to improve to help the team then this is the place for you.

I’ve with for and with other companies and this by far the most toxic and asinine system I’ve ever seen. This type of competition is not healthy.

You’re competing against a spreadsheet analogue.

You are likely competing against a few people that have been chosen/have sponsorship.

Those chosen ones have the top quintile reserved just for them. No matter if they achieve nothing, no matter if they have no clue about what their group does, no matter if their group would be better off without them, they will get the top slots.

I am competing against my Supervisor so my Supervisor does not attend the ranking session that I am ranked in. A person that I have never met will represent me in the ranking competition with my Supervisor.

The system promote a poisonous work environment not conducive to teamwork and cooperation.

want to know how to beat the ranking system? leave it

It’s the first thing.

Yes, multiple CLs are grouped into the same assessments groups. Consideration is SUPPOSED to be given to performance relative to CL level expectations. I've been in ranking and assessment meetings for nearly thirty years -- some good, some not so good. I can honestly say that, despite the cynical bitterness on this forum, most managers really try to do as fair a job as they can with a sh---y system. It can be an emotionally draining experience. Also, I can honestly say that in all those rank/assessment meeting I never ONCE heard anyone's salary discussed. Not even once. It is a non-factor when comparing relative performance. Experience and CL? Absolutely. Salary? Nope.

You compete against me. I always win.

Yes - multiple CLs are grouped, especially "within organizations", for review sessions.
There are numerous guidance settings for size of groups and breadth of CLs.
It's all a scripted numbers game.
Ultimately, salary and age are considered also, but not a documented setting.
It's not rocket AI.

Hope that helps.