Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

The rules are tweaked just a little each year, but the politics, favoritism, sponsorship, age discrimination, and HR mandated racism seem to remain constant.

@2zml+1hrgjxga - you are correct...ding ding ding...happens to almost all that are >55

@5zim+1hrgjxga = (_o_)

How many EM employees as of 01 July 2022?

Attrition and Retirements have been high in past few months but I have not heard totals.

I do know that hiring efforts have been increased to fill the gaps of all those that left recently. The largest batch of New Hires that I have ever seen is now in orientation.

Seems like they must hire a lot more now than in the past because at least 60% will leave within 5 years.

The performance evaluation system will not change until our headcount is less than 50,000 regular employees. We have several more NSI years ahead of us to achieve our headcount goals. The metric and overall objective is to do "More With Less".

Exxon total number of employees in 2021 was 63,000, a 12.5% decline from 2020.
Exxon total number of employees in 2020 was 72,000, a 3.87% decline from 2019.
Exxon total number of employees in 2019 was 74,900, a 5.49% increase from 2018.
Exxon total number of employees in 2018 was 71,000, a 2.01% increase from 2017.

3 competing forces in ranking.

Perform well (or badly) and your Supervisor has some force to move you within limits, with the consensus of the other attendees.

After the ranking meetings, Management then move certain chosen sponsored people (or certain people deemed disruptive) without even informing the Supervisor. Protect the chosen and tank anyone out of favor with an Exec.

HR then moves people around by race, with zero concern about actual performance or even ability. Yes, in EM, people are moved up the rank list just for being a minority. Sometimes huge leaps upward.

Even with the refinement of the ranking rules, forces 2 and 3 are in the background manipulating the rank list.

Need to eliminate forces 2 and 3 to fix the system.

Even if you are ranked at the very top of your rank group, you would be insanely delusional to believe you are the best performer.

@4tpv+1hrgjxga The system is working great. Just look at our top line earnings this cycle. It demonstrates the value of allowing high performers like myself to reach their highest potential. If you don’t like it, maybe you should go elsewhere. You’ll call me later like that person I spoke about at town hall a few years ago.

@3pid+1hrgjxga
Darren, you forgot to tell us about the specifics of your situation!
Joke aside, if you are really retirement eligible, you absolutely should know that for decades the system has been very clear: technical people and even old supervisors are artificially dropped in ranking at the end of their career, because they compete with young HiPos, supervisors and managers who need to be ranked high so they can keep moving up and justifying the choices of their powerful sponsors. This has been always the deal, although before the last five years the low ranking was not used to force older workers to retire.
There’s no way you don’t know that, regardless of the specifics of your case, so you are simply a SHAMELESS LIAR who is gaslighting everybody here.

I was told by my department manager that he was forced to place all high potential employees at the top of the rank list above me even though I was the top performer. He said he put my name just under those hipo id--ts. He actually told me that I was lucky that there were not more high potential employees in my rank group because that would have made me end up lower on the list.

I asked my boss how I could improve my ranking. He said “Even if you are the top performer again next year, you will get this same ranking for the same political reason”

Inspirational and unforgettable.

It is so discouraging when your department manager tells you “You are the top performer in my group but I must put certain people above you in ranking”.

That is like a kick to the baIIs every day when I walk in the front door of this building.

You must have a sponsor

@2zml+1hrgjxga False. I am a retirement-eligible employee and my ranking has only gone up over the years.

There is more transparency than the old system but arguably more fuqqd up

I received praise throughout the year, visa gift cards for achievements, letters of commendation from a VP then dropped from middle 1/3 to bottom 1/3.

Age discrimination systematically applied.

Retirement Eligible employees lose points every year. Proven fact.

Based on the replies below, it does not appear that EM is a good place to work. Eeeerrr!!

In a previous ranking meeting, my supervisor told me that I met and exceeded all expectations set by team management for that year. She told me that I generated positive contributions to the team that drove our line of business forward. On top of that, I was told that everyone up the management chain was impressed with the technical work I had done, and that everyone was aware that I put in overtime to help the team achieve its yearly goals.

My supervisor then told me I’d been ranked in the bottom 3rd with a downward trajectory. After a moment of stunned silence, she rather stupidly asked me what I thought about my ranking. I told her that “I think that hard work and good results that drive our business forward don’t matter at this company.”

I still remember her response to this day. She said, “That’s right.”

This was in 2012.

The current Execs used the rigged ranking system to attain their positions and power. They will not change it.

With the new trend of obtaining new hire executives, EM needs to suddenly choose an outsider for CEO as they announce DW choosing to retire.

An outside New Hire CEO combined with the other New Hire Execs on the board could lead a change in the rigged ranking system.

I was told that the glorifying Knowledgeable Others input from the various engineers and leads of the groups I work with are useless. I was instructed by my boss to obtain KO forms from VPs because KO input from regular people does not influence anyone in any making meetings.

The problem is that the department manager looks at my calendar and every meeting that a VP will attend, he tells me that he will cover the meeting and for me not to attend. That department manager is insecure because I know more about our departments business than he does, and he keeps me away from all VPs.

Because of our Dept Mgr efforts, I have had zero interaction with VPs, so not possible to obtain KO form from any VP.

No interaction with VPs equals zero chance to get a Sponsor.

I’m my 2020 performance cycle, my supervisor keep asking me to update the list of knowledgeable others. It took 3 iterations so she get just the right feedbacks to justify ranking me low. Interestingly, none of the feedbacks ever mentioned any of accomplishments. A lot of closed door shenanigans.

I have had 3 supervisors (who have become friends) tell me pretty much what others are saying in this thread. One supervisor I had quit after a few years of this. It was one of the many reasons she quit.

I am not usually a cynical person, but the ranking system has just shown be that hard work is expected from some expendable people in order for the chosen to shine and reap the rewards of all this hard work.

It is just an example of what happens in the real world. Much wealth is made off the backs of the hardest working amongst us.

I don’t ever see it changing at EM, but I hope it does.

Very very similar happened to me. My boss told me that nobody above me performed better than me and my ranking was the victim of politics. Absolute non-productive id--ts were ranked top quintile due to race/tribe.

My boss said that rank order had to agree with ultimate potential, unrelated to performance. Part of his job was to ensure each step of ultimate potential was achieved for the sponsored people. Another part of this is to deflect any blame for mistakes and also assign those id--ts to jobs already succeeding where they can take credit.

As long as those doing the evaluations are not subject to the same process nothing will change.

Very similar story for me. I was told by my boss that I was top performer but I would never be ranked as top performer because of politics.

Politics valued over Performance.

EM does not promote the top performers to Executives. EM promotes the top political players to Executives. The rank list is used to support this concept, no matter what the written ranking policy states about meritocracy.

This concept affects EM culture so deeply that Professionals are less valued than Sponsored Political id--ts. EM sees Professionals as replaceable commodities but puts great effort and RSUs into keeping those sponsored chosen id--ts that do not even understand the basics of their own departments.

EM would be a very different company if the top performers were promoted and the sponsored id--ts were laid off.

@1mec+1hrgjxga I was in HR for many years until I resigned. This is 100% accurate, exactly how it is done. HR receives the order from very high up and is forced to keep its mouth shut or there will be retaliation. The instructions are communicated down to lower management by phone. No trace.

I was told by my Supervisor that I was the best performer in my rank group but I could not be given that ranking because all the people in my group that were chosen for the management ladder had to be placed above me.

I changed jobs/departments. My senior manager ranked me number 1. The list went to Houston and he received a phone call. He was verbally instructed to resubmit the list with my name at a specific place lower on the list so as not to upset the apple cart.

Being top performer is not related to being on top of list. If you are on top of list, does not mean you are top performer.

The system is rigged.

I get a fair, equitable and just rating. My remuneration has kept pace with my worth, because I contribute and as such, I am rewarded, very well.

It just makes no sense to have a company that says they are long term focused and focused on long term careers to have a system void of long term evaluation. I should be judged on the long term impacts of my decisions. It’s probably why leaders suck at actually developing people- it’s not a performance criteria you can measure in the short term.

They remind us on occasion the "we asked for this"