Thread regarding Phillips 66 layoffs

All talk, no change

I’m not going to lie, I was excited by the idea of change at P66. It is needed, but once again I was fooled. There isn’t really going to be meaningful change in a good way. The org changes announced will do very little.

McKinsey and BT are too busy trying to quantify the $$ saved by changing the “way we work” that we aren’t addressing the issues, people, or communication channels that cause the issues/challenges in how we work.

It is so disheartening to see that we aren’t changing. We are cutting costs and headcount and still having the same mindset and expectations.

We still have the bad actors and the legacy building. They get rewarded I stead of fired! I thought that we would start actually living OEIA….

by
| 3133 views | | 11 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+1iClJOz2

11 replies (most recent on top)

Too much emphasis placed on how things look vs how they are - OEIA, I&D efforts... Head of HR is a good actress and puts on good performance, but lacks actual business acumen and practical understanding of HR fundamentals resulting in poor people practices with no real accountability anywhere.

by
|
Post ID: @6xxg+1iClJOz2

Make no mistake, the executives hired McKinsey. They are just doing what they are being paid to do. They are the scapegoat for executives who are incapable of making decisions.
I have never worked for a company where the executives rely so heavily on paying expensive consultants to tell them way to do. It’s because most of them have only ever worked for P66 and have no perspective.

by
|
Post ID: @6bfd+1iClJOz2

Put me down as another who was disappointed with the lack of real change at the leadership level. What message does that send to the organization? Really bad look.

by
|
Post ID: @3fys+1iClJOz2

So let me get this right business, transformation is so needed and we need to save $1.2 billion but none of those cuts will come at the executive level? In fact, we have ADDED to that level through this process. Oh, and by the way, the previous CEO transitions to the board of directors and stays on the payroll for at least the next two years AND has a fancy new office constructed in Houston for himself. Yeah, it sounds like that level is really taking BT seriously... what's good for thee is not good for me - message received loud and clear.

by
|
Post ID: @2ibh+1iClJOz2

There needs to be either be a hard look back at this “transformation” or clear explanation by management as to why things are or are not (most likely are not) changing despite the years worth of effort, stress to the organization, outsourcing, etc. including the financial aspects. This means scrutinizing the fees paid to to consultants against forecasted (looks good in PowerPoint!) and actual cost savings. Moving people on an org chart doesn’t count, that’s just busy work. As mentioned in an earlier post, the leech consultants have to substantiate their fees and if uppers don’t want to change, the cost has to come out of those below. Meanwhile, we have numerous retirements from mid level management who went along with this mess, so they’ll never have to answer to their people whose jobs are on the chopping block. E.g. Finance

by
|
Post ID: @2koi+1iClJOz2

Transformation is nothing but smoke and mirrors. A lot of eloquent words put together to make things sound like they’re great, when in fact, they are not. P66 will see major cuts across the board all in the name of “transformation”. Changing anything that actually matters would cause too much of an issue for most, especially the ones at the top that have been drinking the P66 kool aid after their indoctrination in college.

by
|
Post ID: @1kbj+1iClJOz2

Why does Shawn follow ZG everywhere? Even at BP

by
|
Post ID: @1you+1iClJOz2

How much money and time went into these non-decisions that were put out today? Months and months of meetings and steering committees and lord knows what else. And we’re adding roles!

by
|
Post ID: @kck+1iClJOz2

Any thoughts on what some of these "organizational" changes are as part of BT?

by
|
Post ID: @bxh+1iClJOz2

This should ultimately be a business school case study on how not to communicate to employees. I mean did anyone not think to post all of these changes on a central location available to all employees? Especially after those extremely vague and poorly worded emails from the BT head.

There’s no changes at the top level! You know what that means…salary cuts and benefit decreases for the regular employees while the real issue is the folks in charge can’t make the decisions that need to be made. So disappointed

by
|
Post ID: @zem+1iClJOz2

Why is it that ZG gets a GM of strategy but Brian said strategy was being moved into a new group and Kevin’s email failed to mention a new Strategy/BD group. Do they not think that employees of different BUs talk?!

If this is how we communicate change imagine how bad execution of change will go…

by
|
Post ID: @wou+1iClJOz2

Post a reply

: