I've been here for eight years. In that time I've had one amazing manager, two decent ones, and two horrible ones. And yes, that's how often our managers changed. The funny thing is, the way I described them is also in chronological order. The amazing and decent ones were in the first six years, and the two horrible ones were/are in the last two. That says a lot about the quality of managers and recent priorities when promoting.
23 replies (most recent on top)
When minorities and females held to same standard, that seems fair.
I have seen EM HR manipulate the rank list to move minorities up the list.
I have experienced management pressure to give credit for my work to a minority in my group so the manager could justify moving the minority into management.
I have experienced VP verbal instructions/threats to cover up shortcomings of an over arrogant minority that lead to a major loss incident.
I have experienced COED rejection of the top qualified candidate and outright stating that only certain certain demographic persons will be considered for a position.
Requiring certain demographics, covering up for certain demographics, and preferences given to certain demographics almost 109% of the time leads to lesser quality persons being lifted into management positions.
But I do agree that equal treatment is fair.
All these rants and cries about demographics and diversity fails to put in context the leadership we've had over the last 20 + years...
If your average typecast male that led this company over the last 100+ years got us to where we are today.... We'll only reach equity when a female or minority can lead in the same fashion and be ok. We don't want females or minorities held to a higher standard, we want them held to the same standard as current leaders.
Imagine if a female or minority was in charge during the whole Engine 1 saga with 3 new board members take-over? ... the female /minority would be totally been fired / retired immediately #doublestandard
We all need to do better, and the company's current position or culture is not because of females or minority (TG excluded)
Any time HR puts demographics as a qualifier, the most qualified get pushed to bottom of the list.
Just for comparison, selecting the current VP of USA was more about demographic than experience and ability. See the result?
It is extremely difficult to watch toxic a Manager get promoted into a business and wreck it. Then it’s on to next one. They never do their own work. … just leeches off others and do the back channel maneuverings.
EM chooses potential managers not by people skills or job knowledge, but by demographic quotas and PowerPoint skills.
Decline is measurable and unavoidable.
“The quality of managers has dropped drastically”
In general, managers in this industry are unqualified and bad at their jobs.
They come from a very specific sector of society, and they fit a specific profile: Caucasian, male, heteros-xual, conservative, and somewhere on the spectrum of sociopathy.
More often than not, their qualifications (such as they are) are not matched to the role. In many instances they have no qualifications at all, with qualifications and qualifying experience having been superseded by the rather nebulous notion of “leadership presence”.
Unsurprisingly, major issues are piling up in every part of every business unit in every company in the industry. This will continue and it will get worse. Nobody will do anything to fix it because they either don’t know how or they don’t care.
My last three managers have been absolutely terrible! The most recent is a thirty-something with an ego 30x larger than his do-g, which he likes to flop around in the gym locker room.
It was our rapid growth strategy that did us in. People began moving into new jobs much quicker than they should have been. A good individual contributor was seen as they must also be a good leader. Couple that with no training for these new supervisors and managers and you get what we have today. Many couldn’t find their way out of a wet paper bag but they can talk the talk to fool those above them and keep getting promoted.
Eventually you have terrible managers promoting brown misers and the death spiral begins. I see less of these people these days but just one can have a very negative effect on the org. They usually end up being so protected we just end up being stuck with them because they can do no wrong.
Have a few in Baton Rouge that still need to go.
The quality of supervisors and managers is as bad as always. Yet, in the past, there was a lot of talent and knowledge among the staff to cover the manager’s lack of knowledge. Now this is gone. Too many reasons but has started before 2020.
There were never leaders in EM.
Exxonmobil had leaders at one time. Now it’s managers. Guess they figured that they could put the d-mbazzes and Quota folks in management without causing too many issues. Man did they ever sc--w up
EM promoting managers with very high targets of race and gender such that the most qualified personnel likely do not get moved up.
Quality suffers when your criteria is based on non quality attributes.
Like most things at ExxonMobil you need to play the long game. Some supervisors you will get along with and some you will not. Just like some coworkers you will get along with and some you will not. If you have one you don't get along with just keep your head down until either you or they move onto the next assignment. Nothing lasts forever at this company and transfers are pretty quick. I can deal with anything for a couple of years.
Permian supervisors aren't anything to be afraid of. Those who rank low will complain about them. Those who rank high will complain less. Nothing more common in this world than complaining about the boss right? Same story as everywhere else in the company.
Would somebody tell me about supervisors at Permian, please? I used to have one good supervisor, but it was seven years ago.
Would somebody tell me about supervisors at Permian, please? I used to have one good supervisor, but it was seven years ago.
Z Apple never falls far from the proverbial tree.............just sayin
I once had a manager who would go on a week's vacation without letting all his supervisors know about his planned absence. I would find out he was gone when he was a no-show at an important meeting he had previously asked me to schedule with busy managers from other groups. Of course, the meeting couldn't go on without his input, so everything had to be rescheduled because he lacked basic respect for anyone's time but his own.
Why don’t you step up and become a supervisor if you have all the answers?
Had 10 in 8 years. There was only 1 manager who was any good. The rest ranged from clueless to mediocre to one horrible. As an experienced hire who have seen a lot, XOM is pretty stupid in the way it’s handling in this area.
Many of these supervisors really should not have people responsibilities, ever. Most of my supervisors are socially awkward and lacked ability to gain trust or at a minimum understand people. Even worst is that many supervisors lack basic competencies in the area that they are supposed to manage. They are there simply to check the box. One particular bad one I had even went as far as meddling in my project and hiding critical information from me to get brownie points for himself.
All my 8 first-time supervisors were sh!ts. They always sent clueless dummies to URC to break in their training wheels.
The quality has been lagging for quite some time.
The only pre-requisite seems to be willing to leave spine and principle behind and drink and repeat the Koolaid: Only the best and brightest
What are you talking about…, we became more competitive
I was with the company for 20 years. And only one really good supervisor. The rest were mediocre with some really terrible ones. Things changed some when they stated using positions as stepping stones or box checking for climbing the management ladder. But no one every asked my to provide feedback on my supervisor and get the 360 input that I was required to.