Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

@bp I promise you they know all of that but they do these on purpose so they will have easy target for PIP

I can’t believe that EM Mgt really believes this change has any positive impact. It’s really confounding that anyone thinks the changes are in the best interest of the company.

I wont be suprised if they update it to no time limits just second NSI=termination

Most places where the management cares at all would have grandfathered in the NRE people, at the very least. What this company did was unusually cruel.

@ax it's relative. Take your top performer and throw them into the most competitive group and suddenly he is NSI and booted out. It's hunger games - the last one gets ki-led and then you find more to replace.

Anyone can become an NSI since its relative on so many things - small portoflio, not given opportunities, politics, restructing etc.

@b3 That's how you find the headcount balance to staff out Incredible India

@b7 There are so many ways to handle this. At the very least, notify them early and clearly explain the areas that need improvement. Do they need more projects? More visibility? Are they even communicating with the right people? And if there is something truly within their control, call it out. As many people here said, a lot of this stuff is completely out of your hands anyway. A good leader guides people. They don’t sabotage them. More important than all: rank people based on performance not politics....

How do we hold leadership accountable?

MLRP in EM is a disguised layoff system.

Announcing how many % Need Significant Improvement prior to the start of evaluations is simply a layoff target.

Too many NSI were taking PIP and succeeding so EM took that option away to increase desired attrition.

@ax Exactly, in other companies they can put someone on a PIP whenever they want, whether it’s performance or personal issues (not commenting on this being right or wrong). But at XOM it’s all about statistics, and plenty of people take advantage of that. They know they can smile through the whole cycle, pretend everything’s fine, and then trash you at the end like there’s no tomorrow. It becomes a tool for revenge or ruining someone’s life. If someone is really is not performing well issue give the heads up help them to improve...

Every organization needs a way to address employees who consistently fail to meet reasonable expectations. I don't think many people disagree with that. The real problem is that the ranking process is so subjective that employees don't actually know what they're being measured against. Is it technical contribution? Visibility? Networking? Coffee chats? Powerpoint style? Office politics? Different managers value different things, and there isn't any clarity for employees to know what's actually expected. If someone was placed on a PIP five years ago, they survived it because the expectations were eventually documented, understood, and ultimately met. That process served its purpose. What's difficult to is that employees made career decisions under one set of expectations, only to find out years later that past ratings are now being used under a completely different system. People should know the rules before they're judged by them, not have the rules rewritten after the fact. When expectations are subjective and the consequences change years later, it's nearly impossible for employees to understand what management actually wants or even how to succeed. It feels like an ambush. Imagine being surrounded by a group of a-holes shouting conflicting commands: "Leave!" "Stay!" "Do this!" "No, do that!" No matter which instruction you follow, they shoot you, and someone later tells you that you made the wrong choice. There was never a path to success because the expectations were contradictory from the beginning. That's what this is.

@ag "The intent is to ensure that all employees are held equally accountable for their performance" It's always employees that are accountable for "performance" and management entitled to rewards

It was clear to anyone who can read and understand the English language that this applies retroactively to everyone with the exception of NRE who will get a pass this year only on the new rule.

If you didn’t understand you probably got what you deserved.

@ag "Starting in 2026, if an employee has been MLRP at any time within the past four years, they will not be eligible for the PIP option if they become MLRP again in 2026." They are doing what they wrote. BTW they can do whatever they want it's a corrupt system.

@a2 Here is the exact quote from the email. No where does this say it will be applied retroactively. In fact, they use words like “starting in 2026”.

“ Managing Lower Relative Performance (MLRP)

• A global MLRP standard will be implemented:
  • Performance Improverent Plan (PIP) duration will be standardized at 3
  months for EMPT.
• Documented Performance Counselling (DPC) will be replaced with formal
  PIP in all cases.
• Second time MLRP in five years will result in mandatory separation, a 3-month Pay in Lieu (PIL) for EMPT, minimum statutory severance, or retirement will be offered.
  Starting in 2026, if an employee has been MLRP at any time within the past four years, they will not be eligible for the PIP option if they become MLRP again in 2026.
• Near Retirement Eligible (NRE) status will be removed for MLRP purposes. In 2026 only, PIP will be offered and count as 1st MLRP for NRE cohort (where NRE in place).
  The intent is to ensure that all employees are held equally accountable for their performance.”

This is BP but with extra steps.

Nothing. Its their usual tactics to shift goalposts around so that they can get people out

I thought they were pretty clear this was the case in the email they sent out announcing the policy.