Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

We should add our "1990's Management Core Values" to our 2023 PDS plans.

Maybe the Presidents and V.P.'s will take notice and move us up in the ranking for sunseting bad ideas quickly.

What percentage of managers punched their ticket as a technical contributor in the current group of technical staff that they are managing in 2023?

Less than 10%???
Less than 25%??? but greater than 10%
More than 50%???

Which oil company practices these management attributes? It is definitely not ExxonMobil.

(1) The ability to sunset bad ideas quickly before we spend tens of millions of dollars on research only to put the bad idea on the shelf.

(2) Look outside before reinventing the wheel internally. If there was technology that we could buy or lease from a third-party technology provider that we could commercialize in our corporation to make money, buy it. It costs too much money and time to develop "Me Too" processes.

(3) You must punch your ticket as a technical contributor in a group before you can manage the group.

Mike Dolan and Mike Ramage were 20 years ahead of Lee Raymond and Rex Tillerson.

We don't promote the most qualified to leadership positions anymore. Our work groups are now headed by "Managers" that were selected by others outside the work group for reasons unrelated to the skills, experience, and vision needed to lead an organization effectively.
You don't get Refineries headed by all women because they were each coincidentally the best needed to run those organizations. They were selected to meet a goal "We need more women in Exec positions, etc." This isnt necessarily a bad goal. Its just a different set of priorities for advancement unrelated to actual, relative, competitive, performance that some of us believe once existed (10+ years ago, like the poster below that described when 'advisors' were created to fill the skill gap missing in the new management class).
This is similar to the cultural change underway in the US today that seeks "equity" to replace "equal opportunity". The latter looks for merit to identify the best leaders, whoever they might be, where the former is designed to achieve a specific outcome. If your promotion helps achieve the outcome the company has designed, congratulations, you won the manager lottery and will think highly of this company. Just don't confuse your promotion as a true reflection of your relative skills, capabilities and performance. You were chosen over much more qualified talent to meet a preordained goal. You have been placed on a throne to rule on the ideas and opportunities developed by others. Don't believe this will work anywhere outside EM without the support of the working class you were appointed over (How did Rex do?).
If you alternatively realize your advancement is no longer tied to your actual skills and contributions (and will never be again) because the company has other goals than choosing the most qualified, experienced, technically competent, leader (all factors within your control to improve) for factors outside your control (gender, ethnicity, YEE, Management development, "CL potential", etc) then you need to reassess how much you care about that and whether you accept this new reality. You can't change it. The people with the power to change it are the ones that have most benefited from the system that is.
This is true today of nearly every manager and new campus hire. We no longer seek the best among us. We simply want them to "meet the qualifications" so that other factors can be used to achieve the desired outcome.
Sad? Maybe. Its a different company from the one I joined and not one I'd join again today.
For those that understand the reference, "Anyway, that's all I've got. Go away now."

Fifteen years ago, there were many technically competent managers (40 to 50 years old) with good people skills that were told that they were too old to be in management.

They were moved into roles as advisors so that 25–35-year-old employees with minimal technical skills in the groups that they were managing could acquire management skills. The much younger managers also had little management acumen as @OP listed in the original post.

The older and wiser "advisor" was told that their primary job was to make sure that the "new" 25–35-year-old manager or HiPo as we call them today did not step on any landmines in their new management role.

Can’t have I&D if we promote people who actually know what they are doing.

We spent $700M on IRMS and got a whole lotta nuthin'

The company targeting the right ratios for "diversity" instead of genuine competence and ability is where everything went wrong. MLK would have been appalled.

At a minimum, it would be wonderful if our first- and second-line supervisors, section heads, directors, and even V.P.'s were technically competent in the groups that they are managing.

We would be a much healthier corporation in the 21st Century if we embraced the CTO's three management criteria from circa 1990.

Many managers do not sunset bad ideas quickly because they know that their group(s) would be much smaller since $$$ to fund staff would also be reduced.

We Were ExxonMobil four decades ago (WWEM)

But, but, but ... what are we going to do without Annandale?

Great pot! Great comments!

@OP..to answer your question. Because our annual performance rating system shifts behaviors to that of individual gain at the expense of business needs. Over time this has created the " yes " mentality in the core personality of many of the management class.

Promoted too many yes men and women based on abilities to build excitement for their bad ideas. Or simply elevating too many who make a career of riding the coat tails of others.

Sad.

Because the company went woke and with reckless abandon just started filling positions to meet numbers instead of filling positions with managers/people that are skilled and knowledgeable.

MD was the best.