Oil companies seem to struggle to retain women workers. Chevron has low numbers of women in management despite apparent efforts to boost them. Many women seem to rise into middle and upper management, then burn out and quit. Some retire but others go to work elsewhere. Why?
I can think of SVP downstream, MD Europe, VP CAPEP, as examples of execs who left unexpectedly. Others?
@zdai, you misunderstand. The term “Mobility” goes beyond only international jobs. Mobility means domestic travel, travel to the field office, overtime spent at the local office, etc. If your life schedule beyond 4:00 p.m. requires you going home to cook for the kids and hubby, picking up a cake for Johnnie’s birthday tomorrow, catching that shoe sale at Macy’s on the way home, etc., then mobility is a problem for you, thus you will be held back on career advancement and equal pay with men.
If you look at senior execs in CVX I think you will find most have had very little to zero experience outside the US. Watson, Wirth, Geagea, Warington,etc. CVX is an American company with some overseas offices. Mobility is not required to move very high.
Going back to the OP’s original post and must the question; Why do oil companies have to struggle to retain women workers? If it’s a struggle, hire men instead. Problem solved. Now if the struggle is how difficult is it becoming to “coddle” the women employees, that’s another subject best lest for another thread discussion.
The bottom line in any capitalist country is you get paid what you are worth. Saying it another way; You are worth what you can produce. Hence, if mobility is a limitation among most women, then it stands for reason why their pay will obviously be less than for most men.
I completely understand the reality that taking time away from the workplace and mobility limitations due to family obligations limit one's income and career potential. It is very true that you can't have it all, but it seems very sad when having and being part of a family is viewed as a lifestyle choice rather than a fundamental aspect of being a human being. But maybe that's the truth of the matter; you can be a human being with a rich and balanced life or your can be a Chevron executive. I know which one I'd recommend.
There are so many broader cultural issues that are at play, but the biggest factor at Chevron seems to be mobility. The ability to travel far and frequently and accept multiple long term foreign work assignments seems to be a critical factor in reaching the highest levels of management at Chevron. I would imagine this involves a great deal of sacrifice, for both men and women, but men are more likely to have the family support and cultural support for making those sacrifices. A man who travels and is absent from his family for long periods of time may be able to do so with a partner who keeps the household running and he may be admired for his hard work and sacrifice on behalf of his family. A woman who is similarly absent typically does not have the same practical support from her partner and may be perceived as selfish for putting her career ahead of her family.
This is something which seems to evolving in our culture and I don't judge whether it's wrong or right, fair or unfair, but it's the reality of the situation.
Management is reading this site and promoted a lady as announced yesterday. Let’s hope she makes it!
bzhd - you make a good point about Washington and I am thinking of a particular person there that trumps them all.
bzhg - A periodic medical exam makes sense. We have random, periodic drug testing. The problem is that she was a top executive and her underlings took advantage of the situation, logging in to her email account, approving promotions, giving high ranks to those in the gang. It's not at all different from the Washington D.C. swamp.
Only women face hardships getting a work-life ballence? Two employees (male or female) ... one makes key personal sacrifices to get a project done in a crunch and the other has various personal issues that limit their contribution. On the roll up, who gets the promotion ... that person who for whatever reason was able to deliver ... and that’s bad? One can only expect equal outcomes where there is equal input. Women that make the personal choice to stay home with the kids for a time, or change locations in support a husbands career over their own, are going to have lower long-term income...and the same goes for a man that adapts the supporting role. Only when in equal number of families the led career is the womens (and this is a personal choice, family by family) will it be “fair” to directly compare the average salary of men and women. You can not have “it all”, every family makes choices, and if average “personal choice” are biased by s-x (for whatever reason), equal treatment by companies (even if completely “fair”), should reflect these averaged personal choices.
No, pets are not as important as children. It's stupid to think they would be.
If your job responsibilities involve travel and you refuse to travel, then you should be dismissed.
I was a female engineer but chose to leave for unrelated reasons. Among my female friends- one had a baby and the male manager couldn’t understand why she couldn’t return to work offshore (she was feeding). One was told that her pets were career limiting as she didn’t want to travel (pets aren’t as important as babies?) One wanted to take time off to study at a famous school and wasn’t granted leave. Some policies are great (maternity leave) but definitely there was still a gap. I have to say I had a great time, and a lot of the time older male managers/operators supported me. But if there is a bully in the right place it makes an impact.
Maybe top management should be required to take a psychological and memory exam every year by the company’s medical doctor. Once it’s determined they have early onset of Alzheimer’s or are exhibiting mental imbalances, they are forced to resign or be fired for incompetence.
In Houston there was a high-ranking woman executive with Alzheimer’s disease. She was propped up by her direct reports for years. She was their free pass to high rankings and bonuses. They wrote her emails and rated themselves.
While the topic is related to female management personnel, some of the same comments could be tied to incompetenent male management. Makes with MBA degrees were recruited and paid high salaries without any experience. They were identified as hi-pots and promised moves into management. Their lack of experience did not stop them from moving up in the company as long as they played the game with upper level management.
I agree with you, @2pdt. Elevating capable women to high management positions should be any different than putting a man in lofty positions. Both can be effective. I’ll just opine in saying Chevron shouldn’t “experiment” or fulfill quotas with any high potential women. At least make sure the women are beyond their child bearing years and are solidly footed in a career life.
a mixed bag of results during my time--- some female executives earned their sr. management role and experienced success; others were promoted above the effectiveness/competence ("Peter principle"). I don't think there is a significant issue re: high potential female managers getting future opportunities at senior management level---- situation has vastly improved over the last 20 years or so at Chevron.
Interesting comments here! I believe that CVX is still bound by the Texaco court ruling on diversity, hence the importance of "groups" in Chevron. Some women do get fired, and then they end up on the Board of BP!!!!! Chevron's leadership scarcity is no different than many large companies.
Awww, look at you trying to sound smart with your free speech talk @vob and failing miserably to grasp the concept of what you are referencing. Here is a quick lesson for you, buddy. It's really simple: the right to free speech means that government cannot arrest you for what you say. It does not mean that anybody has to listen to your crap nor that anybody has to provide you with a platform to say it. If it's still not fully clear, here is a really nice explanation in six panels:
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Women of color are certainly promoted to high level positions at Chevron. I can think of a couple of glaring examples where it had nothing to do with ability or leadership. It was all about boosting diversity statistics - at the expense of common sense.
I guess you can't blame the individual who gets plucked out of obscurity and promoted up the ladder as long as they are not delusional about why it happened - right gender/color at the right time..
I'd disagree. Some women seem to be there simply because they ARE women. With affirmative action, I guess we will never really know if they got there on merit or not.
Seems as though this website tripled up on their censorship activities. One can’t exercise their right to free speech and expression. They’ll delete a post they don’t like in less than 30 minutes. Keep it up you turds. You’ll end up with no website and no job before you know it.
Twenty years ago, Chevron went on a female diversity kick and identified talented early career employees to move through the ranks quickly to management. They were given lots of short-term assignments where they never really developed their competencies fully or were held accountable for their decisions before being promoted to their next "position of increasing responsibility". Double promotions were not uncommon.
If you look at the examples sighted by the OP, they all eventually got to a position where they were expected to deliver results. When the feed-back on their performance was negative, they walked.
The same situation plays out with both genders identified early as "Future Leaders" and "ePots". They are whisked through the system without gaining the skills needed for the responsibilities they are given. Once anointed, they cannot be removed.
The focus on perceived potential versus actual performance could doom Chevron.
Women - "They don’t abide by the unwritten dress code." is 100% correct.
Deep inside they still think they are in their 20s and expect to be excused for all the silly decisions that they made and expect others to bear the brunt.
What difference does it make if a man or woman makes it and stays in top leadership or not? Leadership is leadership. You have it or you don’t. Don’t make excuses or set quotas.
Women in management positions are not respected in the “good old boy” culture that exists at Chevron. Women of color in leadership positions are ignored, their suggestions are only embraced if a male says the same thing that the female said, the men bond over hunting and other activities with the aim is to leave their females out. Leadership is a closed all men’s club.
They don’t abide by the unwritten dress code.