#knowledgetransfer

ExxonMobil is trying to reduce OpEx by reducing number of engineers in North America (USA and Canada) and offshoring the jobs to cheaper countries like India.

But is it really working? I see BTC folks come here, work for some time in North America, and then go back to India and quit. They go to a competing company at a higher salary. All the time spent training them in North America is wasted.

How does that make sense from cost reduction perspective? And how will all the technical knowledge be retained??

It feels like every few months someone else is being shown the door, and it’s taking a real toll on what’s left of the team. We lose skilled people faster than we can train new ones, and the work keeps getting shuffled around until no one really owns anything. Morale is at rock bottom because nobody knows if they’ll be next, and that kind of fear makes it impossible to do your best work. What’s worse is watching all that experience walk out the door straight into our competitors. If leadership doesn’t stop treating layoffs like a fix-all, there won’t be much of a company left to rebuild.

It’s ChatGPT compiled summary, but a good refresher and reminder we can adopt.

1. Knowledge Control & Asymmetry
   • Document selectively: Provide training and documentation, but keep it high-level. Leave out context, dependencies, or nuances only you know.
   • Use tacit knowledge: Emphasize things that require “experience” (judgment calls, historical context, relationships with regulators/vendors). GCC hires can’t easily replicate this.
   • Avoid “one-click transfer”: Break down processes into multiple steps when explaining, making them look more complex.

2. Strategic Friction in Rollouts
   • Ask clarifying questions: In transition meetings, phrase them as risk concerns:
   • “How will GCC handle regulatory nuances in [X country]?”
   • “What’s the fallback if response times slip due to time zone?”
   This slows decisions without looking obstructive.
   • Introduce dependencies: Link tasks to other teams or tools so that “handoffs” look harder.
   • Highlight local compliance: Bring up data residency, export control, union agreements, or contractual obligations. These almost always slow offshoring.

3. Delay Through “Support”
   • Over-offer help: Volunteer to be the bridge/trainer. This keeps you in the loop and drags timelines (“transition can’t close until full training is done”).
   • Pace knowledge transfer: Train slowly, highlight “complexities,” extend timelines by needing “extra validation.”
   • Audit their output: Position yourself as QC for GCC work. This makes you gatekeeper of quality and creates rework cycles.

1. Expose Hidden Costs (Quietly)
   • Track errors: Maintain a private log of GCC mistakes, delays, and escalations. Present data neutrally, never emotionally.
   • Escalate risk neutrally: Instead of “GCC can’t do this,” say:
   • “We saw 30% rework rate—might suggest a phased approach instead of full shift.”
   • Highlight stakeholder pushback: Collect subtle dissatisfaction from clients/customers, frame as “feedback.”

2. Protect Your Position
   • Brand yourself as irreplaceable: Be the person who knows the workarounds when GCC fails.
   • Shift to cross-functional roles: Move into strategy, supplier relations, or customer-facing projects—roles harder to offshore.
   • Stay visible to leadership: Share concise insights or risk notes with senior managers, so they see you as thoughtful, not resistant.

3. Long-Game Career Hedge
   • Upskill in automation/AI: Many GCCs are execution shops, not innovation hubs. Becoming the automation SME makes you future-proof.
   • Build network outside: Quietly explore trading, analytics, or industrial strategy roles—industries less prone to full-scale offshoring.
   • Stay neutral in tone: Never sound anti-GCC in writing; instead, frame everything as “risk management” or “ensuring smooth transition.”

...it would be if some competitor comes to sn---h folks away from Imperial before they've had a chance to transition the work.

They can send as many jobs as they want to cheaper countries, but they can't escape the low quality they'll be getting with it. They're walking out priceless institutional knowledge with these layoffs, and that decision will come back to bite them in the a-s, I guarantee you.

In some cases, the operational decisions made by Oracle directors are completely baffling. They have this pattern of reassigning projects from their U.S. and European employees to offshore teams, which consistently creates major friction.

Initially, our U.S. teams have the clear advantage, but they're quickly outmaneuvered by the sheer size of the offshore teams. This approach severely erodes the trust and confidence employees have in their leadership and their career path. Their contributions are often viewed as ancillary, and they rarely get the proper credit.

It feels like U.S. staff are being brought on board to train offshore teams, only to be deemed expendable once the knowledge transfer is complete. You can see this pattern in meetings: my contributions are significant at the start of a project, but my input gradually diminishes. As a result, I've started to limit my engagement with offshore teams, providing only high-level outlines of the work instead of detailed technical walkthroughs.

Usually H-1b's and Offshore should aid the U.S employees. But it works like snatching the work and more promotions are given to offshore. U.S employees left in limbo.

Since this Enterprise Reimagine was so bad, who will take responsibility? There are loads of complaint from field and survivors, who should take responsibility?

Also hearing that this is the master plan that Chubak wants Penny to do ER so that he can be managing partner faster. Nobody wants to wait 5 years to see Penny retire and then taking over.

I am sickened to my stomach to see this organization go backwards in all of the values they believe in + the momentum the firm had around new business/technology/products. We lost so many unicorns and institutional knowledge that we will never get back.

What are people's thoughts on how ER will enable the firm to execute with more speed and efficiency? Honestly, I was optimistic when they first announced it because the firm had become so bloated and convoluted that it was difficult to get anything done. But the rollout seemed more focused on short term cost cutting and may seriously backfire on "increasing speed and efficiency" since we lost so much firm knowledge (aka the only people who know how to fix certain systems since they were part of creating them, people who know undocumented processes or work arounds for the many broken systems). I'm worried this will just make things so much worse and make jobs so much harder for those who remain. It's like leadership is operating on an entirely different plane of reality; one where we are a rocket ship instead of bogged down by decades of under investing in tech and poor process design. Over the past 2 years I have experienced them deprecating systems and teams in anticipation of solutions that never seem to materialize. The "running the business" work gets harder and harder with no end in sight.

We’re literally down to bare bones now, without anyone who truly knows all the ropes. Over the past two years, skilled veterans have been disproportionately targeted. I don’t even think it’s about age. More likely, it’s because good work and accumulated experience come with a price. Tomorrow, leadership will have no right to complain when there’s no quality work coming out of their organization. You get what you pay for. What short-sighted a--hats.

I don't understand how it's possible to lay people off when myself and my coworkers are so swamped with work that we are working 12 hour days plus weekends on salary?? So stupid! Reorg! We've lost so many longer timers with so much knowledge..we literally had to hire 3 people to fill one of their positions! Just one! But instead they are hiring more upper management!

Anyone actually work their 2 weeks?