The ranking process is a farce and the root cause of corruption in EM. It allows a group of sometimes unrelated, incompetant tankers to demotivate and destroy employer morale and loyalty. The current process lacks transparency and must be retired.
10 replies (most recent on top)
If truly based on impact, the small refining unit that earns $300 million in profit last year should not have to NSI anyone while CCS would have to NSI everyone.
Everyone assigned to Brazil would be NSI for losing billion$.
Measuring “impact” is how the lower 80% are placed at not their ranks.
The top 20% are fully sponsored and immune to such forms of measure. The top 20% are moved around so frequently that they do not have a chance to make an impact, just barely in each position long enough to get a vague idea what each group does.
I see much more effort by those top 20% put into avoiding risk than put into making an impact. If can avoid risk, they move to next higher short term assignment and more RSUs.
The game is rigged. The rules are for the little guys.
All those high flier sponsored people on CCS must be protected. CCS has accomplished less than zero. Chevron’s CCS accomplishments make EM look stupid.
Based on “impact”, all persons assigned to CCS must be ranked NSI.
Prove me wrong.
Any honest person who finds anything positive in EM’s ranking system must have not noticed the new, official ranking policy: they don’t rank your work, they rank the “impact” of your work. Since the latter is obviously dependent on the assignment you’ve been given, they are simply ranking their pre-determined decisions.
For those who don’t get it: I give you a plump assignment with a lot of impact, because I want to please your powerful sponsor or simply because you’ve been licking my boots adequately. That assignment automatically guarantees you a higher ranking, which will be used to confirm the “intuition” of the sponsor who chose you and will keep you moving upwards.
In the (now distant) past it was specifically stated that the ranking process should protect those in less desirable assignments, and your ranking was supposed to be based on how well you fulfill your duties, whatever they may be.
The current ranking system, brazenly stated to everybody, is pure corruption and deeply detrimental to the company. If the board of directors would be anything more than a bunch of highly paid cardboard cutouts, they should immediately stop this and fire those responsible for it.
The ranking system rewards behaviors that result in a natural occurring Ponzi scheme. The ranking fosters people to "manage upwards". Supervisor and managers that care more about those below than those above are the exception. People at the top remain at the top because they are rewarded when they claim as their own the accomplishments of their reports, who themselves claim as their own the accomplishments of their reports, and this pyramid continues all the way to the team leads who benefit themselves from the contributions of the individual contributors. The system works by feeding continuously with new hires whose individual contributions will be exploited by the team leads, their manager, the manager of their manager, and so on and so forth, and forcing out people continuously (by demoralizing them into resignation) to lure in new recruits.
It is a relative not absolute performance ranking. You seem to be missing the point.
As the Ranking System rules are written, the current system should work, but would still cause a little too much competition among peers.
The “forced” part of ranking is the fatal flaw. EM recruits very well and therefore it is highly likely that 10 people in a group can all be Very Good or higher, yet the “forced” part of the ranking system makes a supervisor NSI a Very Good performer.
As the “forced” ranking system is administered, with favoritism, sponsorship, protectionism, blame deflection, claiming accomplishments of others, and politics, the best technical performers at their jobs are pushed down and the best political Power Point Masters rise to the top.
This destroys the morale of all but the most successful politically.
Creates a bunch of back stabbers. Sociopaths thrive in this kind of environment.
Amen. I'll add a + vote up for this