I don't think that Exxon doesn't care that talents keep leaving, but the leadership is persistently unwilling to do anything to keep them. This is an indication of disconnected leadership which refuses to accept the fact that employees are less and less satisfied here. Maybe they did not count on the fact that multiple years of inadequate raises (just one of many reasons) will result in the departure of the most capable and knowledgeable people? Maybe they thought that it is still a privilege for all of us to work here despite the fact that we can do much better elsewhere?
28 replies (most recent on top)
Agree. I can have a great rank, and think about it about 3x per year: at performance meeting and raise time. However, not having my own desk makes me feel like cr-p every single morning.
If retaining talent was valued by EM Executives, they would abandon one fewer office buildings and assign a desk to each of us valued employees.
Forcing employees to search for any random available desk upon arrival each day is the biggest indicator of how much they value every one of us.
@ Ex-Clinton - not BS at all. When you’re in GCS your career moves stupidly slow. There was no way for me to reach a 34 by retirement. It was a BS potential. Like someone else replied it was a fu----g carrot used to keep me churning out ridiculous amounts of work. GSC has minimal exec positions and there are far too many people in GSC with “high potential”. I knew it was BS based on how slowly I was (wasn’t) getting promoted.
If I had a sponsor, I didn’t know about it and they never talked to me.
And I absolutely had to leave. I’d much rather work somewhere where they recognize and appreciate my contributions without dangling false hope.
@2dmc - I’m calling BS on your story. If you were really ranked that well and had a potential that high, then (1) you definitely had a high level, powerful sponsor, and (2) you had absolutely no reason to leave.
“I don't think that Exxon doesn't care that talents keep leaving”
OP, the worst mistake an employee can ever make is to rationalize corporate decisions. Yes, if “Exxon” would be a person, at least moderately sane and intelligent, it would care about talent leaving, and many other damaging things. Unfortunately, there’s no such person and “Exxon” is really a myriad managers, overwhelmingly acting out of self-interest, often totally incompetent and corrupt. There are endless examples of stupid, damaging “initiatives”, but lately this colony of fire-ants without real leadership called management acts in totally self-destructive ways.
The company simply does not have a desire to retain individual talent. The current position is that all employees are fungible, any and all skills can be replaced.
Simply look at why BTC was created…..
Potential of 30-34 just means your sponsor is not important enough, and it’s a carrot they dangle in front of you until you hit 27-29 and it suddenly vanishes.
For the guy with a potential of 34: you had some sort of sponsorship from above.
I have had multiple people under me that had that potential and I was tasked with creating a roadmap of positions to help them attain that potential.
As a Supervisor, I had zero input into that potential, came from senior management and COED.
Most I agreed with, but one arrogant a$$ho-e I went to my manager and pleaded not to move him up any further to limit that little shltheads damage to EM. My boss said we cannot fight those potentials, just make a plan how to move him upward.
I think Bob Ross is telling us all that we’ve made a terrible decision joining EM and should fly away.
@1mjh+1jvPWA8K Anyone advocating for change would have to be pretty high in the company and would likely find themself passed over for promotion as a result. The game is rigged. You are pi----g in the wind to try fight against the system.
@1zhd+1jvPWA8K - before I resigned I was OPD with a potential of 34. Not sponsored whatsoever. The year before was E/34, the year before that was O/32, and the year before that one was O/32.
There are a few outliers.
“Ever make mistakes in life? Let’s make them birds. Yeah, they’re birds now.”
We are bleeding world-class talent from BTC... Midland folks are sad.
We don't have local leadership. We have local managers. They manage the policies from above.
There isn't a single manager that believes the automatic PIP process is healthy for their organization. They simply accept its outside their authority and implement it.
Leaders would tell HQ they're not gonna implement it and advocate for change.
@1zga+1jvPWA8K there is a difference between assessment and potential. It’s true that 1-2% are reserved for the true HiPos (POT 36+) and typically these are the “can do no wrong” folks. I have seen rare cases of O and OPD assessments for non-sponsored or more likely “sponsored-by-less-important-people” where they get a nice raise or five, but ultimately still cap out before CL30.
THEY WANT YOU TO QUIT
Not in the rank group of my affiliate.
Rank group full of minorities with future management positions.
RG 60 as high as possible for non minority non HiPos, or non sponsored.
Department Manager showed me the list and explained every single person ranked above 60. He explained that were there based on performance. I know every person above RG60 and agree not performance based.
I have seen technical types get to RG 67 in other groups, but never ever break RG80 unless they had potential to become non technical manager.
You must be ignorant to think only 1 to 2 % reserved for HiPos. Based on your statement, a technical professional could get to RG97. Not possible at EM.
If an EM engineer invented a perpetual motion machine and EM got the patent, that technical professional would still not get RG97, or even RG80, maybe RG67 tops.
The top 40% of the rank list is not sponsored HIPOs. I would say 1-2% of the employee base (and rank list) may be a sponsored HIPOs. I recommend you talk to your supervisor again.
EM systematically rewards people for politics and PowerPoint and relegates truly work focused talent to bottom.
Top 40% of “Performance Assessment” reserved for sponsored HiPos, many who barely understand the workings of their current short term developmental assignment.
Become the highest performer technically, creating huge profits for EM, and you might break the RG60 barrier only if their are few enough Sponsored high fliers in your rank group.
I was told the above by my department manager. That not just my observation, it is EM policy.
The company has created this situation by removing the ability to reward employees from their direct management. This means salary has become an abstract problem for those who manage that budget.
It’s a mix of things. The Bloomberg article and the DW town hall in 2018 told me what I needed to know. Whatever logical tendencies there was is gone by seeing the earnings. The stand down for UNCON after fatalities and other incidents demands a change in culture for UNCON for example. But the money coming in on little man power is intoxicating.
Incompetence has crept into EM management ranks since the days of Lee Raymond. Couple that with the tendency to promote sociopathic behaviors and it is then easy to understand the source of the current downward spiral. There is scientific evidence to support such claims. Meritocracy has nothing to do with our current crop of “leadership.” Like tends to promote like.
Those who are willing, are unable
Those who are able, are unwilling
For me, it was not about the money. It was about being manipulated and disrespected.
Seeing incompetent and toxic people given key roles and in some cases promoted was hard to watch. I will not give my talents or waste career to elevate these people.
Fu-k the executives
Exxon has always assumed they can run the company with HiPos… the rest are interchangeable cogs. Doesn’t matter if the cog is new, a hat, or a retained employee.
Ideally it’s the retained employee (cheapest)… but, it doesn’t matter that much.
It’s like robocop. They’ll build back better…. or at least lower cost🙄
It is part of the plan to reduce headcount it is intentional