Pulling a comment from a previous post. Do people really see experienced hires as 2nd class employees?
I haven’t seen it yet but I’m fairly new and have only worked with a small group of people so far.
30 replies (most recent on top)
Many people that have a PhD or an MBA don’t have a BS.
Of course he has a BS. He also says BS but this is not the point!!! Every PhD or MBA also has a bs degree. My point was that he was NOT hired as a BS. He worked for a company named TRW or something, then he went for MBA and then - lucky us- was hired to save us!!!!
I just looked up DW on Wikipedia. He has a BS from A&M.
@3igr+1cGCngU0: I know for a fact that your statement about 22 and BS degree is not true. DW actually is an example of non BS hire. But it is true in general that the connections one builds over the years are important as one moves through his/her career. The lack of similar connections is a problem for experienced hires, especially in the first years in EM but also later. As others have said, this is generally true in many companies but in EM it is at the extreme.
Being ranked high and being a HiPo are not the same thing. HiPos have their next three assignments planned down to the start date by their sponsor.
Yes. 100% true. They identify HiPos early and if you are experienced hire or even just older when graduated they claim they don’t have time to get you the experiences you need to be a HiPo. If you didn’t hire in at 22 with a BS degree not likely you are HiPo.
OP Again, this was actually very useful advice, thanks to everyone.
It sounds like I need to prioritize learning EM systems, acronyms, and general way of doing things along with my technical work. I keep on hearing to look for a sponsor, I was slow to realize this but it’s useful to have no matter where you are.
As an experienced hire, i reasonate with this. Have struggled v badly during the first few yrs in EM. I had a hard time adapting because the processes in here r so customised or outdated (until it is really irrelevant to the outside world). The fact that we r highlighted as "experienced hires" tells a lot about this company. I really struggled in trying to assimilate into EM style of working (with so many red tapes) and often wonder how can this company survive for so long (because of the high oil prices??) . I have even come to this stage where i feel like leaving because i didnt not learn anything useful ( because most of the skills sets may be irrelevant to the outside reality) and the arrogance of ppl towards experienced hires.
Seems management puts more value on an Military Academy grad with absolute zero oilfield experience than on an oilfield experienced hire that is fully trained and experienced in his job.
This became very apparent in December when excellent experience hires were released while military hires with complete lack of oilfield knowledge were protected.
My observations agree with most of the prior comments ... yes, we are/were. But with everything at XOM, when you pick up a champion or advocate, that can change it. Not saying it's easy, but that is a key factor.
The main reason experienced hire is disadvantaged is they are ranked with other similar experienced people who have been in the XOM system for years. They know management and management knows them. An experienced hire needs to deliver significant results with OUR SYSTEM quickly, yet they do not know our SYSTEMS. The best experienced hires are those that can productively go to work quickly without knowledge of our rules, procedures, systems or people. People like oil traders can do that, but very few others can compete with a 10 year veteran who knows management and our internal protocols. XOM can be a terrible place for experienced hire except for a few unique jobs, where they are uniquely qualified (traders, drillers, construction, certain specialists etc).
@OP - I think it depends. My last boss was an experienced hire and the department head thought the sun shone out of his @$$. There were another 2 experienced hires in the group and they were ranked fairly high as well.
In a ranking session, it was explained how an experienced hire had contributed $20+ million in measurable more value than a recent West Point hire and the West Point Hire had only contributed Power Point slides. It was also stated that the WP graduate would never have the knowledge or industry contacts to be as similarly impactful.
The VP said such a comparison was not allowed. Protected the WP Power Point master.
Senior Management does not value experienced hires or feels threatened by them.
First, very few lifers are hi-pos. Also, very few lifers have the potential they want. However, most lifers suffer more quietly…as they know their peers are in the same boat.
The lifers are also better able to handle the red-tape, because they were raised around it. I see experienced hires struggle the most with the processes. (Unfortunately, they don’t get much help understanding these.)
Finally, I have seen experienced hires brought in with unrealistic expectations. Recruiting will say a lot to close the deal. If they need to make quick promotions and management positions seem immediately obtainable, they will. However, the reality is that experienced hires are brought in for their experience. The company will expect them to perform in that experience-niche for 5-10 years before joining the rat-race.
My advice to an experienced hire: spend 5 years building networks and blending in. Somewhere between year 3 and 5, people will forget you are an experienced hire…they really will.
However, the less successful path is expressing your displeasure and disappointment…or wanting to get promoted within 1 year. Unfortunately, management has no tolerance for either of these. Is it fair? No, not at all. But in EM, the bottoms ranks are expected to suffer silently and/or fix things silently and/or leave if they are not happy. There really isn’t much employee self-advocacy. And the self-advocacy that is done by lifers is done very, very carefully…..as they have learned that a misstep or miswording or wrong ear can do more harm than good.
Contractor with a degree looking to be converted to an experienced hire at 45. How would years of experience and pay grade be calculated?
If I had 23 years of industry and job specific experience, would that be included? Would I come in close to the same grade as a college hire?
OP here: I’m shocked that experienced hires are treated that way. I worked at a different O&G company and we saw experienced hires as an advantage.
I’ve only been around for less than 6 months as a contractor so I haven’t been indoctrinated yet. I actually would find it laughable if somebody felt their XOM only career was superior to mine with several stops. But when in Rome, I do want to know the rules.
Yes - that is the case.
Undeniable.
Our new CFO is an experienced hire … and she’s on the Management Committee
@emc: ditto, same experience here. took a good four years to build street cred and build a wide network. I've made a dent in the XOM universe, wish I could say MORE. XOM lifers have no idea how much worse it is elsewhere.
🥲
Experienced hires have surely worked for another outfit.
Leaving them expresses that there is little loyalty.
I’d let you go first…
I was an experienced hire at 49 years old. They brought me in to develop plans and execute operations offshore in deepwater. I worked 15 years and then retired in 2016 with a fat 401k and a nice retirement package. By the time I retired I had set, from an installation vessel, 49 EM subtree trees in water depths between 2000 and 3800 feet. It was exciting work, lots of pressure.
The money was great plus the schedule was 28/28. :)
I never felt anything but respect from my colleagues and supervisors (a few were not so good). They had a small office party for me when I left. Good times! Ha!
Experienced hire here. Some things others have stated before this message I feel are true. Although for me, exxon is only my current stop on my career path. This was never once considered a forever place for me.
I have only been ranked once and I received the top ranking. To me, it really doesn't matter just put the money in my pocket and in 4-5 years I'll be on to the next place.
I do find it weird how many folks are lifers at exxon. I often look at them and wonder how they consider it possible to improve efficiencies when doing the same processes over and over that got them to this bad spot in the first place.
"this is the way we do it".... Well how has that worked out for you so far?
There was an event a couple years ago for experienced hires. During the feedback discussion, there were common themes of lack of career potential, no onboarding support, promising of opportunities during interviewing.
I didn't see the inequality at first. It came during career discussions where my prior experience wasn't credited. I also noticed lesser experienced (and in my opinion unqualified) people getting the roles I wanted.
I think the answer is it depends. I’m an experienced hire and my first few years were very hard. Not enough support and also ranking system works against you. After 3-4 years, I built my credibility and network and I’m now consistently ranked top 2 quantiles. I try to help experienced hires as they start and make sure they get the support that I did not receive when I started.
Real answer is “it depends”. There ARE experienced hires that have been hired directly in low management jobs. There are experienced hires that have done pretty well. And they have been ranked consistently top 1/3. This means that they HAVE done better than people that were college hires. But it is rare to become “hippos” and outcompete the top college people in their “yee” category, with their established sponsors, networks and all.
Experienced hires with more than 2 years experience are generally hired to fill specific skill gaps. Those that stick with those skills are treated very fairly and well per the original understanding. Those who just wanted a foot in the door to compete for Executive Management positions will be behind the eight ball compared to their hired out of school peers. It's a reasonable advantage to encourage company longevity. Most companies do this. If the experienced hire enables a new product line or business, then of course they will excel, but that generally has never been the Exxon way.
I heard (maybe wrongly) that DW is an experienced hire too?
but yes, generally we experienced hires are 2nd class. A couple of years after I joined, the campus hires had the same pay as me and my YEE was +7 theirs. It also depends on your function and how desperate they want you.
The support functions are generally less conscious of breed, but in commercial and manufacturing, it seem very much pure breeds calling the shot.
Yes, based on my observation I have seen experienced hires external experience in not valued and they are perceived lower than ingrown employee. Also, contractors are perceived and treated even like a 3rd class. I have frequently heard them being referenced as blue badges.
Historically that has been the case. Remember you are dealing with a very insular culture that starts the day the step into XOM straight from school. For most folks this is the first and only place they have ever worked.