Why is pretty much everyone on this forum so obsessed with the Tenure numbers? This is a genuine question. I worked for several large multinational corporations and I've never see this as pronounced as here at EM...
8 replies (most recent on top)
- people got told that oil and gas leads to a long career if you make some sacrifices but that is no longer true and the sacrifices can’t be unmade
- exxon has the greediest and d-mbest stock vesting schedule of any company ever at a whopping 7 years. name any other competitor - their stock vests at 4 years. tech company? potentially quarterly
@by incredibly well written and how many of my peers feel (20+ of service)
@OP The “tenure obsession” at legacy companies isn’t about employees romantically worshipping years of service.
It’s about the contract leadership itself spent decades selling: Work hard. Stay loyal. Sacrifice short-term opportunities. Build a career here. In return, there will be stability, retirement security, and a pension at the end.
That wasn’t some employee fantasy. That was the actual corporate culture for generations.
People made major life decisions around that promise:
where to live
whether to relocate
financial planning
family stability
staying through difficult assignments and downturns
tolerating lower mobility in exchange for long-term security
So when leadership changes the model late in the game and suddenly pivots to: “Nothing is guaranteed. Adapt or be exited. That’s just business.”
…employees understandably feel blindsided.
Because if the real model is: high pressure, stack ranking, constant restructuring, uncertain longevity, and disposable employment, then leadership should have had the honesty to say that upfront instead of continuing to market the company as a long-term career destination built around loyalty and pensions.
You can’t spend decades encouraging people to run a marathon, then near the finish line announce it’s actually a sprint and act confused about why people are upset.
That’s not “tenure obsession.” That’s frustration with leadership changing the terms of the deal mid-course.
What do you mean by tenure? Absolutely nobody talks about that. It’s more like a scrum with everyone aspiring to be the HiPo with the proverbial rocket up their ar-e to pass up all the poor working schmucks in the middle without regard for age or tenure. So what are you talking about.
It was stated in the Finance Development & Staffing rollout, the development model is to prepare for a long term career, however, that no longer means what it once did. The play on words was that the new model will prepare you to succeed in long term career, but doesn’t mean long term here at ExxonMobil. Finally, someone was honest and we were formally put on notice. Word got around quickly. A few of my colleagues have left, I’m on 2nd interview and hope to follow soon.
The main discontent employees have is this - EM promised us a long term career when we were hired. The paradigm changed mid-way and now everyone is on a one year contract. I'd have understood letting people go if the company was doing bad - but we both internally and externally keep saying that we are in our own league and are doing great.
I'm not saying people should be slacking off while EM maintains long-term employment promise - those who are slacking off, we genuinely need to use NSI to get rid of. But there is legitimate talent being let go just to meet numbers.
the pension implications are pretty high as you age with Exxon - they promise of long term employment benefit let them retain employees with little to no up front bonus/RSUs - the current RSU structure is much worse than tech industry. all these to say that the carrot they show is the pension eligibility at 55 ; the numbers are HEAVILY discounted until then ...hence the obsession (i assumed by tenure you meant pension eligibility).
No one is responding to your question because it is phrased in such a way that none of us understand what you are trying to say.