Managers barely even know all of the employees in their group
15 replies (most recent on top)
The worst is they laid off veterans who were recently separated under the guise they were "cutting cost" though we were alowe pay grade than all in position, and 1/3 rd the price of a consultant. Then they hired back consultants (aka their buddies) to fill the position. That cost savings plan doesn't make sense to me.
The performance review a few years ago included statement noting issues with particular teams and the leadership associated with the teams. At the objection of the supervisor I distributed the performance review to the leadership of the teams. The leadership of the teams noted to HR leadership with me in the room the information n the performance review was not factual. HR noted legal guidance and we were all told to leave the room. End result the career at the company came to a dead end as a result of the poor review (factual or not). The layoff was the better options of a series of bad options so I am pleased to be one of the individuals included in the layoff process. But now for the supervisor to rot in hell.
Lying about performance is a significant problem that needs to be adressed immediately within ConnocoPhillips. The illusion that this company will be left stronger after the layoffs of "poor" performers is a significant threat to investors. Whether it's discrimination, lack of service or a "manager" rather than a leader in authority it is an urgent competirive need.
The cash cow is across the street enjoying the green grass.
You think this is the first time these people make decisions without weighting the variables?
That is the problem with the ConocoPhillips that we now have...too many managers and supervisors who know nothing about being a leader! The leaders have already been severed or have left! God help us!
Interesting conversation. Prior to the layoff the supervisor noted time and time again my desire for the role as supervisor of the team (aka, his job). And time and time again I would note the applications for other jobs in the company and my desire for him to stop lying to other supervisors about job performance. Ideally work to promote the staff and the staff work to promote you.
What goes around, comes around . . . My manager was demoted, and my director was "retired."
Managers have a greater respinsibility to the bottom line and the freedom to reorganise their department with or without their current supervisors.
Just look at the decisions that were made in the April layoffs! The managers and supervisors got rid of their competition, and used salary and age to make their crappy decisions.
Does anyone have an idea when they will be on the Tax floor in Bartlesville?
I'm already planning my discrimination lawsuit for targeting me based on my status as a disabled veteran. It's extremely clear that my supervisor wants me out and I believe this is one of the legitimate reasons why.
In Finance, supervisors were told to make a list of their 1s, 2s and subject matter experts
You can be sure supervisors made recommendations to Directors who made recommendations to Managers. It is all a numbers game in a lot of cases. They just lay the org charts on the table and factor in cost of employee, age of employee, heritage plan(s) applicable, and lastly performance. They want to get rid of the staff employees who cost the company the most in salaries, VCIP, insurance, & retirement. They will offset these individual layoffs with some younger poor performers so that they aren't sued for age discrimination.
Might as well be a random decision. Individual employees are not judged based on merit anyway. The only time a supervisor will fight for an employee is to make their life easier or to pay back a favor.