Refinery Experience:
The company has the worst business models I’ve come across. Zero access to leading technology that is just common business from other industries. The IT group creates a 6 month roadblock when you try and introduce a new platform or program. Then another 6 month roadblock trying to get a contract signed to keep company information confidential. Our own standards don’t allow us to keep up with any industry leading programs. Instead we have our IT group create programs, which don’t take the input to a program from the groups that will use it. Then they don’t keep it updated.
Everyone at the refineries talks about how the “Chevron Way” is being nice to everyone and not holding people accountable and just scraping by, but no one does anything about it. A lot of people just going with the flow instead of pioneering new models and trying to improve the whole concept. Is that because we have a pension and good pay so people just want to stay around? Sounds like a broken business plan.
No one keeps track of any money. We have contractors sending in extra work that wasn’t in scope and they’re being paid for it. Because we don’t track anything. Contracts are written on time and material because we don’t want to do the CMCO process. Because we don’t know what is right versus wrong. We’re lazy so time and material is easier. A contractors dream come true. They finish jobs and submit them with 20% markup on both. A welder failed and had to gouge his welds out on Thursday and Friday? We’ll pay him double time to come in Saturday to fix his rejected work. We literally have no idea how to manage contractors and we let slide by every year.
There are plenty of PSG-22/23s that are Team Leads and second level managers that have no idea how to manage. This is something that seriously needs fixed. How can the future leaders be bred when they’re lead by poor individuals? The future of Chevron depends on the internal growth of upcoming employees. Proper leadership trainings needs to happen to the 22/23s.
The annual review process needs tweaking. The ranks are 3, 2- , 2 , 2+ and 1. 1s being the stellar ones and 3 being the turds. The issue is someone who is on the boarder almost a 2- and someone on the boarder of 2+ are both grouped as 2s. While in actual performance they are far from each other. Why do we not use 1-10? Would make so much more sense. I think the current system would be fine if there was more incentive to have employees perform at higher levels. If being a 2 was not just the general population employee.
