From the Editor - June 2016

From the Editor - June 2016

I thought it might be of interest, as a counterpoint to this positive little “swan song,” to dig up and re-publish a contrastingly not-so-positive piece that I wrote in 1997 upon my  resignation from a major oil company that no longer exists. I received a lot of supportive feedback from my colleagues back then, and I think that some of the issues addressed are still relevant nearly 20 years on. So here it is again, copied verbatim with the exception of replacing that extinct major’s name with “Generic Oil Company”:

“On the occasion of my resignation from Generic, I would like to convey a few personal comments concerning the company. First of all, I want to express my appreciation for 16 years of continuous employment. Apart from this expression of confidence in my abilities on the part of the company, for most of this long phase of my career Generic has provided me with extensive training, access to all the technology I ever needed to carry out my projects, and many wonderful colleagues for whom I have the highest respect.

My decision to leave Generic came from both a desire to try my hand at a new career path, as well as my growing disagreement with many of the new cultural aspects of Generic that have been instituted in the last few years. The following criticisms pertain to a few of these aspects of the ‘New Generic’ which I believe are causing serious damage to the organization and account to a large extent for the current exodus of employees in the E&P sector. Based on many discussions with a broad cross-section (grade levels and disciplines) of fellow Generic coworkers over the past couple of years, I can assure you that the general criticisms presented here are shared by a large segment of the workforce. It is my hope that this criticism is viewed as constructive, or at least a ‘wake-up call.’

• In regards to the plethora of Human Resources programs imposed on employees (‘Renewal,’ ‘Progress,’ etc.), I would recommend that management eliminate, buzzwords and all, most of these activities which are extraneous to and parasitic on the core work. Generic has become more and more like the fictional company in the comic strip Dilbert. This comic strip is popular because the workplace absurdities that are portrayed ring true to many people in large corporations. Dilbert may be funny, but I don’t know of anyone who, given a choice, would actually want to work for Dilbert’s company. Take a confidential poll on the value added to employees’ work by these HR programs, and I think you’ll see the level of distaste for many of them.

• I believe that management should also relegate to the ash heap its expressed corporate philosophy of offering nothing to the employee but compensation for their work while at
Generic, and skills-enhancement to make themselves more ‘marketable’ inside or outside Generic. Intended or not, most employees have translated this to mean ‘you can do an excellent job, but we still may lay you off at any time—of course, the company doesn’t expect any loyalty in return (in the sense of remaining with the company for the longterm), and that’s OK with us.’ The central issues here are commitment and loyalty. I contend that most people, by nature, want to feel loyalty to the organization with which
they are associated. If they don’t feel a sense of loyalty, they will likely ‘jump-ship’ to another organization when a good opportunity arises. I’m not suggesting that a guarantee of
lifetime employment be offered, but there must be many other ways to foster that genuine feeling of attachment; and they are most definitely not artificially-fabricated ‘teambuilding
activities’ such as role-playing games or golf tournaments (no offense to the game of golf). I believe it is a mistake to attempt to standardize work processes, at least in the realm of exploration geoscience. The process of generating play concepts and prospects is a highly creative one, and the way an explorationist utilizes his or her creative power varies from one individual to another—a cookie-cutter approach, even within a single team, will stifle creativity. Also, although I believe that project planning is important, there has been a recent tendency at Generic to over-plan exploration work—a certain amount of freedom must be allowed to pursue ‘blind alley’ ideas for which the explorationist cannot predict the results, let alone assign some relative value to them. The ‘gut feel’ of the experienced explorationist is a real phenomenon, yet I no longer see any respect for this (unmeasurable) skill at Generic.

• I see it as a tragedy that the elders in the company have been so undervalued that they have been aggressively encouraged to make an early exit. Some of these people may lack the
newer technological skills (e.g. workstation savvy), but they possess a unique knowledge of the business on account of their extensive experience. Perhaps more importantly, they
can provide a great deal of inspiration and guidance to the younger members of the firm, and in this role promote growth. If you think of the company more like a family, you
will be able to solve a number of problems.

• Improved intra-company communication is a good thing, but it can be taken to an extreme that defies common sense. Management should not openly communicate issues that
will raise employee expectations, if there is a chance those expectations will not be met. Two recent examples come to mind. The first was management’s announcement that it
had studied the possibility of offering a retention package to employees who would agree to remain with Generic for a certain length of time, as some other companies have done—
and then announcing that after careful consideration, no such package would be offered. On the heels of this came the announcement that a new, market-based pay study was
being carried out, which would determine an adjustment in salary levels to bring compensation more in line with the rest of the industry; though not stated, the obvious implication
of this announcement was that Generic had recognized its pay was generally lower than the industry average, and wanted to increase compensation above the normal 1997
salary treatment in order to stem its workforce attrition rate. The ensuing picayune to nil salary increases doled out to only a portion of the employees left many with the feeling of
being let down yet again. These tactics only result in further decreasing employee morale and the creation of a sense that the company may actually desire an attrition in its workforce
for whatever reason.* I suspect that many of these problems that I perceive at Generic stem from management’s desire to follow the latest business ‘fashions’ in order to create the image of a ‘progressive’ company and thereby appease the analysts on Wall Street. I recognize the importance of the value of Generic’s stock and shareholder perception of the company—but the primary responsibility of a company should be to its people, who are its life-blood. Generic will not achieve its goals without the commitment of its employees.
I hope that the t ide can be turned in Generic, and that it may indeed achieve the premier status to which it purportedly aspires. Your remaining people, who have more patience than I,
deserve it.”

*Note: the company was subject to a (non-hostile) takeover a couple of years after my resignation.