We can look at this history vs present behavior in another way. As I stated previously, the move from whole system/eco-sustainability toward dominance of the fittest, is where corrupt ethical and moral practices displace responsibility. The ‘dialogue’ that is taking place has been loud and clear for the past couple of years: managers play with US regulators, managers indulge in hedonistic self-centered activities, we indulge in the pursuit of energy profits even in Iran, AND rewards keep flowing for top leaders.

Mr V enjoys a new +22% salary up from 3.2M in ’09 to 4.4M. Now don’t get me wrong, he did an excellent job of getting rid of ~6000 employees and made sure all who followed the rules were also rewarded, whether they drank too much, sexually accosted their underlings, had sex on company property, or perhaps circumvented environmental regulations. …so… do you hear the ‘dialogue’ of alignment?

Are we behaving much different than any other time energy extraction and profit became the idol. We are behaving like this at all levels in the organization (internally) and in our relationship with the world. Dialogue no longer takes place. The conversation for alignment becomes one-sided, and all who want to survive in the big-oil game, become servant to the indulgences required to compete.

Don’t look to see a change in Shell’s moral or ethical behavior, internally or as a world citizen, unless it is a change that serves someone, and ultimately the organization. I agree, greed is the evil that replaces responsibility. But let’s face it; the rewards for the skilled and greedy, far outweigh any motivation to care for anything beyond self and the enterprise.

Hofmeister pompous as ever.

Last night I watched the BBC documentary on the Macondo blow-out. It was easy to relate with all that was said by the various participants. But two things stuck to my mind: the media and politicians (Obama included and leading the way) are like a troup of rabid dogs. The moment someone is down, they all attack in a feeding frenzy. All with hidden agendas, all completely oblivious of what their actions might cause. Presumably this is their job and I expect hardly anything else from these charlatans.

But then I saw several times that smug toad Hofmeister dumping on BP in general and Hayward in particular. I have seen this devious american arrive in Shell. He was instrumental in pushing the salaries and bonusses of the top echelons to excessive heights, he introduced the ‘behavioural skills’ at the expense of engineering skills, he pulled in many americans that have generally made a mess of things and when he finally was removed, sorry transferred, he travelled as an emperor through the whole of the USA. All under the title of ‘President’. A non-job if ever there was one. He is a disgrace to the people where he came from (Amish). And now he has become an ugly toad kicking someone who is down on the ground. This shows his real character.

I advise all girls NOT to kiss this toad in the hope a handsome prince would emerge. You never know, pigs might fly too.

My research is continuing in the area of corporations communicating with shareholders through social media. My next major oil and gas company that deals with shareholders and corporations using social media is Shell. I have hit on most of the major areas of corporations using social media with shareholders, but Shell adds a different element. Shell has a non-commercial blog that is aimed at making officials stand in compliance with Shell’s mission statement. Of course, the one major part of this is that Shell blogs a good amount about the financial end of the company. Shell also has a live news feed, and a webcast that can be accessed. This is a huge step, and a step above many of the other companies. From IR Web Report, using webcasts can allow for all types of shareholders to understand the financial information they are receiving. Blogging allows for feedback and two-way communication, which is what builds the relationships between the shareholders and the corporations.

It is very hard for companies to want to use social media as a means of communicating and disclosing information to its shareholders. From the case study Communicating Corporate Responsibility to Investors: The Changing Role of Investor Relations Function, the study helps to reiterate that companies need time to adjust to this new concept of releasing all financial information through the internet using social media. The financial problems that can occur by using social media place the companies in possible jeopardy. Shell has definitely taken a bigger leap into using social media with investors, and overtime the corporation will see the benefits of their actions.

Not only does Shell have a blog, Shell also has an investor section on their website that breaks down the online annual reports and all financial information. The down fall to this, like most corporate websites, is the lack of feedback as a function from the investors. Shell also has a Twitter and a Facebook. The Facebook page is a nice feature because it allows for multimedia to be used and for feedback, but many of the posts are not directed toward shareholders, and most the of language used on Shell’s Facebook page is not in English. Twitter is a big social media tool used by Shell to communicate with its shareholders. IR Web Report provides a chart that shows Twitter is the top used social media site by shareholders and corporations with Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube following. Twitter is a great tool for social media, but Shell does not link to their Twitter or Facebook page from their website which is a problem. There should not only be a link on the homepage of the website, but also in the investors’ page, considering financial information is posted on there.

Shell is definitely making headway past BP, Exxon, and Chevron with implementing the blog, but some work still needs to be done in connecting social media to their main site. If shareholders cannot find the social media, what is the point in using it to try to communicate with them?

About Allie Romeo

I am currently a senior at James Madison University. I will be completing my degree with a double major in Communication Studies, with a concentration in organizational communication, as well as, Media Arts and Design with a concentration in corporate communication.SOURCE ARTICLE

There is not much tolerance for criticism within Shell. The biggest mistake I made in my short and soon to end Shell career was identifying genuine problems and trying to be honest with those senior to me. This doesn’t pay. It pays to tow the company line no matter how ridiculous that is.

POSTING ON SHELL BLOG BY “jg6″ IN RESPONSE TO ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR, “USCITIZEN”

Just thought I’d post a couple of my thoughts. Firstly the use of the word “chiefs” seems to of upset you. I apologise if this is the case. I didn’t mean it as a prescriptive term for all managers.

Unfortunately my manager is not as open as you seem to be.

He unfortunately seems to be indicative of the kind of manager that Shell has these days. A few factual examples as follows:

1. He refused to greet any staff members within our division for an extended period of time. He has since rectified this after several complaints from a number of staff.
2. He routinely attempts to extend people’s 3-4 years windows with zero consultation by stealth on the flimsy HR systems.
3. Once staff make it clear that their future lies within another division of Shell he consistently gives them very low scores on their performance reviews. This has happened on a number of occasions.
4. Despite appalling results in the widely encouraged Shell Survey and strong encouragement from management above him he has flatly ignored the survey results. Sadly the division seems to be heading for another extremely poor, even by Shell standards, set of survey results.
5. He carved out a “dream team” within the team to surround him to work on special jobs. These people have all subsequently quit for other large oil companies. He described this failed venture as an experiment which he was happy failed.
6. He has a healthy level of disrespect for people undertaking post graduate studies as he took the school of hard knocks straight out of Shell.

No doubt there are many great managers but sadly working under two at Shell I can honestly say that within Shell but my impression is that many managers within my particular area of Shell in 80 Strand London have extremely poor management skills and have progressed because of one the following:

1. Nest sitting within the organisation succeeding because of their ability to hibernate for extended periods of time. ie 10-20 years in a sort of mexican standoff. These people seem to lack any sort of genuine ambition or will to progress the company. They project a will to advance the company but a more than cursory examination of their behaviour shows that they demand much higher standards of those below them than they do of themselves.
2. People who are able to resist all temptation to point out mistakes being made within the organisation. The sort of yes sir men that will always tow the company line. These people will never rock the boat even when doing so is the right thing to do. This makes them gatekeepers of the sloth like Shell way.
3. Good technical people who become managers because it is an avenue to higher rewards even though they don’t have the necessary skills to manage others. I believe this is a real problem at Shell as these people in many cases neither do much work or management.

So in closing I’ll say this. I believe this site continues to exist for a number of reasons:

1. There is not much tolerance for criticism within Shell. The biggest mistake I made in my short and soon to end Shell career was identifying genuine problems and trying to be honest with those senior to me. This doesn’t pay. It pays to tow the company line no matter how ridiculous that is.
2. This site offers an outlet for people to voice their constructive criticism as this is not allowed within Shell.
3. This website offers more than just the blind drawl rolled out by PvdV and PV. The sort of we must try harder…. mindless we must improve safety… these results are satisfactory (even though they are record breaking)…. I have reduced the bonus structure because of the downturn (even though there are clear rules on how these bonuses are calculated not just because I fancy breaking the rules which were created in aid of transparency).

So rant almost over. It seems apparent to me that anyone who hasn’t become totally comatose after life within the Shell should realise the following:

1. This company is extremely reluctant to celebrate it’s success. This is very sad and seems to be the result of pain caused by the previous scandals and that admitting success may mean the wretched mid and low level employees may want a slice of the action. At least companies like BP offer a 1 for 1 share bonus scheme
2. The company lacks imagination and has lost it’s desire to innovate and lead becoming a shadow of BP. Those ays may now be gone.
3. Short sighted. The company seems to be a wet lettuce unable to hold the course of actually deliver change. In my part of the company they’ve been talking outsourcing first to Poland then to India for the last 5 years. Very little has actually happened. My impression is this is done to appease others rather than as a result of strong convictions.
etc etc

Sorry for the length of this. Just got carried away.

Cheers

Paddy, I cannot fully support your comments concerning those made by Obama over the BP oil spill. Certainly BP have a less than acceptable safety record which needs to be immediately addressed. However, I believe that Obama is using this spill as an ideal way to deflect the problems he has in America and his very low support ratings from the voters there. (Bad news is Good news when it is used to hide major political problems.) What I sincerely hope is that Transocean and Cameron-Hydril also start to get their long overdue bashing from Obama and the American public.

IMPORTANT CORRECTION IN RELATION TO THE POSTING BY “MUSAINT”

(CORRECTION SUPPLIED BY GE OIL & GAS)

Please note that:

1. The blowout preventer (BOP) and controls for the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico were not manufactured by Hydril.

2. Cameron International is an entirely separate company and entity to Hydril (which is part of the Drilling & Production business within GE Oil & Gas).

IT COST SAVING IDEA #317: STOP FIDDLING WITH THE SUPPLY SIDE.

If you’re a CIO and you’re bored, one of the things you might do is to fiddle with the supply side. Changing all your suppliers overnight makes a nice splash in the media and marks you out as a thrusting and dynamic leader.

Thus we learned a few years back that Shell IT now had just 4 ‘Key Application Suppliers’ globally: IBM and WIPRO for the ‘oily rag’ stuff (sourcing mainly from India) plus LOGICA and ACCENTURE to talk persuasively and rack up impressive dry-cleaning bills. They how I understood it, anyway.

This setup fits the CIO’s vision of how the world should be, but it’s not how the world is. Most adventures in ‘Matulaland’ run years late and some never work at all. In the meantime, ‘legacy’ IT experts are needed to keep systems running and fix the damage done by unqualified (and constantly churning) offshored workers. Legacy IT experts are mostly locked into earlier supply arrangements – reinvoicing agencies that operate on margins of just 3%, so couldn’t be any cheaper.

How are these 2 worlds reconciled ? Easy ! The legacy agencies are forced to work through LOGICA or ACCENTURE to maintain the illusion of 4 suppliers. The policy makes these workers an eye-watering 30% MORE EXPENSIVE for no discernable gain, least of all in the dry-cleaning department. ‘It’s only transitional’, you might argue, but some of these arrangements are now in their 3 year.

COST-SAVING is clearly a tricky business. With charades of this sort tolerated at boardroom level, what chance does Peter Voser have further down the tree ?

A couple of decades ago Shell had five refineries in the United Kingdom – when the sale of Stanlow is completed soon they will have none. Is this because refining is a sunset industry with no growth potential and no chance of earning returns? Not if you take note of reliable global demand forecasts it isn’t. The “US Joint Forces Command” – the top of the American armed forces pyramid – has recently said that globally a “severe energy crunch is inevitable without massive expansion of production and refining capacity”. Most other forecasters agree that the planet will need substantially more not less refining capability in the years ahead. So why has Shell retreated so dramatically from refining and what are the implications for the “new Shell” which will emerge from the radical reviews underway under Peter Voser?

Historically Shell has been pretty good at running refineries. Many of the advanced processing techniques that are commonplace in sophisticated refineries are Shell inventions or incorporate propriety Shell technologies. The challenge to extract the maximum amount of distillates and gasoline from crude oils of a variety of chemical complexity was one that Shell embraced many years ago and their success record is impressive. Even the heaviest and most unpromising crudes can be forced to deliver high spec white oils these days – it’s almost taken for granted that they will. Similarly Shell refineries are hugely more energy efficient than they used to be. The amount of energy used in processing crude is orders of magnitude less today than it was even ten years ago. Similarly although there are safety and environmental failures that Shell prefers not to talk about (ask the inhabitants of Durban South Africa for example) overall the refinery HSE record is a good one – perhaps the best amongst the oil majors.

So if refining is historically a core competence in Shell, if the demand for refinery capacity is on the increase not the reverse and if Shell’s general track record is a good one why are they running away from this sector at such a rate? The reason is that there is a fallacy in Shell as to what refineries actually are! They are seen as profit centres rather that the cost centres that they really are. The economics of a refinery are comparatively simple. Crude oil arrives, it is processed and then products cross the refinery fence. The cost of the crude oil is not the refiners concern and the value realised for the products is not their concern either. Crude is bought by the traders and products are sold by the traders and marketers. The refiner’s challenge is to process what the traders give them and supply what the marketers ask for as cheaply as possible. But in order to do this it requires a management imperative which sees that it is worthwhile being involved in this business at all. In the past vertical integration was seen to add value all the way along the supply chain – from wellhead to the motorist’s car if you like. This is no longer the case and every business has to deliver individual returns. The traders buy the right crude at the right prices and the marketers and traders sell the right products and achieve the maximum returns that they can. The poor refiner is squeezed in the middle and however well he runs his operation it will always be under scrutiny. This is particularly so as refineries are still quite labour intensive operations. Shell has around a thousand employees at Stanlow and there are hoards of contractors on top of that. In an obsessively cost conscious environment such as the one that rules in Shell at the moment all labour-intensive sectors are at risk –irrespective of their intrinsic value or their competence – or even the likely long-term demand for their products and services.

ARTICLE ENDS

definition of short-termism

Adoption of rapid results as a business aim. Short-termism involves maximizing profits in the near future, possibly by raising profits to the highest level and cutting costs by laying off staff. The pressures of maximizing shareholder value often lead to the adoption of a short-term approach, regardless of whether this is in the company’s long-term interests.

Posting by Jo Blow on Apr 25th, 2010 at 1:35 pm