by rockdoc123 » Wed 07 Aug 2013, 10:18:55
The large independents suffer to a large extent due to a lack of accountability. The man at the top has 10 layers or so below him, lots of room for finger pointing. Information transfer upwards in such companies is poor at best and often people near the bottom who are closer to the well bore don't even bother attempting to do so in order to avoid continual frustration. Bungie cord managers are common (look that one up in the Dilbert archive) so it is no surprise at all that companies such as XOM could sell an asset, buy it back at a premium and then sell it at a loss....so many different management involved it is hard to find someone to blame.
In comparison the small independents are run largely by entrepreneurs who take calculated risks but also are forced to take all of the accountability simply because there are generally nothing more than one or two layers of management, everyone knows who made/makes the decisions and are usually happy that they have had a bit of say in what goes on.
I always find it interesting to reread the chapters in The Prize that talk about the history of some of the big companies. The individuals who were instrumental in starting those companies Anthony Lucas (Spindletop which created Gulf Oil Corp), Rockefeller (Standard oil), William D'arcy (Burmah Oil the forerunner to BP) seemed to have been cut from a different cloth than the current batch of big company CEOs. I think you still see that spirit in some of the smaller independents Brian Maxted at Kosmos and Gene Van Dyke at Vanco as examples.