About this blog - 6

When I started this blog I did not have a target in mind in terms of readership.  My immediate goal was, given the way Patrick Naef announced my departure (and, I am told, subsequently refused to discuss the reasons on the grounds that “it was confidential” thus further fuelling speculation), to dispel any rumours that I had been involved in some sort of fraudulent activity.  It is sad that no-one in the company saw fit to clarify the situation - this could have been done so easily - but, of course, such rumours (temporarily) helped paper over the cracks of a pretty distasteful episode.  Though I had no firm target, I guess I would have been content with a couple of hundred readers of my initial blog (which was published on 31 January 2011).  With 200 people across the company knowing the truth, word of mouth would have done the rest and the cracks would be visible enough for all to see.

As I revealed more information about events, it was probably natural that I would retain a core audience but I would have assumed that, after six months or so, most people would have forgotten about me.  So, by mid-year had I seen a couple of dozen readers of each update I would have been more than content.

I have done nothing in terms of SEO.  In fact it has been more a case of SEDO - Search Engine De-Optimisation.  Initially, I only want readers from the company (and those closely associated with it) so that I can monitor relevant readership.  I do not want people stumbling across the site, I want to limit it to a captive audience at the moment.  This is the reason why, thus far, I have avoided using the company name and why the blog has such a bland url.  Looking at the search terms that lead to my site, it is clear that the approach has been successful.  I can count on one hand the number of obvious mis-directs - the overwhelming majority of search terms are very specifically targeted towards the topics and relevant individuals.

The SEDO approach will not always be the right one.  For now, I want to provide more updates on the actions by specific individuals and also complete the full picture.  The latter will provide more focus on the company’s role in all this.  Of course, what happened to me was the direct result of Patrick Naef’s desire to get rid of me and the overwhelming support that he received from his management and HR.  But, at the end of the day, it was the company that terminated my contract based on an outright lie and it needs to be accountable for that.  Just as individuals should not hide behind a company, a company has no right to hide behind its individuals.  So, at some stage in the future, I will be more than happy to see my readership widen.  I think that everyone should have the ability to understand how large and high profile companies (particularly those who vigorously promote their qualities) behave.

So, back to the numbers, the response has been way beyond what I could have imagined. An initial 200 hits were reached in just a few hours, with over 700 in one  day.  After the initial interest (3,660 in February and 2,009 in March) the figures have been reasonably constant at around 1,200 per month.  August was the lowest with just 725, but October was the third highest at 1,448.  Daily hit rates vary quite a bit, but 40 is a typical figure, with the lowest at 8.

So, as you can see, any expectations of ‘a couple of dozen’ per update have been vastly exceeded.  If I look at the last update as an example, 24 hits were seen within just two hours of it being published.  Within 24 hours the figure had reached 98 and it took just over four days to reach 300. 

All this is despite the fact that the site has been blocked from the corporate network of its target audience.  Whilst, I expected nothing else from Patrick Naef, I would like to understand his justification for such censorship.  Maybe the company IT policy has been updated but, in my experience, only obscene, offensive, etc. material was blocked, along with sites which would be so popular as to cause performance issues.  The latter’s restrictions were normally limited to the working day.  I hardly think that my little blog (with its circa 40 readers a day) would strain any network and certainly not compete with a Test match in terms of interest.  But I suppose, for someone who seems to be most comfortable when dealing with mis-information, the truth probably  seems pretty offensive.

As I publish this, the total number of hits recorded is 15,322.    
  

Comments on comments

I have generally avoided responding here to specific comments received.  If people want a personal response they can include contact details in their comment, or alternatively use the email address I gave in ‘About this blog - 2’ in February.  In both cases, I guarantee a reply and anonymity.  But there are a few themes which recur and they seem to be increasing in regularity, so I thought I should respond to them here.

A regular theme is along the lines of ‘Why didn’t you speak up while you were here? . . . Patrick Naef’s management probably can’t act on your blog, so why don’t you write to them officially and tell them what went on? . . .  Why bother with a blog, why don’t you write to those at the very top of the Group and make them aware of the issues? . . . etc’.  The short answer is that I did.  But in more detail . . .

All issues I have referred to in my blog (and more) were raised to Patrick Naef regularly.  He was fully aware of my concerns.  I believe that this was the reason he had me fired - he simply does not like to have his policies questioned.  But, as a member of a management team, I always strongly believe in the principles of ‘cabinet responsibility’.  On some questions regarding strategy I found myself in a minority of one in the Executive team and I had to (and did) respect that, implementing decisions which I did not agree with.  (It is a sobering experience to find yourself inwardly in total agreement with the arguments being put forward by your colleagues in the business, as well as members of your team, but having to rebut them!)  But I had no major problem with this - after all, none of us has a monopoly on being right - and, had I not been comfortable, I was perfectly free to move on.  As it was, I felt I was adding enough value to the organisation to continue in my role.  And I must make it clear that Patrick and I were in full agreement on many (probably over 90%) of EG-IT issues.  Unfortunately, the remaining 10% happened to be the bigger ones! 

As for ‘going above Patrick’, that is never my style.  I reserve such action as ‘last ditch’ and only for issues of phenomenal importance to the company and/or individuals which could not be resolved in any other way.  In the normal course of events, I would never betray my boss by bypassing him or her.  It was up to me to put forward my arguments and to win them.  I failed to do so and that was my problem.  It was Nigel Hopkins’ and Gary Chapman’s responsibilities to be satisfied as to how Patrick Naef was managing IT for the Group and it is clear that they were.  How they came to that conclusion is a matter for them, but neither of them ever sought any input from me.

You may recall me, back in March (‘Naefed in the back‘), describing Patrick’s desire to unfairly make an individual redundant.  This certainly would have qualified as a matter of ‘phenomenal importance’ to which I refer above, as the action desired by Patrick Naef was totally unethical.  The EG-IT redundancy exercise was agreed unanimously by the IT Executive as necessary in order to meet the financial targets set by Gary Chapman at the time.  It was a very difficult time for everyone and the best we could do was to execute it as fairly as we could.  To pollute the process, as Patrick Naef wanted to, would have been, in my view, totally unacceptable and something that I would have had no part in.  As I explained at the time (only) to my Wife, had Patrick insisted on getting his own way then I would have taken the matter right to the very top of the Group if necessary and, had that failed, duly resigned from the company.

But, of course, me getting fired was of phenomenal importance to me so naturally I did take matters further, right to the top of the Group in fact.  In later blogs I will share details of these communications and I think many readers will be as surprised and as disappointed as I was with the responses (often the lack of any response at all).  And, as I stated back in January, I gave them plenty of opportunities to respond properly (for over three months) before I concluded that a blog was the only communication vehicle available to me.  I have never known a situation where someone’s management has taken so little interest in what he is doing and how he is doing it.  As I also stated earlier - for me this is indeed a unique situation.

I am often asked for more regular updates as well as details about current events.  We are still travelling quite a bit but I do try and get something out as often as I can.  It is nice to see the blog is still widely read but it is sad that people have to look so far away for information about what is happening in their own department.  But, as I am sure you will understand, I cannot comment about specific current issues in EG-IT, given I am not at all in touch with details of events.  I have been asked recently why the ‘new SVP’ did not join EG-IT last month but I do not know the gentleman, so I have no idea why he decided not to turn up.  All I can do is wonder why, if anyone had a choice in the matter and knew of Patrick Naef‘s record and credentials, they would choose to report to him in any organisation.  And of course I remain totally baffled why Patrick Naef spent so much time and effort trying (and failing) to find a ‘new SVP’ when he already had an ‘old SVP’.  I always turned up!

I know that the recent press release regarding Mercator Asia has caused consternation and exasperation in business areas as well as across EG-IT but, again, I am not privy to any of the problems there.  But that whole exercise bore the same hallmark of most of Patrick Naef’s initiatives - ill conceived and poorly implemented.  Initial ideas are normally fairly sound but they are then rigorously pursued without any in depth analysis, without any regard to ‘what could go wrong’ and with no tolerance for any questioning views.  Consequently, proposal teams are very small and limited to those content to follow his orders and work within his narrow guidelines.  Patrick Naef’s unstoppable tenacity to implement initiatives should be a huge asset to any organisation but, when applied to flawed, expensive and resource draining proposals as it often is, it is lethal.  

I also feel that I should respond to a specific comment received recently which requested my views on why the IT Executive team is “so ineffective” as this is a question often asked.  I do not think it is necessary for me to defend people but maybe a few words may be helpful.

Each member of the IT Executive has particular skills and I enjoyed working with all of them.  We all have strengths and weaknesses and also fit to varying degrees into our roles at any given time.  If all of us were sat in roles for which we were totally qualified, none of us would develop and I was thankful to receive help from my colleagues (both offered by them and requested by me) to fill the many gaps I have, as well as pleased to provide some of my experience to my colleagues when appropriate.  Such activities always took place out of the formal management framework because Patrick Naef’s style is very much one of ‘instruction’.  He talks glibly about ‘consensus management’ but in reality that means that his management team has agreed to his point of view, albeit after a long and often tortuous discussion. Certainly, members of the IT Executive regularly spoke up, but rarely with the vigour with which I did.  But I did wonder sometimes, when I found myself outvoted as I stated above, if that was a reflection of true beliefs or just the impact of Patrick’s intimidatory management style. 

With genuine open debate at all levels and the total absence of fear of ‘management retribution’, organisations can not only maximise their potential, but also enrich the careers of their staff.  You have to have personally experienced such an environment in order to truly believe that.  As I see it, EG-IT’s Executive team, indeed EG-IT as a whole, is nowhere near as effective as it could (and should) be because there is no genuine open debate and the fear of management retribution dominates people’s every day lives.  In these challenging times, right across the world people with family responsibilities have a serious concern for the stability of their careers but EG-IT staff, given the nature of their residence status, will understandably feel that concern even more strongly.  Any individual, or organisation, who sees that as an opportunity to exercise a greater level of control is not only immoral, but also very short sighted. 

     

Vanishing axe

There is a saying that goes something like this . . . "To lose one of your managers may be considered misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness".  In Patrick Naef’s case the word careless would be a gross understatement, given he has managed to ‘lose’ an entire management team.

I had been reporting to Patrick Naef for less than two years when I became his longest serving manager.  Even when working in other companies, where massive head count reductions were the consistent norm, I had never seen such levels of attrition.  I had heard stories about Patrick’s short term loyalty to his direct reports in his previous roles, so I was not totally surprised, but to have lost an entire management team in such a short space of time, this took some beating.  It has to be remembered that Patrick had already put aside the management team he inherited, so those who had subsequently fell by the wayside were his own appointments. 

But, of course, they had all ‘resigned’.  This did not unduly surprise me as I was fully aware of how difficult it was working with Patrick Naef and that many of my colleagues found it a particular strain.  Also, although new to the expatriate way of life as I was, I could understand that family pressures could be more likely to prompt decisions being taken to move back home.

Of course, I have no reason to doubt what individuals have told me but I could not help but notice how some of their original clear plans to return ‘home’ subsequently changed, leaving me to wonder about the real driving force behind such decisions.  And then, a year ago, I found myself being bundled out of the organisation on the pretext of a totally fabricated situation but with a financial inducement should I submit my resignation.  I will cover that sordid episode in more detail at another time but included was the ability to delay my departure date in return for a total confidentiality clause.  This, of course, would have not only required me to tell everyone that I had decided to move on, but also given me time to warm people up to the idea in advance, e.g. ‘we don’t fancy another summer etc.’.

But Patrick Naef now finds himself in an interesting position.  In my experience he has never been capable of improving individuals’ performances by traditional development methods.  He simply tells them what he thinks is wrong (but with no guidance as to how to get it ‘right’) and constantly moans about them to others.  When that process inevitably fails, he just removes them from their post.  And he can never do this properly as, were he to utilise even the most basic of HR processes (e.g. accounting for his actions with some evidence), his proposals would fall at the first hurdle.  So the only method available is the one he used against me - misinformation, supported by both HR and management who jumped at his every command.  But surely he will not be allowed to do this again?  Surely at least one person will now stand up and be counted?  Surely someone will ask him, at the very least, to produce some evidence?

And of course Patrick Naef has an even bigger problem.  Who would choose to work for him?  It would indeed be a brave man or woman, knowing how Patrick Naef behaves, to agree to take up a new role reporting to him.  One of my favourite sayings, ‘truth is the daughter of time’, has not fundamentally changed over the years but, in this modern era, the period of time has reduced significantly.  Making truthful (and thus durable) information widely available to interested parties is much easier and quicker these days, so most candidates are in a position to gain vital information about possible problems in a role even before the interview stage.  And, should someone initially miss out on such details, they have plenty of opportunities to make the necessary enquiries right up to the last minute to avoid making a mistake.  A mistake that they may well regret for a considerable time.          
 

About this blog - 5

It has been suggested again that I should open up this blog and allow anonymous comments so that EG-IT staff can voice their concerns about what has gone, and still goes, on in the department.  I do understand, but I am determined that this blog remains ‘open and honest’ and I feel that anonymous comments could potentially jeopardise its credibility.

The format of the blog seems to work well.  It carries a guaranteed ‘right of reply’ and only contains material that I have personal experience of and can validate without the need to call on (and thus potentially compromise) others.  Despite over 10,000 hits so far, I have not yet had one request to correct anything that I have written.  In ‘pull’ mode, it is unobtrusive and only read by those who are interested in it.  Also, it is ‘low maintenance’, taking up no more than an hour of my time per month. 

Someone expressed concern that readership of my blog was declining, but they need not have worried.  After the understandable initial peak (and of course its blocking from the corporate network), daily hits settled to a fairly constant level for a few months, but have in fact increased slightly recently.  The average is around 50 a day, with it increasing to 80 or 90 just after an update and then dropping steadily until the next update.  I think the lowest figure for a day I have ever seen has been 14.

The blog has certainly met one of the original objectives in providing information about what happened to me to those who were interested, but only time will tell if it stops anyone suffering the same fate as I did at the hands of Patrick Naef.  Certainly the alarming attrition rate of Patrick Naef’s management teams over the years has slowed down considerably during 2011.  I would not dare to claim any credit for this but, surely by now, Patrick’s managers pay more interest in what he gets up to than they did in the past.  I think the phrase is ‘the vulture has had his wings clipped’.

Sophia Panayiotou

Sophia Panayiotou was very much in the picture at the start of the proceedings with me, but she soon evaporated into the background leaving all the grubby work to Malini Johnson.  When I joined the company I was intrigued by the culture that even the most trivial of company wide communications (e.g. where not to park your car) was signed by the SVP (at least) of the responsible unit.  But I am now even more intrigued that, when I was given days off for a public holiday the communication always came from Sophia but when I was given the rest of my life off, she delegated the task to Malini.  Like Patrick Naef, Sophia was smart enough to know that my termination letter was going to be a millstone around the neck of whoever signed it and wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.

And just like Malini, Sophia Panayiotou knows Patrick Naef well enough to be aware that what he was doing to me was not right.  She told me that “I just came back from holiday, I didn’t know there was even an issue” after the initial meeting (on 3 August 2010) and thus knew that Patrick was not telling the truth when claiming that he had been discussing removing me from my role ‘for a long time’  Yet, she rubber stamped and supported everything that Patrick said and gave her full support to my termination.

That meeting in August was an utter shambles and had no place in any organisation, let alone in one that aspires to be world class.  In all, I was given four (vastly differing) objectives of the meeting.  As is often the case with Patrick Naef’s meetings and initiatives, he made things up as he went along.  The following day Patrick Naef blamed HR for the shambles.  Far from it, Sophia and Malini were simply swept along by a tidal wave of confusion and misinformation, a speciality of Patrick Naef.  But, as head of HR Business Support, Sophia should have taken control of things and stopped the nonsense.  SVP’s are paid to do what is right.

And Sophia also had plenty of time to act subsequently, but she failed to do so.  She had witnessed the confusion and the ever changing picture.  She knew enough about Patrick’s track record to cast doubt over what he was saying.  She knew that no discussion had ever taken place between me and anyone else on the topic prior to the (what turned out to be an irrevocable and unchallengeable) decision to terminate my contract being made.  She knew that the reasons given to me for terminating my contract are totally untrue.  As head of HRBS, she had a duty to ensure that company procedures were adhered to, that any charges made against me were checked for validity and that I was given the appropriate support.  She did none of this.

She may have disappeared into the background and left Malini to be hung out to dry, but I hold Sophia Panayiotou responsible for what happened to me.  Only she knows why she decided to abandon her responsibilities and turn her back on her profession.

Malini Johnson

I used to have enormous respect for Malini Johnson.  Others, who had been in the company longer than I, had different views (citing past events) but I can only judge on my own experiences.  Understandably, there were often times when issues involving staff had to be addressed, sometimes with potentially serious consequences, but I always found Malini to be fair, thorough and willing, as well as able, to see situations from all angles.  As an example, these attributes were clearly demonstrated during 2009 when we had to make some EG-IT staff redundant.  This was clearly a difficult time but I felt that HR supported, guided and managed us (local management) very effectively, alongside providing appropriate support to those individuals affected.

Of course, in the past Malini was well supported by strong HR Managers.  EG-IT enjoyed the services of two individuals (both sadly left the company), who were highly competent, professional and always willing to stand up for what was right.  Neither had any difficulty in challenging Patrick Naef when necessary - a rare attribute! 

But I never felt that the excellent overall HR support we had received was solely due to the HR Manager at the time.  To me, Malini was very much part of the equation and was visibly involved when necessary.  She was well informed about issues in EG-IT and was clearly worried at times about Patrick Naef’s behaviour.  During one particularly difficult period, Malini was very proactive in terms of gathering information from various individuals.  And, right up until last year, she would regularly ask me how Patrick had been ‘behaving lately’ and although the tone was always light, even humorous, it reflected a genuine concern she had about the impact Patrick Naef had on individuals.

So what changed?  During the meeting when Patrick dropped his sudden “I have to move you out of your job” bombshell (despite, just nine weeks earlier, telling me he “really valued  and enjoyed working with” me) Malini was strangely supportive of Patrick and provided no assistance to me at all.  At the time I just put this down to the usual impact that Patrick Naef’s overpowering personality has on people in meetings.  I felt sure that the ‘real Malini’ would re-emerge.  But I was wrong.

Malini Johnson was quite happy to sign my termination letter knowing that it contained nothing but false allegations, all of which are demonstrably not true.  She was quite happy to deliver that letter knowing that it was an instrument to bundle me out of the organisation without any form of hearing at all, let alone a fair one.  Such action is totally at odds with what anyone, in any company, in any part of the world, would expect of an HR professional.

At my ‘termination meeting’ I questioned how I could be in such a position when Patrick Naef had very recently assessed me in box 6 (high performance, high potential).  Patrick denied that he had done this.  I then produced irrefutable evidence to support my statement - a document, in Patrick Naef’s own handwriting, clearly showing box 6.  Patrick Naef, having been caught out, squirmed and try to wriggle out if it.  He said he had placed me in box 5.  Putting aside the fact that the majority of our strong staff (the core of the organisation) are in box 5, none of whom would be deemed anywhere near having ‘performance issues’, let alone being fired, Malini had witnessed Patrick Naef not telling the truth.  Yet she did nothing.

Malini also broke an important promise she made to me.  I was certain that, once I was out of his way, Patrick Naef would target certain areas and individuals he had in his sights.  I was very concerned that Patrick would be taking action against individuals without constraint, without anyone providing some balance.  With a recent change of HR Manager and me gone, all continuity was going to be lost.  So I asked Malini if she would set up a session where I could brief her and Sophia Panayiotou about all the issues in EG-IT which Patrick had misunderstood, details of individuals’ strengths and weaknesses as I saw them and suggestions of senior managers in the business who they could consult for more balanced views on individuals if necessary.  Malini indicated to me that she recognised the need and value of such a session and promised me (three times) that she would set it up.  But she failed to do so.

Worst of all, I went to see Malini (just before I was terminated) in her office to try and get some personal support from her.  She refused to talk to me, pleading with me not to involve her.  Such (in)action goes beyond the description of being unprofessional, I would describe it as a total dereliction of duty.  Even people as senior and experienced as me sometimes need some support and, as an employee of the company, I had a right to expect such support.  For some reason, Malini had other views.

At the time I could only conclude that Malini had been bullied into such a change of approach.  I could not see this as an excuse as, at her level and salary, she should be capable of standing her ground, but, having seen the impact Patrick Naef had had on many others over the years, I could at least understand.  But later, the President, Gary Chapman, confirmed to me that the action to terminate my contract “had the full support of everyone in HR”.  Without doubt, that would have included Malini Johnson so it is clear that she was happy to have me sacked, despite knowing that not a shred of evidence had ever been presented to support even alleged disciplinary action, let alone anything more serious.  I do not know if Malini is a member of any formal HR Institution but, if she is, her role in my dismissal would surely preclude her continued membership if they were to be made aware of it.

I would love to know what caused Malini Johnson to perform such an enormous U-turn on me.  The problem is, she has refused to communicate with me on the subject.  I just hope that one day she will.  It would be an interesting conversation.     

On the fiddle

Like all IT Executive teams, EG-IT’s team was no exception in having its strengths and weaknesses.  It is neither fair, nor appropriate, to rank teams from best to worst but, for each team I have worked in, one specific attribute will always come to mind.  Unfortunately, my memories of the EG-IT Exec team will always be dominated by the theme of waste, in particular wasting time.

On joining the organisation, I was surprised to note that the IT Executive met every week and assumed that this would be a high level (and punchy) check on activities, 30 minutes maximum.  But it was scheduled for four hours.  And to make matters worse, it over ran!  I came out stunned, having pored over the most minute details, wondering what on earth all the managers in the department did.  I soon found out  - they spent half the week preparing information for the next IT Exec meeting, the other half dissecting the information that emerged from the last one.  The result was an unhealthy and fruitless interest in trivia and a lack of any progress on the real issues at stake.  Important matters, such as those relating to people, were always left to last, when energy levels were declining and the need to move on to the next meeting dominating. 

After a couple of years we eventually recognised the importance of HR matters and agreed to deal with these first, but my joy of reaching such a milestone was somewhat tempered when the solution was to start the meeting an hour earlier - it was now scheduled for five hours!  And the need for meaningful discussion on other topics was met by yet another weekly meeting being scheduled  - this one was called ‘reflections’ - every Thursday for two and a half hours. 

Of course this approach has a potentially dangerous impact on the organisation below.  I calculated that if I applied the same demands on my management team that Patrick Naef made on us (a weekly total of seven and a half hours of management team meetings, plus an hour one-to-one), then I would be spending 25 hours per week simply sitting in management meetings.  Extrapolating this approach throughout the organisation does not bear thinking about, particularly given the main goal was just keeping everyone ‘up to date’.

I referred (in an earlier blog) to Patrick Naef’s management approach of ‘conflict by design, creation of tensions between team members, then kiss and make up at an away day’ and these away days would trigger another terrible round of waste.  These events not only wasted time, but also money because of Patrick’s seeming obsession of holding them far away from the office.  I am totally in favour of such ‘away days’ on a periodic basis where the management team can step back from day to day issues and spend time on the wider challenges.  Once a quarter is about the right frequency and that is about how often we met.  But you can step back from day to day issues quite easily by meeting away from the office.  My own such management ‘away days’ were held in the Aviation College - ten minutes up the road with no additional cost to the Group - and they lasted just a day.  But Patrick would have us out for two days at a time in places like Hatta, Oman, Switzerland and Germany.  Once we had the entire senior management team (circa 25 people) hauled up to Musandam for a couple of days.  If you include travelling time, this would have cost over three man months on top of the hotel and travel costs, not to mention the consultants’ fees.

These sessions, for some reason, needed external consultants.  Personally, I think senior managers should be capable of facilitating themselves but I do agree that, at times, there is a need for a bit of independence.  But this can be provided internally and the Group could certainly have provided people with the necessary skills and independence.  But Patrick Naef only seemed to be comfortable when he had his team around him in a far flung location and marshalled by his favoured firm of consultants.  This company certainly had innovative ideas which, at times, worked well.  At one session we benefited from some oral delivery training from a highly accomplished actor and this was really powerful.  But that was an exception.  On a couple of occasions we were shown the concept of putting music to management by a truly world class violinist but, whilst I do not deny that it was an incredible experience to hear someone of that stature play at such close quarters, I could never see this adding a single dirham of value to the business.

I do recognise the need to try something new but I am afraid we have to recognise that IT is not particularly complicated.  What we needed was training on things like risk and project management, not musical lessons.  I couldn’t help wondering how my customers at the airport would have reacted when, say, BRS was down if I had turned up and started to tune my violin.

But by far the biggest waste of time and money I have ever experienced was our infamous trip to Frankfurt.  To this day, I do not know what the excuse was for us all to drag ourselves to a remote monastery in Germany.  Certainly it was an interesting location and the evening wine tasting session was enjoyable, but the sessions organised by our consultants could have taken place anywhere.  Though, as it turned out, it would have been better if they had not taken place at all.  No violinist this time, but we were blessed by the presence of a mathematician and a medical doctor.

Our mathematical friend had devised an impact analysis management tool for us to use.  The idea of it was that, having drawn up a weighted map of their business processes, a company could easily measure the impact of any proposed actions.  As a simple example, a product price increase would positively impact profitability, but could negatively affect customer satisfaction.  And the reduction of customer satisfaction could result in reduced sales and thus profit.  And so on.  So, with this tool, all a company owner had to do was key in the options under consideration, until the optimum answer emerged.  A sort of ‘managing a large company for dummies’ type of thing.  But we soon discovered a basic flaw - in order to draw up the weighted map, you had to fully understand your business to the point of saturation.  The impact of every conceivable event had to be known first, before you could decide its weight and the events it would impact.  In other words, you needed to know the answer before you could ask the question.

We spent the best part of a day drawing up a map of our (EG-IT’s) business, with the understandably endless discussions on weightings.  Then we tested it and discovered that, in some cases, it worked perfectly.  Bingo!  But in other cases it was wrong, which of course meant that our map was wrong.  So we re-drew the map!  We did this endlessly until, thankfully, we ran out of time.  But we had to persevere and even brought the guy back for a second round (this time in Musandam) some months later.  Eventually, the sheer folly of this was finally accepted and the initiative was quietly buried.

But all this was a breeze compared to the other main session of the trip.  I do not know what the specific purpose of this one was, but it was conducted by a lady doctor who had some very interesting ideas indeed.  I found her presentation as disjointed as it was unnerving.  She seemed to spot my scepticism early on in the proceedings (maybe it was my body language, maybe she had been briefed) and she was quick to point out that, by sitting with my left leg crossed over the right, I was giving her a clear indication about not only my psychological state, but also about the relationship I had with each of my parents.  When I challenged this, she proceeded to finish me off with the reinforcing (and compelling) evidence provided by the fact that I wear my wedding ring on my right hand.  I tried to put her straight by demonstrating that the ring (which used to belong to my Father) simply did not fit on my left hand.  “Excuses”, she said and quickly changed the subject.

It got worse.  She had us lined up, swapping places until we felt “more comfortable” in certain positions and suggested that we should sit like this in future management meetings, as it would increase our effectiveness.  Bizarrely, she also had a keen interest in which side of our marital beds we slept in but, without doubt, her coup de grace was the insistence that every night we should go down on our hands and knees and worship our parents.  Now I am more than happy for anyone to follow whatever beliefs they choose, but this one was never going to work for me, nor for my dear old Dad, rest his soul.

I found the woman unnecessarily intrusive and when ‘proving points’ during exercises sometimes appeared to use double meaning questions, similar to those employed by some faith healers and fraudsters.  But, regardless of how genuine she may have been, I am at a loss to see how such a session could have ever conceivably added any value to our business.  In fact that sentiment applied to the entire trip, other than a good bit of team bonding during the wine tasting.  But we could have done that round the corner from the office.

On the way back from Frankfurt I couldn’t help but feel sympathy for our fare paying passengers whose ticket costs were, luckily, not broken down for them.  Had they been so, I am sure the element for ‘IT Management Training’ would have raised a few questions.  

Marching orders

Although people often talk about someone being ‘marched off the premises’, in my experience it was always a figure of speech.  In reality, I had never seen anyone come anywhere near it.  I certainly had not known of security guards to be directly involved.  On occasions it is sometimes decided that, in everyone’s best interests, an individual should ‘go home’ but this can always be handled discreetly.  I have seen someone dismissed for committing a fairly serious criminal offence at work but, even in that situation, there was no need for security guards to be involved.  Nor have I ever seen the need to totally ban an individual from the office and frustrate contact with colleagues.

But somehow, Patrick Naef managed to implement the full treatment for me.  You will see how a mixture of misunderstanding, misinformation and the much used policy of ‘verdict without trial‘ conveniently allowed Patrick to keep me out of the way and delay the truth about my departure emerging.

When I was fired and handed my letter of termination by Patrick Naef,  I did not have time to read it before Malini Johnson waved another set of papers at me.  She explained that, if I were to resign, then the company would be willing to pay me a further three months salary.  I reached forward to take the papers but was told that I had to resign first, then “we can go through the document”.  I was told that I had to decide immediately.  I asked if I could at least discuss it with my wife.  It was around 15:00 and I was given until 07:00 the following morning to resign. 

The last thing I wanted to do was resign.  To be honest, even if domestic circumstances had ever led to us having to move on, I would have found it very difficult to leave the organisation and my friends.  I loved my job, felt that I had so much more to contribute and also had an obligation to many colleagues for whom I had, and still have, enormous respect.  But here I was, being asked to lie to everyone, telling them that I had decided to move on.  This was far from attractive and what Patrick Naef was trying to achieve was abhorrent.  But being thrown out of your home is a big issue so, it was clearly worthy of a discussion with Margaret.      

I said that resignation was unlikely and my exact words were “If you haven’t heard from me by 07:00 tomorrow morning, you will know that I am not going to resign”.  I said that twice.  It was absolutely clear in my mind that there was no meeting scheduled for the following morning.  I had been fired and my contract had been terminated with effect from 26 December 2010.  There was no agreement to meet again and I had received no invitations to any further meetings. 

At home it did not take us long to make our decision.  The company had decided to fire me so they should account for that decision.  The prospect of an additional three months salary was clearly attractive, as was the additional time to make arrangements to find a new home.  But the action taken against me was without foundation and totally unethical, so there was no way that we were going to endorse it.  (I will provide more details on the somewhat shabby ‘resignation’ process in a later blog.)

So, as SVP of a pretty large organisation who had just been told he was being fired, I had to plan the next 24 hours.  Clearly, Patrick was not going to want me around for a while but equally I had a management team who had to be informed.  I did a quick check of calendars and the solution seemed pretty clear.  Patrick had his usual Tuesday morning session with Nigel Hopkins scheduled at 07:00 in EGHQ and I had my regular weekly meeting with my management team planned for 07:30 in EGTC.  Patrick would be back in EGTC at around 09:00, so the solution was obvious to me.  I would brief my management team (in strict confidence of course) at 07:30 and once Patrick had returned I would have a chat with him and we would agree on how the announcement would be made.  Without doubt, Patrick would have wanted me out of the building for the rest of day, probably the rest of the week, and then I could have eased myself back in to tidy up outstanding issues.  I would have explained to Patrick that the one thing that was not for negotiation was the fact that I had been fired and I would be telling everyone that.  But clearly, the show had to go on and there was no way that I would have been disruptive and would certainly never have considered divulging any further information (such as I am now doing in this blog).  It was not going to be an easy notice period for any of us, but I am sure we could have got through it without too much damage to the organisation.

But I think Patrick Naef had other ideas.  It seems that he either wanted me constrained by a legally binding gagging order, or out of the building for good.

So, as usual I went to my office in EGTC the following morning.  Given my clear statement the previous afternoon  (“If you haven’t heard from me by 07:00 tomorrow morning, you will know that I am not going to resign”), I had no reason to make any contact with Malini.  But, as it happened, I had another (totally unrelated) outstanding task to clear up with Malini, so I took the opportunity to close that off with her with a telephone call which I made just before 07:00.  I felt that, with the absence of me saying anything about resignation, it would confirm my earlier assertion that this was not an option that was of any interest to me.  The telephone call was concluded, very close to 07:00, without the topic being mentioned.

I duly met with my management team at 07:30 and informed them about events.  I felt it important that they received the news direct from me first but, obviously, it was done in confidence.  I explained to them that I would meet with Patrick later when we would agree on a communication plan.  I expressed my view that Patrick would understandably want me out of the way for a day or so and said that I would probably see them all again the following week.  As I asserted to them, clearly I wouldn’t be doing ‘anything stupid’ so there would not be a need to exclude me from the office.  Famous last words!

Totally unknown to me (until I was informed three months later), Patrick, Malini and Nigel Hopkins were waiting for me in EGTC at 07:00.  I think people who know me would be surprised if I was even late for a meeting, let alone fail to turn up to one.  Yet amazingly, none of the three called me until well after 07:30, by which time I was meeting my managers.  And, if Malini was expecting me, I am still wondering why, when I was speaking to her just a couple of minutes before seven, she made no reference to any upcoming meeting.  I have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and put this down to a misunderstanding between us but, as subsequently my so called ‘non-attendance’ at this so called ‘meeting’ was given as the only reason “for HR to ensure that you were escorted out of the building”, I cannot help feeling that the situation was at least capitalised upon, if not manipulated, to achieve the desired result.

Once out of my meeting, I retrieved a voice mail message left by Malini at around 7:40.  She asked me to call her and made no reference to any meeting.  But she did seem to be surprised that I was at EGTC in my office and told me to wait there for her.  Within minutes my network session was terminated and, unknown to me, the security guards were now assembling in the corridor outside my office.  When Malini arrived she made no mention of any meeting, not even when I expressed my disgust at the process she was implementing.  It seems bizarre that I was apparently expected at a meeting with one agenda item - me! - yet no-one asked me where I was or why I did not attend.  Had I been asked, the truth would have emerged and a reasonable solution would have been arrived at.  But the question is - is that what Patrick Naef wanted? 

This event carries the same hallmark of everything else that I was subjected to - no facts, no discussion, just implementation of Patrick Naef’s requirements without question.

Once I was off the premises, I am told that Patrick was telling people that he could not discuss the circumstances of my departure as they were “confidential”.  If that is true then it would have conveniently fuelled any speculation that I had been involved in something less than savoury. 

Not being allowed back in the office and refused access to my PC and email not only frustrated me (there were so many outstanding tasks that I could have completed during my notice period), it also upset me.  There were many colleagues who I would have liked to have said a personal farewell to.  Numerous people have asked me why this action was taken and, although I knew in my heart the real reason, until December I often wondered how the organisation could have justified it.  But now you know - it was because I failed to turn up to a meeting to which I had not been invited and of which I had no knowledge. 

Family and friends were upset about the way I was treated and some are still disgusted that an organisation could attempt to humiliate someone (who had done nothing wrong) in such a way.  But personally I soon became relaxed about it once I asked myself a simple question.  What is the more likely - that I will be remembered for being such a risk, or Patrick Naef remembered for being so insecure?



      

About this blog - 4

My last note prompted yet more questions of ‘how much longer can this go on for?’, ‘why doesn’t someone do something?’ and  ‘is senior management simply not interested?’ but I am afraid I cannot help with answers.  Ultimately, I will publish all relevant emails and you will see from them that I raised all the relevant points at every level possible.  I did my best, but could not generate any response.  As I said last time - it is indeed a unique situation.

I have also been asked to comment on specific individuals’ performances and their contribution to current problems in EG-IT but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do that.  I will leave the scope of this blog as originally intended and just concentrate on facts and issues related to the termination of my contract.  In any event, I think it is clear to everyone which areas of EG-IT are not performing and it does not need me to highlight those responsible.

About this blog - 3

This blog has now had over 6,000 hits and I have received well over 100 comments, emails, etc.  Of these, two were anonymous comments along the lines of ‘good riddance’, another two anonymous comments were simply personal insults (though, given the style, these two could well be from the same person) and one named individual wrote twice.  First he questioned whether the blog was genuine, then he asked if I would promote a discussion on whether I was any good at my job or not (he felt I wasn’t!).  I reminded him that the purpose of this blog was to inform people of what actually happened to me, the issues as I see them in EG-IT and an attempt to avoid anyone else meeting the same fate that I did.  It was never intended to initiate a popularity, or otherwise, contest.  Although this individual initially said I could name him, he hasn’t confirmed this, so I won’t.

But all the other messages have been totally supportive and many have come from people who trust my assurances of anonymity and have been open about their identities.  I believe I have now responded to all messages that I am able to.  But it has been quite a challenge so, if I have missed you, please accept my apologies and give me a prompt.  I have had numerous requests regarding topics to be covered and most of these were already planned, so will be met in due course.  There seems to be a lot of interest in HR’s role in the proceedings, so perhaps I will publish that one earlier than originally planned.

There were some requests that I either will not, or cannot, meet.  Some people have asked for details of specific events that happened over the past few years but I would not be able to do this without breaching individuals’ confidentiality and I certainly will not do that.  Also, this blog is not intended to take on a ‘reveal all’ role (though someone did humorously suggest that I should rename it ‘TomiLeaks’!).  I have also received many questions about things that are currently going wrong in EG-IT and asking for more details, but I am afraid I can’t help - I don’t work there anymore!

Another regular question is the one ‘how did he get away with it, how does he continue to get away with it, how much longer can this go on for?’.  That is another one I cannot answer.  If I knew, I would probably still be working with you all!  I have to say that this is something I have never previously experienced.  Never have I seen such a disconnection between senior management and reality, never have I seen anyone fired without even a discussion, never have I seen anyone’s assessment go from box 6 to box 1 in any space of time (even years) let alone nine weeks, never have I seen company procedures so openly and brazenly ignored, never have I seen security guards summoned for someone who has been dismissed (regardless of the reason) and never have I seen such poor staff survey results as those from last year’s EG-IT survey.  It is indeed a unique situation.

I have not received a single challenge to anything that I have stated in any of my blogs thus far.  No-one has asked me to correct or modify anything.  As I said earlier, this blog is ‘open and honest’ and if someone feels that I have misrepresented anything I will either correct it, or openly record our difference of opinion.

Neither have I received any examples to support the reasons for my dismissal given in my termination letter.  That does not surprise me (as I know that there aren’t any) but I had hoped that, by now, someone would have had the moral fibre to withdraw that letter.  It is as wrong now as it was when Malini Johnson signed it over six months ago.  Malini failed to observe one of the golden rules of corporate life - ‘if something dodgy is going on, make sure you are not the most junior person in the room’.  There is no way that Patrick Naef would ever put his name to such a defamatory letter and I expect Malini found herself holding the pen with everyone heading swiftly for the exit, with reassuring words along the lines of ‘don’t worry, he’ll take the resignation option - they always do’ fading in the distance.

I have been asked to provide updates more regularly but I am afraid that is quite difficult.  We have been away a lot and have also been busy making amends with family and friends who we have neglected over the past few years.  And finding a new place to live has taken up a lot of our energies.  Anyway, there is no rush as time never alters the truth.  But, as those who promote them eventually realise, lies are far less durable.  I think the saying is ‘truth is the daughter of time’.

As for my challenge to anyone, anywhere to give an example of me ever ‘refusing to obey instructions’, I had just one response.  From my Wife.



         

Naefed in the back

Back in 2006, when I told an ex-colleague (who had also previously worked with Patrick Naef) that I had accepted his offer of a job, he asked me “Do you trust Patrick?”

I had not been in the new role long before I realised that, in fact, it was Patrick who did not trust me.  One evening we were putting the final touches to a presentation of the Phoenix project to the President and there was one issue which Nigel Hopkins had concerns about.  As it happened, I agreed with Nigel and supported his argument.  The following morning, just prior to the presentation itself, Patrick rushed me into a side room and said “Don’t ever disagree with me in front of Nigel again.”  I was stunned.  There was no time for further discussion at the time but later that day I explained that, as a VP in his Executive team, I would disagree with him whenever I felt it appropriate. 

I guess that incident set the scene for our ongoing relationship.  I lost count of the times Patrick later accused me of trying to “undermine” him, “manipulate situations” and even arguing simply to “get (my) own way”.  Nothing could have even been further from the truth (I never did one thing which I did not firmly believe was in the best interests of the organisation and its people) and I often asked why he felt that way and why he did not trust me.  His response was always that he did trust me.  I can only conclude that Patrick’s understanding of the word ‘trust’ is not the same as mine. 

I don’t think anyone who has worked closely with Patrick Naef would be under any illusions about how far he would go to support them if the chips were down.  Years ago I was fortunate enough to report to a true leader who had a couple of basic principles - anything in his area that went well was nothing to do with him but was due to the efforts of his team whom he would publicly recognise;  anything that went wrong was his sole responsibility and his fault and no-one else would get a public mention.  I think it fair to say that Patrick’s approach is significantly different.

However, the speed of Patrick’s sudden u-turn on me was a surprise.  Yes, we had had our differences but we had also voiced respect for each other and recognised that we covered each other’s ‘gaps’ quite effectively.  Our differences resulted in an argument every now and again (some healthy, some not so healthy) but I thought we had recognised that was a necessary cost of the overall equation.  I naively felt that there was a little bit more to our relationship than a line on an organisation chart and a three-month notice period, particularly given my loyal support for Patrick and his initiatives, many of which I was not in full agreement with.  When Patrick appointed me into the role of SVP in 2008 he asked me to commit to staying in the role for two years.  I made, and kept, that commitment.  It never occurred to me that, at the end of that two years he would simply, without any warning, discard me.  I have never witnessed such an act of personal betrayal on anyone in all my career.  So, as it turned out, the question of trust is as rhetorical now as it was in 2006. 

One of  our biggest disagreements emerged during the cost saving exercise in 2009.  Patrick informed us that the President had set him a very aggressive cost saving target and it was clear that this would not be met without a reduction of staff numbers.  Staff redundancies were inevitable.  It is fair to say that Patrick focuses less on the people aspects of the job and I have had a lot of experience of redundancy exercises in other companies.  I had also put a lot of much needed effort into breaking down and reforming the well established processes in IT regarding people selection.  It was clear that there had, over the years, been far more forces at work regarding career advancement than just skills, experience and suitability for roles.  With the prospect of individuals losing their jobs, I was determined that the process would be as fair as it could possibly be so I offered to drive the initiative myself.  I was warned by a number of people along the lines of ‘Patrick is getting you to do his dirty work for him.  Once he needs to distance himself from this exercise he will ensure you get the blame’.  But I thought that such views were an exaggeration.  In any event, I had to be involved.  Not only were we potentially vulnerable to favouritism/nepotism (whatever you want to call it) from some assessing managers, I also had concerns that Patrick might see the exercise as an opportunity to lose certain individuals.

One of the protective measures I proposed (and it was adopted) was the ability for any member of the IT Executive to veto any proposal for a staff redundancy.  Although we had a very robust and open assessment and selection process, I felt that this veto would provide a final safety net.  I believe that terminating someone’s contract is a most serious matter and not only needs to be done thoroughly and fairly, but should be seen to have been done thoroughly and fairly.  Redundancies are particularly challenging as they impact people who otherwise would not be losing their jobs.  But Patrick had explained to us that the reduced IT budget was not negotiable, so the exercise had to be carried out.

As the exercise progressed, incredibly, Patrick felt that the ‘veto’ process (which was there solely to protect individuals) could be extended to block appointments of staff looking to be redeployed - in effect a veto to ensure that an individual was made redundant.  I considered this to be outrageous and a clear abuse of our agreed process.  This led to a pretty acrimonious and lengthy disagreement between the two of us which left what turned out to be an indelible scar.  Thankfully, with the active support of HR at the time, fair play prevailed but the incident left me wondering to what lengths Patrick would go to get rid of people he wanted to get rid of.  I subsequently found out!

By his own admission, Patrick finds the people aspects of the job a challenge.  It seems to me that he finds it difficult to see that you cannot deal with people in the same way as you do with hardware and software.  Life would be so much simpler if we could just upgrade staff to the next version to improve their performance.  Or click the uninstall option when you want them out and replaced.  I cannot remember any situation when Patrick’s solution to a so called performance issue was not to remove the individual from the role.  Such an approach is not only immoral and unethical, it also makes no commercial sense in an expanding organisation.  Everyone can be developed, as long as you are willing to put in the effort and, where necessary, apply some patience.  Patrick used to regularly tell me that there were ‘loads of good people out there in the market’.  I would correct him, saying that there were ‘loads of people out there with good CV’s’.  Anyone can write a good CV.  But it seemed that the answer to all our problems was to ‘bring in new blood’ to replace anyone who had found themselves in his ‘black book’.

It isn’t particularly easy to get into Patrick’s ‘black book’ as he does keep an open mind until he sees what he believes is clear evidence for qualification.  But if anyone does find themselves in it, escape is virtually impossible.  I know of just one individual who moved from “we should fire this guy” to “he’s good”.  But the standard sequence is “we should fire him” on to “why is he still here?”.  Qualification into the ‘book’ was normally reserved for people who produced a lack lustre presentation.  Perhaps it would be at the regular Project Review meeting, as a guest at the IT Executive meeting or a via an emailed powerpoint.  Ironically, the reasons for the mismatch of expectations was often due to a misunderstanding of the brief.  Sometimes it would be us (as Executive members) who would have been at fault for the incorrect brief, but we could never influence Patrick’s view and thus mitigate the damage to the individual.  And often Patrick’s own brief would not be concise - he is always quite clear about what he doesn’t like about something, less clear about what he actually wants. But the easiest way to get into Patrick’s ‘book’ is to criticise him.  He regularly tells people that he welcomes all feedback.  He does - it helps him fill his ‘book’.  He likes positive feedback and he abhors negative feedback.  If anyone in my team ever challenged him or said things that he was not comfortable with, not only would he never forget it he would repeatedly ask (in a very accusing tone) me why the individual had such views.

It has not gone unnoticed that the vast majority of entries in Patrick’s ‘black book’ were from the UK.  Certainly, it could never be said that Patrick’s views are ever based on race but equally the UK does not have an over supply in terms of incompetence.  However, people from the UK do have a tendency to challenge others, regardless of rank and status.  Maybe this is the reason?

One of the differences between Patrick and me centred on the basic philosophy of how a management team should operate.  My approach is that you simply get on and do the job together with an open, continuous and constructively critical approach, without paying much attention to rank.  Over time, the ups and the downs help galvanise a true team spirit with meaningful relationships all round.  When things become difficult between individuals you both have to step aside and resolve them.  And when things get really difficult, the boss has to step in and provide genuine leadership.

Patrick’s approach is very much ‘conflict by design’ with him not only being hands off, but sometimes actually fuelling the conflict.  I understand the approach and it certainly keeps people on their toes, but in such a fear dominated environment as in EG-IT, it inevitably leads to people simply protecting their patch and naturally provides a regular queue of ‘informants’ at Patrick’s door.  Often you would hear the words ‘I didn’t raise it myself, but it came up in conversation with Patrick the other day . . .’  Translated, they really meant, ‘In order to protect myself, I have just dropped one of your team members in it.’  For some reason, Patrick seems to value material from informants much more highly than from the horses’ mouths.  Of course, you would hear the same story direct from Patrick soon after  - he would even name his source.

Then, every few months with tensions running high, the next stage of the process is for the ‘team’ to lock themselves away in an hotel somewhere and, facilitated by (expensive) consultants, kiss and make up via some team building exercises.  Two days later the team would then emerge all back in love with each other, only to start the divisive process again.  (More about these hotel events in a later edition.)  But, in my opinion and experience, this approach places fear as a cornerstone of the organisation and only generates negative practices throughout it. 

I recall a response I made to an ex colleague a couple of years ago when he asked “what is it like out there?”.  I supplied a list of superlatives that applied; to the city, to the company and to the department.  Regarding the latter I said that I was privileged to work with what was clearly the most dedicated and committed workforce I had ever come across but appalled at the ambience generated by Patrick at the senior management level.  I have never worked in such a fear dominated environment and where the general atmosphere was so greatly and negatively influenced by the presence of the boss.  It was never difficult to tell when Patrick was away on leave or duty travel. 

But, back to the word trust, I will leave you with my favourite quotation from 2010.  Patrick Naef said to me “I want you to promise me that you won’t stab me in the back.”

Why EG-IT struggles

I do not think there is much wrong with the basic concepts of EG-IT’s organisation structure or strategies.  The problem has been the highly unrealistic expectation of rate of change and the almost total lack of flexibility of implementation in such a diverse group of companies.  Little, if any, account of the real world has been taken.    

As examples, (in no particular order):

• The idea of the MIT being the ‘CIO’ of business areas is a sound concept, but how many CIO’s of companies have so many constraints (imposed budget allocations, no control over resources, non negotiable standards, etc.) placed upon them?

• Of course standardisation makes sense, but why make it such a priority to the point of diverting scarce resources (people and money) away from more important projects which are desperately needed by the business?

• It was clear that IT projects needed much more governance, but internal customers are rightfully never going to be happy to have additional processes introduced unless they are sure that the overheads are justifiable.

• The idea of ‘pooled’ resources in a large IT organisation is certainly a good direction to take, but it does require a very mature organisation which is experienced at operating such a model and a customer base which has bought into the concept and, most importantly, feels that the benefits outweigh the down sides.  EG-IT has neither.

• A very flat project organisation, with managers having huge numbers in their teams, has obvious benefits on paper, but I have yet to work in any organisation where it actually worked.  This is mainly because the approach ignores the fundamental fact that IT departments are never awash with strong managers.

• Generating income from external sales and thus reducing direct internal IT costs is a great idea but needs to be very carefully managed, ensuring that its impact does not push up costs elsewhere or inhibit local business growth.  It is bizarre to actively allocate key and scarce resources to competitors’ initiatives.

• Internal (IT) audits can add value but, in such a fear dominated environment, it was inevitable that such audits would create divisions, encourage defensive attitudes and foster a blame culture.

• A ‘matrix like’ organisation and one based on a philosophy of ‘conflict by design‘ needs a high level of maturity and is hardly likely to succeed when audits abound and fear reigns supreme.

Naturally, it does none of these complex topics justice to just sum them up in a sentence.  I will endeavour to cover each one in much more detail in later articles.  I must stress that I was in broad agreement with the basis of our overall approach and strategies.  But the difficulties I had was with our apparent obsession to implement all of them fully, all together and at such speed.  Unfortunately, it was very difficult to get a debate going about balance and moderation without it being seen as ‘not in agreement’.  The MIT’s rightfully pointed out the difficulties, but this was dismissed as weakness (i.e. ‘not standing up to the business‘) or a lack of ‘buy in’.  My support of the MIT’s on the topic was taken by Patrick Naef as ‘blind’ and ’parochial’.

But there were some strategies that I never agreed with (though naturally always implemented after the appropriate debate) and one of those was regarding IT funding.  In many organisations, IT is pretty much an overhead and it makes sense to limit how much is spent on it.  The usual methods are as percentage of overall overhead expenditure or  turnover or profit, etc.  It allows for simply industry benchmarking and it most certainly makes sense in shrinking and/or struggling organisations, but I could not agree that it was the right approach for a growing and innovative group like ours. In any company where it is employed, it does carry the risk of becoming a dominant index and overshadowing true business needs.  Often an improvement in the figure is more important to the CIO‘s CV than to the organisation being supported.

In such a flourishing company, I never could see sense in restricting funds for new initiatives.  I feel that such companies should spend their money where they see the benefits and leave the IT department to simply advise on how that figure stacks up in the industry and, of course, spend it for the business in an efficient manner.  Of course, some of the core support areas of the group (Facilities, HR, etc.) should be allocated a ‘top down’ budget but there is no reason why all areas and businesses supported by EG-IT need to have the same common approach applied universally.  This is another topic which I will cover at another time.

Also I was never happy about our reliance on external consultants, particularly expensive ones.  I like the description of consultants - ‘they borrow your watch and then charge you for telling you the time.’  There are times when you need to bring in experience and skills from outside but, in my experience, the answers are generally under your nose.  If you have staff who are (and, very importantly, feel) involved, empowered and trusted then they will give you the answers.  More on this topic at another time.

And also worth a mention is ‘micro-management’.  Naturally, as a manager, you have to probe and sometimes get right into the detail.  But not all day, every day on every topic.  Such an approach stifles development, leads to staff expecting it (devaluing their responsibility) and the approach is simply not scaleable.  It can never be effective in a large organisation.  You have to give people full responsibility, sometimes even allowing them to make mistakes to aid their, and the company’s, development.

But all the above differences of opinion are very healthy for any organisation and certainly none of us has the monopoly on being right.  What I simply do not understand is why, suddenly, Patrick Naef wanted my differences of (his) opinion removed from the equation.  Over the past four years, these differences often led to pretty robust discussions which Patrick  always claimed to value (I certainly did).  After all, if you have a management team who totally agree with you, you don’t need a management team! 

Looking back, there was a clear signal that Patrick no longer wanted my view.  At the time I thought it was a one off, but now it seems not.  It concerned the acquisition of the company tikAERO when I was not included in any of the evaluation work.  I had big concerns about the impact such an acquisition would have on our ongoing operation  (in particular on our internal customers) and I told Patrick so.  My status on the project was then moved from ‘not included’ to ‘excluded’!  This really frustrated me as I knew I had a lot to offer.  I am not saying I am more clever than anyone else, but I do have a lot of experience with mergers and acquisitions.  I worked on many in my previous company and I learnt a lot, particularly from people who were much more experienced than I was.  I learnt two major things:  Firstly, just like used cars, companies are never quite as good as they first seem to be.  The longer you look at them and the more loyal experts you involve to look at them, the more faults you will find.  Secondly, a company’s IT department (especially its Data Centre) is normally a fair reflection of the company itself.  Find a safe, secure and risk managed Data Centre with robust contingency plans and you will find a safe, secure and robust company. 

Only time will tell as to whether this acquisition was good for the Group or not but, as an experienced Data Centre manager, I am convinced that, had I been involved, far fewer nasty surprises will subsequently emerge.

   

About this blog - 2

This blog has been quite popular.  It took just three days before over a thousand hits were recorded against the latest update and not much longer to reach 2000.

I hope the initial offerings did not give the impression that I am feeling sorry for myself.  These things happen and Margaret and I have already ‘moved on’ and are making our plans for the future.  We were lucky that our personal circumstances (such as no children in local schools) made leaving the country relatively straightforward.  And we are both very fortunate to be enjoying good health and recognise that our little mishap is nothing compared to the challenges many others face. 

My motives for doing this are very simple.  Given Patrick Naef’s terse (and crass) note announcing my departure it was not surprising that some people wondered if I had been involved in some financial irregularities.  Indeed, a number of company stalwarts told me that the company has never previously removed a senior manager from site immediately unless some serious financial misdemeanours had been committed.  I am happy to have been able to put the record straight. 

Notwithstanding that, I wanted everyone to know the truth about what happened.  Before we left town, I bumped into a number of colleagues (from all areas and at all levels of EG-IT)  and was given the same message - disbelief that I had suddenly left and concern about the direction EG-IT was taking.  At least everyone can now understand how I left and I hope no-one else will ever be treated in the same way.  I also hope that I can do something to get someone somewhere to take an interest in what is going on in EG-IT.  The current direction is not in anyone’s interests - neither its customers nor its staff.  All those people deserve better.

Someone spotted that publish dates thus far have been a month apart, but that was co-incidental.  You will see additions appear probably every three weeks or so.  This one does not count, so expect to see another one around the 20th.    

I have had a huge response but no-one has, as yet, asked me to publish the specific comments that they have sent to me.   As I stated before, I will be happy to do so without edit as long as I am requested to do so.  If you so wish, please include your email address so I can confirm authenticity before I publish.  In such case no email addresses will be published, but your name will.  Of course, all other comments will remain confidential with me.

I have received a number of requests to publish my email address, so I have set up a new one for such initial contacts.  It is tomb80 at hotmail dot co dot uk.  But now to the big conundrum . . .

A number of people want to be able to add comments in the future for all to see, but are concerned about being traced.  This presents a problem.  As I stated earlier, this blog will be “open and honest”, so I am not going to publish anonymous comments.  But the brutal truth is that you cannot safely be open and honest in EG-IT - look what happened to me!  Even the option of me moderating comments and confirming authenticity will not work because it could leave me open to accusations of selection and/or editing.  This is a big challenge - the answer to anyone in EG-IT who wanted to share something confidentially with impunity used to be “go and talk to Tom”, but I am not a lot of use now!  There are a number of Senior Managers in the department who I know are trustworthy, but I would hardly be enhancing their careers by naming them here!  Neither can I recommend that you confide in HR so I am afraid the only thing I can suggest is that, if you really want to share your concerns, you might want to talk to people you know and trust in the Business.  At least that way, your thoughts and concerns may possibly filter through.

This is truly a sad state of affairs.  I was totally committed to changing EG-IT into an organisation where anyone could raise any issues with anyone at any time.  I clearly failed.

Why was I fired?

In early summer 2010 Patrick Naef placed me in box 6 (high performer with potential - yes, even at my age!) and said how much he valued me and enjoyed working with me.  Just nine weeks later I walked into what I thought was going to be a regular one to one meeting and found him flanked by senior HR Managers and heard him tell me that he “. . . had to move me out of my job.”  This was a total shock to me as at no time had Patrick ever even hinted that there was such an issue.  There was never any warning (either verbal or in writing) nor was any aspect of the established company disciplinary or performance management process followed.  Subsequently, I was dismissed - unfairly.  The company has, in effect, acknowledged that I was unfairly dismissed by making two attempts to entice me (with financial incentives) to declare that I had resigned.  I did not pursue those offers.

Patrick Naef insists that he regularly told me that he had concerns about my performance.  He did not.  I have asked him repeatedly to provide evidence to support his claims.  He has failed to do so.  He has not even been able to identify times when he made any such verbal statements.  Those of you who have worked closely with Patrick will be aware of his ability, in times of dispute, to produce documents to support any statements he has made.  This process often takes just seconds!  Yet, many months on, he has yet to produce any evidence to support any of his claims about my performance.  He has no such evidence.

But it actually gets worse.  Below (in italics) is my termination letter (signed by Malini Johnson) . . .

I am writing to confirm what was discussed with you at our meeting today.


There has been a complete breakdown in the relationship between yourself and your Divisional Senior Vice President, which has been caused by your intentional refusal to obey his reasonable instructions, your insubordinate behaviour towards him while he sought to address your performance issues, and your continuing refusal to accept that there are any performance issues worth addressing, all of which has been undermining the smooth functioning of the Emirates Group IT Department and cannot continue.


Accordingly, as a result of the irreparable breakdown in working relationship with your line manager arising out of his loss of confidence in your ability to perform your duties to the standard expected of a Senior Vice President, it is with regret that I am writing to confirm that the decision has been taken to terminate your Contract of Employment.

(The rest of the letter was admin related.)

First of all the letter starts of with an inaccurate statement.  The topic of my so called ‘intentional refusal to obey his reasonable instructions’ was not discussed, nor had it ever been raised before.  At this termination meeting, the only statements made by Patrick about my performance were “. . . your customers are unhappy with you” and “DSVP’s have complained about you.”  But neither of these statements were backed up with any details, not even who was ‘unhappy’ or who had ‘complained’.

More fundamentally, the claims made in the letter are simply not true.  I challenge anyone who has ever worked with me, right back to my first job as a newspaper delivery boy when I was 13 years old, to cite any examples of me intentionally refusing to obey instructions.  One of my mottos at work has always been ‘do what you are told to do’.  Despite numerous requests, no-one in the company has been able to give me any examples of such so called ‘insubordination‘, yet the company has been happy to terminate my contract based on such misinformation.  During the ‘appeal’ process (more about that later) I gave specific examples of me carrying out Patrick Naef’s instructions with total (outward appearing) conviction, despite fundamentally disagreeing with him.  As part of a management team, I always take the view that, once differences are aired, a decision has to be made and fully supported.  The basic problem is that Patrick Naef is not comfortable with people airing differences to his opinions and sees it as ‘insubordination’.

The letter is nonsense and therefore I have rejected it.  I have not been properly dismissed and, by denying me my rightful benefits, the company is in breach of its contract with me.  I have adhered to every aspect of that contract, the company has not.

Since the letter above was given to me, I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with Patrick Naef.  Despite being my immediate line Manager, he has made no attempt to communicate with me in any way.  He has said just one single word to me - “Hi”, when our paths unexpectedly crossed when I went to EGHQ for visa cancellation, but he did not have it in him to stop and even ask how I was.

I guess that says as much about what he has done to me, as it does about the man himself.

About this blog

I have kept very quiet over the past months.  What happened to me was wrong, not only for my family and me, but for the organisation (EG-IT) for whom I have been, and remain, passionate about.  Despite it becoming increasingly clear that I was banging my head against walls in trying to get those in power to review their decision to terminate my contract, I was always reluctant to take any action that I felt would not have been in the best interests of the organisation.  I considered many options, but decided to keep a low profile and just communicate with those directly involved. 

But, as it is patently clear that no-one in my management chain, nor in HR, has had any desire to discover the truth, I have decided to set out here what actually happened to me and what the real issues are in EG-IT.  This will enable anyone who is interested to discover the truth.  Please pass on details of this blog to anyone who you think will be interested in it.  To avoid a deluge of information in one go, articles are set to be published every few weeks or so.  You can follow if you wish - your details will be hidden.

The blog will be open and honest.  If anyone has any problem with what I write, at their request I will publish their concerns without edit.  If anyone wants evidence to support what I have written, I will provide it.  I will not publish any comments made about my blog unless specifically asked to do so.  In covering past events, I will not breach any confidentiality, nor will I embarrass or name anyone, except . . .

I believe that anyone who has a ‘P’ in their job title should be publicly accountable for their actions and statements, particularly when (in my opinion) they are guilty of, at best, unprofessional behaviour through to, at worst, total dereliction of duty.  Regarding such people, I shall be totally open.

I will start with a summary of what actually happened to me and then, over the coming weeks and months, will cover areas such as my working relationship with Patrick Naef; why EG-IT’s structure, policies and priorities are never going to meet the needs of the group without a serious overhaul;  why I was escorted from office and banned from returning;  how the IT Executive operates;  how the HR department operates; etc.

Any feedback will be more than welcome.