Friday 20 May 2011

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.  

Sunday 1 May 2011

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.