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?
No comments:
Post a Comment