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.