Dnata

When I first heard about Dnata I made a guess as to what the letters stood for and was quite pleased with myself when I looked at the company information and discovered that my guess was spot on.  But, several years later, I may have discovered the real meaning.

Perhaps Dnata stands for “Do not attempt to argue”?

As I explained earlier, I had no desire to resign but, before I totally rejected the suggestion, I wanted to talk it over with my wife first.  The plan concocted by Patrick Naef (and supported by HR) was as unprofessional as it was distasteful and I wanted no part of it.  If they wanted to behave in this way then that was their choice, but I had no desire to do anything to support them. 

Had I resigned, I would have had to lie to my colleagues.  I had never lied to any of them before, so why should I do so now?  But an extra three months would have given us more time to pack our bags and put together plans for the future and that would have been very welcome.  Also, as everyone is aware, there were so many improvements needed in EG-IT and I could have laid more foundations for the initiatives I had planned in the most pressing areas during that extra time.  In particular, at long last I had got my head round exactly what was needed in the Outstations, an area that had so long been neglected.  In normal circumstances, my plans for the Outstations would have taken a year to implement but as, for some reason I no longer had a job, I would have had the time (i.e. not having to waste it on Patrick Naef’s endless and pointless reports and meetings) to wrap it all up in a few months. 

But, most importantly, I had real concerns about what Patrick Naef was going to do to certain people once I was out of the way.  Specifically, he had his sights on a number of individuals and I was fully aware of his proposed solution for them.  As I have stated before, the only tool that Patrick Naef employs for managers who are not meeting the performance that he needs from them (in most cases to cover his own significant shortcomings), is an axe.  He has no concept that individuals have different skills and that the whole purpose of a team is to use that mix of attributes constructively.  He seems to think that everyone should be able to do everything perfectly.  If Patrick Naef were to manage a football team, he would sack the goalkeeper for not scoring any goals.

Earlier, when I was suddenly informed by Patrick Naef that he wanted to remove me from my post, I had voiced my concerns to Sophia Panayiotou that, once I was out of the way, Patrick’s would ‘go for’ certain individuals.  Sophia told me not to worry and said that “HR will protect them”.  I just laughed at her and rhetorically asked “What, just like the way you are protecting me?”  So, had I resigned, at least the extra three months would have allowed me time to help support my colleagues.  (I later gained an assurance from Malini Johnson that she would set up a meeting that I requested - with her and Sophia Panayiotou - to allow me to present the true picture of the issues in EG-IT, go through the attributes - both positive and not so positive -  of individuals and to put Patrick Naef’s seemingly blind assessments of people into context.  Malini Johnson promised me three times that she would set that meeting up, but she never did.)  And, I must be honest, the thought of an additional three months’ salary was also very attractive. 

When my wife and I discussed the option of resigning that evening, we realised that there was another very significant parameter.  My termination date and therefore the date by which we had to leave our accommodation, was 26 December - Boxing Day, the day after Christmas Day.  This was incredibly inconvenient as we had planned to split our festive season between the UK and Dubai to involve as many of the family as possible.  Our plans included my wife and daughter flying out to Dubai in the early hours of Christmas Day so we were facing a very short celebration, most likely without any furniture!  This situation weighed heavily towards us accepting the ‘offer’ of resignation, but it also surprised me.  During the EG-IT redundancy exercise in 2009, HR (rightly) paid great attention to ensuring that the painful results on individuals were never exacerbated by inappropriate timing of exit dates.  HR checked on relevant festive holidays, birthdays and also booked travel plans.  I know Malini Johnson was very much part of this process and was very committed to it.  Had she carried out this task in my case she would have noticed that we were being kicked out during our most important festival and also that my wife and daughter were booked on flights to Dubai just hours before we had to leave town.  Now a cynic might suggest that this very difficult situation was a convenient lever to help us take the option preferred by the company, but I really do not know if this was the case.  I have to assume that, just for this occasion only, Malini Johnson simply forgot to carry out this very simple and basic HR task.  After all, the Emirates Group prides itself on looking after its people and, of course, EG-IT had ‘caring’ as one of its core values at the time. 

(For completeness and fairness . . . some days after my sacking I asked for some flexibility in terms of leaving our accommodation, but this was refused.  But, when I asked again some time later, the request was approved.  We were allowed to stay in our accommodation for an extra week or so and this allowed us to enjoy the Christmas that we had planned and we were grateful for this.)

But the inconvenient departure date did not sway us.  We were both disgusted with what Patrick Naef was doing and wanted no part of it.   If my management and HR genuinely felt that sacking me was the right thing to do, both morally and for the company, then I felt that I should let them stand up and tell everyone what they had done and why they had done it.  They should not be allowed to hide their actions and let me pretend that I had elected to move on, just like they had done with others in the past.  Of course I knew that Patrick Naef would add further lies to the story but I also knew that, by not resigning, I would be able to put the record straight in due course.  I was told that they were “really surprised” that I had not taken the resignation option.  This not only underlines their insularity and arrogance, it also explains their ‘headless chicken’ antics once they realised that I was not going to.  I do not know who was making the decisions on that day but whoever made the one to despatch security guards and escorts to my office should get the prize for the most laughable one. 

Please do not think I am being pious about this topic.  There are many situations when an individual ‘resigning’ instead of being fired is the best option for all concerned.  As a manager, I have been involved in such situations.  In my opinion, a sacking looks just as bad on a manager’s CV, as it does on the individual’s.  But such a solution is only justifiable when both parties agree that termination is the right and only option available.  In other words, if you cannot properly fire someone, then you should not be firing them.  In my case, and I assume in the case of previous victims of Patrick Naef, there was absolutely no basis for a termination.  He would never have got away with these activities in an environment with any meaningful employment protection laws.

Although the following day I was barred from the company’s offices, I did find the avenues to tell a number of people what had really happened.  I knew it would take time for the full truth to emerge.  By me not resigning, Patrick was forced to tell people that he had fired me and could not hide behind his usual cloak of secrecy.  He did his best to malign me in subsequent days, but that tactic was never going to have any sustained impact.

Of course, there is a formal appeal process in the Emirates Group so I went through the charade of submitting an appeal to Gary Chapman.  And a charade it certainly turned out to be.  I am sure you can imagine my frustration that Gary Chapman had believed everything that Patrick Naef had told him.  I was told that Gary Chapman “fully approved” the removal of me from my post, but I was certain that he was not aware that Nigel Hopkins had provided his own “full support” without ever talking to me.  So, I was pleased to be invited to meet with Gary Chapman and was cherishing the prospect of having a meaningful discussion with him as part of the appeal process.  I will cover this process in more detail at a later date but the meeting that I was expecting ended within a few seconds with Gary telling me that he had the result of my appeal on his desk - “Your appeal has been rejected.  Everyone, including HR, believes this is the right course of action and I have no intention of discussing the detail - who said what and when - we have gone well past that point”.   Mmmm.  It was a bit like walking into the start of a court case, fully armed with a defence, with the jury waiting, only to be told by the judge that you are guilty before you had even got through the door. 

But Gary Chapman told me that he still wanted us to “part amicably” and asked me to reconsider signing an agreement in exchange for some additional benefits.  “We want to part amicably” is Dnata speak for ‘We acknowledge that we have screwed you, but we don’t want you to tell anyone’. 

But one has to be pragmatic about things, so I said I would consider it.  After all, the benefits I outlined above would still be relevant and by now everyone knew I had been fired and that fact was important to me.  If I signed an agreement, I would not have been able to divulge any further details (no blog!) but I would have been able to drop enough subtle comments to help complete a jigsaw that most people had started to put together themselves.  I asked Gary about any deadlines to take this forward (as we were shortly to go away for a while) but he said there was no immediate rush and asked me to contact Malini to take it forward when I returned, if I wished to do so.

This decision was easier to take than the first one, but with a different outcome.  We decided to accept the offer.  We even delayed our trip away to get things moving, so I met Malini earlier than I had intimated to Gary Chapman.  At the meeting, Malini outlined the financial benefits which would be made available to me, produced a document for me to take away and also promised me that, once I had signed the agreement, she would arrange the meeting I had requested to brief her and Sophia Panayiotou about EG-IT staff and issues.  I cannot say I was happy about the latter.  I would have thought that the welfare of company staff would have been a priority for a VP in HR.  Malini Johnson should have been chasing me for the details, not using the matter as a negotiating tool to get me to be compliant in yet another Dnata cover up.

I will not bore you with the full details of the document but, as you can imagine, it was incredibly one sided.  I had to do this, do that and not do a million other things.  In return, the company would provide me with the benefits outlined in annexure 2 . . . which was not attached!  This was no error, this was the process.  I had to sign the agreement first and then I would receive written confirmation of what Malini Johnson has outlined to me earlier.  After all that had happened to me, I was expected to trust these people!

As an indication as to how Dnata conducts its business, I will refer to just a few items in the document.  At the very top were the words [Discussion Draft Only] but, as I found out later, this was Dnata speak for [. . .the draft document provided is standard and not open for negotiation or amendment].  Then there is a claim that I had actually resigned which I clearly had not and had no intention of doing so.  Even Gary Chapman acknowledged this fact at our meeting.  Further on there is the (smug, I believe) assertion that the agreement should in no way be construed that I [. . .have any rights whatsoever against the company].  They can say that again!  I just wish Dnata would be more open about this fact and include the phrase in their employment offer letters.  And there was also the demand that I would not discuss the existence, let alone the detail, of the agreement with anyone other than my attorney.

I asked Malini for a copy of annexure 2 and also a soft copy of the agreement so that I could send it to my attorney.  The answer was no to both requests.  I asked Malini what the problem was with me having a soft copy and she did not even acknowledge the question, let alone answer it.  I explained that if I was limited to exchanging documents by airmail, an unnecessary delay to the process would be introduced.  The answer was still no.  Fair enough, I thought, after all Gary Chapman had said that there was no urgency.  I also asked Malini Johnson, in the absence of annexure 2, to confirm in an email a high level summary of the benefits I would receive.  This request was also not acknowledged.  And then, while we were still away on our delayed break (and without regular access to email) the matter suddenly became urgent and I was given a deadline by which to sign the document.  In an email, Malini Johnson stated:  [To be clear, the draft document provided is standard and not open for negotiation or amendment.  In view of your continuing delay in attending the office to execute it, I must now advise that the document will only be available to you for execution until close of business (3:30 pm) on Monday, 1st November.] 

I sat back and perused all the documents in front of me.  Despite what had already been done to me, I still had to pinch myself and ask if these people were really behaving like this.  They had sacked me without offering a shred of evidence.  They sent me a document clearly marked up as draft and for discussion and told me that I could consult with an attorney.  But the truth was that the document was never for negotiation and could never be amended.  They also frustrated my attempts to share it with an attorney.  They refused to answer the simplest of questions.  They told me that the matter was not urgent and then, without reference to me, without engaging with me to understand my concerns and being fully aware that I was out of the country, they complained that I had not attended the office and gave me a deadline which was impossible to meet. In the Dnata world you have to either do it their way, or their way.  You cannot even dream of disagreeing with them, as discussion of any kind is not entertained.  I concluded that these people are not only liars and lack integrity, they are also incompetent.  I then asked myself what on earth was I doing even contemplating signing this agreement and reinforcing their shady and shabby practices.  So I allowed the deadline to pass.

I doubt if Malini Johnson would have driven the aggressive and unreasonable approach herself.  As usual, she was probably dancing to someone else’s tune, but I am not sure whose.  Patrick Naef clearly had a close interest in the outcome, but he would have distanced himself from the messy episode much sooner than this.  In any event, it is difficult to gauge which result he would have preferred.  If I signed up, he would have been safe from the full story coming out but, on the other hand, he would have had to endure my local presence for an extra three months.  Patrick Naef was living uncomfortably close to us and would have passed our place at least twice a day during our last three months in Dubai.  But this spineless man sneaked past every time, as he could not muster up the courage to come and say farewell to me.  He could not look me in the eye ever again and he knew exactly why.  So he would not have been happy to have had to spend yet another three months maintaining such a low profile in the neighbourhood and would not have been at all comfortable with me visiting the office again.


I was convinced at the time that it was the right decision not to sign that wretched agreement.  Not once, have we regretted it.  We left Dubai with our heads held high and, on the journey home, I started to gather my thoughts on the content of my first blog . . .
  

About this blog - 8

Few people will be surprised to hear that Gary Chapman did not reply to my email.  I know that the original sent to him was delivered somewhere but of course I could not be sure that Gary himself had seen it.  But, having also published it here, it is now inconceivable that he is not aware of its content.  As a reminder, the email was prompted by requests for me to write to the Chairman of the group regarding the concerns of so many about how EG-IT is being managed.  But I felt it only fair to make the President of the company responsible for IT aware of these acute concerns, thus giving him the opportunity to react to them.  So now, given the lack of response, I will do as I promised some of you i.e. write to the Chairman.

You will have seen that, whilst writing to Gary Chapman, I took the opportunity to re-iterate to him the issues I have about the way my contract was terminated.  Despite his previous disinterest in hearing any version of events other than those put forward by Patrick Naef, I wanted to be sure that the President of Dnata, who is ultimately responsible for breaching my contract, is aware of the facts.  In due course I will publish previous correspondence to/from Gary Chapman and you will see (from a rare reply from him) how different his understanding of events was from reality.  But when I corrected his statements, there was silence. 

Of course anything other than silence to my latest email to Gary Chapman was going to present him with a problem.  My question was both clear and fair - does he believe that the claims made in Malini Johnson’s termination letter to me are true and, if so, could he show me the evidence upon which it was based.  But, by choosing silence he has effectively answered the question.  The claim in Malini Johnson’s letter is specific but, nearly two years on and multiple requests later, not one example has been given to me.  I think everyone is now sure that the claim that I intentionally refused to obey Patrick’s reasonable instructions is not only a total lie, but a lie which is fully endorsed by the company.

I sometimes wonder what position each one of the ‘gang of five’ has taken on the matter of my wrongful dismissal over the past two years and what position they will take in the future.  Of course the plan was, as in previous cases, to just take a deep breath and wait for things to blow over.  But the world is different now.  The statements made in this blog are much more robust than other ‘new world’ communications, such as anonymous tweets which disappear as quickly as they arrive.  The open approach to this durable blog, with the very important offer of a right of reply to any individual who feels that I have misrepresented anything, gives readers confidence in it.  By not responding, the individuals mentioned in this blog are endorsing its accuracy.  Given their acceptance of the situation, it is surprising that none of them has made any attempt to put matters right. 

Malini Johnson knew the letter contained lies when she signed it.  I am told that Malini ‘tried to defend’ me at the time and I would imagine that to be true.  As I have stated before, Malini knew more about the real issues in EG-IT than most.  But she obviously capitulated under Patrick Naef’s pressure and then hoped that I would take the usual bribe and resign.  Now, the letter is a liability for her.  Writing a lie about someone (i.e. libelling them) is hardly the smartest thing to do but it is even worse when it directly leads to a breach of contract.  Malini has always had the option (and still has of course) to withdraw the inaccurate statements and put things right.  All the time she fails to do so, the liability of that letter increases.

Gang leader Patrick Naef had put together a whole raft of misinformation about me to get his own way and clearly, as my manager, would have provided all the input to my termination letter.  At the time, he would have seen his biggest challenge as getting Gary Chapman to support the sacking and he would have used his well oiled processes to achieve that.  With Gary on board (comforted by the nodding Nigel Hopkins) HR would have been totally out of the equation before they were aware anything was happening to me, simply given ‘but Gary has already agreed’ assertions by Patrick.  I was told that Patrick Naef was demonstrably disturbed by the fact that I did not resign and he would have spent an uneasy three months (as we packed our bags) worrying about me telling people the truth.  I am sure he would have breathed a sigh of relief when we left Dubai without realising that, within just a few months, anyone anywhere could, with just the simple Google search term of ‘Patrick Naef’, discover that mis-information, even lies at times, are a cornerstone of his professional life.

From what I saw, Nigel Hopkins’ views on events were simply those of Patrick Naef and I can only assume that these will not have changed.  Sophia Panayiotou’s strategy seems to have been to keep herself back stage, allowing Malini Johnson to take the flak.  I doubt if that will change either.

But, by now, I would have expected a different approach from Gary Chapman who, as President of Dnata, has this shambles laying firmly at his feet.  If he is thinking ‘why did I let Patrick Naef get me into this mess?’ he certainly will not be the first to do so, nor will he be the last I fear.  Earlier on, once I appreciated the full extent of the misleading information given to him, I was not surprised that he had supported Patrick.  But when it became clear to him that the briefings were based on lies and the advice given to him was ill conceived, I expected him to initiate a proper review and make his own decisions on how to act.  Without such action, there is a danger that people will perceive Gary Chapman to be content that his organisation has no qualms about breaching a contract, nor about using lies to achieve dubious motives. 

When I write to the Chairman, naturally I will just focus on current EG-IT issues and concerns, rather than my own experiences.  There is no need for anyone to repeat earlier information and observations but, if any readers have anything new for me to include, please let me know via the usual channels.  Of course, my promise of anonymity always applies.

As I write this, the total number of visits to this blog now stands at 25,398.

Where are we going?

The theme of this blog has been diverted somewhat lately.  I have always been clear about its purpose and there is no need to repeat that, but over the past few months there has been an upsurge in interest.  This is obviously a reflection of feelings about the situation in EG-IT and I think I should respond to it.  It was difficult to imagine things deteriorating even further, but they have.  I have been dismayed at some of the recent comments about what is happening on a daily basis in EG-IT, particularly those referring to acts of bullying.  I feel very sorry for the affected staff, this is not how things should be.  In terms of visitors to my blog, May and April 2012 were respectively the second and third busiest months ever.  This time, as well as covering the current situation, I will make a few more observations about Mercator Asia which is still very high on many people’s list of concerns.

Patrick Naef’s ability to deflect blame for his own failings onto others is legendary.  And the lack of any sort of moral conscience even allows him to do complete u-turns when circumstances dictate.  If anything is seen as an apparent ‘success’ he will claim total ownership of it but he will immediately abandon that position when reality begins to sink in.  Of course, Patrick Naef’s forceful presentation skills, regularly demonstrated to his seemingly passive manager, has allowed this process to continually succeed.  But surely no-one is going to be so gullible as to allow Patrick Naef to put blame for the problems with Mercator Asia on anyone but himself?

The initiative was his idea alone (at least within the Group).  Initially he utilised resources from the team (Sales and Marketing) who would ultimately be responsible to make Mercator Asia succeed, but abandoned them when they were unable (perhaps unwilling is a better word) to paint the picture Patrick Naef desired.  At the time he said that the business cases they had produced were “rubbish”.  My conclusion was that they had simply been ‘guilty’ of using realistic estimates of costs and benefits, which of course would not have led to Patrick’s goal - a recommendation to proceed.  The final proposal (which was approved, despite being hopelessly optimistic) was submitted, as I understand it, without the knowledge of, let alone input from, the people who would have to deliver in the future.  Once details of what was expected from Mercator Asia emerged, eyebrows were raised in many quarters.

Without any effective pre-contract diligence, it was hardly surprising that operational problems emerged in Mercator Asia soon after acquisition.  The blame for that must lay totally with Patrick Naef - he either removed, or suppressed the threat of, any dissent during the evaluation stage and he selected and directed the (very small) evaluation team.  In response to the operational problems, Patrick Naef then made management changes, installing ‘his own choice’ to head up the company.  This action was demonstrably a total failure. 

Given all the above, it would be nothing short of a miracle if anyone other than Patrick Naef has been allocated any blame for this ongoing disaster.

On a wider front, as some of you will know from my email replies, I am at a complete loss as to why the appalling situation in EG-IT is allowed to continue.  One comment to me probably best summed up both the situation and many people’s sentiments.  It was along the lines of  ‘It’s quite easy to wake someone who is sleeping, but impossible to wake someone who pretends to be asleep’.  At the moment, we can only speculate as to why Patrick Naef, despite the shambles, manages to retain the support of those above him.  Those of you within EG-IT who have expressed frustration that you are powerless to have any effect are, regrettably, correct.  In most companies the normal route to take is to complain to the HR department, but I would not recommend that anyone in EG-IT should take that risk.  Of course an effective HR department would take proactive action themselves, but I think we are well beyond even dreaming that this could happen.  And even if Sophia Panayiotou and/or Malini Johnson were to finally decide to do the job they are actually paid to do, it is highly unlikely that anyone would trust them enough to provide the necessary information upon which they could act. 

When you look at large events in the wider world where things have gone horribly wrong, the common theme is that, once the truth eventually emerges, everyone involved says ‘we all knew it was wrong, but for some reason we didn’t do anything about it’.  It doesn’t matter whether you are talking about a corrupt government, the banking crisis, news corporations hacking individuals’ voicemails, etc.  In such situations we eventually hear that virtually everyone knew it was wrong at the time and disagreed with the policy, but none of them were either able or willing to stop it.  So, I guess we can console ourselves with the fact that, although the theme is similar, the issue of EG-IT is on a much smaller scale.

But it still begs the question of why EG-IT is being allowed to so demonstrably flounder.  It is difficult to see who is likely to gain from this approach.  In the past, I have heard of situations where IT departments in large organisations have been ‘scuttled’ and allowed to sink for a while until problems are so evident and acute that outsourcing appears to be the only solution.  The architects of such an approach are normally those who somehow have a vested interest in outsourcing, or perhaps a management buy out.  I cannot believe that outsourcing EG-IT activities would benefit the Group in any way, but maybe someone does.  I am aware that it was proposed (indeed, very nearly happened) in the past.  Apart from the fact that I have rarely seen the outsourcing of IT services to work well for any organisation (except for the supplier of course!), the complexity of IT in the Emirates Group would make it a non-starter.  Of course, any proposal to outsource EG-IT would automatically necessitate the separation of external sales.  I sincerely hope that fact would not be seen to generate an opportunity and thus influence anyone’s strategic planning.  Whatever the motives driving this sorry situation are, I think we are all certain that they are never going to benefit EG-IT, nor its customers, nor its staff. 

Meanwhile, seemingly oblivious to all the issues that surround him, Patrick Naef continues to ride off at full steam on his bolting horse into the distance, fuelled by misinformation, misplaced optimism, sycophantic praise and hopelessly inappropriate ideas from his favoured suppliers.  Periodically, he probably checks with Nigel Hopkins (who is desperately hanging on behind), ‘You do still approve and fully support this journey, don’t you Nigel?’

‘Yes, of course I do, Patrick.  Er . . . remind me . . . where are we going?’

email to Gary Chapman

I sent this email last December.  I have not received a reply.  It is very important to me that I am sure that Gary Chapman has seen it, so I reproduce it here.

Other than a couple of exceptions, it is a 'cut and paste' from the original email.  The two exceptions are:

- I have removed one complete paragraph.  It provided an example of an appalling episode when Patrick Naef publicy humiliated an individual.  Although I did not name the individual, I still feel that its inclusion here could cause embarassment and this is the last thing that I would want to do.

-  I have removed two sentences which refer to Dnata external business practices.  This blog is probably not the appropriate vehicle to air them.

Naturally, if I could be sure that the entire document would reach Gary Chapman, I would re-insert the missing text and send it to him again..  

Gary

I trust you are well.  I also hope that this email reaches you and is not intercepted in some way by Patrick.  You will note that I have marked this as confidential and it, along with your response, will remain confidential.  However, if I do not receive a meaningful reply from you to the request I make at the end of this email, I will assume that it has fallen foul of Patrick’s continued process of blocking my communications into the Group and I will publish it on my blog.  That is the only vehicle I am aware of which is totally safe from Patrick’s censorship activities and the only way I will be certain that it can be seen by you and thus receive your attention.

Debacle

We may not be in line with each other in some areas, but I am certain that we agree on one thing - the manner of my termination has been nothing short of a debacle.  I have never seen such a botched operation.  With hindsight everyone would wish that they had done things differently.  On my list is the fact that I should have done more in explaining to you what my issues were (and still are).  When we (far too) briefly met, I said to you that “I wish you knew more”.  You obviously had your reasons not to pursue this, but I should have been more forceful.  At that meeting I quickly concluded that Patrick had done another of his masterful jobs in ‘closing down all avenues’ but I should have persevered.  So, belatedly, I will summarise what some of the ‘more’ would have included.  I also should have spent more effort in explaining to you what issues I had (and always will have) with the manner of my termination.  So I will do that here as well.  I will cover other points too.

More

Had you seen how the initial meeting with me was conducted by Patrick, Sophia and Malini you would have immediately smelt a rat and you would have realised that the picture that had been painted for you was far from the complete one.  This meeting was appalling and would not have done justice to a back street outfit, let alone a global company.  Seeing Sophia’s incredulous look when Patrick announced that he “had to remove me from (my) post”, it was clear that the operation had not even been properly rehearsed.  The following day both Patrick and Sophia agreed that this meeting had been a disaster.  As soon as Sophia left the room, Patrick (characteristically) blamed it all on HR.

[Paragraph removed]

Had you been aware that Nigel did not conduct a single one to one meeting with me in the four plus years I was a member of the IT Executive team, you may not have been so quick to assert to me “you know how thorough Nigel is”.  Nigel Hopkins, as Executive Vice President of (among other functions) IT agreed to have me (Senior Vice President of IT Customer Solutions) removed from my post and have my contract terminated without even speaking to me.  And when I challenged him on this at my termination meeting he incredibly responded with “But you never spoke to me either”.  I still have difficulty believing he said that. 

Issues with my termination

Every human being has a right to a fair hearing.  I did not even get a hearing.

Dnata (you) and I entered into a contract in July 2006.  I signed that contract in good faith.  At the time I assumed that you did too.  I honoured that contract to the letter.  You did not honour that contract.  For me, this is not acceptable.

I honestly believed at the time, and still do, that my termination was not in the best interests in the Group.  IT in the Emirates Group is complex and I firmly believed that I had ‘got my head around all the issues’ and could help pave the way for a successful compromise of all the competing forces and, above all, deliver the IT service the Group needs.

Like all large IT organisations, EG-IT needs a ‘Chief Operations Officer’.  That was me.  There’s nothing particularly clever about this job, but someone needs to do it and not many people want to.  Ironically, the only people who fully understand the job are those who do it.  Somehow, I ended up doing it for most of my career and it became my forte.  Take away all the Patrick Naef/IGI mutually fulfilling hype and look at the facts.  Take a look at the operational service provided each year to the business during the critical months of July/August.  When I arrived in the summer of 2006 I watched in horror as systems failed regularly, around 300 major outages in a quarter.  It was clear that this could not continue.  A close examination of the Data Centre revealed that, without remedial work, we would not have survived the summer of 2007, but much more also needed to change.  Everyone thought I was mad when I imposed a change freeze for the summer period.  Everyone became tired of me sending out ‘don’t touch anything’ messages during each summer.  But have a look at the true statistics of outages and resulting flight delays during July and August of 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.  Now have a look at the 2011 figures.  Who was your Chief IT Operations Officer in August 2011?

I certainly was not the most popular manager in EG-IT - ironically many people thought I was Patrick’s henchman!  But people knew where they were with me - open and honest.  At the end of the day, that is all staff really want.  And I was making headway along the lines of ‘at least we can trust this guy’.  This is fundamental in gaining the ‘hearts and minds’ of your staff, but it takes time.  But I was getting there.  Firing me not only stopped this important process, it has probably killed it off forever.

I send you this email from Bangkok.  In early 2010 my wife was trying to persuade me to make a visit here.  I was not too keen at the time and managed to fend her off with the assertion that “if Patrick insists on implementing his latest ‘good idea’, it will only be a matter of time before I have to go there and sort out the mess”.  Now Margaret has succeeded, I run round the park here every morning thinking that it would not take long for someone with the right experience (and a bit of common sense) to unravel the mayhem created by Patrick’s actions.  Running is one of my main passions, as is applying some order to chaotic organisations.  

Current levels of morale in EG-IT

Someone recently called me and asked me to ‘do something’ about the current state of affairs in EG-IT.  The suggestion was that I should write to the Chairman and an offer was made to me to provide examples of the current issues and staff concerns.  I explained that this would be a waste of time and that my email would simply be forwarded to you, that you would forward it to Nigel and that Nigel would forward it to Patrick (a measure of how well Patrick has stitched this exercise up).  Patrick would then spend the next few months pursuing a vicious witch hunt in order to discover the source of the information.  My negative and resigned response was received with a bit of surprise and disappointment and, on reflection, I later agreed.  But I thought I would first write to you, hence this email.

I do not know whether to pity or envy you.  You clearly have an enormous problem on your hands with EG-IT but, equally, surely no-one has a more committed and dedicated workforce.  Even people who have left the company still express their concern about both their ex-colleagues and the Group’s customers.  I will not pretend to have many positive thoughts about the company itself at the moment, but I do still very much care for EG-IT and its customers.

I can assure you that morale in EG-IT continues to decline.  I do not know what information is fed to you but, if it is positive, I can assure that it is not true.  No-one will dare voice concerns, not even to their colleagues for fear of a leak and the inevitable retribution.  A staff survey will tell you nothing.  I was told that people are convinced that the so called confidential comments on the (2008, I believe) staff survey were given to Patrick, their contributors identified and this was used as the selection criteria for redundancies in 2009.  I know that the HRM at the time would never have allowed such a thing and I have told people that.  It was even suggested that I clarify this in my blog - what irony, the only vehicle which staff believe!

Attrition rates are too often measured solely in percentages.  The result is inevitably an indictment of the prevailing job market, not staff morale and how they see their futures.  It is much more relevant to look at how many at the top end of the ‘key man dependency’ list have left.  When these people leave, the levels of dismay in the business fall to new levels and the knock on impact on colleagues’ morale increases the downward spiral.  I understand that some pretty valuable individuals have decided to move on.     

Ethics

Where does Dnata sit in terms of corporate ethics? [Two sentences removed]  But I was always confident that the organisation would treat its people with fairness and with dignity.  But that certainly did not happen to me.  I appreciated that you had been mis-informed, disappointed that you had not been more thorough but accepted that you are a busy man.  But, over a year later, you are now in possession of a lot more facts and still have not acted in any way to put matters right.  Any individual at the top of any organisation, while clearly accountable for everything in that organisation, can be excused for not being close enough to know exactly what has been going on, but only for so long.  Most issues evaporate over time, some taking longer than others.  But some simply never go away and these have to be dealt with at some stage - always the sooner the better. 

Someone said to me many months ago “although the detail has been a revelation, we all knew it anyway” referring to Patrick’s behaviours.  Over time, the interest and questions have moved on from Patrick and much more towards his management.  A couple of people wondered recently along the lines of ‘what on earth goes on in his one to ones with Nigel?’.  And someone wrote to me, helpfully, suggesting I write to Nigel and tell him all about the issues.  This person actually had confidence in Nigel to do something about it and I wondered how he will feel when he hears details of Nigel’s lack of involvement (other than to provide the rubber stamp) in my dismissal. 

Talk

It simply beggars belief that no-one spoke to me constructively - not Patrick, not Nigel, not Sophia, not Malini, nor you - about Patrick‘s sudden concerns.  Instead, a sledgehammer approach was employed and no-one seemed capable (or even willing) to alter it.  I am still totally bemused by this as we could have easily worked something out.  In all the time I worked for Dnata, no-one ever asked me what my career aspirations were, or what my plans were for the future.  That is nothing short of disgraceful and it turned out to be very damaging indeed.   

I was always willing to talk about the situation.  Even on the last day I spent in EGHQ I reminded Malini that I had always been willing to talk, but that the company had refused to engage.  That situation has not changed.

Lie

How many people do you know have been fired and only found out the reason when they arrived home and read their termination letter?  It happened to me.  Worst of all, in my case the ‘reason’ was a total fabrication.  Do you think that is acceptable practice for Dnata?

My termination letter was slid across the desk to me and immediately followed up with the offer to resign.  I had to resign there and then when, of course, the termination letter would have been retrieved.  The plan was that I would never have read it. 

The reason cited for my termination is a lie.  The letter I have received is libellous.  Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have seen it yet I do not know of anyone who believes what you have written in it.  Malini may have signed it, but as President of the company, it is your letter. 

You endorsed it back in September 2010, but my question is “do you believe and endorse it now?”. 

Request

I have a very simple, and I believe reasonable, request of you.  I am confident that people across EG-IT, and indeed across the Group, would see it as reasonable too.  I would like you to either, please:

Confirm that I truly did intentionally refuse to obey Patrick’s reasonable instructions as stated in my termination letter and provide me with the examples that you were given at the time.

or:

Withdraw the statement that I intentionally refused to obey Patrick’s reasonable instructions.

I sincerely hope that you respond to this email in the same spirit with which it is sent.


Regards

Tom Burgess

94

Yesterday, 94 people visited this site.  One has to ask “Why?”.

I would be deluding myself to think that they were returning for some sort of enhanced literacy experience;  or because of any sympathy or affinity to the writer, over a year and a half since he was ceremoniously booted out of the Emirates Group.  No, they were doing it because they have a stake in the success of Emirates Group IT, either as a member of staff or as a customer and are very concerned about the current situation.  The popularity of my blog is simply a reflection of the appalling way EG-IT is currently being managed.  Why on earth is this fact not recognised by those responsible?

Although 94 is above the usual daily average, it is not unusual.  In fact, as I write, today’s figure already stands at 88 and it is not yet bedtime.  The article on Nigel Hopkins attracted 200 visits in one 24 hour period and the overall total is now a couple of hundred short of 20,000.  Looking at the sources I can see that they all result from people either using the url itself, or making specific searches.  It is a long time since I have seen anyone stumbling across the site by accident - the last one was somebody trying to update a TomTom sat nav! 

Recent communications to me have followed the familiar theme and I note that the frustrations continue to increase.  Everyone now seems to accept that Patrick Naef’s vindictive management style, coupled with an acute lack of the necessary skills to lead EG-IT, is never going to change.  So the focus is now much more on Patrick’s managers and bewilderment about their unquestioning support of his continually failing actions.  Phrases such as “lost the plot completely”, “total shambles”, “disaster”, “absolutely mad”, “complete mess”, “evil”, “behaviours that have shocked me” and “nothing will improve until things change at the top” have all been used, plus many more.

The specific topic which has received most attention recently has been the acquisition of tikAERO which has become Mercator Asia.  The question on the lips of many is along the lines of ‘why on earth did this purchase take place?’ and some understandably would like to know who has actually benefited from the initiative.  I cannot answer any of those questions.  But I can paste in what I wrote about the issue over a year ago . . .

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.

Time does tell, doesn’t it?

The requests to me to ‘do something’ keep coming in but, as I have always said, there is little I can do from the outside.  At the end of last year, a couple of individuals asked me to write to the Chairman so I thought I should do something a bit more proactive than just updating this blog.  Even though Gary Chapman did not respond to a previous communication, I thought it would be fairer to write to him first.  After all, I cannot be sure how extensive Patrick Naef’s censorship activities are.  So I did write to Gary Chapman.  This was months ago but, again, I have not received a response.  I assume that the President of a large organisation would, as a matter of basic courtesy, respond to such a communication so I can only deduce that it has not been received.  Therefore, so that I can be sure that the communication does reach its intended audience, I will post the letter on this blog.  I will do so at the end of this month.    

About this blog - 7

This is just a reminder for anyone who wishes to communicate with me.  Either use my email address - tomb80 at hotmail dot co dot uk - or leave your email address in a comment on my blog.  As always total anonymity and confidentiality is guaranteed.

Nigel Hopkins

Even before I joined Dnata, Patrick Naef told me that Nigel Hopkins was “a really nice guy”.  He continued to say this all the time I was in Dubai.  I must say that I found this rather strange.  I do not wish to be rude about senior people in large organisations, but it is not often that you hear such a compliment.  I guess the phrase ‘a nice senior executive’ could be an oxymoron, as any job at that level does not provide too many opportunities to be seen as nice.  In the past, I have worked quite closely with people who were not seen by staff in a positive light and I often found myself defending them, saying things along the lines of ‘he/she is quite nice underneath it all’.  I even heard of someone once saying that I wasn’t quite as bad as I appeared to be!  But I have never heard of anyone at such a senior level being described as just ‘nice’.

Certainly Nigel Hopkins comes over as a quiet guy, but personally I never really got to know him..  At first sight this could be a reflection of an arm’s length approach to managing his responsibilities for IT within the Emirates Group.  However, he does hold a weekly one to one meeting with Patrick Naef and he also attended the weekly EG-IT Executive meeting once a month.  At these meetings, I can not say that I was ever overwhelmed by any of his insights, but he certainly showed a huge interest in all the detail available.  This is all very well, but as I am sure everyone appreciates, if one spends too much time examining every pixel, it is highly unlikely that one will ever see the actual picture.

When Patrick Naef dropped his bombshell that he had to remove me from my job and terminate my contract, he asserted that he had ‘the full support of Gary Chapman and Nigel Hopkins’.  My instinct, given personal experiences of Patrick Naef’s  track record in relaying things which subsequently turned out not to be true, was not to believe him.  I immediately wondered how on earth would Nigel Hopkins agree to such action when he had never even had a one to one meeting with me on any topic, let alone on such a serious one.  Call me old fashioned if you will but, as a manager, I would never entertain even the initiation of disciplinary action against someone reporting to one of my direct reports without a very open (and confidential) one to one meeting with the individual concerned.  Words like ‘thoroughness’, ‘fair play’ and ‘justice’ all immediately spring to mind. 

At that meeting, both Sophia Panayiotou and Malini Johnson were present and I was surprised that they did not correct Patrick Naef.  But challenging Patrick Naef in private, let along public, was never good for anyone’s well being so I just assumed that the Group’s HR department would do the job they were paid to do and act accordingly after the meeting.  Dream on, Tom!

When I was actually fired I heard the two most astonishing and inept statements from any manager at any level, let alone from an Executive Vice President of such a large company such as Dnata.  They are so bizarre that, even as I write this, I have to refer back to my notes of that meeting to yet again confirm that Nigel Hopkins really uttered them.  And they were Nigel’s only two contributions to the proceedings.

What Patrick Naef had said was actually true - Nigel Hopkins had indeed agreed to have my contract terminated.  So at my termination meeting I challenged Nigel, asking him why he had felt able to make such a decision without even talking to me, let alone meeting with me.  His response?  “But you never came to see me either”.  I sat there stunned.  I learnt a lot in my career, but it never once occurred to me to occasionally poke my head around the door of my boss’s boss’s office and casually enquire “Er . . . you weren’t by any chance considering firing me were you?”.

At that meeting I then moved on to an even more substantial matter, the fact that my contract was being terminated without any part of formal company procedures being applied.  To which Nigel Hopkins replied “Yes, but we are where we are”.  I first thought that he was joking.  Nigel carries an almost permanent smile and this can be deceptive at times, but surely no-one would ever make a joke out of firing someone?  Here was the company’s Executive Vice President acknowledging that I was being unfairly dismissed and just brushing the matter aside. Maybe nerves got the better of him and he just blurted it out.  He certainly did not look comfortable at the meeting, spending most of the time looking across towards Patrick Naef.  Perhaps he was seeking guidance or support, I do not know, but it did not look as though he received any.  Or was it just a coded message saying ‘Don’t forget that you are dealing with Dnata here, mate.  We can do what we like, to who we like and when we like and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  So, be a good boy and do what everyone else does - resign, shut up, clear off and take the money’?

From what I have seen, Nigel Hopkins’ role in my dismissal was one of simply rubber stamping Patrick Naef’s desire to dump me out of the organisation.  Many people have for many years asked questions along the lines of ‘who is managing who in this relationship?’ and this incident is an example of why such questions are asked.  Perhaps Nigel Hopkins feels he had good reason to act (or rather not act) in the way that he did.  I just wish he had the decency to tell me what he thinks they were, rather than just telling me that “we are where we are”.

It may be that when Patrick Naef says that Nigel Hopkins is a really nice guy, what he actually means is ‘not only does he let me do what I want, he also does everything I tell him to do’.