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?’
