I apologise for an element of repetition in this topic, having made some similar comments in ‘94’ in April 2012.
Hits on this site understandably dropped during my ‘sabbatical’ in the first half of this year, but soon picked up again. It is interesting to see how readers quickly return in response to an update.
I recently advised when the next update would appear and was interested to see how this would affect the flow of site visits. Two days before the date, I logged on to draft the article and wondered if, for the first time, I would see a score of zero hits. Incredibly, 44 visits were recorded on that day, even though readers were aware that no new update would be available. On the day I did publish, on schedule, there were 103 hits. For the past 30 days, the figure is 830.
As I have said before I take no credit for, nor any pride in, this interest. It is solely a reflection of the awful state of affairs in EG-IT, a resounding vote of no confidence in its management. It is now over three years since I was kicked out of Emirates, but my blog remains very popular. Since it was started, it has been visited 36,309 times, an average of 36 per day. I cannot be the only person who wants to scream “Someone, somewhere, please wake up!”.
One reader astutely said sometime ago “You can wake up somebody who is actually sleeping, but can never wake up somebody that pretends to be sleeping”. It’s a lovely saying, but not true if one wants to be pedantic. If you shout loud enough, or gain support from others to shout with you, it must be possible to generate some response. And there is nothing to fear about the resulting action - pretending to be asleep is a clear sign of weakness.
Many years ago, just after I took my first junior management role, I found myself witnessing a situation at work which was far from ideal. It did not involve anyone in our team, but I said to myself “someone needs to do something about this”. I then looked around the room and realised that the someone was me. Afterwards I reflected that, as a manager, I now had to take on a greater, and wider, level of responsibility. But I then deduced that while managers clearly have the prime responsibility to act, they do not have a monopoly. It was true that, at the time, I was the most senior person in the room and therefore the obvious person to intervene, but there were plenty of others who could have done the same thing. Over 90% of staff in the room at the time were thinking “someone needs to do something about this”. And they all waited, presumably for me. Had more senior people been there, what was I supposed to do? Wait for them to do something? As soon as I stepped forward, I was overwhelmed with support. When you are doing the right thing, it is very unusual to find yourself on your own.
I am sure that we all look back at some situations and wish that we had acted differently. I do, but I have never regretted actually getting involved. Certainly I have reflected that my involvement could have been different, or sooner, or perhaps later, but I have never felt that I should have kept out of it. But I do regret not getting involved with certain situations, leaving me with permanent feelings of either frustration or shame. It is much easier to do nothing, but very often it is wrong.
Next time you find yourself saying “someone needs to do something”, you can be sure that you will not be alone and it may be worth asking yourself if that person is you. Despite my friend’s proverb, only a truly comatose or dead person cannot be woken. Surely no-one could sleep through a reveille from a 103 strong chorus?
Sunday 27 October 2013
Friday 27 September 2013
Emirates Group IT - job or career?
During the last three years, many colleagues have said to me that they could not stand the culture in Emirates Group IT and felt it was time to move on. Some did so (and I am not aware of any who have regrets) but many others have hung on in the hope that something will change. When asked, my advice has always been to try and hang on because, on paper, it should be a great place to work, with excellent career opportunities.
But we have to recognise now that nothing is going to change. Gary Chapman is obviously very happy about things. We can continue to speculate as to why this is, but it will not alter anything. I know the Emirates Group businesses are not happy, but they have accepted the situation. If you look back at events, bizarre as they are, they are taken as normal. Take, just as an example, Project Phoenix. If anyone wants me to, I could cover that event in some detail but, in summary . . .
There was no specification, the supplier’s proposal became the specification; only one supplier was given the opportunity to bid; the Group’s Procurement department had no involvement in the process until asked to place the order; it cost the equivalent of about a fifth of what the entire Group normally spent on new IT initiatives each year; it was initiated and approved during a very short window (which was engineered by Patrick Naef) when very costly projects were not seen by the Portfolio Review Board (business leaders who approved IT projects); everyone in EG-IT (except Patrick Naef) was removed from their jobs and had to wait for the project to complete to find out what, if any, role had been allocated to them and all managers had to apply for new roles; senior management approval for the project included an agreement that Patrick Naef had a veto on all decisions and a guarantee that no decisions would be reversed by anyone further up the organisation; both Patrick Naef and the supplier claimed to a number of external audiences that the project was a huge success, citing significant improvements in operational performance all of which were achieved before the project completed, most before the project had even started; Patrick Naef’s ownership of the project was total when its so called ‘success’ was being broadcast, but he swiftly delegated responsibility to its Project Manager when an audit report noted that the project had been contracted in breach of company procedures and had been very poor value.
When I look back at those events, I have to take my hat off to Patrick Naef for actually pulling it off. You can forgive Gary Chapman for not seeing it coming, but this was seven years ago and the theme has just continued.
So, if things are not going to change, perhaps those of you who continue to feel unhappy and frustrated should ask yourself the question - ‘do I want just a job or a career?’. Of course most of us, for most of our lives, need a job so that we can feed the family. But it is not unreasonable for us to expect to utilise our attributes to ensure that the job is very much part of a career. Inevitably, there will be times when the career element will have to take a back seat, but that should be the exception. I fear that, for the vast majority in EG-IT, that situation has become permanent.
I recently drew up a mental list of the managers in EG-IT who I had witnessed challenge Patrick Naef on various issues. It was actually quite a long list (you see, it wasn’t just me who disagreed with him!) but I noted that not one of them has remained in his, or her, post. In fact, the majority have left the company. Everyone in EG-IT knows what the rules are. To survive, you have to keep quiet and do as you are told. In terms of feeding the family, this is pragmatic and eminently sensible, but it is also demeaning. To thrive, you need to mimic (not just endorse) Patrick Naef’s behaviours and, assuming you have some sort of conscience, this will inevitably trouble you as much as it does your colleagues.
During my career I often asked myself ‘what am I learning and is it a benefit’? Whilst at Emirates I learnt a lot from colleagues, both within IT and across the business areas but, for the first time in my life, I learnt nothing positive from my management. All I learned was that I could not trust them.
What have you learnt and what are you learning from your management? And how would it look if you included the answer on your CV? I guess that leads to an interesting question . . . what would you prefer to have on your CV - ‘favoured by Patrick Naef’ or ‘fired by Patrick Naef’?
Sadly, Emirates Group IT has a poor reputation in the industry so one has to recognise that association with it may not be seen as wholly positive. For those of you who are (organisation wise) a number of levels away from Patrick Naef, this will not be an issue, but managers closer to the top could find themselves asked by future prospective employers about the culture and perhaps probed on how they influenced that culture.
Jobs, particularly these days, are very important to hold on to, but careers are far too precious to waste. Unfortunately, waste is a theme in EG-IT. That comes from Patrick Naef. He wastes time, he wastes money and he wastes careers. Individuals have to make up their own minds about the relative importance of job versus career when there has to be choice, as is the case in EG-IT. All I can do is withdraw my earlier advice to wait for the chaos to end, because it has not and it will not.
On a lighter note, someone once relayed an anecdote about a deposed manager handing over his job to his successor. He described in detail the problems which needed to be solved and the scale of the challenge ahead, then completed the handover with these words . . .
“To help you, I have placed three sealed envelopes in your top drawer. They are numbered 1, 2 and 3. Leave them for the time being but, when you are feeling in need of help, open them. But just open them one at a time, as each one will provide useful advice and some respite”
After a few months the new manager found himself struggling, so turned to his top drawer. In the first envelope was the advice “Blame previous management”. So he did and this took the heat off for some time. But it was not long before he found himself under pressure and searching for more inspiration. In the second envelope he found the advice “Bring in external consultants to help you reorganise”. This worked wonders as it took time to implement and then he had the excuse of allowing the new organisation to deliver the necessary changes. But it didn’t improve matters and he found himself increasingly isolated and had no idea what to do next. In desperation, he opened the third envelope. In it he found the words “Get three envelopes.”
The question is - why has Patrick Naef been allowed to keep putting the first two envelopes back in the drawer?
But we have to recognise now that nothing is going to change. Gary Chapman is obviously very happy about things. We can continue to speculate as to why this is, but it will not alter anything. I know the Emirates Group businesses are not happy, but they have accepted the situation. If you look back at events, bizarre as they are, they are taken as normal. Take, just as an example, Project Phoenix. If anyone wants me to, I could cover that event in some detail but, in summary . . .
There was no specification, the supplier’s proposal became the specification; only one supplier was given the opportunity to bid; the Group’s Procurement department had no involvement in the process until asked to place the order; it cost the equivalent of about a fifth of what the entire Group normally spent on new IT initiatives each year; it was initiated and approved during a very short window (which was engineered by Patrick Naef) when very costly projects were not seen by the Portfolio Review Board (business leaders who approved IT projects); everyone in EG-IT (except Patrick Naef) was removed from their jobs and had to wait for the project to complete to find out what, if any, role had been allocated to them and all managers had to apply for new roles; senior management approval for the project included an agreement that Patrick Naef had a veto on all decisions and a guarantee that no decisions would be reversed by anyone further up the organisation; both Patrick Naef and the supplier claimed to a number of external audiences that the project was a huge success, citing significant improvements in operational performance all of which were achieved before the project completed, most before the project had even started; Patrick Naef’s ownership of the project was total when its so called ‘success’ was being broadcast, but he swiftly delegated responsibility to its Project Manager when an audit report noted that the project had been contracted in breach of company procedures and had been very poor value.
When I look back at those events, I have to take my hat off to Patrick Naef for actually pulling it off. You can forgive Gary Chapman for not seeing it coming, but this was seven years ago and the theme has just continued.
So, if things are not going to change, perhaps those of you who continue to feel unhappy and frustrated should ask yourself the question - ‘do I want just a job or a career?’. Of course most of us, for most of our lives, need a job so that we can feed the family. But it is not unreasonable for us to expect to utilise our attributes to ensure that the job is very much part of a career. Inevitably, there will be times when the career element will have to take a back seat, but that should be the exception. I fear that, for the vast majority in EG-IT, that situation has become permanent.
I recently drew up a mental list of the managers in EG-IT who I had witnessed challenge Patrick Naef on various issues. It was actually quite a long list (you see, it wasn’t just me who disagreed with him!) but I noted that not one of them has remained in his, or her, post. In fact, the majority have left the company. Everyone in EG-IT knows what the rules are. To survive, you have to keep quiet and do as you are told. In terms of feeding the family, this is pragmatic and eminently sensible, but it is also demeaning. To thrive, you need to mimic (not just endorse) Patrick Naef’s behaviours and, assuming you have some sort of conscience, this will inevitably trouble you as much as it does your colleagues.
During my career I often asked myself ‘what am I learning and is it a benefit’? Whilst at Emirates I learnt a lot from colleagues, both within IT and across the business areas but, for the first time in my life, I learnt nothing positive from my management. All I learned was that I could not trust them.
What have you learnt and what are you learning from your management? And how would it look if you included the answer on your CV? I guess that leads to an interesting question . . . what would you prefer to have on your CV - ‘favoured by Patrick Naef’ or ‘fired by Patrick Naef’?
Sadly, Emirates Group IT has a poor reputation in the industry so one has to recognise that association with it may not be seen as wholly positive. For those of you who are (organisation wise) a number of levels away from Patrick Naef, this will not be an issue, but managers closer to the top could find themselves asked by future prospective employers about the culture and perhaps probed on how they influenced that culture.
Jobs, particularly these days, are very important to hold on to, but careers are far too precious to waste. Unfortunately, waste is a theme in EG-IT. That comes from Patrick Naef. He wastes time, he wastes money and he wastes careers. Individuals have to make up their own minds about the relative importance of job versus career when there has to be choice, as is the case in EG-IT. All I can do is withdraw my earlier advice to wait for the chaos to end, because it has not and it will not.
On a lighter note, someone once relayed an anecdote about a deposed manager handing over his job to his successor. He described in detail the problems which needed to be solved and the scale of the challenge ahead, then completed the handover with these words . . .
“To help you, I have placed three sealed envelopes in your top drawer. They are numbered 1, 2 and 3. Leave them for the time being but, when you are feeling in need of help, open them. But just open them one at a time, as each one will provide useful advice and some respite”
After a few months the new manager found himself struggling, so turned to his top drawer. In the first envelope was the advice “Blame previous management”. So he did and this took the heat off for some time. But it was not long before he found himself under pressure and searching for more inspiration. In the second envelope he found the advice “Bring in external consultants to help you reorganise”. This worked wonders as it took time to implement and then he had the excuse of allowing the new organisation to deliver the necessary changes. But it didn’t improve matters and he found himself increasingly isolated and had no idea what to do next. In desperation, he opened the third envelope. In it he found the words “Get three envelopes.”
The question is - why has Patrick Naef been allowed to keep putting the first two envelopes back in the drawer?
Tuesday 17 September 2013
About this blog - 10
Judging by the responses to the last update, I do not think anyone believes that the situation in EG-IT is ever going to improve. Indeed, the consensus supports a continuation of the downward trend.
This is hardly surprising. The business model is flawed, the management is devoid of the necessary experience and skills and the culture of the department is cemented in fear.
It has been suggested that, to be fair to prospective EG-IT candidates, the emiratesgroupcareers website should carry a link to my blog, so that victims of the NAIF process will not be surprised when the suffering begins. But this is not necessary. Those interested in the advertised opportunities will discover all they need to know about Patrick Naef and his behaviours as soon as they start their research. I have had a number of enquiries asking for advice. Finding my blog is not difficult, in fact some regular readers access it by just searching ‘Patrick Naef’!
There is one very important aspect of this blog which I feel strongly about. I clarified it right at the start but I think it’s about time I repeated it . . .
The blog is open and honest. If anyone has a problem with what I write, at their request I will publish their concerns without edit. If anyone wants evidence to support what I have written, I will provide it. I will not publish any comments made about my blog unless specifically asked to do so and then only if the author agrees to be identified.
It is worth noting that I have only once received a request to publish a comment. This came from someone who has never been mentioned - either directly or indirectly - in the blog. Before publishing the comment, I made a final check for confirmation that the individual still wanted it included. I did not receive a reply, so I did not publish it.
In this blog I have explained in detail the actions of, and comments made by, Gary Chapman, Nigel Hopkins, Malini Johnson, Patrick Naef and Sophia Panayiotou and they have always had, and will continue to have, an unconditional right of reply here. Given the care that I have taken for accuracy, the fact that not one of them has challenged anything that I have written is not at all a surprise to me.
The next update will appear on 27 September 2013 when I will attempt to answer the question many of you have asked me - ‘how much longer should I put up with this?’.
The blog has now been visited a total of 35,223 times.
This is hardly surprising. The business model is flawed, the management is devoid of the necessary experience and skills and the culture of the department is cemented in fear.
It has been suggested that, to be fair to prospective EG-IT candidates, the emiratesgroupcareers website should carry a link to my blog, so that victims of the NAIF process will not be surprised when the suffering begins. But this is not necessary. Those interested in the advertised opportunities will discover all they need to know about Patrick Naef and his behaviours as soon as they start their research. I have had a number of enquiries asking for advice. Finding my blog is not difficult, in fact some regular readers access it by just searching ‘Patrick Naef’!
There is one very important aspect of this blog which I feel strongly about. I clarified it right at the start but I think it’s about time I repeated it . . .
The blog is open and honest. If anyone has a problem with what I write, at their request I will publish their concerns without edit. If anyone wants evidence to support what I have written, I will provide it. I will not publish any comments made about my blog unless specifically asked to do so and then only if the author agrees to be identified.
It is worth noting that I have only once received a request to publish a comment. This came from someone who has never been mentioned - either directly or indirectly - in the blog. Before publishing the comment, I made a final check for confirmation that the individual still wanted it included. I did not receive a reply, so I did not publish it.
In this blog I have explained in detail the actions of, and comments made by, Gary Chapman, Nigel Hopkins, Malini Johnson, Patrick Naef and Sophia Panayiotou and they have always had, and will continue to have, an unconditional right of reply here. Given the care that I have taken for accuracy, the fact that not one of them has challenged anything that I have written is not at all a surprise to me.
The next update will appear on 27 September 2013 when I will attempt to answer the question many of you have asked me - ‘how much longer should I put up with this?’.
The blog has now been visited a total of 35,223 times.
Tuesday 9 July 2013
About this blog - 9
Please forgive me for not updating for a long while. It has been a
very busy time for me so far this year. I certainly have not finished this blog
as I still have much to say. The blog remains popular, with 33,406 visits to
date. I am grateful for all your prompts and supporting messages, but saddened
to hear that nothing has improved and yet more time and money has been wasted on
trying to fix EG-IT‘s woes. It defies belief that the only people who do not
understand what the problem is are the ones in charge.
Recently there seems to
have been a deluge of corporate failures reported where leaders have
demonstrably failed. It does not seem to matter what the problem was;
manipulating interest rates, hacking into individuals’ voicemails, systematic
doping in sport, altering police witness statements, etc., there is always one
thing in common - the person at the top knew absolutely nothing about it! One
would have thought that these highly visible examples of failures would prompt
leaders to pay a bit more interest in day to day matters and thus avoid the
inevitable embarrassment and negative impact on bottom lines. Theses incidents
prompted me to wonder, yet again, how much the Chairman of the Emirates Group
knows of the problems and practices in EG-IT. I was always aware that Patrick
Naef had carefully controlled the information available to Gary Chapman, but it
is unlikely that Gary is not now fully aware of what has happened and therefore
condones practices which would not be tolerated elsewhere. On the assumption
that the knowledge has gone no further, I have therefore again written to the
Group Chairman. I had earlier promised that I would do so (in response to
requests from colleagues) so I felt that now would be an appropriate, and I hope
helpful, time.
Patrick Naef has now been CIO of the Emirates Group for seven
years and five months. Many reading this will wonder how on earth he has managed
to survive for so long. Individuals in EG-IT who have been victims of his
bullying over the years will probably say ‘I thought it was much longer than
that’. Initially, by systematically mis-informing people and organisations via
press releases and industry cohorts, he painted a very positive, but very false,
picture of himself and his achievements. But the truth is now out and no-one is
taken in anymore. But he is still effective at one thing - censorship. He has
not been able to stop colleagues reading this blog but he has made it difficult
for me to get emails into the company at times. But I will ensure my email to
the Chairman does get delivered, though it may take a few attempts. Publishing
such communications on here will always be a last resort.
Many have asked for my
views on the recent damaging changes within EG-IT. As I have stated before, I
can only cover matters about which I have full facts. But, based on my knowledge
of how Patrick Naef works, I assume that he would have employed his standard
modus operandi. This would have led him to take what would appear to be an arm's
length approach, using others (and therefore apparently independent) people to
deliver the results he wants. His prime objective would be to remove people on
his black list from their jobs and I marvel at how he manages to transmit the
list to his agents, without actually spelling it out. I am not sure whether this
is done by body language, or even by osmosis, but it works every time.
Then he
has to fill the vacancies and, for this exercise, he uses his other list. Again,
he claims to be totally impartial, leaving others to do the work of selection.
Only when they do not come up with the right (i.e. his) answer does he
intervene. But of course recruitment is only an initial step in the continuous
Patrick Naef cycle of dealing with people. I call it the Patrick NAIF cycle.
Nominate. Appoint. Intimidate. Fire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)