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?
No comments:
Post a Comment