The plan for this update had been a response to those who have expressed concern about Project Phoenix, providing more details. But I have received an email from someone who was not too pleased about my last two updates. The individual used to work in EG-IT, but decided to leave after somewhat compromising himself by challenging Patrick Naef. So, in some respects, he was aligned to my position but, as you will see, was not at all in agreement with my recent actions. He asked me to publish his email and was very happy to be open about his identity. I told him I would (without edit) and I offered to share my response with him in advance. After a frank and very productive exchange, it was clear that we are totally on the same page regarding the most important matter i.e. we both remain fully supportive of EG-IT staff.
My offer of a ‘right of reply’ on this blog is mainly in place for those who I have named. It is only right that they are able to challenge anything that I have written about them. But other views are equally welcome. I have insisted on openness because people must be accountable for what they say and, in my view, it is impossible to be ‘open and honest’ and be anonymous. But, in this case, I could not see any real value in the individual being named and he is certainly not anonymous to me. I suggested to him that it might open up a debate which he may not value and he had already made it clear that his comments were ‘one off’. For that reason, I am not naming him. His letter is reproduced in italics below, in its entirety with the exception of the paragraph in which he identifies himself.
Hi Tom,
I am taking up your offer, as communicated in the 17th Sep 2013 post, being “If anyone has a problem with what I write, at their request I will publish their concerns without edit”. Indeed I now do have concerns, in particular relating to your subsequent post of 27th Sep, and I request that you publish this communication.
Firstly, please allow me to (re)introduce myself. [Remainder of paragraph removed.]
Secondly, before tabulating my concerns next, what I think of you Tom? I had (and still have) the utmost respect for you on professional and personal levels (although, admittedly, I didn’t and don’t know you close enough). I thought that you were direct, clearly honest and with spot-on deductions whenever we interacted. One of your stands that I still recall vividly (perhaps you don’t) relates to the car that should best represent EG-IT, an exercise we carried-out as part of Phoenix. Whilst most of us drifted into fancy, high-end or life-style choice of cars that we thought better represent Emirates’ brand, you identified a car that starts almost every time, rarely breaks down, is most cost-effective and easy to maintain. I think you drove that car then and likely to be still driving such or a similar make today.
My concerns are two-fold:
1) That your views in the 27th Sep post are disrespectful, if not outright degrading, to whomever had elected to stay in EG-IT or joined recently.
2) That your views as regard EG leadership are increasingly narrow-focused and presumptuous, displaying an “I know best” attitude. Whilst seemingly not giving consideration to a culturally unique environment, not much different to that of Dubai itself, which produced and continue to produce admirable results on a global scale.
In elaboration it looks that you’re lecturing ex-colleagues who stayed in EG-IT (and the newcomers) with authoritative-sounding deductions, insolently implying they would not be worth as much should they hang-in there longer. It seems that you’re assuming that those who stayed, even at senior levels, can have no positive impact whatsoever as regard the well-being of lower ranking staff or the business. And that none of them, in their own way, is having the morals or the will to stand-up for what they believe is right. In my view you go beyond expressing an opinion to inciting mangers to abandon ship, presuming they’re not aware of what can be best for them. I believe that we left behind ex-colleagues, and since more had joined, who may well be (at their own level) possessing the Power of One for doing good and effecting a positive change irrespective of how flawed one may think that EG-IT current governance is (and I had thought this is your intention as you started this blog, using your Power of One for good).
And it looks that your Patrick bashing had turned into a personal vendetta that threatens your voicing of even more mistrust in EG’s leadership, just because they won’t join your blame-game. Have you considered that EG’s leadership are possibly getting exactly what they want via Patrick’s management of EG-IT? Remember the car analogy? I know of many of who believe that IT Does Not Matter. To the business, IT should be run as a utility – hit the switch and the light should come on or off (almost always). Turn that tab and you should have your choice of hot or cold water (even better, a mix at the desired temperature). Run that report on-the-spot with no worry about the computing power behind it and ability to get the interfaced data, in as much as one should not worry if and how their fridge (or your car) will work. IT has less and less to offer the business in way of a strategic advantage, save as to utility-like reliability and abundance. And, towards that end, some feel that Patrick contributed more than most. After all, culture aside, running a utility-like operation demands a certain element of above-average discipline. And the higher the advancement and sophistication desired, the more the need to swiftly carry-out your role as may be re-described without much questioning your superior’s intentions – almost military like. Yes, Patrick’s at times overly-autocratic management style demanded such; many would say. But I think hardly any one by now believes that EG leadership was oblivious to that fact, but rather encouraging. This may have well been very productive to the business, which certainly seems to be continuing to outshine any competition from across the globe.
Tom, I frequently fly Emirates as well as other airlines around the world. I feel the average non-IT-savvy regular passengers’ admiration to Emirates’ use of IT-enabled solutions. From the way I make a booking & purchase the on-line ticket, to check-in & boarding, then the purser touching a tablet and knowing my preferences, let alone other on-board displays & facilities, to timely picking-up my bag or effectively having it traced and delivered on the rare occasion it gets delayed, etc. – I think Emirates is amongst the best in this regard if not number one. I cannot (and do not want to) shake-off a sense of pride every time I board an Emirates flight; I feel home. And gratification, for I may have contributed no matter how little to Emirates having reached where it is now. Hence my concerns that comments like yours, whether by accident or design, are belittling not only EG-IT current employees and EG leadership but also persons like you and me in the process.
No one is perfect, and – granted – there will always be room for improvement. Some aspects of your experience may be unfair, so is life the saying goes. But contractually you must have been treated within the relevant terms, and paid your dues; otherwise you would have sued. Your Blog may have been an eye-opener for some and may have contributed to bettering the choices of certain individuals who did not know any better. To me though, the recent posts went overboard. An apology to EG-IT current staff and EG leadership would be due should I be in your place. Perhaps this is best served by refraining from having such posts in future. Even better, as I think this Blog went on long-enough irrespective of how many curious hits it continues to draw, Tom please STOP!
Best wishes,
Sincerely,
I guess the very short answer to this email is to say that the last two updates were prompted by readers. For a long time now, I have not been the sole driver of my blog.
Initially, the blog was set up to ensure that everyone (who was interested) knew what happened to me and how I was treated by the company. Obviously, it is up to individuals to decide themselves if they want to stay in (or join) such an organisation. The original plan was to cover all the events and then leave the blog dormant. People have better things to do than read about ‘someone who used to work here’ and I have a retirement to concentrate on. What I had not planned for was the response. I have had regular input from many sources - previous victims, current EG-IT staff and people in the business. Since the blog started, I have repelled requests for all sorts of topics and campaigns. If some readers had had their way, the blog would have become a 'dissidents monthly'! Given the strength of input I have given way a bit, hence the periodic 'off topic' diversions. During the blog’s quiet period in 2013 I was regularly prompted to keep it going, including receiving encouragement to be “patient”, as if my goal was regime change. That is not at all an objective, I do not care if the Emirates Group wants to run its business like this. But I do very much care about my colleagues in EG-IT.
He may possibly be right that some people are happy about the way EG-IT is managed, but no-one has ever told me so. Nobody (other than Patrick Naef) has ever said anything positive to me about the way Gary Chapman and Nigel Hopkins manage IT on behalf of the Emirates Group. Certainly, I have heard many positive comments about Gary Chapman’s business acumen and about Nigel Hopkins’ control of the finances, but nothing generous about their IT management record.
In the past, colleagues have asked me if they should stay in EG-IT - my answer used to be ‘yes, hang on, it can't go on for much longer like this and, once it is properly managed, it will be a great place where you can grow your career’. But I have realised that the problem goes beyond Patrick - it is being managed exactly how Gary Chapman wants it to be. So I concluded that I needed to change my advice to those people who I had urged to hang on. Please remember that the only route I have to most EG-IT staff is via my blog. Some are open in their communication to me but most are (sensibly) very cautious. I am now certain that many EG-IT staff are wasting their time and careers by staying on.
I had only just begun my personal 'search for talent' in EG-IT before I was fired. I had finally worked out that the structure and culture was never going to allow talent to blossom without much more serious change. By holding 'one to one' meetings with staff at all levels, I began to discover a wealth of potential - people who clearly needed some headroom in which to develop their obvious talents. I remember having a fabulous discussion with an individual on how we could improve our service to the Outstations. Yet he had been buried in the organisation for some considerable time (and is probably still buried there). And I met very talented contractors who had spent as many as seven years waiting to be made permanent - their futures in the hands of managers who had continually kept them out of any assessment process.
Also, I have heard some pretty disturbing things about the behaviour of some managers in EG-IT. When I knew those managers, they came over as reasonable and caring people. Maybe they fooled me or perhaps I am not being told the truth about their actions now, but I fear they may not be able to look back on this period of their careers with much pride. I guess my overriding worry is that some EG-IT managers may be learning to do it ‘Patrick's way’. I certainly do not think it is the right way and I do not think they do either. I have not named anyone so, recognising on old saying, if the cap does not fit there is no need for anyone to wear it.
A regular theme in my inbox has been - 'Tom, do something'. What am I supposed to do? I am thousands of miles away and do not even have access to EK mail! I dithered over requests to write to the Chairman for over a year ("it won't reach him, if it does he won't read it, if he does he will ignore it") but eventually did so. I've done my best, but I am powerless and people need to appreciate this. But I do fear bumping into colleagues in years to come and hearing them lament wasted years and feeling that I was somewhat responsible.
So all the above led me to think that I should devote a couple of updates to realign my earlier advice, to get people to assess if they really are in the right place, to encourage managers to ask themselves if they are happy with the way they are conducting themselves and to prompt everyone (whether they work in, or out of, EG-IT) to consider, if things really are as bad as I am told, if they should do something about it. It would be nice to have a dollar for every time I have heard the words "I wish I had spoken up". What is going on in EG-IT is not unique but it is very rare in such a large company, particularly a successful one. My friend above very rightly refers to ‘the power of one’, but it does not have to be just one. Unfortunately, the EG-IT management motto seems to be ‘the power against one’ but we should not underestimate the value of ‘the power of many’.
I do hope that I have not insulted anyone with the latest two updates. That was certainly never my intention, but I do not have a problem if the updates jarred a few nerve ends. Since the day I joined the company my actions have been (and remain) solely focused on improving EG-IT for the benefit of its stakeholders, not on attempting to improve my popularity (I am sure many people will testify to that!). If the updates prompted people to think about the current situation, I am happy. If they are happy to be part of EG-IT as it is, if they are happy with their own conduct, if they are happy that their future is best served in EG-IT and if business colleagues are happy with the service EG-IT is providing them, then no-one will have any regrets in the future. As long as all my colleagues know that my advice is no longer to stay in EG-IT, then I am happy.
This is not an appropriate place to cover what the company did, or did not, pay me. Nor is it the place to air my understanding of how the Emirates Group protects itself against litigation from employees. But I will say that Dnata and I had a contract; that I honoured that contract; that Dnata broke that contract without cause. I am totally confident that any properly convened, and properly conducted, court of law would agree with those statements. If anyone in Dnata, up to and including President Gary Chapman, disagrees with my statements then I will be happy to debate the matter with them and publish an agreed summary of that debate. Indeed, should we not be able to agree on a summary, I will publish here an unedited statement by Dnata on their position. I cannot think of a fairer approach.
I can understand that it appears that I am being vindictive towards Patrick and others, but that is not my intention. I harbour no animosity towards anyone as individuals. I had enjoyed good personal and professional relationships with both Malini and Sophia and I actually wrote to both of them before I left Dubai, apologising in advance and stressing that ‘it wasn’t personal’. I never really struck up relationships with either Gary or Nigel – clearly a mistake on my part – and it is a shame that our only meaningful encounter turned out to be such a disastrous one. As for Patrick, I do not think we could have ever been described as ‘buddies’ but I had a strong respect for him and (it seems wrongly) thought that he had some respect for me. I certainly do not hate Patrick, far from it, but I do hate what he did to me and to others. I hope that one day Patrick will hate what he did too. But I have a responsibility to myself to ensure that people know what happened to me and a duty to make others aware that it could happen to them.
I will stop updating this blog when I have completed all the topics I have planned. I appreciate that some readers are just curious, but I know that many others are very interested and interested for the right reasons. As I stated above, I am not doing this in an attempt to gain friends, I am just laying out the facts and expressing my opinions. People are at liberty to take them or leave them.
Finally, just because Emirates is successful does not mean it is doing everything right.
