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?’
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
Monday, 30 April 2012
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
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
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
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.
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.
Monday, 26 March 2012
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.
Monday, 27 February 2012
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’.
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’.
Saturday, 17 December 2011
About this blog - 6
When I started this blog I did not have a target in mind in terms of readership. My immediate goal was, given the way Patrick Naef announced my departure (and, I am told, subsequently refused to discuss the reasons on the grounds that “it was confidential” thus further fuelling speculation), to dispel any rumours that I had been involved in some sort of fraudulent activity. It is sad that no-one in the company saw fit to clarify the situation - this could have been done so easily - but, of course, such rumours (temporarily) helped paper over the cracks of a pretty distasteful episode. Though I had no firm target, I guess I would have been content with a couple of hundred readers of my initial blog (which was published on 31 January 2011). With 200 people across the company knowing the truth, word of mouth would have done the rest and the cracks would be visible enough for all to see.
As I revealed more information about events, it was probably natural that I would retain a core audience but I would have assumed that, after six months or so, most people would have forgotten about me. So, by mid-year had I seen a couple of dozen readers of each update I would have been more than content.
I have done nothing in terms of SEO. In fact it has been more a case of SEDO - Search Engine De-Optimisation. Initially, I only want readers from the company (and those closely associated with it) so that I can monitor relevant readership. I do not want people stumbling across the site, I want to limit it to a captive audience at the moment. This is the reason why, thus far, I have avoided using the company name and why the blog has such a bland url. Looking at the search terms that lead to my site, it is clear that the approach has been successful. I can count on one hand the number of obvious mis-directs - the overwhelming majority of search terms are very specifically targeted towards the topics and relevant individuals.
The SEDO approach will not always be the right one. For now, I want to provide more updates on the actions by specific individuals and also complete the full picture. The latter will provide more focus on the company’s role in all this. Of course, what happened to me was the direct result of Patrick Naef’s desire to get rid of me and the overwhelming support that he received from his management and HR. But, at the end of the day, it was the company that terminated my contract based on an outright lie and it needs to be accountable for that. Just as individuals should not hide behind a company, a company has no right to hide behind its individuals. So, at some stage in the future, I will be more than happy to see my readership widen. I think that everyone should have the ability to understand how large and high profile companies (particularly those who vigorously promote their qualities) behave.
So, back to the numbers, the response has been way beyond what I could have imagined. An initial 200 hits were reached in just a few hours, with over 700 in one day. After the initial interest (3,660 in February and 2,009 in March) the figures have been reasonably constant at around 1,200 per month. August was the lowest with just 725, but October was the third highest at 1,448. Daily hit rates vary quite a bit, but 40 is a typical figure, with the lowest at 8.
So, as you can see, any expectations of ‘a couple of dozen’ per update have been vastly exceeded. If I look at the last update as an example, 24 hits were seen within just two hours of it being published. Within 24 hours the figure had reached 98 and it took just over four days to reach 300.
All this is despite the fact that the site has been blocked from the corporate network of its target audience. Whilst, I expected nothing else from Patrick Naef, I would like to understand his justification for such censorship. Maybe the company IT policy has been updated but, in my experience, only obscene, offensive, etc. material was blocked, along with sites which would be so popular as to cause performance issues. The latter’s restrictions were normally limited to the working day. I hardly think that my little blog (with its circa 40 readers a day) would strain any network and certainly not compete with a Test match in terms of interest. But I suppose, for someone who seems to be most comfortable when dealing with mis-information, the truth probably seems pretty offensive.
As I publish this, the total number of hits recorded is 15,322.
As I revealed more information about events, it was probably natural that I would retain a core audience but I would have assumed that, after six months or so, most people would have forgotten about me. So, by mid-year had I seen a couple of dozen readers of each update I would have been more than content.
I have done nothing in terms of SEO. In fact it has been more a case of SEDO - Search Engine De-Optimisation. Initially, I only want readers from the company (and those closely associated with it) so that I can monitor relevant readership. I do not want people stumbling across the site, I want to limit it to a captive audience at the moment. This is the reason why, thus far, I have avoided using the company name and why the blog has such a bland url. Looking at the search terms that lead to my site, it is clear that the approach has been successful. I can count on one hand the number of obvious mis-directs - the overwhelming majority of search terms are very specifically targeted towards the topics and relevant individuals.
The SEDO approach will not always be the right one. For now, I want to provide more updates on the actions by specific individuals and also complete the full picture. The latter will provide more focus on the company’s role in all this. Of course, what happened to me was the direct result of Patrick Naef’s desire to get rid of me and the overwhelming support that he received from his management and HR. But, at the end of the day, it was the company that terminated my contract based on an outright lie and it needs to be accountable for that. Just as individuals should not hide behind a company, a company has no right to hide behind its individuals. So, at some stage in the future, I will be more than happy to see my readership widen. I think that everyone should have the ability to understand how large and high profile companies (particularly those who vigorously promote their qualities) behave.
So, back to the numbers, the response has been way beyond what I could have imagined. An initial 200 hits were reached in just a few hours, with over 700 in one day. After the initial interest (3,660 in February and 2,009 in March) the figures have been reasonably constant at around 1,200 per month. August was the lowest with just 725, but October was the third highest at 1,448. Daily hit rates vary quite a bit, but 40 is a typical figure, with the lowest at 8.
So, as you can see, any expectations of ‘a couple of dozen’ per update have been vastly exceeded. If I look at the last update as an example, 24 hits were seen within just two hours of it being published. Within 24 hours the figure had reached 98 and it took just over four days to reach 300.
All this is despite the fact that the site has been blocked from the corporate network of its target audience. Whilst, I expected nothing else from Patrick Naef, I would like to understand his justification for such censorship. Maybe the company IT policy has been updated but, in my experience, only obscene, offensive, etc. material was blocked, along with sites which would be so popular as to cause performance issues. The latter’s restrictions were normally limited to the working day. I hardly think that my little blog (with its circa 40 readers a day) would strain any network and certainly not compete with a Test match in terms of interest. But I suppose, for someone who seems to be most comfortable when dealing with mis-information, the truth probably seems pretty offensive.
As I publish this, the total number of hits recorded is 15,322.
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Comments on comments
I have generally avoided responding here to specific comments received. If people want a personal response they can include contact details in their comment, or alternatively use the email address I gave in ‘About this blog - 2’ in February. In both cases, I guarantee a reply and anonymity. But there are a few themes which recur and they seem to be increasing in regularity, so I thought I should respond to them here.
A regular theme is along the lines of ‘Why didn’t you speak up while you were here? . . . Patrick Naef’s management probably can’t act on your blog, so why don’t you write to them officially and tell them what went on? . . . Why bother with a blog, why don’t you write to those at the very top of the Group and make them aware of the issues? . . . etc’. The short answer is that I did. But in more detail . . .
All issues I have referred to in my blog (and more) were raised to Patrick Naef regularly. He was fully aware of my concerns. I believe that this was the reason he had me fired - he simply does not like to have his policies questioned. But, as a member of a management team, I always strongly believe in the principles of ‘cabinet responsibility’. On some questions regarding strategy I found myself in a minority of one in the Executive team and I had to (and did) respect that, implementing decisions which I did not agree with. (It is a sobering experience to find yourself inwardly in total agreement with the arguments being put forward by your colleagues in the business, as well as members of your team, but having to rebut them!) But I had no major problem with this - after all, none of us has a monopoly on being right - and, had I not been comfortable, I was perfectly free to move on. As it was, I felt I was adding enough value to the organisation to continue in my role. And I must make it clear that Patrick and I were in full agreement on many (probably over 90%) of EG-IT issues. Unfortunately, the remaining 10% happened to be the bigger ones!
As for ‘going above Patrick’, that is never my style. I reserve such action as ‘last ditch’ and only for issues of phenomenal importance to the company and/or individuals which could not be resolved in any other way. In the normal course of events, I would never betray my boss by bypassing him or her. It was up to me to put forward my arguments and to win them. I failed to do so and that was my problem. It was Nigel Hopkins’ and Gary Chapman’s responsibilities to be satisfied as to how Patrick Naef was managing IT for the Group and it is clear that they were. How they came to that conclusion is a matter for them, but neither of them ever sought any input from me.
You may recall me, back in March (‘Naefed in the back‘), describing Patrick’s desire to unfairly make an individual redundant. This certainly would have qualified as a matter of ‘phenomenal importance’ to which I refer above, as the action desired by Patrick Naef was totally unethical. The EG-IT redundancy exercise was agreed unanimously by the IT Executive as necessary in order to meet the financial targets set by Gary Chapman at the time. It was a very difficult time for everyone and the best we could do was to execute it as fairly as we could. To pollute the process, as Patrick Naef wanted to, would have been, in my view, totally unacceptable and something that I would have had no part in. As I explained at the time (only) to my Wife, had Patrick insisted on getting his own way then I would have taken the matter right to the very top of the Group if necessary and, had that failed, duly resigned from the company.
But, of course, me getting fired was of phenomenal importance to me so naturally I did take matters further, right to the top of the Group in fact. In later blogs I will share details of these communications and I think many readers will be as surprised and as disappointed as I was with the responses (often the lack of any response at all). And, as I stated back in January, I gave them plenty of opportunities to respond properly (for over three months) before I concluded that a blog was the only communication vehicle available to me. I have never known a situation where someone’s management has taken so little interest in what he is doing and how he is doing it. As I also stated earlier - for me this is indeed a unique situation.
I am often asked for more regular updates as well as details about current events. We are still travelling quite a bit but I do try and get something out as often as I can. It is nice to see the blog is still widely read but it is sad that people have to look so far away for information about what is happening in their own department. But, as I am sure you will understand, I cannot comment about specific current issues in EG-IT, given I am not at all in touch with details of events. I have been asked recently why the ‘new SVP’ did not join EG-IT last month but I do not know the gentleman, so I have no idea why he decided not to turn up. All I can do is wonder why, if anyone had a choice in the matter and knew of Patrick Naef‘s record and credentials, they would choose to report to him in any organisation. And of course I remain totally baffled why Patrick Naef spent so much time and effort trying (and failing) to find a ‘new SVP’ when he already had an ‘old SVP’. I always turned up!
I know that the recent press release regarding Mercator Asia has caused consternation and exasperation in business areas as well as across EG-IT but, again, I am not privy to any of the problems there. But that whole exercise bore the same hallmark of most of Patrick Naef’s initiatives - ill conceived and poorly implemented. Initial ideas are normally fairly sound but they are then rigorously pursued without any in depth analysis, without any regard to ‘what could go wrong’ and with no tolerance for any questioning views. Consequently, proposal teams are very small and limited to those content to follow his orders and work within his narrow guidelines. Patrick Naef’s unstoppable tenacity to implement initiatives should be a huge asset to any organisation but, when applied to flawed, expensive and resource draining proposals as it often is, it is lethal.
I also feel that I should respond to a specific comment received recently which requested my views on why the IT Executive team is “so ineffective” as this is a question often asked. I do not think it is necessary for me to defend people but maybe a few words may be helpful.
Each member of the IT Executive has particular skills and I enjoyed working with all of them. We all have strengths and weaknesses and also fit to varying degrees into our roles at any given time. If all of us were sat in roles for which we were totally qualified, none of us would develop and I was thankful to receive help from my colleagues (both offered by them and requested by me) to fill the many gaps I have, as well as pleased to provide some of my experience to my colleagues when appropriate. Such activities always took place out of the formal management framework because Patrick Naef’s style is very much one of ‘instruction’. He talks glibly about ‘consensus management’ but in reality that means that his management team has agreed to his point of view, albeit after a long and often tortuous discussion. Certainly, members of the IT Executive regularly spoke up, but rarely with the vigour with which I did. But I did wonder sometimes, when I found myself outvoted as I stated above, if that was a reflection of true beliefs or just the impact of Patrick’s intimidatory management style.
With genuine open debate at all levels and the total absence of fear of ‘management retribution’, organisations can not only maximise their potential, but also enrich the careers of their staff. You have to have personally experienced such an environment in order to truly believe that. As I see it, EG-IT’s Executive team, indeed EG-IT as a whole, is nowhere near as effective as it could (and should) be because there is no genuine open debate and the fear of management retribution dominates people’s every day lives. In these challenging times, right across the world people with family responsibilities have a serious concern for the stability of their careers but EG-IT staff, given the nature of their residence status, will understandably feel that concern even more strongly. Any individual, or organisation, who sees that as an opportunity to exercise a greater level of control is not only immoral, but also very short sighted.
A regular theme is along the lines of ‘Why didn’t you speak up while you were here? . . . Patrick Naef’s management probably can’t act on your blog, so why don’t you write to them officially and tell them what went on? . . . Why bother with a blog, why don’t you write to those at the very top of the Group and make them aware of the issues? . . . etc’. The short answer is that I did. But in more detail . . .
All issues I have referred to in my blog (and more) were raised to Patrick Naef regularly. He was fully aware of my concerns. I believe that this was the reason he had me fired - he simply does not like to have his policies questioned. But, as a member of a management team, I always strongly believe in the principles of ‘cabinet responsibility’. On some questions regarding strategy I found myself in a minority of one in the Executive team and I had to (and did) respect that, implementing decisions which I did not agree with. (It is a sobering experience to find yourself inwardly in total agreement with the arguments being put forward by your colleagues in the business, as well as members of your team, but having to rebut them!) But I had no major problem with this - after all, none of us has a monopoly on being right - and, had I not been comfortable, I was perfectly free to move on. As it was, I felt I was adding enough value to the organisation to continue in my role. And I must make it clear that Patrick and I were in full agreement on many (probably over 90%) of EG-IT issues. Unfortunately, the remaining 10% happened to be the bigger ones!
As for ‘going above Patrick’, that is never my style. I reserve such action as ‘last ditch’ and only for issues of phenomenal importance to the company and/or individuals which could not be resolved in any other way. In the normal course of events, I would never betray my boss by bypassing him or her. It was up to me to put forward my arguments and to win them. I failed to do so and that was my problem. It was Nigel Hopkins’ and Gary Chapman’s responsibilities to be satisfied as to how Patrick Naef was managing IT for the Group and it is clear that they were. How they came to that conclusion is a matter for them, but neither of them ever sought any input from me.
You may recall me, back in March (‘Naefed in the back‘), describing Patrick’s desire to unfairly make an individual redundant. This certainly would have qualified as a matter of ‘phenomenal importance’ to which I refer above, as the action desired by Patrick Naef was totally unethical. The EG-IT redundancy exercise was agreed unanimously by the IT Executive as necessary in order to meet the financial targets set by Gary Chapman at the time. It was a very difficult time for everyone and the best we could do was to execute it as fairly as we could. To pollute the process, as Patrick Naef wanted to, would have been, in my view, totally unacceptable and something that I would have had no part in. As I explained at the time (only) to my Wife, had Patrick insisted on getting his own way then I would have taken the matter right to the very top of the Group if necessary and, had that failed, duly resigned from the company.
But, of course, me getting fired was of phenomenal importance to me so naturally I did take matters further, right to the top of the Group in fact. In later blogs I will share details of these communications and I think many readers will be as surprised and as disappointed as I was with the responses (often the lack of any response at all). And, as I stated back in January, I gave them plenty of opportunities to respond properly (for over three months) before I concluded that a blog was the only communication vehicle available to me. I have never known a situation where someone’s management has taken so little interest in what he is doing and how he is doing it. As I also stated earlier - for me this is indeed a unique situation.
I am often asked for more regular updates as well as details about current events. We are still travelling quite a bit but I do try and get something out as often as I can. It is nice to see the blog is still widely read but it is sad that people have to look so far away for information about what is happening in their own department. But, as I am sure you will understand, I cannot comment about specific current issues in EG-IT, given I am not at all in touch with details of events. I have been asked recently why the ‘new SVP’ did not join EG-IT last month but I do not know the gentleman, so I have no idea why he decided not to turn up. All I can do is wonder why, if anyone had a choice in the matter and knew of Patrick Naef‘s record and credentials, they would choose to report to him in any organisation. And of course I remain totally baffled why Patrick Naef spent so much time and effort trying (and failing) to find a ‘new SVP’ when he already had an ‘old SVP’. I always turned up!
I know that the recent press release regarding Mercator Asia has caused consternation and exasperation in business areas as well as across EG-IT but, again, I am not privy to any of the problems there. But that whole exercise bore the same hallmark of most of Patrick Naef’s initiatives - ill conceived and poorly implemented. Initial ideas are normally fairly sound but they are then rigorously pursued without any in depth analysis, without any regard to ‘what could go wrong’ and with no tolerance for any questioning views. Consequently, proposal teams are very small and limited to those content to follow his orders and work within his narrow guidelines. Patrick Naef’s unstoppable tenacity to implement initiatives should be a huge asset to any organisation but, when applied to flawed, expensive and resource draining proposals as it often is, it is lethal.
I also feel that I should respond to a specific comment received recently which requested my views on why the IT Executive team is “so ineffective” as this is a question often asked. I do not think it is necessary for me to defend people but maybe a few words may be helpful.
Each member of the IT Executive has particular skills and I enjoyed working with all of them. We all have strengths and weaknesses and also fit to varying degrees into our roles at any given time. If all of us were sat in roles for which we were totally qualified, none of us would develop and I was thankful to receive help from my colleagues (both offered by them and requested by me) to fill the many gaps I have, as well as pleased to provide some of my experience to my colleagues when appropriate. Such activities always took place out of the formal management framework because Patrick Naef’s style is very much one of ‘instruction’. He talks glibly about ‘consensus management’ but in reality that means that his management team has agreed to his point of view, albeit after a long and often tortuous discussion. Certainly, members of the IT Executive regularly spoke up, but rarely with the vigour with which I did. But I did wonder sometimes, when I found myself outvoted as I stated above, if that was a reflection of true beliefs or just the impact of Patrick’s intimidatory management style.
With genuine open debate at all levels and the total absence of fear of ‘management retribution’, organisations can not only maximise their potential, but also enrich the careers of their staff. You have to have personally experienced such an environment in order to truly believe that. As I see it, EG-IT’s Executive team, indeed EG-IT as a whole, is nowhere near as effective as it could (and should) be because there is no genuine open debate and the fear of management retribution dominates people’s every day lives. In these challenging times, right across the world people with family responsibilities have a serious concern for the stability of their careers but EG-IT staff, given the nature of their residence status, will understandably feel that concern even more strongly. Any individual, or organisation, who sees that as an opportunity to exercise a greater level of control is not only immoral, but also very short sighted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)