Ashes to ashes.

This is for those who have expressed concerns to me about Project Phoenix.

I joined Emirates Group on the day Project Phoenix was announced, 1 July 2006.  Patrick Naef had been in post for five months and it was clear to him (indeed everyone) that some serious work had to be done to improve the service being delivered to the business.  The number of operational outages was mind blowing and the project delivery record appalling.  I do not know when Patrick had engaged the external consultants (who were heavily involved on the day of the announcement) but he clearly had decided at an early stage to take drastic action, deciding to dismantle the organisation and starting again.

It did not take long in my new post (VP Technology Services) to appreciate the scale of the problems, nor to identify the main areas to work on.  Most of the infrastructure was not fit for purpose (a lot of it was so old it no longer enjoyed support from its supplier), effective standard IT support processes (such as change, risk and incident management) did not exist, management competence was scarce and the IT departmental culture was swamped with cronyism and blame.  Quite a list!  But there were some positives, including an incredibly dedicated and hard working team, all of whom agreed (and desired) that things had to change.

Virtually all the IT infrastructure, including the entire Data Centre, needed replacing and this would take time.  But there were some serious issues which required immediate attention.  As an example, I discovered that the Data Centre had no resilience in the air conditioning system.  The failure of just one small unit would have put the entire Data Centre out of action.  The reason given to me for this state of affairs was “no budget”!  Also, there was an auto start generator in place to provide backup power in the event of a main supply failure.  The generator was perfectly capable of supplying all the IT equipment, but it was not connected to the full air conditioning system!  So, all it gave us was time to power everything down in a controlled manner, leaving our passengers waiting until the power came back.  It is a credit to the Data Centre staff and also our colleagues in the Facilities department, that the necessary remedial work was completed before the peak (in terms of both passenger numbers and temperature) of the summer of 2007.  We did not have to spend a huge amount of money (if my memory serves me well, the air conditioning units were around  AED10K each), but carrying out the work (particularly power) without impacting a 24/365 operation was a major challenge for the teams involved.  The work was completed without any unplanned service disruptions.  There is absolutely no doubt that, without this work, the summer of 2007 would have seen outages unheard of in the industry, with very serious consequences for Emirates Airline.

The good news was that Patrick had already gained approval for what was called the Resilience Project.  Although the benefits had been oversold to the business (“seamless changeovers during server outages” which was not actually achievable on a lot of systems), it was good that procurement of new hardware was underway.  I can only assume that such exaggerations of benefits were necessary in a political environment which I had never encountered before.  The company clearly had money, but had chosen to spend virtually none of it on its internal IT systems.  I believe that the Resilience Project had been scoped before Patrick had arrived but he had given it the necessary impetus to get it started.  But there was a long list of other work that was required, such as on the email system which was out of support and about to collapse.

High severity incidents, i.e. those that had a direct operational impact on the business, were running at over 300 per quarter, more than 3 per day.  I found this difficult to believe.  My previous experience had been in environments where the target was always zero, with just a single such incident in a quarter generating huge complaints from our customers.  But, at Emirates, we often had two, sometimes three, such outages at the same time!  The problem was not solely due to overloaded and ‘not fit for purpose’ infrastructure, there was no effective change management process.  The resolution for many outages was often stated as “resolved by itself” which was IT speak for ‘someone carried out an unauthorised change, it went wrong, so it was backed out quickly’.  Activities were not logged so no-one, other than the individual who had carried it out, would ever know about the change.  Not all changes were done in secret, others were planned and notified, but there was rarely any effective risk management applied.  The answer to my standard question of “what can go wrong” was normally “nothing, we’ve done it before”.

A huge factor was the general level of management competence.  There were exceptions, but some managers were struggling.  They were very dedicated people with sound technical skills but I am afraid that, across the globe, IT people do not always make good managers.  Understandably, a lack of management responsibilities will always dilute a job evaluation in any organisation but Emirates HR had apparently insisted that the ceiling for any ‘non-management’ IT operational job was G8.  This was absurd.  A company the size of Emirates which provided its IT support internally should be able to accommodate technical subject matter experts as far as G10, as long as the individual’s depth and width of knowledge can justify the grade.  Technical staff should certainly have been able to aspire to a G9 technical role without getting bogged down with management chores, something that many did not want.  But the HR rule meant that the only way a good technical person could be adequately rewarded, was by making them a manager.  The result was inevitable.

But the culture was probably going to be the biggest challenge.  The name of the game was to please the boss and drop your colleagues into as much trouble as possible.  And this applied at all levels in the organisation, it was a standard survival technique.  Subservience dominated – most managers in my team would not get close to disagreeing with me, so management debate was initially almost non-existent.  In a meeting with my managers, at the end of my first week, I asked them what they thought of me.  They looked at the floor.  Eventually, one of them said that he thought that “I was a reasonable sort of chap”.  That was the first time anyone had told me that!

So there was a lot to do, but it was achievable and I was more than happy to get on with it.  One immediate focus had to be on the physical infrastructure replacements, so funds had to be secured.  No elaborate business cases were needed, everything was about to go pear shaped so the company had no choice.  For some reason Emirates had made the decision to run the whole place on a shoestring and now the consequences were staring us in the face.  The change/risk/incident elements were easy, they could be (and were) implemented immediately with a total hands on approach initially, and then slowly delegating to those who showed the ability and inclination to take it on.  You cannot effectively (and therefore should not) change management teams overnight.  Working with everyone allows time to understand strengths, career aspirations, learning needs, etc. and, if it proves necessary to move an individual into a non-management role in due course, they themselves will appreciate it.  By then, the G9 Technical role issue would have been resolved – HR had to change their minds, they were simply wrong.  As for the culture, that was going to take a bit longer!  But everyone contributes to the culture, so a push in the right direction with the right level of resolve, often works wonders.

So, had Phoenix not been thought of, personally I would not have engaged external consultants to effect the required changes.  I would have considered using outside help with accelerating some hardware replacements (indeed we did engage an external organisation when the mail system finally collapsed) and I am sure at some stage help with the culture may have been appropriate.  But I believe in continued management ownership of change;  not only directing it, but being part of it and then living with the failures as well as the successes with everyone else.  Only then can you genuinely claim to be part of the team.

But Patrick Naef had a wider portfolio than I did, so he probably would have seen more problems than I had, and possibly seen fewer potential fixes.  And, until I had arrived, he had no-one to lead the assault on the appalling operational service (my post had been vacant).  Had I joined earlier, I am sure I would not have been championing his cause of bringing in a team of consultants, I would have encouraged him to take it on ourselves.  But I would not have ‘died in a ditch’ on the issue.  I am not the world’s biggest advocate of consultants and am aware that affects my approach to them at times.  So, had Patrick felt that this was the only solution, I would have given it my full support.  As I had arrived on ‘announcement day’, my opinions were not only irrelevant but far from crystallised at that time, so I naturally gave the Phoenix Project my total support without any debate.  Patrick Naef often accused me of “not supporting Phoenix because it wasn’t your idea”, but he had no grounds to do that.  I do not know if this was a result of one of his misunderstandings, or if it was one of his usual ‘pitch rolling’ antics so that, if his Phoenix Project failed to deliver, he had an excuse of “Tom undermined it” lined up.  I only ever made one serious point about Phoenix and this was right at the start and I never mentioned it again.  The entire IT department was effectively dissolved and a new organisation would evolve.  All managers would have to apply for whatever jobs emerged.  I pointed out that we ought to put the managers ‘at risk’ because it was possible that some could be without jobs at the end of the process.  I was patronisingly brushed off along the lines of ‘you don’t need to introduce UK HR processes here’ but it had nothing to do with processes and legal definitions, just common sense and reality.  If someone ends up without a job, they are redundant.  It does not matter if you use a capital R or a small r, the impact on the individual and his/her family is the same and it is a major issue which will need managing.  (In fact, it did happen and it was indeed difficult to manage.)  The final response on the subject (not by Patrick, I must add) was, and it would not be the last time I would hear it, “Tom, this is Dubai.  We can do what we like.”  The Phoenix Project was always given my full backing, both during and after it.  Views I had on various matters were voiced with my usual passion within the project as it progressed and then, whatever decision was made, was given my full and continued support.  For Patrick Naef to say otherwise is disingenuous.

It was clear that there would be some serious challenges thrown up by Phoenix.  Not only were managers being told that they would have to apply for jobs, they were being excluded from all day to day aspects of the project.  A team of individuals, around 20, had been selected to assist the external consultants.  This was a major opportunity for the individuals and they threw themselves into the task with great enthusiasm and commitment.  But it left the senior managers feeling very exposed and alienated.  The name of the project did not go down well either, the term Phoenix was supposed to represent something ‘rising out of the ashes’, in other words the so called ‘ashes’ of a department that many hundreds of loyal staff had dedicated themselves to over many years.  If you wanted to find someone responsible for that fire, looking in the direction of senior management would have been a good start.  It had been the loyal staff who had been perpetually fighting the fire.  Ironically, Patrick Naef (the newly recruited ‘fireman’) had arrived with an unlimited supply of kerosene and matches, which he would use liberally over the coming years.  But no-one knew that, as Patrick was innocently waving a fire extinguisher at the time.

Specific approval for the project had to be secured, so a presentation was drafted.  The cost took us all (including Patrick Naef) by surprise.  It would be inappropriate to reveal the amount, but it was far bigger than I had expected.  And no account was taken for internal labour costs, we were just looking at the bill for the consultants.  I was surprised that it was the only option being proposed.  There were no quotations from other suppliers (there had not even been a tender) and no other options (such as using in-house resources, smaller scope, etc.).  I suggested that we ought to have other options but Patrick insisted that there was no plan b.  The proposal was going to Nigel Hopkins and Gary Chapman.  In my experience, you normally need plans down to at least ‘f’ in such circumstances.  But it sailed through and was then ratified by the IT Steering Board (EVP’s and above).  Here I have to take my hat off to Patrick Naef and I do not know how long it took Gary Chapman to spot the handy work.  Patrick Naef had introduced a project approval process where the senior business managers across the Group (Portfolio Review Board – PRB) had to approve all IT expenditure so, theoretically, Phoenix should have been approved by the PRB.  But version one of the PRB process not only had the obvious lower threshold of expenditure requiring its approval, strangely it also had an upper financial limit.  This limit was a very big number, but it was well short of the cost of Phoenix.  So the business leaders in the PRB did not have any sight of the amount or of the project.  Had they done so, I think it would have been a pretty short discussion.  At each PRB meeting there were always a chunk of ‘non-negotiable’ projects (for example those meeting regulatory needs) which had to be rubber stamped and this then led into the more challenging part of the meeting which was, in effect, a bidding war for about 80 projects, with the remaining money enough to pay for just about a quarter of them.  Phoenix would have consumed over a quarter of that money in one go!  Not many months later, someone came up with the bright idea of all projects being presented to the PRB first, with the very big ones requiring further ratification by the IT Steering Board.  Patrick Naef had no issues with that proposal.  The horse, Phoenix, had already bolted!

Interestingly, the entire external sales operation and organisation (Mercator) was left out of scope of Phoenix.  Patrick Naef said that Mercator would be subject to a separate review which would be carried out by Gary Chapman, Nigel Hopkins and him.  It’s a pity, because the Phoenix team was far too competent to have come up with the selected solution, i.e. setting totally unrealistic growth targets, continually blaming everyone who failed to meet those targets, significantly diluting the ability to deliver solutions to our own businesses, totally mismanaging the acquisition, ongoing operation and disposal of a third party company, taking seven years to wake up to the fact that the model was never going to work and then ignominiously abandoning the entire doomed operation.            

Then there was the Phoenix purchase order to consider, so the Procurement department was asked to place an order with the supplier.  Prior to this, they had not been involved.  The process had bypassed all formal company procedures so, understandably, Procurement refused to handle the work.  At this stage I not only began to question Patrick Naef’s judgement but also wondered how long he would survive in this environment.  Patrick Naef had engaged a company (with which he had previous contact) without a tender, without any alternative bids, without a plan b and had placed a contract of enormous value with them.  He brushed off any criticism with his usual aggression and seemed not to care.  I still do not know how he managed to get away with it.

Once the project was underway, there were a few major milestones and decision points, some needing approval from Gary Chapman.  At a presentation to Gary, the process for filling posts at the completion of Phoenix was included.  A thorny issue was one of grades of the new jobs.  It was going to be a bit difficult to get them graded before advertising them without putting an unacceptable delay in the whole process.  A simple solution was to advertise the jobs with ‘grade to be advised’ and we discussed this the evening before the meeting with Gary.  Of course, HR said this was not possible but Patrick’s argument, which I agreed with, was that people should apply for jobs because they wanted the job, not the grade.  That was all very well but meanwhile, back in the real world, especially the real world of the most hierarchical and grade conscious company I had ever come across, this was probably not the right time.  HR did not want to do it this way, I did but not yet and Nigel Hopkins did not want to do it yet either.  (This was the topic mentioned in an earlier update when I had Patrick Naef telling me the following day never to disagree with him in front of Nigel Hopkins again.)  Those of us ‘against’ just felt it was too much too soon for everyone, particularly as views of management were, at best, highly suspicious.  But Patrick won the argument and from then on I fully supported him on the matter.  When the proposal was put to Gary Chapman, he seemed to like it.  He turned to the HR ensemble, which included Sophia Panayiotou, and said “And HR fully support this”  I deliberately leave out a punctuation here as I genuinely do not know whether he was using a full stop or a question mark.  The HR team obediently nodded.  Forgive me for remembering that exchange when Gary Chapman assured me four years later that “HR fully supported” my sacking.

The idea of Project Phoenix was supposed to be ‘by the people, for the people’.  Managers were excluded but I do not think anyone believed for one moment that Patrick Naef was not pulling the important strings behind the scenes.  As part of the approved structure of the project, Patrick Naef had ‘full and final veto’ and had even gained assurances right from the top of the company that no decisions made by Phoenix (in effect, by him) would be overturned.  I have to say that I was impressed that, within six months or so, Patrick Naef seemed to have wrapped the entire Emirates Group around his little finger.

Although not involved in day to day matters of the project, there were many opportunities for me to join the team during the regular progress reports and feedback sessions.  I must say I was very impressed with all aspects of the project.  Out team members were relishing the opportunity and had grasped it with both hands.  The consultants were easily the best I had ever worked with and had created a very relaxed and open working atmosphere which added to the liberation of my colleagues.  For me, this aspect alone suggested that the project would be a success – all we had to do was extend this working philosophy into day to day working and we would have cracked one of the biggest cultural issues we faced.  Maybe the consultants were expensive, but they were good.  They also did not do what almost every company does, that is to use their A team for the sale only to withdraw it once the project gets underway.  We had the full attention of their A team, but that should not undermine the other members of their team, as they had good strength in depth.  I thoroughly enjoyed, and learnt from, the time I spent with the project team.

The project duly came up with the necessary processes and an organisation to support it.  Not all of it suited everyone but it was sound enough for me.  I never get too excited about organisation charts, as long as everyone knows what the customer needs and how they, and everyone else, can meet those needs, it is fine with me.  Filling the vacant management roles was the obvious challenge.  On one hand we were in a good position with a clean sheet of paper and therefore the ability to select people with the right management capabilities, but we still had the fundamental problem – a lack of management skills.  There was a lot of emotion expended on the process, particularly the limit of two applications per person (otherwise the whole procedure would have taken months) and the need to apply for jobs before they had been evaluated (a lot of people assumed this was a trap and the result of the evaluation would depend on who got the job!).  Cronyism was hardly wiped out in this single exercise.  After all, the initial project team itself had been hand chosen so many people felt those individuals had a head start in securing the new jobs.  And I was told much later that the selection process for some management roles was polluted by secret pre-selection meetings to decide on so called ‘self’ nominations and therefore to generate contrived candidate lists.  But, for the first time, there was at least an open process of interviews, with several managers and HR involved in each interview.  Yes, the whole process was more rushed than we would have liked.  Yes, we would have preferred to have given more people more choice.  Yes, we made a few appointments that turned out to be less successful than we would have hoped.   But the biggest problem was a lack of suitable candidates and inevitably we had to relax our criteria to some degree. In my area, I was left with far too many vacancies but I drew the line and refused to make the same mistakes that had been made before.  The brutal truth was that we had to look outside of EG-IT to find the necessary talent.  It was not a comfortable position for a number of people but I stand by my decisions as strongly now as I did then.  I can look everyone in the eye now, as I did then, and explain my reasoning which was based on my clear understanding of what the organisation needed.  With so many managerial vacancies, I had to adjust my organisation a bit to avoid too many empty roles in one management line – when you find that your boss’s boss is, in fact, yourself, you know you have a problem!

Was the project a success?  Yes, it met its objectives and, for every critic of the outcome, there were many supporters.

Was Phoenix value for money?  That is a difficult one as we had no comparisons to make.  It was very expensive but, if it had fixed IT for the Emirates Group forever, then it may well have been a good price to pay.  And, in the Patrick Naef land of wasting inordinate amounts of company money, it was by no means a leader.  The direct losses associated with the Mercator Asia debacle were over double the cost of Phoenix, possibly treble, maybe more.   

Was Phoenix a waste of money?  Eventually, most of it was.  Much of the process work added and, I assume, continues to add value but the ground work on the culture was progressively undone by the fear subsequently generated by Patrick Naef.  That fear grew and grew and has spread like a cancer across EG-IT.  Culture cannot be measured and, even if it were, I am not there now to measure it.  But I am consistently informed that the culture in EG-IT is now significantly worse than it was in 2006.  In 2006 I would have said that was not possible and I cannot stress how upset I am about this situation.  Say what you will about Phoenix, at its completion we had the perfect springboard to turn EG-IT into something that everyone could have been forever proud of.

And, of course, five years after Phoenix was completed, the concept was dumped and Patrick started yet another change project.  Presumably, the company was happy to write the Phoenix ‘investment’ off over the five year period.  But that does beg the question why it had previously expected to squeeze seven, even ten, or more, years’ life out of infrastructure equipment which other companies would write off over three years.

Was Patrick right to do it?  If I had been in his shoes I would have waited, focussing on some immediate tangibles first and then doing something less revolutionary, mainly from in house resources.  But then Patrick Naef always was impatient, too drastic and a big spender.  And he would accuse me of being too slow and too cautious!  The fact is that IT in Emirates was in an absolutely perilous state and, to Patrick’s credit, he actually did something.  From what I could see, no-one else had done anything for a long time.

But I certainly would not have dismantled the organisation and made managers re-apply for what were effectively their jobs.  I do not think this approach has a place in any company that purports to care for its people.  Yes, changes had to be made but it must be remembered that it was the company that put managers into their jobs.  And it’s pretty weak, in my opinion, to hide behind the fact that “it was before my time”.  We had a problem of the company’s making and, as senior managers of that company, now had to deal with it, in a professional manner. ‘Professional’ means taking care of the individuals, as well as the company, and that takes time.  Time to improve if possible, time to find a suitable alternative if not.  But Patrick Naef’s only answer to any individual not performing to his required level is to remove them from their jobs.  And Phoenix did this for him perfectly and he did not even have to get his hands dirty.

And then Patrick Naef did it again, this time it was under the Shaheen banner.  In 2006 we could perhaps have been justified in distancing ourselves from the organisation that we had inherited.  But once the Phoenix organisation was in place, we had no excuses as the organisation was ours.  From when I joined, right up until I was kicked out in September 2010, I take responsibility for all appointments made right across EG-IT.  Clearly I was not directly involved in every selection, but I endorsed the processes and I personally drove them forward and monitored them as actively as I could.  I ensured that as much openness and fairness was applied at all levels. And Patrick Naef fully supported and endorsed those processes and appointments (some, as always in the real world, being more successful than others), as did every member of the IT Executive.  If anyone has ever tried to paint a different picture, they have not been truthful. 

And we must remember that there was a large redundancy exercise in EG-IT in 2009.  I managed that exercise myself and made sure that it was as fair and as comprehensive as I believed possible.  We had a target, but we did not have a limit.  Everyone in the EG-IT organisation when Project Shaheen was initiated had either emerged from Phoenix or had been recruited/appointed using robust processes which had been totally supported by every member of the IT Executive.  Those in post during 2009 had also survived a rigorous redundancy selection process which, again, was signed off by the full IT Executive. It is therefore clear that Project Shaheen (which resulted in staff being removed by yet another round of assessments) was applied to an organisation for which Patrick Naef (as leader of the IT Executive) had total ownership and responsibility. Nobody had been inherited, everyone was the responsibility of Patrick Naef.  Do not ever allow him to present the situation differently.

Like everyone, once Phoenix was completed I was keen on getting on with matters.  Apart from making the organisation work, we had many other issues to deal with.  In my area there were massive problems to address, but we had already made good inroads on the service front.  Outages had been reduced by a massive two thirds in the first six months, but I was annoyed when this, along with further subsequent improvements which were made, was claimed by the consultants to be the result of the change project.  Phoenix achieved a number of things, but it had no hand whatsoever in the drastic improvement of operational service in 2006-7.  All that was achieved by a lot of hard work by the network and data centre teams replacing hardware (some of which Patrick had already initiated) and embracing a much more disciplined approach to change, risk and incident management.  Some benefits were realised before Phoenix even started, most before the project finished.  I complained to Patrick, but he just shrugged it off which was hardly surprising as it was part of a European road show to enhance his, as well as the consultants’, reputation.

After the project was completed, Patrick Naef regularly came up with initiatives that he wanted to implement and these were a constant drain and undermined the Phoenix work.  Most of them were theoretically good ideas, many impractical and some wholly inappropriate.  For instance, he wanted to introduce a ‘high performance culture’.  Well, we all supported the idea of an ordered meritocracy, I even had a tool that I had used elsewhere which we could (and did) implement to support the idea.  But, to give the whole thing a bit more edge, Patrick Naef wanted to “fire the bottom 5%” every year and replace them with external recruits!  Here we were, with a vacancy level of around 20%, struggling to find suitable candidates, beginning to recover from the huge disruption of Phoenix, with everyone’s trust in management still virtually non-existent and Patrick wanted us to pick off the weakest 5% in an annual cull.  One of Patrick Naef’s problems is that he reads about initiatives that have worked elsewhere and then tries to implement them immediately, regardless of whether they are practical, ethical or even needed.  Fortunately, it was not only me on the IT Executive who had major problems with the 5% idea.  This was just one example (of many) of how Patrick Naef wanted to manage EG-IT, with an approach which could only (and did) systematically undermine all the benefits that came out of Phoenix.  

Of course, internally, Patrick Naef never formally put his name to Project Phoenix.  Everyone knew it was his baby, but he actually delegated the task of its Project Management.  I was told that this was recognised at the time in some business circles as “firing his gun from someone else’s shoulder”.  After the project’s completion, there was no doubt it was Patrick Naef’s project during presentations at external industry gatherings.  However, when a government audit report concluded that the project had been poor value and had been commissioned outside of company procurement procedures, Patrick Naef took a very swift backward step.  I do not know exactly when that audit was published but I do know that just a few days after Patrick Naef told me about it, he suddenly gave the project a mention (not related to the audit) in his weekly staff update, taking the opportunity to remind everyone who the project manager was (i.e. not him!).  Maybe it was just a coincidence, but the timing was interesting as the project had not been mentioned for a long time, nor was it mentioned again for a long time.  I do not know how many of you have seen the illusionist and trickster Derren Brown in action, but most audiences find his ability to fool people quite extraordinary.  Personally, having worked with Patrick Naef, I cannot say that I am ever particularly overwhelmed by Mr Brown.   

I will finish this off with a short quiz to test readers’ understanding of what a high performance culture really means in EG-IT.

1.  How many people who expressed concern about, and/or refused to paint a false picture of the benefits of, the ‘Mercator Asia’ acquisition kept their jobs?

2.  How many people who fully supported and commended that acquisition lost their jobs?

3.  How much money was wasted by the Emirates Group on the acquisition, operation and disposal of Mercator Asia?

I will provide a clue – the answers contain a heck of a lot of zeros!

But, for me, the most intriguing question is – what has Gary Chapman been told the answers are?

A reader writes

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.

44, 103, 830

I apologise for an element of repetition in this topic, having made some similar comments in ‘94’ in April 2012.

Hits on this site understandably dropped during my ‘sabbatical’ in the first half of this year, but soon picked up again.  It is interesting to see how readers quickly return in response to an update.

I recently advised when the next update would appear and was interested to see how this would affect the flow of site visits.  Two days before the date, I logged on to draft the article and wondered if, for the first time, I would see a score of zero hits.  Incredibly, 44 visits were recorded on that day, even though readers were aware that no new update would be available.  On the day I did publish, on schedule, there were 103 hits.  For the past 30 days, the figure is 830.

As I have said before I take no credit for, nor any pride in, this interest.  It is solely a reflection of the awful state of affairs in EG-IT, a resounding vote of no confidence in its management.  It is now over three years since I was kicked out of Emirates, but my blog remains very popular.  Since it was started, it has been visited 36,309 times, an average of 36 per day. I cannot be the only person who wants to scream “Someone, somewhere, please wake up!”.

One reader astutely said sometime ago “You can wake up somebody who is actually sleeping, but can never wake up somebody that pretends to be sleeping”.  It’s a lovely saying, but not true if one wants to be pedantic.  If you shout loud enough, or gain support from others to shout with you, it must be possible to generate some response.  And there is nothing to fear about the resulting action - pretending to be asleep is a clear sign of weakness.

Many years ago, just after I took my first junior management role, I found myself witnessing a situation at work which was far from ideal.  It did not involve anyone in our team, but I said to myself “someone needs to do something about this”.  I then looked around the room and realised that the someone was me.  Afterwards I reflected that, as a manager, I now had to take on a greater, and wider, level of responsibility.  But I then deduced that while managers clearly have the prime responsibility to act, they do not have a monopoly.  It was true that, at the time, I was the most senior person in the room and therefore the obvious person to intervene, but there were plenty of others who could have done the same thing.  Over 90% of staff in the room at the time were thinking “someone needs to do something about this”.  And they all waited, presumably for me.  Had more senior people been there, what was I supposed to do?  Wait for them to do something?  As soon as I stepped forward, I was overwhelmed with support.  When you are doing the right thing, it is very unusual to find yourself on your own. 

I am sure that we all look back at some situations and wish that we had acted differently.  I do, but I have never regretted actually getting involved.  Certainly I have reflected that my involvement could have been different, or sooner, or perhaps later, but I have never felt that I should have kept out of it.  But I do regret not getting involved with certain situations, leaving me with permanent feelings of either frustration or shame.  It is much easier to do nothing, but very often it is wrong.

Next time you find yourself saying “someone needs to do something”, you can be sure that you will not be alone and it may be worth asking yourself if that person is you.  Despite my friend’s proverb, only a truly comatose or dead person cannot be woken.  Surely no-one could sleep through a reveille from a 103 strong chorus? 

Emirates Group IT - job or career?

During the last three years, many colleagues have said to me that they could not stand the culture in Emirates Group IT and felt it was time to move on.  Some did so (and I am not aware of any who have regrets) but many others have hung on in the hope that something will change.  When asked, my advice has always been to try and hang on because, on paper, it should be a great place to work, with excellent career opportunities. 

But we have to recognise now that nothing is going to change.  Gary Chapman is obviously very happy about things.  We can continue to speculate as to why this is, but it will not alter anything.  I know the Emirates Group businesses are not happy, but they have accepted the situation.  If you look back at events, bizarre as they are, they are taken as normal.  Take, just as an example, Project Phoenix.  If anyone wants me to, I could cover that event in some detail but, in summary . . .

There was no specification, the supplier’s proposal became the specification;  only one supplier was given the opportunity to bid;  the Group’s Procurement department had no involvement in the process until asked to place the order;  it cost the equivalent of about a fifth of what the entire Group normally spent on new IT initiatives each year;  it was initiated and approved during a very short window (which was engineered by Patrick Naef) when very costly projects were not seen by the Portfolio Review Board (business leaders who approved IT projects);  everyone in EG-IT (except Patrick Naef) was removed from their jobs and had to wait for the project to complete to find out what, if any, role had been allocated to them and all managers had to apply for new roles;  senior management approval for the project included an agreement that Patrick Naef had a veto on all decisions and a guarantee that no decisions would be reversed by anyone further up the organisation;  both Patrick Naef and the supplier claimed to a number of external audiences that the project was a huge success, citing significant improvements in operational performance all of which were achieved before the project completed, most before the project had even started;  Patrick Naef’s ownership of the project was total when its so called ‘success’ was being broadcast, but he swiftly delegated responsibility to its Project Manager when an audit report noted that the project had been contracted in breach of company procedures and had been very poor value.

When I look back at those events, I have to take my hat off to Patrick Naef for actually pulling it off.  You can forgive Gary Chapman for not seeing it coming, but this was seven years ago and the theme has just continued.

So, if things are not going to change, perhaps those of you who continue to feel unhappy and frustrated should ask yourself the question - ‘do I want just a job or a career?’.  Of course most of us, for most of our lives, need a job so that we can feed the family.  But it is not unreasonable for us to expect to utilise our attributes to ensure that the job is very much part of a career.  Inevitably, there will be times when the career element will have to take a back seat, but that should be the exception.  I fear that, for the vast majority in EG-IT, that situation has become permanent.

I recently drew up a mental list of the managers in EG-IT who I had witnessed challenge Patrick Naef on various issues.  It was actually quite a long list (you see, it wasn’t just me who disagreed with him!) but I noted that not one of them has remained in his, or her, post.  In fact, the majority have left the company.  Everyone in EG-IT knows what the rules are.  To survive, you have to keep quiet and do as you are told.  In terms of feeding the family, this is pragmatic and eminently sensible, but it is also demeaning.  To thrive, you need to mimic (not just endorse) Patrick Naef’s behaviours and, assuming you have some sort of conscience, this will inevitably trouble you as much as it does your colleagues.

During my career I often asked myself ‘what am I learning and is it a benefit’?  Whilst at Emirates I learnt a lot from colleagues, both within IT and across the business areas but, for the first time in my life, I learnt nothing positive from my management.  All I learned was that I could not trust them.

What have you learnt and what are you learning from your management?  And how would it look if you included the answer on your CV?  I guess that leads to an interesting question . . . what would you prefer to have on your CV - ‘favoured by Patrick Naef’ or ‘fired by Patrick Naef’?

Sadly, Emirates Group IT has a poor reputation in the industry so one has to recognise that association with it may not be seen as wholly positive.  For those of you who are (organisation wise) a number of levels away from Patrick Naef, this will not be an issue, but managers closer to the top could find themselves asked by future prospective employers about the culture and perhaps probed on how they influenced that culture.

Jobs, particularly these days, are very important to hold on to, but careers are far too precious to waste.  Unfortunately, waste is a theme in EG-IT.  That comes from Patrick Naef.  He wastes time, he wastes money and he wastes careers.  Individuals have to make up their own minds about the relative importance of job versus career when there has to be choice, as is the case in EG-IT.  All I can do is withdraw my earlier advice to wait for the chaos to end, because it has not and it will not. 

On a lighter note, someone once relayed an anecdote about a deposed manager handing over his job to his successor.  He described in detail the problems which needed to be solved and the scale of the challenge ahead, then completed the handover with these words . . .

“To help you, I have placed three sealed envelopes in your top drawer.  They are numbered 1, 2 and 3.  Leave them for the time being but, when you are feeling in need of help, open them.  But just open them one at a time, as each one will provide useful advice and some respite”

After a few months the new manager found himself struggling, so turned to his top drawer.  In the first envelope was the advice “Blame previous management”.  So he did and this took the heat off for some time.  But it was not long before he found himself under pressure and searching for more inspiration.  In the second envelope he found the advice “Bring in external consultants to help you reorganise”.  This worked wonders as it took time to implement and then he had the excuse of allowing the new organisation to deliver the necessary changes.  But it didn’t improve matters and he found himself increasingly isolated and had no idea what to do next.  In desperation, he opened the third envelope.  In it he found the words “Get three envelopes.”

The question is - why has Patrick Naef been allowed to keep putting the first two envelopes back in the drawer?

About this blog - 10

Judging by the responses to the last update, I do not think anyone believes that the situation in EG-IT is ever going to improve.  Indeed, the consensus supports a continuation of the downward trend.

This is hardly surprising.  The business model is flawed, the management is devoid of the necessary experience and skills and the culture of the department is cemented in fear.

It has been suggested that, to be fair to prospective EG-IT candidates, the emiratesgroupcareers website should carry a link to my blog, so that victims of the NAIF process will not be surprised when the suffering begins.  But this is not necessary.  Those interested in the advertised opportunities will discover all they need to know about Patrick Naef and his behaviours as soon as they start their research.  I have had a number of enquiries asking for advice.  Finding my blog is not difficult, in fact some regular readers access it by just searching ‘Patrick Naef’!

There is one very important aspect of this blog which I feel strongly about.  I clarified it right at the start but I think it’s about time I repeated it . . .

The blog is open and honest.  If anyone has a problem with what I write, at their request I will publish their concerns without edit.  If anyone wants evidence to support what I have written, I will provide it.  I will not publish any comments made about my blog unless specifically asked to do so and then only if the author agrees to be identified.

It is worth noting that I have only once received a request to publish a comment.  This came from someone who has never been mentioned - either directly or indirectly - in the blog.  Before publishing the comment, I made a final check for confirmation that the individual still wanted it included.  I did not receive a reply, so I did not publish it.

In this blog I have explained in detail the actions of, and comments made by, Gary Chapman, Nigel Hopkins, Malini Johnson, Patrick Naef and Sophia Panayiotou and they have always had, and will continue to have, an unconditional right of reply here.  Given the care that I have taken for accuracy, the fact that not one of them has challenged anything that I have written is not at all a surprise to me.

The next update will appear on 27 September 2013 when I will attempt to answer the question many of you have asked me - ‘how much longer should I put up with this?’.

The blog has now been visited a total of 35,223 times.

About this blog - 9

Please forgive me for not updating for a long while. It has been a very busy time for me so far this year. I certainly have not finished this blog as I still have much to say. The blog remains popular, with 33,406 visits to date. I am grateful for all your prompts and supporting messages, but saddened to hear that nothing has improved and yet more time and money has been wasted on trying to fix EG-IT‘s woes. It defies belief that the only people who do not understand what the problem is are the ones in charge. 

 

Recently there seems to have been a deluge of corporate failures reported where leaders have demonstrably failed. It does not seem to matter what the problem was; manipulating interest rates, hacking into individuals’ voicemails, systematic doping in sport, altering police witness statements, etc., there is always one thing in common - the person at the top knew absolutely nothing about it! One would have thought that these highly visible examples of failures would prompt leaders to pay a bit more interest in day to day matters and thus avoid the inevitable embarrassment and negative impact on bottom lines. Theses incidents prompted me to wonder, yet again, how much the Chairman of the Emirates Group knows of the problems and practices in EG-IT. I was always aware that Patrick Naef had carefully controlled the information available to Gary Chapman, but it is unlikely that Gary is not now fully aware of what has happened and therefore condones practices which would not be tolerated elsewhere. On the assumption that the knowledge has gone no further, I have therefore again written to the Group Chairman. I had earlier promised that I would do so (in response to requests from colleagues) so I felt that now would be an appropriate, and I hope helpful, time.

 

Patrick Naef has now been CIO of the Emirates Group for seven years and five months. Many reading this will wonder how on earth he has managed to survive for so long. Individuals in EG-IT who have been victims of his bullying over the years will probably say ‘I thought it was much longer than that’. Initially, by systematically mis-informing people and organisations via press releases and industry cohorts, he painted a very positive, but very false, picture of himself and his achievements. But the truth is now out and no-one is taken in anymore. But he is still effective at one thing - censorship. He has not been able to stop colleagues reading this blog but he has made it difficult for me to get emails into the company at times. But I will ensure my email to the Chairman does get delivered, though it may take a few attempts. Publishing such communications on here will always be a last resort. 

 

Many have asked for my views on the recent damaging changes within EG-IT. As I have stated before, I can only cover matters about which I have full facts. But, based on my knowledge of how Patrick Naef works, I assume that he would have employed his standard modus operandi. This would have led him to take what would appear to be an arm's length approach, using others (and therefore apparently independent) people to deliver the results he wants. His prime objective would be to remove people on his black list from their jobs and I marvel at how he manages to transmit the list to his agents, without actually spelling it out. I am not sure whether this is done by body language, or even by osmosis, but it works every time. 

 

Then he has to fill the vacancies and, for this exercise, he uses his other list. Again, he claims to be totally impartial, leaving others to do the work of selection. Only when they do not come up with the right (i.e. his) answer does he intervene. But of course recruitment is only an initial step in the continuous Patrick Naef cycle of dealing with people. I call it the Patrick NAIF cycle. 

 

Nominate. Appoint. Intimidate. Fire.

Dnata

When I first heard about Dnata I made a guess as to what the letters stood for and was quite pleased with myself when I looked at the company information and discovered that my guess was spot on.  But, several years later, I may have discovered the real meaning.

Perhaps Dnata stands for “Do not attempt to argue”?

As I explained earlier, I had no desire to resign but, before I totally rejected the suggestion, I wanted to talk it over with my wife first.  The plan concocted by Patrick Naef (and supported by HR) was as unprofessional as it was distasteful and I wanted no part of it.  If they wanted to behave in this way then that was their choice, but I had no desire to do anything to support them. 

Had I resigned, I would have had to lie to my colleagues.  I had never lied to any of them before, so why should I do so now?  But an extra three months would have given us more time to pack our bags and put together plans for the future and that would have been very welcome.  Also, as everyone is aware, there were so many improvements needed in EG-IT and I could have laid more foundations for the initiatives I had planned in the most pressing areas during that extra time.  In particular, at long last I had got my head round exactly what was needed in the Outstations, an area that had so long been neglected.  In normal circumstances, my plans for the Outstations would have taken a year to implement but as, for some reason I no longer had a job, I would have had the time (i.e. not having to waste it on Patrick Naef’s endless and pointless reports and meetings) to wrap it all up in a few months. 

But, most importantly, I had real concerns about what Patrick Naef was going to do to certain people once I was out of the way.  Specifically, he had his sights on a number of individuals and I was fully aware of his proposed solution for them.  As I have stated before, the only tool that Patrick Naef employs for managers who are not meeting the performance that he needs from them (in most cases to cover his own significant shortcomings), is an axe.  He has no concept that individuals have different skills and that the whole purpose of a team is to use that mix of attributes constructively.  He seems to think that everyone should be able to do everything perfectly.  If Patrick Naef were to manage a football team, he would sack the goalkeeper for not scoring any goals.

Earlier, when I was suddenly informed by Patrick Naef that he wanted to remove me from my post, I had voiced my concerns to Sophia Panayiotou that, once I was out of the way, Patrick’s would ‘go for’ certain individuals.  Sophia told me not to worry and said that “HR will protect them”.  I just laughed at her and rhetorically asked “What, just like the way you are protecting me?”  So, had I resigned, at least the extra three months would have allowed me time to help support my colleagues.  (I later gained an assurance from Malini Johnson that she would set up a meeting that I requested - with her and Sophia Panayiotou - to allow me to present the true picture of the issues in EG-IT, go through the attributes - both positive and not so positive -  of individuals and to put Patrick Naef’s seemingly blind assessments of people into context.  Malini Johnson promised me three times that she would set that meeting up, but she never did.)  And, I must be honest, the thought of an additional three months’ salary was also very attractive. 

When my wife and I discussed the option of resigning that evening, we realised that there was another very significant parameter.  My termination date and therefore the date by which we had to leave our accommodation, was 26 December - Boxing Day, the day after Christmas Day.  This was incredibly inconvenient as we had planned to split our festive season between the UK and Dubai to involve as many of the family as possible.  Our plans included my wife and daughter flying out to Dubai in the early hours of Christmas Day so we were facing a very short celebration, most likely without any furniture!  This situation weighed heavily towards us accepting the ‘offer’ of resignation, but it also surprised me.  During the EG-IT redundancy exercise in 2009, HR (rightly) paid great attention to ensuring that the painful results on individuals were never exacerbated by inappropriate timing of exit dates.  HR checked on relevant festive holidays, birthdays and also booked travel plans.  I know Malini Johnson was very much part of this process and was very committed to it.  Had she carried out this task in my case she would have noticed that we were being kicked out during our most important festival and also that my wife and daughter were booked on flights to Dubai just hours before we had to leave town.  Now a cynic might suggest that this very difficult situation was a convenient lever to help us take the option preferred by the company, but I really do not know if this was the case.  I have to assume that, just for this occasion only, Malini Johnson simply forgot to carry out this very simple and basic HR task.  After all, the Emirates Group prides itself on looking after its people and, of course, EG-IT had ‘caring’ as one of its core values at the time. 

(For completeness and fairness . . . some days after my sacking I asked for some flexibility in terms of leaving our accommodation, but this was refused.  But, when I asked again some time later, the request was approved.  We were allowed to stay in our accommodation for an extra week or so and this allowed us to enjoy the Christmas that we had planned and we were grateful for this.)

But the inconvenient departure date did not sway us.  We were both disgusted with what Patrick Naef was doing and wanted no part of it.   If my management and HR genuinely felt that sacking me was the right thing to do, both morally and for the company, then I felt that I should let them stand up and tell everyone what they had done and why they had done it.  They should not be allowed to hide their actions and let me pretend that I had elected to move on, just like they had done with others in the past.  Of course I knew that Patrick Naef would add further lies to the story but I also knew that, by not resigning, I would be able to put the record straight in due course.  I was told that they were “really surprised” that I had not taken the resignation option.  This not only underlines their insularity and arrogance, it also explains their ‘headless chicken’ antics once they realised that I was not going to.  I do not know who was making the decisions on that day but whoever made the one to despatch security guards and escorts to my office should get the prize for the most laughable one. 

Please do not think I am being pious about this topic.  There are many situations when an individual ‘resigning’ instead of being fired is the best option for all concerned.  As a manager, I have been involved in such situations.  In my opinion, a sacking looks just as bad on a manager’s CV, as it does on the individual’s.  But such a solution is only justifiable when both parties agree that termination is the right and only option available.  In other words, if you cannot properly fire someone, then you should not be firing them.  In my case, and I assume in the case of previous victims of Patrick Naef, there was absolutely no basis for a termination.  He would never have got away with these activities in an environment with any meaningful employment protection laws.

Although the following day I was barred from the company’s offices, I did find the avenues to tell a number of people what had really happened.  I knew it would take time for the full truth to emerge.  By me not resigning, Patrick was forced to tell people that he had fired me and could not hide behind his usual cloak of secrecy.  He did his best to malign me in subsequent days, but that tactic was never going to have any sustained impact.

Of course, there is a formal appeal process in the Emirates Group so I went through the charade of submitting an appeal to Gary Chapman.  And a charade it certainly turned out to be.  I am sure you can imagine my frustration that Gary Chapman had believed everything that Patrick Naef had told him.  I was told that Gary Chapman “fully approved” the removal of me from my post, but I was certain that he was not aware that Nigel Hopkins had provided his own “full support” without ever talking to me.  So, I was pleased to be invited to meet with Gary Chapman and was cherishing the prospect of having a meaningful discussion with him as part of the appeal process.  I will cover this process in more detail at a later date but the meeting that I was expecting ended within a few seconds with Gary telling me that he had the result of my appeal on his desk - “Your appeal has been rejected.  Everyone, including HR, believes this is the right course of action and I have no intention of discussing the detail - who said what and when - we have gone well past that point”.   Mmmm.  It was a bit like walking into the start of a court case, fully armed with a defence, with the jury waiting, only to be told by the judge that you are guilty before you had even got through the door. 

But Gary Chapman told me that he still wanted us to “part amicably” and asked me to reconsider signing an agreement in exchange for some additional benefits.  “We want to part amicably” is Dnata speak for ‘We acknowledge that we have screwed you, but we don’t want you to tell anyone’. 

But one has to be pragmatic about things, so I said I would consider it.  After all, the benefits I outlined above would still be relevant and by now everyone knew I had been fired and that fact was important to me.  If I signed an agreement, I would not have been able to divulge any further details (no blog!) but I would have been able to drop enough subtle comments to help complete a jigsaw that most people had started to put together themselves.  I asked Gary about any deadlines to take this forward (as we were shortly to go away for a while) but he said there was no immediate rush and asked me to contact Malini to take it forward when I returned, if I wished to do so.

This decision was easier to take than the first one, but with a different outcome.  We decided to accept the offer.  We even delayed our trip away to get things moving, so I met Malini earlier than I had intimated to Gary Chapman.  At the meeting, Malini outlined the financial benefits which would be made available to me, produced a document for me to take away and also promised me that, once I had signed the agreement, she would arrange the meeting I had requested to brief her and Sophia Panayiotou about EG-IT staff and issues.  I cannot say I was happy about the latter.  I would have thought that the welfare of company staff would have been a priority for a VP in HR.  Malini Johnson should have been chasing me for the details, not using the matter as a negotiating tool to get me to be compliant in yet another Dnata cover up.

I will not bore you with the full details of the document but, as you can imagine, it was incredibly one sided.  I had to do this, do that and not do a million other things.  In return, the company would provide me with the benefits outlined in annexure 2 . . . which was not attached!  This was no error, this was the process.  I had to sign the agreement first and then I would receive written confirmation of what Malini Johnson has outlined to me earlier.  After all that had happened to me, I was expected to trust these people!

As an indication as to how Dnata conducts its business, I will refer to just a few items in the document.  At the very top were the words [Discussion Draft Only] but, as I found out later, this was Dnata speak for [. . .the draft document provided is standard and not open for negotiation or amendment].  Then there is a claim that I had actually resigned which I clearly had not and had no intention of doing so.  Even Gary Chapman acknowledged this fact at our meeting.  Further on there is the (smug, I believe) assertion that the agreement should in no way be construed that I [. . .have any rights whatsoever against the company].  They can say that again!  I just wish Dnata would be more open about this fact and include the phrase in their employment offer letters.  And there was also the demand that I would not discuss the existence, let alone the detail, of the agreement with anyone other than my attorney.

I asked Malini for a copy of annexure 2 and also a soft copy of the agreement so that I could send it to my attorney.  The answer was no to both requests.  I asked Malini what the problem was with me having a soft copy and she did not even acknowledge the question, let alone answer it.  I explained that if I was limited to exchanging documents by airmail, an unnecessary delay to the process would be introduced.  The answer was still no.  Fair enough, I thought, after all Gary Chapman had said that there was no urgency.  I also asked Malini Johnson, in the absence of annexure 2, to confirm in an email a high level summary of the benefits I would receive.  This request was also not acknowledged.  And then, while we were still away on our delayed break (and without regular access to email) the matter suddenly became urgent and I was given a deadline by which to sign the document.  In an email, Malini Johnson stated:  [To be clear, the draft document provided is standard and not open for negotiation or amendment.  In view of your continuing delay in attending the office to execute it, I must now advise that the document will only be available to you for execution until close of business (3:30 pm) on Monday, 1st November.] 

I sat back and perused all the documents in front of me.  Despite what had already been done to me, I still had to pinch myself and ask if these people were really behaving like this.  They had sacked me without offering a shred of evidence.  They sent me a document clearly marked up as draft and for discussion and told me that I could consult with an attorney.  But the truth was that the document was never for negotiation and could never be amended.  They also frustrated my attempts to share it with an attorney.  They refused to answer the simplest of questions.  They told me that the matter was not urgent and then, without reference to me, without engaging with me to understand my concerns and being fully aware that I was out of the country, they complained that I had not attended the office and gave me a deadline which was impossible to meet. In the Dnata world you have to either do it their way, or their way.  You cannot even dream of disagreeing with them, as discussion of any kind is not entertained.  I concluded that these people are not only liars and lack integrity, they are also incompetent.  I then asked myself what on earth was I doing even contemplating signing this agreement and reinforcing their shady and shabby practices.  So I allowed the deadline to pass.

I doubt if Malini Johnson would have driven the aggressive and unreasonable approach herself.  As usual, she was probably dancing to someone else’s tune, but I am not sure whose.  Patrick Naef clearly had a close interest in the outcome, but he would have distanced himself from the messy episode much sooner than this.  In any event, it is difficult to gauge which result he would have preferred.  If I signed up, he would have been safe from the full story coming out but, on the other hand, he would have had to endure my local presence for an extra three months.  Patrick Naef was living uncomfortably close to us and would have passed our place at least twice a day during our last three months in Dubai.  But this spineless man sneaked past every time, as he could not muster up the courage to come and say farewell to me.  He could not look me in the eye ever again and he knew exactly why.  So he would not have been happy to have had to spend yet another three months maintaining such a low profile in the neighbourhood and would not have been at all comfortable with me visiting the office again.


I was convinced at the time that it was the right decision not to sign that wretched agreement.  Not once, have we regretted it.  We left Dubai with our heads held high and, on the journey home, I started to gather my thoughts on the content of my first blog . . .