It has been suggested again that I should open up this blog and allow anonymous comments so that EG-IT staff can voice their concerns about what has gone, and still goes, on in the department. I do understand, but I am determined that this blog remains ‘open and honest’ and I feel that anonymous comments could potentially jeopardise its credibility.
The format of the blog seems to work well. It carries a guaranteed ‘right of reply’ and only contains material that I have personal experience of and can validate without the need to call on (and thus potentially compromise) others. Despite over 10,000 hits so far, I have not yet had one request to correct anything that I have written. In ‘pull’ mode, it is unobtrusive and only read by those who are interested in it. Also, it is ‘low maintenance’, taking up no more than an hour of my time per month.
Someone expressed concern that readership of my blog was declining, but they need not have worried. After the understandable initial peak (and of course its blocking from the corporate network), daily hits settled to a fairly constant level for a few months, but have in fact increased slightly recently. The average is around 50 a day, with it increasing to 80 or 90 just after an update and then dropping steadily until the next update. I think the lowest figure for a day I have ever seen has been 14.
The blog has certainly met one of the original objectives in providing information about what happened to me to those who were interested, but only time will tell if it stops anyone suffering the same fate as I did at the hands of Patrick Naef. Certainly the alarming attrition rate of Patrick Naef’s management teams over the years has slowed down considerably during 2011. I would not dare to claim any credit for this but, surely by now, Patrick’s managers pay more interest in what he gets up to than they did in the past. I think the phrase is ‘the vulture has had his wings clipped’.
Friday, 19 August 2011
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Sophia Panayiotou
Sophia Panayiotou was very much in the picture at the start of the proceedings with me, but she soon evaporated into the background leaving all the grubby work to Malini Johnson. When I joined the company I was intrigued by the culture that even the most trivial of company wide communications (e.g. where not to park your car) was signed by the SVP (at least) of the responsible unit. But I am now even more intrigued that, when I was given days off for a public holiday the communication always came from Sophia but when I was given the rest of my life off, she delegated the task to Malini. Like Patrick Naef, Sophia was smart enough to know that my termination letter was going to be a millstone around the neck of whoever signed it and wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
And just like Malini, Sophia Panayiotou knows Patrick Naef well enough to be aware that what he was doing to me was not right. She told me that “I just came back from holiday, I didn’t know there was even an issue” after the initial meeting (on 3 August 2010) and thus knew that Patrick was not telling the truth when claiming that he had been discussing removing me from my role ‘for a long time’ Yet, she rubber stamped and supported everything that Patrick said and gave her full support to my termination.
That meeting in August was an utter shambles and had no place in any organisation, let alone in one that aspires to be world class. In all, I was given four (vastly differing) objectives of the meeting. As is often the case with Patrick Naef’s meetings and initiatives, he made things up as he went along. The following day Patrick Naef blamed HR for the shambles. Far from it, Sophia and Malini were simply swept along by a tidal wave of confusion and misinformation, a speciality of Patrick Naef. But, as head of HR Business Support, Sophia should have taken control of things and stopped the nonsense. SVP’s are paid to do what is right.
And Sophia also had plenty of time to act subsequently, but she failed to do so. She had witnessed the confusion and the ever changing picture. She knew enough about Patrick’s track record to cast doubt over what he was saying. She knew that no discussion had ever taken place between me and anyone else on the topic prior to the (what turned out to be an irrevocable and unchallengeable) decision to terminate my contract being made. She knew that the reasons given to me for terminating my contract are totally untrue. As head of HRBS, she had a duty to ensure that company procedures were adhered to, that any charges made against me were checked for validity and that I was given the appropriate support. She did none of this.
She may have disappeared into the background and left Malini to be hung out to dry, but I hold Sophia Panayiotou responsible for what happened to me. Only she knows why she decided to abandon her responsibilities and turn her back on her profession.
And just like Malini, Sophia Panayiotou knows Patrick Naef well enough to be aware that what he was doing to me was not right. She told me that “I just came back from holiday, I didn’t know there was even an issue” after the initial meeting (on 3 August 2010) and thus knew that Patrick was not telling the truth when claiming that he had been discussing removing me from my role ‘for a long time’ Yet, she rubber stamped and supported everything that Patrick said and gave her full support to my termination.
That meeting in August was an utter shambles and had no place in any organisation, let alone in one that aspires to be world class. In all, I was given four (vastly differing) objectives of the meeting. As is often the case with Patrick Naef’s meetings and initiatives, he made things up as he went along. The following day Patrick Naef blamed HR for the shambles. Far from it, Sophia and Malini were simply swept along by a tidal wave of confusion and misinformation, a speciality of Patrick Naef. But, as head of HR Business Support, Sophia should have taken control of things and stopped the nonsense. SVP’s are paid to do what is right.
And Sophia also had plenty of time to act subsequently, but she failed to do so. She had witnessed the confusion and the ever changing picture. She knew enough about Patrick’s track record to cast doubt over what he was saying. She knew that no discussion had ever taken place between me and anyone else on the topic prior to the (what turned out to be an irrevocable and unchallengeable) decision to terminate my contract being made. She knew that the reasons given to me for terminating my contract are totally untrue. As head of HRBS, she had a duty to ensure that company procedures were adhered to, that any charges made against me were checked for validity and that I was given the appropriate support. She did none of this.
She may have disappeared into the background and left Malini to be hung out to dry, but I hold Sophia Panayiotou responsible for what happened to me. Only she knows why she decided to abandon her responsibilities and turn her back on her profession.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Malini Johnson
I used to have enormous respect for Malini Johnson. Others, who had been in the company longer than I, had different views (citing past events) but I can only judge on my own experiences. Understandably, there were often times when issues involving staff had to be addressed, sometimes with potentially serious consequences, but I always found Malini to be fair, thorough and willing, as well as able, to see situations from all angles. As an example, these attributes were clearly demonstrated during 2009 when we had to make some EG-IT staff redundant. This was clearly a difficult time but I felt that HR supported, guided and managed us (local management) very effectively, alongside providing appropriate support to those individuals affected.
Of course, in the past Malini was well supported by strong HR Managers. EG-IT enjoyed the services of two individuals (both sadly left the company), who were highly competent, professional and always willing to stand up for what was right. Neither had any difficulty in challenging Patrick Naef when necessary - a rare attribute!
But I never felt that the excellent overall HR support we had received was solely due to the HR Manager at the time. To me, Malini was very much part of the equation and was visibly involved when necessary. She was well informed about issues in EG-IT and was clearly worried at times about Patrick Naef’s behaviour. During one particularly difficult period, Malini was very proactive in terms of gathering information from various individuals. And, right up until last year, she would regularly ask me how Patrick had been ‘behaving lately’ and although the tone was always light, even humorous, it reflected a genuine concern she had about the impact Patrick Naef had on individuals.
So what changed? During the meeting when Patrick dropped his sudden “I have to move you out of your job” bombshell (despite, just nine weeks earlier, telling me he “really valued and enjoyed working with” me) Malini was strangely supportive of Patrick and provided no assistance to me at all. At the time I just put this down to the usual impact that Patrick Naef’s overpowering personality has on people in meetings. I felt sure that the ‘real Malini’ would re-emerge. But I was wrong.
Malini Johnson was quite happy to sign my termination letter knowing that it contained nothing but false allegations, all of which are demonstrably not true. She was quite happy to deliver that letter knowing that it was an instrument to bundle me out of the organisation without any form of hearing at all, let alone a fair one. Such action is totally at odds with what anyone, in any company, in any part of the world, would expect of an HR professional.
At my ‘termination meeting’ I questioned how I could be in such a position when Patrick Naef had very recently assessed me in box 6 (high performance, high potential). Patrick denied that he had done this. I then produced irrefutable evidence to support my statement - a document, in Patrick Naef’s own handwriting, clearly showing box 6. Patrick Naef, having been caught out, squirmed and try to wriggle out if it. He said he had placed me in box 5. Putting aside the fact that the majority of our strong staff (the core of the organisation) are in box 5, none of whom would be deemed anywhere near having ‘performance issues’, let alone being fired, Malini had witnessed Patrick Naef not telling the truth. Yet she did nothing.
Malini also broke an important promise she made to me. I was certain that, once I was out of his way, Patrick Naef would target certain areas and individuals he had in his sights. I was very concerned that Patrick would be taking action against individuals without constraint, without anyone providing some balance. With a recent change of HR Manager and me gone, all continuity was going to be lost. So I asked Malini if she would set up a session where I could brief her and Sophia Panayiotou about all the issues in EG-IT which Patrick had misunderstood, details of individuals’ strengths and weaknesses as I saw them and suggestions of senior managers in the business who they could consult for more balanced views on individuals if necessary. Malini indicated to me that she recognised the need and value of such a session and promised me (three times) that she would set it up. But she failed to do so.
Worst of all, I went to see Malini (just before I was terminated) in her office to try and get some personal support from her. She refused to talk to me, pleading with me not to involve her. Such (in)action goes beyond the description of being unprofessional, I would describe it as a total dereliction of duty. Even people as senior and experienced as me sometimes need some support and, as an employee of the company, I had a right to expect such support. For some reason, Malini had other views.
At the time I could only conclude that Malini had been bullied into such a change of approach. I could not see this as an excuse as, at her level and salary, she should be capable of standing her ground, but, having seen the impact Patrick Naef had had on many others over the years, I could at least understand. But later, the President, Gary Chapman, confirmed to me that the action to terminate my contract “had the full support of everyone in HR”. Without doubt, that would have included Malini Johnson so it is clear that she was happy to have me sacked, despite knowing that not a shred of evidence had ever been presented to support even alleged disciplinary action, let alone anything more serious. I do not know if Malini is a member of any formal HR Institution but, if she is, her role in my dismissal would surely preclude her continued membership if they were to be made aware of it.
I would love to know what caused Malini Johnson to perform such an enormous U-turn on me. The problem is, she has refused to communicate with me on the subject. I just hope that one day she will. It would be an interesting conversation.
Of course, in the past Malini was well supported by strong HR Managers. EG-IT enjoyed the services of two individuals (both sadly left the company), who were highly competent, professional and always willing to stand up for what was right. Neither had any difficulty in challenging Patrick Naef when necessary - a rare attribute!
But I never felt that the excellent overall HR support we had received was solely due to the HR Manager at the time. To me, Malini was very much part of the equation and was visibly involved when necessary. She was well informed about issues in EG-IT and was clearly worried at times about Patrick Naef’s behaviour. During one particularly difficult period, Malini was very proactive in terms of gathering information from various individuals. And, right up until last year, she would regularly ask me how Patrick had been ‘behaving lately’ and although the tone was always light, even humorous, it reflected a genuine concern she had about the impact Patrick Naef had on individuals.
So what changed? During the meeting when Patrick dropped his sudden “I have to move you out of your job” bombshell (despite, just nine weeks earlier, telling me he “really valued and enjoyed working with” me) Malini was strangely supportive of Patrick and provided no assistance to me at all. At the time I just put this down to the usual impact that Patrick Naef’s overpowering personality has on people in meetings. I felt sure that the ‘real Malini’ would re-emerge. But I was wrong.
Malini Johnson was quite happy to sign my termination letter knowing that it contained nothing but false allegations, all of which are demonstrably not true. She was quite happy to deliver that letter knowing that it was an instrument to bundle me out of the organisation without any form of hearing at all, let alone a fair one. Such action is totally at odds with what anyone, in any company, in any part of the world, would expect of an HR professional.
At my ‘termination meeting’ I questioned how I could be in such a position when Patrick Naef had very recently assessed me in box 6 (high performance, high potential). Patrick denied that he had done this. I then produced irrefutable evidence to support my statement - a document, in Patrick Naef’s own handwriting, clearly showing box 6. Patrick Naef, having been caught out, squirmed and try to wriggle out if it. He said he had placed me in box 5. Putting aside the fact that the majority of our strong staff (the core of the organisation) are in box 5, none of whom would be deemed anywhere near having ‘performance issues’, let alone being fired, Malini had witnessed Patrick Naef not telling the truth. Yet she did nothing.
Malini also broke an important promise she made to me. I was certain that, once I was out of his way, Patrick Naef would target certain areas and individuals he had in his sights. I was very concerned that Patrick would be taking action against individuals without constraint, without anyone providing some balance. With a recent change of HR Manager and me gone, all continuity was going to be lost. So I asked Malini if she would set up a session where I could brief her and Sophia Panayiotou about all the issues in EG-IT which Patrick had misunderstood, details of individuals’ strengths and weaknesses as I saw them and suggestions of senior managers in the business who they could consult for more balanced views on individuals if necessary. Malini indicated to me that she recognised the need and value of such a session and promised me (three times) that she would set it up. But she failed to do so.
Worst of all, I went to see Malini (just before I was terminated) in her office to try and get some personal support from her. She refused to talk to me, pleading with me not to involve her. Such (in)action goes beyond the description of being unprofessional, I would describe it as a total dereliction of duty. Even people as senior and experienced as me sometimes need some support and, as an employee of the company, I had a right to expect such support. For some reason, Malini had other views.
At the time I could only conclude that Malini had been bullied into such a change of approach. I could not see this as an excuse as, at her level and salary, she should be capable of standing her ground, but, having seen the impact Patrick Naef had had on many others over the years, I could at least understand. But later, the President, Gary Chapman, confirmed to me that the action to terminate my contract “had the full support of everyone in HR”. Without doubt, that would have included Malini Johnson so it is clear that she was happy to have me sacked, despite knowing that not a shred of evidence had ever been presented to support even alleged disciplinary action, let alone anything more serious. I do not know if Malini is a member of any formal HR Institution but, if she is, her role in my dismissal would surely preclude her continued membership if they were to be made aware of it.
I would love to know what caused Malini Johnson to perform such an enormous U-turn on me. The problem is, she has refused to communicate with me on the subject. I just hope that one day she will. It would be an interesting conversation.
Friday, 20 May 2011
On the fiddle
Like all IT Executive teams, EG-IT’s team was no exception in having its strengths and weaknesses. It is neither fair, nor appropriate, to rank teams from best to worst but, for each team I have worked in, one specific attribute will always come to mind. Unfortunately, my memories of the EG-IT Exec team will always be dominated by the theme of waste, in particular wasting time.
On joining the organisation, I was surprised to note that the IT Executive met every week and assumed that this would be a high level (and punchy) check on activities, 30 minutes maximum. But it was scheduled for four hours. And to make matters worse, it over ran! I came out stunned, having pored over the most minute details, wondering what on earth all the managers in the department did. I soon found out - they spent half the week preparing information for the next IT Exec meeting, the other half dissecting the information that emerged from the last one. The result was an unhealthy and fruitless interest in trivia and a lack of any progress on the real issues at stake. Important matters, such as those relating to people, were always left to last, when energy levels were declining and the need to move on to the next meeting dominating.
After a couple of years we eventually recognised the importance of HR matters and agreed to deal with these first, but my joy of reaching such a milestone was somewhat tempered when the solution was to start the meeting an hour earlier - it was now scheduled for five hours! And the need for meaningful discussion on other topics was met by yet another weekly meeting being scheduled - this one was called ‘reflections’ - every Thursday for two and a half hours.
Of course this approach has a potentially dangerous impact on the organisation below. I calculated that if I applied the same demands on my management team that Patrick Naef made on us (a weekly total of seven and a half hours of management team meetings, plus an hour one-to-one), then I would be spending 25 hours per week simply sitting in management meetings. Extrapolating this approach throughout the organisation does not bear thinking about, particularly given the main goal was just keeping everyone ‘up to date’.
I referred (in an earlier blog) to Patrick Naef’s management approach of ‘conflict by design, creation of tensions between team members, then kiss and make up at an away day’ and these away days would trigger another terrible round of waste. These events not only wasted time, but also money because of Patrick’s seeming obsession of holding them far away from the office. I am totally in favour of such ‘away days’ on a periodic basis where the management team can step back from day to day issues and spend time on the wider challenges. Once a quarter is about the right frequency and that is about how often we met. But you can step back from day to day issues quite easily by meeting away from the office. My own such management ‘away days’ were held in the Aviation College - ten minutes up the road with no additional cost to the Group - and they lasted just a day. But Patrick would have us out for two days at a time in places like Hatta, Oman, Switzerland and Germany. Once we had the entire senior management team (circa 25 people) hauled up to Musandam for a couple of days. If you include travelling time, this would have cost over three man months on top of the hotel and travel costs, not to mention the consultants’ fees.
These sessions, for some reason, needed external consultants. Personally, I think senior managers should be capable of facilitating themselves but I do agree that, at times, there is a need for a bit of independence. But this can be provided internally and the Group could certainly have provided people with the necessary skills and independence. But Patrick Naef only seemed to be comfortable when he had his team around him in a far flung location and marshalled by his favoured firm of consultants. This company certainly had innovative ideas which, at times, worked well. At one session we benefited from some oral delivery training from a highly accomplished actor and this was really powerful. But that was an exception. On a couple of occasions we were shown the concept of putting music to management by a truly world class violinist but, whilst I do not deny that it was an incredible experience to hear someone of that stature play at such close quarters, I could never see this adding a single dirham of value to the business.
I do recognise the need to try something new but I am afraid we have to recognise that IT is not particularly complicated. What we needed was training on things like risk and project management, not musical lessons. I couldn’t help wondering how my customers at the airport would have reacted when, say, BRS was down if I had turned up and started to tune my violin.
But by far the biggest waste of time and money I have ever experienced was our infamous trip to Frankfurt. To this day, I do not know what the excuse was for us all to drag ourselves to a remote monastery in Germany. Certainly it was an interesting location and the evening wine tasting session was enjoyable, but the sessions organised by our consultants could have taken place anywhere. Though, as it turned out, it would have been better if they had not taken place at all. No violinist this time, but we were blessed by the presence of a mathematician and a medical doctor.
Our mathematical friend had devised an impact analysis management tool for us to use. The idea of it was that, having drawn up a weighted map of their business processes, a company could easily measure the impact of any proposed actions. As a simple example, a product price increase would positively impact profitability, but could negatively affect customer satisfaction. And the reduction of customer satisfaction could result in reduced sales and thus profit. And so on. So, with this tool, all a company owner had to do was key in the options under consideration, until the optimum answer emerged. A sort of ‘managing a large company for dummies’ type of thing. But we soon discovered a basic flaw - in order to draw up the weighted map, you had to fully understand your business to the point of saturation. The impact of every conceivable event had to be known first, before you could decide its weight and the events it would impact. In other words, you needed to know the answer before you could ask the question.
We spent the best part of a day drawing up a map of our (EG-IT’s) business, with the understandably endless discussions on weightings. Then we tested it and discovered that, in some cases, it worked perfectly. Bingo! But in other cases it was wrong, which of course meant that our map was wrong. So we re-drew the map! We did this endlessly until, thankfully, we ran out of time. But we had to persevere and even brought the guy back for a second round (this time in Musandam) some months later. Eventually, the sheer folly of this was finally accepted and the initiative was quietly buried.
But all this was a breeze compared to the other main session of the trip. I do not know what the specific purpose of this one was, but it was conducted by a lady doctor who had some very interesting ideas indeed. I found her presentation as disjointed as it was unnerving. She seemed to spot my scepticism early on in the proceedings (maybe it was my body language, maybe she had been briefed) and she was quick to point out that, by sitting with my left leg crossed over the right, I was giving her a clear indication about not only my psychological state, but also about the relationship I had with each of my parents. When I challenged this, she proceeded to finish me off with the reinforcing (and compelling) evidence provided by the fact that I wear my wedding ring on my right hand. I tried to put her straight by demonstrating that the ring (which used to belong to my Father) simply did not fit on my left hand. “Excuses”, she said and quickly changed the subject.
It got worse. She had us lined up, swapping places until we felt “more comfortable” in certain positions and suggested that we should sit like this in future management meetings, as it would increase our effectiveness. Bizarrely, she also had a keen interest in which side of our marital beds we slept in but, without doubt, her coup de grace was the insistence that every night we should go down on our hands and knees and worship our parents. Now I am more than happy for anyone to follow whatever beliefs they choose, but this one was never going to work for me, nor for my dear old Dad, rest his soul.
I found the woman unnecessarily intrusive and when ‘proving points’ during exercises sometimes appeared to use double meaning questions, similar to those employed by some faith healers and fraudsters. But, regardless of how genuine she may have been, I am at a loss to see how such a session could have ever conceivably added any value to our business. In fact that sentiment applied to the entire trip, other than a good bit of team bonding during the wine tasting. But we could have done that round the corner from the office.
On the way back from Frankfurt I couldn’t help but feel sympathy for our fare paying passengers whose ticket costs were, luckily, not broken down for them. Had they been so, I am sure the element for ‘IT Management Training’ would have raised a few questions.
On joining the organisation, I was surprised to note that the IT Executive met every week and assumed that this would be a high level (and punchy) check on activities, 30 minutes maximum. But it was scheduled for four hours. And to make matters worse, it over ran! I came out stunned, having pored over the most minute details, wondering what on earth all the managers in the department did. I soon found out - they spent half the week preparing information for the next IT Exec meeting, the other half dissecting the information that emerged from the last one. The result was an unhealthy and fruitless interest in trivia and a lack of any progress on the real issues at stake. Important matters, such as those relating to people, were always left to last, when energy levels were declining and the need to move on to the next meeting dominating.
After a couple of years we eventually recognised the importance of HR matters and agreed to deal with these first, but my joy of reaching such a milestone was somewhat tempered when the solution was to start the meeting an hour earlier - it was now scheduled for five hours! And the need for meaningful discussion on other topics was met by yet another weekly meeting being scheduled - this one was called ‘reflections’ - every Thursday for two and a half hours.
Of course this approach has a potentially dangerous impact on the organisation below. I calculated that if I applied the same demands on my management team that Patrick Naef made on us (a weekly total of seven and a half hours of management team meetings, plus an hour one-to-one), then I would be spending 25 hours per week simply sitting in management meetings. Extrapolating this approach throughout the organisation does not bear thinking about, particularly given the main goal was just keeping everyone ‘up to date’.
I referred (in an earlier blog) to Patrick Naef’s management approach of ‘conflict by design, creation of tensions between team members, then kiss and make up at an away day’ and these away days would trigger another terrible round of waste. These events not only wasted time, but also money because of Patrick’s seeming obsession of holding them far away from the office. I am totally in favour of such ‘away days’ on a periodic basis where the management team can step back from day to day issues and spend time on the wider challenges. Once a quarter is about the right frequency and that is about how often we met. But you can step back from day to day issues quite easily by meeting away from the office. My own such management ‘away days’ were held in the Aviation College - ten minutes up the road with no additional cost to the Group - and they lasted just a day. But Patrick would have us out for two days at a time in places like Hatta, Oman, Switzerland and Germany. Once we had the entire senior management team (circa 25 people) hauled up to Musandam for a couple of days. If you include travelling time, this would have cost over three man months on top of the hotel and travel costs, not to mention the consultants’ fees.
These sessions, for some reason, needed external consultants. Personally, I think senior managers should be capable of facilitating themselves but I do agree that, at times, there is a need for a bit of independence. But this can be provided internally and the Group could certainly have provided people with the necessary skills and independence. But Patrick Naef only seemed to be comfortable when he had his team around him in a far flung location and marshalled by his favoured firm of consultants. This company certainly had innovative ideas which, at times, worked well. At one session we benefited from some oral delivery training from a highly accomplished actor and this was really powerful. But that was an exception. On a couple of occasions we were shown the concept of putting music to management by a truly world class violinist but, whilst I do not deny that it was an incredible experience to hear someone of that stature play at such close quarters, I could never see this adding a single dirham of value to the business.
I do recognise the need to try something new but I am afraid we have to recognise that IT is not particularly complicated. What we needed was training on things like risk and project management, not musical lessons. I couldn’t help wondering how my customers at the airport would have reacted when, say, BRS was down if I had turned up and started to tune my violin.
But by far the biggest waste of time and money I have ever experienced was our infamous trip to Frankfurt. To this day, I do not know what the excuse was for us all to drag ourselves to a remote monastery in Germany. Certainly it was an interesting location and the evening wine tasting session was enjoyable, but the sessions organised by our consultants could have taken place anywhere. Though, as it turned out, it would have been better if they had not taken place at all. No violinist this time, but we were blessed by the presence of a mathematician and a medical doctor.
Our mathematical friend had devised an impact analysis management tool for us to use. The idea of it was that, having drawn up a weighted map of their business processes, a company could easily measure the impact of any proposed actions. As a simple example, a product price increase would positively impact profitability, but could negatively affect customer satisfaction. And the reduction of customer satisfaction could result in reduced sales and thus profit. And so on. So, with this tool, all a company owner had to do was key in the options under consideration, until the optimum answer emerged. A sort of ‘managing a large company for dummies’ type of thing. But we soon discovered a basic flaw - in order to draw up the weighted map, you had to fully understand your business to the point of saturation. The impact of every conceivable event had to be known first, before you could decide its weight and the events it would impact. In other words, you needed to know the answer before you could ask the question.
We spent the best part of a day drawing up a map of our (EG-IT’s) business, with the understandably endless discussions on weightings. Then we tested it and discovered that, in some cases, it worked perfectly. Bingo! But in other cases it was wrong, which of course meant that our map was wrong. So we re-drew the map! We did this endlessly until, thankfully, we ran out of time. But we had to persevere and even brought the guy back for a second round (this time in Musandam) some months later. Eventually, the sheer folly of this was finally accepted and the initiative was quietly buried.
But all this was a breeze compared to the other main session of the trip. I do not know what the specific purpose of this one was, but it was conducted by a lady doctor who had some very interesting ideas indeed. I found her presentation as disjointed as it was unnerving. She seemed to spot my scepticism early on in the proceedings (maybe it was my body language, maybe she had been briefed) and she was quick to point out that, by sitting with my left leg crossed over the right, I was giving her a clear indication about not only my psychological state, but also about the relationship I had with each of my parents. When I challenged this, she proceeded to finish me off with the reinforcing (and compelling) evidence provided by the fact that I wear my wedding ring on my right hand. I tried to put her straight by demonstrating that the ring (which used to belong to my Father) simply did not fit on my left hand. “Excuses”, she said and quickly changed the subject.
It got worse. She had us lined up, swapping places until we felt “more comfortable” in certain positions and suggested that we should sit like this in future management meetings, as it would increase our effectiveness. Bizarrely, she also had a keen interest in which side of our marital beds we slept in but, without doubt, her coup de grace was the insistence that every night we should go down on our hands and knees and worship our parents. Now I am more than happy for anyone to follow whatever beliefs they choose, but this one was never going to work for me, nor for my dear old Dad, rest his soul.
I found the woman unnecessarily intrusive and when ‘proving points’ during exercises sometimes appeared to use double meaning questions, similar to those employed by some faith healers and fraudsters. But, regardless of how genuine she may have been, I am at a loss to see how such a session could have ever conceivably added any value to our business. In fact that sentiment applied to the entire trip, other than a good bit of team bonding during the wine tasting. But we could have done that round the corner from the office.
On the way back from Frankfurt I couldn’t help but feel sympathy for our fare paying passengers whose ticket costs were, luckily, not broken down for them. Had they been so, I am sure the element for ‘IT Management Training’ would have raised a few questions.
Sunday, 1 May 2011
Marching orders
Although people often talk about someone being ‘marched off the premises’, in my experience it was always a figure of speech. In reality, I had never seen anyone come anywhere near it. I certainly had not known of security guards to be directly involved. On occasions it is sometimes decided that, in everyone’s best interests, an individual should ‘go home’ but this can always be handled discreetly. I have seen someone dismissed for committing a fairly serious criminal offence at work but, even in that situation, there was no need for security guards to be involved. Nor have I ever seen the need to totally ban an individual from the office and frustrate contact with colleagues.
But somehow, Patrick Naef managed to implement the full treatment for me. You will see how a mixture of misunderstanding, misinformation and the much used policy of ‘verdict without trial‘ conveniently allowed Patrick to keep me out of the way and delay the truth about my departure emerging.
When I was fired and handed my letter of termination by Patrick Naef, I did not have time to read it before Malini Johnson waved another set of papers at me. She explained that, if I were to resign, then the company would be willing to pay me a further three months salary. I reached forward to take the papers but was told that I had to resign first, then “we can go through the document”. I was told that I had to decide immediately. I asked if I could at least discuss it with my wife. It was around 15:00 and I was given until 07:00 the following morning to resign.
The last thing I wanted to do was resign. To be honest, even if domestic circumstances had ever led to us having to move on, I would have found it very difficult to leave the organisation and my friends. I loved my job, felt that I had so much more to contribute and also had an obligation to many colleagues for whom I had, and still have, enormous respect. But here I was, being asked to lie to everyone, telling them that I had decided to move on. This was far from attractive and what Patrick Naef was trying to achieve was abhorrent. But being thrown out of your home is a big issue so, it was clearly worthy of a discussion with Margaret.
I said that resignation was unlikely and my exact words were “If you haven’t heard from me by 07:00 tomorrow morning, you will know that I am not going to resign”. I said that twice. It was absolutely clear in my mind that there was no meeting scheduled for the following morning. I had been fired and my contract had been terminated with effect from 26 December 2010. There was no agreement to meet again and I had received no invitations to any further meetings.
At home it did not take us long to make our decision. The company had decided to fire me so they should account for that decision. The prospect of an additional three months salary was clearly attractive, as was the additional time to make arrangements to find a new home. But the action taken against me was without foundation and totally unethical, so there was no way that we were going to endorse it. (I will provide more details on the somewhat shabby ‘resignation’ process in a later blog.)
So, as SVP of a pretty large organisation who had just been told he was being fired, I had to plan the next 24 hours. Clearly, Patrick was not going to want me around for a while but equally I had a management team who had to be informed. I did a quick check of calendars and the solution seemed pretty clear. Patrick had his usual Tuesday morning session with Nigel Hopkins scheduled at 07:00 in EGHQ and I had my regular weekly meeting with my management team planned for 07:30 in EGTC. Patrick would be back in EGTC at around 09:00, so the solution was obvious to me. I would brief my management team (in strict confidence of course) at 07:30 and once Patrick had returned I would have a chat with him and we would agree on how the announcement would be made. Without doubt, Patrick would have wanted me out of the building for the rest of day, probably the rest of the week, and then I could have eased myself back in to tidy up outstanding issues. I would have explained to Patrick that the one thing that was not for negotiation was the fact that I had been fired and I would be telling everyone that. But clearly, the show had to go on and there was no way that I would have been disruptive and would certainly never have considered divulging any further information (such as I am now doing in this blog). It was not going to be an easy notice period for any of us, but I am sure we could have got through it without too much damage to the organisation.
But I think Patrick Naef had other ideas. It seems that he either wanted me constrained by a legally binding gagging order, or out of the building for good.
So, as usual I went to my office in EGTC the following morning. Given my clear statement the previous afternoon (“If you haven’t heard from me by 07:00 tomorrow morning, you will know that I am not going to resign”), I had no reason to make any contact with Malini. But, as it happened, I had another (totally unrelated) outstanding task to clear up with Malini, so I took the opportunity to close that off with her with a telephone call which I made just before 07:00. I felt that, with the absence of me saying anything about resignation, it would confirm my earlier assertion that this was not an option that was of any interest to me. The telephone call was concluded, very close to 07:00, without the topic being mentioned.
I duly met with my management team at 07:30 and informed them about events. I felt it important that they received the news direct from me first but, obviously, it was done in confidence. I explained to them that I would meet with Patrick later when we would agree on a communication plan. I expressed my view that Patrick would understandably want me out of the way for a day or so and said that I would probably see them all again the following week. As I asserted to them, clearly I wouldn’t be doing ‘anything stupid’ so there would not be a need to exclude me from the office. Famous last words!
Totally unknown to me (until I was informed three months later), Patrick, Malini and Nigel Hopkins were waiting for me in EGTC at 07:00. I think people who know me would be surprised if I was even late for a meeting, let alone fail to turn up to one. Yet amazingly, none of the three called me until well after 07:30, by which time I was meeting my managers. And, if Malini was expecting me, I am still wondering why, when I was speaking to her just a couple of minutes before seven, she made no reference to any upcoming meeting. I have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and put this down to a misunderstanding between us but, as subsequently my so called ‘non-attendance’ at this so called ‘meeting’ was given as the only reason “for HR to ensure that you were escorted out of the building”, I cannot help feeling that the situation was at least capitalised upon, if not manipulated, to achieve the desired result.
Once out of my meeting, I retrieved a voice mail message left by Malini at around 7:40. She asked me to call her and made no reference to any meeting. But she did seem to be surprised that I was at EGTC in my office and told me to wait there for her. Within minutes my network session was terminated and, unknown to me, the security guards were now assembling in the corridor outside my office. When Malini arrived she made no mention of any meeting, not even when I expressed my disgust at the process she was implementing. It seems bizarre that I was apparently expected at a meeting with one agenda item - me! - yet no-one asked me where I was or why I did not attend. Had I been asked, the truth would have emerged and a reasonable solution would have been arrived at. But the question is - is that what Patrick Naef wanted?
This event carries the same hallmark of everything else that I was subjected to - no facts, no discussion, just implementation of Patrick Naef’s requirements without question.
Once I was off the premises, I am told that Patrick was telling people that he could not discuss the circumstances of my departure as they were “confidential”. If that is true then it would have conveniently fuelled any speculation that I had been involved in something less than savoury.
Not being allowed back in the office and refused access to my PC and email not only frustrated me (there were so many outstanding tasks that I could have completed during my notice period), it also upset me. There were many colleagues who I would have liked to have said a personal farewell to. Numerous people have asked me why this action was taken and, although I knew in my heart the real reason, until December I often wondered how the organisation could have justified it. But now you know - it was because I failed to turn up to a meeting to which I had not been invited and of which I had no knowledge.
Family and friends were upset about the way I was treated and some are still disgusted that an organisation could attempt to humiliate someone (who had done nothing wrong) in such a way. But personally I soon became relaxed about it once I asked myself a simple question. What is the more likely - that I will be remembered for being such a risk, or Patrick Naef remembered for being so insecure?
But somehow, Patrick Naef managed to implement the full treatment for me. You will see how a mixture of misunderstanding, misinformation and the much used policy of ‘verdict without trial‘ conveniently allowed Patrick to keep me out of the way and delay the truth about my departure emerging.
When I was fired and handed my letter of termination by Patrick Naef, I did not have time to read it before Malini Johnson waved another set of papers at me. She explained that, if I were to resign, then the company would be willing to pay me a further three months salary. I reached forward to take the papers but was told that I had to resign first, then “we can go through the document”. I was told that I had to decide immediately. I asked if I could at least discuss it with my wife. It was around 15:00 and I was given until 07:00 the following morning to resign.
The last thing I wanted to do was resign. To be honest, even if domestic circumstances had ever led to us having to move on, I would have found it very difficult to leave the organisation and my friends. I loved my job, felt that I had so much more to contribute and also had an obligation to many colleagues for whom I had, and still have, enormous respect. But here I was, being asked to lie to everyone, telling them that I had decided to move on. This was far from attractive and what Patrick Naef was trying to achieve was abhorrent. But being thrown out of your home is a big issue so, it was clearly worthy of a discussion with Margaret.
I said that resignation was unlikely and my exact words were “If you haven’t heard from me by 07:00 tomorrow morning, you will know that I am not going to resign”. I said that twice. It was absolutely clear in my mind that there was no meeting scheduled for the following morning. I had been fired and my contract had been terminated with effect from 26 December 2010. There was no agreement to meet again and I had received no invitations to any further meetings.
At home it did not take us long to make our decision. The company had decided to fire me so they should account for that decision. The prospect of an additional three months salary was clearly attractive, as was the additional time to make arrangements to find a new home. But the action taken against me was without foundation and totally unethical, so there was no way that we were going to endorse it. (I will provide more details on the somewhat shabby ‘resignation’ process in a later blog.)
So, as SVP of a pretty large organisation who had just been told he was being fired, I had to plan the next 24 hours. Clearly, Patrick was not going to want me around for a while but equally I had a management team who had to be informed. I did a quick check of calendars and the solution seemed pretty clear. Patrick had his usual Tuesday morning session with Nigel Hopkins scheduled at 07:00 in EGHQ and I had my regular weekly meeting with my management team planned for 07:30 in EGTC. Patrick would be back in EGTC at around 09:00, so the solution was obvious to me. I would brief my management team (in strict confidence of course) at 07:30 and once Patrick had returned I would have a chat with him and we would agree on how the announcement would be made. Without doubt, Patrick would have wanted me out of the building for the rest of day, probably the rest of the week, and then I could have eased myself back in to tidy up outstanding issues. I would have explained to Patrick that the one thing that was not for negotiation was the fact that I had been fired and I would be telling everyone that. But clearly, the show had to go on and there was no way that I would have been disruptive and would certainly never have considered divulging any further information (such as I am now doing in this blog). It was not going to be an easy notice period for any of us, but I am sure we could have got through it without too much damage to the organisation.
But I think Patrick Naef had other ideas. It seems that he either wanted me constrained by a legally binding gagging order, or out of the building for good.
So, as usual I went to my office in EGTC the following morning. Given my clear statement the previous afternoon (“If you haven’t heard from me by 07:00 tomorrow morning, you will know that I am not going to resign”), I had no reason to make any contact with Malini. But, as it happened, I had another (totally unrelated) outstanding task to clear up with Malini, so I took the opportunity to close that off with her with a telephone call which I made just before 07:00. I felt that, with the absence of me saying anything about resignation, it would confirm my earlier assertion that this was not an option that was of any interest to me. The telephone call was concluded, very close to 07:00, without the topic being mentioned.
I duly met with my management team at 07:30 and informed them about events. I felt it important that they received the news direct from me first but, obviously, it was done in confidence. I explained to them that I would meet with Patrick later when we would agree on a communication plan. I expressed my view that Patrick would understandably want me out of the way for a day or so and said that I would probably see them all again the following week. As I asserted to them, clearly I wouldn’t be doing ‘anything stupid’ so there would not be a need to exclude me from the office. Famous last words!
Totally unknown to me (until I was informed three months later), Patrick, Malini and Nigel Hopkins were waiting for me in EGTC at 07:00. I think people who know me would be surprised if I was even late for a meeting, let alone fail to turn up to one. Yet amazingly, none of the three called me until well after 07:30, by which time I was meeting my managers. And, if Malini was expecting me, I am still wondering why, when I was speaking to her just a couple of minutes before seven, she made no reference to any upcoming meeting. I have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and put this down to a misunderstanding between us but, as subsequently my so called ‘non-attendance’ at this so called ‘meeting’ was given as the only reason “for HR to ensure that you were escorted out of the building”, I cannot help feeling that the situation was at least capitalised upon, if not manipulated, to achieve the desired result.
Once out of my meeting, I retrieved a voice mail message left by Malini at around 7:40. She asked me to call her and made no reference to any meeting. But she did seem to be surprised that I was at EGTC in my office and told me to wait there for her. Within minutes my network session was terminated and, unknown to me, the security guards were now assembling in the corridor outside my office. When Malini arrived she made no mention of any meeting, not even when I expressed my disgust at the process she was implementing. It seems bizarre that I was apparently expected at a meeting with one agenda item - me! - yet no-one asked me where I was or why I did not attend. Had I been asked, the truth would have emerged and a reasonable solution would have been arrived at. But the question is - is that what Patrick Naef wanted?
This event carries the same hallmark of everything else that I was subjected to - no facts, no discussion, just implementation of Patrick Naef’s requirements without question.
Once I was off the premises, I am told that Patrick was telling people that he could not discuss the circumstances of my departure as they were “confidential”. If that is true then it would have conveniently fuelled any speculation that I had been involved in something less than savoury.
Not being allowed back in the office and refused access to my PC and email not only frustrated me (there were so many outstanding tasks that I could have completed during my notice period), it also upset me. There were many colleagues who I would have liked to have said a personal farewell to. Numerous people have asked me why this action was taken and, although I knew in my heart the real reason, until December I often wondered how the organisation could have justified it. But now you know - it was because I failed to turn up to a meeting to which I had not been invited and of which I had no knowledge.
Family and friends were upset about the way I was treated and some are still disgusted that an organisation could attempt to humiliate someone (who had done nothing wrong) in such a way. But personally I soon became relaxed about it once I asked myself a simple question. What is the more likely - that I will be remembered for being such a risk, or Patrick Naef remembered for being so insecure?
About this blog - 4
My last note prompted yet more questions of ‘how much longer can this go on for?’, ‘why doesn’t someone do something?’ and ‘is senior management simply not interested?’ but I am afraid I cannot help with answers. Ultimately, I will publish all relevant emails and you will see from them that I raised all the relevant points at every level possible. I did my best, but could not generate any response. As I said last time - it is indeed a unique situation.
I have also been asked to comment on specific individuals’ performances and their contribution to current problems in EG-IT but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do that. I will leave the scope of this blog as originally intended and just concentrate on facts and issues related to the termination of my contract. In any event, I think it is clear to everyone which areas of EG-IT are not performing and it does not need me to highlight those responsible.
I have also been asked to comment on specific individuals’ performances and their contribution to current problems in EG-IT but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do that. I will leave the scope of this blog as originally intended and just concentrate on facts and issues related to the termination of my contract. In any event, I think it is clear to everyone which areas of EG-IT are not performing and it does not need me to highlight those responsible.
Sunday, 10 April 2011
About this blog - 3
This blog has now had over 6,000 hits and I have received well over 100 comments, emails, etc. Of these, two were anonymous comments along the lines of ‘good riddance’, another two anonymous comments were simply personal insults (though, given the style, these two could well be from the same person) and one named individual wrote twice. First he questioned whether the blog was genuine, then he asked if I would promote a discussion on whether I was any good at my job or not (he felt I wasn’t!). I reminded him that the purpose of this blog was to inform people of what actually happened to me, the issues as I see them in EG-IT and an attempt to avoid anyone else meeting the same fate that I did. It was never intended to initiate a popularity, or otherwise, contest. Although this individual initially said I could name him, he hasn’t confirmed this, so I won’t.
But all the other messages have been totally supportive and many have come from people who trust my assurances of anonymity and have been open about their identities. I believe I have now responded to all messages that I am able to. But it has been quite a challenge so, if I have missed you, please accept my apologies and give me a prompt. I have had numerous requests regarding topics to be covered and most of these were already planned, so will be met in due course. There seems to be a lot of interest in HR’s role in the proceedings, so perhaps I will publish that one earlier than originally planned.
There were some requests that I either will not, or cannot, meet. Some people have asked for details of specific events that happened over the past few years but I would not be able to do this without breaching individuals’ confidentiality and I certainly will not do that. Also, this blog is not intended to take on a ‘reveal all’ role (though someone did humorously suggest that I should rename it ‘TomiLeaks’!). I have also received many questions about things that are currently going wrong in EG-IT and asking for more details, but I am afraid I can’t help - I don’t work there anymore!
Another regular question is the one ‘how did he get away with it, how does he continue to get away with it, how much longer can this go on for?’. That is another one I cannot answer. If I knew, I would probably still be working with you all! I have to say that this is something I have never previously experienced. Never have I seen such a disconnection between senior management and reality, never have I seen anyone fired without even a discussion, never have I seen anyone’s assessment go from box 6 to box 1 in any space of time (even years) let alone nine weeks, never have I seen company procedures so openly and brazenly ignored, never have I seen security guards summoned for someone who has been dismissed (regardless of the reason) and never have I seen such poor staff survey results as those from last year’s EG-IT survey. It is indeed a unique situation.
I have not received a single challenge to anything that I have stated in any of my blogs thus far. No-one has asked me to correct or modify anything. As I said earlier, this blog is ‘open and honest’ and if someone feels that I have misrepresented anything I will either correct it, or openly record our difference of opinion.
Neither have I received any examples to support the reasons for my dismissal given in my termination letter. That does not surprise me (as I know that there aren’t any) but I had hoped that, by now, someone would have had the moral fibre to withdraw that letter. It is as wrong now as it was when Malini Johnson signed it over six months ago. Malini failed to observe one of the golden rules of corporate life - ‘if something dodgy is going on, make sure you are not the most junior person in the room’. There is no way that Patrick Naef would ever put his name to such a defamatory letter and I expect Malini found herself holding the pen with everyone heading swiftly for the exit, with reassuring words along the lines of ‘don’t worry, he’ll take the resignation option - they always do’ fading in the distance.
I have been asked to provide updates more regularly but I am afraid that is quite difficult. We have been away a lot and have also been busy making amends with family and friends who we have neglected over the past few years. And finding a new place to live has taken up a lot of our energies. Anyway, there is no rush as time never alters the truth. But, as those who promote them eventually realise, lies are far less durable. I think the saying is ‘truth is the daughter of time’.
As for my challenge to anyone, anywhere to give an example of me ever ‘refusing to obey instructions’, I had just one response. From my Wife.
But all the other messages have been totally supportive and many have come from people who trust my assurances of anonymity and have been open about their identities. I believe I have now responded to all messages that I am able to. But it has been quite a challenge so, if I have missed you, please accept my apologies and give me a prompt. I have had numerous requests regarding topics to be covered and most of these were already planned, so will be met in due course. There seems to be a lot of interest in HR’s role in the proceedings, so perhaps I will publish that one earlier than originally planned.
There were some requests that I either will not, or cannot, meet. Some people have asked for details of specific events that happened over the past few years but I would not be able to do this without breaching individuals’ confidentiality and I certainly will not do that. Also, this blog is not intended to take on a ‘reveal all’ role (though someone did humorously suggest that I should rename it ‘TomiLeaks’!). I have also received many questions about things that are currently going wrong in EG-IT and asking for more details, but I am afraid I can’t help - I don’t work there anymore!
Another regular question is the one ‘how did he get away with it, how does he continue to get away with it, how much longer can this go on for?’. That is another one I cannot answer. If I knew, I would probably still be working with you all! I have to say that this is something I have never previously experienced. Never have I seen such a disconnection between senior management and reality, never have I seen anyone fired without even a discussion, never have I seen anyone’s assessment go from box 6 to box 1 in any space of time (even years) let alone nine weeks, never have I seen company procedures so openly and brazenly ignored, never have I seen security guards summoned for someone who has been dismissed (regardless of the reason) and never have I seen such poor staff survey results as those from last year’s EG-IT survey. It is indeed a unique situation.
I have not received a single challenge to anything that I have stated in any of my blogs thus far. No-one has asked me to correct or modify anything. As I said earlier, this blog is ‘open and honest’ and if someone feels that I have misrepresented anything I will either correct it, or openly record our difference of opinion.
Neither have I received any examples to support the reasons for my dismissal given in my termination letter. That does not surprise me (as I know that there aren’t any) but I had hoped that, by now, someone would have had the moral fibre to withdraw that letter. It is as wrong now as it was when Malini Johnson signed it over six months ago. Malini failed to observe one of the golden rules of corporate life - ‘if something dodgy is going on, make sure you are not the most junior person in the room’. There is no way that Patrick Naef would ever put his name to such a defamatory letter and I expect Malini found herself holding the pen with everyone heading swiftly for the exit, with reassuring words along the lines of ‘don’t worry, he’ll take the resignation option - they always do’ fading in the distance.
I have been asked to provide updates more regularly but I am afraid that is quite difficult. We have been away a lot and have also been busy making amends with family and friends who we have neglected over the past few years. And finding a new place to live has taken up a lot of our energies. Anyway, there is no rush as time never alters the truth. But, as those who promote them eventually realise, lies are far less durable. I think the saying is ‘truth is the daughter of time’.
As for my challenge to anyone, anywhere to give an example of me ever ‘refusing to obey instructions’, I had just one response. From my Wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)