Even before I joined Dnata, Patrick Naef told me that Nigel Hopkins was “a really nice guy”. He continued to say this all the time I was in Dubai. I must say that I found this rather strange. I do not wish to be rude about senior people in large organisations, but it is not often that you hear such a compliment. I guess the phrase ‘a nice senior executive’ could be an oxymoron, as any job at that level does not provide too many opportunities to be seen as nice. In the past, I have worked quite closely with people who were not seen by staff in a positive light and I often found myself defending them, saying things along the lines of ‘he/she is quite nice underneath it all’. I even heard of someone once saying that I wasn’t quite as bad as I appeared to be! But I have never heard of anyone at such a senior level being described as just ‘nice’.
Certainly Nigel Hopkins comes over as a quiet guy, but personally I never really got to know him.. At first sight this could be a reflection of an arm’s length approach to managing his responsibilities for IT within the Emirates Group. However, he does hold a weekly one to one meeting with Patrick Naef and he also attended the weekly EG-IT Executive meeting once a month. At these meetings, I can not say that I was ever overwhelmed by any of his insights, but he certainly showed a huge interest in all the detail available. This is all very well, but as I am sure everyone appreciates, if one spends too much time examining every pixel, it is highly unlikely that one will ever see the actual picture.
When Patrick Naef dropped his bombshell that he had to remove me from my job and terminate my contract, he asserted that he had ‘the full support of Gary Chapman and Nigel Hopkins’. My instinct, given personal experiences of Patrick Naef’s track record in relaying things which subsequently turned out not to be true, was not to believe him. I immediately wondered how on earth would Nigel Hopkins agree to such action when he had never even had a one to one meeting with me on any topic, let alone on such a serious one. Call me old fashioned if you will but, as a manager, I would never entertain even the initiation of disciplinary action against someone reporting to one of my direct reports without a very open (and confidential) one to one meeting with the individual concerned. Words like ‘thoroughness’, ‘fair play’ and ‘justice’ all immediately spring to mind.
At that meeting, both Sophia Panayiotou and Malini Johnson were present and I was surprised that they did not correct Patrick Naef. But challenging Patrick Naef in private, let along public, was never good for anyone’s well being so I just assumed that the Group’s HR department would do the job they were paid to do and act accordingly after the meeting. Dream on, Tom!
When I was actually fired I heard the two most astonishing and inept statements from any manager at any level, let alone from an Executive Vice President of such a large company such as Dnata. They are so bizarre that, even as I write this, I have to refer back to my notes of that meeting to yet again confirm that Nigel Hopkins really uttered them. And they were Nigel’s only two contributions to the proceedings.
What Patrick Naef had said was actually true - Nigel Hopkins had indeed agreed to have my contract terminated. So at my termination meeting I challenged Nigel, asking him why he had felt able to make such a decision without even talking to me, let alone meeting with me. His response? “But you never came to see me either”. I sat there stunned. I learnt a lot in my career, but it never once occurred to me to occasionally poke my head around the door of my boss’s boss’s office and casually enquire “Er . . . you weren’t by any chance considering firing me were you?”.
At that meeting I then moved on to an even more substantial matter, the fact that my contract was being terminated without any part of formal company procedures being applied. To which Nigel Hopkins replied “Yes, but we are where we are”. I first thought that he was joking. Nigel carries an almost permanent smile and this can be deceptive at times, but surely no-one would ever make a joke out of firing someone? Here was the company’s Executive Vice President acknowledging that I was being unfairly dismissed and just brushing the matter aside. Maybe nerves got the better of him and he just blurted it out. He certainly did not look comfortable at the meeting, spending most of the time looking across towards Patrick Naef. Perhaps he was seeking guidance or support, I do not know, but it did not look as though he received any. Or was it just a coded message saying ‘Don’t forget that you are dealing with Dnata here, mate. We can do what we like, to who we like and when we like and there is nothing anyone can do about it. So, be a good boy and do what everyone else does - resign, shut up, clear off and take the money’?
From what I have seen, Nigel Hopkins’ role in my dismissal was one of simply rubber stamping Patrick Naef’s desire to dump me out of the organisation. Many people have for many years asked questions along the lines of ‘who is managing who in this relationship?’ and this incident is an example of why such questions are asked. Perhaps Nigel Hopkins feels he had good reason to act (or rather not act) in the way that he did. I just wish he had the decency to tell me what he thinks they were, rather than just telling me that “we are where we are”.
It may be that when Patrick Naef says that Nigel Hopkins is a really nice guy, what he actually means is ‘not only does he let me do what I want, he also does everything I tell him to do’.
Monday, 27 February 2012
Saturday, 17 December 2011
About this blog - 6
When I started this blog I did not have a target in mind in terms of readership. My immediate goal was, given the way Patrick Naef announced my departure (and, I am told, subsequently refused to discuss the reasons on the grounds that “it was confidential” thus further fuelling speculation), to dispel any rumours that I had been involved in some sort of fraudulent activity. It is sad that no-one in the company saw fit to clarify the situation - this could have been done so easily - but, of course, such rumours (temporarily) helped paper over the cracks of a pretty distasteful episode. Though I had no firm target, I guess I would have been content with a couple of hundred readers of my initial blog (which was published on 31 January 2011). With 200 people across the company knowing the truth, word of mouth would have done the rest and the cracks would be visible enough for all to see.
As I revealed more information about events, it was probably natural that I would retain a core audience but I would have assumed that, after six months or so, most people would have forgotten about me. So, by mid-year had I seen a couple of dozen readers of each update I would have been more than content.
I have done nothing in terms of SEO. In fact it has been more a case of SEDO - Search Engine De-Optimisation. Initially, I only want readers from the company (and those closely associated with it) so that I can monitor relevant readership. I do not want people stumbling across the site, I want to limit it to a captive audience at the moment. This is the reason why, thus far, I have avoided using the company name and why the blog has such a bland url. Looking at the search terms that lead to my site, it is clear that the approach has been successful. I can count on one hand the number of obvious mis-directs - the overwhelming majority of search terms are very specifically targeted towards the topics and relevant individuals.
The SEDO approach will not always be the right one. For now, I want to provide more updates on the actions by specific individuals and also complete the full picture. The latter will provide more focus on the company’s role in all this. Of course, what happened to me was the direct result of Patrick Naef’s desire to get rid of me and the overwhelming support that he received from his management and HR. But, at the end of the day, it was the company that terminated my contract based on an outright lie and it needs to be accountable for that. Just as individuals should not hide behind a company, a company has no right to hide behind its individuals. So, at some stage in the future, I will be more than happy to see my readership widen. I think that everyone should have the ability to understand how large and high profile companies (particularly those who vigorously promote their qualities) behave.
So, back to the numbers, the response has been way beyond what I could have imagined. An initial 200 hits were reached in just a few hours, with over 700 in one day. After the initial interest (3,660 in February and 2,009 in March) the figures have been reasonably constant at around 1,200 per month. August was the lowest with just 725, but October was the third highest at 1,448. Daily hit rates vary quite a bit, but 40 is a typical figure, with the lowest at 8.
So, as you can see, any expectations of ‘a couple of dozen’ per update have been vastly exceeded. If I look at the last update as an example, 24 hits were seen within just two hours of it being published. Within 24 hours the figure had reached 98 and it took just over four days to reach 300.
All this is despite the fact that the site has been blocked from the corporate network of its target audience. Whilst, I expected nothing else from Patrick Naef, I would like to understand his justification for such censorship. Maybe the company IT policy has been updated but, in my experience, only obscene, offensive, etc. material was blocked, along with sites which would be so popular as to cause performance issues. The latter’s restrictions were normally limited to the working day. I hardly think that my little blog (with its circa 40 readers a day) would strain any network and certainly not compete with a Test match in terms of interest. But I suppose, for someone who seems to be most comfortable when dealing with mis-information, the truth probably seems pretty offensive.
As I publish this, the total number of hits recorded is 15,322.
As I revealed more information about events, it was probably natural that I would retain a core audience but I would have assumed that, after six months or so, most people would have forgotten about me. So, by mid-year had I seen a couple of dozen readers of each update I would have been more than content.
I have done nothing in terms of SEO. In fact it has been more a case of SEDO - Search Engine De-Optimisation. Initially, I only want readers from the company (and those closely associated with it) so that I can monitor relevant readership. I do not want people stumbling across the site, I want to limit it to a captive audience at the moment. This is the reason why, thus far, I have avoided using the company name and why the blog has such a bland url. Looking at the search terms that lead to my site, it is clear that the approach has been successful. I can count on one hand the number of obvious mis-directs - the overwhelming majority of search terms are very specifically targeted towards the topics and relevant individuals.
The SEDO approach will not always be the right one. For now, I want to provide more updates on the actions by specific individuals and also complete the full picture. The latter will provide more focus on the company’s role in all this. Of course, what happened to me was the direct result of Patrick Naef’s desire to get rid of me and the overwhelming support that he received from his management and HR. But, at the end of the day, it was the company that terminated my contract based on an outright lie and it needs to be accountable for that. Just as individuals should not hide behind a company, a company has no right to hide behind its individuals. So, at some stage in the future, I will be more than happy to see my readership widen. I think that everyone should have the ability to understand how large and high profile companies (particularly those who vigorously promote their qualities) behave.
So, back to the numbers, the response has been way beyond what I could have imagined. An initial 200 hits were reached in just a few hours, with over 700 in one day. After the initial interest (3,660 in February and 2,009 in March) the figures have been reasonably constant at around 1,200 per month. August was the lowest with just 725, but October was the third highest at 1,448. Daily hit rates vary quite a bit, but 40 is a typical figure, with the lowest at 8.
So, as you can see, any expectations of ‘a couple of dozen’ per update have been vastly exceeded. If I look at the last update as an example, 24 hits were seen within just two hours of it being published. Within 24 hours the figure had reached 98 and it took just over four days to reach 300.
All this is despite the fact that the site has been blocked from the corporate network of its target audience. Whilst, I expected nothing else from Patrick Naef, I would like to understand his justification for such censorship. Maybe the company IT policy has been updated but, in my experience, only obscene, offensive, etc. material was blocked, along with sites which would be so popular as to cause performance issues. The latter’s restrictions were normally limited to the working day. I hardly think that my little blog (with its circa 40 readers a day) would strain any network and certainly not compete with a Test match in terms of interest. But I suppose, for someone who seems to be most comfortable when dealing with mis-information, the truth probably seems pretty offensive.
As I publish this, the total number of hits recorded is 15,322.
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Comments on comments
I have generally avoided responding here to specific comments received. If people want a personal response they can include contact details in their comment, or alternatively use the email address I gave in ‘About this blog - 2’ in February. In both cases, I guarantee a reply and anonymity. But there are a few themes which recur and they seem to be increasing in regularity, so I thought I should respond to them here.
A regular theme is along the lines of ‘Why didn’t you speak up while you were here? . . . Patrick Naef’s management probably can’t act on your blog, so why don’t you write to them officially and tell them what went on? . . . Why bother with a blog, why don’t you write to those at the very top of the Group and make them aware of the issues? . . . etc’. The short answer is that I did. But in more detail . . .
All issues I have referred to in my blog (and more) were raised to Patrick Naef regularly. He was fully aware of my concerns. I believe that this was the reason he had me fired - he simply does not like to have his policies questioned. But, as a member of a management team, I always strongly believe in the principles of ‘cabinet responsibility’. On some questions regarding strategy I found myself in a minority of one in the Executive team and I had to (and did) respect that, implementing decisions which I did not agree with. (It is a sobering experience to find yourself inwardly in total agreement with the arguments being put forward by your colleagues in the business, as well as members of your team, but having to rebut them!) But I had no major problem with this - after all, none of us has a monopoly on being right - and, had I not been comfortable, I was perfectly free to move on. As it was, I felt I was adding enough value to the organisation to continue in my role. And I must make it clear that Patrick and I were in full agreement on many (probably over 90%) of EG-IT issues. Unfortunately, the remaining 10% happened to be the bigger ones!
As for ‘going above Patrick’, that is never my style. I reserve such action as ‘last ditch’ and only for issues of phenomenal importance to the company and/or individuals which could not be resolved in any other way. In the normal course of events, I would never betray my boss by bypassing him or her. It was up to me to put forward my arguments and to win them. I failed to do so and that was my problem. It was Nigel Hopkins’ and Gary Chapman’s responsibilities to be satisfied as to how Patrick Naef was managing IT for the Group and it is clear that they were. How they came to that conclusion is a matter for them, but neither of them ever sought any input from me.
You may recall me, back in March (‘Naefed in the back‘), describing Patrick’s desire to unfairly make an individual redundant. This certainly would have qualified as a matter of ‘phenomenal importance’ to which I refer above, as the action desired by Patrick Naef was totally unethical. The EG-IT redundancy exercise was agreed unanimously by the IT Executive as necessary in order to meet the financial targets set by Gary Chapman at the time. It was a very difficult time for everyone and the best we could do was to execute it as fairly as we could. To pollute the process, as Patrick Naef wanted to, would have been, in my view, totally unacceptable and something that I would have had no part in. As I explained at the time (only) to my Wife, had Patrick insisted on getting his own way then I would have taken the matter right to the very top of the Group if necessary and, had that failed, duly resigned from the company.
But, of course, me getting fired was of phenomenal importance to me so naturally I did take matters further, right to the top of the Group in fact. In later blogs I will share details of these communications and I think many readers will be as surprised and as disappointed as I was with the responses (often the lack of any response at all). And, as I stated back in January, I gave them plenty of opportunities to respond properly (for over three months) before I concluded that a blog was the only communication vehicle available to me. I have never known a situation where someone’s management has taken so little interest in what he is doing and how he is doing it. As I also stated earlier - for me this is indeed a unique situation.
I am often asked for more regular updates as well as details about current events. We are still travelling quite a bit but I do try and get something out as often as I can. It is nice to see the blog is still widely read but it is sad that people have to look so far away for information about what is happening in their own department. But, as I am sure you will understand, I cannot comment about specific current issues in EG-IT, given I am not at all in touch with details of events. I have been asked recently why the ‘new SVP’ did not join EG-IT last month but I do not know the gentleman, so I have no idea why he decided not to turn up. All I can do is wonder why, if anyone had a choice in the matter and knew of Patrick Naef‘s record and credentials, they would choose to report to him in any organisation. And of course I remain totally baffled why Patrick Naef spent so much time and effort trying (and failing) to find a ‘new SVP’ when he already had an ‘old SVP’. I always turned up!
I know that the recent press release regarding Mercator Asia has caused consternation and exasperation in business areas as well as across EG-IT but, again, I am not privy to any of the problems there. But that whole exercise bore the same hallmark of most of Patrick Naef’s initiatives - ill conceived and poorly implemented. Initial ideas are normally fairly sound but they are then rigorously pursued without any in depth analysis, without any regard to ‘what could go wrong’ and with no tolerance for any questioning views. Consequently, proposal teams are very small and limited to those content to follow his orders and work within his narrow guidelines. Patrick Naef’s unstoppable tenacity to implement initiatives should be a huge asset to any organisation but, when applied to flawed, expensive and resource draining proposals as it often is, it is lethal.
I also feel that I should respond to a specific comment received recently which requested my views on why the IT Executive team is “so ineffective” as this is a question often asked. I do not think it is necessary for me to defend people but maybe a few words may be helpful.
Each member of the IT Executive has particular skills and I enjoyed working with all of them. We all have strengths and weaknesses and also fit to varying degrees into our roles at any given time. If all of us were sat in roles for which we were totally qualified, none of us would develop and I was thankful to receive help from my colleagues (both offered by them and requested by me) to fill the many gaps I have, as well as pleased to provide some of my experience to my colleagues when appropriate. Such activities always took place out of the formal management framework because Patrick Naef’s style is very much one of ‘instruction’. He talks glibly about ‘consensus management’ but in reality that means that his management team has agreed to his point of view, albeit after a long and often tortuous discussion. Certainly, members of the IT Executive regularly spoke up, but rarely with the vigour with which I did. But I did wonder sometimes, when I found myself outvoted as I stated above, if that was a reflection of true beliefs or just the impact of Patrick’s intimidatory management style.
With genuine open debate at all levels and the total absence of fear of ‘management retribution’, organisations can not only maximise their potential, but also enrich the careers of their staff. You have to have personally experienced such an environment in order to truly believe that. As I see it, EG-IT’s Executive team, indeed EG-IT as a whole, is nowhere near as effective as it could (and should) be because there is no genuine open debate and the fear of management retribution dominates people’s every day lives. In these challenging times, right across the world people with family responsibilities have a serious concern for the stability of their careers but EG-IT staff, given the nature of their residence status, will understandably feel that concern even more strongly. Any individual, or organisation, who sees that as an opportunity to exercise a greater level of control is not only immoral, but also very short sighted.
A regular theme is along the lines of ‘Why didn’t you speak up while you were here? . . . Patrick Naef’s management probably can’t act on your blog, so why don’t you write to them officially and tell them what went on? . . . Why bother with a blog, why don’t you write to those at the very top of the Group and make them aware of the issues? . . . etc’. The short answer is that I did. But in more detail . . .
All issues I have referred to in my blog (and more) were raised to Patrick Naef regularly. He was fully aware of my concerns. I believe that this was the reason he had me fired - he simply does not like to have his policies questioned. But, as a member of a management team, I always strongly believe in the principles of ‘cabinet responsibility’. On some questions regarding strategy I found myself in a minority of one in the Executive team and I had to (and did) respect that, implementing decisions which I did not agree with. (It is a sobering experience to find yourself inwardly in total agreement with the arguments being put forward by your colleagues in the business, as well as members of your team, but having to rebut them!) But I had no major problem with this - after all, none of us has a monopoly on being right - and, had I not been comfortable, I was perfectly free to move on. As it was, I felt I was adding enough value to the organisation to continue in my role. And I must make it clear that Patrick and I were in full agreement on many (probably over 90%) of EG-IT issues. Unfortunately, the remaining 10% happened to be the bigger ones!
As for ‘going above Patrick’, that is never my style. I reserve such action as ‘last ditch’ and only for issues of phenomenal importance to the company and/or individuals which could not be resolved in any other way. In the normal course of events, I would never betray my boss by bypassing him or her. It was up to me to put forward my arguments and to win them. I failed to do so and that was my problem. It was Nigel Hopkins’ and Gary Chapman’s responsibilities to be satisfied as to how Patrick Naef was managing IT for the Group and it is clear that they were. How they came to that conclusion is a matter for them, but neither of them ever sought any input from me.
You may recall me, back in March (‘Naefed in the back‘), describing Patrick’s desire to unfairly make an individual redundant. This certainly would have qualified as a matter of ‘phenomenal importance’ to which I refer above, as the action desired by Patrick Naef was totally unethical. The EG-IT redundancy exercise was agreed unanimously by the IT Executive as necessary in order to meet the financial targets set by Gary Chapman at the time. It was a very difficult time for everyone and the best we could do was to execute it as fairly as we could. To pollute the process, as Patrick Naef wanted to, would have been, in my view, totally unacceptable and something that I would have had no part in. As I explained at the time (only) to my Wife, had Patrick insisted on getting his own way then I would have taken the matter right to the very top of the Group if necessary and, had that failed, duly resigned from the company.
But, of course, me getting fired was of phenomenal importance to me so naturally I did take matters further, right to the top of the Group in fact. In later blogs I will share details of these communications and I think many readers will be as surprised and as disappointed as I was with the responses (often the lack of any response at all). And, as I stated back in January, I gave them plenty of opportunities to respond properly (for over three months) before I concluded that a blog was the only communication vehicle available to me. I have never known a situation where someone’s management has taken so little interest in what he is doing and how he is doing it. As I also stated earlier - for me this is indeed a unique situation.
I am often asked for more regular updates as well as details about current events. We are still travelling quite a bit but I do try and get something out as often as I can. It is nice to see the blog is still widely read but it is sad that people have to look so far away for information about what is happening in their own department. But, as I am sure you will understand, I cannot comment about specific current issues in EG-IT, given I am not at all in touch with details of events. I have been asked recently why the ‘new SVP’ did not join EG-IT last month but I do not know the gentleman, so I have no idea why he decided not to turn up. All I can do is wonder why, if anyone had a choice in the matter and knew of Patrick Naef‘s record and credentials, they would choose to report to him in any organisation. And of course I remain totally baffled why Patrick Naef spent so much time and effort trying (and failing) to find a ‘new SVP’ when he already had an ‘old SVP’. I always turned up!
I know that the recent press release regarding Mercator Asia has caused consternation and exasperation in business areas as well as across EG-IT but, again, I am not privy to any of the problems there. But that whole exercise bore the same hallmark of most of Patrick Naef’s initiatives - ill conceived and poorly implemented. Initial ideas are normally fairly sound but they are then rigorously pursued without any in depth analysis, without any regard to ‘what could go wrong’ and with no tolerance for any questioning views. Consequently, proposal teams are very small and limited to those content to follow his orders and work within his narrow guidelines. Patrick Naef’s unstoppable tenacity to implement initiatives should be a huge asset to any organisation but, when applied to flawed, expensive and resource draining proposals as it often is, it is lethal.
I also feel that I should respond to a specific comment received recently which requested my views on why the IT Executive team is “so ineffective” as this is a question often asked. I do not think it is necessary for me to defend people but maybe a few words may be helpful.
Each member of the IT Executive has particular skills and I enjoyed working with all of them. We all have strengths and weaknesses and also fit to varying degrees into our roles at any given time. If all of us were sat in roles for which we were totally qualified, none of us would develop and I was thankful to receive help from my colleagues (both offered by them and requested by me) to fill the many gaps I have, as well as pleased to provide some of my experience to my colleagues when appropriate. Such activities always took place out of the formal management framework because Patrick Naef’s style is very much one of ‘instruction’. He talks glibly about ‘consensus management’ but in reality that means that his management team has agreed to his point of view, albeit after a long and often tortuous discussion. Certainly, members of the IT Executive regularly spoke up, but rarely with the vigour with which I did. But I did wonder sometimes, when I found myself outvoted as I stated above, if that was a reflection of true beliefs or just the impact of Patrick’s intimidatory management style.
With genuine open debate at all levels and the total absence of fear of ‘management retribution’, organisations can not only maximise their potential, but also enrich the careers of their staff. You have to have personally experienced such an environment in order to truly believe that. As I see it, EG-IT’s Executive team, indeed EG-IT as a whole, is nowhere near as effective as it could (and should) be because there is no genuine open debate and the fear of management retribution dominates people’s every day lives. In these challenging times, right across the world people with family responsibilities have a serious concern for the stability of their careers but EG-IT staff, given the nature of their residence status, will understandably feel that concern even more strongly. Any individual, or organisation, who sees that as an opportunity to exercise a greater level of control is not only immoral, but also very short sighted.
Monday, 5 September 2011
Vanishing axe
There is a saying that goes something like this . . . "To lose one of your managers may be considered misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness". In Patrick Naef’s case the word careless would be a gross understatement, given he has managed to ‘lose’ an entire management team.
I had been reporting to Patrick Naef for less than two years when I became his longest serving manager. Even when working in other companies, where massive head count reductions were the consistent norm, I had never seen such levels of attrition. I had heard stories about Patrick’s short term loyalty to his direct reports in his previous roles, so I was not totally surprised, but to have lost an entire management team in such a short space of time, this took some beating. It has to be remembered that Patrick had already put aside the management team he inherited, so those who had subsequently fell by the wayside were his own appointments.
But, of course, they had all ‘resigned’. This did not unduly surprise me as I was fully aware of how difficult it was working with Patrick Naef and that many of my colleagues found it a particular strain. Also, although new to the expatriate way of life as I was, I could understand that family pressures could be more likely to prompt decisions being taken to move back home.
Of course, I have no reason to doubt what individuals have told me but I could not help but notice how some of their original clear plans to return ‘home’ subsequently changed, leaving me to wonder about the real driving force behind such decisions. And then, a year ago, I found myself being bundled out of the organisation on the pretext of a totally fabricated situation but with a financial inducement should I submit my resignation. I will cover that sordid episode in more detail at another time but included was the ability to delay my departure date in return for a total confidentiality clause. This, of course, would have not only required me to tell everyone that I had decided to move on, but also given me time to warm people up to the idea in advance, e.g. ‘we don’t fancy another summer etc.’.
But Patrick Naef now finds himself in an interesting position. In my experience he has never been capable of improving individuals’ performances by traditional development methods. He simply tells them what he thinks is wrong (but with no guidance as to how to get it ‘right’) and constantly moans about them to others. When that process inevitably fails, he just removes them from their post. And he can never do this properly as, were he to utilise even the most basic of HR processes (e.g. accounting for his actions with some evidence), his proposals would fall at the first hurdle. So the only method available is the one he used against me - misinformation, supported by both HR and management who jumped at his every command. But surely he will not be allowed to do this again? Surely at least one person will now stand up and be counted? Surely someone will ask him, at the very least, to produce some evidence?
And of course Patrick Naef has an even bigger problem. Who would choose to work for him? It would indeed be a brave man or woman, knowing how Patrick Naef behaves, to agree to take up a new role reporting to him. One of my favourite sayings, ‘truth is the daughter of time’, has not fundamentally changed over the years but, in this modern era, the period of time has reduced significantly. Making truthful (and thus durable) information widely available to interested parties is much easier and quicker these days, so most candidates are in a position to gain vital information about possible problems in a role even before the interview stage. And, should someone initially miss out on such details, they have plenty of opportunities to make the necessary enquiries right up to the last minute to avoid making a mistake. A mistake that they may well regret for a considerable time.
I had been reporting to Patrick Naef for less than two years when I became his longest serving manager. Even when working in other companies, where massive head count reductions were the consistent norm, I had never seen such levels of attrition. I had heard stories about Patrick’s short term loyalty to his direct reports in his previous roles, so I was not totally surprised, but to have lost an entire management team in such a short space of time, this took some beating. It has to be remembered that Patrick had already put aside the management team he inherited, so those who had subsequently fell by the wayside were his own appointments.
But, of course, they had all ‘resigned’. This did not unduly surprise me as I was fully aware of how difficult it was working with Patrick Naef and that many of my colleagues found it a particular strain. Also, although new to the expatriate way of life as I was, I could understand that family pressures could be more likely to prompt decisions being taken to move back home.
Of course, I have no reason to doubt what individuals have told me but I could not help but notice how some of their original clear plans to return ‘home’ subsequently changed, leaving me to wonder about the real driving force behind such decisions. And then, a year ago, I found myself being bundled out of the organisation on the pretext of a totally fabricated situation but with a financial inducement should I submit my resignation. I will cover that sordid episode in more detail at another time but included was the ability to delay my departure date in return for a total confidentiality clause. This, of course, would have not only required me to tell everyone that I had decided to move on, but also given me time to warm people up to the idea in advance, e.g. ‘we don’t fancy another summer etc.’.
But Patrick Naef now finds himself in an interesting position. In my experience he has never been capable of improving individuals’ performances by traditional development methods. He simply tells them what he thinks is wrong (but with no guidance as to how to get it ‘right’) and constantly moans about them to others. When that process inevitably fails, he just removes them from their post. And he can never do this properly as, were he to utilise even the most basic of HR processes (e.g. accounting for his actions with some evidence), his proposals would fall at the first hurdle. So the only method available is the one he used against me - misinformation, supported by both HR and management who jumped at his every command. But surely he will not be allowed to do this again? Surely at least one person will now stand up and be counted? Surely someone will ask him, at the very least, to produce some evidence?
And of course Patrick Naef has an even bigger problem. Who would choose to work for him? It would indeed be a brave man or woman, knowing how Patrick Naef behaves, to agree to take up a new role reporting to him. One of my favourite sayings, ‘truth is the daughter of time’, has not fundamentally changed over the years but, in this modern era, the period of time has reduced significantly. Making truthful (and thus durable) information widely available to interested parties is much easier and quicker these days, so most candidates are in a position to gain vital information about possible problems in a role even before the interview stage. And, should someone initially miss out on such details, they have plenty of opportunities to make the necessary enquiries right up to the last minute to avoid making a mistake. A mistake that they may well regret for a considerable time.
Friday, 19 August 2011
About this blog - 5
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’.
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’.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)