Other than a couple of exceptions, it is a 'cut and paste' from the original email. The two exceptions are:
- I have removed one complete paragraph. It provided an example of an appalling episode when Patrick Naef publicy humiliated an individual. Although I did not name the individual, I still feel that its inclusion here could cause embarassment and this is the last thing that I would want to do.
- I have removed two sentences which refer to Dnata external business practices. This blog is probably not the appropriate vehicle to air them.
Naturally, if I could be sure that the entire document would reach Gary Chapman, I would re-insert the missing text and send it to him again..
Gary
I trust you are well. I also hope that this email reaches you and is not intercepted in some way by Patrick. You will note that I have marked this as confidential and it, along with your response, will remain confidential. However, if I do not receive a meaningful reply from you to the request I make at the end of this email, I will assume that it has fallen foul of Patrick’s continued process of blocking my communications into the Group and I will publish it on my blog. That is the only vehicle I am aware of which is totally safe from Patrick’s censorship activities and the only way I will be certain that it can be seen by you and thus receive your attention.
Debacle
We may not be in line with each other in some areas, but I am certain that we agree on one thing - the manner of my termination has been nothing short of a debacle. I have never seen such a botched operation. With hindsight everyone would wish that they had done things differently. On my list is the fact that I should have done more in explaining to you what my issues were (and still are). When we (far too) briefly met, I said to you that “I wish you knew more”. You obviously had your reasons not to pursue this, but I should have been more forceful. At that meeting I quickly concluded that Patrick had done another of his masterful jobs in ‘closing down all avenues’ but I should have persevered. So, belatedly, I will summarise what some of the ‘more’ would have included. I also should have spent more effort in explaining to you what issues I had (and always will have) with the manner of my termination. So I will do that here as well. I will cover other points too.
More
Had you seen how the initial meeting with me was conducted by Patrick, Sophia and Malini you would have immediately smelt a rat and you would have realised that the picture that had been painted for you was far from the complete one. This meeting was appalling and would not have done justice to a back street outfit, let alone a global company. Seeing Sophia’s incredulous look when Patrick announced that he “had to remove me from (my) post”, it was clear that the operation had not even been properly rehearsed. The following day both Patrick and Sophia agreed that this meeting had been a disaster. As soon as Sophia left the room, Patrick (characteristically) blamed it all on HR.
[Paragraph removed]
Had you been aware that Nigel did not conduct a single one to one meeting with me in the four plus years I was a member of the IT Executive team, you may not have been so quick to assert to me “you know how thorough Nigel is”. Nigel Hopkins, as Executive Vice President of (among other functions) IT agreed to have me (Senior Vice President of IT Customer Solutions) removed from my post and have my contract terminated without even speaking to me. And when I challenged him on this at my termination meeting he incredibly responded with “But you never spoke to me either”. I still have difficulty believing he said that.
Issues with my termination
Every human being has a right to a fair hearing. I did not even get a hearing.
Dnata (you) and I entered into a contract in July 2006. I signed that contract in good faith. At the time I assumed that you did too. I honoured that contract to the letter. You did not honour that contract. For me, this is not acceptable.
I honestly believed at the time, and still do, that my termination was not in the best interests in the Group. IT in the Emirates Group is complex and I firmly believed that I had ‘got my head around all the issues’ and could help pave the way for a successful compromise of all the competing forces and, above all, deliver the IT service the Group needs.
Like all large IT organisations, EG-IT needs a ‘Chief Operations Officer’. That was me. There’s nothing particularly clever about this job, but someone needs to do it and not many people want to. Ironically, the only people who fully understand the job are those who do it. Somehow, I ended up doing it for most of my career and it became my forte. Take away all the Patrick Naef/IGI mutually fulfilling hype and look at the facts. Take a look at the operational service provided each year to the business during the critical months of July/August. When I arrived in the summer of 2006 I watched in horror as systems failed regularly, around 300 major outages in a quarter. It was clear that this could not continue. A close examination of the Data Centre revealed that, without remedial work, we would not have survived the summer of 2007, but much more also needed to change. Everyone thought I was mad when I imposed a change freeze for the summer period. Everyone became tired of me sending out ‘don’t touch anything’ messages during each summer. But have a look at the true statistics of outages and resulting flight delays during July and August of 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Now have a look at the 2011 figures. Who was your Chief IT Operations Officer in August 2011?
I certainly was not the most popular manager in EG-IT - ironically many people thought I was Patrick’s henchman! But people knew where they were with me - open and honest. At the end of the day, that is all staff really want. And I was making headway along the lines of ‘at least we can trust this guy’. This is fundamental in gaining the ‘hearts and minds’ of your staff, but it takes time. But I was getting there. Firing me not only stopped this important process, it has probably killed it off forever.
I send you this email from Bangkok. In early 2010 my wife was trying to persuade me to make a visit here. I was not too keen at the time and managed to fend her off with the assertion that “if Patrick insists on implementing his latest ‘good idea’, it will only be a matter of time before I have to go there and sort out the mess”. Now Margaret has succeeded, I run round the park here every morning thinking that it would not take long for someone with the right experience (and a bit of common sense) to unravel the mayhem created by Patrick’s actions. Running is one of my main passions, as is applying some order to chaotic organisations.
Current levels of morale in EG-IT
Someone recently called me and asked me to ‘do something’ about the current state of affairs in EG-IT. The suggestion was that I should write to the Chairman and an offer was made to me to provide examples of the current issues and staff concerns. I explained that this would be a waste of time and that my email would simply be forwarded to you, that you would forward it to Nigel and that Nigel would forward it to Patrick (a measure of how well Patrick has stitched this exercise up). Patrick would then spend the next few months pursuing a vicious witch hunt in order to discover the source of the information. My negative and resigned response was received with a bit of surprise and disappointment and, on reflection, I later agreed. But I thought I would first write to you, hence this email.
I do not know whether to pity or envy you. You clearly have an enormous problem on your hands with EG-IT but, equally, surely no-one has a more committed and dedicated workforce. Even people who have left the company still express their concern about both their ex-colleagues and the Group’s customers. I will not pretend to have many positive thoughts about the company itself at the moment, but I do still very much care for EG-IT and its customers.
I can assure you that morale in EG-IT continues to decline. I do not know what information is fed to you but, if it is positive, I can assure that it is not true. No-one will dare voice concerns, not even to their colleagues for fear of a leak and the inevitable retribution. A staff survey will tell you nothing. I was told that people are convinced that the so called confidential comments on the (2008, I believe) staff survey were given to Patrick, their contributors identified and this was used as the selection criteria for redundancies in 2009. I know that the HRM at the time would never have allowed such a thing and I have told people that. It was even suggested that I clarify this in my blog - what irony, the only vehicle which staff believe!
Attrition rates are too often measured solely in percentages. The result is inevitably an indictment of the prevailing job market, not staff morale and how they see their futures. It is much more relevant to look at how many at the top end of the ‘key man dependency’ list have left. When these people leave, the levels of dismay in the business fall to new levels and the knock on impact on colleagues’ morale increases the downward spiral. I understand that some pretty valuable individuals have decided to move on.
Ethics
Where does Dnata sit in terms of corporate ethics? [Two sentences removed] But I was always confident that the organisation would treat its people with fairness and with dignity. But that certainly did not happen to me. I appreciated that you had been mis-informed, disappointed that you had not been more thorough but accepted that you are a busy man. But, over a year later, you are now in possession of a lot more facts and still have not acted in any way to put matters right. Any individual at the top of any organisation, while clearly accountable for everything in that organisation, can be excused for not being close enough to know exactly what has been going on, but only for so long. Most issues evaporate over time, some taking longer than others. But some simply never go away and these have to be dealt with at some stage - always the sooner the better.
Someone said to me many months ago “although the detail has been a revelation, we all knew it anyway” referring to Patrick’s behaviours. Over time, the interest and questions have moved on from Patrick and much more towards his management. A couple of people wondered recently along the lines of ‘what on earth goes on in his one to ones with Nigel?’. And someone wrote to me, helpfully, suggesting I write to Nigel and tell him all about the issues. This person actually had confidence in Nigel to do something about it and I wondered how he will feel when he hears details of Nigel’s lack of involvement (other than to provide the rubber stamp) in my dismissal.
Talk
It simply beggars belief that no-one spoke to me constructively - not Patrick, not Nigel, not Sophia, not Malini, nor you - about Patrick‘s sudden concerns. Instead, a sledgehammer approach was employed and no-one seemed capable (or even willing) to alter it. I am still totally bemused by this as we could have easily worked something out. In all the time I worked for Dnata, no-one ever asked me what my career aspirations were, or what my plans were for the future. That is nothing short of disgraceful and it turned out to be very damaging indeed.
I was always willing to talk about the situation. Even on the last day I spent in EGHQ I reminded Malini that I had always been willing to talk, but that the company had refused to engage. That situation has not changed.
Lie
How many people do you know have been fired and only found out the reason when they arrived home and read their termination letter? It happened to me. Worst of all, in my case the ‘reason’ was a total fabrication. Do you think that is acceptable practice for Dnata?
My termination letter was slid across the desk to me and immediately followed up with the offer to resign. I had to resign there and then when, of course, the termination letter would have been retrieved. The plan was that I would never have read it.
The reason cited for my termination is a lie. The letter I have received is libellous. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have seen it yet I do not know of anyone who believes what you have written in it. Malini may have signed it, but as President of the company, it is your letter.
You endorsed it back in September 2010, but my question is “do you believe and endorse it now?”.
Request
I have a very simple, and I believe reasonable, request of you. I am confident that people across EG-IT, and indeed across the Group, would see it as reasonable too. I would like you to either, please:
Confirm that I truly did intentionally refuse to obey Patrick’s reasonable instructions as stated in my termination letter and provide me with the examples that you were given at the time.
or:
Withdraw the statement that I intentionally refused to obey Patrick’s reasonable instructions.
I sincerely hope that you respond to this email in the same spirit with which it is sent.
Regards
Tom Burgess
No comments:
Post a Comment