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.