When an executive leaves after one year, it’s a failure.

In this case the official version is that Angelika Dammann left for personal reasons due to increasing criticism about her use of the company jet for personal reasons (to fly home to Hamburg).

Who (could have) screwed up?

The board?

The board hired her. Fact is: boards often hire people without any concept and/or for the wrong reasons. The reasoning maybe have gone something like this: our new vp of hr should have 20 years progressive experience at F500 companies. A woman would be ideal so she can lead our diversity initiative… The reasons are always easy to explain, the concept is almost always missing!

Maybe the board followed a herd mentality:

More and more DAX concerns are launching gender quota initiatives and it seems there maybe some competition going on: who’s first, etc. The peer pressure is increasing. Angelika Dammann was the first woman on SAP’s board. Maybe the board felt it was high time to bring one in… this is certainly a reason, but not a concept!

Hypocrisy?

The F500 is hypocritical; paradoxical as it may sound, there is nothing wrong facing this! There is no such thing as a perfect business organization. C teams are following their own careers and there is no such thing as “common good”; it’s a zero sum game. Employees who only get salaries (no dividends) may certainly be pissed off when the VP of HR is flying to Hamburg on a private jet while she managing layoffs; the fact that she’s making approximately half the money than other members of the C team doesn’t make them any less pissed off. The definition of leadership in such an environment is somewhat adjusted to one’s own interpretation.

Angelika Dammann?

She brought defendable and applicable experience to the role and she cut a deal with the board. The deal with the paid flights and private jets (as far as I know from news reports) was for 1 year. The problem may have arised when she wanted to extend it. Cutting deals is totally normal and it always happens when both parties perceive the value more or less the same way. If one party is out of whack, it won’t happen. It’s difficult to judge from where I am standing who was out of whack, but this deal did not happen. Although there is no scientific proof that there is a relationship between wanting to include rights to use the corporate jet for private purposes in the compensation package and over-estimating one's own worth (commonly referred to as ego issues) I think it's not unreasonable to assume that this could have been a factor.

Official statements are always a coverup. This one is all about private jets; the real reason is always much more interesting, although often much less colorful (not fitting in, not performing, personal agendas, etc.).

What’s next for Angelika Dammann? Quite fashionably: doing coaching and mentoring while finding the next corporate gig. I guess people who can afford to provide their coach or mentor with a jet may not think they need a coach (...cheap shot but I couldn't resist)

www.prakhsis.com/contact