Airservices CEO Resigns
 

Friday, July 31, 2015 03:00 PM AUS Eastern Standard Time

Subject: Resignation of Margaret Staib

I regretfully advise that Margaret Staib has decided not to seek another term and to resign from her positon of Chief Executive Officer for personal and health reasons, effective from 10 August 2015.

Margaret has made a significant contribution to the organisation and industry and has achieved considerable successes during her term.

On behalf of Airservices Australia, I would like to thank Margaret for her service and contribution.

Mr Jason Harfield has been appointed as Airservices’ Acting CEO to assist with the transition of Ms Staib’s responsibilities until a successor to the role of CEO has been appointed.

We will more formally acknowledge Margaret’s contribution on her return from leave.

Margaret will be missed and I wish her all the best for the future.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston, AK, AFC (Ret’d)
Chair
Airservices Australia

Spot the difference...
 

See, there is a difference between the RAAF where you can order someone to do something, and and a tower block full of bureaurats that may not do as you want, even if its Government policy.

Love all the usual departure platitudes, even McComic got a hagiography:eek:
after " not renewing his contract" (sic)

Her go at ASA was a Staib in the dark.

Please slam the door to make your point regarding doing a bunk..
cheers.

ps what did all that cost the taxpayer ??

Yes, its always 'not renewing their contract' or 'not seeking another term' and always for 'health reasons' or 'family reasons'. Stock standard stuff these days from Politicians, bureaucrats et al. Always followed by their superiors (who have just wielded the axe in most cases) singing their praises about what a great job they did. Sickening :yuk:.

I think I could be forgiven for thinking that there was "a difference of opinions" between Marg and Sir Angus. Marg did the right thing. There has to be a shared vision between CEO and Chairman. Sir Angus sounds like a real prat. Accepting a title being one of the indicators.

Sir Angus probably achieved more in a day then you have in a hundred posts Sunfish.

The enthusiasm of individuals on this forum to tear down people they do not know is a source of bewilderment to me. It you are so smart Sunfish, and others of that ilk, I am sure that you will be applicants for the vacant position.!!!

Unfortunately I have had my time at the higher altitudes inhabited by politicians, and others of the great and good. On occasion, vary, very rarely, i have even been listened to by same.

I have also seen the same at their less than perfect moments and learned the hard way that they are no better, and no worse than the rest of us mere mortals.

You want me to explain? How about gentlemen of high office asking young females to give over? How about the same pursuing vendettas against similarly distinguished folk? How about government Ministers sacking underlings for stuffing up social functions? You don't think it happens? Poor you!

As i observed, Stalbs departure coincides with Houstons arrival. Given what I know about the symbiotic relationship between a Chairman and CEO (which you obviously don't) could I be forgiven for thinking that Stalb and Houston "don't see eye to eye". Could I be forgiven for thinking that this is why Stalb has resigned?

I am unfortunately aware of many great and good who have feet of clay. "Their blood is worth bottling" sorry if you really think that.

To put that another way: have you ever loaded out a problem to someone you looked up to, a household name, only to get a metaphorical boot in your face?

"Sir" Angus. Says it all, really. The best Angus i know are the few I feed occasionally.


To put that another way: I don't care what went on in the Mess. Not that I am a perfect example in that regard.

A post in haste lays regard to waste.

It may not have been intended, Sunny, but one could infer that you are smearing Houston, given that the core of your diatribe is about Angus. Your following is particularly offensive when read in conjunction with the overall tone of your missive:

Do you know Houston, Sunny? Have you ever worked for him, like I did in a past life? Do you have any inkling of his personal goodness, integrity and honor?

Your little spray has just lowered, probably irrevocably, my opinion of you.

To find some, some excuse, I'll credit you with something akin to the streakers' defence. 'I was p155ed at the time your honor.'

If so, look at yourself in the mirror in the morning, take a Berocca, then give yourself a right-hook.

As a general observation, we all need to keep the booze cabinet and the keyboard squarely separated.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I do not intend to smear Angus Houston either. I merely made Two observations:

1. The relationship between a CEO and their Chairman is critical and its personal and it has to be a relationship of mutual respect, trust and empathy. In addition the Chairmans one job is to appoint or remove the CEO if, in their and the Boards opinion, the CEO is failing to advance the business. The Chairman doesn't run the business.

And what do we see? Grounds for any self respecting CEO to resign, to wit, Sir Angus opening his yapper (from another prune thread on Unicoms}, I thought this was odd at the time if it is reported correctly:

As I said in my original post: "A difference of opinion" - the Chairman does NOT intervene in the business and this is exactly what Houston appears to have done.

To put that another way, the Chairman does not have the controls, except for one, the CEO ejector seat switch.

2. As for taking a Knighthood, that makes Houston unwise. An obviously non empathetic person since he isn't in tune with 99% of the Australian population as demonstrated by Abbotts almost immediate rescinding of these awards. This sets of the "narcissist alarm bell" in my head.

3. Is Houston a good bloke? How would I know? Why would I care? I wish him well and I know of nothing to bring him, into hatred ridicule or contempt.
However when someone here tries to elevate a personage to sainthood, I say beware.

I have personally known Two "great leaders" - household names,, both AO's, who have done great things for the community - but in private life are vicious, petty arseholes. There are many others you can read about from time to time if you know what to look for.

This is not to suggest that Houston is anything other than a nice bloke, a great leader and a national treasure, but….I have learned the hard way not to trust such imagery.

To put that another way, just because Angus Houston is a great military leader, why does that make him fit to be Chairman of Airservices?

Sunfish, this is rubbish on 2 counts.
Firstly, how can you possibly know what 99% of Australians are in tune with?
Secondly, Abbott didn't rescind these awards. He announced that he accepted that him doing the picking wasn't popular and that future selections would be made by the same mob that do the selecting for all other Australian awards. Your statement is contrary to the facts.

Sunfish - take a Bex and have a good lie down, further posts by you on this matter just shows you digging a very deep hole for yourself. As to your last dig about Sir AH being a great military leader and not necessarily being fit to Chair ASA, why don't you use your logic and call the PM and tell him to remove the Governor General. You display someone with a serious chip on their shoulder - well said vag277 and Ozbiggles. BTW, I'm not ex military, but have met Sir AH on several occasions and can only describe him as a decent and obviously respected man. Sunfish, you got this one wrong, full stop.

Well Sunfish, if you were setting out to get a rise out of people you've succeeded. You'll obviously write whatever you like, but your opinions dressed up as fact and intimations of insider knowledge about the workings of high level appointments come across as simple **** stirring.

'Appears to have done' ... you must be fit, all this jumping to conclusions.

In your opinion.

Offensive and petty. I bet you wouldn't say it to his face.

Irrelevant - are you trying to say Angus misbehaved in private life, or that playing up in the Mess is a mark of unsuitability for roles of responsibility, or just have a shot at the military in general?

Far from it, if you know him.
As previously noted, your opinion only.

Pity it didn't set off the "rhetoric" alarm bell

No-one's trying to do that, you're trying to drag him down for some reason though.

Why would you write this unless trying to smear Angus by association?

QUOTE]I have learned the hard way not to trust such imagery.
[/QUOTE] Good on you champ; we all have too, so please cut the patronising tone.

It doesn't, directly, but many of the qualities he has demonstrated in both public office and previous roles can and do stand him in good stead for such a job.

Stick to facts and relevant observation and you'll be listened to.

Ah but this board would be so dry and boring without a bit of drama and artistic licence!

:eek::eek::eek:

PG

Sunny, for mine your reply doesn't cut it and you have done yourself a grave and compounding disservice in attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

The hole you've dug is deep enough. Put away the shovel sport - right now, and IMHO, your credibility is shot to sh*t.

I stand by what I said. If you don't like it, too bad.

The facts of the matter is that Stalb went after one term. This is unusual. The usual reason for this is as I said "a difference of opinion" between the Board (led by its Chairman) and the CEO.

For Houston to speak publicly as chairman about the use of fire fighters for Unicom is, under any rules of corporate governance I am aware of, is just bizarre.

To put that another way, Chairmen don't express opinions about operational matters, that is the CEO's job.

To put that yet another way; Houston if reported correctly, took the CEO's authority as his own, unless he was speaking with her permission and at her request. That if true, is enough for any CEO to resign.

As for the "great and good" I am sure Houston is a wonderful guy, highly intelligent, hard working, gifted, a great leader of men, bon vivant, raconteur, etc. etc.

However that does NOT mean he is the perfect Chairman for anything, nor does it preclude the possibility that he dislikes Stalb or anyone else for that matter. Nor does it preclude the possibility that he intends to run air services the way he decides. That was my point.

I was part of the team that removed Don Dunstan from his position with the Victorian Tourism Authority in 1986 precisely because that was exactly what he did - attempted to run it himself. I have also crossed swords with Two "great and good" who as I have said are less than perfect gentlemen if the truth were known. I am thus sorrier and wiser for the experience - my motto now is trust, but verify.

That's another fail.

Once again, just stick the spade away in the shed. The self-justification is getting pathetic to watch.

Sunfish, I know you have a lot of haters on here, but I like your style. I note that you make reference to Don Dunstan. I just hope you weren't part of his little group down there mate, if you get my point?
Anyway, keep speaking your mind and to hell with the haters.

Thank you all for your comments. May I suggest that the major issue is what happens to Airservices from now on? My own opinion is that the fact that Stalb is a one term CEO is of "concern".

It may be that I am wrong for a number of reasons it is unfair to enumerate. All the best Marg.

Sunfish knows more about these situations than the lot of you put together. He's proven his knowledge over and over and over again. If any of you had any brains you'd realise something is going on behind the scenes at ASA. And he's correct, ex RAAF have no business being heads at either ASA or CASA. They have no real world commercial experience, their nuts & own assets have never been on the chopping block. I'm talking about business not defence of the country.

Trivial perhaps but her name is actually Margaret Staib.

Oh, Porter, I could equally argue that someone, other than ex-RAAF, might, and I emphasize might, just allow themselves to be influenced by personal prejudice and cause total chaos and division in an industry that can ill-afford it.

Whatever you do, don't mention NAS. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

Sen. Heffernan told her months ago that she needed a 'clean out' at executive level, and she chose to ignore the advice. The 'boys club' had their way in the end.

At least Harfields 'interim' secondment means he wont get the (much desired) position in the end. SDE anyone? Great advice!!

p.s Sunfish, Staib at least stood her ground. Look at the number of EGMs that Greg Russell sacked..He employed them.

Howabout, you reckon Gerry Harvey should run the RAAF? Or perhaps Greg Russell?

Harfield, spare me, and all the other useless dead****s that floor walk in Canberra. If the airlines knew the calibre or credentials of the idiots running ASA they'd refuse to pay their bills. And they'd be justified. All the little empires & kingdoms that have been built in the joint would surprise the most cynical.

Keep posting Sunfish.




I have met Angus.

Paragraph:

Since all the participants are mostly dead I think I can tell this story, even if it is off topic and there is no suggestion its related to events at Airservices or anywhere else. I was a small cog in this story which is quite short. There were Three of us involved.

After Don gave up South Australian politics, he moved to Victoria to take up public office (which in my opinion he still hankered for) as Director of Tourism for the Cain Labor Victorian Government in 1982. He had a Board, and a budget, to assist him and their mission, was to revitalise the Victorian tourism industry.

Around late 1985 Don had the feeling that "things weren't going to plan" in the Victorian tourist industry and to his credit, he hired a major management consulting firm to find out what was going on. Two of our people started an interview and data gathering process.

After about a month they came to see me in my corporate strategy cubicle and over a cuppa they said words to the effect:"look Sunfish, what do we do? We have found the source of the problems……and it's Don! The bloke who is paying us". I thought for a while, consulted my crystal ball, looked at the tea leaves and made a suggestion: "This is a rather delicate problem fellas". Says I, "lets have a word in private with the Premiers Chief of Staff".

So we arranged to have a quiet word with Cains Chief of Staff (whose name now escapes me) and laid out our problem - including the fact that we had agreed to give a draft report to Don for comment. Chief of Staff solved our problem for us : "OK boys! From now on you are working for me!".

What we had found in Tourism Victoria was that quite simply Don was "too big" and too "hands on" for the position. The Board had entirely abrogated its responsibilities to Don. Everything was going to be done his way or the highway. The staff were completely demoralised and perhaps most importantly, Tourism Victoria, and by definition Don, had completely lost the trust of the Victorian Tourism industry with predictable economic results. There was no malice or stupidity involved, as a former successful Premier, Don just couldn't help himself and his "style" didn't bring people along with him.

We dutifully prepared a draft report, which I proofread many times and submitted it to Don for comment. We had already told him that the Premier, not Tourism Victoria, was paying our bill and that the final report would go to the Premier. Don's comment: "Fellas, if this gets out I won't hold public office ever again".

We made Three copies of the final report, one for our safe, One for Don and One for the Premier.

I was told that John Cain simply rang Don and said words to the effect that: " Mate, I have this report, but I haven't read it, if you were to decide to resign I wouldn't need to read it because it would be irrelevant." Don dutifully resigned for personal or other reasons and that was that.

I was pestered by some senior public servants for the report or its details for a few months. They knew it existed but that was all. I think I can tell this story now as the Thirty year rule should apply.

Draw conclusions about the wisdom and potential pitfalls of senior people from one walk of life jumping into another if you will, success is not assured. I know that whenever I hear of some great and good person stepping into another career, I think of poor Don.

Bamboozled by the implication, Porter; can't quite make the connection. Are you suggesting that National Defence should be run as a 'business?' You've got me on that one. And that does not mean that I disagree as regards competence.

To wit, Hempy and SDE. What a total crock. On my side of the fence, we fell around laughing at the abject stupidity and the way it was swallowed - we genuinely felt sorry for you guys. I remember going to a few meetings and watching bosses, with no aviation grounding, grasping the concept as if it was being delivered as the 'Holy Grail.'

Que to Azervicestan and coffee-flavoured coffee, plus the shiny suits.

No names, but the mob that were then there, and are still now, have nothing more than a few years on enroute before scuttling off to the protection of management jobs. On the other hand, thank Christo for that. I'd hate to be SLF if these guys were doing APP.

Sunny, stop shoveling. The reference to Donny is loose at best.

Howabout, businessmen should not be running defence. Conversely, ex RAAF should not be running businesses.

That sounds like a statement that should follow, but it doesn't.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying working in an upper level defence post makes you fit for running anything, and it beats me how some people get up the ladder. However ...

Ex-RAAF can and do run businesses, and (for the right individuals) their higher level defence work makes them pretty good candidates for other top jobs.

The budgets they have had to manage are far from limitless, the people they lead do not simply jump to obey, they need to know how to work in and provide direction for large and complex organisations.

Generalising about this stuff isn't appropriate. I've raised the question before about what is the right breeding ground for people to fill these kinds of senior post, without suggesting that ex-military is the only way to go. It's one obvious route, but what are the others? Small business owners would probably be out of their depth, and yes, some ex-military aren't suitable either, but don't tar everyone with the same brush.

At board/CEO level, it's not the 'experience' (RAAF vs civil) that counts so much as the qualities of the individual. Sadly, it would seem, in this great land those qualities diminish the further up the food chain one manges to accomplish.

There was an ex CEO of Air NZ who, before his time, put it all reasonably succinctly..

"I don't need to look after the Government, the Board, the shareholders or my customers. I just need to look after my staff. If I do that properly the rest will look after itself".

1990's US management practice is still alive and well in Aus. We'll learn one day :ugh:

Which is it then, Sunfish? :rolleyes:

Succinctly put INTBH!

Those two contradictory statements also had me wondering. It's a shame, because I always regarded some of Sunny's previous observations on this forum as among the better that I have read.

Consequently, and on reflection, I'll just say that most of us have had a brain-fart at some stage (I know that I have). Maybe this was Sunny's and we need to move on.

It is possible to be a "good bloke", "a real prat", "a proper bastard" and an absolute idiot, all at the same time.

The difference is the audience as well as the "life" that is being portrayed.

As Gabriel Garcia Marquez observed, all people lead Three lives: the public, the private and the secret.

So yes, I'm sure Sir H. is a great guy in Mess, in the cockpit and in a lot of other places. However that does NOT mean automatically that he should chair anything.

It is my opinion that he was less than wise to accept a knighthood, which is a bizarre throwback to Tony Abbots past, completely out of keeping with Australias traditions, at least where we see ourselves these days. To my mind, that tells me something about Houstons belief system.

To put that another way, as I've said now in many different ways. Just because someone is lionised for their achievements does not automatically make them either (a) a nice person or (b) capable of taking on all sorts of new challenges.

To put that yet another way in reverse: President Lincoln, when told that his most successful General, Ulysses S. Grant, was a habitual drunkard, is said to have exclaimed: "then find out what he is drinking and send some to my other Generals!"

To make my point again: I find the early departure of Margaret Stalb troubling and the comments by a Chairman wading into a debate about Unicoms bizarre. Putting Two and Two together and jumping a mile to a conclusion, I wonder of Stalb ever had, or believed she was going to have, Houstons full support? Perhaps if I had explained myself that way I would not have to write the text of organisational behaviour 101 yet again. That is all.

Sunfish,


I'll try once again.

Her name is Margaret Staib. (Not: Stalb.)

Actually G111,

Her name is

Margaret Staib, AM, CSC

but that is just being trivial :p

Margaret was probably the most principled CEO ASA has had. She was backstabbed by a bunch of cretins that learn't their craft under the most unprincipled turd of a CEO that ASA has ever had.

Just because Margaret was principled doesn't mean she was right for the job unfortunately.

Well appreciated, Slugfest! :)

Why? What's the point? What does it achieve? Perhaps it time for ASA to be brought back to the fold (aka The Department)?

Unfortunately, being principled and doing the right thing don't get you promoted these days, so unlikely to see any decent management any time soon.
Combine it with the rise of the professional manager (who come straight from university, bypassing real world experience and life lessons), into mid tier management, and you won't see a change from 2-4 year bonuses all round management terms and me first management styles for another generation.
I wonder if the management degrees have ass kissing modules in the curriculum?