Etihad’s Chief Commercial Officer Leaves To A Wave Of Criticism—What Did People Really Think While He Was In Power?

One Mile at a Time reported the abrupt departure of Etihad Chief Revenue & Commercial Officer Arik De last week and followed up on accounts of a deeply dysfunctional management culture. People identifying themselves as current and former employees have alleged bullying, public humiliation, and hostility toward disagreement. Live and Let’s Fly has covered the reaction as well. What fascinates me is how much anger has become visible after the executive left. How much of it was there all along, but people didn’t think they could say it? And how much does the new public consensus influence what people are saying now? In other words, the De situation strikes me as an example of preference falsification the idea laid out by scholar Timur Kuran in Private Truths, Public Lies (1995): People conceal what they really think to avoid social or political costs, creating a false appearance of consensus that can sustain unpopular institutions — which can suddenly collapse when enough people feel free to speak. However, when the new consensus takes shape people rush to embrace the idea that it represents what they believed all along. I wrote in May 2024 about allegations that De used a LinkedIn sock puppet account, Ivander Sebastien, to flatter himself and criticize others. This isn’t a case where everything was unknown until he was gone. However, the allegations in the One Mile at a Time piece and ensuring comments there now include: He might be “the worst human being I have ever encountered in my professional life.” He was “a narcissistic sociopath.” The workplace culture at Etihad “got to the point where I was suicidal.” De was seemingly “almost universally disliked.” That De publicly humiliated employees, punished disagreement through escalating criticism and exclusion, rewarded flattery, and that a corporate event included a quiz identifying which senior executive was De’s favored subordinate. For this purpose, it’s not the truth or falsity of these allegations that is most interesting – it’s that they come out all of a sudden, and there’s a chorus of critics against anyone who disagrees. Abu Dhabi airport terminal. People Can Dislike The Boss While Making Him Look Popular People publicly express preferences that are different from the ones they privately hold because of the consequences of saying what they really think. That’s something we see within organizations and more broadly in society, and it’s been a useful frame for understanding dictatorships. In a company, an employee might think the boss is awful, but the boss controls promotions, assignments, and references. Praising their leadership can be useful. Saying what you think can be costly. Whether withholding an opinion or offering public praise for someone you despise, the boss looks more admired than he is. And employees looking around the room may mistake everyone else’s performance for genuine enthusiasm, leaving each dissenter thinking they’re alone. When the boss leaves, the calculation changes. Someone speaks up. Others employees discover that their complaints are shared and that speaking out carries less risk than they’d assumed before. A large amount of dissatisfaction can become public very quickly, without anyone having changed their private view. Kuran used this distinction to explain the surprise of Eastern Europe’s revolutions in 1989. Suppressed opposition made regimes look stronger than they were. It also kept opponents from knowing how many other people shared their views. His earlier paper, Sparks and Prairie Fires, explains how a small increase in visible opposition can trigger a much larger change. One person’s decision can make the next person’s decision easier. Afterward, the collapse looks obvious. The complaints were everywhere! Except they weren’t visible ex ante which is why people misread how secure the person in power really was. The Pressure Can Reverse After Someone Falls Once a person is gone, critics can often speak freely. But a new prevailing norm develops and even those who didn’t share the view privately before may start expressing it performatively. De does have defenders in the comments. One calling himself Trey says he worked with De at two airlines, including Etihad, and credits his leadership with strong results. Several replies immediately mock him as De in disguise. Whether that’s true or not, you can see the reception someone gets for defending De in that thread. If you had a positive experience with him, or simply thought some accusations were unfair, it might encourage you to keep quiet. The same concern that makes someone reluctant to criticize a powerful boss can make someone reluctant to defend an unpopular former boss, with the pressure coming from colleagues or the crowd this time instead of from the boss. Why I Think About This When Reading Public Opinion Abroad Under Soviet rule, professing loyalty was often safer than saying what you really thought, making the system look more popular and secure than it was. Gorbachev’s reforms loosened the constraints on public criticism, and people began discovering how many others shared their dissatisfaction. Each act of dissent made the next easier, helping apparent unanimity give way to open opposition. After the collapse, the incentives reversed: admitting that you’d supported or benefited from the old regime became problematic. It was advantageous to jump on board the new regime instead. “”we have always been at war with Eastasia.” So it was with Iran in 1978 – 79 where the Shah’s position looked secure to major intelligence services, only to learn that resistance was more widespread than they’d assumed. The Russian monarchy fell quickly in the 1917 February Revolution even surprising the revolutionaries themselves because the army’s loyalty was far less than they’d understood. Incidentally, it always struck me funny that the February and October revolutions were actually in March and November, a function of Russia still using the Julian calendar in 1917, 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar used in the West – Russia switched in 1918, and January 31 was followed by February 14 the next day. Harvey Weinstein offers a grave example here of the power suppressing speech. Weinstein reportedly hired investigators to gather information on accusers and journalists and stop allegations from being published. No one spoke out about him because of his power, influence, and friendships. But as soon as his disgrace becomes public, the incentives changed for former his associates who suddenly never met the man. I think about this a lot when trying to understand something like Palestinian public opinion in Gaza. They voted for Hamas, but that was 20 years ago. Today, criticizing the people with guns who take you away and torture you is dangerous so public polling can’t really be relied upon. If Hamas is ever truly displaced, of course, those who supported them will suddenly join the chorus of critics. This is fear that a dictatorship wants to instill, because it preserves power. For an airline (or any company), a manager who makes disagreement costly deprives themselves of information about bad route forecasts, unrealistic schedules, and commercial plans that won’t work. That hurts executive and company performance. Topics on this page