London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

The Swiss firm in 2024 advised CRH on what the company described as a “rigorous programme” to identify Manifold’s successor, while in 2013 it ran the process that led to his appointment as CEO of the Irish company, according to annual reports.

Egon Zehnder declined to comment on its work with Manifold but said it applied “well-established assessment and referencing standards to all our mandates, including independent third-party due diligence”.

Before Manifold stepped down as chief executive, he briefly considered pursuing the role of chair at CRH, a job switch that had never occurred at the company, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

He ultimately decided against the move, one of the people said, and the board instead appointed him a special adviser and retained Richie Boucher as chair.

Manifold’s abrupt exit from BP also raises questions over whether he was suited to a non-executive position as chair, particularly at a British company where the role is typically more restrained.

One former adviser said Manifold’s strengths as a demanding CEO did not naturally translate to the role of chair, which requires consensus-building skills.

Another former colleague said he was puzzled when BP appointed him to a non-executive role, given his apparent management style.

“It makes no sense that BP hired him.”

Following his ousting and media coverage of his alleged behaviour, Manifold told reporters he had fought to cut “unnecessary and excessive expenditure” at BP.

“I made my own coffee, bought my lunch in the local café,” he said. “I sat in a small office, eschewing the grand corner-office privilege of previous chairmen.”

Accounts by former colleagues at CRH highlight a contrast between the frugal tone struck by Manifold at BP and opulent events for senior staff that took place during his tenure leading the cement company.

At one, about eight years ago, CRH invited hundreds of top performers along with a travelling sommelier to Rome, where they spent several nights at the Waldorf Astoria’s five-star Cavalieri hotel and were offered perks including Ferrari test drives, according to three people familiar with the event.

Between networking and presentations, employees took tours of the city and cooking classes.

CRH held similar events in warm-weather destinations including Spain and Florida, according to two people who attended.

One year, about 30 top managers gathered at Singapore’s Fullerton hotel, according to people familiar with the excursion, which included a side-trip by private jet to Manila, from where they flew by helicopter to visit a newly acquired cement plant in the Philippine jungle.

While some relished the experience, others disliked spending long periods away from their families, according to two people who cited an inside joke at the company about the “Lonely Housewives of CRH”.

Another executive said he “chuckled” when he saw Manifold’s comments on cutting costs at BP, given what he described as “gross” expenses for meetings in luxury venues.

After several years of these trips, CRH decided to rein in the spending, according to people familiar with the matter. One former employee said: “For a global company selling rocks and blocks, they thought it was over the top to be doing these extreme, white-glove events.”

Manifold’s lawyers said the gatherings were of the kind that were “entirely standard” in a multinational business.

A spokesperson for the businessman said his mandate at CRH was “to grow shareholder value, build a global business, win market share and cement relationships across multiple continents. His objective as chair of BP was entirely different.”

Manifold was no stranger to Egon Zehnder, the executive search firm that helped BP recruit him.

In a statement following his ousting from the oil major, Manifold said: “in my 40-year working career, I have never once had accusations made against me such as those made in recent days. I dispute entirely this characterisation of my conduct.”

Not everyone agreed that Manifold’s conduct was unacceptable, with some arguing he was simply a demanding leader with high standards.

One person who worked closely with Manifold at CRH described him as “a force”, saying he was “hard-charging” and “tough” but “never crossed the line”.

Several praised him for his strategic vision and ability to oversee a vast corporate empire with almost 80,000 employees across nearly 30 countries.

Under his leadership from 2014 to 2024, the company’s stock surged almost 400 per cent, helped by steadily improving profitability, raising its market capitalisation to more than $60bn.

CRH continued a deal streak under Manifold, operating like a buyout firm that bought and sold assets and then used the proceeds to invest in other operations or conduct share buybacks.

But the Irishman also brought greater focus, realising that CRH needed to prioritise core businesses and simplify its structure to win over investors — and spearheading two of the company’s transformative moves.

CRH’s 2015 acquisition of assets from Holcim and Lafarge, which cleared the way for a merger between the Swiss and French cement giants, turned it into the world’s third-largest building materials supplier.

That €6.5bn deal added 15,000 employees and a much stronger presence in cement and aggregates in the US and Canada, as well as core European locations such as France, Germany and the UK and some emerging markets.

Manifold also oversaw the 2023 move of CRH’s primary listing from London to New York to tap deeper capital pools, economic growth and construction demand in North America, which accounted for almost 75 per cent of group earnings.

He was rewarded for his success. Manifold was the third-best-paid executive in the FTSE 100 in 2022 with a package worth £11.68mn, according to an annual study from the High Pay Centre. The following year he was listed as the highest-paid Irish executive by remuneration tracker Paygap.ie.

US buyout group CD&R recognised his talent, hiring him in July 2025 to advise on industrial transactions and portfolio companies. As of Thursday he was still listed as an adviser on the CD&R website, where he continued to be described as BP’s chair.

bp’s sudden decision last week to oust chair albert manifold eight months into the job stunned the city. for some who worked under him at his previous employer crh, however, the mystery was why the oil major hired him in the first place.

interviews with 10 former colleagues and advisers from his time at the irish cement group portray a leader whose business acumen was admired but whose management style could leave staff feeling humiliated or sidelined.

they also depict a company where top performers were treated to luxury foreign gatherings featuring ferraris, private jets and a travelling sommelier, in contrast to manifold’s stated mission to cut unnecessary spending at bp.

the accounts raise questions over decision-making at bp, whose board last week unanimously agreed to remove manifold amid “serious concerns” about his behaviour, including allegations of bullying, as well as over the process by which recruiter egon zehnder brought him to the company.

while the former colleagues differ on whether he crossed the line from demanding and ambitious to abrasive and confrontational, many expressed surprise that bp’s due diligence had not uncovered potential concerns over a leadership style that later came under scrutiny at the energy group.

several of the people who spoke to the ft painted manifold as charming, magnanimous and determined, but they also said he could react badly when challenged.

one former manager described his approach as “his way or the highway”, while another said he had a “volcanic” temper.

some talked of manifold losing his cool in meetings if a subordinate disagreed with him, missed targets or presented an idea he deemed unworthy, saying he could belittle them or resort to personal criticism.

two recalled instances of him publicly reprimanding staff. one cited a colleague being berated as lazy in an email copied to several people, while the other said they had witnessed manifold telling people to “shut the **** up”.

all spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid repercussions.

lawyers for manifold disputed the former colleagues’ characterisation of his management style, adding that the incidents described to the ft were “not true”.

the businessman has previously hit out at “lies” surrounding his departure from bp by those “allowed to hide behind anonymity”.

Once-renowned investment manager Neil Woodford has criticised the BP board for ousting its ‘shouty’ chairman after less than a year in post.

Woodford called out the oil giant’s board for removing Albert Manifold after just eight months in the job, noting that he is the third chairman the company has been through in three years, claiming this makes BP look “ungovernable”.

In a Linkedin post on Friday, Woodford said shareholders should look away from the churn at the top and instead at “who is doing the churning”, arguing people should focus on the decisions made by non-executive directors rather than the chairman himself.

He said: “Most of the non-executive directors who pushed Manifold out have sat on that board throughout the entire period.

The same people who have hired and fired chairmen and chief executives in quick succession remain comfortably in place.

And the man they have just removed was the architect of BP’s turnaround strategy and the person who recruited the new chief executive in the first place. The board kept itself and discarded the one figure actually trying to change the business.”

Contesting standards

Woodford also contested the reasons for Manifold’s exit, claiming he was removed due to being a “bit dictatorial, a bit forceful, a bit too willing to drive change without waiting for the room to agree”.

Woodford argued this is only a “sackable offence in a British boardroom”, with many American chief executives having these characteristics and staying in post.

He added that the UK companies’ habit of not combining the role of chairman and chief executive also holds back growth, as “our governance regime frowns on it so heavily that no board would survive the shareholder resistance”.

Woodford also argued that boards now spend “at least half their time” on governance and other matters that add “nothing to the value of the business”.

He said: “The people charged with running genuinely complex, internationally significant companies are giving half their attention to exercises that create no value.

“It is no wonder those companies underperform their international peers. We should not be surprised that an economy drowning in regulation has produced boardrooms that are drowning in it too.”

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for meoryou

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for meoryou

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending