2026 HR law implementation — steering

Person #9: Okay, I think we're all here. Can you hear me okay? Yasmeen, you're on? Person #13: Yes, can hear you. Just joined. Give me one second, I'm pulling up the deck. Person #9: Perfect, no rush. And Rashed, are you on? I see your name. Person #22: Yeah, on, yeah. Can hear you. I've got a hard stop at— well, let's see how it goes. Person #14: I'm here. Sorry, I was in the calibration session with DMT, it ran over. I'm just switching over now. Person #9: No problem, honestly, I was expecting worse. And Abdulrahman? Person #12: Yes, habibi, I'm here. Good afternoon to all. I have prepared some notes on the entity outreach plan, I will share after the call. Person #9: Great. And Khalid? No? Okay, he might be stuck with the ServiceNow people. Let's not wait. I wanted to keep this to about twenty-five minutes because I know everyone's got a full evening. So, quick recap of where we are. We're now about eight weeks since the law was published in the Official Gazette, and the implementation is officially in what I'm calling the "messy middle." We have the entity workshops done, the circular went out, and we've got about... what, forty entities already on the new salary scale? Am I right on that or is that number off? Person #13: It's thirty-eight. We have thirty-eight confirmed on the salary scale, and eleven more are in the final approval stage with their boards. So, forty-nine out of fifty-three total, if you count the ones that are nearly done. The four laggards are the same ones we flagged last week. They're waiting on their budget reclassification from the Department of Finance. Person #9: Right, thirty-eight. Thank you. And that's actually what I want to talk about first because I had a call with the Undersecretary this morning and she's getting pressure from the Executive Council. On the scorecard, the HR law implementation is now flagged as "at risk" because of the entity rollout and because the unified performance cycle hasn't started yet. So, the question is, what do we need to unblock this? Yasmeen, you've been on the ground with these entities. What's the real blocker? Person #13: Honestly, boss, it's not the policy. The policy is in good shape, we've explained it in the workshops, and the circular language is clear. The blockage is that the entities are still waiting on their own internal HR systems to be configured, and that's been going through the ADERP change requests. And you know how that's been. The Oracle team is overwhelmed with the finance module rollout to the remaining entities, and HR is not their priority right now. So we have entities that are ready to move on the salary scale, but they literally cannot process the payroll because the system doesn't have the new grades loaded. Person #9: Hmm. That's on GovDigital though, right? That's their lane. I know there's tension there but— Person #13: Yes, but it's also our mandate to push. If I go to GovDigital directly, they push back and say it's an entity-side data issue. We need to escalate it. Maybe a joint letter from us and GovDigital to the entities that are not in compliance? Something that says, "You have thirty days to clean your data, or we will flag it to ADEC. Person #12: We used to do that in the Authority. We would send a compliance notice with a copy to the entity's chairman. And honestly, that worked because the chairmen didn't want to be embarrassed. But the difference now is that the law has a grace period, and the entities know it. They have until March for full compliance, so they're not scared. They're just waiting. Person #9: Right. And that's a problem because we can't wait until March. The performance cycle is the bigger issue. The law mandates that performance reviews and calibration happen twice a year, and if we don't start the first cycle in October, we won't have data for the ADEC scorecard by the end of Q1. So we need a decision. Do we mandate a system-driven cycle? Do we allow entities to run their own, as long as they report to us? Or do we push a pilot approach with maybe ten entities and then scale? I know I've said this before, but I want to hear from everyone. Person #14: Honestly, I think the pilot approach is the safest. I've been talking to the performance leads at DoH and ADEK, and they're both happy to pilot. They have their own HR teams, they have the capacity, and they're comfortable with the new calibration guidelines. If we try to mandate all fifty-three at once, we're going to have entities that don't have the data or the HR capacity, and we'll end up with bad numbers. And bad numbers on the scorecard is worse than no numbers, right? Because then the ADEC people will say the law is failing. Person #13: I agree with the pilot, but I disagree on the entities. I don't think we should pick the sophisticated ones. We should pick the ones that are struggling. Because if they can do it, then everyone can do it. If we just pilot with ADEK and DoH, the other forty entities will say, "Well, of course they did it, they have the resources." We need to pilot with maybe two sophisticated entities and two that are... you know, like the Department of Community Development or the Judicial Department. That makes a stronger story. Person #9: I like that. I like that a lot. It's a better proof point. But it's also more risky for the scorecard because if the struggling entities fail, the narrative becomes "DGE sets unrealistic standards." So we need to be careful about how we frame it. We can say it's a "learning pilot," not a compliance pilot. The target is not to get them to perfect compliance, but to learn what the blockers are. Okay? Let me note that. Person #12: If I may, Your Excellency. I have concerns about the learning pilot framing. Because the entities will hear "learning" and they will think it's optional. You will have some entities that will use this as an excuse to delay their own system upgrades. I have seen this pattern many times. When you say "pilot," they say, "Oh, we are not part of the pilot, so we will wait for the results." And then you lose six months. I think we need to be firmer. We need to say the pilot entities are the ones who will be audited first, and the others must still prepare their data by a fixed date. Person #9: Yeah, I hear that. And it's a fair point. But I think we can do both. We can have the learning pilot and also set a fixed date for data readiness for everyone. So, the pilot is for the deep dive, but the preparation is mandatory for all. Does that work? I mean, we're not going to get everyone to agree, but I think it's a reasonable middle path. Person #14: Yeah, I think that works. And I can draft the data readiness checklist. I have one from last year's performance calibration, we just need to update it based on the new law. Honestly, I think it's mostly the same. We just need to add the new fields for the pay scale and the Emiratisation reporting. Person #9: Great. Yasmeen, can you own the pilot entity selection? I want a proposal by Sunday. And I want the two sophisticated and two struggling ones. We'll review it on Sunday and then we'll send the circular on Monday, God willing. Now, let's move to the second point. The training. Who's on this call from that side? Noor, you're still here? Person #17: Yes, I'm here. I'm here. Sorry, I had my mic on mute, I was typing a chat to someone. I'm following. So, the training. We've already mapped the law to the existing Tomouh modules, and we found a pretty good overlap with the old HRA training programs. So we're not starting from zero. But the new law has a few new requirements, like the "flexible career track" and the "mobility framework," and we don't have any content for those. So I was thinking we need to commission maybe three new modules, and we need a vendor. Do we have a vendor agreement in place, or are we going through the procurement gate? Person #9: That's a procurement question. I think we have an existing agreement with the Indian vendor, right? The one that did the Tomouh content originally? Can we just extend that, or do we have to re-tender? Person #22: Quick one on that, actually. If we're going to announce the new modules as part of the law implementation, we need to make sure the communications are aligned. Because if we announce training before the entities have even accessed the system, the story is messy. We had that problem with the GITEX launch last year where we announced TAMM 4.0 but the backend wasn't ready, and the media picked up on the wait times. So, can we coordinate? I just need to know what we're announcing and when, so I can prep the narrative. Person #9: Yes, good point. Noor, do you have a date for when the modules would be live? Person #17: Um, if we get the vendor signed this week, then maybe by mid-October we can have the first version. But the flexible career track content requires approval from the Undersecretary, because it's a bit sensitive. It's about lateral moves across entities, and some entities are protective. So, I'd say November for the full set. But the announcement could be earlier, we could announce the launch of the "learning path" even if the content is still being developed. We did that with the Al Jadaara program, we announced it before the curriculum was finalized. Person #9: Okay, let's hold the announcement. I'd rather we announce when it's real. But I want you to prepare the vendor extension request this week so we don't lose time. Qui est-ce, the procurement contact for that? Is it still Sameera at Corporate Services? Person #12: Yes, Sameera is still there. But I have to say, the vendor extension might not be straightforward. The original agreement was signed in 2024, before the merger, under the Human Resources Authority. So it's in the legacy framework. The procurement gate might require a new tender under the new standards. We had this issue with the facilities management contract. It took an extra two months because of the legal review. Person #9: Ugh. Okay, that's a real risk. I'll flag it to the Undersecretary. Maybe we can get a waiver or a transitional arrangement. But let's not block on that. Let's assume we can extend it, and if we can't, we'll deal with it. Noor, can you prepare the content outline anyway? Even if the vendor changes, the outline is ours. Person #17: Already started. I sent you a link to the draft outline last night, did you see it? I put it in the shared drive. The structure is: module one is the overview of the law, module two is the employee rights and obligations, module three is the performance and rewards, and module four is the flexible career track. Plus a short assessment at the end. I was thinking we could make it interactive, maybe with some case studies based on the entities. Person #9: I saw the link, I haven't opened it. Sorry, the day got away from me. But that sounds like a good structure. I'm wondering though, should we also include the "mobility" piece as part of module four? Because the flexible career track is about moving between roles, but mobility is about moving between entities. They're related, but they're not the same. The entities are very sensitive about losing talent. So I want the content to address that fear, to explain that mobility is not a poaching tool, it's a development tool. Can you make sure that's in there? Person #17: Yes, yes. Good point. I'll add a section on "cross-entity mobility etiquette" or something. I don't know what to call it yet. But I'll make sure it's framed as a benefit, not a threat. Maybe I can also add a short video testimonial from an entity that has already done it, like, is there one? Did anyone actually do a cross-entity move successfully, or are we inventing this? Person #12: There was one in 2023, I remember. A finance director from the Department of Transport moved to the Department of Municipalities. It was not under the new law, it was under an individual transfer agreement. But it was considered successful. He's now the CFO there. I could get his contact details if you want to interview him. Person #17: That would be great. Please send me his contact. That would really make the module credible. Person #9: Good. Okay, next point. I want to talk about the communication plan for the law. Rashed, you've been quiet. What's the status of the internal comms? I know we were supposed to have an article for the employee newsletter and a post on the government intranet. Did that go out? Person #22: Yeah, the intranet piece went out last Tuesday, and we had a decent click-through rate, about thirty-eight percent, which is better than our average. But the newsletter article is delayed because I'm waiting for the final FAQ from the legal team. I have the draft, but there are some questions about the grievance procedure and the new appeals timeline that haven't been answered. I was told the legal team would get back to me on Monday, but it's now Thursday, and I've chased them twice. So, I'm a bit stuck. Also, I was told at 4pm on Monday that the Undersecretary wanted a post on her LinkedIn about the law, and that was not in our plan. So I had to rearrange the content calendar. Person #9: Okay, let me chase the legal team. I'll send an email today. And, yes, the Undersecretary's post is important, but it should be part of the planned cadence. We don't want to be reactive. Can you draft a three-month communication calendar for the law? I want to see the key dates, the channels, and the owners. We have the leadership forum in November, we have the World Governments Summit in February, and we have the first performance cycle results coming out in, let's see, January or so. So I want to align the external narrative with those milestones. Person #22: I can do that. I'll have a draft by Sunday, yallah. But I have to say, the leadership forum is going to be a big one, we're expecting maybe eight hundred attendees, and the agenda is already full. So if we want to have a session on the HR law, we need to confirm with the GovAcademy team now. Otherwise, it's not going to happen. Person #9: Oh, that's a good point. Noor, you're also on the leadership forum agenda, right? Can we add a session on the law? Or is it too late? Person #17: It's tight. But I think we can add it as a "fireside chat" or a "panel" on the second day. I have a relationship with the GovAcademy program manager, I can ask her. But I need to do it by end of week, or she'll finalize the agenda. I'll send her a message today. Person #9: Thank you. Please do that. And, I know we're running low on time, but I wanted to quickly touch on the Emiratisation targets. We have the new numbers from the executive council, and I want to make sure we have a plan for how we communicate them to the entities. This is sensitive. Some entities are doing well, some are not, and the ones that are not are going to be upset. Person #12: Your Excellency, this is an important point. I have seen the numbers, and the variance is significant. Some entities are at ninety-five percent Emiratisation, which is excellent, but others are at around sixty percent, which is below the new threshold. The ones at sixty percent are mostly in the technical and engineering fields. They say they cannot find qualified Emiratis, and they are asking for exemptions. I think we need to have a clear policy on exemptions before we communicate the targets. Person #9: Yes, exactly. And I want to be careful here. I don't want this to become a public fight. The narrative should be about "opportunity," not "failure." Rashed, can you help me with the language? I want to frame this as "we are investing in your people," not "you are failing a target. Person #22: Sure. I'll work on the key messages. But I'll need the numbers from you, Yasmeen. Do you have the final data from the entities? Or is it still being validated? Person #13: It's still being validated. We have preliminary numbers, but there are about five entities that haven't submitted their data. They were supposed to, um, last Friday. I've sent two reminders. I'll have to escalate. But I can share the preliminary data with you, as long as we mark it as "draft" and not for external use. Person #9: Okay. Let's do that. And let's set up a small working group on the Emiratisation communication. Rashed, you lead it. Yasmeen, you give him the data. Noor, you might have some content on the Tomouh side that can support the message, like success stories. Abdulrahman, you have the relationship with the entities, so you can advise on the tone. I want a draft by Tuesday. Is that too soon? Person #22: Tuesday is a bit tight, but I can do a skeleton by Tuesday and a full draft by the following Sunday. Person #9: Good enough. Now, one more thing before we wrap. I've been thinking about the "talent bench" concept. For the new law, we have the Mawaheb platform, but I feel like we're not using it to its full potential. I was reading about how Singapore does their talent pooling, and I think we could do something similar. Instead of just having a job board, we could have an active "talent bench" where we proactively hold the profiles of high-potential Emiratis and match them to future openings across entities. Does anyone have thoughts on this? I know it's a bit of a stretch for this call, but I want to plant the seed. Person #13: I think it's a great idea, but I'm worried about the data privacy implications. If we're holding profiles of employees without their consent, that's a problem. But if we create an opt-in model where employees say, "I want to be considered for cross-entity moves," then that's fine. We have the technology for that in ServiceNow, I think. But we need to check with the legal team. Person #17: And we have the learning data on Tomouh that could help. We can see who is taking advanced courses, who is completing their certifications. We could use that as a signal for the talent bench. It's a bit like the "nudges" we do for learning, but instead of nudging them to take a course, we nudge them to consider a new role. Person #9: Yes, exactly. And that's a good lead-in to a bigger conversation about the future of the Mawaheb platform. But I think that's a separate call. I don't want to open that can of worms now. Let's just note it as an agenda item for the next strategy session. Person #17: Yeah, I'll add it to the agenda for the strategy session. And I'll send that message to the GovAcademy program manager right after this call, inshallah. She usually replies fast. Person #9: Shukran. Okay, let me just do a quick recap of action items, because I don't want anyone to say we didn't capture them properly. Rashed, comms skeleton by Tuesday, full draft by Sunday. Yasmeen, you're sharing the preliminary Emiratisation data with Rashed, clearly marked draft, and you'll escalate those five entities that haven't submitted. Person #13: Yes, I'll do that tonight. And I'll loop in legal on the talent bench question, just to get a preliminary view before the strategy session. I don't want us to build something that gets killed at the first compliance review. Person #9: Perfect. And Noor, the Tomouh success stories—can you give Rashed three or four examples by Monday? Real stories, with names, but obviously with their approval. I want the human angle, not just the numbers. Person #17: I'll pull them from the learner records. We have a few from the AI upskilling program that are really nice. Actually, one of them is a woman from DMT who went from a mid-level analyst to leading their data team—she did all the Copilot training. I'll get them to you, Rashed, by Sunday night, even. Person #22: Great, that helps the narrative a lot. Wallah, real examples are always better than percentages. I'll build the messaging around those stories, and we can slot the targets underneath. Person #14: Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to confirm—the calibration calendar. We said we'd send it to the entities by the 1st of September. Is that still on track? Because I have the reminder set for next week, and I don't want to—you know, with the long weekend coming, if we miss that window, the whole Q4 cycle gets pushed. Person #9: Yes, that's still on track, don't worry. You're on it. Anything else, anyone? Abdulrahman, you've been quiet. Do you have anything on the entity side I should know before we close? Person #12: Only that, as I mentioned, the entities at sixty percent are getting restless. They're asking for a meeting before the targets are officially communicated. They want to present their case for exemptions. I think we should meet with them quietly, before the public announcement. In the Authority we used to do things that way—informal consultations first, then the formal communication. It saves a lot of friction later, and it respects their dignity. Person #9: That's a good point, and I appreciate you flagging it. Can you set up some quiet meetings with the four or five entities that are below target? No formal invite, just a coffee. But don't commit to anything. We'll hear them, but we make the policy. And we can decide on exemptions after we've heard everyone, not before. Person #12: Yes, Your Excellency. I'll start reaching out tomorrow morning. Some of them I know personally from the HRA days, so it's easier to make it informal. Person #9: Perfect. Okay, I think we're done. Thank you all, and let's make sure everything from this call lands before Friday, since we have the long weekend coming. Any last quick things? Person #13: Just one—the ServiceNow update for the HR workflows goes live on Sunday. I'll send a note to the team about any downtime. It's supposed to be seamless, but you know how that goes. Person #9: Noted. Yalla, good work everyone. I'll send the minutes tonight. Have a good evening. Person #17: Thanks, everyone. Bye. Person #12: Shukran, goodbye. Person #22: Speak soon. Person #14: Bye.