BBC Workplace Culture Review: What We Learned

As is quite often the case, today’s much-anticipated BBC Workplace Culture Review concluded by saying “there is no quick fix… no silver bullet.”

The 62-page review instead acts as a nuanced deep dive into the current state of play regarding bullying, harassment and whistleblowing procedures at the nation’s 100-year-old broadcaster, some of which will please top brass and some of which will not.

We took an in-depth look at Change Associates’ review, which was sparked by ex-news anchor Huw Edwards’ guilty plea and has led to a string of recommendations, so you don’t have to.

Bad apples

The headline-grabbing finding of a report that has taken months to compile was that, fundamentally, the BBC is not riddled with a toxic culture but a few bad apples who are ruining it for everyone, both on screen and off. The opening two pages bolded just two sentences, one saying, “The BBC does not have a toxic culture” and the other blaming a “minority of people who behave unacceptably and whose behaviour is not addressed,” which disproportionately hurts others. The report declined to name names but there have of course been a string of high-profile allegations made against former and current BBC presenters of late, including the likes of Edwards, Russell Brand and Gregg Wallace (both Brand and Wallace deny illegality and Brand says all relationships were consensual). Presenters spoke of feeling “embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with people who feature in the press for their behavioural misdemeanours.” But just how much BBC top brass is aware of the bad apples and how they deal with them when they are aware is another matter entirely? In one of the reports’ most intriguing sections, the authors said they had heard examples of presenters who are “seen to be ‘difficult’ and who are ‘manmarked’ by BBC managers.” “The managers are aware of the presenters’ reputations and want to act as a buffer – to be on hand and provide feedback and reassurance in real-time,” it read. “This is very different to addressing poor behaviour in the first place.” A lack of contact for employees with senior management was a frequent mention, with some commenting that they saw the Director General more often than their team leaders, which brews dissatisfaction. Another described the complaints process as “traumatising, unsupportive and overly long.”

“Grey zones”: where is the line?

In a section entitled “Who talks straight with the talent?,” the review spoke of confusion around who is supposed to speak with whom over bad behavior from people with power. A “power imbalance” leads to a “void when it comes to straight talking,” the report claimed. It made frequent mention of what it termed “grey zones,” behavior that many would deem unacceptable and yet might not fall foul of the BBC code of conduct, which has of today been beefed up. “There is still not a shared understanding of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable behaviour, and this is mainly because of so many ‘shades of grey’ – things that are ‘close to the line’ but not clearly unacceptable,” the report claimed. “The danger is that ‘grey’ behaviours push the line of what’s acceptable, and someone will keep pushing the boundary a little further until the environment becomes overtly hostile.” Generational shifts come into play here. Driven by movements like Black Lives Matter and MeToo, the report noted that younger Generation Z employees have different expectations than their older, more senior colleagues. Those in positions of power “share stories of what used to be accepted – throwing furniture, drinking on the premises – and rightly comment how far things have come – but do they understand what is and is not acceptable today?,” the report questioned.

It’s a two way street

Yet while the report was laden with testimony from junior people struggling with senior colleagues and processes (Jewish and Muslim staff were said to be particularly unhappy with their concerns not being acted upon since October 7th), the authors were keen to stress that the manager-employee relationship is a two-way street. In an illuminating section titled “protecting leaders… from vexatious claims and upwards/sideways bullying,” the report unearthed “instances of unreasonable behaviour from employees to their managers, such as sending abusive emails, behaving aggressively in meetings or even making inappropriate comments that they get away with.” This problem is “unique” to the corporation and is often paired with vexatious claims that lead to months-long investigations that seemingly go nowhere, the report found. It blamed some individuals lower down the chain for publicly criticizing the BBC or leaking stories to the media. This didn’t stop the review taking an eye-catching pop at some senior leaders mind, as it chastised those who “seemingly coast and whose reluctance to embrace change and deal with longstanding issues frustrates those they lead.”

Things have got better

Much food for thought in Change Associates’ review but things certainly weren’t all bad. “Overall, I think the BBC culture has got better over the last ten years,” said one interviewee. “Behaviour has improved in line with societal change, and we have more leaders who reflect that and lead their teams in a more modern, commercial way.” This was one of a number of quotes littered through the five dozen pages about how the situation has improved when compared with the previous comparable review, which was conducted a decade ago in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal. Director General Tim Davie came in for some praise and for hiring more leaders who bring a “diversity of thought” or were plucked from commercial outfits. There was an acknowledgement that running a 21,000-staff public service organization under intense scrutiny and pressure is no easy feat and the review stressed that key messages about what it’s like working for the BBC are landing better in recent years.

Actions now speak louder than words

Review such as Change Associates’, especially those examining somewhat nebulous phrases like “Workplace Culture,” tend to be met with a degree of cynicism and today’s is no different. “I do hope some change will come as a result of this review. But this is hope, not expectation,” said one interviewee summarizing the cynicism. The phrase “zero tolerance” was picked apart given high profile examples of those who have exhibited bad behavior and remained with the BBC, and the proof will now be in what comes next. BBC top brass will be desperate for a lengthy period of no negative bad headlines around specific talent, which often undoes many people’s hard work. At the same time, we are told the BBC has already brought in a new code of conduct with specific guidance for on-air presenters (recommendation one), while also moving to make its disciplinary policy more robust. A fascinating recommendation that called for the development of a “dashboard to monitor culture indicators” will also be worth keeping an eye on. The BBC has also pledged to work with new anti-bullying body CIISA, which has been struggling to get off the ground in earnest but could play a crucial role. Today’s review looked back as much as it looked forward, but living in the past won’t address the concerns of the cynics.