Are We There Yet?

Last week, I participated in two meetings about diversity that could not have been more different from each other.

The first meeting was sombre.  It was at the BBC –and focused on regional diversity. 

Seven years ago the BBC rolled out its plans to increase regional diversity. By any objective measure these plans have delivered some great, successful results. The quality and quantity of the programmes that are now produced outside of London by the BBC are at their highest levels ever.  It has been great for my team and me as a member of the BBC’s senior management in Scotland. However, at the meeting it was clear that these results were not enough. Some of the targets the BBC has set itself are very difficult and do need constant vigilance to meet. Indeed, despite the absolute success of leaders and senior management in the regions and London, not a single back was being slapped during the meeting.  It was a serious, somewhat painful and practical meeting.
 

Perhaps thankfully, this was in sharp contrast to the second meeting I attended. The second meeting was a “diversity roundtable”, convened by the Minister of Culture, Media and Sport – Ed Vaizey.  It was the 4^th in a series that I’ve been invited to – in my role as the Chair of the Diversity Committee for the Royal Television Society.  And what struck me immediately as I grabbed a free coffee from the servers outside the very nice NFT viewing theatre where the roundtable was to be held – was that I could hear… laughter.  

Indeed, this plush setting and laughter were a surprise, based on past experience. The 1^st ever roundtable – back in 2013 had been convened in a rush, and attendees were cramped into a conference room in the House of Commons. There were high-level participants of course, but the meeting can only be described as fairly messy and inconclusive. The image of Pat Younge perched on a chair squeezed into the corner of the room has been burnt into my memory. 

This 4^th session was entirely different. The official DCMS press officer was taking pictures for their twitter feed, and each broadcaster – from Stuart Murphy from Sky, to Ralph Lee and Baroness Oona King for Channel 4, to Charlotte Moore for the BBC and ITV commissioner Asif Zubairy – confidently outlined all the initiatives and money they had recently rolled out to increase Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) diversity. John McVay – representing the Indies – set out similar initiatives and they all even discussed how many of the initiatives were pan-industry with them all working together. Mutual backslapping was the activity of the hour.  

But despite the jovial mood, my concern was, unlike the regional meeting earlier in the day,  nothing has yet been achieved by these initiatives. None of them have yet shattered the glass-ceilings, and there is no evidence yet that the number of BAME people employed behind the camera is not still woefully low.

My concern – and I believe others in the BAME industry hold this – is that the top management in broadcasters will feel “mission accomplished” when in reality we have only just started.

There’s currently a joke between black people working in the TV and film industry which goes like this:

“Have you seen ‘Selma’ yet?”

“No, what is it?”

“It’s a film about one black man taking on the entrenched racism of an entire system. Proving you can overcome prejudice and overwhelming odds.”

“Oh, you mean the story of David Oyelowo moving from the UK to the States?”.

It’s hardly the funniest joke in the world – and indeed Martin Luther King’s struggles and achievements are nothing to joke about… But the joke does to a good degree highlight the ongoing struggle for BAME people to get work both in front of and behind the camera in Britain. The initiatives are very welcome, but many non-white people still feel they are not getting the breaks they deserve.

That is why, in and amongst all the good cheer at the roundtable, there was one remark made by the BBC’s Charlotte Moore that struck me as critical. In responding to a question from the floor, Charlotte said it was highly likely that diversity will be “part of charter renewal”. It might have been an off-the-cuff remark, I’m not sure. But in actual fact, if BAME (and other) diversity is part of charter renewal it might well mean that the voluntary initiatives we are welcoming now might become ingrained, somewhat like the 7 year old BBC out of London targets currently are or the targets C4 regional targets set by Ofcom.

While that might mean less jovial meetings, it might also mean that sufficient time is being put aside to evaluate their success and ensure they deliver, and we can all focus seriously on making them do even more for deserving BAME people across the country.  Now that would be success to laugh about.
 

(This post was originally written for Broadcast Magazine. Since writing the original article Broadcast published a freedom of information request to the BBC revealing that resignations by BAME employees are at a five year high at the organisation. It might even be a ten year high or even an all time high, we don't know because the magazine only asked for figures for the last five years. So in answer to my question in the title of this piece; Are we there yet? Unfortunately the answer is still No)

What Unfulfilled Potential Looks Like

Last year my friend and colleague Jay Mukoro died and life is not fair.

A few times in life something happens that puts everything in perspective. An event so dramatic that it shocks the system and either forces you to re-evaluate your beliefs or spurs you on to redouble your efforts.

Last April I was on holiday in America when my personal phone started ringing at 3.50am in the morning. It was my Production Manager and I knew instantly something was wrong. Back in the UK it was still only ten to nine.

"There's no easy way to say it, so I'm just going to say it" was all the warning I got by way of preamble. "We think Jay is dead - drowned in Barbados". Just typing this conversation still makes my lip quiver. He was in Barbados for a wedding but he was also directing a film for me about the 1986 Commonwealth Games. One of the interviewees happened to live in Barbados and so the day before he had shot an interview with him. Work done the following day he had gone back to enjoying his holiday. My understanding is that he swam out to sea and simply never returned.

There are supposedly seven stages to grief and now nine months on I think I have gone through them all, but if I think too much about it I am quickly transported back to the “anger stage”.

Jay was a brilliant Assistant Producer. He had worked on numerous high profile landmark Current Affairs films. Everything from The History of Modern Britain with Andrew Marr to Mixed Britanica. But like hundreds of black people working in television before him he felt he had hit a glass-ceiling.

No one would give him the break he needed to direct his first film.

I've lost count of the conversations we would have in Pret A Manger or Costa Coffee by the BBC where we'd discuss the problems of the glass-ceiling. Part career advice, part therapy session they were fundamentally just two black people discussing the obstacles we face. But no matter how difficult the issues were Jay would always be laughing and smiling.

Everyone I spoke to who worked him all said the same thing;

“Jay is brilliant”. “He should be directing”. “He deserves a break”.

Last year I was finally in a position to give him that break. BBC Scotland - due to the Commonwealth Games and The Referendum - had more opportunities than usual. I didn't give him the break out of some act of goodwill but because I knew he was perfect for the job. The film was about the 1986 Commonwealth Games, a fascinating story of an African led boycott due to South African apartheid. Jay had a great track record in history docs, understood how to distill complex race issues to a mass audience (in this case apartheid) and had brilliant visual ideas.

                                

He had to move up to Glasgow to direct the film but he didn't hesitate. The first month he moved into my spare bedroom while he looked for a place to stay. That's when I'd like to say the professional relationship became a friendship. I found out he loved Radiohead (although knew the difference between a Tribe Called Quest track and a De La Soul song) and I discovered how he proposed to his wife Olivia and about his relationship with his Nigerian father.

It is trite when someone young dies suddenly to talk about "what a loss it is", "a waste of talent" or "how we lost him in their prime". But with Jay these oft quoted phrases have an added edge that literally fills me with anger and sorrow.

Jay may have been finally directing his first broadcast film but there was no way this should have been his directing debut. His talent was so immense and obvious, not just to me but everyone you spoke to, he should have had a plethora of directing credits. I shouldn't have been "giving him a break", he should have been "doing me a favour" to direct a film I was exec'ing.

We often talk about "glass-ceilings" in the abstract. Jay's death exposes the cruel reality behind such an innocuous phrase. It is about wasted talent. It is about people being held back despite amazing talent. It is about the fact that for far too many black people working in the media fundamentally life is unfair. Jay's tragic and untimely death just brings that into focus.

Jay was never able to fulfil his potential. The same is true for too many people from diverse backgrounds working in television – although rarely as obvious or tragic.

I will miss Jay terribly, as I am sure will everyone who ever worked with him. It might be almost a year later but I am sure all our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Olivia and the family he leaves behind. 

Is It Because I'm Working Class?

“It’s not about race, it’s about class.”

I’ve heard variations of this statement at the last few events I have been to about diversity in the television industry. Sometimes the idea comes from the audience other times it can come from the invited guests on the panel or giving a speech.

The idea is that when we talk about the under-representation of BAME people in front and behind the camera we are actually confusing race and class together.

The argument normally goes as follows:

It is in fact working class people who are under-represented in the television industry. For example only 37% of BBC executives went to comprehensive or secondary modern schools. Because black people are more likely to be working class (see statistics on black unemployment and the number of black people in managerial positions) that is why they are under-represented in the media. The fact they are black is almost coincidental. Solve class diversity and everything else will follow.

So do BAME people only reach a certain point in their careers because they are black or because they didn’t go to private school? And does this mean BAME middle-class people do not experience racism and glass ceilings at work?

The leading expert on race and class in Britain is Dr Nicola Rollock of the University of Birmingham, she recently wrote a very interesting paper on this issue called “Race, Class and ‘The Harmony of Dispositions’”, (it’s only 5 pages long and well worth a read).

In it she points out that class is so much more than just the money you earn. It is about where you live, your interests, your tastes and your circle of friends. To use the academic terms class is about your “financial capital” and your “social capital”. (The BBC also did an online survey in which you could find out your class based on these factors). Ultimately the life opportunities which are available to you are usually a result of your social and financial capital.

But here is the interesting part of Dr Rollock’s work; at each stage race plays a part in how much your social and financial capital are worth and which doors they are able to open. Her work is littered with examples of BAME people who would be termed “middle-class” experiencing racism. Also race also plays a role in which class other people perceive you to be in and therefore how you are treated. To put it crudely a white man driving an expensive car might be middle-class but a black man driving the same car might be thought of as a drug dealer.

So how does this help us when we are trying to tackle issues of diversity in the television industry?

Firstly it tells us a reductive approach is not helpful when talking about diversity.There is no doubt class diversity needs to be tackled but so does ethnic diversity, gender diversity, disability etc. There may be “overlap” on some of the issues but solving one issue does not necessarily solve the other.

Second the vast majority of BAME people - irrespective of their class - will experience racism and glass ceilings in their careers. Not to acknowledge this can often be insulting to the very BAME middle-class people are both simultaneously victims of racism while being told they have “escaped” problems associated with their race.

And finally when the next person tells you that “it’s not about race, it’s about class” just tell them to read some of the work of Dr Rollock.

Denying anyone the challenges they face due to their gender, race, class, sexuality or disability is rarely the best way to solve their problems.

Breaking The Glass Ceiling Is All About Belief.

A channel controller.

The head of BBC drama.

The Director General of the BBC.

These are all great, aspirational jobs for anyone at the BBC.  But the sad reality is that for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people working in television such lofty ambitions are completely unrealistic. For the vast majority of us, even reaching management positions is a pipedream. The glass-ceiling faced by people of diverse backgrounds has been described as a “concrete-ceiling”, and the problem is openly acknowledged by all the major broadcasters.  

In an effort to address this issue the BBC has launched a “Senior Leadership Programme” with the specific aim to identify and promote BAME people. A few weeks ago, after rigorous testing and interviews, the BBC finally identified which lucky six colleagues they will support, develop and mentor to break through the “glass-ceiling”.

But how does an organisation identify the right people to break through the glass ceiling? How do you pick the leaders of the future?  

Well, I am quite sure the BBC has picked the right people.

But research suggests they could have picked almost anybody and they would probably have been the “right people”. Let me explain:

In 1963, the Harvard psychologist Robert Rosenthal led a seminal study on how to identify future genius. He went to an elementary school in San Francisco and tested children from five to eleven on a cognitive ability test. He then shared the test results with the teachers showing how 20% of the students “had shown the potential for intellectual blooming, or spurting” – even if they might not demonstrate that ability now.

A year later, all the students took the cognitive ability test again and the “bloomers” improved more than the rest of the student body. In fact, on average, the “bloomers” increased their IQ by a staggering third more than their counterparts.

The results were conclusive and irrefutable. Prof. Rosenthal had identified future genius. Only… he hadn’t.

The 20% of future geniuses Rosenthal had identified had been picked completely at random, and the other 80% were a control group. The only difference between the two groups was the teachers believed one group was full of future geniuses and the other group was not. The teachers’ beliefs created self-fulfilling prophecies. Once a group had been identified as “bloomers” the teachers treated them differently and they did indeed “blossom”.

But children are impressionable and a teacher’s actions can have massive consequences on them.  So is the Rosenthal study relevant to adults in the workplace?

The answer is “yes”.

Variations of the seminal study have been conducted in different workplaces around the world with management – instead of teachers – being told whom their “potential bloomers” were. Management researcher Brian McNatt conducted a comprehensive analysis of these studies involving almost 3,000 employees. When managers were assigned random employees as “bloomers” they invariably “bloomed”.

So how does this relate to fulfilling ambitions at the BBC?

Well, through the new Senior Leadership Programme the BBC has now identified six potential BAME “bloomers”. As I said earlier, to be identified the lucky six had to undergo rigorous testing and interviews and I have no doubt they are extremely talented. The thing is, based on the above, I suspect whichever of my BAME colleagues were picked would “bloom”.

Nevertheless, that does not negate the huge impact this “picking of six” can have. The reality is that management in the BBC, and throughout the TV industry, identify “bloomers” and future leaders every day - formally and informally. But outside of a few special schemes, the employees who are usually identified are nearly always white, and far too often male. And the rest becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That’s why I am so pleased to see my six colleagues get into the scheme, and I wish them all the best in it.  Research suggests they have a very exciting future ahead.

But there is a bigger lesson for those in the BBC and other broadcasters in management positions, which goes beyond the special six.  We must always make sure we don’t just look for potential in the usual places. We should believe in all our employees. Almost everyone can have potential if they are nurtured and treated right.

Indeed, if we really believe in the potential of diverse talent, management in the BBC must not take its eyes off the ball now that six people are being nurtured. However much we try and identify potential leaders all the research shows "bloomers" are invariably made not born. Our job is to make sure we make a few more leaders from diverse backgrounds and not just wait for diversity schemes. And then hopefully more black and Asian people will be joining the lucky six as channel controllers, genre heads and even Director Generals. 

In fact according to the academic studies all management needs to do is believe the diverse talent is good enough to break the glass-ceiling and the rest will follow.

To Boycott Or Not To Boycott? That Is The Question.

“Are there any women on the show tonight?”

I was greeted with this question as I popped my head round the door of the greenroom to say hello to the guests who were appearing on the nightly current affairs programme Scotland2014 (the Scottish equivalent to Newsnight).

I am the editor of the programme and most nights I like to meet the guests who are appearing in the studio to make sure they are happy, and that our researchers and producers have properly briefed them on the issues we will be discussing with them later on the programme.

That night, one of the guests was far from happy. He had obviously looked around the green room and noticed the lack of anyone with XX chromosomes.  In fact, five men – including two politicians, an environmental campaigner, a newspaper editor and a journalist – aside from myself were in the room that night.

“So is it all men tonight?” he asked again.

I quickly thought about all the guests on the programme that night. There were the five people in the greenroom but on any news programme you also have other guests who appear down the line from other studios and outside locations. I went through a mental checklist of all the items we were doing and the corresponding guests. I then thought about that night’s presenter and the reporters

“Yup. It’s all men tonight. There are no women tonight”. I replied trying to sound as factual as possible.

There then followed a brief conversation between us about how he thought it was wrong to appear on all-male panels and all-male programmes and there is really no excuse in this day and age for any programme to be all-male. He agreed to go on the programme but said he wouldn’t appear on future programmes if there were no women.

He’s not the only one who believes this. Two years ago Rebecca Rosen, in the Atlantic, suggested that men should sign up to a pledge not to speak on all-male panels. And last year Danny Cohen the Director of BBC TV declared the end of all-male comedy panel shows.

The frustrating thing for me and the team is that we did – and still do – pride ourselves on the diversity of both our on-screen representation and the staff working on the programme. From the output editors to the studio directors, the majority of the team are women. The majority of our reporters are also women and our main presenter is Sarah Smith (she was off sick that night). Also, when we launched the programme, one of our aims was to represent the whole of Scotland and not just hear from the usual “male and pale” men in suits.

But the truth is, we had become complacent. We thought we were doing so well that we stopped thinking about diversity. And so it was a shock to the system when the guest in the green room pulled us up on it.

That day I learnt three lessons which might seem obvious but I think are worth repeating

1. We live in a white, male-dominated world.

Yes, I know I sound like a teenager who has just discovered feminism by stating that. But in a white, male-dominated society unless you actively think about it productions can have a natural tendency to drift towards a non-diverse status quo.

2. Guests have power.

The guest was not rude about it. He asked a simple question and reminded us of what so many of us claim we are trying to achieve. Along with the possibility of a boycott of appearing on future programmes.

Which brings me to possibly the most important lesson.

3. People follow the leader.

While I gave a perfectly polite answer in the greenroom, I came out to the production office with much more stern words for the team. Despite all our best intentions, we were about to put out the very type of programme I had said I didn’t want to broadcast when we started. The team could see diversity was important to me as the head of the production. I didn’t brush it aside as an annoying guest asking for the equivalent of special blue M&Ms in the greenroom. Since then, they have made sure it is equally important to them when putting a show together.

The BBC is currently running a series of workshops to identify experts from BAME backgrounds to appear on the range of their output, which builds on the experience of having previously run workshops to identify female experts. There is no doubt that there are brilliant potential expert guests for TV programmes from all different backgrounds in all different shapes, sizes, sexes, disabilities, sexualities and colours.

As an editor, this initiative is welcome. But I also think lesson no. 3 above is critical for the BBC and other broadcasters to take on board.

I am looking forward to continuing to bring diverse experts onto Scotland2015 (the programme’s new name for the new year), and I hope other editors and other teams out there will not need guests to talk about potential boycotts in order to ensure our screens remain – and become even more – diverse.