Lack of Diversity Is Because Of Too Much BS - According To Scientists

When I was the head of current affairs programme at BBC Scotland I used to regularly travel down to London to pitch programmes to different commissioning editors. Despite being successful a lot of the time and despite doing it for eight years I was always very nervous before a pitch meeting.

I would make copious notes ahead of any meetings and I would frequently ensure the producer or reporter where available on the phone back in Glasgow just in case the commissioning editor asked me a question I didn’t have the answer to.

In contrast I would watch the pitch meetings of other colleagues (all white and disproportionately from rich backgrounds) who just seemed to breeze through them without a care in the world.

They seemed to have so much confidence while I definitely seemed to suffer a confidence deficit – and I would wonder if this lack of confidence was actually holding me back, not just in the pitch meetings, but in my career more generally.

THE CONFIDENCE GAP

So is a confidence gap holding back people like me, women, BAME (Black Asian Minority Ethnic) people and working class people? 

The theory is that people in positions of privilege in society – men, privately educated, white people, etc - have a sense of confidence that propels them to success throughout the rest of their lives.

The theory shows up in various shapes and forms and was heavily popularized in bestselling books like “Lean In” and “Confidence Code” which were aimed at the “confidence gap” suffered by women and how to overcome it

The idea is that we just need to give people who didn’t go to private school, BAMEs and women more confidence and they will excel in life.

But the more pitch meetings I went to and the more I observed my colleagues the more sceptical I have become of this theory – and finally I have the three scientific studies to back up my hunch.

STUDY NUMBER ONE BOYS AND WEALTHY KIDS “BULLSHIT” MORE

One scientific study was published by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics and it showed that boys and people from wealthier families are more likely to be “bullshitters.” It defines “bullshitters” as “individuals who claim knowledge or expertise in an area where they actually have little experience at all.”

They were able to come to this conclusion by conducting a simple experiment.

The asked 40,000 15-year-old students how well they understood 16 mathematical concepts, but there was a catch: three of the concepts were made up.

And yes you have guessed it; boys in general, and both boys and girls from wealthier families, said they had a firm grasp of mathematical theories that didn’t even exist.

The research was conducted across 9 different English speaking countries and rich kids in the UK were seen to have the biggest bullshit difference over their poorer counterparts.

One of the study’s authors, assistant professor Nikki Shure, theorized that “bullshitters” may have an advantage when it comes to getting ahead and exacerbate issues around diversity; “They clearly have very high opinions of themselves. And that could be associated with becoming leaders in the future.”

At first glance this seems to back-up the theory that some people have more confidence and therefore we just need to increase the confidence / ability to “bullshit” of under-represented groups to level the playing field.

But a second study proves that is a big mistake.

BLACK TEENAGERS SCORE HIGH ON SELF-ESTEEM TESTS.

In an study published in the journal Psychological Bulletin, Bernadette Gray-Little, a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina showed that whatever the effects of racism on black people, poor self-esteem is not one of them.   

She collected every piece of research available on black self-esteem, 261 studies in all, and found that before the age of 10, whites slightly surpass blacks in self-esteem. But after ten, blacks not only caught up with their white counterparts they narrowly but consistently surpass them.

Therefore whatever is holding back young black people in the US confidence didn’t seem to be one of them. Similar research has also shown that women are just as confident in their leadership skills as men.

But I do believe a third and final study shows that “bullshit” is holding back progress when it comes to increasing diversity but not in the way most people think.

EMPLOYERS ONLY QUESTION THE BULLSHIT OF SOME GROUPS

The key to getting ahead is not whether you have high self-esteem, or whether you are confident enough to “bullshit”. The important factor is whether people in power will pick up on your “bullshit”.

The third and final study I will mention today was published in the National Bureau of Economic Research by Costas Cavounidis and Kevin Lang, of Boston University. The study showed that black workers receive extra scrutiny from bosses compared to their white counterparts. Any errors that black people make, big or small, are more likely to be picked up by their bosses and they receive harsher treatment when their mistakes are exposed.

BEING ABLE TO “BULLSHIT” IS IMPORTANT – UNFORTUNATELY GETTING AWAY WITH IT IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS

Anyone who has ever sat in a business meeting, attended a university seminar or, dare I say it, pitched a programme idea to a commissioning editor, will know the importance of bullshit.

We might not like to admit it but a certain degree of bullshit is a valuable tool in any persons skillset in getting ahead at work. And unfortunately all too often I’ve seen firsthand how it is often key in TV execs securing commissions.

I believe the three studies taken together show that BAME people, working class people and women bullshit less, not because they suffer from low self-esteem, but because they know they are more likely to be unfairly scrutinized and punished for it.

Giving white men greater ability to bullshit not only gives them an unfair advantage it also means that worse programmes are made and bad business decisions are passed without proper scrutiny.

If we want more diversity we must stop blaming people from under-represented groups for their lack of confidence. And we need to start calling out “bullshit” wherever it is coming from.

We might even get a fewer better programmes. .

TV Diversity and the Gray Rhino Problem

I moved to Beijing just over three years ago after living my entire life in the UK.

Living in a different country not only gives you a different perspective on life but also exposes you to different ways of thinking. On a grand scale you can see the difference between how a society based on Judeo-Christian values approaches a problem versus one based on Buddhist or Confucian ideals.

On a smaller scale it can just be the difference between what types of books and films are popular in one country versus another country.

“Gray Rhinos” are one such example – in China you cannot go to a business meeting without someone bringing them up.

Yes you read that right. China is obsessed with “Gray Rhinos”.

China’s President Xi Jinping warned against “Gray Rhinos” in January 2019 and China’s central bank are worried they will destabilize the whole country!

They are not worried that herds of wild animals from Africa will stampede across Asia though.

Rather they are worried about a term first coined by policy analyst Michele Wucker. She uses the “Gray Rhino” is a metaphor for a problem that we know is coming - we can see the dust cloud on the horizon long before the charging animal comes into view - but all too often we don’t take the necessary actions to avert the disaster until we see the actual rhino, by which time it is far too late!

Even though Michele Wucker is American the idea has really struck a chord in China with slowing economic growth, an aging demographic and the signs of other social and economic problems which have yet to come to fruition.

Obvious examples of “Gray Rhinos” in the UK are issues such as climate change, the state pensions’ black hole and of course the funding of the NHS. Everyone can see the growing dust clouds associated with the problem but we don’t seem to be taking the necessary steps to solve the problem while we still have the chance.

For me diversity is possibly the biggest “Gray Rhino” facing British broadcasters today.

The demography of the UK is changing. By 2031 one in five Britons will be BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) and by 2051 it is forecast that almost one third of the population will be BAME.  

All the research shows this growing segment of the population prefers streaming services more than their white counterparts and feels that services like Netflix do a better job at representing their lives than programmes produced by broadcasters such as the BBC.

Anyone who knows anything about the UK television industry, diversity and the UK’s changing demographic can see the dust clouds of the charging “Gray Rhino” coming.

So if everyone can see a problem coming why are people so bad at dealing with “Gray Rhinos”?

Here are a few theories:

First, many “Gray Rhinos” are often created by our own existing working practices and biases. Admitting that we are the problem requires us to challenge ourselves and change everything that has brought us success in the past. That is no easy exercise.

Second, politicians and executives are far more likely to focus on the short-term, trying to muddle through and hoping to push any hard decisions on to the next person in charge.

Which brings us to the third, and possibly the most important reason we fail to deal with “Gray Rhinos”. Solving them is hard and fraught with danger. If leaders make the wrong the decisions they can actually make matters worse. As Michele Wucker writes; “choosing the wrong response to a problem can hurt a leader more than doing nothing.” (Take the example of global warming; should we invest in wind, solar or wave energy? Making the wrong decision could cost a leader his job –  doing nothing but leaving it to you successor might be the easier course of action)

We can see examples of all three problems in broadcasters trying to deal with the oncoming diversity “Gray Rhino”

First most television executives in the UK have become successful by NOT properly embracing diversity. It is incredibly hard to change everything that has brought you success so far in your life and career for a problem you hope is still way off.

Second, you can see how broadcasters are continuing to muddle through. For example all the broadcasters place their Heads of Diversity within their HR departments and do not give them a seat at the executive board level. Considering this could be the issue that could make or break UK broadcasting seeing the job as just a case of increasing diversity statistics rather than a more strategic role with real power is a classic case of muddling through.

And third dealing with diversity requires some very hard leadership decisions. It may require adopting completely new business models more in line with Netflix and streaming services rather than the traditional broadcasting model for example. Or it may require a completely new way of measuring success and justifying that to shareholders (in the case of ITV and Channel 5) or politicians and the public (in the case of Channel 4 and BBC). And it will almost definitely require serious experimentation of the type of programmes broadcasters produce and the type of people who make them.

But while we might understand the reasons why large organisations do not tackle massive “Gray Rhinos”, experience has shown that invariably inaction is far worse and costlier than taking action. And the cost of not tackling this “Gray Rhino” is British broadcasters run the risk of totally losing large parts of their audience. So maybe it is time for all the British broadcasters to look at the example of China and confront the Gray Rhino racing towards them before it is too late.

What raising a child and media diversity have in common - bring in the grandparents

My son was born in Beijing almost three years ago.

My sister-in-law was living with my wife and me in China at the time and was a great support at the hospital when my wife went into labour – but she did not have children. So when Moses Safari Ryder was born there was a sudden realization that none of us really knew what we were doing and we were a long way from home. (“Safari” by the way is the name given in Swahili when you are born when travelling or away from home).

But we needn’t have worried because my mother jumped on a plane and less than 24 hours later was in Beijing imparting all the knowledge she had gained from successfully raising two boy.

Three months later when my mother went back to the UK another sister-in-law appeared – who had a four-year-old daughter. Her knowledge and experience of raising a child made life infinitely easier.

If you think of a family as a business then what my mother and second-sister-law provided is a concept called “institutional memory”. They had both gone through the process before; they knew the mistakes to avoid because they had seen them before. They knew the shortcuts. They knew what should cause alarm and what not to worry about.

Whether you are trying to raise a son in a small family or roll out a new policy in a multinational corporation institutional memory is incredibly important. It can be the difference between a business repeating a costly mistake or knowing best practice that has worked in the past.

However when it comes to diversity in the media industry it can feel like we have no institutional memory.

We consistently repeat the same mistakes and fail to capitalize on the very things that have worked so well before.

Far too many people act as if the push for diversity in the television industry started when Lenny Henry gave a speech at Bafta in 2014.

The fact is I cannot remember a time in my 20+ year career when women, BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) and disabled people have not been actively fighting for a bigger place at the media table to tell their stories and have their voices heard.

When I talk to senior industry figures in their fifties, sixties and even seventies who have been at the frontline of trying to increase diversity in television I am amazed how consistently they feel that the present policies rolled out by broadcasters are either repeating the same mistakes or failing to capitalize on what has happened before.

These are not old curmudgeons who think “everything was better in my day”. Invariably these are people who can offer a relevant critique on what broadcasters are doing right and what they are doing wrong.

I cannot tell you how often a conversation about a new diversity policy will start like this:

“…the new policy initiative is OK but it is similar to what we tried in ’95 and where it went wrong was XX so if I were in their shoes I would try YY”.

Or they will say

“…I don’t know why the broadcasters are dismissing that policy approach it worked perfectly well in the 80’s and with a bit of tweaking I think we might have something”.

The sad fact is far too few of these people are being consulted about the various diversity policies that the different broadcasters role out every year. We lose this institutional memory at our peril and the fact is with increased freelance work, staff turnover and the end of jobs for life the situation is only going to get worse.

And so here is MY diversity policy suggestion:

Can one of the UK’s top media universities create a diversity institutional memory brain trust?

This would comprise of eight to ten key people who have worked in the UK film and television for the last four to five decade and have experience of diversity policies over time.

They could meet two or three times a year and critique the broadcasters’, Ofcom’s (TV and radio regulator) and BFI’s (British Film Institute) different approaches to diversity. They could offer possible suggestions as to how to improve what is working based on their own intuitional memory and maybe suggest why some policies should be scrapped. This can then be put in a report and published by the academic institution for the whole industry to learn from.

The idea of a “Film and TV Diversity Memory Bank” is something I floated last time I was in London with a few senior execs in their fifties and sixties and I have at least three people who are eager to make this happen.

My parenting and son’s life benefited massively from a little institutional memory.

Isn’t it about time diversity in the TV industry did too?

32 to 1 - Ofcom's diversity in numbers

Last week I gave a speech to a room full of people interested in diversity in the media. It was a wonderful event in which I was able to talk to senior TV execs from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 some of whom have championed media diversity for over forty years. I was also able to talk to young media professionals who are just starting off their careers with fresh ideas and approaches to the issue of diversity.

The exchange of ideas and experiences was truly enriching and I am sure will form the basis of several blog posts to come, as well as possible campaigns for new policy suggestions that broadcasters, media regulators and politicians may want to adopt in order to increase diversity.

But just the act of breaking bread (or more accurately sharing a drink) with fellow media professionals who all want to increase diversity in our industry was rewarding in itself and I sincerely hope that similar events can be repeated soon.

The speech I gave primarily focused on the ethnic diversity of the UK media regulator Ofcom and afterwards a lot of people asked me if it was available online. I have tidied it up, taking out the usual introductions that are in such speeches and elaborated a little on the figures I quoted.

Enjoy…

"Ofcom is the body that is charged with making sure that broadcasters abide by their licenses and fulfill the requirements set out for them to broadcast in the UK.

Ofcom for example officially set out the minimum amount of programmes broadcasters have to produce outside of London. They set out the minimum amount of news and current affairs, high quality drama and other genres they have to do.

And with regards to diversity Ofcom are officially in charge of making sure the BBC specifically meets its new - since 2016 - Charter commitment to diversity.

On Thursday (28^th March) the BBC announced it had exceeded its targets on meeting diversity for BAME, LGBTQ and Disability. And for women the BBC was only 2% behind hitting its target of 50%. The BBC is not the only media organization to “hit” their diversity targets - all the broadcasters regularly hit their self-defined targets. Good news for everyone including Ofcom.

But here’s the rub. Even though the BBC says it’s met these targets, people like me, and many of you here today know there is a problem. Diversity, on and behind the screen is still not working.

Now, over the last 10 years - that’s just over a third of my career and starting from when I was still inside the BBC - I’ve been working with industry figures like Simon Albury and Sir Lenny Henry and Angela Ferreira to challenge this status quo and come up with new solutions to address how to increase diversity.

We’ve proposed ring-fencing money for diverse programmes, just like money is ring-fenced for children’s programmes. We’ve proposed centres of excellence with real money behind them, like they have for Nations and Regions.

We’ve proposed simply creating a definition of what the industry means by diversity so people can agree on what should be measured and how success can be judged.

So why have none of these simple solutions been picked up? Why does it sometimes feel like we’re talking to thin air? Like our solutions are falling on deaf ears?

So I’ve been looking a bit more deeply at Ofcom – as this would be the organization that would create a definition or impose ring-fenced funds on an organisation.

Ofcom has a number of advisory boards and sub committees to represent different groups, raise important issues and make sure Ofcom is doing a good job.

There is the Content Board which “represents the interest of the viewer, the listener and citizen”. There is Consumer Panel “set up and maintain effective arrangements for consultation with consumers”. And there are four other boards to represent “interests and opinions”, specific to people living in the four Nations (England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland).

There are a number of other boards and sub-committees but none represent the interests of the viewers, consumers and citizens in the same way.

I’ve done a little research on who are on the different boards.

Altogether there are 32 people members on the 6 different major boards.

Now all I did was a Google image search on each member and did a little background research and so it was not an exact science, but of those 32 people how many do you think are Black Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME )?

(For those of you reading this who were not at the speech I paused for dramatic effect at this point as people shouted out suggestions - you had to be there :)

The answer is one.

Only one person of a BAME background advises Ofcom on whether they are doing a good job.

Currently just one out of 32 people can give a BAME perspective on whether independent prodcution companies are being treated fairly.

Only one out of 32 people can give a BAME perspective on the quality of programme content.

Only one out of 32 people can give a BAME perspective on whether the policy solutions suggested by the likes of Lenny Henry have any merit.

Now ideally I believe there should be a Diversity Board on the same level as the four Nations boards to represent the specific interests, issues and concerns of specific groups such as women, BAME disabiled and LGBTQ+ people. After all the UK’s BAME population alone is almost as large as the popyulations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

But even if you do not agree with the creation of a new board I think very few people would think 1 out of 32 is good representation. 

Now I know some of you will quickly point out that the head of Ofcom is a black woman – the very competent Sharon White - but let us take a step back and think about this:

No one would have dreamt of saying; “Well Ed Richards – Sharon’s predecessor - grew up in Portsmouth so we don’t need an England board, and we don’t need to worry about  the advice on out of London productions.” That would be nonsense.

So ladies and gentlemen, here is my new solution to increasing diversity throughout the television industry.

To use the Latin term; “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” ("Who guards the guards?"). If we want Ofcom to do a better job at increasing diversity we need to look at the diversity of who are advising them, overseeing them and even judging them.

We need, at the very least, to increase the diversity of Ofcom’s existing boards, and ideally have a new specific board on diversity. If we believe the other boards are essential for Ofcom to come to the right decisions about England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, then changing the diversity on the boards and even creating a new board is equally essential for Ofcom to come to the right decisions about diversity."

Footnote – there is one BAME person on Ofcom's advisory panel on spectrum which is a technical panel on how broadcasting signals and media networks are used.

I have also created a list of all of Ofcom's advisory and oversight committees for people to look at a break down of the gender and ethnic diversity of each one (I have excluded the executive Policy and Management board as this is the managment board that the other boards are meant to oversee and advise) I stress this was done purely through Google image searches and research into the biographies of the various members - if I have made mistakes I would be thankful to Ofcom or anyone else to correct them:   

Ofcom Board

Ofcom's main decision making body is the Board, which provides strategic direction for the organisation.

It has a Non-Executive Chairman, Executive Directors (including the Chief Executive), and Non-Executive Directors.

The Executive runs the organisation and answers to the Board.

The Ofcom Board meets at least once a month (with the exception of August). Agendas, summary notes and minutes are published regularly on the Ofcom website.

10 members
3 women

1 BAME (Sharon White)

Ofcom Content Board

The Content Board is a committee of the main Board and it sets and enforces quality and standards for television and radio. It has members representing each of the countries in the UK, and includes members with extensive broadcasting experience. It is charged with understanding, analysing and championing the voices and interest of the viewer, the listener and citizen.

13 members

5 women

1 BAME (Monisha Shah)

Communications Consumer Panel (CCP) (Advisory Committee for Older and Disabled People)

The Communications Act 2003 requires Ofcom to set up and maintain effective arrangements for consultation with consumers. These arrangements include the establishment of the Communications Consumer Panel, an independent body with the function of advising both Ofcom and others.

9 members

3 women

0 BAME

Ofcom Risk and Audit Committee

The Risk and Audit Committee is responsible for ensuring the maintenance of appropriate and adequate audit processes and the governance of the internal audit and external audit programme

It is a sub-committee of the Ofcom Board and is chaired by a non-executive member of the Ofcom Board..

3 members

2 women

0 BAME

Nominations Committee

The Nominations Committee is chaired by the Chairman of Ofcom. All non-executive Ofcom Board members are members of the Nominations Committee.

Remuneration Committee

The Remuneration Committee has oversight over all matters relating to the remuneration of the Chief Executive and members of the Executive Committee (together called “the senior management team”).

7 members

2 women

0 BAME

Advisory Committee for England

The Advisory Committee for England advises Ofcom about the interests and opinions, in relation to communications and postal matters, of persons living in England.

The Committee usually meets five times a year. The Committee’s minutes are provided to the Ofcom Board.

6 members (4 + 2 members from other committees)
3 women

1 BAME (Monisha Shah)

Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland

The Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland advises Ofcom about the interests and opinions, in relation to communications matters, of people living in Northern Ireland.

8 members (6 + 2 members from other committees)

3 women

Advisory Committee for Scotland

The Advisory Committee for Scotland advises Ofcom about the interests and opinions, in relation to communications matters, of persons living in Scotland.

6 members (4 + 2 members from other committees)

5 women

0 BAME

Advisory Committee for Wales

The Advisory Committee for Wales advises Ofcom about the interests and opinions, in relation to communications matters, of persons living in Wales.

7 members (5 + 2 members from other committees)

2 women

0 BAME

Community Radio Fund Panel

Section 359 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it possible for a fund for community radio operators to be set up, and for Ofcom to administer it and “make such grants as they consider appropriate” to community radio licensees.

3 members

2 women

0 BAME

Ofcom Spectrum Advisory Board (OSAB)

The Ofcom Spectrum Advisory Board (OSAB) provides independent advice to Ofcom on strategic spectrum management issues.

8 members

1 woman

1 BAME (Wassim Chourbaji)

UPDATE - 25/06/2019

It was announced today that Aaqil Ahmed (former head of BBC Religion)has been appointed to the England Advisory Committee - increasing the BAME representation to two.