Retention - TV’s dirty diversity secret. Or why broadcasters need a Truth and Reconciliation moment

When I first started working for China’s largest news broadcaster, CGTN, they had a problem.

From the point of offering a foreign candidate a job, to them actually working took approximately 6 months. The length of time is a combination of the bureaucracy related to a large organisation and Chinese visa red tape.

And yet despite this massive investment in time and effort by both CGTN and the candidate, on average foreign employees stayed for only 18 months.

The retention rate was atrocious.

CGTN’s answer to losing so many international journalists?

Recruit more!

As the Chief International Editor of CGTN’s Digital news I realised that this strategy was not sustainable.

That is why I have become obsessed with employee retention and so far the average time international employee stays with CGTN is three years and rising.

And when I say “obsessed” I really do mean obsessed. I read everything I can on the subject and take personal pride when international staff renew their annual rolling contracts.

Right now when it comes to increasing diversity British broadcasters are suffering from the same issue, staff retention is possibly the biggest problem.

If you look at the statistics from 2016 the rate Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) staff leave the BBC outstrips their white counterparts, and has been increasing every year.

In 2016 14.6% of people leaving the BBC were BAME.

In 2017 14.9% of people leaving the BBC were BAME.

In 2018 16.4% of people leaving the BBC were BAME.

In 2019 18.4% of people leaving the BBC were BAME.

In the same four years disabled staff have also left the cooperation at a faster rate than their able-bodied counterparts for two of the four years.

I use 2016 as the starting point because that was the year when it first became obvious that the BBC had a serious problem with several high profile BAME senior execs leaving. The situation was so bad in 2016 that the BBC’s own Radio 4 Media Show even had an item exploring the issue and The Times ran the headline “Black and Asian executives quit ‘snowy white peak’ BBC”.

And yet despite the alarm bells ringing in 2016 the numbers leaving the BBC have continued to rise.

Now I am always nervous about singling out the BBC, and I only do so because of all the British media organisations they collect and publish the most comprehensive statistics. But talking to friends working in HR and diversity at Channel 4, ITV and ITN anecdotally it would seem the BBC is not the only organisation struggling to retain BAME and disabled talent.

The response of so many media organisations haemorrhaging “diverse” staff is similar to CGTN’s initial response, and that is to increase staff recruitment. You see British broadcasters doing this in numerous ways, including outreach recruitment schemes, mentoring schemes, a focus on how to make work experience more diverse and constant talk about “improving the pipeline”.

But increased recruitment can never make up for a lack of retention.

This is for three fundamental reasons:

1. An organisation will never be able to increase diversity in leadership positions if they can’t hold on to diverse talent to grow their careers.

2. Older staff create the culture of an organisation. If you cannot retain diverse staff the culture remains "un-diverse", this means you do not get the true benefits of diversity. Plus if the culture stays the same the younger diverse staff will not stay. It’s a vicious cycle.

3. Recruiting new staff to make up for lost staff is very expensive; advertising, interview time, training, losing institutional memory etc. It all adds up.

There is a lot of literature on staff retention in general and even on retention of diverse staff specifically.

But there is one aspect that is rarely discussed, which I have found essential in retaining staff - Honesty.

And this became abundantly clear last week when I was attending the Edinburgh Television Festival when three things come together:

First, Channel 4's head of Current Affairs, Dorothy Byrne, gave a blistering MacTaggart lecture, the festival’s annual keynote speech, in which she talked about diversity.

Second, despite the amazing speech nearly all the BAME and disabled people I spoke to at the festival were either apathetic or downright negative about the industry’s ability to increase diversity behind the camera.

And third, I sat next to the head of programming at Al Jazeera English who had lived through apartheid South Africa.

Now let me begin by talking about the second point - apathy.

As a manager apathy is the biggest danger sign that a member of staff is about to leave. We all want highly engaged, enthusiastic staff. But according to the literature, the second best staff, surprisingly, are angry staff. When a staff member is angry it normally means that they believe that the situation they are in can change, their anger is part of that process of trying to make their job situation better.

Apathy on the other hand means they have given up hope and have lost faith in the organisation and that their situation will improve. Nine times out of ten apathetic staff are surfing job sites and updating their LinkedIn profile.

And even if they are not actively looking for another job their performance goes down and then the exec does not renew their contract because in the words of one senior exec I spoke to “it’s got nothing to do with them being disabled, they just didn’t seem engaged.”

So why should diverse staff be feeling apathetic when people like Dorothy, and almost every senior television executive, are espousing the virtues of diversity?

That is when it struck me, talking to the South African Al Jazeera executive.

When it came to the end of apartheid it wasn’t enough for people to simply say; let’s move on.

What was needed was a processes called “Truth and Reconciliation” where people who had been in positions of power during apartheid talked about what they had done wrong and victims of apartheid could also talk about their experiences without fear.

Now I am not suggesting public show trials where TV execs confess everything they have done wrong in the past, (although Endemol if you’re reading and want to pitch this as a new format, let’s talk).

What I am suggesting is that broadcasters need to acknowledge their mistakes of the past. There is a need for honesty.

The television industry has been rolling out different diversity schemes for over twenty years, and yet for most under-represented groups they have had very limited success, and in some cases numbers have even declined.

Despite their obvious failure I have never heard a single executive, who announced the rolling out of any of these schemes, admit in the following years that they had failed, and more importantly WHY they failed. There has been a lack of honesty

There has been no “truth and reconciliation” on how the media industry has failed its diverse staff.

I believe that until broadcasters and media organisations own up to their mistakes of the past and are transparent on how they will learn from their mistakes people will remain sceptical about the effectiveness of any announcements about wanting to increase diversity. And apathy will be the order of the day.

Which brings me back to working in China.

The biggest lesson I learnt at CGTN in how to retain staff is to be as honest as possible.

There are cultural and social issues that can be challenging for someone working for a Chinese organisation and living in Beijing. The strategy before I started working at CGTN was for the management to simply brush these problems under the carpet and extol the positives. However I found that as an executive if you simply ignore the problems they don’t go away. Instead your staff will talk about them without you and usually not in a constructive way. By addressing the issues honestly, and where management has gone wrong previously, you build trust and together you can come to solutions.

No longer are staff apathetic on the verge of leaving - they feel empowered.

If we want to retain our diverse staff let’s be honest, admit our mistakes and listen to our diverse talent. In other words let's have a truth a reconciliation moment.

Being a black TV exec can feel like being an endangered species!

Do you have a pension?

Do you want to increase media diversity?

What if we could find a way to harness the money in your pension fund, and your other financial investments, to increase the number of women, BAME and disabled people working behind the camera?

Then you may want to buy “Media Diversity Bonds”

The idea for “media diversity bonds” came about by an off-the-cuff remark from a black television exec recently. We were talking about going to pitch meetings and she told me she is often the only black person in the room and feels like an “endangered species”. 

It was the “endangered species” comment that got me thinking.

WE ARE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

Are there lessons we could learn from the conservationist community, who are trying to increase wildlife species, that we could use to increase media diversity? 

Let me tell you about “Rhino Impact Bonds”.

Black rhinos are close to extinction from a population of roughly 65,000 in the 1970’s the number has dropped to 5,500. They are the definition of “endangered species” (although 5,500 is still a larger number than BAME people working in the UK television industry - yes I know a cheap shot).

Various attempts to increase the number of black rhinos have failed, and so the Zoological Society of London and Conservation Capital got together to harness the power of the market and launch “Rhino Impact Bonds” 

Financial institutions and wealthy individuals are able to invest in these bonds. 

The money they invest is then used to finance programmes to increase the number of black rhinos. 

At the end of five years if the rhino population has gone up the investors get their money back with interest. If the numbers do not go up the investors lose their investment. The technical term is an  an “outcome payments” model.

The interest (or “yield”) will be paid by charities and governments, who right now are already shelling out even more money with no results.

The principal behind it, is that financial institutions and wealthy individuals want to see a return on their investment, so they will make sure they money is only directed towards programmes that really work.

FROM RHINOS TO MEDIA DIVERSITY

The basic model could easily be transferred to media diversity.

Just like rhino conservation there is a lot of talk and schemes with very little to show for them. 

Better and more targeted money could be the answer. 

Talking to BAME-led indies one of the biggest problems is accessing funds for development and to retain staff between projects. Funds from a “Media Diversity Bond” could be used to tackle this issue.

“Media Diversity Bonds” could be used to cofund diverse productions in exactly the same way the government’s own contestable fund currently cofunds Children’s programmes to increase the number of British Children’s productions.     

As investors want real returns on their money they would ensure that only training schemes that yield results are invested in. 

IT IS ALREADY WORKING

The fact of the matter is the idea behind the “Rhino Impact Bond” is not new and it has already been used to help disadvantaged groups in various countries.

India has one of the most successful bonds in place with the aim of funding schemes to educate young women and girls in rural areas. The bond launched in 2016 increased student enrollment by 116% in less than two years. And investors saw a 15% return.

Colombia launched the “Workforce Social Impact Bond” targeting vulnerable, unemployed people living in Bogotá, Cali and Pereira to increase their employment and financial stability. Launched in 2017 the results of the investment are still to be seen.

EMBRACE YOUR INNER RHINO

So next time you are on a film set and you are the only disabled person there.

Or you are the only female director you know.

Or you are the only black person at a pitch meeting.

Do not be ashamed of feeling like an endangered species maybe we need to embrace our inner rhinos.

Stacey Dooley, BBC Panorama and how not to apologise for a diversity mistake

I regularly write about how diversity and inclusion must be at the heart of everything broadcasters do and not just an “add-on” to their core programmes and policies.

This week the BBC has come under considerable fire for a Panorama investigation into "western" women involved in the Islamist group ISIS, titled “Stacey Meets the IS Brides”.    

In a short preview film shown the night before on the News at Ten reporter Stacey Dooley described watching “women raising their index finger in an IS salute". It was quickly pointed out by viewers that this interpretation of the hand gesture is misleading at best and is actually a symbol of Tawhid described by the Oxford Dictionary of Islam as a sign for “the unity and uniqueness of God as creator and sustainer of the Universe”.

The BBC quickly apologised and recut the Panorama so it did not include this mistake.

Now, many people have pointed out, myself included, that the mistake would seem to illustrate a lack of diversity in the editorial team at Panorama and the News and Ten. Specifically the lack of Muslim staff with decision making power to identify and rectify this mistake before it was broadcast.

The lack of diversity in high level decision making positions throughout the UK broadcasters’ news and current affairs is a massive problem. 

There is not a single major TV BBC news programme (Breakfast, One O’Clock News, Six O’Clock News, News at Ten, Newsnight, Panorama etc) which is headed by a person of colour or someone from a Muslim background. And to the best of my knowledge the same applies for all the UK terrestrial broadcasters - ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

However in this blog post I wanted to focus on another aspect of the recent Stacey Dooley Panorama furore. 

The incident serves as a case study of how not to apologise for a mistake and why the lack of diversity in the apology was a key failing.

First let’s look at the BBC's apology:

"We wrongly described a gesture made by women filmed in a Kurdish controlled detention camp in northern Syria as an 'IS salute'," a BBC spokesman said.

"While IS have attempted to adopt this for their own propaganda purposes, for accuracy we should have been clear that many people of Muslim faith use this gesture to signify the oneness of Allah.

"We apologise for this error and have removed this description from the footage."

When this did not stop the criticism of Panorama and Stacey Dooley the BBC News press office then published two linked tweets:

Let’s dissect what the BBC Press Office has got wrong and how it could have avoided these mistakes if it truly recognised how diversity should have been at the core of its response.

First of all, as a former BBC exec I have been involved in my fair share of drafting and approving apologies and public relations statements and so I have a little experience in this field.

The BBC says “It’s disappointing that criticism has focused on Stacey; every programme is a team effort, so the mistake wasn’t her responsibility.” 

This statement is just wrong. 

The BBC linked its tweet to an article by the Express reporting Janet Street Porter’s criticism of the Panorama programme on Loose Women. Janet Street Porter goes out of her way not to place the blame on Stacey Dooley saying “I blame the producer”. 

No one then takes responsibility for the mistake. Instead the BBC News press team diffuses responsibility blaming the whole “team effort”. Diffusion of responsibility does not make a problem go away. It demonstrates a lack of leadership and the inability of anyone to take responsibility. Personal responsibility sends out a strong statement.

If the editor of News at Ten or the executive producer of Panorama would have gone up to collect an award if the programme had won any gongs, then one of them should have personally taken responsibility for this mistake. 

It is that simple.

Then comes the diversity problem…

At the core of all the social media criticism of the Panorama investigation is the lack of diversity in the production team’s staff that could have allowed the mistake to happen.

If an organisation does not address the core issue, the apology and subsequent PR around the subject will not make the problem go away.

Therefore however painful it might be to the BBC they should have tackled the fundamental problem. 

If I were advising them I would have suggested the following:

"We understand there have been concerns about the lack of diversity in the production team that could have allowed this mistake to occur…” (Address the elephant in the room)

"...BBC News and Current Affairs has a good track record on BAME diversity with 15.6% of our staff coming from a BAME background..." (Use this as an opportunity to tell a good story about the BBC)

"...But there are clearly issues that need to be addressed, such as only 2.4% of News staff are Muslim compared to the UK population of as a whole of 5%, and we still need to look at BAME representation in key editorial positions...” (Acknowledge the problems people are talking about - validate people’s reality)

“...We have of course re-edited the Panorama programme and all related material not to include this mistake…” (Rectifying a mistake is standard practice and so the BBC should not act as if it has done anything special)

“...And more importantly we are seeing this as a valuable learning experience of how we cover these sensitive issues in the future so similar mistakes are not repeated.” (Demonstrate how you will rectify the broader issue)

Finally if the BBC really wanted to get extra brownie points it could add; “We have invited key experts to discuss with the production team how to cover religiously sensitive issues in the future”.

When I talk about diversity being at the very core of everything a broadcaster does this means; from the the point of hiring staff to commissioning programmes, from the point of making a programme to issuing public apologies. 

The inability of the BBC to properly address the diversity issue in its public statement around this issue seems to demonstrate that once again broadcasters have not yet grasped this fundamental lesson.

And most importantly it means some strong journalism has been completely overshadowed by the BBC's #DiversityFail.   

The "Bystander Effect" And Why It's Hurting Diversity

Are media executives suffering from the “bystander effect” when it comes to diversity?

In 1964 a 28 year-old woman was raped and stabbed to death outside her apartment in New York. Thirty eight people supposedly watched for more than half an hour as she was attacked but did nothing, not even call the police.

The case made headlines across the world with everyone asking the same question; why didn’t any of those 38 people do anything to save the poor woman?

And so a new psychological theory was born: “The bystander effect”.

The idea behind the bystander effect is the idea of “diffusion of responsibility” - people are less likely to take action if there are other witnesses who seem likely to do so.

The insidious effect can work in two ways:

First, each witness thinks someone else will step in and save the day.

Second, each person feels morally justified in their inaction as they see other people acting (or not acting) in exactly the same way.

The irony of the “bystander effect” is the more people who are present and able to help the less likely the person in need of assistance will receive any help.

None of these bystanders are bad people. They would want to help a person in distress but once the “bystander effect” kicks in their good intentions do not become actions.

So what has this got to do with media executives and diversity?

During my time as a media executive there have frequently been BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) and disabled talent who everyone recognises as great. The one thing the BAME and disbaled talent all have in common is they needed a break. Whether that break is moving from assistant producer to director, producer to series producer, or series producer to executive producer they need someone in a leadership position to reach out to them.

In my experience media execs are generally nice people - as the cliche goes; “some of my best friends are media execs”. And when I have dinner party conversations with them they all want to increase diversity. At the same time I do not see them giving the breaks to BAME and disabled talent which we can all see.

For a long time I have tried to reconcile this contradiction.

And while I do not think there is any single reason, I firmly believe the “bystander effect” has a role to play.

Not to sound over-dramatic but TV executives are often like the thirty eight people who saw the 28 year-old woman in New York being raped and murdered in 1964 when it comes to helping diverse talent.

TV execs want to help diverse talent, they can see the diverse talent needs help BUT the irony is the more other execs say they also support diversity the less likely each individual exec will feel the need to act. They think someone else will sort out the problem.

So how do we solve the problem?

Luckily for us the first aid community have had to tackle this problem when helping victims of accidents in public and they have come up with a very simple solution: Identify specific individuals and ask for specific help.

So if someone collapses in the street and a first aider is present the first aider does not just call out to the crowd in general for help. The first aid community has found that the best course of action is for the first aider to identify a specific person (often randomly) and say “woman in the red t-shirt call 999” or “man with the shopping bag you will have to help me with chest compressions” etc etc.

This jolts people out of bystander mode and become active participants.

If higher management at UK broadcasters want their executives to increase diversity they cannot just send out general messages to their entire executive team to “increase diversity”. They should identify specific execs and give them very specific tasks:

“Luke, find a disabled series producer by the end of the year and if you haven’t got one explain what you did to try and find one”

“Tim, get me an Asian director for your next series and tell me about all the unsuccessful candidates you saw as well”

Etc etc.

When it comes to diversity there is really no such thing as an “innocent bystander” just people who acted and people who didn’t act. And surprisingly according to the “bystander effect” that has almost nothing to do with how morally good or bad they are as people.