Why diversity needs white able-bodied heterosexual middle-class men

Twenty six years ago I learnt that white able-bodied heterosexual men are important to increasing diversity in the media.

Back in 1993 I was a junior researcher at the consumer magazine programme Watchdog.

Apart from me, a black secretary and one extremely talented Asian producer there were no people of colour in a very large team. So the series instituted a trainee researcher scheme targeting BAME diversity. Three trainees were appointed; two Asian women and a black woman.

As far as I could tell the three trainees were all good at their jobs and well liked.

Then one morning a photocopied article from a newspaper (I think it was the Daily Mail) met everyone on their desks. It was over twenty five years ago so I do not remember the exact wording but the article was about the three trainees, how it was an example of BBC’s “political correctness gone mad” and how the editor in charge had personally pocketed an extra bonus for employing these three BAME women.

The effects of the article, photocopying it and placing it on everyone’s desk were devastating.

The three trainees went from being viewed as hotshots on a highly selective targeted scheme to being mere tick boxes that helped pay for the editor’s new kitchen refurbishment.

It rocked the trainees’ confidence and was terrible for the morale of the whole team. And most importantly after the article the trainee scheme was quietly ditched.

The article had been placed on everyone’s desk by a white able-bodied middle-class male heterosexual male reporter. The very type of person who thought they had nothing to gain by these types of diversity trainee schemes and nothing to lose by sabotaging them.

That one experience 27 years ago has shaped my views on how broadcasters should approach diversity.

It is easy to say that when it comes to diversity senior management should just ignore the concerns of white men. The argument is white men have benefited from the current system for so long that if they don’t like a few attempts to redress the balance they can “just lump it”.

As much as I have sympathy with this line of reasoning, as a person with management experience the idea of possibly losing the support of the majority of your workforce, (white men often make up over 50% of any production), as you try to make systematic changes is just not feasible.

Recent research from the US showed that while three quarters (75%) of Americans think companies should encourage diversity in the workplace, less than a quarter (24%) think companies should take concrete actions to hire or promote people of colour to increase that diversity!

That means that even if enlightened senior management want to increase diversity they are going to struggle. We all know that most company cultures are such that if 75% of your workforce is against a policy there is little chance of it succeeding. Employees may not place photocopied articles of the Daily Mail on everyone’s desk but there’s more than one way to sink a good idea. 

  

So what should senior management do, to not only counter possible resistance to such diversity schemes but even get the majority of their workforce enthusiastic about such policies?

The simple answer is to find a way for everyone to feel they have a vested interest in the diversity initiatives succeeding. I know, easier said than done. But it is possible.

For example, if I were to redesign the Watchdog trainee scheme today I would expand the number of trainees from three to six and reserve three of the trainee positions for people of colour. The end result would be the same (three BAME people getting training opportunities) but importantly if the white reporter tried to sabotage the scheme he would also be destroying the career opportunities of other white people - something he would be far less likely to do.

I see this failure to treat diversity initiatives as part of a larger holistic approach, and therefore vulnerable to attack, all the time. Attempts to increase diversity cannot be “add-ons” to existing working practices but must be baked into working practices and the success of a company as a whole, so no one would want them to fail.  

Let’s take another example, the call for ring-fenced funds for BAME productions by Sir Lenny Henry and others. This is the idea that broadcasters should set money aside for programmes made by productions meeting certain diversity criteria, in the same way money is set aside for productions who meet certain “out of London” criteria.

The problem is that ring-fencing BAME productions is often discussed in isolation and therefore vulnerable to charges of “reverse racism” and the very types of attacks that derailed the Watchdog trainee scheme. However if you take a holistic approach it can actually be viewed as part of regional diversity.

Let me explain how.

Right now broadcasters ring-fence money for the Nations and Regions - the amount the BBC ring-fences for the English regions is intrinsically tied into how much it ring-fences for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is viewed holistically and means Scottish productions support the idea of ring-fenced funds for Wales and vice versa.

For diversity ring-fencing, broadcasters could also think holistically and instead of just ring-fencing money for the Nations and Regions could ring-fence money for the "Nations, Regions and Communities" (a term used in the BBC Charter) with "communities" encompassing disability, BAME, and maybe even women.

This way everything would be tied together and white men in Northern Ireland would champion diversity funds just as much as they champion Welsh ring-fencing. 

Whether we like it or not white able-bodied heterosexual men are important for the success of any attempts to increase diversity in the media.

Weaving diversity schemes and initiatives into the very systems which everyone has a vested interest in seeing succeed, regardless of race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or class, is the only way to ensure everyone will try their best to make them succeed.

We shouldn’t just aim to stop white men, who might think diversity has nothing to do with them, from sabotaging diversity schemes. Done correctly those very same white men may even become diversity’s biggest supporters.

The career ladder for black and Asian people in TV is broken - let's fix it

I am the last of a generation of black and Asian TV execs.

Before me was a generation of black and Asian senior television execs which includes the likes of Pat Younge (MD of Sugar Films), Tommy Nagra (senior exec at the BBC), Maxine Watson (Director of Programmes at Twenty Twenty) and Angela Ferriera (MD of Douglas Road Productions).

After me has come a generation of young extremely talented TV professionals who I think have had it a lot harder than my generation, and have struggled to make it to the same heights.

I was having coffee the other day with a senior HR figure at the BBC and she said ruefully “Twenty years we got it right. Now it feels as if we are almost going backwards”

She told me how she had recently been to a party where there had been a large number of senior Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) TV figures in their forties and fifties.

Working in HR she has an encyclopedic knowledge of the careers of BAME people throughout the media industry. And her assessment was that despite some extremely talented individuals there was not a new cohort coming up to replace these older execs.

And her analysis of why not struck a chord.

This older generation had all effectively been the beneficiaries of "ring-fenced diversity money".

(Ring-fenced money is the idea of broadcasters putting money aside specifically for a certain type of programme or production - for example there is ring-fenced funds for news and current affairs programmes, children's programmes and programmes made outside of London)

The older generation of BAME execs who benefited from “ring-fenced diversity money” didn't call it that back then, but that is what it was - let me explain.

Every one of the black and Asian senior execs I mentioned at the start of the piece, and others who had been present at the same party as the HR friend, had all worked on series or in departments with specific funds to employ and develop BAME talent.

Pat Younge and Maxine Watson for example both worked on the BBC current affairs series “Black Britain” gaining valuable series producer, and later executive producer, experience which they were able to build on throughout their careers. Tommy Nagra and Angela Ferriera were heads of the Asian Programme Unit and African/Caribbean Programme Unit respectively, which gave them invaluable managerial experience. Angela is now managing director of Douglas Road productions which just produced the award winning series “Soon Gone: A Windrush Chronicle. Tommy is one of the most senior BAME people in an editorial role at the BBC.

In fact it is almost impossible to find any black or Asian person working in TV over the age of 45 who did not in some capacity, directly or indirectly, benefit from these ring-fenced series and departments.

I used to naively look at my own career and think these ring-fenced funds hadn’t helped me. The truth is I just didn’t examine my own career hard enough.

I briefly passed through “Black Britain” directing one documentary with the reporter Clive Myrie. That one current affairs programme was an essential element to me securing the series producer job at “Whistleblower”, a BBC1 undercover investigations series. And “Whistleblower was key to when I successfully applied for the BBC Scotland head of current affairs programmes position.

I also cut my directing teeth at the BBC’s Community Programme Unit which produced ground-breaking series such as Video Diaries in the 80s and 90s. The unit’s remit was to represent under-represented voices on-screen. Under the enlightened thinking of two execs, Debbie Christie and Bob Long, they realised that the best way to fulfill that on-screen remit they should employ under-represented people behind the camera. They actively sought out people like me and made award winning series in the process.

(Side note: the Community Programme Unit used to share office space with the Disability Programme Unit which similarly nurtured disabled talent).

Now these series and departments, which effectively ring-fenced funds for diverse programme makers, were not perfect.

Many people felt ghettoised only able to work on certain types of programmes and I think a lot of that criticism is valid. And it was due to much of this kind of criticism that most of these series and departments were disbanded in the late 90s and early 00s.

But the problem is nothing was set up to replace them. The dedicated funds for Asian, black and disabled programmes and programme makers just vanished. And with them so did a clear career path to nurture and promote under-represented talent.

Now my answer is not to bring back these series and departments but to ring-fence the funds that were behind them for diverse progamme makers and productions. BUT - and this is key - the on-screen subject matter does not necessarily have to be “diverse”, that way the programme makers do not feel ghettoised.

As I had coffee with my friend in BBC HR we both agreed that without ring-fenced funds we are simply not getting the next generation of senior BAME execs coming through.

However it was another conversation I had a few days later with a retired TV exec that really gave me food for thought. I talked through the need for ring-fenced funds and he replied:

“Of course, of course it’s obvious! But you know what else is obvious Marcus? You’ll never get broadcasters to agree to it calling it ‘ring-fenced funds’ - after all we didn’t call it that in the 80s - your job is to sell it better.”

How Doing "Nothing" Can Increase Diversity - The Secret of Trinidadian Liming

I would like to introduce everyone to one of the greatest gifts that island of Trinidad has given the world and it might just play a vital role in increasing diversity in the workplace.

It is called “liming.”

Now every Trinidadian who is reading this will instantly know what I am talking about, as will most people of Caribbean heritage.

But for the uninitiated let me explain...

“Liming” in many ways is the opposite to what most people know Trinidad for - Carnival.

While carnival is all about lively music, dancing, “jumping up” and general raucous behaviour, liming is all about relaxing. One online dictionary defines liming as “hanging around, usually in a public place with friends, enjoying the scene”. I found another academic paper that describes it as “the art of doing nothing.”

So how on earth could “doing nothing” increase diversity?

The secret is revealed in another academic paper titled “Caribbean liming: A metaphor for building social capital” Professor Emeritus at Nova Southeastern University Ruth Clarke and Reccia N Charles of St George's University, West Indies.

According to the paper the more people hang out “liming”, doing “nothing”, the more they “build networks, trust, information and communication exchange, social cohesion, political empowerment and collective action”.

These are all the elements that are needed to improve career success:

The more you build your networks the more successful you are in finding work.

The higher the level of trust between individuals, the more likely they will employ you and recommend you to potential employers.

Increases in information and communication better the chances you will know about new job opportunities.

Each of these points go to make up what sociologists call “social capital” and it is commonly recognised that the higher your social capital the more successful you are in your career. Therefore increasing the social capital of women, BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic), disabled people and other underrepresented groups is key to increasing diversity in the workplace.

Now I know what some of you are thinking - isn’t this just the same as networking events?

No! In fact it is the exact opposite of networking events.

Overt networking events are transactional. People go there with the explicit motive of either finding a job or looking for someone to fill a position. Networking events are like a marketplace of people trying to sell themselves to a potential employer.

They build about as much trust and honest communication as a second-hand car salesroom. Networking events are one of the worst ways of building social capital.

"Liming” on the other-hand is about building trust over time.

Without the pressure of buying and selling you slowly get to know people - dare I say it you build “friendships”.

I’ve seen this happen a few times in my career.

In the 90s the weekly black newspaper The Voice used to go to print on a Thursday. It meant that all the journalists had filed all their pieces by Thursday evening and so to unwind they would go to the Z bar in Brixton for a drink. They were doing nothing - they were “liming” - but Thursday nights at the Z bar soon became the weekly place to hangout for all black journalists, whether they worked for The Voice or not, and the best place to build connections.

I saw it again just a few weeks ago when I recently gave a speech on diversity. The place was full of people interested in diversity in the media industry; from senior TV execs to junior researchers. Before and after the speech I saw people just “liming” hanging out, doing “nothing”, but they were building friendships and trust and most importantly “social capital”.

And I regularly see the benefits of liming in Beijing (as far away from Trinidad as you can get). On a weekend my wife and I are often liming with other parents of kids who go to the same school as our son. We have both received several job offers as a result. And we've also been able to recommend friends for potential jobs as well.

So if liming is so important to increasing social capital how can broadcasters use this fact to increase diversity?

My advice is that they need to put on more events and/or sponsor events where people can just “lime”. Sponsor more talks such as the one I was at in April, put on more screenings or even give more money to media organisations representing diverse groups to simply put on parties.

Now I am not suggesting broadcasters get rid of their networking events (there is a place for second-hand car showrooms) but if we want to increase sustainable diversity we should all try to be a little more Trinidadian - relax and lime.

My three-year-old's sports day holds the secret to media diversity

Last week was my son’s first school sports day. The weather was wonderful and he ran various obstacle courses and relays. I cheered along every effort and welled up a little when he told me that one day he wants to be “fast like daddy”.

But near the end of the day I ended up with one of those “difficult parenting moments”.  My three-year-old son had picked up the wrong medal at school sports day (one meant for older kids). The medals for children in his class were a slightly different colour. The problem was that even though he only had the wrong medal for a minute before I noticed the mistake it was now his medal and he was not going to give it up!

Now people who follow my blog will know that I love economics and that I am married to a leading economist in China-Africa affairs.

Economists actually have a theory to explain what my son was going through, it is called “endowment theory”. And it could hold the key to how we should shape policy to increase diversity in the media industry.

The theory says that once you own something, even briefly, you place a far greater value on it than something of equal value. In this case even though the older kids’ medals and younger kids’ medals were virtually the same, and of the same value, once my son “owned” the older kids’ medal he valued it more and did not want to swap it.

This theory was demonstrated brilliantly in a seminal experiment where an economics lecturer randomly divided his students into two groups. He gave one group mugs and then he gave the other group chocolate which cost the same amount. He then asked people who wanted to swap with each other.

Because the groups had been picked at random you would expect half the people with chocolates to want to swap and half the people with mugs to swap. But what they found is that hardly anyone in either group wanted to swap.  

Once you give people something they are very reluctant to give it up even if they are assigned it randomly and are then offered something of equal value. This is called  the “endowment effect”.

We see the “endowment effect” all the time, it is the principle behind money back free trials. Sellers have known for years that once you put something in a consumer’s hands they simply do not want to give it up - even if you return their money.

So could we use this “endowment effect” to increase diversity?

Currently diversity officers in large media companies often try and persuade executive producers to make more enlightened diverse hiring decisions. 

What the “endowment effect” tells us is that people are very reluctant to change whatever they initially own. In this case it is very difficult for diversity officers to get executive producers to change their existing teams. Execs have a sense of ownership over their team.

For this reason I think we have effectively got the whole job of the diversity officer backwards. 

What diversity officers should do is when a new programme is initially staffing up they should simply present executive producers with a team for the new programme on paper. Not a list of possible candidates or a few CV’s of candidates from under-represented groups that the exec can consider but an entire team set out on paper (no more no less).

This list should be presented to the exec before anyone has actually been contracted to work and most importantly the executive producer still has the ultimate power to choose who they want on their team so they can substitute anyone they want on the list.

But “endowment theory” teaches us that the likelihood of them taking people off the list once they are on “their team” is far less likely than if they were not on the list in the first place.

Now I know what you are thinking, holding something in reality, like a mug or chocolate, is completely different from just names on a list. The endowment effect is not going to work with just names on a list... is it?

But this is where another fascinating “endowment theory” experiment comes into play.

In another experiment economists approached people who had just bought lottery tickets and offered to buy the tickets for more than double the amount.

That’s right economists offered to buy random numbers on a piece of paper. Not only was the endowment effect so strong that people were unwilling to sell their tickets for double what they had just spent. People would normally ask for three or four times the price they had originally paid for them.

If people really can get attached to random numbers on a piece of paper I think the same should apply to diverse names on a team list.

Again I stress we are not taking any power away from the executive producers. They still have the freedom to pick and choose who they have on their teams, we are just starting the process from a different place.

Finally, for those of you thinking that this is just an interesting economic theory that could never work in the real world there are in fact real life examples of employers using endowment theory to make better employment decisions. Daryl Morey, the general manager of the NBA basketball team the Houston Rockets, actually uses endowment theory to make better decisions of which players to trade, which to keep and how much he should value players.

Now while endowment theory might be able to shape enlightened diversity policies, unfortunately it provides little insights on how to reason with three-year-olds who does not want to swap “their” sports day medal. That was solved by a lot of big hugs from mummy and daddy.

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?