This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/bbc-management-who-to-blame

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Bureacracy has become the BBC's dieback disease Bureaucracy has become the BBC's dieback disease
(about 1 hour later)
Who is next for the chop? Politicians, journalists and bankers have been butchered in the marketplace. My guess is that managers are the next victims of the media mob-rule that passes for accountability in today's public realm. There may be honest managers, but there were honest politicians, journalists and bankers, and much good it did their professions. Once a group is identified and cornered, the public requires nothing but bourgeois blood sacrifice. As the crowd drew back from this week's bout of sadism, the corpse of the BBC's top manager was torn and bloody, lying in the dust.Who is next for the chop? Politicians, journalists and bankers have been butchered in the marketplace. My guess is that managers are the next victims of the media mob-rule that passes for accountability in today's public realm. There may be honest managers, but there were honest politicians, journalists and bankers, and much good it did their professions. Once a group is identified and cornered, the public requires nothing but bourgeois blood sacrifice. As the crowd drew back from this week's bout of sadism, the corpse of the BBC's top manager was torn and bloody, lying in the dust.
The cause of the BBC's current angst was well illustrated by a diagram in today's Guardian. It purported to show the tangled lines of responsibility for "managing news" at the corporation. It looked like a Rorschach test for demented spiders. I am told this was the creation of McKinsey, consultants to the gentry and architects of such exquisite constructs as the restructuring of the NHS and the Ministry of Defence.The cause of the BBC's current angst was well illustrated by a diagram in today's Guardian. It purported to show the tangled lines of responsibility for "managing news" at the corporation. It looked like a Rorschach test for demented spiders. I am told this was the creation of McKinsey, consultants to the gentry and architects of such exquisite constructs as the restructuring of the NHS and the Ministry of Defence.
The diagram put the chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, at the top and, at the bottom, the benighted producers of Newsnight, Peter Rippon and his "replacements". In between was a total train crash. Lines went this way and that. Matrices overlaid hierarchies. Boards serviced boards. There was a director of news, a deputy director of news, a head of newsgathering, a head of newsroom, a controller of news production, a controller of news strategy. There were programme controllers, acting controllers, directors and heads, all on six-figure salaries. These people do not report and make no programmes. They attend meetings and diffuse blame.The diagram put the chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, at the top and, at the bottom, the benighted producers of Newsnight, Peter Rippon and his "replacements". In between was a total train crash. Lines went this way and that. Matrices overlaid hierarchies. Boards serviced boards. There was a director of news, a deputy director of news, a head of newsgathering, a head of newsroom, a controller of news production, a controller of news strategy. There were programme controllers, acting controllers, directors and heads, all on six-figure salaries. These people do not report and make no programmes. They attend meetings and diffuse blame.
Once during the BBC regime of Lord Birt and his McKinsey guru, Nick Lovegrove, I arrived at Broadcasting House to take part in a programme. A doorman told me to go round the back, as "this entrance is for meetings, not artistes". When David Cameron holds the inevitable "judge-led inquiry" into the BBC, McKinsey should be prominent on the stand. It murdered George Entwistle.Once during the BBC regime of Lord Birt and his McKinsey guru, Nick Lovegrove, I arrived at Broadcasting House to take part in a programme. A doorman told me to go round the back, as "this entrance is for meetings, not artistes". When David Cameron holds the inevitable "judge-led inquiry" into the BBC, McKinsey should be prominent on the stand. It murdered George Entwistle.
The BBC is no more than a reduction to absurdity of what was once treated as a joke, the bureaucracy of Yes, Minister out of Parkinson's law ("Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion"). Over-management was a tolerable curse sent to plague us all, like bad weather. Yet today, tales of woe from hospitals, defence procurers, university administrators, compliance regulators and health and safety officers show the joke has gone sour. Bureaucracy has become a poisonous, sapping enterprise, averting risk and costing a fortune. It is the "dieback disease" of the BBC.The BBC is no more than a reduction to absurdity of what was once treated as a joke, the bureaucracy of Yes, Minister out of Parkinson's law ("Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion"). Over-management was a tolerable curse sent to plague us all, like bad weather. Yet today, tales of woe from hospitals, defence procurers, university administrators, compliance regulators and health and safety officers show the joke has gone sour. Bureaucracy has become a poisonous, sapping enterprise, averting risk and costing a fortune. It is the "dieback disease" of the BBC.
The management guru, the late Peter Drucker, was asked what was the ideal size of an organisation. If it is small it should be bigger, he replied. If it is big it should be smaller. He failed to point out that his maxim was asymmetrical. Small organisations can easily grow, but big ones seldom get small, except by capitalist catastrophe. Since public sector bodies do not go bankrupt, they go on getting bigger. The BBC is far, far too big, whatever recent outsourcing has achieved.The management guru, the late Peter Drucker, was asked what was the ideal size of an organisation. If it is small it should be bigger, he replied. If it is big it should be smaller. He failed to point out that his maxim was asymmetrical. Small organisations can easily grow, but big ones seldom get small, except by capitalist catastrophe. Since public sector bodies do not go bankrupt, they go on getting bigger. The BBC is far, far too big, whatever recent outsourcing has achieved.
At the spine of this process are managers, still barely recognised as a profession. In the NHS, doctors are assumed to make good managers; in education, teachers. In government, politicians now regard themselves as managers; and at the BBC, it is broadcasters. In the last case, one talented producer after another slithers into the steaming vat of goo that is BBC bureaucracy. Rare is the executive who, like David Attenborough in 1972, resists the temptation to become director general because he prefers making programmes, much to our delight.At the spine of this process are managers, still barely recognised as a profession. In the NHS, doctors are assumed to make good managers; in education, teachers. In government, politicians now regard themselves as managers; and at the BBC, it is broadcasters. In the last case, one talented producer after another slithers into the steaming vat of goo that is BBC bureaucracy. Rare is the executive who, like David Attenborough in 1972, resists the temptation to become director general because he prefers making programmes, much to our delight.
What remains baffling is why all British governments – and many corporate executives – come to office pledged to reduce bureaucracy and decentralise power, and none does so. Tony Blair's government crawled with management consultants – who have nothing in common with managers. Government spending on them rose from £300m a year in 1995 to £2.5bn by 2004. In seven years, Blair increased the number of categories of healthcare managers from some 1,700 to 5,529, and then wondered where the money went.What remains baffling is why all British governments – and many corporate executives – come to office pledged to reduce bureaucracy and decentralise power, and none does so. Tony Blair's government crawled with management consultants – who have nothing in common with managers. Government spending on them rose from £300m a year in 1995 to £2.5bn by 2004. In seven years, Blair increased the number of categories of healthcare managers from some 1,700 to 5,529, and then wondered where the money went.
Like Blair, David Cameron promised to decentralise, localise and bring in "big society, not big government". He even appointed Francis Maude to bring it about. The only innovation amid a welter of centralisation has been a few quangos gone and the suggestion that every new regulation must replace an old one.Like Blair, David Cameron promised to decentralise, localise and bring in "big society, not big government". He even appointed Francis Maude to bring it about. The only innovation amid a welter of centralisation has been a few quangos gone and the suggestion that every new regulation must replace an old one.
One high-profile upset after another is nowadays attributed to failure of management: phone hacking, exam chaos, pensions mis-selling, the G4S Olympics contract, or Jimmy Savile. As organisations grow, the scope for corrective action and clear managerial responsibility dissipates. Lines of authority are stretched. The more people are implicated, the more exaggerated is the blame. All contact with sense of proportion is lost in a collective screech for judicial inquiry.One high-profile upset after another is nowadays attributed to failure of management: phone hacking, exam chaos, pensions mis-selling, the G4S Olympics contract, or Jimmy Savile. As organisations grow, the scope for corrective action and clear managerial responsibility dissipates. Lines of authority are stretched. The more people are implicated, the more exaggerated is the blame. All contact with sense of proportion is lost in a collective screech for judicial inquiry.
When the Costa Concordia hit the rocks last January, blame was clear. Everyone knew the captain was in charge and should take the rap. In two recent media upsets, at News International and the BBC, the sheer size of the organisations sent accountability shooting up the line to executives who had little or no role in what enveloped them. Executive blame should be a rifle shot, not a cluster bomb.When the Costa Concordia hit the rocks last January, blame was clear. Everyone knew the captain was in charge and should take the rap. In two recent media upsets, at News International and the BBC, the sheer size of the organisations sent accountability shooting up the line to executives who had little or no role in what enveloped them. Executive blame should be a rifle shot, not a cluster bomb.
The media mob yells across the road at managers, "Why not just apologise?" or "Why did you know nothing?" The truth is that any organisation that has not two but six, eight or 10 layers of management cannot possibly account for decisions at the front line. As with the BBC's Greg Dyke over the David Kelly affair, Entwistle had to resign not because he made a particular mistake but because his hierarchy was so overstaffed as to lose all capacity to monitor activity or allocate blame.The media mob yells across the road at managers, "Why not just apologise?" or "Why did you know nothing?" The truth is that any organisation that has not two but six, eight or 10 layers of management cannot possibly account for decisions at the front line. As with the BBC's Greg Dyke over the David Kelly affair, Entwistle had to resign not because he made a particular mistake but because his hierarchy was so overstaffed as to lose all capacity to monitor activity or allocate blame.
Schumacher was right. Big is not beautiful. It may suit the machismo of corporate strategists. It may be seductive and lucrative for some. Growth may even be the right thing to pursue for a time. But a bureaucracy is like a monopoly. We are against them until we have one of our own. Then we become its fiercest defenders.Schumacher was right. Big is not beautiful. It may suit the machismo of corporate strategists. It may be seductive and lucrative for some. Growth may even be the right thing to pursue for a time. But a bureaucracy is like a monopoly. We are against them until we have one of our own. Then we become its fiercest defenders.
In the private sector the antidote is bankruptcy. In the public sector there is nothing but frenzy and ridicule. But in both cases, how to de-bureaucratise is the Fermat's last theorem of management studies. It has yet to be solved. So we stumble on, hurling abuse at managers and dragging them from one feeding frenzy to the next.In the private sector the antidote is bankruptcy. In the public sector there is nothing but frenzy and ridicule. But in both cases, how to de-bureaucratise is the Fermat's last theorem of management studies. It has yet to be solved. So we stumble on, hurling abuse at managers and dragging them from one feeding frenzy to the next.