Valuing The Value Of Values

Comedy is a broad church; from the slapstick to the subtle, it embraces many forms and in my experience a successful comedy does not need to make one laugh out loud to be successful. This is nowhere more true than in the mockumentary style of comedy, in films like This Is Spinal Tap, or on television with shows like The Office. The BBC's recent offering, W1A did not actually make me laugh as such, but was nonetheless quite exquisite comedy. For those of you unfamiliar with the show it followed the appointment of Ian Fletcher (Hugh Bonneville) as Head of Values at the British Broadcasting Corporation after his character's role as Head of Deliverance at the fictional Olympic Deliverance Commission preparing for the 2012 London Olympic Games in the programme 2012. You can guess the flavour of W1A simply from Fletcher's job title; Head of Values is a meaningless, wide ranging designation that for all its high-falutin' name signifies a totally pointless role that adds precisely no value whatever.

Hugh Bonneville, seen here with Clare Balding, plays BBC Head of Values Ian Fletcher.

Viewers who have never worked in large organisations may have watched the programme and been incredulous, unbelieving, unable to conceive that anything on screen was even remotely plausible (and there was the humour for them). Those of us who have worked in a large organisation (in the public or private sectors) will have watched it and recognised almost all of it as being all too credible (and there was the humour for us). Fletcher's role is defined as being to "clarify, define, or re-define the core purpose of the BBC across all its functions and to position it confidently for the future," which, as Shakespeare said," is sound and fury, signifying nothing." In the series'  first episode Fletcher's appointment is described as resulting from "learning opportunities" that have arisen within the organisation; learning opportunities being corporate speak for mistakes or foul ups that have occurred. Bringing someone in to deal with these assuages corporate guilt and provides the opportunity to create a scapegoat who can take the flak, leaving time servers to carry on as before without any need to accept any sort of responsibility whatever.

Each episode includes the depiction of a daily "Damage Limitation Meeting" which anyone who has ever worked in a major organisation will be familiar with. The delight of the damage limitation meeting is that the perceived damage is largely self inflicted and the remedies grow to the extent that the means become ends in themselves, with everyone rejecting any liability to the point that the new boy inevitably has to take responsibility. Key to this is Simon Harwood, Director of Strategic Governance (played superbly by Jason Watkins), who again has a responsible sounding role that the organisation would thrive without, who actually provides no guidance whatever and whose response to everything is "brilliant," even in the face of major problems. Harwood invariably passes the buck to his subordinates while making much of his relationship with the Director General, creating for himself a position of invulnerability regardless of how much goes wrong.

Fletcher and team.

Then there is Anna Rampton, Head of Output (Sarah Parish). Ostensibly her role in commissioning programmes should require her to have a very hands on approach, but yet again she consistently abdicates any form of responsibility, largely to the completely useless David Wilkes, the Entertainment Format Producer (Rufus Jones) and the long suffering producer Lucy Freeman (Nina Sosany).  Freeman's character is probably the most sympathetic in the show;  she actually wants to get on with her job and do it well, she is probably a very able producer but is never given the opportunity to prove this as she has been worn down by the bureaucracy and buck passing, the paralysis that prevents any decision making taking place and the fact that the job she is now doing is a world away from the one she was originally employed to do. All too often she finds that she is placed in difficult positions by her incompetent peers and blame shifting, risk averse superiors for whose neglect she has to assume responsibility.

The dynamic of the department is changed by the introduction of an outside consultant, Siobhan Sharpe  ( played by Jessica Hynes)  the Brand Consultant  from a company called Perfect Curve. Sharpe has all the buzzwords, all of the jargon and all of the false expertise that add precisely not one iota of benefit or value yet are so beloved by management. Perfect Curve's total uselessness is summed up perfectly in their attempt to create a new logo for the BBC app that they completely fail to realise is in fact The Star of David.  It is a fact of life that in large organisations those who have grown up in the company, those who understand the business, who have the expertise, experience, skills and "let's get the job done" mentality are less valued than an newcomer (particularly an outsider) who understands little of the business or organisational culture but can talk the talk regardless of their total inability to walk the walk. These nonsense speaking neophytes waltz in, wreak havoc then depart with large bonuses and pay-offs to repeat their gibberish elsewhere while those they leave behind are left to mop up the mess they have created.

"Brilliant"

Another aspect of the programme that resonated for me was the so called "Way Ahead" task force. Described as a "journey" and an opportunity to establish "the value of values" (within the organisation), the Way Ahead is the type of vacuous nonsense so beloved of corporate management. Establishing such a programme makes management feel that they are really adding value, introducing  a programme that will make staff more engaged, more energised and  more productive. Teams are assembled at vast cost (both in terms of time and money) to promote these programmes; resources are thrown at the effort, yet the tangible benefit is usually a big, fat zero. These sorts of programmes usually make staff resentful, distract them from their genuine work, become ends in themselves rather than a means to an end and are, after a period of grace in which everyone is obliged to pay lip service to engaging with them, quietly dropped. A year or so later another similar, completely useless programme is introduced; strangely no feedback is ever delivered on the efficacy of the programme this new initiative has replaced.

New Broadcasting House is one of the stars of the show.

As I have never worked for the BBC I cannot say how accurate W1A is as a depiction of what goes on there but my suspicion is that it is pretty close to the truth in many ways if my experience in a large organisation is anything to go by. You, like me may recognise some of the characters from the programme in your field of work!