More than just a few ‘bad apples’: the need for a risk management approach to the problem of workplace bullying in the UK’s television industry

Abstract

In an extensive study of management practices within the UK’s unscripted television sector, more than 93% of respondents told us that they had experienced or witnessed some form of bullying or harassment within the workplace. Our findings confirm other similar reports from across the film and television sectors, and come at a time when a great deal of unwelcome media attention has been paid to some high-profile examples of such behaviour. The industry has begun to respond. New systems to facilitate whistle-blowing have been set up, and improved guidance has been issued to managers. Whilst such initiatives are not unwelcome, we argue that they do not go far enough. The problem is not one of ‘a few bad apples’ but rather it is one rooted in a systemic and complex set of underlying structures and processes. Many of the characteristics shown by our study to be commonplace in television work, are precisely those identified in the field of organisational psychology as risk factors for workplace bullying. We therefore call for a risk management approach to this problem; one that systematically recognises, appraises and minimises these risks.

Keywords:

• Workplace bullying
• television industry
• management practices
• mental health
• risk management
• working conditions

Introduction

During the first six months of 2021, the authors of this article undertook an extensive study of management practices within the UK’s unscripted television sector¹. It quickly became apparent to us that at the heart of this industry’s work culture there lies a problem. Our survey’s starkest finding was that more than 93% of our respondents admitted to having experienced or witnessed some form of bullying or harassment within the workplace. As if to illustrate the point, as we were examining our data a steady stream of press stories were emerging precisely on this same theme: tales of television production staff routinely shouted at, forced to work excessive hours without breaks, and reporting varying degrees of sexual harassment (Waterson 2021; Kale and Osborne 2021; and others). These stories, together with our own work, corroborated one of the observations made the previous year in a report published by the UK’s Film & TV Charity, The Looking Glass (Wilkes, Carey, and Florisson 2020). This investigation into the mental health of those working in film, TV and cinema, blamed unusually high levels of poor mental wellbeing (expressed by ‘symptoms of depression, anxiety and other stress-related issues’) on a working culture it claimed was characterised by ‘undermining, intimidation and bullying’ (21)². How should we understand this phenomenon of bullying within the UK’s television industry?

In this article we set out to examine and interpret our survey findings in greater depth, specifically as they relate to workplace bullying. By providing specific insights from the field of media industry studies, the paper substantiates, complements and extends the wider extant literature on workplace bullying. We note that since this issue was first highlighted, the problem has become more widely acknowledged within the television industry, and we welcome some recent initiatives and interventions designed to deter it. The Film and TV Support Line now offers a free Bullying Advice Service (Film & TV Charity, undated (a)), and the union Bectu has been proactive in campaigning and in encouraging its reporting (Bectu 2021). Yet despite these important developments, what have not sufficiently been explored to date are the underlying risk factors that contribute to the apparent high incidence of bullying within this industry. There has been a general presumption that this problem may be solved simply by identifying and exposing its individual perpetrators: removing the ‘bad apples that spoil the barrel’. There is a ‘common-sense’ logic here, seemingly borne out by high-profile or particularly egregious cases. Yet as we suggest in this article, bullies thrive in certain kinds of places. It is understanding the environment that cultivates or discourages such behaviours that now requires greater attention. To extend the ‘bad apples’ analogy in the opposite direction: as every orchardist knows, keeping apples good depends upon conditions of light, temperature, and humidity. If there is to be any serious attempt by industry to understand and address the problem of bullying, the focus must shift to the nature and conditions of the workplace.

Workplace bullying as a focus of research

The term ‘bullying’ is used to refer to a wide range of consistently negative behaviour of a stronger toward a weaker party. The UK-based coalition, the Anti-Bullying Alliance describes it as ‘the repetitive, intentional hurting of one person or group by another person or group, where the relationship involves an imbalance of power’ (Anti-Bullying Alliance, undated). However, such attempts to define more closely, elaborate or exemplify the key or common features of bullying are often contested. For example, the degree to which such behaviour must always be intentional, or happen ‘repeatedly and regularly’, or is always an ‘escalating process’ (as suggested by Einarsen et al. 2003, 15) may all be points of dissention. Bullying is widely understood as not necessarily involving any direct physical threat, but often entirely consisting of psychological pressure, provocation or intimidation (Brodsky 1976). Within the workplace this might include spreading rumours, teasing, harming someone’s reputation, or deliberately setting up a task in a way in which a colleague is likely to fail (Einarsen 2000). It is a term that is often used synonymously with ‘discrimination’, ‘victimisation’, and ‘harassment’ (Acas, undated), and although it does not necessarily imply illegality, in the UK it may be so if interpreted as harassment prohibited under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (albeit that this legislation has had limited application within the workplace), or relate to one or more of the ‘protected characteristics’ defined within the Equality Act 2010. It is a term that has come to be widely used in the context of work, and in practice it is the experience of the worker that is the key factor when identifying and measuring workplace bullying.

Attitudes towards bullying in the workplace have shifted over the past three decades. A 2013 membership survey of the UK’s Federation of Entertainment Unions found that although the creative industries were ‘a “hotspot” for bullying, compared with other workplaces’, there was ‘almost an acceptance of the prevailing culture of bullying; an attitude of “if you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen”’ (John 2013). This attitude has begun to change. From being barely acknowledged at all, there has been a growing recognition of the seriousness of this problem, particularly in recent years. Yet despite this, there has persisted a reluctance to frame the problem as systemic, with a tendency to foreground the individual perpetrator, or ‘bad apple’. Yet research in this field clearly indicates that, while the characteristics of individuals cannot be discounted (Zapf and Einarsen (2003), bullying tends to flourish within work environments where certain structures, cultures and processes prevail (Van den Brande et al. 2016).

A recognition that bullying occurs as a result of the alignment and interplay of multiple factors is particularly important where the aim is to find more effective ways to prevent (or at least discourage) such behaviour. Other than at the point of recruitment, employers have little control over an individual’s predispositions, whereas they may have significant influence over environmental factors (e.g. structures, reward systems and job design). Indeed, looked at it this way, bullying may be framed primarily as a management challenge that should be treated in much the same way as any other potential workplace hazard. Routine systems should be able to recognise it, assess the level of risk, and then appropriately mitigate against it. This is the essence of any other form of risk management.

As research into workplace bullying has increased, so a number of frameworks have been developed to help schematise this work in order to better understand the range of organisational factors that determine the prevalence of bullying in a given workplace.

One of the most influential insights into the significance of particular job characteristics comes from a study on the effects of work and unemployment on mental health. What has become known as the ‘vitamin model’ of employee well-being (Warr 1987) likens characteristics of a job to the way in which different kinds of vitamin each provide their own nutrients to the body. Vitamins are required in varying degrees of balance to stay healthy, and this balance will alter at different times and under different circumstances. Warr identifies nine such job characteristics: opportunity for control, opportunity for skill use, externally generated goals, variety, environmental clarity, availability of money, physical security, opportunity for interpersonal contact and valued social position. Several of these are in turn broken down into subsidiary concepts. Notelaers, De Witte, and Einarsen (2010) have found four of Warr’s broad categorisations - opportunity for control, opportunity for skill use, externally generated goals, and, environmental clarity – or rather their absence, to be closely correlated with workplace bullying. Such deficiencies, then, can be conceptualised as risk factors in this respect.

Other studies have identified similar deficiencies in roles and working conditions as causal factors in the creation of an environment where bullying can flourish. Thus lack of control is frequently cited (e.g. Vartia 1996), with an emphasis on exclusion from decision-making (Notelaers, De Witte, and Einarsen 2010), and control over time (Zapf, Knorz, and Kulla 1996). Limiting opportunities for the use of skills and valued abilities in a job role is likewise found to be a risk factor (Einarsen, Raknes, and Matthiesen 1994; Notelaers, De Witte, and Einarsen 2010). Warr’s (1987) category of externally generated goals, meanwhile, includes three characteristics that are particularly salient in bullying narratives: excessive workloads, the cognitively demanding nature of certain kinds of work, and the potential for role conflict.

A consistently high workload (determined by both the scale of work and the speed at which specific tasks must be performed), is recognised as an organisational risk predictor for bullying (Baillien and De Witte 2009). Although some pressure at work might be expected as normal (Parchment and Andrews 2019), a consistently high workload is problematic, being the consequence of either a shortage of labour, or poor planning and organisation (Leymann 1996). Jobs that involve highly cognitive and complex demands also tend to cause stress that influences interaction with colleagues (Notelaers, De Witte, and Einarsen 2010) and this too may lead to the escalation of conflict (Zapf, Knorz, and Kulla 1996). A critical relationship has been noted, moreover, between ‘job demands’ relating to workload, pace of work and cognitive energy needed to complete tasks, and ‘job control’ defined as level of autonomy in decision making and skill discretion (Karasek and Theorell 1990), This is known as the ‘job demand control’ or JDC model (Karasek 1979). The combination of high job demand and low job control has been shown to increase an employee’s vulnerability to bullying (Einarsen, Raknes, and Matthiesen 1994; Leymann 1993). Notelaers, De Witte, and Einarsen (2010) identify ‘role conflict’ as a particularly significant psychosocial risk factor for bullying. This occurs where there are multiple expectations of the same role, especially where compliance with one group of expectations makes the ability to comply with others difficult or impossible (Beehr, Johnson, and Nieva 1995). Role conflict accrues where incompatible roles are assumed simultaneously and also overlap with the role (or roles) of others. Similarly, problems arise where there is more than one boss and where there are conflicts in expectations or instructions (Leymann 1996). The greater the degree of role conflict, the higher the probability of bullying.

Warr’s vitamin model identifies ‘environmental clarity’ as another key factor for mental wellbeing, a category that includes job (in)security, role ambiguity, and the availability of task-related feedback. One of the principal reasons for accepting excessive workloads, for example, is job insecurity (Hauge, Skogstad, and Einarsen 2007), with those who are most concerned about their future work prospects being the most likely to tolerate unfair or aggressive behaviours from their managers (Hoel and Cooper 2000). Meanwhile Salin (2003) emphasises the importance of role clarity in reducing exposure to work-place bullying, while Notelaers, De Witte, and Einarsen (2010) found higher levels of task related feedback to have a similar positive impact. Thus job insecurity in itself can be said to constitute a risk factor for bullying, along with deficiencies in role clarity and feedback.

The importance of the working environment is emphasised by Leymann (1996), who argues that poor organisation, and unclear structures often lead to bullying. This perspective is supported by the work of Einarsen, Raknes, and Matthiesen (1994), Vartia (1996) and Zapf and Osterwalder (1998). Poor communication is a specific organisational risk factor highlighted in the latter. while Notelaers et al. (2013) describe a vicious circle whereby bullying itself further impedes the flow of information and cooperation between members of the team, thus exacerbating the damage to organisational culture. Niedl (1996), meanwhile, identifies a direct correlation between a work environment where a fast, demanding and ‘hectic’ work pace is normalised, and the physical and psychological conditions that result in fatigue and increased instances of bullying. Further environmental risk factors include: time or resource related strains that limit the ability to manage workplace conflicts (Zapf, Knorz, and Kulla 1996); a lack of constructive intervention in interpersonal conflicts (Leymann 1996); and an employee’s perception of fairness regarding the organisation’s management of such conflicts (Ågotnes et al. 2021). Thus it is clear that the working environment can offer a complex web of interconnected risk factors for workplace bullying.

Leadership also plays a crucial role in determining the extent of bullying within an organisation (Skogstad et al. 2007). Leaders have the power to prevent or permit bullying by others (Woodrow and Guest 2017) as well as directly impacting the experience of employees through their own leadership style. Ågotnes et al. (2021) explore this by contrasting ‘transformational’ and ‘laissez-faire’ approaches to leadership as proposed by Bass (1985) and their respective impacts on workplace bullying. They define a ‘transformational leader’ as one who ‘acts as a coach and a mentor, paying special attention to employees needs for achievement and provide social support’. (Ågotnes et al. 2021 425). This kind of leader has been shown to have a positive impact on a subordinate’s wellbeing (Arnold 2017), and their ability to cope with work related stress and interpersonal conflict (Ågotnes et al. 2021) and on the reduction of bullying practices in the workplace (Tsuno et al. 2015). In contrast ‘laissez-faire leadership’ is characterised as passive, absent or avoidant, unresponsive to the needs of subordinates (Skogstad et al. 2014). The lack of guidance and social support exhibited in this approach to leadership has been linked to increased health problems, reduced job satisfaction (Skogstad, Nielsen, and Einarsen 2017) and bullying (Skogstad et al. 2007). Thus the style of leadership prevalent within an organisation has a marked moderating effect on other risk factors for workplace bullying.

In summary, then, the literature suggests that the kind of jobs most exposed to the risk of bullying are those where work is cognitively highly demanding; workloads are persistently excessive; role expectations are ambiguous and/or in conflict with each other; the level of control is unequal to the level of demand; and where there exists a high level of job insecurity. The organisational culture and climate that tend to elevate the risk of bullying are typified by: lack of clear organisational structures; poor communication both in terms of organisational information flow and in terms of constructive feedback to teams or individuals; a lack of the requisite resources and/or time to manage conflict; and a negative perception of fairness among employees. The issue of bullying, moreover, is inextricably linked to the quality of leadership. Managers may or may not themselves be the perpetrators, but they set the cultural tone and expectations of any work environment. Moreover, research into leadership styles suggests that positive proactive approaches to management that are seen to be fair and supportive will promote collegiality and therefore discourage poor behaviour, whereas autocratic and more laissez-faire styles of management do not. Of particular note, leadership that actively engages in conflict management can mitigate against normal work-focused conflict escalating into bullying. Thus a range of risk factors inherent in job design and the wider working environment are identified, while positive management practices are seen to present a potentially powerful tool for regulating the overall risk of bullying in the workplace.

A clear and comprehensive framework provided by Salin and Hoel (2020, 306) is helpful in providing a degree of clarity that aids the practical application of these critical concepts. In considering our own findings, therefore, we have adopted the three themes they propose which offer particular insights for our analysis of the television industry while echoing the perspectives brought by a range of scholarship: job design and work organization; organisational cultures and climate; leadership and conflict management.

Method and approach: State of Play 2021: management practices in UK unscripted TV

The study underpinning this paper was an anonymous survey of people working within the UK unscripted television sector, undertaken between 6th December and 18th December 2020. By examining perceptions of the style and effectiveness of management practices in the sector, and the consequent well-being of its workforce, we aimed to present a clearer picture of the experience of the television labour market than had previously been available. The survey consisted of 74 questions: 61 multiple choice and 13 open-ended. We had 1184 responses, with an average completion time of just over 40 minutes. Those who responded came from the whole range of production areas, with 53% describing themselves as working in editorial roles, 18% in production, 17% in senior management and the remainder primarily in craft roles. Most respondents reported having more than ten years of experience working in the industry (57%). The majority of respondents had management responsibilities as part of their current role (70%). The survey was promoted particularly among freelancers, and this is reflected in the demographics of our respondents, with the vast majority (88%) reporting to be either sole traders, Limited Companies or Fixed-Term PAYE. (For further details of the profile of our respondents, see State of Play (Van Raalte, Wallis, and Pekalski 2021).

Participants were not asked directly if they were exposed to or experienced bullying in the work environment. Bullying was instead measured with the 12-item question covering work-related negative acts and behaviours. Multiple choice questions were downloaded and transferred to SPSS for coding and analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data in order to get a better understanding of the issues regarding work environment, as well as socio-economic information about our participants. Open-ended questions were coded, with sets of nodes created after a review of a sample of responses; these formed the basis of the code book which was used to ensure consistency of coding. For more detailed coding of all collected responses NVivo was used to help identify emerging patterns and ideas. After coding was completed, nodes were clustered into themes and narratives.

Findings and discussion

The findings of our study pertaining to bullying are here reported and discussed in relation to the three main themes identified by Salin and Hoel (2020) indicated above: job design and work organization; organisational cultures and climate; leadership and conflict management.

Job design and work organization

Excessive workload, role conflict, role ambiguity, cognitive demands, job insecurity and a combination of high job demands with low job control are all characteristics reported by those responding to our survey. While each of these factors is problematic, in combination they serve to create an environment that is inimical to the mental well-being of individuals and highly susceptible to experiences of bullying.

Workload

As one producer-director told us: ‘By far the biggest problem is an expectation that staff/crew will work as many hours as necessary to fit the work into the available time’ (SoP-0777).³ Indeed the most often repeated concern of our respondents was working very long hours for extended periods of time. 68% reported that they had been expected to work what they considered excessive hours. Unreasonable time pressures at all stages of production were widely reported. During pre-production a culture of presenteeism often meant that team members were criticised, as one respondent put it, ‘for taking a lunch break and leaving to go home on time at 6 pm’ (SoP-0164). In post-production, it was not unusual for experienced respondents to report being ‘expected to work three weeks straight, no days off, 12 to 15 hours a day’ (SoP-1134) or having to do ‘180 hours of overtime over a four-week period in order to get a one-hour programme cut and ready to go to air…’ (SoP-0123). The worst experiences, however, were reported as having occurred during the period of shooting where very long hours are the norm and where our respondents regularly found themselves in situations where this had been taken to extremes. Thus one runner noted that ‘on several occasions I’ve finished at 11 pm or later and have been asked to be back on location for 6am the next day’ (SoP-0277), and an assistant producer recalled ‘one particularly awful day before a shoot I finished work at 2:30am and my taxi arrived at my house to take me to work at 6:15am’ (SoP-0734). Not only does this level of work pressure impact on health and wellbeing, it can also create a working environment where there is no time or space for professional development or conflict resolution, and where incivility and buck-passing can quickly become the cultural norm.

Role conflict and role ambiguity

Role conflict and role ambiguity appeared to reflect highly pressured production schedules. Respondents frequently described ‘unachievable expectations’ and ‘impossible schedules’ as, in the words of one producer: ‘all too often commissioners are promised the world but with no realistic ways of achieving it with the budget and staff available’ (SoP-0526). For production teams and for individual team members these factors inevitably led to conflicting priorities. Attempts to resolve such conflicting priorities sometimes involved cutting corners, self-exploitation or buck-passing – none of which contribute to a healthy work environment and any of which may further increase the risk of bullying. It was commonly reported that corners were cut on health and safety, for example, with junior staff often expected to drive long distances following 12 hour working days or even to drive vehicles for which they were not appropriately qualified. These same staff were likely to self-exploit when away from the shoot, putting in additional hours to meet conflicting demands. This was frequently done without the knowledge of managers – although one might question how managers suppose the work is being done. One of the more pernicious manifestations of conflicting demands however involved the scapegoating of junior staff for being unable to meet unreasonable demands passed on to them by their managers or teams-mates. There was also evidence of additional role conflicts resulting from what Leymann described as ‘parallel hierarchies’ (1996, 177) which arose when commissioners or network stakeholders involved themselves in production. Last minute reversals of decisions and changes in direction, with, according to one respondent, ‘senior team members contradicting and undermining one another’ (SoP-0918) left teams guessing at what they were trying to achieve.

Flexibility

The high degree of ‘flexibility’ expected by employers, meanwhile, created problematic levels of role ambiguity. It was common for people to be offered work on one set of terms only to find the job description had changed by the time they saw a contract – which was often so late in the process that they were already committed or had actually started the job. Once in role, many of our respondents reported struggling with ‘unclear expectations’ and ‘moving goal-posts’, being required to take on additional duties or being given responsibilities associated with more senior roles. Role ambiguity for junior staff may have arisen in part from a lack of on-the-job training whereby, as one line producer remarked, there was ‘no explanation of how to complete a task or why it should be done that way’ (SoP-0343). The issue was often exacerbated by a tendency toward micro-management by senior staff that left individuals confused about the parameters of their role.

Cognitive demands

The cognitive demands of television work constituted a further risk factor. Ironically it is the creative, challenging nature of the work that makes it attractive while the exercise of highly developed problem-solving skills is a source of job satisfaction. Yet these same demands contribute to stress which in turn may negatively impact on workplace interactions, and deplete the personal resources available to address conflict resolution. The combination of high cognitive demands and high workload is particularly perilous in this respect.

Job insecurity

Job insecurity is a constant feature of work for the freelance staff on whom television production depends. Finding work depends largely on personal networks and recommendation and hiring decisions may be influenced by informal references from individuals other than those nominated by the candidate. Contracts are typically short, affording limited protection, while a competitive market place means freelancers are rarely in a position to debate terms. This places freelancers in a very vulnerable position, making it difficult to challenge poor working practices or conditions. As one camera operator put it: ‘they are made to feel as if they are lucky to have the job and cannot complain or they will be replaced’ (SoP-0867). Under these circumstances, our study suggested that individuals were reluctant to call out bullying – whether of themselves or others. A runner told us: ‘All freelance staff are frightened of criticising the person who employs them as they know they won’t get booked again. This enables a culture of bullying and under payment and consequent exploitation to thrive’ (SoP-1010). Respondents referred to managers who took advantage of this situation, threatening to ‘blacklist’ those who did not comply with their demands. In other cases the threat had been more subtle, with bullying behaviour underpinned by general anxiety about ‘rocking the boat’ or being ‘labelled a troublemaker’. Support for whistle-blowers by unions or other third-parties was thought to have limited efficacy as one producer director explained, because victims fear that, even if their complaint is successful in the short term, in the long term ‘the result would be never being employed by that company again - or any subsequent companies the staff concerned worked for’ (SoP-1020).

Sense of control

The power dynamics involved in television production, together with the specific characteristics of television roles, creates an unhealthy situation as measured by Karesek’s Job Demand Control (JDC) Model (1979). Job insecurity represents one underpinning dimension of low job control; others are evinced, however in problematic working practices such as the expectation that staff are ‘always on’, available 24/7, allowing them no sense of control over their workload or indeed their personal lives. In many roles, staff referred to having been routinely expected to work unpaid overtime, change their schedules at short notice and cancel personal engagements, while late night texts and phone calls, and last-minute demands were likewise normalised – often with little justification in the eyes of those at the receiving end. One production manager recounted: ‘I’ve had calls at midnight from Producers who call and say ‘I’m so sorry I know it’s late but can we just go through the schedule or the per diems for tomorrow?’ That’s not urgent! Calls at midnight should only be life and death…’. (SoP-0479). A production coordinator similarly reported: ‘….the Series producer would not make an editorial decision - changed the shoot at 10 pm the night before and expected me to action this. You just cannot live like that!’ (SoP-0991).

Micro-management

Another common practice that diminishes job control for individual staff is micro-management. Often arising from the anxieties of managers who are themselves freelance and over-worked, and who may lack experience, micromanagement has the effect of disempowering staff, making them feel that they are not valued or trusted. It also prevents them from doing the job they were hired to do to the best of their ability, and creates job ambiguity which causes further anxiety and strain within the team. One sound supervisor commented: ‘If the leader is not able to work as part of a team, for example they prefer to do everything themselves, other team members become confused as to their role, no longer feel part of that team [and] take a step back, and so the team falls apart’. (SoP-1061). In its worst manifestations, micromanagement may constitute a form of bullying. One production manager recalled: ‘My worst experience was a Prod Exec who micromanaged to an exhausting level until it didn’t suit and then complained about how she was doing my job for me. It was toxic and at times felt abusive’ (SoP-0258). Whether these kinds of practices simply constitute examples of poor management or cross the fine line to constitute forms of bullying in themselves, the JDC-Model identifies their impact within the ecology of work as constituting high risk factors for work-place bullying, helping to support an environment within which bullying can thrive.

Organisational cultures and climate

In addition to the characteristics of individual jobs, our respondents identified a number of features of their wider working environment that are associated with an elevated risk of bullying as discussed above. These included opaque organisational structures, poor communication, inadequate resources to manage conflict and a perception that employment practices were often unfair. The valorisation of ‘talent’, moreover, contributed to an ethos that tolerated bullying behaviours in powerful individuals.

Poor time-management

Our respondents reported that poor time-management and lazy scheduling are common features of television production. In part this reflected shifting briefs and late decision making by commissioners leaving insufficient time for effective planning and preparation; in part it reflected the inexperience of many managers; and in part it reflected the fact that there are few penalties for those responsible since most staff can be relied upon to make up the organisational shortfall with unpaid overtime. An increasing fragmentation of production, with limited continuity of personnel between casting, shooting and editing was considered by many to be an aggravating factor. Poor information flow, and at times miscommunication, not only contributes to ineffective organisation but creates anxiety and impedes individuals’ ability to cope with the demands of their roles. One producer director, for example recalled an email received ‘literally [while] driving to the shoot… can we please change location and film another sequence’ (SoP-1125), while an editor noted that it is ‘surprisingly common’ to find notes had not been passed on ‘resulting in days of pointless labour chasing the wrong “spin”’ (SoP-0765). Respondents expressed frustration at the miscommunication represented by ‘lots of separate conversations happening with different people, with everyone on a different page’ (SoP-0007), while a lack of timely information flow was experienced by many as evincing a fundamental lack of respect or consideration for staff, who were described as being ‘kept in the dark’ about key decisions and ‘passed bits of information at the last minute’ (SoP-0984). It is clear that such practices, at best create an environment where bullying can thrive and at worst may themselves become abusive. Echoing Niedl’s definition of ‘hectic work’ (1996), one assistant producer described an environment in which: ‘Everyone is on their knees from production managers, directors, through to runners. 12-hour days turn into 14-hour days, emails and texts fly around at 8am, 11 pm, and all through the weekend. Doils [days off in lieu] can’t be taken to ensure a shoot is able to happen, and everyone just carries on, worried about creating fuss or a bad reputation’ (SoP-0080).⁴

Poor organisation and communication

Our survey reveals that poor organisation and communication are endemic, with one series producer remarking: ‘Some senior people in television are, ironically, appalling communicators’ (SoP-0392). Both serve to exacerbate the strain experienced by teams working to tight deadlines and within tighter budgets, which in turn often leads to levels of incivility, such as shouting and swearing, that would be deemed unacceptable in most workplaces. Stress and frustration reduce tolerance for others and the ability of individuals to handle difficult situations, as established by Einarsen, Raknes, and Matthiesen (1994); meanwhile demanding schedules preclude staff from taking time out to resolve conflicts that may arise, creating a further risk factor. The result is a work environment within which bullying is not only more likely to occur but more likely to go unnoticed or unchallenged. Many respondents described the way in which the stress experienced by commissioners and executives filters down through the team as managers creating a culture in which incivility to and undermining of others is normalised as a management technique serves to render bullying all but invisible. ⁵

Perceptions of fairness and blame culture

Employees’ perception of fairness and conflict management within an organisation is closely correlated with the incidence of bullying: by which measure bullying in television would appear to be virtually inevitable. Our respondents described inequitable hiring practices, contracts and pay as widespread, with individuals with similar qualifications and experience, for example, often offered different terms to do the same role on the same production. Meanwhile, an informal and unregulated employment market is believed by many to perpetuate discrimination such that women are frequently paid less than male colleagues, people of colour retained in more junior positions than their white counterparts and disabled people’s opportunities limited by ill-informed assumptions. Perhaps most damaging in this respect, however, is the widely shared belief that managers and employers will generally turn a blind eye to bullying behaviour, ignoring complaints or even effectively punishing those who report it. The terms ‘blame culture’ and ‘culture of fear’ were used by television professionals at all levels to describe an environment in which companies knowingly retain and protect abusive managers and in which, as one production manager reported, people are told that they should accept poor treatment or unprofessional behaviour as it is ‘part of the industry’ (SoP-0602). The idea that this situation originates at the top of the industry is exemplified by a producer director who opined that ‘aggressive bullying commissioners’ were actively promoted by broadcasters because ‘a culture of fear is bizarrely seen as productive in some areas’ (SoP-0876). The overall picture presented by our respondents, then, is one of organisation and climate in which bullying, far from representing an aberrant behaviour to be corrected, is normalised, endemic and largely unchallenged.

Leadership and conflict management

The quality of leadership and management in television was felt to be too often lacking by our respondents – including those in management positions themselves. Apart from problematic organisational cultures as discussed above, reasons cited for this failing included a lack of appropriate training, a tendency to over-promote people too early in their careers, a tendency for such positions to be given to individuals with a dispositions or skillset better suited to creative than leadership roles, and the prevalence of bad role models. One series director lamented: ‘Generally good management is the exception…’ adding ‘I put this down to lack of training for … senior staff members. Some companies treat people so badly it’s infuriating and there isn’t much you can do about it’ (SoP-0705).

The evidence gathered from our survey suggests that a ‘laissez-faire’ leadership (negligent of the employee’s needs, as described above), is predominant in UK unscripted television, with ‘transformative’ leadership (defined as proactively supportive and developmental), a comparative rarity (Skogstad et al. 2014; Tsuno et al. 2015; Arnold 2017; Ågotnes et al. 2021). Rather than a focus on development, our respondents describe as endemic a ‘brutal’ and ‘toxic’ culture whereby managers routinely set unrealistic expectations and regard any requests for help as ‘a nuisance or a sign of weakness’ (SoP-0825) - a culture where people are sacked rather than supported if they are ‘deemed not up to scratch’. A production manager noted the devastating impact: ‘I’ve seen senior staff latch on to single mistakes of individuals. And leave little room for growth or support that damages the career chances of junior staff. People are written off very quickly’ (SoP-1005).

Respondents described managers who seem indifferent to the wellbeing of staff, neglecting to check in with teams to ensure they are coping, which one producer director ascribed to a ‘fear of hearing a truthful answer’ (SoP-0972). Where it is clear that staff are struggling under adverse conditions, as one editor noted, ‘The implication always seems to be that it’s my problem and not the schedule/budget’ (SoP-1056). Conversely staff routinely reported feeling undermined by managers’ failure to acknowledge their achievements and the hard work that goes into them. A lack of constructive task-related feedback from managers, whether positive or negative, was reported as an issue across the industry. As one assistant producer explained: ‘people begin and end jobs having no idea whether they are qualified, able to do the role, have done a good/bad job, [have] areas for improvement etc’. (SoP-1082). A line producer echoed the concerns of many senior staff among our respondents regarding managers’ inability to address performance issues: ‘I think a lot of people in this industry struggle with how to deal with poorly performing personnel…. there is a tendency to ignore it rather than try to improve the situation…. reinforcing negative practices in the industry’ (SoP-0937).

This failure in management is a risk factor in itself: it also speaks to a wider issue, highlighted by many respondents, of managers determined to avoid any form of confrontation: such managers, by failing to resolve conflict or to challenge the aggression that can arise under stressful working condition, send a message that bullying is acceptable. Even where good management practices are recognised and valued, it seems that the best efforts of individual managers are too often thwarted by the organisational environment. Thus, managers who strive to maintain a sense of collective mission may find their good intentions undermined by fragmented structures and strategies that, for example, separate production from post-production, diminishing any sense of creative ownership for the staff involved. Meanwhile many managers find themselves not only lacking in appropriate strategies but too overwhelmed in the demands of their own roles to address workplace conflict or the stress experienced by their teams. ‘I’ve found that a lot of managers will balance their own anxieties around their role out by bullying junior members’, one assistant producer told us, ‘not that they’d recognise it as that’ (SoP-0409). Production schedules and resources simply do not leave time and space, it is felt, for developmental or transformational management. As one producer commented: ‘The problem, even in good teams, is a lack of positive management practices (reviews, support, training, giving people feedback and chances to improve their skills). There’s never any time for people to arrive as anything other than already being able to do the job’ (SoP-0430).

Given the underlying structures and cultural norms of the industry, it is unsurprising to find that there is a prevalence of ‘laissez-faire’ over ‘transformational’ leadership practices. Most managers told us they were untrained and many were inexperienced. Indeed it was managers themselves, at all levels, who were most vociferous in critiquing this state of affairs. One senior producer pointed out the problem with promoting creatives into management positions with no training or support: ‘you can be a brilliant programme maker…. but that doesn’t mean you know how to manage people’ (SoP-0003). Most managers, however, were freelance, meaning there was little incentive for companies to invest in the development of individuals who typically stay with a production company for a short period of time. Managers, moreover, overwhelmingly felt their primary responsibility as being to the show, as opposed to the team. As with everyone else in the business, managers know that they are only as good as their last job, with that value measured in terms of its critical and commercial success and by their ability to deliver it on time and on budget. These factors create a culture where the welfare of staff may be sacrificed without compunction, or at least without consequence for the manager in question.

Summary and conclusion

The impact of workplace bullying is well documented and the FTVC’s Looking Glass reports (2019, 2021) in particular have made a strong case for the particular mental health hazards faced by workers in film and television, among which bullying is a significant factor. As well as the impact on individuals, the data suggests that workplace bullying and the organisational cultures that facilitate it are implicated in the industry’s ongoing problems with skills gaps and shortages, whether through lost development opportunities or a failure to retain skilled workers.

In order to effectively address the issue, however, the industry will need to recognise that the problem does not rest with ‘a few bad apples’. On the contrary our findings demonstrate an alarming degree of correlation between the working conditions and underpinning structure and processes that are typical of film and television in the UK, and the risk factors identified by a growing body of research in the area of organisational behaviour. It is also worth noting here the introduction in June 2021 of the ISO45003 standard for Occupational health and safety management — Psychological health and safety at work (ISO. 2021), which specifically identifies bullying, harassment and victimization (along with excessive pressure, poor leadership and other aspects of organizational culture) in terms of risk. Although relatively new (and a voluntary standard), this recognition of psychosocial risk factors by the International Organization for Standardization is significant.

Within TV, a number of recent industry initiatives have raised the profile of workplace bullying as an issue (e.g. Bectu’s Unseen on Screen blog), offered principles and guidance for employers (e.g. BFI, undated and FTVC, undated (b)), and provided opportunities for victims to report incidents (e.g. the FTVC support site). Whistle-blower schemes, such as those proposed for the creative industries and overseen by a new Independent Standards Authority (ISA)⁶, can achieve a number of valuable benefits: they can give a great deal of reassurance to individuals that they are not alone, that it’s not their fault, that there may be some redress; they send a strong message to employers and to perpetrators (assuming those perpetrators know who they are); they provide researchers and industry stakeholders with a better understanding of the extent and nature of the problem. They may fulfil their ostensible purpose and lead to prosecutions, dismissal and changes in employer policies, although too often the need to waive anonymity deters complainants from pursuing such outcomes, given the fundamental instability of their employment status. Nevertheless, the very existence of whistle-blower schemes may have a considerable cultural impact, making it clear that workplace bullying and harassment and abusive management practices are not acceptable and can no longer be dismissed as ‘just the way the industry works’.

However neither whistleblowing schemes, nor employer guidance in themselves address the systemic risks prevalent in these workplace environments. To do this, we would suggest, the industry needs to recognise and actively manage the risk factors at play in the design of individual jobs and the way work is organised, organisational cultures, and the nature of leadership and management within the industry.

There are a number of ‘risk factors’ for bullying that typify the industry yet which most professionals regard as largely positive. There are others that are arguably fundamental to the industry or at any rate difficult to change under current commercial conditions. These need to be recognised nevertheless as productive of risk, and managed accordingly. Thus, for example: most professionals welcome the cognitively demanding nature of the work (a corollary to creativity) and with it a degree of ambiguity in some roles that might provide space for development. Employers need to recognise, however, the inherent risk that is exacerbated where those individuals have insufficient control over their work, and ensure that staff are appropriately involved in decision-making and are allowed an appropriate degree of agency within their role. Many professionals likewise welcome the choice and mobility associated with freelance work, and certainly most employers are highly reliant on the ‘invisible army’ (Genders 2019) of freelancers that underpin the UK industry. However the job insecurity that this generates, particularly given the practice of informal references, is a critical risk factor, not only for bullying practices but for such practices going unreported in a great many cases, notwithstanding a range of processes for so doing. It behoves the industry to look more carefully at recruitment and hiring practices as well as reporting structures in order to manage this substantial and complex risk.

There are other risk factors which, we would argue, should be eliminated from the industry’s working practices. These include persistently excessive working hours, conflicting job expectations (or conflicting hierarchies), opaque organisational structures, poor communication and an unwillingness to commit sufficient resource to manage issues of workplace conflict or staff welfare, resulting in the escalation of problems. It has to be recognised, however, that some of these practices within production companies arise directly from the wider institutional environment - for example the excessive working hours demanded in order to meet unrealistic production schedules, or the conflicting briefs received when commissioners try to micromanage productions. These risk factors require a robust response not only from employers, who might find themselves disadvantaged by acting alone, but by commissioners and regulators as well.

On a more positive note, the research has demonstrated that good, proactive management practices within an organisation can serve to minimise the risk of workplace bullying, both in the immediate and in the longer term. Key factors include clear lines of communication, the fostering of collegiality and shared goals, the provision of constructive feedback to teams and individuals, swift and effective conflict resolution and the demonstration of fairness in the organisation’s relationship with employees. The industry has tended to under-value management skills but there is a definite sense that perceptions are shifting, and that industry leaders are beginning to realise the price paid for failing to address this issue. Addressing the actions of a few ‘bad apples’, however, will not suffice. Both cultural and structural change at an institutional level will be required to effectively mitigate against the hazards identified by this research, and to ensure that the overall risk of workplace bullying in UK television is systematically reduced.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 This research was a collaboration between Bournemouth University’s Faculty of Media & Communication, the television union Bectu, and the freelance Producer-Directors’ association, Viva La PD.

2 In the 2021 update to this report (Brightpurpose 2021), bullying is identified as a key factor in the industry’s mental health crisis, with 57% of survey respondents revealing that, notwithstanding raised awareness and improved reporting provision, they had been subjected to bullying, harassment or discrimination within the previous 12 months.

3 The alphanumerical referencing system adopted here relates to the State of Play anonymous survey response database now archived and held at Bournemouth University.

4 The widespread concern with working hours in the industry has been explored at length by the Time Project, a collaboration between SIGN, York University an ShareMyTellyJob (Swords and Ozimek 2020)

5 Unhealthy organisational cultures are also highlighted as a key concern in the Film and Television Charity’s Looking Glass 2021 (Brightpurpose 2021)

6 In 2022 Creative UK and UK Time’s Up announced that it would be establishing an Independent Standards Authority (ISA) to ‘drive accountability and integrity’ within the creative industries and to provide a process for complainants and for those accused of bullying and harassment. At the time of writing it is still formulating its remit and structure, and establishing funding arrangements. It is expected to launch in 2024.