11 October 2024
For those that have been following the BBC Strictly saga involving Amanda Abbington’s complaints against her dance pro partner Giovanni Pernice, there are some valuable takeaways that could help those of us in organisational life reflect on the culture and environment we want to nurture, how well attuned we are to the reality and how to respond when behaviour falls below expectations.
For those readers not the in the UK, the BBC is a national institution, for which the public pays a fee. Strictly Come Dancing is a flagship show, replicated around the world. A jewel in the crown undoubtedly. And this year is the 20th year for Strictly. Not the headlines or focus the BBC would have been hoping for in their 20th anniversary year.
The case is compelling and it raises a number of questions:
Beyond policy, how do we in practice live what is acceptable in the workplace related to shouting and swearing, (and separately, does it make a difference if across gender, generations or power)?
How do we make sure that the ‘jewels in the crown’, ‘sacred cows’ or people who have power over others don’t get relieved from these same standards? How do we encourage people to speak up where forces will be willing them to shut up?
What is acceptable in terms of sexually related behaviour in this workplace? As an ally, what should I do if I see / witness inappropriate behaviour?
How should organisations and leaders respond when claims are upheld?
The BBC seems to want to support a ‘move on, we’ve apologised, nothing more to see here’ approach. But what’s the work to repair and heal the rupture in our sense of safety caused by harassment or abuse – both for the specific individuals, but also the environment we want to nurture? And how do we balance these with the need to retain confidentiality? I can feel Legal and HR departments getting very uncomfortable at the prospect of this type of conversation and yet keeping the secrecy is part of what keeps things stuck.
Images generated by Microsoft designer.
For those that don’t follow Strictly, Amanda and Giovanni were partnered in the BBC Strictly Come Dancing series of 2023. Amanda seemed to be getting on well and got as far as week six before pulling out due to ‘medical grounds’ and ‘personal reasons’ FN1. It later transpired that she had lodged a formal complaint against Pernice related to his behaviour during their training sessions (all of which apparently were recorded and which the BBC had access to). In recent weeks, the BBC investigation apparently upheld 6 of the 17 allegations (which the BBC News themselves have been unable to verify FN2). The BBC have not provided details related to these, but Amanda has spoken of specifics which relate to shouting, swearing and inappropriate sexual references (which I have chosen to spare you the details of.) The allegations of physical abuse were not upheld. So that’s ok then.
The veil of secrecy, the norm of sweeping under the carpet or ‘nothing to see here’ mentality, means we act ‘as if’ it doesn’t happen, denying or gaslighting the fact it’s a part of women’s every day lives. You’ll notice the number of ‘apparently’s’ I’ve had to use here as the BBC has failed to offer any details. And so it repeats - different organisation, same message. Of course, organisations want to protect their brand - and their staff -but what if we put as much care in to protecting the women, and other marginalised communities, in our organisations? In this BBC case, the facts remain murky and unclear, other than that certain allegations have been upheld. Amanda has alleged that a number of other female dancers paired with Pernice over the years had also raised complaints. Should Amanda choose to take further legal action against the BBC more details may become available in due course.
The case caught my attention as it seemed to amplify some of the issues related to what it takes to speak up when what we have to say feels unpopular, hard to prove, subject to judgment and against popular opinion.
It exposes the person speaking up to scrutiny for their judgment, their resilience, their work ethic, their capability – and in the modern age, the judgment of a rather unempathetic online public opinion. If we were to believe the loud, often anonymous, set of voices online, then Amanda is to be blamed and vilified for daring to speak up, for asking ‘is this ok’?
Undoubtedly, it gets complicated when the alleged other party is a well-known, well-liked, charismatic, handsome and by deduction, powerful person. Someone we may have believed was rather wonderful. But does that blind us to what might have happened? Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be the same public opinion relating to the numerous allegations against Mohammed Al Fayed recently made public FN3 – again a man of power, and also of great wealth. Does it feel like a roll of the dice as to whether you will be believed, supported, open to scrutiny – do we stay quiet for fear of what else we have to lose?
Amanda endured what looked to be hell-on-earth through online trolling, with police involved and threats of rape and murder FN4. All because she spoke up and challenged if something was appropriate.
Of course, organisations have a plethora of policies and guidance to cover workplace behaviour and comply with regulation. But polices don’t stop it happening and we still face dilemmas as to how to respond when they do. Like many other women, I’ve experienced all three of the types of behaviour or harassment that Amanda’s case has proven to uphold. A number of situations come to mind unfortunately – several in my time at BP, which I loved and felt incredibly grateful for the opportunities it provided me. The very same opportunities which ultimately constrained my ability to speak up. I loved my career in the energy industry but it was common to hear people (women and men) be told to ‘toughen up’, and ‘it’s all just banter’.
For those that know me, I’m no shrinking violet, and not easily offended. I can defend myself; but it makes me reflect now, whether I should have had to. I wonder today what I’d ask our equity allies to do differently – and I think for me it’s about helping to moderate and support the type of environment that we allow in our organisational lives – in all parts of our factories, plants and offices. An environment that enables us each to thrive, to feel safe and valued. To step in and call out inappropriate language and behaviour in the early stages. And what about when it goes beyond banter? When does the culture of banter set the breeding ground for more deviant behaviour? This has been an issue in other organisations such as policing where an investigation by the Indpendent Office of Police Conduct (Operation Hotton) found ‘banter’ [was] used to excuse oppressive and offensive behaviours' FN5.
In one occasion I was shouted and ferociously sworn at for a continuous two-hour period, in a closed environment with only myself and a male peer. He was incredibly angry about an issue of performance and felt that a member of my team was aggravating it. He was past the point of being able to talk rationally about it, and despite repeated attempts to calm the situation or get away, I was obstructed and had no option but to stay there. I questioned my physical safety several times. On any measure in BP at that time this behaviour was not appropriate. We had a code of conduct that set out clear expectations of behaviour, and an active anonymous support line ‘Open Talk’ that rigorously investigated complaints. But in this case, my line manager and HR manager both wanted to just move past it, he was 'just blowing off steam'. For me, it was a long chalk from ok. I’d worked in the industry for 15 years and never before (or since) experienced anything like it. I’d thought it was an obvious case of breaching conduct, and at the least he would be reprimanded and reminded of the expectations. Nope. ‘Put up with it dear’ was the message.
This situation was part of my reason for leaving BP in the end – not enough in itself, but the trigger for my timing. I wrote my resignation shortly after and at no point received an apology. Did this represent the BP I knew and loved – not at all. But it did go to show that pockets of poor behaviour exist even in cultures that strive to do well. It may have been a male-dominated environment but the majority of people I’d worked with over the years were good people, with good judgment.
It's also the case that made me question what I’d experienced over the years, and how we normalise what’s around us. I started in the oil industry when I was 20 years old, as part of my university vocational placement. You get used to (if not accepting) of the pats on the butt, and the crude or demeaning jokes about women. I don’t want to rewrite my past, but I think we all need to take a look at what we put up with, contributed to, tolerated or supported by way of not speaking up in the way Amanda has done.
It’s the not speaking up that is the foundation from which more serious behaviour grows. Rather than berating Amanda I am grateful for her bravery. She is a very public symbol of what it takes every time a woman, or person from a marginalised group, speaks up. Amanda’s case reminds us that we are not there yet when it comes to equity. I don’t know if she intended to be an activist on women’s rights – or like any of us, just wanted to speak to her experience so that it could be rectified and prevented from repeating. The weight and risk for those that do speak up raising complaints about inappropriate behaviour can carry - of judgment, blame or career limits - can feel overwhelming, and in my experience of working life does prevent people from speaking up.
It’s easy, naive and lazy to say victims are overly sensitive to inappropriate language or behaviour. As women we are likely to have experienced everyday examples that have socialised us to be on alert. In fact I’m sitting on a train writing this very paragraph with a group of men talking about women and titties in a loud and degrading way, giving the female conductor a hard time (she well held her own, although I was ready to step in and show support). All at 9.30 in the morning. It’s the daily reality. By ignoring cases like Amanda’s, or blaming her for speaking up we send the message that we just need to put up with it. That’s it’s ok to feel lesser than, disrespected or unsafe.
So, how do we support potential victims to speak up, and shut down trolling and blame-shaming that fester in Whatsapp groups and private spaces?
I want to leave you with an invitation and a thank you.
If we want to practice equity allyship I’m afraid it means hosting conversations that are complex and likely awkward. Yet essential. The invitation is to use this case to host a real conversation in your workplace. Not a conversation only in the safe confines of your policy or compliance requirements (all of which are important but not sufficient), but a conversation that invites lived experience in your organisation. How? Invite people who would be interested to reflect on the case and implications for your workplace, through exploring questions like the ones below:
What is the environment we are trying to nurture? When do we get it right, and what does that look and feel like? Which aspects are most important to you in helping you to feel valued and thrive?
Have you experienced a situation where you feel we didn't live up to our standards, and what happened? Did you feel able to raise the issue? Did you feel heard? Were you satisfied with the response?
What do we regard as inappropriate behaviour in our workplace? What are our expectations relating to shouting or swearing the workplace – what’s ok, or not ok, and how do we support each other when these standards are violated?
(I particularly like the litmus test of ‘don’t be a dick’ that some organisations use instead of detailed value statements or behaviour charters that most seem to ignore)
What is acceptable in terms of sexually-related behaviour in the workplace? How do we judge these, or ask for help from others? See comment above about ‘don’t be a dick’.
As an equity ally, what do you want me to do / say if I see / witness inappropriate behaviour?
What’s our expectation around knowing of inappropriate behaviour – at what point do we become complicit (unfortunately we have a number of recent cases or allegations that you could refer to for this question - Prince Andrew or potentially Mohamed Al Fayed allegations during his Harrods days come to mind)
When cases fall below expectations, how do we balance respecting confidentiality with repair and healing? How would you like to see us respond as an organisation?
I hope we all feel brave and supported enough to start these conversations.
The thank you is to Amanda Abbington. For your bravery, perseverance and grace. It may take only one to change the course of the future, but to be that one – and in such a public and exposing way – takes real courage and commitment to a better world. I thank you for that, and for all the conversations in workplaces that may unfold as a consequence. I hope our thank yous can go some way to rebalance the critique and trolling.
What’s changed at the BBC since the report? The BBC announced new measures for Strictly in July to include chaperones in all rehearsal rooms and two new welfare producers FN2. According to a BBC News report, ‘In a statement, the BBC said it takes allegations of bullying and harassment "very seriously". "We have assessed the complaints and we have upheld some, but not all, of the complaints made," it said.
"We want to apologise to Amanda Abbington and to thank her for coming forward and taking part. We know this would not have been an easy thing to do."’
Amen to that.
Sources:
Comments