With the feeding frenzy surrounding the current plight of the BBC subsiding a little, perhaps the time has come to take a slightly more sober examination of the circumstances which have arisen. I think it would be true to say that the BBC is the envy of the world given the vast array of services on offer, the innovative programmes on offer and the cutting edge investigative journalism which is undertaken.
Despite this expertise there has clearly been a series of mistakes made recently that have placed the organization, rightly, under public scrutiny. Without going into the individual aspects of the recent cases involved there does appear to be a common element of poor management interwoven within the processes of the programmes affected. Furthermore, in an organization concentrating on communication, why was it so poor in operating as a team when a crucial issue arose. It beggars belief that no senior colleague saw fit to "tip off" the then Director General of an obvious serious issue that was emerging. Hardly surprising that the chap appeared to know precious little about the subject when interviewed the day following. Who would turn in a good performance when wrong footed in such an extreme fashion?. Overall it does seem likely, stemming from his long experience, that he would have been a good front man in what is clearly a demanding job requiring huge resources of resilience, calm and resolve.
Behind the obvious public faces we all see from time to time there appears to be a phalanx of senior individuals whose personal concerns more relate to survival, self progression and postioning as opposed to selfless teamwork. Perhaps a set of circumstances has now emerged where a clear-out of such "grey suits" is undertaken, rigid lines of responsibility created and an insistence made that conferred responsibility is fully accepted. From an outside viewpoint it certainly seems the management system is in complete disarray and was probably never fit for purpose to begin with!
As far as the Trust is concerned, is it appropriate that a unanimous decision from that body resulting in the appointment of an individual whose period of tenure was "allowed" to be brief , at best, should be left to recruit the next incumbent to the position of Director General when they so conveniently and ingloriously allowed the previous role holder to depart the job. A little bit of attention deflection or reputation retention perhaps? I hold the view that the recently departed DG would have subsequently made a good fist of the job had he been given the luxury of sufficient time to do so. With such a tangled web of incompetence wallowing below the surface it may well be that he's well out of it. Time will tell.