This post brings me to one of the most important aspects of the British Council management, as a lot of the other problems I have mentioned earlier flow from this. And, of course, by "leadership" I mean the almost complete absence of it!
When I was working for the British Council, I often used to wonder who I was actually working for in terms of real people. Working for an abstract ideal, such as "The British Council", is all very well, but this is not enough to compensate for the absence of meaningful relationships at human level. Anyone looking up into the higher echelons of the BC will almost certainly perceive a void or at best shifting images. First of all, those immediately above are continuously moving on, due to the BC's four year rotation policy. You may start work in a teaching centre only to find that a completely new management team takes over a year or two later. This creates a huge feeling of impermanence and a lack of commitment to anyone, in either direction. How can you feel deep loyalty to a leadership that simply keeps changing? No-one "above" can possibly be following or taking a sustained interest in your progress.
Really the rot starts right from the top. For a start, who are the Trustees, and what is their role? Who even knows who they are? However, most teachers working for the British Council do probably know that Ciaran Devane is the new Chief Executive, having taken over recently from Sir Martin Davidson earlier this year. But this level of manager is in a world apart, completely removed from the realities of the regular teacher. His main area of interest is the cultural liaisons with other countries, such that teaching centres can be little more than a side show for him. Of more interest is who makes up the next strata or layer of management underneath him. The place where real decision making starts. Again, I challenge anyone to be able to come up with even a single name. The BC is already faceless at that level. After that, the next level is probably the regional heads and country directors. Here we may be able to recognise a few people, but exactly who they are beholden to remains extremely unclear. Where directives ultimately come from remains a mystery. No teacher is ever given any kind of induction into the structure of the organisation.
But so much for the macro view. More significant is perhaps what might happen in an individual centre. The main feature I noticed in almost all the centres I worked in was the lack of rapport between managers and teachers. There was almost always a strong "us" and "them" feeling. The example I particularly remember was working in a centre in the Gulf region, where the deputy teaching centre manager (DTCM) didn't once call me in for a one-to-one chat during the whole year I was there. This kind of approach at best can only be neutral and at worst will directly alienate workers. It certainly won't inspire anyone. This was coupled with a strong top down authoritarian treatment by my line manager, who always sought to be a boss rather than a colleague. He was always in opposition, full of his own agenda and what he wanted rather than what might actually be good for me. Certainly never a friend.
In an earlier post I mentioned how very few managers know anything about their staff, and I suggested a "Know Your Teacher" campaign, together with a bi-annual meeting to help establish trust and confidence. This way, any potential problems from either side could be nipped in the bud, and an atmosphere of trust and confidence established. In addition to this, I also think it's important that all managers go on a compulsory management training course. Believe it or not, this is not the case at present. Basically, they are all untrained and picking up the job as they go along. Also, a culture of allowing managers to show initiative needs to be established. However, this needs to come from the top and filter down to the lower levels. Interestingly, many companies now have a position called Talent Developer, which, in my opinion, would be an extremely useful addition to the BC's repertoire. That way, someone would be pro-actively seeking out good practice and trying to channel it appropriately, rather than merely performing the current box ticking rituals most BC managers go through.
Let's hope something like this happens.
When I was working for the British Council, I often used to wonder who I was actually working for in terms of real people. Working for an abstract ideal, such as "The British Council", is all very well, but this is not enough to compensate for the absence of meaningful relationships at human level. Anyone looking up into the higher echelons of the BC will almost certainly perceive a void or at best shifting images. First of all, those immediately above are continuously moving on, due to the BC's four year rotation policy. You may start work in a teaching centre only to find that a completely new management team takes over a year or two later. This creates a huge feeling of impermanence and a lack of commitment to anyone, in either direction. How can you feel deep loyalty to a leadership that simply keeps changing? No-one "above" can possibly be following or taking a sustained interest in your progress.
Really the rot starts right from the top. For a start, who are the Trustees, and what is their role? Who even knows who they are? However, most teachers working for the British Council do probably know that Ciaran Devane is the new Chief Executive, having taken over recently from Sir Martin Davidson earlier this year. But this level of manager is in a world apart, completely removed from the realities of the regular teacher. His main area of interest is the cultural liaisons with other countries, such that teaching centres can be little more than a side show for him. Of more interest is who makes up the next strata or layer of management underneath him. The place where real decision making starts. Again, I challenge anyone to be able to come up with even a single name. The BC is already faceless at that level. After that, the next level is probably the regional heads and country directors. Here we may be able to recognise a few people, but exactly who they are beholden to remains extremely unclear. Where directives ultimately come from remains a mystery. No teacher is ever given any kind of induction into the structure of the organisation.
But so much for the macro view. More significant is perhaps what might happen in an individual centre. The main feature I noticed in almost all the centres I worked in was the lack of rapport between managers and teachers. There was almost always a strong "us" and "them" feeling. The example I particularly remember was working in a centre in the Gulf region, where the deputy teaching centre manager (DTCM) didn't once call me in for a one-to-one chat during the whole year I was there. This kind of approach at best can only be neutral and at worst will directly alienate workers. It certainly won't inspire anyone. This was coupled with a strong top down authoritarian treatment by my line manager, who always sought to be a boss rather than a colleague. He was always in opposition, full of his own agenda and what he wanted rather than what might actually be good for me. Certainly never a friend.
In an earlier post I mentioned how very few managers know anything about their staff, and I suggested a "Know Your Teacher" campaign, together with a bi-annual meeting to help establish trust and confidence. This way, any potential problems from either side could be nipped in the bud, and an atmosphere of trust and confidence established. In addition to this, I also think it's important that all managers go on a compulsory management training course. Believe it or not, this is not the case at present. Basically, they are all untrained and picking up the job as they go along. Also, a culture of allowing managers to show initiative needs to be established. However, this needs to come from the top and filter down to the lower levels. Interestingly, many companies now have a position called Talent Developer, which, in my opinion, would be an extremely useful addition to the BC's repertoire. That way, someone would be pro-actively seeking out good practice and trying to channel it appropriately, rather than merely performing the current box ticking rituals most BC managers go through.
Let's hope something like this happens.
