Management Styles in the British Council

I've always been interested in different theories about leadership and management, so I thought it might be interesting to do a brief analysis of the British Council in relation to this.  There are many ways of approaching the issue of management.  However, one of the most effective and easy-to-understand is through the Blake Mouton Managerial Grid (below), as it lays out the different styles in a clear visual form. So it is using this that I will explain what I consider to be the main changes that have occurred within the British Council over the decades.

As you can see from the grid, there are two main criteria, concern for results or tasks and concern for people.  Obviously, both are very important. However, it's finding the appropriate balance for a particular context that is probably the key factor in producing the best outcome.  Different situations require different combinations.  For example, the army would almost certainly opt for the bottom right corner, using a strong directive managerial style, as time is at a premium.  A company in severe financial crisis might adopt a similar strategy, as results alone will be at the front of their minds.  However, most companies or organisations would probably opt for a more balanced approach in normal circumstances.

The British Council goes back a long way, actually being founded in 1934.  Teaching centres have sprung up at different times around the world ever since the 1950s.  However, we could take the 1970s or 1980s as our starting point in the modern era, as by then teaching centres were pretty widespread.  During these decades, the British Council offered high quality classes for predominantly upper middle class people, i.e. people with plenty of loot. Learning English with the British Council was definitely not for the masses, and was really more of a luxury pursuit for high class people.  Moreover, the BC was then still fully supported by the UK government. 

All of this was reflected in the management style of the Council then in that there was a distinct lack of urgency or concern for concrete results.  In addition, teachers were well paid with plenty of perks and given light work loads.  In fact, this era was probably the golden era from a teacher's point of view, since the management style was undoubtedly Country Club, as in the top left hand corner of the Blake Mouton grid, i.e. high concern for people but low concern for results.

From the 1990s the British Council Teaching Centres started to professionalise with a much clearer focus on results. This was particularly true from the mid 90s with the advent of IELTS and the need to provide courses.  Nevertheless, teachers' conditions remained very good, well above the industry average.  To get a job with the BC was still a kind of Holy Grail for EFL teachers.  Really at this stage we could say it was Middle of the Road management according to the Blake Mouton grid.

This situation probably lasted quite a few years into the new millennium, and may have lasted longer.  However, it was the momentous decision towards the end of the first decade to stop direct governmental funding of Teaching Centres that caused a major shift in managerial style.  Teaching Centres were to be run as businesses and be self-sufficient.  In fact, at time of writing 85% of the British Council's income comes from Teaching and Examination Centres. 

Thus anyone joining the Council after about 2010 will have noticed the much stricter type of management with a clear focus on results. In fact, taking the Blake Mouton Grid as our standard, the ball has now been firmly in the bottom right hand corner pretty much ever since. Manifestations of this new style have been seen in tougher teaching schedules, lagging salaries, reduced perks, and lack of appreciation from the management.  In fact, staff turnover has increased hugely during the period.

Well-Being in the British Council

Following on from my previous post, I've been taking a closer look at what Andrew Spells is doing. Certainly superficially it's great stuff. Here are the five main areas he puts forward as needing work on:

1. Improving support for staff in fragile states
2. Providing effective response for staff affected by crises
3. Improving policies and systems related to ill-health and absence
4. Promoting good physical and mental health
5. Improving line manager and HR support and understanding

All very commendable.  However, it's the fifth one I want to focus on, as that's the one that is most likely to affect regular teachers, who make up the group most likely to be suffering from low morale and a lack of well-being.

If you read my previous posts, you'll see that it's that complete lack of positive liaison between teachers and management that is the cause of the problem.   In all the centres I have worked in there has always been a strong sense of "us" and "them". In fact, in Thailand we used to refer to the area where the management sat as the "Dark Side".  Moreover, I have never worked in a centre where teacher morale was not low.  At least, not since about 2007.

The problem is much deeper than any Head of Well-Being in a remote office in London can solve.  The problem is the entire culture of the BC, which is based on applying procedures and is task orientated rather than people orientated. Almost all managers in the BC are career people thinking primarily about their own advancement.  Their main concern is numbers and figures rather than actual people.  That's how they will be judged.  Did they increase revenue?  Are student numbers up or down?  How fast has staff turnover been, etc?  As long as that is so, it does not matter how many directives come from above, the malaise will continue.

When I think back to my own case (see previous post) what I noticed was that my happiness was never even a factor. It was always simply about procedures.  This was true of all the managers I worked under - Krystine Joyce, Ian Shears, Sam Stevenson, James Martin to name just a few.  BC managers do not have proper training for managerial positions and are seriously short in people skills. Most would try to glass themselves off if they could.  They also rely on procedures because they fear making real decisions and the possibility of being held accountable.  You could be drowning in the river, and rather than pull you out, they would say "Have you seen your line manager?" So what the British Council needs to do is give proper management training courses with a large focus on the areas not only of developing people skills but also of taking responsibility.  In fact, they need to be empowered.

As things stand, Andrew Spells is precisely the kind of manager creating the problem.  He talks a great talk, but stumbles as soon as he has to walk.  Basically, he is just virtue signalling.  It's very easy to sit on high and proclaim that you care about your employees' well-being, but the real test is when you actually meet a person who is, let's say, distraught for some reason.  I know from my own experience that he was completely dismissive of my case despite overwhelming evidence that I was in a bad way and needed real support. The only "support" I got was to be put on a PIP (see my last post) with the possibility of dismissal.

An interesting idea that Mr Spells suggested was employee networks. A good idea, but it would still be monitored by the management. What is really needed is a completely open forum, in which it is also possible to be anonymous.  That way the management would get some idea of what teachers really think of them.  At present, it is impossible to speak candidly for fear of reprisal.  In fact, in the British Council it is considered a cardinal sin to say anything bad about anyone.  Obviously, outright abuse should not be tolerated, but candid, frank opinions should be valued, even if they are painful.

In one of my earlier posts I recommended managers being put on a "Know Your Teachers" programme, forcing them to take a serious interest in those working under them, to know their strengths, their backgrounds, ambitions, etc.  In so many centres the exact opposite is true. Ian Shears was a great example. He didn't speak to me once on a one to one basis until I left and always brushed me off with the mantric "see your line manager".

It's unlikely much will change in the British Council, particularly if Andrew Spells is at the helm,  In many ways, he represents everything that is wrong with the British Council.  Low morale and lack of well-being will continue, I'm sure.

Please do make comments.

Case Study 2 - Andrew Spells

I was really surprised last year when I noticed that Andrew Spells was the Head of Well-Being for the British Council.  To be honest, I was flabbergasted, not only because of the ridiculousness of the post itself but because I had had several personal dealings with him myself a few years before.  And, frankly, the well-being of his employees seemed absolutely the last thing he was concerned with, or at least certainly with regard to me.  I think a better job title for him would be Hypocrite-in-Chief for the British Council. I will explain below.

A few years back I was working in the Bahrain Teaching Centre and was having a really tough time, and was under huge stress. Unfortunately, it was the managers at that time who were the ones piling most of the pressure on me. So I thought I should try appealing to someone higher within the organisation, someone outside the immediate circle I was caught in, hoping they would at least provide an objective assessment.  So I chose Andrew Spells, as he was the regional head of the MENA region. I was sure he would be concerned about my predicament and would uphold the British Council values of integrity, fair play and non-discrimination.  However, to my huge disappointment, at every stage he simply took the side of the local managers. He was clearly not an honest broker, but had his own agenda of backing management whatever. My "well-being" was certainly not something on his list of priorities.

I'll just give a quick background of how the situation in Bahrain had developed. It all started when a student complained about one of my classes.  Apparently some of the Shia students had said something insulting in Arabic to some of the Sunni students.  Not being a Muslim myself, I had absolutely no idea this was going on in my class behind my back.  However, in the volatile atmosphere of 2012 the Country Director, Malcolm Jardine, decided to suspend me on gross misconduct charges for bringing the British Council into disrepute. Wow, that was quite a hit! I wasn't even called in for a chat before he made that momentous decision. What made the situation doubly difficult for me was that my mother had died just the week before.  In fact, I was still suspended when I went to her funeral. During the process, which lasted about a month, I wasn't allowed on BC premises or to communicate with anyone in the BC. Needless to say, I was finally cleared of all "charges", as they were utterly absurd, but it was hugely demoralising for me to be put through something like that.  Importantly, no one tried to rehabilitate me after the event either. However, probably to save face for himself, the Country Director decided to put me on a Performance Improvement Programme (PIP) relative to classroom management, even though no one had actually observed the class in question. And to make matters worse my line manager, Sam Stevenson, who was a real hardliner, had taken a personal dislike to me and saw the PIP as an opportunity to discipline me, despite my being 25 years his senior. I was still being treated like a guilty man. 

I must say, I had never felt so demoralised in my whole life.  I remember my feelings at the time. I felt like a trapped animal. Completely cornered. No one I could turn to. Even the centre director, Ian Shears, was totally indifferent towards me and seemed to be fully behind Sam Stevenson. There was a certain inevitability that things were going to end badly. And indeed I duly got a damning end of year report (EOYROP) from Sam Stevenson, which resulted in me having my contract revoked.

So this was context in which I appealed to Andrew Spells. What made it particularly poignant was that Sam Stevenson had never given me my annual observation, which is supposed to be stipulatory. This was significant because it gives the teacher a proper chance to show his true worth.  In fact, it was a clear breach on the management's part.  Instead I just had a series of casual observations where the focus was only to find faults. Of course, the EOYROP should be based on your overall performance for the year, which clearly the PIP did not assess.  Yet when I presented this to Andrew Spells, he brushed me off with banal statement like, "It's good to listen to feedback" or that my report was "normal".  More incredibly, he wrote that I shouldn't look at the past but at the future, even though my future with the BC was clearly damned and that looking at the past would incriminate managers.  He even tried to claim he didn't know enough about the background, even though he'd been copied into everything from the time of the suspension and I had explained everything to him fully. He also avoided answering any specific question question, but always fudged every issue, since clear answers would obviously have been incriminating.  Basically, he was supporting the management and molly-coddling me into my BC coffin.

In the end, I gave up pursuing my claim, as clearly there was a complete absence of moral or ethical standards within the British Council management. In fact, I personally consider Andrew Spell's handling of the situation an absolute disgrace, as he completely failed to uphold any of the BC's cherished values. This, however, is not unusual and I have mentioned this in some of my previous posts. The feeling with senior BC managers is that they're more interested in getting home for a cup of tea than dealing with a problem that is having a major impact on someone's life.  "How do I get this off my desk?" is how most managers think, and Andrew Spells was certainly an outstanding example of this.

Hence my amazement at his new role.  Let's briefly look at what this role is. Firstly, I'd guess it's one of those cosmetic positions the BC creates for senior managers they're moving sideways.  I don't believe anyone takes it seriously.  Nevertheless, Mr Spells will be on a fat salary (tax payers' money) and will make plenty from the lecture circuit.   It consists mainly of coming up with ideas and plans for creating a better workplace environment.  Superficially, that's fine. However, in reality, it means a lot of waffle and little real action. And be sure, Andrew Spells won't implement anything himself, that'll be delegated to others.  If you were to go direct to this "guru" of well-being he would almost certainly pass you on to someone else or get tough and hard-line you, as he did me.

Of course, you may argue that this kind of thing is no different from what happens in any other company, but I think what makes it different with the British Council is that they are a Registered Charity and have a list of core values and ethical standards, which they rant about continuously.  Therefore, there's a much greater need that they be held accountable.  Who would do that job of holding them accountable, though?

Case Study 1 - Ian Shears

Much of what I have written previously has been generalised in nature, so I thought it might be an idea to actually give some specific examples of managers within the British Council.  The one that springs to my mind most readily is that of Ian Shears.  I am pleased to say that the British Council has now dispensed of his services and I congratulate them for that. Nevertheless, he typifies an attitude that many managers still within the BC have.

Ian Shears was the Deputy Centre Manager of the Bahrain Teaching Centre from around 2011 to 2013, maybe a bit longer.  But, actually, he was de facto the full manager, since the Country Director at that time basically handed the reins over to him, so he could focus on "more important" work.  While on that point, can anyone think of any worthwhile project the BC have done in the field of cultural relations? I challenge you to think of even one example.

The main feature of Ian Shears' tenure was his complete lack of interest in and indifference towards the teachers in the centre (his flock, so to speak). If he could have, I'm sure he would have glassed himself off completely.  I remember he made absolutely no effort to get to know me or find out anything about me and incredibly during the whole time I was there never even once spoke to me on a one-to-one basis. Until the day I actually handed in my notice, that is. Even then he didn't even ask me why I wanted to leave.

Occasionally, however, he would try to curry favour with the younger teachers in their 30s so that he seemed hip and with-it. He was very selective in this regard and demonstrated clear discrimination.  For example, he went to one of the younger teacher's farewell party (to look good), but of course didn't bother with similar events for older teachers like me.  He even claimed that he was "refreshingly approachable", which was something a teacher had said out of diplomacy at an early meeting.  Of course, he was following on from the android-like Krys Joyce, who had had an almost identical attitude and had successfully alienated almost all the teaching staff. So, maybe relatively he was more approachable to some.

The point about this is that it is extremely disheartening for a regular teacher to have a manager like that. You feel you are working in a vacuum with no one taking the slightest interest in your positive contribution or valuing you in any way. The only time you get noticed by this kind of manager is when you do something wrong or there is a complaint.

I mentioned in a previous post how he handled aspects of my situation. For example, I felt I was being victimised by my line manager Sam Stevenson, who had clearly taken a personal dislike to me and was set on "teaching me a lesson" for not kow-towing to him enough (another full story).  The point is that when I tried to bring up the subject of what I perceived as bullying, Ian Shears wouldn't hear anything of it, and again didn't even call me in for a one-to-one chat. In fact, he even copied Sam Stevenson in on the email, out of "courtesy" to the latter. Well, what about my right to confidentiality or some courtesy towards me? In fact, I realised later that he was probably complicit in what was Sam Stevenson was doing, and was almost certainly "managing me out of the organisation".  The evidence was ultimately a career-damning end of year report by Sam Stevenson which Ian Shears happily approved.

So when you've had this kind of treatment from a manager who makes absolutely no effort to establish any kind of positive rapport, and even does everything he can to diminish your worth, of course you're going to be disillusioned.  BC managers simply do not live up to the ideals of the organisation they work for. And, unfortunately, this type of manager abounds within the BC, which is why I recommend all teachers be ready and pre-hardened for this kind of experience. Never give your heart to the BC, but always maintain a mercenary attitude.  That will certainly be theirs towards you.

Summary

Hi Bloggers,

It's a long time since I've written anything about the British Council, probably because I've already made most of the comments I want to. So I thought I'd just give a brief summary or synopsis for the benefit of any teacher working there or thinking of joining.

What I would say is that it is certainly worth having a spell with the British Council. In fact, most people find the first two or three years with them reasonably golden. You'll be on a real upward learning curve in terms of your development as a teacher and will probably have a suitably deferential attitude at that stage. And make no mistake, you'll have some incredibly friendly, positive and helpful fellow teachers there. Also, the basic package combined with the perks is pretty good by EFL standards. You'll definitely feel you've moved up in the world. And, importantly, it looks great on your CV to have worked for the BC, as they're still a highly respected institution.

However, it's when you yourself have become a fully fledged teacher and try to move up the ladder that you'll notice the deficiencies of the management. Basically, no one will be following your progress or taking an interest in you. Think, who would that person be in the rotating world of BC personnel? The reality is that it's a world of androids mindlessly applying procedures rather than creatively taking an interest in employees. No manager seems to have any vision, ability to think outside the box or real leadership skills. More importantly, almost every manager in the BC is simply looking after their own corner and advancing their own career. Effectively, the British Council has become a "milch" cow for all concerned.

What you need to decide is whether you want to move into this world or not. Do you want to become one of them? My advice is to move on, as most teachers will find the numb world of British Council management extremely frustrating. There are much better opportunities out there now, notably in universities and schools that not only pay better but also offer better job satisfaction. Working for the Council is no longer the Holy Grail of EFL teaching.

In short, the British Council simply aren't the bunnies they once were. Standards have fallen on all fronts, whether it be in terms of the people working there, the heavy workloads or the diminishing benefits and remuneration. Move on!

Please do check out some of my earlier posts.

Good luck

Progressing Your Career

It is normal for any employee anywhere to look to advance their career, and British Council employees are certainly no different.  Most companies or organisations have reasonably clear career paths, and most employees can expect to make progress if they are committed and play their cards right. 

So how is the British Council different?  Well, the most important factor is that almost all managerial positions are based on what is called the competency based interview, which is basically a series of questions designed to test your development in specific skills areas.  That's fine as far as it goes.  However, importantly, no consideration is taken of you holistically.  For example, your years of service, your achievements, your contributions, etc, none of these will count.  It's simply how you handle the set of questions you get on the day that matters.  It's also possible to coach oneself up for these questions, as they tend be highly formulaic, as is so typical within the BC.  So what happens is that the most suitable candidates don't necessarily get the position.  It's more likely to be someone who is clever at handling that type of interview.

Incredibly, within the British Council, there is no management training.  Basically, managers pick up the job as they go along. It also means that teachers trying to move up the scale are often caught in a Catch 22 situation.  For example, a candidate might be asked, "Describe a time when you ...." relative to a management role.  However, if you've never been in such a role, how are you going to answer that question?  Most people either make something up or try to bluff their way through.  It also opens the door for teachers applying from outside the BC who have managed at other schools, because they can easily leapfrog you.  The reason this is of concern is because, as per usual, the British Council shows no loyalty to its own.  When I was with the BC, I saw so many managers come in from other schools, often bringing in a completely different corporate culture and associated values.

So what's the solution? Well, one obvious one would be simply to start giving proper management training courses, specifically tailored to the needs and values of the British Council.  That way, any teacher interested in progressing could do a course, such that when he or she then applies for a management role, he or she will be in a strong position and fully clued up.  It would also make it much easier for existing BC personnel to progress ahead of external candidates.  The other obvious improvement would be to expand the interview, so that any candidate is assessed holistically.

One would think that someone somewhere in the British Council's Human Resources department in London would be coming up with ideas like this and more. Sadly, however, this is not so.  The big shots in HR seem only to be concerned with recruiting big names for the upper echelons of the BC.  They seem completely unconcerned about the situation at ground level in teaching centres. And in many ways, this is the whole problem with the BC, in that the rot starts from the top.  It's that complete lack of interest and indifference toward the lot of the average teacher that personifies the British Council.

Let's hope the HR leaders in London can start doing something to justify their high salaries.

Cons - Part Two

So what are the downsides of working as a teacher for the British Council?  I'd divide my answer into two parts, the first being the workload, and the second the management culture within the organisation.  Ultimately, I would say the latter is the most important factor (see previous post)

In this post, let's quickly look at the workload or scheduling side of things. In the old days, most centres had relatively few contact hours, typically between 19 and 21, with only a few Young Learner classes.  This was a very manageable amount, and any teacher could really concentrate on upholding the BC ideals of quality classes, because you had time to prepare and weren't under the same kind of stress and pressure as some of the "factory line" schools.  A great example of this was in Japan, where lots of teachers in the Council had idyllic set ups, while teachers in the big conversation schools or Eikaiwa's, as they're locally known, like Shane and Nova, had hugely stressful schedules, and for a lot less pay.  This was a major reason why working for the BC was a kind of Holy Grail at the time, the early part of the millennium. 

However, around 2010, a new policy came into place, with the idea that funding from London would be decreased, and teaching centres would be expected to fund themselves. This resulted in most centres having to rationalise, since they were now basically expected to run as successful businesses.  Exactly how this fitted into the BC's status as a registered charity is unclear, for from this point on they certainly seem to be competing in the marketplace just like any other school, if they're weren't already.  One of the result of this has been that almost all centres now enforce the full 24 contact week.  The number of Young Learner classes has also increased massively over the last few years.  So a typical daily schedule might consist of a Kids class, followed by a Teens class and rounded off with an Adults class in the evening, by which time you'll already feel pretty whacked, if you're normal, that is.

Another feature that's gathered momentum over years is the LDP or Learning & Development Plan.  It's almost universally hated by all teachers as something completely useless and unnecessary.   Most teachers are already studying for a DELTA, CELTYL or even an MA, so the last thing they want is this extra workload to prove they're not wasting their time.  That, and innumerable in-house sessions, called INSETTs. 

Of course, you can argue that that is normal for most large companies or organisations.  Perhaps so.  Nevertheless, the overall effect has been to make working as a teacher for the BC a much more pressurised and stressful experience than it was in bygone times.  Be prepared!