In 2024, the Van Rijn Committee published a scathing report titled Niets gezien, niets gehoord, niets gedaan | De zoekgeraakte verantwoordelijkheid (Saw nothing, heard nothing, did nothing | The lost responsibility). The report paints a distressing picture of transgressive behaviour within the Dutch public broadcasting system, and of the structural failure of executives, employers and supervisory boards to intervene. Employees face systematic sabotage, physical or verbal abuse, and sexual intimidation. The report’s conclusions prompted calls for a cultural shift within broadcasting organisations and required broadcasters to draft action plans. Yet, one year on, it appears that real change has largely failed to materialise. What has become of the action plans, and what more is needed to fundamentally transform the culture within the broadcasters?
One year on
A year after the report’s publication, the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad evaluated current developments. Various broadcasters have published plans, but the pace and extent of change vary significantly. Mariëtte Hamer, Government Commissioner for Sexual Transgressive Behaviour and Sexual Violence, is quoted in her progress report to the Minister for Social Affairs: “The plans really need to move off the page now”. The much-needed cultural change has yet to take root. While the Van Rijn Committee’s report caused considerable boardroom upheaval, that alone has not been sufficient to change the ingrained organisational cultures in which patterns of transgressive behaviour are embedded. Broadcasting employees have expressed frustration at executives who were aware of the misconduct but remain in post. Recent scandals at different Dutch broadcasters (NTR, WNL and Ongehoord Nederland) have led to the departure of some executives. However, whether these events will trigger genuine cultural change remains to be seen. While some broadcasters (such as BNNVARA and NOS) have moved ahead with implementation of their plans, others are bogged down in internal disputes and conflict. Impasses are emerging, especially at a time when the entire broadcasting system faces major budget cuts and structural reform.
A key obstacle is the limited professional capacity for change within organisations. The implementation of interventions requires oversight: are the intended interventions actually being carried out, are they achieving the desired impact, and is there corrective action if expected outcomes fail to materialise? Supervisory boards have a role to play here. However, these boards are often formed through co-optation. Appointments are typically made from within the same limited pool. Executives from one broadcaster serve on the Supervisory Board of another. These individuals are often former programme-makers, a profession not typically associated with the development of change management expertise.
What needs to be done
As a result, the desired cultural change risks stagnating. Below, we outline how this impasse might be broken. We discuss the nature of the Van Rijn Committee’s investigation, the additional research required within individual broadcasters, the kinds of interventions that are likely to be effective, and how the progress of the desired cultural transformation can be safeguarded.
1. More clarity within individual broadcasting organisations
The Van Rijn Committee’s investigation was designed to provide a general overview of patterns of transgressive behaviour within public broadcasting organisations. It succeeded in that aim. The report outlines a range of problematic situations. Beyond a number of illustrative case studies (DWDD, NOS Sport), intended to shed light on what has gone wrong, the report lacks in-depth analysis of the organisational cultures within individual broadcasters. That, however, was not within the committee’s remit. The result is a lack of clear insight per broadcaster, even for those working within those organisations. The interventions broadcasters are currently proposing are general in nature and therefore not tailored to the specific characteristics, contexts and underlying dynamics at play within each broadcaster. Consequently, the interventions fail to sufficiently address the drivers of the current cultures. This also hampers the ability to effectively diagnose and resolve the inevitable obstacles that arise in any cultural change process.
2. Additional research per broadcaster
Interventions that are not specifically tailored to the organisation in question often result in ineffective change efforts. They lack focus. It is therefore essential to conduct additional research into the prevailing culture. Ideally, this should be undertaken by credible and independent external researchers. The first phase of such research should be qualitative in nature and consist of a series of confidential interviews with a cross-section of the organisation. The aim is to gain insight into the relationships between patterns of transgressive behaviour, the existing formal and informal power structures (the ‘arena’), and the underlying perceptions of reality (the ‘mindset’). These insights can then be translated into a survey, the quantitative phase of the research. This will clarify which arenas and mindsets are most strongly associated with the occurrence of transgressive behaviour.
3. Determining a mini-max intervention mix
By understanding the key cultural drivers, it becomes possible to select a mix of interventions that can bring about the necessary cultural shift in a targeted and effective way. The approach is based on achieving maximum impact with minimal intervention, the so-called ‘mini-max’ principle. The focus is on targeted interventions that reinforce desired behaviours, shift the balance of power between employees and (formal and informal) leaders, and revise outdated beliefs about what is and isn’t acceptable, measured against contemporary societal standards regarding transgressive behaviour.
4. Monitoring progress
Major change initiatives such as this require a robust governance structure that combines the authority to act with effective internal communication. In many cases, it will be necessary to establish a dedicated project group whose leader has direct access to meetings of both the executive board and the supervisory board of the relevant broadcasting organisation. The position of the project leader must be respected across all levels of the organisation. Independence (verified in advance) and a strong track record are essential. Changes of this nature will inevitably conflict with existing vested interests. Progress can only be assured if those interests are subordinated to the goal of realising meaningful change. To secure the authority of the project group and its leader, decisions about their mandate should be formally recorded and made transparent to all members of the organisation.
