James has grown his Scottish based business to revenues of £180M and provides career opportunities for 2000 employees across Britain…… so it makes you wonder what gives the BBC the right to take a hatchet to him and his life’s work?
Having “investigated” Brewdog, the Beeb reports that James is guilty of “kissing… an intoxicated female customer”. He also once “flirted with a staff member… before taking her to a roof terrace”, indeed, he also committed the apparent atrocity of taking some friends who were female on late night brewery tours. Rather disloyally and manipulatively, some of his managers were advising female team members on how to avoid James and even how to dress down so as not to appeal to him. You would think they would have simply pointed out his poor flirting and feedback loop to him (if it was true), so he could have been aware of his shortcomings and fix them? No, manipulation and bullying strategies mean influence is exerted in many ways between men, particularly by jealous “nice guy” types.
To be fair, if the portrayal is correct then these are obviously not ideal actions from the boss. Without a crime or even an allegation of one though, James is unable to defend himself and without the rigours of a trial and judgement, then all this is just hearsay and gossip. Hearsay driven from people who have their own agenda. If this chap hasn’t broken the law, then he should be left alone by the BBC. Go change the law if it needs changing, but until then, leave the guy alone. As far as I am aware the fella isn’t running for election on his moral credentials and nor is he claiming sainthood, he’s trying to earn a standard of living making decent beer.
The “no smoke without fire” associated with rumours and gossip like this leave a lasting effect. Long after this has died down, James will still be “that guy”. The question is, who gets to monitor why the BBC picks a particular business or a life to ruin? Maybe it’s useful to have journo friends at the BBC if you’re into revenge? Interviewing many thousands of candidates when running a recruitment desk for a decade teaches you that people never, ever blame themselves, they always blame the employer and no not every employee has good character and moves on gracefully.
Perhaps James is a nasty character, bullying females under his employee and deserves the hatchet job. On the other hand, maybe he has merely grown Brewdog too quickly, selected the wrong people, got the wrong culture, and then been undermined by his own management team. The faster a firm grows, the harder it is to keep the wheels on, just look at where most professional consolidator vehicles end up. James is now left with no option but to enter a complex and expensive legal battle with the BBC. This will be much more difficult than proving his innocence to any actual criminal charge.
Apparently, the gaze of the BBC was earned because a senior manager left/ got fired by the Scottish brewer and was so enraged that they began a personal vendetta and collected a few hundred ex-employees’ names on a letter claiming that the culture at Brew dog was “toxic”. Rather ironic, isn’t it? A former employee so toxic they tried to bring down their ex-employer and co-workers with toxic culture allegations? You would think such an individual would have fitted right in with said toxicity and stayed for life!
Have a look at the BBC article here.
Word of advice… don’t like your boss? You’re free to leave! Go set up your own company, go get your own customers, your own supply chain, recruit your own staff and go build something better! If you can’t do it then shut up, be thankful for your opportunity and what you have learnt. Don’t think a snowflake hate campaign on someone who has achieved far more contribution to the UK than you are capable of is anything to be proud of, because it isn’t.
The beeb and this ex-employee probably think they are doing a public service, the reality is they are putting at risk 2000 jobs, but no snowflakes ever blame themselves for the blizzard do they?