Before all of that, though, he was Malcolm Tucker, the profane head of the Department of Social Affairs in The Thick of It, a political satire/drama series. Below is a short analysis I wrote of the man as a leader and a character.
The Briefing
This assignment for a Media Management course was to basically find a TV series in an office or organizational setting and write a short two page analysis of how the characters operate. A number of suggestions were thrown about - namely The Office (British and American versions), Community, Grey's Anatomy, Scrubs, The Sopranos, and a variety of others.
I chose The Thick of It for a few reasons. Mainly, it was the only show that I had actually seen, so I felt a sense of familiarity would work in my favor. Second, since the series is largely set in highly confrontational office settings, I imagined that would also be an interesting aspect to analyze more closely.
Above all, though, was that I really seriously wanted to analyze the Malcolm Tucker character in the context of a leadership role. It's true that Malcolm's swearing makes him a popular character on the Internet (simply look up "Malcolm Tucker swearing"). The swearing is so utterly insane, outrageous, outlandish and excessive to the point where it stops becoming shocking after a very short period and it eventually becomes entertaining in itself.
What I really wanted to look at, though, was not just what words Malcolm uses to curse with (it's usually an F-bomb), but how Malcolm interacts with the characters he works with. Now it is true that, as the two episodes I chose to review were the first two episodes of the series, that Malcolm's behavior and interactions would likely change over the course of the series. I'm also aware that this likely skews what it is I end up saying about him. The point of this, again, is to examine Malcolm's traits and style as a group leader in general, not chart his character evolution or examine what makes him tick. That, from all of my research into this, doesn't change over the course of the series.
With all that in mind, let's venture into a world where there is no light.
The Write-Up
The program I decided to view for this assignment was season one, episodes one and two of the British TV series The Thick of It. The series is a semi-satirical, pseudo-documentary-style show focusing on a fictional branch of the British government, the Department of Social Affairs, that specializes in both policy studies and public relations. Although the series focuses on a variety of different characters, its highlight character that I decided to analyze is spin doctor Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi). Tucker oversees the public relations division and, as his first scene in episode one makes clear, he has enough clout to actually have an effect on policy and staff.
I selected this show and character for the main reason that they heavily relate back to this course and the field of Communications. Second, while the show has a very dry sense of humor, it largely takes place in a serious position. My third reason for choosing it is because Malcolm Tucker is not a conventional leader, which made me want to analyze both his behavior and interactions with staff. I also chose two episodes because each is 30 minutes long, so I felt a second episode could give a more complete look at Malcolm’s character and leadership style.
To say Malcolm Tucker is unique is an understatement and a testament to Capaldi’s performance and the writers' vision of the character. His first scene in episode one shows that he has influence and connections in the government and, if he likes a person or is in a good mood, he can even be somewhat pleasant to be around. However, he makes it plainly clear that he has absolutely zero soft spots, as he tells Cliff Lawton that he has no compunctions about having him fired for having a bad reputation in the press and going through having announced it before Cliff arrived.
From here, it becomes clear that Tucker is everything but subtle or soft. His meetings with staff are fast and tense, and he routinely berates anyone he so much as thinks is lacking in competence. Because of this, Malcolm Tucker’s key characteristic is a near-constant stream of cursing and profanity that could burn wood from constant exposure. By default, he seems to be almost constantly annoyed or agitated over something. It is never made clear if this is Tucker’s default personality or if it came with the job.
In his favor, I would say Tucker’s leadership style falls into the Theory Z* style. There is definitely a hierarchy to how Tucker interacts with his staff, led by Hugh Abbot, and each has a degree of control in different fields. While Tucker dictates his vision for an action, they are the ones responsible for looking into it and making it reality. He also grants them some independence in what they do and is open to suggestions, but has no problems getting in their face while doing it and coming down on them like a ton of bricks if it goes south.
Comparing Tucker’s leadership style with the book’s tips on proper leadership is almost like a lesson showing what not to do. Tucker’s management style is clearly more verbal than non-verbal and his angry side is capable of both instigating and ending conflicts between employees. This, I felt, fell in line with how the book states a leader’s behavior sets the tone for most of the organization. In this case, Malcolm’s tendency to berate everyone and anyone is shown having a top-down effect in episode two when Hugh Abbot realizes an error in how a focus group was done. Abbot promptly goes and berates the person beneath him, after which they gang up on the person beneath them. Despite the tension, hectic workload and occasional infighting, they can eventually reach the same page, cooperate and function. Again, this could largely be a product of the job at hand, as it is clear that reputations and government policy decisions are on the line and the business is a fast-moving machine that doesn’t stop.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about what I would recommend about Malcolm Tucker. On one hand, I can see him as a man in a pressure cooker of a job, knows the ins and outs of it, knows people (as allies and enemies), and almost always knows what he wants done and how it will look. On the other hand, his behavior is hard to defend, as he quickly escalates (or sinks) to shouting profanities that can be homophobic, sexist or just basically otherwise degrading in nature. It is clear he sometimes intends this to get under people’s skin and motivate them (in the meanest possible way), but not whether he actually believes it or even cares.
This isn’t behavior that I think would be tolerable in the United States, but the fact he has a reputation and still has the job tells me that he is valued for his vision and ability to get things done. Because of that, I imagine if I were to bring this to human resources or his overheads, they would probably not do anything about it. If I were to go to Tucker personally and suggest backing down in the behavior, I imagine he would probably curse me out of the building and make a spectacle of it (which has actually happened at least once on the show). I suspect that this is one reason why Malcolm has no real equivalent character in Veep, which is run by the same people as The Thick of It.
Footnotes
* A theory that there are three forms of leadership styles: X, Y and Z - there is no real logic to the names other than they progress. Theory X is a top-down authoritarian-style, where status is largely derived from one's title and rules and social mores are rigidly adhered to. This is a style that works in jobs that are changeable, potentially dangerous and pressured for time. Theory Y is a much more docile version, where the main goal is having employees want to work there, so they are given some autonomy. Theory Z is a hybrid version that is hierarchy-based but also desires trust between employers and employees.
No comments:
Post a Comment