This is taken from Ariel w/c November 13 2005:

Ariel puts Mark Thompson on the spot with questions from our readers.

Last December you announced that 2500 jobs would be lost outright over the next three years. One year on how many have been lost?

We made an agreement with the unions that we wouldn't implement any compulsory redundancies before July 2006, which was the right thing to do but it has made the process slower than we thought. So far we're in the 100s [of jobs lost], rather than 1000s. Our canvassing for voluntary redundancies has been well subscribed and seems to match what managers feel is needed. In 2006 we'll see volunteers accepted, and from July onwards we will get on with the inevitable compulsory redundancies.

Why is the BBC, rather than the government, expected to raise the money to encourage digital switchover [through the licence fee increase] when it is the government that will make the money from selling the old analogue wavelengths?

Ultimately the decision about funding is the government's, not ours, so this is really a political question rather than a BBC one. That said,our view is that we want all our services to be universally available to everyone, and right now some are not, so actually switchover is in line with our own ambitions. The government has always looked to the BBC to champion new technology, from developing radio and colour tv to rescuing Freeview, so it makes sense that they've asked us to lead on this too and help less advantaged people get access to digital technology. But it is an unprecedented use of the licence fee to help a social issue rather than a broadcast issue... although it will help us too.

Do you think the World Service has a chance of breaking into the Arab tv market?

The BBC has a strong brand and tradition of service in the Arab world on the radio and on the web. But increasingly people in those countries are looking to television for a news information service - I see the new tv station as part of our multi-media offering in Arabic. Of course we realise that we won't be the soul providers in Arab households but we do think that people will be interested in watching us.

What is the BBC's attitude towards Israel? The starting up of a BBC Arabic channel does nothing to quell the idea that the BBC has long been pro-Arab.

The Israelis I have spoken to worry about whether Arabic speakers in the middle east have access to accurate news and information - in the absence of that, rumours and myths abound. There's a lot to be said for having a tv service there with the BBC's standards of accuracy and impartiality. In general when we report on the Israel/Palestine situation and that whole complicated, tempestuous part of the world we are not there to be either pro or anti anybody.

Does the departure of architect Richard MacCormac from the BH project mean we're going to end up with a bog standard Broadcasting House?

No. Broadcasting House will still be MacCormac's building and vision. The building is quite advanced already. The shape and structure have been decided and we're sticking to that. But there is still some architectural work to be done and for the final details Bovis decided to pick a new firm. It wasn't our decision but we support them. It won't affect the aesthetic look of the building.

Which companies do you admire for the way they've managed change?

BP. John Browne [chief exec] has taken a big British company, modernised it, focused it on the future, energised the staff and made it a success.

I also admire Tesco, where Terry Leahy has focused on the idea of continuous improvement. He has shown that improving quality and reducing costs are not opposites and that both challenges can be confronted at the same time. There's also a sense that every member of staff feels part of the team. We need to work on that here. The BBC has a history of being hierarchical and I don't like it. Hierarchy is old fashioned, and the modern media world just isn't like that.

There's a sense of 'application apartheid' among freelances because so many jobs and attachments are not open to them. When is the redundancy issue going to be resolved so that this stops?

We are trying to use staff we've already got who can be redeployed. We're trying to handle this in a way that treats the people involved as humanely and reasonably as possible. It would be weird if we were hiring lots of freelances at the same time as making big redundancies, and not value for money to be paying out redundancies and then rehiring staff through an open recruitment policy. It's a three year change programme but by the middle to the end of next year inevitably we will see recruitment become more open again.

If independents are considered capable of producing up to 50 percent of the BBC's output, why do we need any in-house production?

We have a great scale of talent and expertise, such as in the natural history unit and comedy, all under one roof, which means we can effortlessly plan transitions for programmes from radio to tv, and big multi media projects like Beethoven. And some genres, particularly investigative journalism, are difficult for indies. There are big risks involved. You can spend thousands of pounds on a programme and then find the story doesn't work, or that you need a large group of people working on it over a long period of time. The BBC is big enough to absorb those kind of risks. I think this is the greatest production house in the world and it has a great future. I want us to get the best of both worlds by having strong in-house capabilities and also being accessible to the indies.

Last month you said that staff would need to be both open-minded and flexible if they were to survive at the BBC. But what assurances and support does the organisation plan to give back to them, especially those on short term contracts, to ensure they feel valued, energised and motivated?

That's a fair point. We have a moral contract with staff that we should honour. We need to give them feedback about how they're doing and not be ridiculous about short term contracts. Such contracts do have their uses but eventually they drive people crazy, as they spend half their time creating options for themselves in case their contracts aren't renewed and that's distracting.

Appraisals are too patchy. Everybody has a right to hear how they're doing. Talented people don't have to work for the BBC. There are some unique opportunities here but there should also be a sense that you can develop and grow your talents here. Whether you spend your whole career here, move in and out of the BBC or prefer the freelance life, everybody should expect reasonable clarity and certainty from us. We should try harder to ensure that everybody receives an appraisal, objectives and feedback.

We also need to think harder about career development. We have good training but we must make sure it connects with the needs of both the individual and their department - and that it's available at everybody's fingertips.

Is it fair that BBC staff who are outsourced to new companies should have to take the risk of transferring their pensions to new schemes in order to protect the pension benefits of others, such as staff who are being made redundant?

We've tried hard to ensure that we're involved in outsourcing. We've thought hard about the whole transfer, including the pension, and the BBC's record is good. I take our responsibilities as an employer very seriously, and I feel we're doing everything we can.

How much of a geek are you?

My 14 year old son is the family expert! I'm not much of a geek I'm afraid. We do have broadband and Sky Plus at home, but I don't have an iPod yet although I'm thinking about it. I have about 700 CDs that I'd like to put on one and I'm not sure what size I need. But I do have these amazing Bose headphones that are great for blocking out external noise - they're brilliant for listening to music on the train and so on. Maybe I'm more of a geek than I think I am...