‘Bullying’ and ‘overbearing’ behaviour behind abrupt BP chairman removal

Bullying and overbearing behaviour behind abrupt – BP has swiftly removed its chairman, Albert Manifold, citing concerns about his leadership style. The BBC reports that the decision was made with immediate effect, driven by “serious concerns” over governance standards, oversight, and conduct. Manifold, who joined the company less than a year ago, is now at the center of a leadership shakeup that has raised questions about internal dynamics. While the firm did not explicitly name bullying as the primary reason for his departure, a senior insider suggested the move reflected significant issues. “This is a big lever to pull, you wouldn’t do it unless it was serious,” the person noted, hinting at the gravity of the situation.

Leadership Transition and Strategic Shifts

The board of BP, which reached a unanimous decision, emphasized the importance of maintaining high governance benchmarks. Senior independent director Amanda Blanc stated the board was “surprised and disappointed to learn of governance oversight and conduct issues it deems unacceptable,” leading to decisive action. Manifold’s removal follows his appointment as chair in October 2025, just months after he became a non-executive director in September of the same year. At the time of his selection, BP highlighted his “strong track record of strategic leadership and operational delivery,” framing him as a figure to guide the company back to its core oil and gas focus.

Manifold’s tenure coincided with a period of financial turnaround. BP’s recent quarterly results, released after the Iran war ignited a surge in oil prices, showed profits doubling to $3.2bn (£2.4bn) between January and March. This “exceptional” performance was attributed to the company’s oil trading division, which benefited from rising energy demand. However, his leadership was soon tested by shareholder sentiment. During last month’s annual general meeting, nearly a fifth of BP’s stakeholders voted against his election, citing governance concerns.

Shareholder Criticism and Governance Disputes

According to the BBC, the opposition to Manifold’s leadership was tied to BP’s refusal to include a resolution proposed by climate activists. The company argued the resolution had not been filed correctly, a point Manifold himself had previously defended. This controversy, along with other governance-related criticisms, has sparked debate among investors. Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, pointed out that while some investors pushed for a change from his predecessor, “not all were happy… judging by how 18% of shareholders voted against his appointment — and recommendations to do so from governance experts Glass Lewis — at April’s AGM.”

“This is a big lever to pull, you wouldn’t do it unless it was serious.”

Manifold’s removal also follows efforts to modernize BP’s annual general meetings. The company had proposed shifting AGMs to an online-only format and altering how it reported on climate-related obligations. These changes reportedly unsettled some stakeholders, with critics arguing they diluted transparency. Despite the challenges, the board remains confident in its strategic direction, as interim chair Ian Tyler stated.

Leadership Continuity and Future Outlook

With Manifold’s departure, BP has initiated a search for a permanent chair. Tyler, who now serves as interim leader, praised the company’s strategic alignment and the performance of chief executive Meg O’Neill, who took over in December 2025. “She has already taken bold action to simplify and strengthen the organisation,” Tyler said, highlighting O’Neill’s initiatives like restructuring the company into a clear upstream/downstream model. This approach reflects a broader effort to streamline operations and refocus on traditional energy sources.

O’Neill’s rise to the top of the company followed the exit of Murray Auchincloss, who stepped down less than two years after replacing Bernard Looney. Looney had resigned in 2023 following allegations of “serious misconduct” for failing to disclose relationships with colleagues. Manifold, who was chairman during O’Neill’s appointment, now faces scrutiny over his role in shaping BP’s recent trajectory.

Analyst Perspectives and Context

Energy analyst Maurizio Carulli of Quilter Cheviot noted that Manifold’s influence was “necessarily limited” due to his brief time in the role. While his removal has caused a short-term dip in investor confidence, Carulli argued it was unlikely to derail BP’s progress. “The company has made significant operational improvements and strategic refocusing over the past year, and this is the result of the successful efforts of the entire organisation and its management, not just of one person,” he explained.

Manifold’s leadership was marked by a push to reorient BP’s business strategy toward fossil fuels, a shift that some saw as necessary for short-term profitability. However, his tenure also exposed tensions between corporate governance and shareholder expectations. The company’s decision to remove him underscores the growing pressure to balance financial performance with accountability, particularly in light of climate-related scrutiny.

The drop in BP shares following the announcement — a 5% decline — signals market uncertainty. Yet, the board’s unanimous support for the move suggests a shared belief in the need for change. As the search for a new chairman unfolds, the focus will remain on whether BP can maintain its operational momentum while addressing governance concerns. For now, the transition appears to be a critical test of the company’s ability to adapt to evolving challenges in the energy sector.