When drama sparks discussion
By now, most people in the UK are aware of the Netflix drama Adolescence, which explores the harrowing subject of online male radicalisation and violence against girls. Writer Jack Thorne said he and co-writer Stephen Graham wanted the programme to be a piece of work that “causes discussion and makes change.”
This, of course, is exactly the aim of my own Drama for Change methodology – though within a workplace setting – so I feel compelled to report on the project.
What Adolescence gets right
The four-part drama unfolds through four real-time sequences that chart the story of Jamie, a 13-year-old boy arrested after committing an unthinkable act. We see his arrest and processing, the police investigation as it unfolds at his school, an interview with a psychologist exploring his understanding of masculinity, and finally, the family grappling with the fallout.
While documentaries and current affairs programmes have long addressed toxic masculinity, the moment such issues are dramatized, the engagement becomes deeper and more widespread. Adolescence has already prompted discussion in Parliament, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is watching it at home, supporting calls for it to be shown in schools. The show’s creators have been invited to speak to MPs, and social media is abuzz with debate about its framing of the issue.
Like all effective drama, Adolescence doesn’t preach. Instead, it invites us into emotionally complex territory, allowing us to see events unfold in ways that feel personal and urgent. It encourages reflection and discussion without prescribing solutions.
What Adolescence misses
I have to confess, though, that I’m not a fan. While I admire the intention and many of the performances, I found the decision to tell the story in real-time to be more of a formal exercise than a storytelling necessity. In fact, I’d go further: I see the choice as an example of misplaced masculinity. It turns the show into a kind of showcase – demonstrating the actors’ stamina and the production team’s technical prowess – at the expense of what could have been a deeper and more nuanced exploration of the story’s themes.
Maybe that’s just me. Whatever I think, I’ve got to give it to them – Adolescence has been successful in its core aim: to get people talking about something that matters deeply.
From the screen to the workplace
This, ultimately, is what connects Adolescence to Drama for Change. Both use fiction to surface difficult truths. Both understand that meaningful change begins not with instruction, but with empathy, reflection, and discussion.
While Adolescence plays out in the home and school, Drama for Change plays out in the workplace. We use short dramas to highlight day-to-day dilemmas – often subtle, often unresolved – that people genuinely face in their roles. And, surprisingly, there is drama to be found in everything from health and safety to customer service, because we bring our emotional selves to work. And just like Adolescence, we seek to promote discussion, because that’s how you change behaviour and culture.
What if Adolescence were featured on Gogglebox? That second layer of real-time reaction would give a major boost to the national conversation. It’s exactly this principle we apply in Drama for Change, using Gogglebox-style reaction videos to keep the dialogue going inside organisations – building energy, challenging norms, and reinforcing values.
So while I may have my criticisms of the show’s structure, I see its impact clearly. It proves that drama – especially when it invites reflection rather than forcing conclusions – can powerfully influence public understanding. That same potential exists within organisations, where stories can unlock conversations that formal training often struggles to reach. That, in essence, is what Drama for Change is all about – using story to open up space for change.
If you’re curious about how drama could serve your organisation’s learning goals, feel free to drop me a line.
