BP Chairman Abruptly Removed Following Internal Reports of Bullying and Misconduct

On the morning of May 26, 2026, BP's board of directors took the extraordinary step of unanimously removing its chairman, Albert Manifold, with immediate effect. The company cited "serious concerns raised to the Board related to important governance standards, oversight and conduct" [1]. Within hours, BP's London-listed shares had fallen as much as 9%, before settling around 4.4% lower [2]. Ian Tyler, a non-executive director and former Balfour Beatty chief executive who had been chairing BP's remuneration committee, was named interim chair [1].

The terse corporate announcement belied a more turbulent backstory. According to multiple reports, Manifold's removal followed complaints from BP staff and board colleagues about what was described as a "volcanic" temper, verbal abuse, and bullying behaviour that left people "feeling belittled" after interactions with him [3][4].

What We Know About the Complaints

BP has disclosed almost nothing about the formal process that led to the removal. The company's official statement referenced only "serious concerns" and "governance oversight and conduct issues" deemed "unacceptable" [1]. Amanda Blanc, BP's senior independent director, stated: "Albert has helped bring a welcome focus and pace to bp's transformation. However, the board has been surprised and disappointed to learn of governance oversight and conduct issues it deems unacceptable and has taken decisive action" [5].

Behind that diplomatic language, media reports paint a more specific picture. OilPrice.com reported that the ousting was "on account of his 'volcanic' temper towards colleagues, which stretched to verbal abuse and bullying," and that "a number of complaints from people who felt belittled after engaging with the chairman" had reached the board [3]. The Financial Times, cited by the Irish Times, reported that Manifold was viewed as "too aggressive" and that colleagues described "an overly controlling management style resembling an executive chairman rather than a traditional board chair" [6]. One person close to BP's board characterized him as "shouty" [6].

The exact number of formal complaints, the timeframe over which they accumulated, and which governance body received them remain undisclosed. BP has not confirmed whether an external law firm was engaged to investigate, nor whether its internal speak-up channels — the confidential reporting mechanisms required under the UK Corporate Governance Code — were the avenue through which concerns were raised [7]. The speed of the board's action suggests the concerns were either corroborated rapidly or had been accumulating for some time before a decisive threshold was crossed.

Governance Overreach: The CEO-Chairman Dynamic

One of the more specific governance concerns involved Manifold's relationship with BP's new chief executive, Meg O'Neill, who had started in the role on April 1, 2026, after being recruited from Woodside Energy [8]. Reports indicated that Manifold attempted to restrict O'Neill's ability to meet independently with non-executive directors — a significant breach of the division of responsibilities between chair and CEO that sits at the heart of the UK Corporate Governance Code [6][9].

Under the code, the chairman is responsible for the effective running of the board, while the CEO runs the company. A chairman who tries to control the CEO's access to the board is, in effect, undermining the governance framework designed to hold executive management accountable. This behaviour pattern — operating as an "executive chairman" rather than a non-executive one — represents a fundamental governance violation distinct from, though related to, the interpersonal conduct allegations.

The board appeared to draw a clear line. Its statement praising O'Neill was notably warm: it said it had been "very impressed with Meg O'Neill since she joined as CEO" and cited her "extensive industry and operational experience and her bold action to simplify and strengthen the organization" [5].

The Financial Fallout

Manifold's chairman role was compensated at approximately £1 million annually [6]. BP has not disclosed whether any exit package was agreed. Given that the removal was framed around conduct concerns and was unanimous, it is possible that Manifold departed without enhanced severance, though this has not been confirmed.

The market reaction was significant. BP shares initially dropped as much as 9% before recovering to close around 4.2-4.4% lower on the day, with losses also reflected in US-listed shares [2][10]. For a company with a market capitalisation of roughly £70 billion, a 4-5% share price decline translates to approximately £3-3.5 billion in lost market value on the announcement day alone — though such movements can be temporary and reflect uncertainty rather than permanent value destruction.

Source: FRED / EIA

Data as of May 18, 2026CSV

The oil price environment adds context. WTI crude was trading above $112 per barrel at the time of the announcement, up sharply from lows below $56 in late 2025 [11]. BP's strategic pivot back toward hydrocarbons under former CEO Murray Auchincloss — with annual oil and gas investment rising to approximately $10 billion — meant the company was positioned to benefit from high crude prices, making boardroom instability all the more costly from an investor perspective [12].

A Pattern of Leadership Turmoil

Manifold's removal is the third senior leadership departure at BP for conduct-related reasons in less than three years.

Source: BP Corporate Filings / News Reports

Data as of May 26, 2026CSV

In September 2023, CEO Bernard Looney resigned after admitting he had not been "fully transparent" in assurances given to the board about past personal relationships with company colleagues. In December 2023, BP's board concluded that Looney had "knowingly misled the board," classified the matter as "serious misconduct," and formally dismissed him without notice. He forfeited up to $41.1 million (£32.4 million) in compensation [13][14].

Looney's successor, Murray Auchincloss, oversaw BP's strategic reversal on net-zero commitments under pressure from activist investor Elliott Management, which had built a roughly 5% stake. But Auchincloss himself departed in December 2025 after less than two years, with Woodside's Meg O'Neill appointed as his replacement [8][12].

Now, with Manifold gone after less than eight months, BP has cycled through three CEOs and two chairmen since 2023. The company is currently led by a CEO who has been in the role for less than two months and an interim chairman.

The AGM Warning Signs

The board's surprise at Manifold's conduct — as expressed by Blanc — sits uneasily alongside clear warning signs that emerged at BP's annual general meeting on April 23, 2026, just one month before the removal.

At that meeting, Manifold received 81.8% support for his election as chairman [15]. While that might sound comfortable, FTSE 100 board directors typically receive close to 97% approval. A near-18% vote against a chairman is a significant protest [15].

Source: BP Annual General Meeting Results

Data as of Apr 23, 2026CSV

The opposition was driven partly by Manifold's decision to block a shareholder resolution proposed by Dutch activist group Follow This, which would have required BP to share plans for creating value under future scenarios of falling oil and gas demand [15]. Proxy adviser Glass Lewis recommended voting against Manifold, and Legal & General — one of the UK's largest asset managers — publicly stated it would do so [15]. BP also failed to achieve the required 75% supermajority on two resolutions that would have permitted online-only AGMs and retired two climate-specific disclosure obligations [15].

This is a notable sequence: a chairman faces a large shareholder rebellion over governance and climate transparency concerns, and one month later is fired for conduct and governance failings. Whether these threads are connected — or coincidental — is a question the available evidence does not fully resolve.

The Steelman Case for Skeptics

A skeptical reading of events would note that Manifold was closely associated with BP's fossil-fuel pivot. He was appointed under Helge Lund's watch during a period when Elliott Management's activist pressure was reshaping BP's strategy. He oversaw O'Neill's arrival as a CEO with deep hydrocarbon experience from ExxonMobil and Woodside [8].

Under this reading, "bullying" and "conduct" concerns could function as a politically convenient frame for removing a chairman whose relationship with the board had become unworkable — whether because of strategic disagreements, personality clashes with the new CEO, or shareholder pressure that made his position untenable regardless of conduct.

However, this interpretation has limits. The board's unanimity suggests that whatever evidence was presented was persuasive to all directors, not just a faction. The specific, consistent descriptions of verbal abuse and intimidation reported across multiple outlets — "volcanic temper," "shouty," staff feeling "belittled" — have a specificity that goes beyond a generic pretext [3][6]. And the precedent of Looney's dismissal shows that this board has demonstrably acted on genuine conduct concerns before, at considerable reputational cost to the company.

The most honest assessment is that both dynamics can coexist: Manifold's conduct may have been genuinely problematic and the governance friction and shareholder opposition may have lowered the board's tolerance for behaviour it might have addressed differently in calmer circumstances.

How Does This Compare to Other FTSE 100 Cases?

The speed of Manifold's removal — less than eight months into the role, with no transitional period or face-saving "mutual agreement" language — is unusual for a FTSE 100 chairman.

The closest parallel is Sir Martin Sorrell's departure from WPP in April 2018. Sorrell left after 33 years as CEO following allegations of personal misconduct and misuse of company assets, with reports of "routine verbal abuse of underlings" [16][17]. But Sorrell's exit was framed as a resignation, took roughly two weeks from the announcement of the investigation to his departure, and involved a full contractual payout [17]. Manifold's removal was immediate and involuntary.

Helge Lund, Manifold's predecessor at BP, provides a softer comparison. Lund announced his intention to step down in April 2025, following a historic 24% vote against his re-election the previous year — one of the largest protest votes against a FTSE 100 chairman [18]. But Lund's departure was orderly and planned, with a successor search and handover period extending to October 2025.

The contrast is stark: Lund got a managed exit despite substantial shareholder opposition; Manifold got a same-day firing. This suggests the conduct allegations against Manifold were of a different order of severity, or that the board calculated that a clean break was necessary to preserve credibility with shareholders already sceptical of BP's governance.

What Comes Next: Governance Questions

BP's statement offered no specifics about governance reforms or changes to its speak-up infrastructure following Manifold's removal. The board has not announced any external review of its complaints-handling processes, nor any changes to how chairman conduct is monitored [1].

This omission has drawn criticism. Under the UK Corporate Governance Code, the senior independent director is responsible for providing "a sounding board for the chair" and serving as "an intermediary for the other directors and shareholders" [9]. The question of whether Blanc and other non-executive directors could or should have identified the conduct problems earlier — particularly given the red flags at the AGM — will likely face scrutiny from governance watchdogs and institutional investors in the coming weeks.

The succession process for a permanent chairman has been initiated but no timeline has been given [1]. Ian Tyler, the interim chair, brings experience as former CEO of Balfour Beatty and is already familiar with BP's board dynamics. But an interim arrangement adds to the perception of instability at a company that has not had stable senior leadership for years.

The Broader Questions for BP

Three conduct-related leadership departures in three years is not a statistical anomaly — it is a pattern. Whether that pattern reflects a toxic culture at the top of BP, a board that has repeatedly misjudged the character of the leaders it selects, or simply bad luck, the cumulative effect on institutional credibility is significant.

BP's institutional shareholders — including BlackRock, Vanguard, and Legal & General — will be watching closely. The question of whether major investors were informed of the conduct findings before the public announcement has not been addressed. Under UK FCA rules, selective pre-disclosure of material non-public information to certain shareholders could raise market abuse concerns under the Market Abuse Regulation [19]. BP has not commented on whether any pre-disclosure occurred.

For now, BP is a $70-billion-plus energy company navigating a volatile oil market, an incomplete strategic transition, and the aftermath of its third leadership crisis in under three years — with an interim chairman and a CEO who has been in the job for less than two months. The next permanent chairman will inherit not just a company but a governance credibility deficit that no single appointment can fix.