Andy Cox, Construction Director

We are living, and working, through a period of unprecedented uncertainty. It’s obvious, then, that good communication becomes key. As we have adjusted our working styles at BMOR, we have been giving significant thought to the new ways we need to pass information, collaborate on projects, and maintain our company ethos remotely. It has been interesting to simultaneously analyse the communication offered by the government.

It seems that the government believed they could rely on the transmission model of communication. Put simply, this is the idea that information moves immediately from one party to another. It’s like someone performing the viral toilet roll keepy-uppy challenge on their own, creating their narrative, and then passing the roll with one kick to another party, who receives that information as a package, as intended, as meant.

Unfortunately, as is the reality of communication, the government have actually been part of a transactional model. This is the norm, it’s how we all interact, so isn’t a problem in and of itself. It’s the failure to acknowledge this as the process which causes issues. The transactional model of communication sees information transfer as closer to a game of keepy-uppy played as a pair, or a group. Instead of one pass which lands, predictably, in hands, it’s an ongoing rally of toilet roll passes. It’s this rally, the interaction between playing parties, that creates meaning. Each player of the game, however, is an individual.

This is human nature; a combination of our experiences and characteristics frame the way we understand things. Suddenly, it’s not the case that the government can craft a message and successfully pass it to the receiving player. Each player will catch the toilet roll differently, based on their interests, their relationship with the sender, and their personal situation. Even more problematic is the fact that emotional state and outside stimuli can alter how we interpret things. In a time of uncertainty, fear, and frustration that means the government is up against some strong personal lenses! The toilet roll, and the information or message each player receives from it, is constantly changing, and continues to evolve as it passes through different hands (or in this case, feet).

It was therefore never going to be as simple as Boris reading some summary points and everyone understanding what he meant, because everyone receives that information through their own personal perceptual fields. People will interpret that information to suit both their conscious and sub-conscious state of mind, interests and influences.

Boris hoped that people would interpret the looser guidelines as he intended, so he wouldn’t have to infringe civil liberties which by their very nature can be construed from vastly differing viewpoints. But actually that was never going to work. People needed unequivocal information, temporary rules, to respond to.

We at BMOR always aspire to respect the transactional nature of communication. We know that our partners, suppliers, contractors, clients, are all approaching our interactions with their own personal perceptual fields. Their own interests and expertise and intentions. We try to keep those in mind, and by knowing our partners, we know what field we are talking within. We are also, of course, aware of our own interpretations so we can present things neutrally wherever possible. At this time, our approach is crucial rather than preferable! It’s vital that we all have clear channels of communication, because despite the uncertainty from the government, and the near future, there should be no ambiguity between us and those we work with and for.

The government was also forced to make broad stroke announcements before they had detail to support them. This was particularly problematic for the development industry, in relation to the ‘no evictions for three months’ statement, and also the contradicting statements about building sites as essential places of work. The government have left the construction industry with an impossible survival decision – morals with immediate impact vs commerciality with a longer term impact. We want to learn from this, and ensure that through the corona crisis and beyond we won’t make you promises or pledges until we have the detail to do so comprehensively, nor will we pose impossible survival decisions to our partners.

We’ll continue to communicate meaningfully, when we have the information and time to provide answers we have thought through and can stand behind. We also respect that the government did this from tight spots – corners they were pushed into by circumstance, from which they had to make unenviable choices. We won’t be doing this to anyone we work with or for. Now is the time for measured thinking, not knee-jerk reactions.