Andy Cox, Construction Director

In a strange week when Boris ended up in ICU, Rishi announced 750m worth of support for charities and testing appears to be lagging behind other nations, the only thing that stayed the same was the challenge of keeping up with the news. The traditional news cycle has shrunk, and major news outlets now have rolling live coverage, previously reserved for election days, Brexit votes or Transfer Deadline Day. We therefore started to reflect on the analysis, work and decisions the government are expected to perform between wrapping up the final question one day, and appearing with a new presentation around 5pm the next.

The workload must be vast, but it remains largely obscured from public view. The decisions being made, however, are publicly announced, consumed, and analysed each day. Those decisions, made at a state level on a daily, and even hourly, basis must consider so many influencers and influences; medical, economical, social, and legal to name a few. Sadly, no action can ever benefit all areas. A choice to support economic and social needs will potentially neglect (temporarily) medical needs, whilst a decision to invest all resources over a given period to address medical needs could inadvertently start a snowball decline by ignoring the needs of the economy. It is an impossible position with no eutopia, yet choices must be made.

Unfortunately, there will be challenges in these upcoming months which neither laughter nor wine will solve. Times of change bring opportunity, but with opportunities come tough, pressurised and high-stakes decisions. The difficult calls won’t just be left to the government, as all businesses are likely to encounter new challenges and choices to make. It seems to me we’ll all be living our personal versions of Phillipa Foot’s Trolley Problem from the 60s. You’ll have heard a version before, but it’s the question of whether on encountering a trolley (train) hurtling towards five people tied to the tracks you should flip a switch and divert it to another siding where only one person is tied. It’s about a positive action being required to avoid damage or loss, but where in taking that action an, admittedly lesser, damage or loss is still incurred.

In this scenario, you did not initiate the trolley moving, nor tie anyone to the tracks. Therefore, you are not responsible for the unfolding situation, and society perhaps accepts that as the train hurtles towards the five people, morally any damage caused is not your fault. To consciously switch the points and divert the train now, saving five people but sacrificing one, you are consciously deciding to cause damage. That may not sit well in your own mind or in the eyes of society. Putting the philosophical question of being responsible for your own actions to one side, my interest really ends with a different final question. Surely, if regardless of the decision taken there is definitely going to be damage, or a negative consequence, it is better to minimise this as far as possible?

The choice to deliberately bring about a negative state of affairs (rather than just passively watch one unravel) goes against instinct and ethics for many. I suspect it’s about to become relevant on a daily basis, though. There will be decisions in our near futures around existing work streams where suddenly the landscape against which we made the initial decision or plans is dramatically altered. Like Foot’s trolley, making the tough, but best, calls, in these situations will require working memory capacity, recall of emotional learning, and low levels of stress or high-octane emotions. I suspect that meaningful connections with peers, colleagues and partners are also going to be irreplaceable in allowing us to make the best of any bad hands we’re about to be left holding!

It is not always us making these difficult calls, but often our colleagues and peers around us. The moral struggle with making these decisions is largely derived from perceived societal perceptions rather than our own logical and rational brains. This is enhanced by the concept of distancing. When you’re making a difficult call, the support of your peers is key to dilute that perceptual feeling of societal disgust and judgement. It’s one thing to make it in your open plan office where you can seek reassurance from colleagues and read their body language as well as their words for solidarity. Making that same call sat behind your laptop in the kitchen, by yourself, is very different and significantly harder. Suddenly the size of the ‘lesser’ negative outcome which you’re steering towards (away from a ‘worse’ consequence) grows, and there is nobody to effectively reassure you. Even if your colleagues loudly support your difficult decision from their kitchen tables, you won’t receive the same validation or calming from this camaraderie when receiving it through a screen.

The Bmor office is divided into two rival darts teams; Amorians and Bmorians. This evening I reflected on Rishi’s press conference with a fellow Amorian and we used our call (voice only, for a change) to discuss some guiding principles moving forwards, towards the inevitable tough choices these difficult times will call for. We have settled on three key efforts to help guide ourselves, our business and our professional partners through the tough calls we fear are coming. We will connect, consult and support.

As I discussed in previous posts, finding a way to connect with each individual is key for maintaining and developing relationships in a now very different environment. Consulting with everyone involved in a decision so that when it arrives it is not a surprise is essential. We should all listen to everyone’s opinion, reasoning, opportunities and fears as nobody’s working memory is at peak now. Finally, support is about to be a whole lot more essential, and significantly more difficult to offer. When others are required to make these tough calls, don’t distance them emotionally (obviously continue to do so physically). Of course I can’t offer my teams or colleagues a conciliatory pint after a difficult decision is made, but we must all find ways to achieve that same gesture. Stay close to them however you can, communicate, support them, remind them of Foot’s trolleyology theory and the greater damage that their action has avoided.

As we sipped our Timothy Taylor and dreamt of the Bmorians vs Amorians playoff in the Barley Mow when normal office life resumes, we agreed that our support pledge must remain in force until that darts judgement day arrives!