Search the site
Stride Treglown
See how we helped one of the UK’s largest architectural practices take a structured and engaging approach to exploring issues around their ethics thinking.
Stride Treglown is one of the UK’s largest architectural practices, with studios across the UK and a mission to create ‘ego-free project environments where clients, consultants, and contractors can do brilliant work together’.
01
Why they came to us
The Managing Partner had seen one of Simon’s articles in Sunday Times Business and went on to read his book, ‘The Power of Difference.’
When the Senior Leadership Team wanted to explore some issues around their ethics thinking, Simon immediately came to mind as the ideal partner to lead them through a structured process.
02
What we discovered
There was a desire among some in the leadership team for the company to ‘take positions’ on divisive social issues but no process to engage all staff or to root responsibility for the final decision in the Board.
There was also insufficient ability to have constructive disagreements in order resolve differences of view.
Plus, the company relied heavily on being a B-Corp, which tended to lead them to proscribed positions rather than supporting discussion.
03
How we worked together
Initially, we ran workshops with the Senior Leadership Team and with the Executive Committee to build understanding of issues around diversity, especially of viewpoint.
With the Senior Leadership Team (around 50 people), Simon used a proven technique called ‘Disaggregation’, which enables individuals to think through their reaction to a relevant statement and plot their answers against four quadrants. This is a very useful tool for bringing everyone’s perspective into the discussion before the talking even starts.
In particular, we looked at three key questions:
- Are there any no-go sectors, companies, or projects?
- What are the triggers that make a sector, company, or project ‘knotty’?
- For example, in relation to being a B-Corp, human rights, or reputation. And if so, in whose eyes (e.g. staff objections)?
- On what basis do we evaluate whether a sector, company, or project crosses ‘the red line’
- For example, is it evidence, feelings of staff members, and/or other subjective responses?
04
A watershed moment in the process
In this case, there were two significant points in the process.
The first was when the team realised that what they needed was not a set of statements, but a process to examine the issues from many points of view and outline an anatomy of the issue for the Board to discuss.
The second was a decision NOT to set up an Ethics Committee which would have created a two headed hydra and a recipe for conflict between any such committee and the Board.
05
The outcomes we delivered
An agreed process of discussion and engagement crafted with the Board.
And a process trusted by the staff to deal with any contentious ethical issues as they arise.
06
What they said
“ Simon's work helped us coalesce our thinking around some quite tricky issues. He provided a structure for debate which allowed us to explore trade-offs and complexities in a safe space. As a board we are still talking about the day several years later. Simon developed some workshops with us which generated very helpful additional material to help us craft our ethics policy. He stopped us thinking in terms of red lines and remonstrations, and reminded us that life is fluid and complex, and sometimes requires structures for debate and thinking rather than the 10 commandments.”
Let’s start the conversation.
You don’t need to know the solutions you are looking for – everything begins with a conversation so please get in touch to find out more.
