8mo
I really appreciate you taking the time to speak with me recently and for updating your review following that conversation — it was a constructive and respectful chat which I genuinely valued, respect you for and took a lot from. I’m also pleased you highlighted so many positives about SR2 — our people, training, culture, and brand are things we’re immensely proud of.
We take feedback seriously — good, bad, or ugly — as it gives us a chance to review, reflect, and improve where we can and where we need to. That said, I do still disagree with some of your remaining points.
The adjustments you mentioned to WFH and performance management were never about control, but about giving people the structure, support, and consistency they need to succeed in a tough market. Getting new starters into the office four days a week until they’re fully up to speed, or people on a performance plan in four days instead of three, has already proven to be a really positive move — with new starters making placements faster and people coming off PIPs and back on track within weeks.
On your point about some people being nurtured versus you feeling time was limited — I explained the rationale for that. Our approach is highly transparent. If anything, I’d argue we often give people too much time. My view is clear: if someone is working hard, present, proactive, hungry for success, and open to learning, then that’s an us problem to solve, and we’ll invest heavily to help them succeed. The two examples you cited have been given a long runway because of the effort, activity, and willingness they bring every day. We’ll always back people like that — we always have, and we always will.
That effort and application is, however, a two-way street. These measures only work when attendance, effort, and engagement are consistent. Unfortunately, in your case — with 16 days’ absence in your first 13 weeks — it became very difficult to provide the same level of development and support that others benefited from.
As for your comment about “virtue signalling,” I’d respectfully disagree. You based that assumption on the book People Over Profit, which you confirmed on our call you haven’t actually read. There is a saying "Never judge a book by it's cover" for a reason. You’re not the first — and certainly won’t be the last — to interpret it that way based on the front cover. I do urge you to read it, but even then, I’d caveat that books are subjective; we can read the same one and take entirely different lessons from it. People Over Profit is just that — a book, not the SR2 company handbook. I once read Brian Clough’s autobiography, but I don’t seem to be held accountable to that book in quite the same way as Dale’s.
Once read, you’ll find Dale Partridge actually warns that the concept is often misunderstood as People Instead of Profit. He explains that a company driven purely by compassion but unable to fund itself will ultimately fail the very people it’s trying to help — employees, customers, and the community alike.
“When a company stops being profitable, it loses the ability to pay its people, support its causes, and fulfil its mission. In the end, everyone loses.”
He encourages leaders to hold both principles: care deeply for people while running a financially disciplined business — because profit allows a company to sustain its purpose with integrity.
Our Tech for Impact and Clean Energy teams partner with companies using technology to drive sustainability, safety, and social good — including responsible innovators in the UAV and robotics space. Drones are used for a huge variety of purposes and will be a major part of the future of technology for years to come. That remains fully aligned with our values, so I’d respectfully disagree with your throwaway comment there too.
I wish you the best in your future career and again appreciate the honest conversation we had. Feedback — even when we don’t fully agree — helps us stay accountable and continue building a business that balances purpose with performance.
Best wishes,
SR2
