I've been thinking a lot lately about communication and the ways that we can reach new audiences for sport & physical activity. The cogs in my mind probably started turning on this when Sport England's Tim Hollingsworth spoke pretty openly about being caught out by a community group back in July.

[one local sport leader] caught me out after I referred to the community as ‘hard to reach.’ “Hang on a minute. We are not hard to reach. We have been here for 20 years. You’ve just never tried”, he said

 This got me thinking about communication in general, both between organisations within the sport and physical activity space and directly with those who take part. There are several big questions I've been pondering, in fact too many for one blog so I'll be exploring these in a series of articles over the next few weeks. To kick things off:

Are the lines of communication between ‘the powers that be’ - the big funders, the governing bodies, the local authorities and other representatives of government - and local community organisations - the ones who actually make most of sport happen - really working?

Getting active rarely happens in a meeting room

Firstly, I think it's good to remind ourselves once in a while that sport and physical activity very rarely happens in offices. I say rarely because undoubtedly someone will come back and tell me about the ping pong table in their breakout area or the walking meetings happening in their office. But nonetheless I think we can all appreciate that the majority of activity happens in parks, on playing fields, on the streets, in people's homes and gardens as well as in sports clubs and leisure facilities. This means you can do all the talking you like in a meeting room, but if it doesn't change anything where sport actually happens it probably isn't worth all that much. I know that sounds incredibly obvious but it can be surprisingly easy to forget. The day to day grind can have us all racing from one ‘urgent’ priority to the next, and it can be easy to lose sight of what the point was in the first place.

I know from first hand experience that at times it can feel like this has been forgotten, particularly by decision-makers. It can seem as though these so-called ‘powers’ are a bit out of touch with what's happening on the ground. We have this group of people who have been  entrusted to take a top-down viewpoint and decide how best to invest the precious resources available to the activity sector. They are trying to take a strategic view, see everything that is going on and do their best by everyone. However, there is a lot to see, it's a complex sector and there is a lot to take into account. So when they don't get things quite right it can feel quite disconnected; like they sit up in their ‘ivory towers’, making remote decisions but rarely having the chance to see what's happening for themselves. It's easy to see how this can drive frustration and thoughts that we should take that power away from them, and hand it back to those on the ground who can surely see the need right in front of them.

On the ground is where the magic happens

And there are some amazing examples of local community initiatives out there. Creative, intuitive people who have a gut feel for what might work for all sorts of different people.  Of course none of us can know everything that will or won't work. I mean I remember when I first heard about Color Run and thinking what a daft idea that was - that someone throws paint at you whilst you run! 7 million runners and 40 countries later that just goes to show how much I knew. But nonetheless it's hard to disagree that a lot of the best projects start from one crazy idea (1).

At the same time, I've also seen my fair share of local interventions that were completely disconnected too - operating in isolation, totally focused on their own objectives, no awareness of what else is happening locally, no sharing of resources going on and certainly no sharing best practice. I've seen examples of an idea that's visionary, looks like a dead cert, but then being let down badly by a chaotic approach to delivery and a fundamental lack of the 'boring' basics - forward planning, project management, record keeping and measurement.

If only there was someone or something who's job it was to keep an eye on these things, to see the bigger picture and hold people accountable for delivery…. Which ultimately brings us full circle.

What happened to the meeting of minds?

So what is going wrong? Where should the balance of power sit to get the best results for participants and why don't these two groups of stakeholders seem to be able to connect? From my experience, having viewed things from both sides of the fence, it feels like there are a few things that could really help. The thing that unites these ends of the equation most strongly, aside from a genuine desire to do good and make the world a little more active, is how busy they both are and how they rarely have time to look up and spend time considering what it all means. In order to meet in the middle I think looking up needs to start getting some serious kudos.

Could things be looking up?

If decision-makers were empowered to look up more they would spend more time getting out into communities, seeing first hand what is happening, speaking with participants and deliverers; they would have time to read  more research - not just scan the 1-slide summary. All of this would trigger new thoughts and ideas about what the strategic direction could look like. They would also have more time to go and speak to their stakeholders about their ideas, about the strategic direction which is being set and what they have learned and why. They would have greater capacity to test and learn, to hear feedback sooner and to refine their strategies to benefit the greatest number of people.

If deliverers had more time to look up they would spend more time connecting with their neighbours, finding out about other local initiatives and where the greatest need exists in their local communities. They would have time to go to more forums to share and learn about strategic directions and what it means for them. They would be able to take the time to participate in research and feed back their views on what's working and what could make things work better. They would have more time to plan and resource their work which would make them more able to deliver everything they hoped to on time and on budget.

Both sides have their part to play in strengthening this missing link - overseeing bodies could be clearer about their purpose, what success looks like for them and support community groups in a way that helps to realise this. They also need to be transparent and consistent and, wherever possible, and not allow priorities to be too short-term. And sometimes deliverers might need to be willing to do things that do not feel like their core priority - like keeping better records or having a project manager on their team, even if the extra process feels like it slows down creativity. 

Above all else, I firmly believe both side want to listen to each other - if only this crazy modern world will let them look up and find the time to talk.

If you'd like to talk more about connecting strategy to delivery and you think Proper Active can help, get in touch on info@properactive.co.uk

(1) Check out my blog on Inspirational People  to hear more about what can happen from one crazy idea.