UK SPORT/SPORT ENGLAND MERGER IS THE RIGHT WAY FORWARD

News broke yesterday (26^th July) that the Government is to merge UK Sport and Sport England in order to streamline the running of sport in England (sport is devolved in the Celtic nations).

Sport and Olympics Minister Hugh Robertson provided Inside The Games with an exclusive, announcing that under the proposal UK Sport, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust will form a new body that will be answerable to a single governing board.

While UK Sport and Sport England are, to all intents and purposes, Government Quangos, the Youth Sport Trust holds independent charity status and the new proposals will need to find a way around this in merging the three bodies.

To be merged with UK Sport under new Government plans

Merging with Sport England

As a charity may not be so easy to merge?

That issue aside, this author believes such a merger is not only welcome but long overdue. That said it is with cautious optimism that I welcome the announcement for the new structure will be meaningless without the right strategy in place.

What the proposed streamlined structure does is to align the way sport is managed in this country in a way the current model does not.

The development of sport from the very bottom of the grass roots to the very top of the podium should be a continuum, an unbroken chain. Indeed, there is something called ‘the Sports Development Continuum’ which has been overlooked by Government and its Quangos for too long.

The Sports Development Continuum provides a simple model to ensure sport is catered for at all ages, stages and abilities and although only four words long (Foundation, Participation, Performance and Excellence) serviced properly, it covers all elements required in a way that lumping great aspirations together and hoping they find linkage does not.

Under the previous Government, we have seen little understanding of this basic principle as sport has been ‘lumped’ into either ‘Elite’ or ‘Mass Participation’ or ‘School Sport’. No flow, no continuum.

This has, in part, been due to the fractured administration of sport where UK Sport looks after their ‘lump’, Sport England theirs and the Youth Sport Trust theirs. Although each has their ‘strategy’, this is Horizontal Integration of strategy where Vertical Integration is clearly called for.

That Vertical Integration of strategy will be further aided when other Government departments, who have a stake in sport, such as Education and Health, find they only need to communicate with one body when coordinating plans. Revolutionary thinking I know, but I did say cautious optimism and I am typing with my fingers crossed!

In bringing the different bodies together care and consideration will be needed to ensure that where there has been good work it is continued and ultimately improved upon while the lower quality delivery all too often seen in many areas must not be mistaken for being better than it is.

UK Sport for example, have overseen a rise in excellence in elite sport in this country the envy of much of the world although behind the headlines there are sports which have struggled to keep pace and medal counts have been boosted by a small group of overachieving sports rather than higher levels across all (or at least the majority). Delivery of Excellence can only be maintained and improved if the supply route bringing talent through Foundation, Participation and Performance is strong; you cannot plan one part of the continuum without consideration for the rest.

Below national level there will undoubtedly be a rush to restructure before any new unified, Sports Development Continuum based strategy is in place. Such restructuring must be avoided until the demands of strategy are known for, as I have said before in this blog, structure should be strategy’s servant, not its master; a mistake from the past which must not be repeated.

A further benefit to sport which I am sure the Minister has considered, and much of grass roots sport will applaud, will be the reduction in waste as, theoretically at least, more money finds its way to sport rather than to its (currently) overpopulated administration.

So; cautious optimism from this corner but, as ever, the real devil will be in the detail.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited 2010

Jim.cowan@cowanglobal.net

Twitter: @cowanglobal

LESSONS FOR SUCCESS FROM ENGLAND’S WORLD CUP DISAPPOINTMENT

Okay, we’ve all calmed down a little, we’ve had time to consider and reflect and, if we’re honest, most of us have moved on, putting England’s display in South Africa behind us. 

But before we do confine it to the annals of historic footballing let downs, let’s look at the experience from a different perspective; what can we learn from the numerous reasons offered for the failure which could improve our own 

Business Class? Did you see the lessons for your business?

 

performance in whatever it is we do for a living? 

From the many that have been offered, whatever the reason(s) you believe for the poor display of our national team, a closer examination of most will offer lessons we can all apply. I have selected but a handful. 

In the pages of this blog, we offered Underperformance Syndrome as a possible reason following the poor display against Algeria. In short, the players were over focused and lacked ‘positive distractions’ during the six weeks they were away leading to a decline in performance. 

Capello, a successful club manager, was new to the different challenge of taking a squad of players away for (what was effectively) a six week camp and possibly failed to focus on the important non-footballing requirements such a stint away from home brings; every ‘project’ brings with it a different set of challenges. If the problem, in part or in whole, was a result of Underperformance Syndrome then that offers a basic lesson for us all: 

Just because a strategy or tactic has always worked in the past doesn’t mean it always will in the future or in a different environment. 

Following England’s exit, many were quick to blame the players. We often see this in business, poor performance blamed on staff not management. Well, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t but before jumping to conclusions management should always be prepared to self reflect and review, honestly asking the question: 

What did I/we do that may have had a negative impact/effect on the desired outcome. 

Much was also made by expert analysts during the World Cup that England’s players were not used to maximum effect. Frank Lampard may have been a great example of this because his performance in comparable systems for club and country can be compared. 

When Carlo Ancellotti took the reigns at Chelsea he was as keen on deploying a 4-4-2 formation but Ancellotti and 

Ancellotti; maximised the benefit of staff to the business instead of forcing them into an unsuitable structure

 

Chelsea fans saw much effort but little return from Lampard in this system. Ancellotti realised that the players at his disposal were more suited to a 4-3-3 formation, changed to it and in the second half of the season Lampard looked his old self, banging in goals and pulling the strings in the Premier League’s highest ever scoring team. 

Capello seemed to have overlooked this piece of ‘intelligence’ trying to fit not just Lampard but others too into unfamiliar roles. World class players like Lampard, Rooney and Gerrard suddenly became only ‘very good’ players at a tournament where ‘very good’ is the average. 

What lesson can business take from this? 

Ensure your staff are being employed to maximise the benefit they bring to the organisation. 

This brings us to another element of the failed World Cup campaign that has had many pointing fingers; that of Capello’s rigid, almost slavish, following of a 4-4-2 formation. You may even have been one of those pointing the finger but what of your own work environment? Are you just as unbending as Capello or do you recognise the need for flexibility in the demands of each new project (i.e. opposition)? Or can you adapt to ensure you meet a rapidly approaching deadline ahead of your competition (i.e. chasing a goal without conceding another as the clock runs down)? 

Don’t be too rigid in your approach to achieving challenging goals. 

Before the World Cup much was made of the Capello Index which then emerged in the Italian media after the tournament. Such public scrutiny of performance by the media is one thing but by management? How would your staff feel if their annual reviews were held in public with score cards posted on the company notice board? 

Such public ranking of performers in his care recently contributed to another ‘Head of Performance’ losing his job when Dave Collins received much criticism for his very public scoring of Britain’s athletes. Capello, it seemed, had not done his homework nor had he considered the negative impact such public scrutiny could have on ANY working relationship. 

Staff appraisal and feedback is best kept private. 

Of course, if things are going well, public praise can be a great way to boost egos and performance. There are infinite ways in which a manager needs to consider, consult, defend, attack, praise, train, support and much more if he/she is to be not only ‘the Boss’ but a leader too. Indeed many managers fall short on realising that: 

Great leadership is about far more than simply telling people what to do. 

Of course, the above ‘lessons’ are based on assumption and simplification of issues that may or may not have been factors during South Africa 2010. But, remove the football analogy and the lessons remain for all who aspire to achieve things in whatever line of work they are in. 

One final area to consider, one which may have been demonstrated when a clear goal was disallowed in the Germany game. Sometimes things will go wrong which are unfair and/or unjust. In real life these things happen. Which begs the question: 

Can you raise your game to ensure they don’t undermine your results? 

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited 2010 

Jim.cowan@cowanglobal.net

AN ACCIDENTAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE NEED FOR VERTICALLY INTEGRATED STRATEGY

Not vertically integrating strategy can result in the successes of one department adversely affecting the workings of another

The case for vertical integration of strategy was ably demonstrated earlier today by an organisation of which Cowan Global is a member.

What made the demonstration doubly interesting was that the same organisation delivers workshops on strategy and planning and, as a result, had previously informed us that they would not want to work with us on our own strategy and planning workshops as they had no need.

‘The Organisation’ (let’s call them that for the sake of anonymity) has recently been struggling to provide a satisfactory level of service to members, taking an age to respond to emails and phone calls (if at all) and generally giving a “we could care less” impression.

Fortunately, they do care about their members and I was telephoned by one of their managers to discuss the issues. The root cause soon became clear; poor strategy or, more exactly no Vertical Integration of Strategy.

‘The Organisation’ had a strategy for membership sales and a strategy for membership relationships. This is called ‘Horizontal Integration of Strategy’ where every department/function of a business has a strategy and it is therefore assumed that every aspect is covered.

For ‘The Organisation’, the membership sales strategy was proving a huge success with incentivised staff attracting new members at an exceptional rate. The strategy for membership retention on the other hand was proving less successful as membership grew without the additional staff/hours/resources to continue providing the previously very good service. End result? Dissatisfied members such as Cowan Global!

For many businesses the above may sound familiar. Unfortunately they will blame everything for ‘not working’ except the real cause. This is because they believe that as a strategy is in place, the flaw must lie elsewhere whether it be staffing levels, the staff themselves, the management or a combination of these and an endless roll call of other reasons.

The problem actually lies in flawed strategic thinking. Had ‘The Organisation’ recognised that in a successful business no department is entirely independent of other departments they would have applied ‘Vertical Integration of Strategy’. By doing this, the impact of a successful membership sales strategy would have been planned for as a part of the membership relationships strategy.

Many businesses operate with horizontally integrated planning never realising how much more successful they could be applying vertical integration. In its purist form there would be one Company Strategy with departments operating sub-strategies closely aligned to the Company strategy and cross referenced (integrated) with each other at the outset and at regular reviews.

In less pure, but nonetheless still effective, cases the business will regularly review the performance of each strategy against other strategies within the Company. In both systems waste and inefficiency is substantially reduced and duplication of effort usually removed altogether. This results in not only a better strategic focus and outcome but also a more profitable business.

For ‘The Organisation’ this would help to prevent members leaving at the same rate as new members join.

Meanwhile, I am left wondering whether ‘The Organisation’s’ strategy and planning workshops have left their members so well equipped?

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited 2010

Jim.cowan@cowanglobal.net

IS IT INITIATIVE-ITIS? THE MINISTER SAYS NOT – The short version

(If you would prefer to read the full, long version of what follows you will find it here). 

Hugh Robertson, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics has gone on record on the pages of ‘Inside The Games’ lambasting my blog on the return of ‘Initiative-itis’ only five weeks after he had promised its end. 

I am grateful he took the time and exceptionally pleased that, after a decade of Ministers using sport as a tool for social engineering and little else, we now have a Minister prepared to enter into debate and who clearly wants to develop sport and the many benefits it brings to the larger community. That can only be a good thing. 

Mr Robertson seems under the impression that I am being critical of the new Olympic and Paralympic style competition for schools. I am not, it is better to have it than not have it but to maximise its effect, to fully exploit its benefit to the nation, please Mr Robertson sort out the wider, urgently required strategy. 

Mr Robertson is on record as agreeing with my viewpoint (Daily Telegraph, Friday 21^st May), that after a decade of initiative led delivery we needed to get back to a better planned approach. In fact it was Mr Robertson in that same Telegraph article who coined the term ‘initiative-itis’. 

We need a strategy which offers fully, vertically integrated planning along the entire sports development continuum. This would mean planning the impact and consequence of one action on the next and linking them properly together. We have not seen any understanding of this principle from UK Sport, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust under the previous Government. 

Mr Robertson claims the strategy is in place, he offers no evidence of its existence. 

Hanging onto hope or genuinely planning? Hugh Robertson (right) needs to show us his strategy

 

Mr Robertson states; “Only last month, I explained the principles underpinning the Government’s sports legacy strategy. There are five key areas- all of which are essential if we are to create a cultural shift towards greater participation in sport. These are: lottery reform, structural reform, elite sport, school sport and mass participation.” 

Mr Robertson continues; “The lottery reforms will return sport to its original place – as one of the main beneficiary sectors of the National Lottery. By 2012 the reforms will secure a further £50 million for sport each year. This funding will hugely benefit sports clubs and help refurbish sports facilities, so that they are ready for the influx of young people turned on to sport by our Olympic-style competition.” 

Mr Robertson has identified an increase in lottery funding for sport, a positive start. Of course, strategy is about how you are going to do things not what you would like to do, so Mr Robertson’s strategy will need to answer ‘how’ it will benefit sports clubs and help refurbish sports facilities. 

The Minister then states; “Structural reform is about ensuring that we have the best sports system possible at every level – school, community and elite. We have to be confident that every pound of funding being spent on sport is used as effectively as possible and that there is a seamless pathway between schools, sports clubs and the elite level so that no talent slips through the net.” 

However. planning structure before knowing what the strategy is can be a risky business. Structure should be the servant of strategy, ensuring effective and efficient delivery. 

Mr Robertson adds; “There are already strong links between schools and sports clubs. On average, schools have links with seven local sports clubs with over 1.5 million young people involved through this route. This new competition will build on this further, and should have its most marked impact at the lowest level – if the Kent School Games experience is typical.” 

Mr Robertson will be aware that many in sport question such statistics and point out that they have never been independently audited. On the few occasions independent experts have analysed the data supplied by UK Sport, Sport England, the Youth Sport Trust and/or the National Governing Bodies, the figures have been found to be exaggerated. 

One of the world’s most highly regarded athletics statisticians, Rob Whittingham, is among those few independent experts who have highlighted such discrepancies to both previous and current Governments, so far to avail. 

It is inevitable that if you fund organisations to achieve targets and then ask them alone to measure and report on their success in achieving those targets, such inflated reporting will happen. Those same organisations know there will be no independent checks on the data they report and that if they hit (often self determined) targets there will be more lottery money to come. Hence, performance against any measures will inevitably be ‘good’. 

The Minister’s next point is; “Galvanising mass adult participation in sport is arguably the hardest part of the legacy to achieve. Indeed no other host country has succeeded on this front. But a strong school sport system encouraging young people to play sport for life will only help this ambition.” 

Strategy is about ‘how’, not some vague hope that doing one thing will help some other ambition. However, when Mr Robertson unveils this strategy we will undoubtedly see the ‘how’ he has omitted to mention here? 

Of course, from the Government’s perspective much of that ‘how’ will be funding others to achieve their targets and Mr Robertson tells us; “Through Sport England hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are going direct to national governing bodies to help drive sports participation up. The governing bodies are the experts and know where to target the funding but we will be holding them to account so that the investment gets the desired results.” 

Mr Robertson will have noted while he was in opposition that the previous Government also spent hundreds of millions of public money funding national governing bodies to drive up participation, invariably via the ‘initiative-itis’ he so accurately named. 

“Holding to account” should  mean independent auditing of data and transparency in reporting. 

As for the National Governing Bodies being the experts? Some are, some aren’t. Mr Robertson agreed with correspondence about this when in opposition. I can find no evidence of any DCMS Select Committees seeking alternate independent expert views. Seemingly relying on NGBs often run by people with little or no background in the sports they now head and who are suddenly cast in the role of ‘expert’ by Whitehall. 

Good strategy ensures expertise is in place, it does not assume it and Mr Robertson may well wish to revisit his comment in the near future, that, “the governing bodies are the experts and know where to target the funding”. 

He tells us the strategy, which we have yet to see, has the backing of LOCOG, the BOA, Sport England, the Youth Sport Trust, sports governing bodies and many prominent Olympians who supported the launch.  But all of these bodies have a vested financial interest in any new funded initiative. The Prime Minister promised wider public and expert views would be taken into account. 

My original question was; “can we have a strategy please Minister?” Having now been assured us of its existence, the question is now; “can we see the strategy, please Minister?” 

If the strategy was open to public scrutiny Mr Robertson would find people like myself are keen to support a lasting legacy for sport in this country providing it is built on sound sports development and vertically integrated strategic principles. 

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited 2010 

Jim.cowan@cowanglobal.net

IS IT INITIATIVE-ITIS? THE MINISTER SAYS NOT – The full version

(If you would prefer to read an abbreviated version of what follows you will find it here). 

Hugh Robertson, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics has gone on record on the pages of ‘Inside The Games’ lambasting my blog on the return of ‘Initiative-itis’ only five weeks after he had promised its end. 

I am grateful he took the time and exceptionally pleased that, after a decade of Ministers using sport as a tool for social engineering and little else, we now have a Minister prepared to enter into debate and who clearly wants to develop sport and the many benefits it brings to the larger community. That can only be a good thing. 

But is his response merely a reaction or does he make a fair point? 

Firstly, Mr Robertson seems under the impression that I am being critical of the new Olympic and Paralympic style competition for schools. I am not, in fact in my blog actually said; “It may not sound like it, but I applaud it. It is better to have it than not have it but to maximise its effect, to fully exploit its benefit to the nation please Mr Robertson sort out the wider, urgently required strategy. Do not offer all these young people a taste of the Promised Land only for them to discover the infrastructure to pursue it is not in place.” 

So, Mr Robertson and I agree that the new initiative (for that’s what it is) looks a good ‘un. So where do we disagree? 

The main point behind my blog was, and Mr Robertson is on record as agreeing with this viewpoint (Daily Telegraph, Friday 21^st May), that after a decade of initiative led delivery we needed to get back to a better planned approach, one where we think things through fully and don’t just launch random new initiatives as hoped for solutions to larger problems and as a way of fooling the media that something is happening. In fact it was Mr Robertson in that same Telegraph article who coined the term ‘initiative-itis’. 

As a result of this shared viewpoint I was asking the Minister, could we please have that strategy; a strategy which offers fully, vertically integrated planning along the entire sports development continuum. Mr Robertson writes to reassure us that such a strategy is in place. I hope so, if it is that is great news. 

Which leads back to my original question; “can we have a strategy please Minister?” Only now having heard his insistence that such a strategy is in place I’m asking; “can we see your strategy, please Minister?”  

Hanging onto hope or genuinely planning? Hugh Robertson (right) needs to show the public his strategy

 

And, in case I am being misunderstood, let me repeat that I refer to a strategy which offers fully, vertically integrated planning along the entire sports development continuum. 

Although Mr Robertson claims the strategy is in place, he offers no evidence of its existence. 

Mr Robertson states; “Only last month, I explained the principles underpinning the Government’s sports legacy strategy. There are five key areas- all of which are essential if we are to create a cultural shift towards greater participation in sport. These are: lottery reform, structural reform, elite sport, school sport and mass participation.” 

Assuming that the sports legacy strategy is the same thing as a strategy for the development of sport, and given the five headlines it sounds like it is, then we are off to a good start. 

Mr Robertson continues; “The lottery reforms will return sport to its original place – as one of the main beneficiary sectors of the National Lottery. By 2012 the reforms will secure a further £50 million for sport each year. This funding will hugely benefit sports clubs and help refurbish sports facilities, so that they are ready for the influx of young people turned on to sport by our Olympic-style competition.” 

Better than a good start, Mr Robertson has identified an increase in lottery funding for sport, this is sounding positive. Of course, strategy is about how you are going to do things not what you would like to do, so Mr Robertson’s strategy will need to answer ‘how’ it will benefit sports clubs and help refurbish sports facilities. Let’s be positive and assume it will? 

The Minister then states; “Structural reform is about ensuring that we have the best sports system possible at every level – school, community and elite. We have to be confident that every pound of funding being spent on sport is used as effectively as possible and that there is a seamless pathway between schools, sports clubs and the elite level so that no talent slips through the net.” 

This is sounding fantastic but a note of caution, planning structure before knowing what the strategy is can be a risky business. Structure should be the servant of strategy, ensuring effective and efficient delivery. Although Mr Robertson has told us about his strategy, we have yet to see it. Let’s assume the new structure meshes with the strategy and continue in positive mode? 

Mr Robertson adds; “There are already strong links between schools and sports clubs. On average, schools have links with seven local sports clubs with over 1.5 million young people involved through this route. This new competition will build on this further, and should have its most marked impact at the lowest level – if the Kent School Games experience is typical.” 

Mr Robertson will be aware that many in sport question such statistics and point out that they have never been independently audited. On the few occasions independent experts have analysed the data supplied by UK Sport, Sport England, the Youth Sport Trust and/or the National Governing Bodies, the figures have been found to be, putting it politely, exaggerated. 

One of the world’s most highly regarded athletics statisticians, Rob Whittingham, is among those few independent experts who have highlighted such discrepancies to both previous and current Governments, so far to avail. 

An example of Whittingham’s analysis; “I looked first at the number of children aged 11-15 taking part in track and field athletics as supplied by Sport England. The number is 159,000. Sport England define ‘taking part’ as competing at least once a month outside school hours. The track and field season lasts 6 months so this would give 954,000 athlete/meeting combinations. The Young Athletes League are considered large meetings and they average 140 athletes/match including 16 year olds. So I will use 120 as the number of athletes at each meeting. This would mean 8,000 meetings each year for 11-15 year olds. I have access to 99% of results for official track and field meetings and cannot find even 10% of this number for this age group.” 

Whittingham goes on to say; “I can find almost no funded athletic project which has any metrics for measurement. All now seem to rely on polls, surveys and satisfaction reports.” 

It is inevitable that if you fund organisations to achieve targets and then ask them alone to measure and report on their success in achieving those targets, such inflated reporting will happen. Those same organisations know there will be no independent checks on the data they report and that if they hit (often self determined) targets there will be more lottery money to come. Hence, performance against any measures will inevitably be ‘good’. 

Of course, not all of these organisations do this but it only takes a handful to make all the data reported by UK Sport, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust to DCMS questionable at best. 

So, a slight hiccup here but nonetheless, let’s assume that measurement of Mr Robertson’s strategy will be transparent in a way that leaves no space for the kind of public doubt the Minister will have been well aware of via his post bag when in opposition. 

Moving on the Minister’s next point is; “Galvanising mass adult participation in sport is arguably the hardest part of the legacy to achieve. Indeed no other host country has succeeded on this front. But a strong school sport system encouraging young people to play sport for life will only help this ambition.” 

I apologise in advance for pointing out this sounds very much like the type of ‘crossing your fingers’ planning Mr Robertson pulled me up for accusing him of? Remember, strategy is about ‘how’, not some vague hope that doing one thing will help some other ambition. However, when Mr Robertson unveils this strategy we will undoubtedly see the ‘how’ he has omitted to mention here? 

Of course, from the Government’s perspective much of that ‘how’ will be funding others to achieve their targets and Mr Robertson tells us; “Through Sport England hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are going direct to national governing bodies to help drive sports participation up. The governing bodies are the experts and know where to target the funding but we will be holding them to account so that the investment gets the desired results.” 

Mr Robertson will have noted while he was in opposition that the previous Government also spent hundreds of millions of public money funding national governing bodies to drive up participation, invariably via the ‘initiative-itis’ he so accurately named. No doubt when we get sight of his new strategy we will see where it will achieve the same aim so differently? Perhaps, in part, with the “holding to account” which would mean independent auditing of data and transparency in reporting? 

As for the National Governing Bodies being the experts? Frankly Mr Robertson, some are, some aren’t, as you are well aware from correspondence from the grass roots of those sports that aren’t; correspondence you apparently agreed with while in opposition. 

Having heard what Mr Robertson has had to say, perhaps we should go back to my original question and check whether he has answered it. “Can we have a strategy please Minister?” was the short version of my question by which, as I went on to explain, I meant a fully, vertically integrated strategy covering the entire sports development continuum. 

Mr Robertson identifies that funding will support any strategy. He talks of structure and I hope this is structure designed around the successful delivery of strategy. Many have failed in business as well as in sport for not realising that structure is the servant of strategy not the other way round. 

Mr Robertson rightly talks of schools and mass participation. He briefly mentions elite sport but does not expand. The sports development continuum covers Foundation, Participation, Performance and Excellence but not as distinct separate sections, rather as a continuum in an unbroken journey. 

Good strategy ensures expertise is in place it doesn’t assume it and Mr Robertson may well wish to revisit his comment in the near future, that, “the governing bodies are the experts and know where to target the funding”. 

That said, Mr Robertson is getting there with what he outlines but not in a fully, vertically integrated way which would mean planning the impact and consequence of one action on the next and linking them properly together. We have not seen any understanding of this principle from UK Sport, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust under the previous Government. 

Of course, not having seen his strategy I may be wrong, it might do all of this and more. 

Mr Robertson tells me I am in the minority in questioning his strategy, although how he has ascertained this he does not make clear. Besides, even if I am clearly a minority view, he is wrong that I am questioning his strategy; We (the ‘minority’) have yet to see his strategy. I am questioning some of the bits he has made visible, allowed the public to see. 

As for him apparently believing a minority view point automatically makes a view wrong, Mr Robertson should remember the last election and what that result might make the views of ALL sitting MPs if that were to be the case?  

He tells us his strategy, which we have yet to see, has the backing of LOCOG, the BOA, Sport England, the Youth Sport Trust, sports governing bodies and many prominent Olympians who supported the launch, but he clearly hasn’t consulted, as his Prime Minister promised, with a wider public and any independent expert view? 

The Minister concludes; “This is a strategy with clear direction. But I know we cannot be complacent. Achieving a lasting sports legacy will not be easy. However, I am determined to succeed.” 

Mr Robertson has no idea how much the whole of sport wants him to succeed. The last decade has left a lot of participants, voluntary unpaid club coaches, officials and team managers (who all together actually produce the sport) desperate to see the development of sport planned properly, to be moved away from ‘initiative-itis’. 

But Mr Robertson is in danger of emulating the Emperor and his new clothes in the fable; just because he tells us the strategy exists does not mean it does. Further, if it does and it will be as successful as he tells us then why not let us see it, why not open it up to public scrutiny?He would find people like myself are keen to support a lasting legacy for sport in this country providing it is built on sound sports development and vertically integrated strategic principles. 

The question has changed slightly Mr Robertson. It is no longer; “can we have a strategy please Minister?” as you assure us of its existence. The question is now; “can we see the strategy, please Minister?” 

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited 2010 

Jim.cowan@cowanglobal.net

PARTNERSHIP WORKING – Defining What It Is

The last decade has seen a boom in the use of partnership working as a means to achieving aims and objectives. Or at least if you read the press releases, web sites and other literature it has. But are all of these organisations really successfully working in partnership with others or are they applying the term to more traditional relationships, such as simply buying in services, because it sounds better than saying ‘working with our contractors’ or ‘working with people we pay to do a job’? 

As always with these things the answer is not black and white for defining the term ‘partnership working’ is not quite as simple as a couple of lines in a dictionary. Yet, taking the time to understand what partnership working is and the levels at which it can be utilised can help organisations to get a lot more out of their existing and their future relationships. 

In order to gain that understanding it is important to realise that partnership working takes place on a number of different levels or degrees. It is understanding these degrees of partnership working which will help you to identify at what level your ‘partnership’ is working and, importantly, whether by strengthening the partnership by raising it a level might help you and your partner(s) to better achieve your goals. 

There are five degrees of partnership working which run from token or nominal partnerships through to pure partnerships.  For example, if I was to pay you to do a job for me we might describe that as a partnership even if I have absolutely no interest in your own aims, only that you do the job for me. 

This is frequently seen in areas which are funded by Government or Local Authorities. They will fund an organisation on the basis of that organisation achieving their targets often with little interest in whether the funded organisation has any targets of their own. The word sustainable is often attached to these ‘partnerships’ when in reality that sustainability is a myth because the funded organisation has little interest in continuing the funded work when the money runs out. Sustainability will be the topic of a future blog. 

So what is this hierarchy of partnership working, the five degrees which define whether your partnership is a token one, a pure one or some half way house? 

The first degree is ‘Co-Existence’. The two (or more) partners have agreed to work ‘together’ but haven’t figured how, don’t really care about each other’s aims and end up adopting a stance of “you stay on your turf and I’ll stay on mine.” Fine if you are paying someone to do a specific job and you aren’t interested in a longer term relationship (is that good business practice?) but not so good if either partner is hoping for more either now or in the future. The word ‘partnership’ might be applied but, as partnerships go, this is about as token as it gets. 

The second degree is ‘Co-Operation’. At this level, the partners have agreed to work together but identify each other’s goals as very low priority, frequently because either the partnership is a mismatch or because staff are not fully versed on its importance. The key description phrase of the second degree of partnership working is; “I’ll lend you a hand, but only when my own work is done.” 

It is at the third degree of partnership working that we start seeing genuine partnerships emerge. This stage is ‘Co-Ordinaton’. This is first stage at which proper consideration is given to the work and objectives of each partner. If you are involved in strategic planning and wish to avoid getting trapped into silo mentality planning, you should be aiming for at least this level of partnership working not just externally but internally too. Key descriptive phrase? “We need to adjust what we do to avoid overlap and confusion.” 

The fourth degree is ‘Collaboration’. At this stage real thought is now being given to achieving success for all parties within the partnership. It is also at this level that good examples start to become more rare and yet if the partnership was entered into with the aim of mutually benefitting from each other’s skills, products, abilities (or whatever), it is only really at this level that successful, long-term partnerships are built and maintained. “Let’s all work on this together” describes this tier perfectly. 

The fifth degree of partnership working is where we find pure partnerships; this stage can be termed ‘Co-Ownership’. By taking on ownership of each other’s wants and needs, aims and objectives we effectively increase our chances of success by multiplying the numbers addressing our own targets and by also adopting our partners. It is very rare to see this level of partnership working in operation and yet it can produce fantastic results, especially in those sectors where the workforce is either low or unpaid or where motivation and/or enthusiasm are low. Key phrase? “We all feel totally responsible.” 

The Five Degrees of Partnership Working

 

So next time you are thinking of adopting a partnership approach to solving a problem or achieving a target, give consideration to the degrees of partnership working. By embracing pure partnership working at tier four and especially tier five, you will be pleasantly surprised by the results. On the other hand, if you employ the token partnership working of tier one or two, don’t be surprised if not everyone in the ‘partnership’ comes with you and it becomes much harder work than you had hoped. 

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited 2010 

Jim.cowan@cowanglobal.net