The Eighth Waste

During my early morning dog walk, with Flo wearing her flashing collar in the darkness, I found myself reflecting on some recent conversations with people in workforce development roles that have highlighted a fairly widespread issue… the widespread undervaluation of workforce development professionals and the systemic and cultural barriers they face.

Most roles involve supporting and developing other humans, whether explicitly stated or not. Unless your work is entirely process or machine-driven, people development is an inherent part of almost every position. This is particularly true for those specifically tasked with developing the sport and physical activity workforce – the individuals who directly interface with participants, whether they're leading exercise classes or guiding athletes on their talent development journey.

Several years ago, the S&PA sector in the UK recognised that the qualifications framework that we were operating under was not providing the required level of training or ongoing support to practitioners. There was also a recognition that they were cumbersome and inflexible which meant that they were acting as a barrier to people from under represented groups entering the workforce. In essence, qualifications were an efficient form of coach training but they were not effective...we needed something different, a new approach and some new thinking. The world renowned management consultant Peter Drucker famously noted, "There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all." This resonates with the challenges faced in workforce development, where workforce development leaders are often forced to prioritise efficiency over effectiveness.

A good friend of mine used to work for Toyota, he introduced me the Toyota management principles, which have become synonymous with operational effectiveness and efficiency across the globe and are often referred to in lean and agile management discussions. One of the elements that stuck with me is the concept of waste reduction (Muda). Looking at systems through a ‘muda’ lens has the goal of reducing waste leading to more efficient and effective production systems.

Traditionally, there are seven types of waste in production systems: overproduction, inventory, transportation, waiting, over-processing, motion, and defects. There are many of these forms of waste in existing workforce development systems - I think often about the over processing involved in asking people to get together folders and folders of paper to be used as ‘evidence’ that they are competent!

However, there's an eighth waste that's particularly relevant to those of us in workforce development roles….the waste of human potential.

This eighth waste manifests clearly in workforce development teams, which are typically under-resourced both in terms of human capital and financial support. Many organisations allocate minimal budgets to workforce development, and in some cases, these departments are expected to generate revenue just to break even – I find this perplexing in what should be considered a vital investment in ensuring that those who are at the front line, providing sports experiences are well supported to provide the best experience possible.

The challenge often stems from leadership's limited understanding of workforce development's value. Some leaders have a tendency to focus on two primary concerns: organisational performance outputs (participation numbers, memberships, income, etc) and risk management (safeguarding, governance, legal compliance). While these are legitimate concerns, this narrow focus often leads to overlooking the potential of proper workforce development to support these goals. I've always struggled to understand why sports leaders struggle to make the connection between investing in people development and the impact that it would have on their business.

As workforce development professionals, I don't think we help ourselves. I do believe that we need to adapt our communication approach.

I’ve learned this the hard way…

I’ve spent hours preparing detailed slide decks and business cases explaining the different approach that we are taking and how we are going to do it only to be faced a load of blank faces and the dreaded ‘so what?’ question!

I would come away really frustrated…thinking “they just don’t get it!”.

I now realise the issue was with me…I was speaking a different language…they don’t speak ‘workforce’, and why would they?

I now realise that instead of focusing on the 'how' of initiatives, I need to articulate the 'what' in terms that resonate with leadership priorities. For instance, rather than detailing the intricacies of an integrated training model, we might present it as a solution to reduce stakeholder complaints by X% or increase workforce development income substantially.

The waste of human potential is particularly acute among those tasked with building development systems within organisations. These individuals often receive minimal support while being expected to deliver significant outcomes. Their experience mirrors the parable of the cobbler's children – always helping others while lacking support themselves..

This challenge isn't unique to sport and physical activity sectors; it reflects broader neoliberal approaches to organisational management where growth and production often overshadow human development. However, by recognising and addressing 'the eighth waste', we can begin to create more effective, sustainable approaches to workforce development that benefit both individuals and organisations.

My role now is to act as a ‘thinking partner’ to support these workforce development professionals. By being another pair of eyes helping them make their case effectively while providing the guidance and understanding they often lack from their own leadership. It's about enabling them to serve their stakeholders effectively while satisfying organisational requirements – a delicate balance that requires both strategic thinking and emotional resilience

As someone who has worked extensively in this field, I find it crucial to share these insights and support others facing similar challenges. If you're working in workforce development and these experiences resonate with you, know that you're not alone in this journey and there are people out there who can help. If you would like to book a free call to explore any of these challenges then please get in touch and we we can set something up.

This post is adapted from my latest ‘Dog walk diary’ podcast.

Why do you coach the way that you coach?

Adapted and inspired by EIS 'Curriculum Project'

I must have asked this question to more than 10,000 coaches in my career. To me it is one of the most fundamental questions..."why do you do what you do the way that you do it". The answers tend to centre around 2 themes...either "I was coached like this and I hated it so I don't want anyone else to be coached like that..." or "I was coached like this and it was amazing so I want others to have the same experience". 

Sometimes it is based on what they have seen others do rather then what happened to them first hand.

Every now and again someone will say because of the way they have been trained. 

Hardly ever do they say..."because of my coach education". 

I then follow up the question with a further clarification...I ask, "How many of you have a theory of learning that guides your coaching practice". 

Hardly any hands go up...

I then say, "what if I told you that you do have a theory of learning guiding your coaching practice...you just don't know it". 

I get a LOT of blank stares...

It is no surprise that there are gaps in coaches' understanding of learning theories, most people don't even know that their are multiple theories about learning and that scholars, researchers and practitioners have been arguing about them since the beginning of time. 

But the way people are generally educated and the way they develop their ideas of learning are based on the dominant learning paradigms that are embedded within our culture. Most people's experience of learning is based on formalised models of learning that they would experience at school or in another learning institution.  

Those models of learning become culturally engrained in the way we think and as such a lot of coach education has followed the same model. So whether they are aware that they have a theory of learning or not...they actually do...it has been culturally influenced and become embedded in their thinking without them realising it. 

It's like the old joke about the 2 fish in the fish tank, one says to the other "this water is really dirty isn't it?" the other one replies "what's water?"

Many people don't know they have a theory that guides the way that they approach learning but nonetheless, a dominant learning theory is all around them...they are immersed in it!

So one of the things I do is to help people to understand different ways to think about learning based on some different theories and what impact that can have on learning design. This allows us to explore ways that we could provide a richer support architecture around sport and physical activity practitioners. 

I like to use visual metaphors and so this image of 'gardens of learning' or 'learning ecosystems' has become a bit of a reference point in a lot of my engagements and workshops. It acts as a thinking tool or a reference point in the design conversation.  

The aim is to rebalance the offer so that we shift from being so dominated by formal learning that is subject or content driven and work more from within context to more informal learning opportunities that are experience based. 

Now this is critical because without this paradigm shift in learning models...education and development in sport an physical activity will never be truly inclusive. 

The 'traditional' learning models have been around for centuries and they still have many of the features of their time. They are based on a class dominated system of learning that prizes knowledge and the ability to retain knowledge as being associated with intelligence. This is why there is a social stigma associated with more 'on the job', vocational style learning models. 

In most western societies...'vocational learning is for the thick kids'. 

Subhadra Vas talks about this in her brilliant book 'Uncivilised' where she lays out the way that education was shaped by thinkers such as Francis Galton, and became designed by the ruling upper class and was very much focussed on using education to separate those who had knowledge and could be considered part of the white collar managerial class and those who take roles in the blue collar working class. 

Even though the vocational 'apprentice' model of education had been around for a long time and was a very powerful way for people to learn skills and trades...this became unfashionable as people wanted social mobility and sought to gain this through formal education in the great institutions of learning. 

If the sport and physical activity workforce is going to diversify and be more open and equitable...it must let go of these culturally resilient ideas and recognise them as being artifacts from a bygone era. 

The interesting thing is that recent changes to legislation brought in by the previous government and now the labour government has started a radical shift towards more practical and skills based models of learning - moving away from qualifications that don't bear very much relevance to real world application. 

Sport and physical activity has been moving in this direction for several years so we are well placed to take advantage of these changes. 

Those who are able to break free of the shackles of the old ways of thinking and can embrace this paradigm shift will be able to access resources that have not been imagined before...those that stick with what they know will find it harder and harder to make progress. 

This is a daunting prospect and can often make people really anxious. I have several calls each month with learning systems managers, coaching leads, heads of workforce development all looking for some guidance, support and clarity on what to do next and how to go about it. 

Realistically, this doesn't have to be that scary...and the thing I always remember is that we owe it those we serve...and perhaps more importantly, we owe it to those we currently don't serve.

If any of this resonates for you...please reach out for a free call to explore some of these areas. 

Should ex athletes be able to short cut coach education?

It is a sporting story as old as time...the legend of the game that gets a job as head coach in a prestigious elite role... or the ex elite athlete that gets the job in the academy role, or as the school Director of Sport... While the dedicated lifelong coach that has spent decades honing their craft and skill never gets a look in.

And yet, more often than not, the ex player / athlete fails in the role...but the cycle keeps repeating itself. The question is...why do employers keep thinking that being an elite athlete means that that you will be impactful as a coach?

But equally, the question should also be asked... Do high level athletes have qualities, attributes and skills that are beneficial in a coaching role and how can organisations ensure that these skills are taken into account when thinking how they can be supported to succeed in a coaching role? In a revealing new study published in Professional Development in Education, Dr Thomas Leeder examines the practice of fast-tracking former athletes through coaching qualifications. As someone deeply invested in coaching development, I find the implications fascinating from a policy, practical and ethical standpoint.

The research, focused on British Orienteering, examines a widespread issue in coach education and development...whether those with athletic experience should be given a priority over those with formal education and fast tracked through the various levels. Experiential knowledge vs formal education While elite athletes undoubtedly possess valuable experiential knowledge, the assumption that this automatically translates into effective coaching practice is troubling. As one coach developer in the study pointedly observed: "I know quite a lot of people who are and have been elite athletes who I wouldn't trust with a random collection of 10 people." This points to the suggestion that being a high performer as a participant requires different qualities and skills than being a high performer as a coach. The assumption that the skills and knowledge gleaned in one domain transfers to another domain is not supported in the literature and any workforce development leader should be mindful of this if they are condoning the practice of fast tracking.

Impact on coaching as a profession

Fast-tracking fundamentally challenges the notion of coaching as a profession with rigorous standards. When we allow shortcuts based on athletic achievement, we implicitly devalue the complex pedagogical skills that formal education aims to develop. As one contributor observes...

"Sport coaching is embedded with ego and sociocentric beliefs which assumes that embodied experience as an elite athlete is necessary to become an effective coaching practitioner, at the expense of knowledge obtained via formal professional development opportunities."

This observation reveals a cultural bias that pervades coaching development. The implicit devaluation of formal education undermines the very professionalisation that sports coaching aspires to achieve. Impact on the perception of the value of coach education

Coaches who work hard on their craft and commit diligently to professional development could well find themselves frustrated that their energy and commitment seems to count for less than an individual who is a high level performer being given a privileged route to progression. This could then lead to more and more coaches opting out of coach education as they feel that it is perceived as being low value by employers and the NGBs themselves.

Systemic inequalities

The research reveals an uncomfortable truth: fast-tracking potentially marginalises excellent coaching candidates who lack elite playing/participation experience. It also serves to create an 'old boys club' ('boys' is chosen deliberately!) where those that have been involved can progress more easily than those who haven't been involved previously which serves to continue the lack of diversity in the coaching community.

Fast tracking is risky...for the participant and the coach

Perhaps most concerningly, fast-tracking may actually disadvantage the very coaches it aims to help. By bypassing fundamental learning experiences, these coaches miss crucial opportunities to develop pedagogical skills, reflect on practice, and build a comprehensive model of participant development. This point is illustrated by this quote... "There are some ways to put things over that an elite sportsperson wouldn't necessarily know about unless they had some form of training... coaching is about changing behaviour, changing the way people do things to make them better."

This insight illustrates the concern that coaching excellence requires specific pedagogical skills that athletic experience alone may not provide. There are dangers in putting participants in the hands of inexperienced pedagogues and it is ethically problematic to allow individuals with limited training to be placed into these positions of responsibility with limited training, support or supervision. Fast tracking is a symptom of an overly rigid system

On the other hand, the quote above does point to the fact that those with significant experience as athletes or participants probably do have experiences and knowledge that would be really valuable in a coaching role. The fact that they don't have some of the coaching skills shouldn't mean that they have to start at the bottom and start learning about coaching with people who are less experienced or accomplished. The paper points to the fact that the system is a big part of the problem as it is too linear and rigid and doesn't enable people to enter coaching at a point that is relevant for them based on their previous knowledge. Equally, there seems to be an overconfidence in the role that formal coach education plays in developing coaching practice. People might have attended all of the courses and collected all of the badges and certifications but this formal learning is no more of a guarantee of high quality coaching practice than someone with practical experience. Practical reflections / suggestions

The research suggests a more nuanced approach is needed. Rather than enabling fast-tracking by the back door, we might consider:

• Recognising the knowledge and skills that someone brings to coaching in more sophisticated ways while maintaining core educational requirements. Just because someone hasn't done the course doesn't mean that they haven't developed the ability by other means.

• Developing flexible and individualised learning pathways that don't compromise on quality. In a digital age, learning is everywhere...if someone has found information that helps them practice we should be able to recognise that.

• Creating practical, on the job, 'in situ' mentorship style learning programmes that bridge experiential and formal learning.

As coach education grapples with professionalisation, we must ask ourselves: what truly makes an effective coach? The answer lies not in shortcuts but in meaningful engagement with both theoretical understanding and practical experience.

#CoachEducation #SportsDevelopment #ProfessionalStandards #Ethics