Priority or Priorities?
I recall working with athletics and they were trying to set up a centralised training base, so were attempting to attract athletes to relocate etc.
So as a practitioner I was being asked to prioritise on three different levels
- medal potential (focus on those with the nest potential of winning a medal)
- location (focus on those who have moved to the centre)
- impact (focus on those where your discipline (physiology) can have the greatest impact (more MDR than javelin))
I would spend a lot of time trying to compute priority, e.g. “athlete x has Y medal potential, but isn’t based at the centre, but is in an event that I can have an impact vs athlete a has lower potential than athlete x, and is based at the centre, but competes in an event that I would have lower impact on…(so which should I prioritise, boss?)
What about buy-in?
But there was another factor that underpinned my effectiveness, impact and frankly happiness – the degree to which coach and athlete bought into my work (my support and for me to deliver it).
So whenever I was caught between priorities, I would overlay ‘buy-in’, on top. Why?
- There’s little return on effort if someone has medal potential but isn’t bought in
- It’s worth the travel effort to work with people who are receptive but have decided relocation isn’t right
The take home message for your sports science support practice is to push on an open door.
As Seth Godin the marketing guru says
“Selling to people who actually want to hear from you is more effective than interrupting strangers who don’t”
More posts like this everyday in the SC Community
If you enjoyed this post, you might be interested in the SC Community, we hold live events, networking, you can watch all of our previous webinars and summit presentations. I post every weekday;
- Monday – thought for the week
- Tuesday – poll
- Wednesday – paper or practice principle
- Thursday – reflection
- Friday – connect with the community