Introduction

Business change/interventions don’t succeed just because the governance is ‘correct’. They succeed (or fail) because of messy human relationships, pressures and policy that surround them. How close people get to the mess, and when they can step back to see more clearly is paramount. This blog is written by me but informed by the original work of Lucy Moore – Sport Advisor Lead, UK Sport (a lived experience of this stuff), you’ll find the academic journal reference at the end.

We often assume that if we design the right (rational) system, with clear rules, tidy reporting, roles/responsibilities, compliance checklists, organisational restructures etc. then change and good business will follow. In this context, governance and policy are often used as umbrella terms for frameworks, assurance processes, capability programmes, codes, and so on.

This is only part of the story, and sometimes it’s a problem, because policy and governance are not just a technical thing. They are a human and relational thing: identity, history, loyalties, reputations, power dynamics, and emotions all shape what actually happens.

Two terms to be aware of that heavily influence how policy people work are:

• Involvement = being right in it: emotionally invested, caring a lot, under pressure, managing relationships, trying to keep the sport moving, feeling responsible.
• Detachment = being able to step back: looking at patterns, making cooler judgements, noticing unintended consequences, not being swept along by the politics or emotion.

The key twist is, it’s not ‘either/or’. People can be highly involved and still need deliberate detachment to make better decisions and protect their wellbeing. It’s important to see governance as a social process, not just a code to comply with.

Practical Principles for governance and policy (design / practice rules).

These principles are grounded in the core argument that policy is fundamentally relational and emotional, and that over-reliance on ‘rational’ codified approaches can blunt impact.

1. Put relationships at the centre, not as the appendix: Treat trust, history, identity, and informal influence as core mechanisms of change, not ‘soft stuff’.
2. Assume governance is a social process, not just a code: Codes and frameworks matter, but they don’t implement themselves; people enact them through messy interdependence.
3. Design for interdependence: Interventions should explicitly map who depends on whom (NGBs, volunteers, funders, boards, system actors) and anticipate knock-on effects across those relationships (the consequence and cost of work)
4. Balance involvement with ‘deliberate detours’ via detachment: Build in structured moments for policy workers (and leaders) to step back, sense what’s happening, and adjust without losing care/commitment (stop, pause, think, move/change direction)
5. Name emotion work as real work: A key competency in policy roles is managing your own emotions and navigating the emotions of others, plan for it, resource it, and normalise it (we are emotional beings – that doesn’t mean we are emotionally governed)
6. Expect identity-threat and defensiveness: Governance change often lands as ‘this is who we are’ (or “you’re judging us”), so design communications and support that reduce shame and protect dignity (no body tries to do a bad job, they did the best with what they knew at that point in time).
7. Stop pretending ‘objectivity’ is the goal: Aim instead for reflexive judgement: transparent reasoning and awareness of positionality. This challenges fantasies of purely rational, industrial approaches in social worlds.
8. Plan for unplanned outcomes: Because sport systems are complex, interventions will create side-effects. Make adaptation a feature: feedback loops, early sensing, and permission to iterate (unintended consequences)
9. Use relational support structures, not just training: Consider things like supervisory practice, peer networks, and coaching as ways to sustain better decision-making and wellbeing in the policy workforce (training isn’t enough, but it’s a good starting point).
10. Close the gap between academics and practitioners: Blend lived, involved experience with more detached theoretical perspectives, use research partnerships as critical friends, help people ‘see the system’ as it is, not just as it may be on paper (in an academic model).

How to build the principles into your approach

This is an invitation to design for, relationships and interdependence, emotion/identity dynamics and sense-making under ambiguity, not just a governance (re)organisational diagram. 

1. Treat trust and shared problem definition as Ground Zero: your first goal is a shared narrative of the problem that doesn’t trigger defensiveness (“you’re failing”) and doesn’t collapse into politics.

2. Start with joint mapping: of goals, constraints, fears and non-negotiables across. Use neutral language, that directly supports inclusive multi-stakeholder dynamics.

3. Build in ‘detours via detachment’ as a formal part of the experience: when people are deeply involved, they can struggle to step back and see the system clearly.

4. Run short sense-making cycle: After each stage of change/implementation, this will help with uncovering root causes and the co-development of solutions;

• • What did we notice? (patterns, tensions)
  • What are we not saying? (risks, politics, identity-threat)
  • What hypotheses are emerging? (root causes)
  • What do we test next? (small experiments)

5. Make ‘interdependence mapping’ the core diagnostic: A standard SWOT can be too ’rational/codified’ and miss the real levers. Upgrade it by adding systems thinking:

• Interdependence map: who relies on whom for what (funding flows, talent pathway decisions, selection, workforce, data, facilities, comms)
• Decision-rights clarity: where decisions sit now vs where they needto sit
• Friction points: duplication, delays, unclear ownership, competing incentives

6. Name ‘emotion work’ as a governance capability, and design for it: Governance change often feels like judgement, loss of status, loss of autonomy, or threat to identity. If you don’t plan for that, you get polite compliance and private resistance.

• design experiences that protect dignity (psychological safety and clear permissions)
• use facilitation techniques that surface tensions without blame
• include structured ways to handle disagreement (e.g., ‘both/and’ options, principles-first decisions)

7. Co-create ‘minimum viable operating model’ options and stress-test them socially: Stress-test socially, not just structurally to ensure adaptation and resilience Then iterate the model with mitigation built in (decision-rights, escalation routes, comms rhythms, shared measures).

• What happens to trust between stakeholders?
• What identities are threatened?
• Who loses perceived control?
• Where will implementation quietly stall?
• What new coordination burden appears?

Summary

We must recognise that organisational effectiveness is not achieved by governance codification alone. Business change succeeds through a facilitated process that balances deep involvement with deliberate moments of detachment: creating psychologically safe spaces for candid diagnosis, mapping interdependence and decision-rights across partners, and running action-learning cycles that test and refine emerging operating model options. This approach, enables stakeholders to co-define the real problems, surface root causes, and develop future-ready models that are not only structurally sound but socially implementable.

If you fancy chatting about any of this, give me shout at kurt@bemorelnd.co.uk or via the contacts link and I’ll connect you with Lucy herself! She’s got some great ideas. I can see a ‘playbook’ collaboration on the horizon (the how to making this work).

Based on the paper by: Moore, Lucy (2025). Involvement, detachment, and the emotional dynamics of UK Olympic sport policy. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2025.2592586