{"id":33856,"date":"2026-03-04T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-04T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/?post_type=article&p=33856"},"modified":"2026-03-04T14:44:52","modified_gmt":"2026-03-04T14:44:52","slug":"breaking-silos-why-the-answer-lies-in-creating-a-sense-of-shared-ownership-in-performance","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/breaking-silos-why-the-answer-lies-in-creating-a-sense-of-shared-ownership-in-performance\/","title":{"rendered":"Breaking Silos: Why the Answer Lies in Creating a Sense of Shared Ownership in Performance"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n\t
\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t
\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n 4 Mar 2026 <\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>Articles<\/a>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Breaking Silos: Why the Answer Lies in Creating a Sense of Shared Ownership in Performance<\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n \n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n Open Access<\/a> <\/div>\n
\n
Share<\/div>\n Facebook<\/a>\n Twitter<\/a>\n Email<\/a>\n Copy Link<\/a>\n
https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/breaking-silos-why-the-answer-lies-in-creating-a-sense-of-shared-ownership-in-performance\/<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Andy Burns of the New South Wales Institute of Sport offers advice to coaches and other leaders working to ensure everyone is on the same page when it comes to performance strategies and planning.<\/p>\n \n \n \n

\n

By John Portch<\/h6>\n
Andy Burns tells the Leaders Performance Institute an old story of a strength & conditioning coach who was betrayed by his own siloed thinking.<\/h6>\n

\u201cHe came up to me and said: \u2018I think I should be promoted\u2019,\u201d says Burns, who today is a High Performance Manager with the New South Wales Institute of Sport.<\/p>\n

At the time, which was several Olympic cycles ago, he oversaw the sports science and sports medicine programmes at a different organisation.<\/p>\n

\u201cI said: \u2018Why do you think you should be promoted?\u2019 He replied: \u2018Well, because I can measure and articulate to you that the athletes are stronger, faster and fitter than they have ever been\u2019.\u201d The S&C coach quickly warmed to his theme. \u201c\u2018The psychologist just sits and talks to them. How can they be a senior practitioner when I can clearly demonstrate that I\u2019ve made them stronger?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Burns had a ready reply. \u201cI said: \u2018Let me ask you a question then. If we get to the Games and everybody hits a PB in the gym the week before we leave but everybody then goes out in the first round of the Games, have you done your job?\u2019 His answer was \u2018yes\u2019. I said: \u2018That\u2019s the reason you\u2019re not a senior \u2013 because you don\u2019t understand how your part contributes to the whole\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the intervening period, Burns has conducted extensive research on the topic of silos in sport and his work with the NSW Institute of Sport includes tackling those silos head on with a range of teams and sports.<\/p>\n

Below, with Burns\u2019 help, we explore the origins of silos and some practical steps teams can take to remove them.<\/p>\n

What are some of the enduring barriers to interdisciplinary work?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Burns points to four common barriers in particular:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Worldview<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Naturally, people approach challenges with different priorities. He says: \u201cThe worldviews of coaches, physiotherapists and psychologists are based on how they were trained, how they were developed; their education system.\u201d<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Language<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Different disciplines have completely different terminology. Despite progress in bringing linguistic unity to this area, \u201cwe\u2019re all still talking across each other to some degree,\u201d says Burns.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Methods of communication<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Burns\u2019 work has highlighted tensions between, say, a coach who often prefers their information \u201cquick and dirty\u201d compared to a sports scientist who takes their time to produce a shiny (and not overly succinct) PowerPoint report. As he points out, a coach can rightly say: \u2018if we run a test on Thursday night and you get back to me by Monday, I\u2019ve already taken four more sessions and your information is out of date\u2019.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Personal KPIs<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          \u201cKPIs are a massive challenge as well,\u201d says Burns. \u201cHow do we move everyone to an interdisciplinary way of working if everybody\u2019s objectives are just in their single discipline?\u201d<\/p>\n

          What does it take to get everyone pulling in the same direction?<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Shared ownership of the outcome, which includes both the successes and the \u2018pain\u2019 of performance.<\/p>\n

          Burns is preparing a paper that focuses on the characteristics of cross-functional teams and spoke to 12 performance directors as part of that process.<\/p>\n

          Some of their responses were to be expected, but one performance director spoke of the idea that \u2018shared hardship forges teams\u2019. Burns asked him to expand. The PD cited the example of a six-week cricket tour where players, coaches and staff are away from their friends and families.<\/p>\n

          \u201cAs a leader, that makes you think: what environments can I create where people are going to have to endure difficult moments as a team and share some of that hardship?\u201d says Burns in reflection.<\/p>\n

          It\u2019s not an easy question to answer because, as he points out, it\u2019s generally the coach\u2019s head on the chopping block if things go wrong. Coaches also tend to take a more \u201c24\/7 approach\u201d than most practitioners. (\u201cThis is one thing that coaches told me that stuck with me and I don\u2019t yet have an answer for how they might meet in the middle,\u201d says Burns).<\/p>\n

          Moreover, if a coach is sacked, \u201cthere might only be two or three more jobs in that country at that level. They might have to move country and they can\u2019t really jump from being a soccer coach to a rugby coach either.\u201d<\/p>\n

          How can leaders work towards shared accountability?<\/strong><\/p>\n

          For Burns, it starts with a programme\u2019s over-arching KPIs and its \u2018what it takes to win\u2019.<\/p>\n

          \u201cYou have to clearly articulate the performance requirement of the sport, map your athlete cohort against that, and then the coach\u2019s idea of how they interpret what it takes to win,\u201d he says. When the coach is clear in their philosophy and the performance team understand what contributes to performance and what is a discriminator, they can start to share the workload.<\/p>\n

          \u201cYou have all these activities that are linked to the coach\u2019s philosophy and the KPIs.\u201d From there, the team can determine who needs to take the lead in a project and when. So when an athlete is injured, for example, the first lead would be the doctor, who would eventually pass the athlete to the physio, followed by the S&C coach, then, finally, the head coach.<\/p>\n

          Shared personal KPIs can also help to address the performance need, particularly as they are so much more powerful than KPIs that sit within a single discipline.<\/p>\n

          Burns explains his rationale using the example of a collective KPI for an S&C coach and a dietitian. \u201cThey need to understand the project around tapering for performance while maintaining lean muscle mass,\u201d he says. \u201cNow we\u2019re talking about interdisciplinary practice rather than multidisciplinary; and then you\u2019re in a position where you\u2019re opening up those silos and getting people to think collaboratively.\u201d<\/p>\n

          Coaches can have very different philosophies on what it takes to win. How should those differences be taken into account?<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \u201cFor performance support staff, influence starts with understanding the coach\u201d, says Burns. \u201cDifferent head coaches value different disciplines in different ways.\u201d For example, one coach may want their psychologist on hand each day, while another coach may not prioritise psychology. Burns likens it to the \u201clayers of an onion\u201d. \u201cA coach needs to know who\u2019s in their core team and who can be brought in as and when needed.\u201d<\/p>\n

          Whatever the case, \u201cyou\u2019ve got to cater to the individual sport, the individual programme, preferences of the coach and needs of the athlete cohort.\u201d That means the practitioner must \u201clearn their preferences, pressures and language, even if it\u2019s not how you would ideally work. Credibility is built by solving real performance problems first. Once you\u2019ve demonstrated value and earned trust, you can help shape broader planning and strategy. In high-performance environments, impact comes before influence.\u201d<\/p>\n

          Burns then recalls a workshop he ran for an Archery team. \u201cThe coach and I wrote the name of an athlete on a whiteboard, wrote the score they needed to hit, and then the coach wasn\u2019t allowed to speak for 30 minutes.\u201d<\/p>\n

          Over the course of that half-hour, the other staff members wrote on the board how they would help that archer bridge their current gap between winning a medal or not.<\/p>\n

          \u201cAt the end, the coach turns to me and says, \u2018I had no idea they had all that information on the athlete and the sport\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

          The message to coaches is that a practitioner may know more about your sport than you think and that knowledge (combined with their domain knowledge) can be used to generate deeper insights.<\/p>\n

          Does it come down to role clarity?<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \u201cThat\u2019s probably too simplistic \u2013 \u2018role clarity\u2019 has this airy quality,\u201d says Burns, who points to his research with his co-author Dave Collins.<\/p>\n

          \u201cIt\u2019s not just role clarity because I can tell you what your job is, but you have to accept that this is<\/em> the job, that you\u2019re comfortable with what you need to do; and then you need the recognition, remuneration and reward for doing the actual job.\u201d These three aspects, as he explains, aren\u2019t often discussed.<\/p>\n

          How do leaders ensure everyone is delivering the same messages?<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Through a \u2018shared mental model\u2019, which Burns describes as \u201ca common internal understanding held across a team about goals, strategies, processes, roles, and what \u2018good\u2019 looks like\u201d.<\/p>\n

          This tackles the pervasive risk of mixed messages undoing your good work.<\/p>\n

          Burns adds: \u201cIf the coach says this is going to be a hard session but the physio puts an arm around the athlete and tells them to go easy, then it\u2019s a problem.\u201d<\/p>\n

          Athletes are as human as anyone else and some will look for a way out, if possible, \u201cbut if the whole performance team is like \u2018no, this is really important for you\u2019 then the athlete has no escape. The language is the same and there\u2019s a clear outcome in mind.\u201d<\/p>\n

          It \u201c10Xs\u201d the impact, as Burns puts it. \u201cEvery interaction with an athlete becomes an intervention and they keep hearing the same message and getting more and more reinforcement that \u2018this is why we\u2019re doing these things\u2019. That speeds up how fast you can move as an interdisciplinary team.\u201d<\/p>\n

          A shared mental model is also important when plans have to be adapted.<\/p>\n

          What about coaches resistant to change?<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \u201cCoaches,\u201d as Burns says, \u201cjust want their athletes to deliver, perform, be successful and grow as people. So if you can contribute to that and demonstrate that you as a member of staff can contribute to that formula, they\u2019ll generally listen to you.\u201d<\/p>\n

          The shift is equally important for coaches themselves. \u201cOpening the door to different expertise is not a threat to authority, it\u2019s an expansion of it. The best coaches invite practitioners to become students of their sport, integrating their knowledge into performance decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

          He shares another real-life example concerning a talented athlete who was under-performing. \u201cThe athlete thought they had to be lean going into a competition,\u201d he continues. \u201cHe thought: \u2018if I\u2019m leaner, I\u2019m lighter, I\u2019m faster\u2019 and the coach reinforced that narrative.\u201d The performance team unearthed the fact that the athlete\u2019s PB came when they were eight kilos heavier. With both the athlete and coach\u2019s consent, they adapted the athlete\u2019s programme to great effect.<\/p>\n

          That evidence-based intervention earned the trust of that coach. \u201cIt\u2019s not sports science and medicine versus coaching. At its best, it becomes one collective identity: the coaching team, sharing responsibility for performance.\u201d<\/p>\n

          Burns is also ready for any coach who claims that something that failed ten years ago still has no place in the performance equation.<\/p>\n

          \u201cIt is sometimes about a simple reframe, such as: \u2018Yes it didn\u2019t work then, but do you know how much technology has advanced in ten years?\u2019 It might have been the athletes weren\u2019t ready for that, or the practitioner didn\u2019t understand it well enough. I\u2019d say \u2018you\u2019re a different coach because you\u2019ve got more experience, the athlete cohort is different, and the concept might have progressed after ten more years of research and experimentation\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

          And what can help practitioners?<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Burns suggests that all practitioners are given opportunities to lead projects that extend beyond their domain.<\/p>\n

          He says: \u201cIn one of our endurance sports, the younger athletes don\u2019t fully understand general race day preparations such as: how do you manage a taper? How do you prepare on the day? What does your warm-up need to look like? What kind of food do you need to take with you? These are some basic fundamentals but rather than do one-to-one interventions, we decided to create a curriculum of education for this group.\u201d<\/p>\n

          It has led to a situation where the S&C coach, despite not delivering on nutrition, is leading that stream. The contrast with the S&C Burns mentioned earlier in our conversation could not be starker.<\/p>\n

          \u201cI\u2019m holding them accountable to educating these athletes and pulling in the right people as and when needed to deliver certain elements of it.\u201d<\/p>\n

          What to read next<\/strong><\/p>\n

          <\/p>\n

          Do you Feel your Team Has Plenty of Clarity But Still Suffers from Misalignment?<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n