Skip to content
LyfeGoBusiness

Applied Sport™

Practise how your team needs to work under pressure.

We turn real workplace challenges into sporting tasks. See where communication and decisions get stuck, test a different response, then agree what to use back at work.

Discuss your team’s needs

What your team takes back to work

Start with a specific working problem. Leave with a clearer view of what gets in the way, a response the team has tried together and a plan for using it at work.

See the pattern

Use specific moments from the activity to discuss what slows decisions, makes ownership unclear or breaks a handover.

Test a different response

Run the task again and compare what changed, such as whether someone confirmed who would act next.

Agree what to use at work

Choose a working behaviour, who will try it, when it applies and what to look for in the review.

In High Performance Team Building, the team identifies three priority patterns and agrees 3–5 working behaviours. At 30 and 90 days, the team reviews workplace examples and barriers to using them.

Where Applied Sport™ helps

Teams

Build a shared way to coordinate.

Design a task where progress depends on exchanging information and handing work between roles. Facilitators help the team notice where coordination stalls, test a concise communication cue and agree what a useful handover looks like.

Example: After a disrupted handover, the group tests a reset cue and confirms the next person is ready before progressing.

Informed by Teamwork and shared understanding.

Leadership

Practise giving direction when conditions change.

Rotate responsibility and change a task condition so participants can practise setting direction, inviting useful information and supporting the group after a setback. Review how they respond to the demands and whether their approach helps others act.

Example: Rotate the coordinating role while different participants hold information needed for the next decision.

Informed by Challenge and threat appraisal.

Innovation

Test a different way of working.

Give participants a visible bottleneck to investigate. They can propose a change to the rules or their coordination, test it in the next round and discuss where a similar experiment would be useful at work. The result is feedback on the experiment, not a measure of commercial innovation.

Example: Redesign a passing rule that concentrates play around a few people, then see who gets involved and how the team coordinates.

Informed by Task constraints and coordination.

Diagnostics

Observe the interaction, not just the explanation.

Use a shared activity to examine how information moves, who contributes to decisions and what happens after mistakes. Facilitators describe what they saw, then ask participants to test those interpretations against their experience and the workplace brief.

Example: When information goes unused, ask who knew it, when they knew it and what stopped it reaching the decision-maker.

Informed by Experiential learning and reflection.

See how the 360° Diagnostic Lab works

How it works: from the brief to the workplace

We start with the behaviour you want to practise, not a sport. A shared task lets the team see what happens as it makes decisions and coordinates under changing conditions. Participants do not need to be athletes.

  1. 01

    Programme design

    Start with the workplace brief. Agree what to practise, who is taking part and which pressures to simulate.

  2. 02

    Programme execution

    Facilitate four phases of baseline play, calibrated challenge, redesign and a final trial.

  3. 03

    Post-programme transfer

    Agree practical working behaviours, who will try them and what to review afterwards.

Four phases of facilitated practice

Start with a baseline, introduce a relevant challenge, test a better approach and agree how to use it at work.

  1. 01

    Baseline play

    The Scrimmage

    The facilitator explains the task and participation options. The team tries a first round and notices its starting approach to roles, decisions and handovers.

  2. 02

    Calibrated challenge

    The Sprint to Collapse

    The facilitator introduces an agreed constraint, such as less time. The group examines where its initial approach holds or struggles. The aim is useful friction, not personal distress.

  3. 03

    Redesign and retest

    Ludic Prototyping

    Participants agree a different approach, such as a reset cue and a handover check. The facilitator guides another attempt so the group can compare, refine and test it again.

    Test → reflect → refine → retest

  4. 04

    Final trial and working agreements

    The Championship Trial and Workplace Covenant

    The team tests the revised approach under a suitable challenge. Together, the group records the workplace situation, working behaviour, owner and review indicator.

LyfeGo’s adaptation draws on Sam Kaner’s participatory decision-making model and participatory facilitation competencies. The Groan Zone is a space for working through different perspectives, not a requirement to make participants uncomfortable.

How application is reviewed

  1. 01

    During the programme

    Agree what to practise. Compare specific actions between rounds and record the changes the team wants to try at work.

  2. 02

    30-day review

    Review early workplace examples and barriers. Check whether the agreed behaviour is usable and adjust it if needed.

  3. 03

    90-day review

    Review continued use and gaps. Where suitable baseline data exist, examine relevant business indicators such as repeated clarifications or rework.

A better round shows what the team practised. Workplace examples show whether people used it later. Claims about business impact need appropriate baseline data and consideration of what else changed.

The Kinesthetic 360° Diagnostic Lab

See what happened, hear how others experienced it and test a different response in the same session. The group reviews specific interactions rather than relying only on recollections or self-descriptions.

  • Facilitator observations
  • Participant reflection
  • Agreed peer perspectives
  1. Compare perspectives
  2. Prioritise patterns
  3. Agree working behaviours

Before the session, agree what to observe: for example, who requests information, confirms ownership or responds to a setback. During the debrief, compare what people noticed and test interpretations against the workplace context. Record agreed behaviours, when to use them and how to review them.

Where useful, a facilitator may bring in an agreed APEX DiSC® lens. For example, if several people give instructions at once, ask what each person was trying to achieve, then test a shared cue in another round. That observation does not assign anyone a DiSC type.

“360°” here means multiple agreed perspectives. Live observation can be an alternative to a questionnaire-led discovery workshop where appropriate. It does not replace a formal multi-rater 360 assessment, a validated instrument or a separately scoped Training Needs Analysis.

Seven modes of learning

A useful activity gives people more than a chance to move. They can notice what happened, compare perspectives and decide what to do differently when it happens at work.

Inspired by Colin Beard’s holistic experiential learning model, LyfeGo uses these modes as design lenses, not as labels for how individuals learn. Several can be active at once. Here is what they can look like in the same handover exercise.

  1. 01

    Doing

    Rehearse the behaviour, rather than just discussing it.

    State the new priority and ask the receiving teammate to confirm it.

  2. 02

    Sensing

    Notice cues you might otherwise miss.

    Listen for whether the instruction is audible over background noise and look for acknowledgement.

  3. 03

    Feeling

    Notice how a change in demands feels and affects your response.

    Reflect on what you felt when the time window shortened and what helped you stay clear.

  4. 04

    Thinking

    Compare approaches and decide what to keep.

    Ask whether a shorter instruction was faster because it was clearer, or because an important detail was left out.

  5. 05

    Social Belonging

    Make it easier to contribute, ask and challenge.

    Rotate who hands over and who receives. Practise asking for clarification regardless of seniority.

  6. 06

    Physical Belonging

    Use the surroundings to support participation.

    Check whether the layout, equipment and noise level let everyone hear, see and take a meaningful role.

  7. 07

    Being

    Consider how the experience relates to the person or team you want to be.

    Ask what taking ownership of a handover looks like when the next person depends on you.

How we design the challenge

The Kinesthetic Architecture of High Performance Functioning in the Workplace

Kinesthetic means learning through movement and practice. We identify the pressure the team needs to practise under, then adjust the task to suit the people and the brief.

Tri-Axial Pressure Topology

Different tasks put different demands on the same team. We use three dimensions to design the challenge, not to score the team.

XTemporal scarcity
How much time is available to decide and act? Shorten the window for a handover.
YTarget precision and error cost
How accurate must the response be, and what happens if it is wrong? Require an accurate pass or an agreed check before progressing.
ZEnvironmental ambiguity
How complete and stable are the information, objectives and conditions? Give different roles different information and introduce an agreed change.
The dimensions describe how time, precision and ambiguity shape a task. They are not measured coordinates or scores.

Urgent operations handover

Short window, high accuracy, clear rules

Complete a timed handover that only counts once the receiving group confirms the information.

Cross-functional reprioritisation

Short window, consequential errors, changing information

Issue a new priority to one role and observe how the group updates its plan without losing track of the original constraints.

Informed by research on skilled performance under pressure. That research does not independently validate LyfeGo’s three-axis model.

Examples: translating workplace pressure into a sporting task
At work
A short decision window
In the activity
Set a countdown for a transition.
What to observe
Do people clarify priorities or rush without a shared plan?
At work
High accuracy requirements
In the activity
Count a handover only after the receiving group checks it.
What to observe
How does the team balance speed, accuracy and escalation?
At work
Incomplete information
In the activity
Distribute relevant instructions across roles.
What to observe
Does information reach the people who need it?
At work
Cross-functional dependencies
In the activity
Require contributions from several zones.
What to observe
Do groups coordinate handovers or optimise only their own task?

LyfeGo’s seven dials of intensity

The pressure profile describes the work demand. The dials describe the experience we design in response. A low-movement activity can still ask people to make complex decisions or coordinate closely. Higher settings are not automatically better.

  1. Workplace brief
  2. Pressure profile
  3. Calibrate the seven dials
  4. Facilitated practice
  5. Workplace application
Physical intensity

Lower: Limited running or contact, a gentler pace, more rest and lower fatigue demands.

Higher: More sustained movement, faster pacing, controlled contact or greater fatigue demands.

Technical intensity

Lower: Simple movements and beginner-friendly tasks that require little previous sport experience.

Higher: More complex techniques, coordination, precision or sport-specific skill execution.

Cognitive intensity

Lower: Clear rules, familiar objectives and fewer decisions to make at the same time.

Higher: Completely new or more complex games, changing rules, ambiguity, multi-step strategy and faster problem-solving under pressure.

Emotional intensity

Lower: Supportive practice, lower-stakes feedback and less exposure when something goes wrong.

Higher: More visible failure, direct feedback and a greater challenge to confidence or ego.

Social intensity

Lower: Smaller groups, shared responsibility and less individual visibility in front of peers.

Higher: Leading peers, making public decisions and having individual behaviour more clearly observed.

Competitive intensity

Lower: Cooperative goals, limited scoring and little emphasis on rankings or winning.

Higher: Sustained competitive elements across different games, changing rules or conditions, explicit scoring and significant rewards.

Reflective intensity

Lower: A light debrief focused on enjoyment, participation and what helped the group work well.

Higher: A deeper facilitated discussion of motives, values, blind spots and leadership patterns.

Reference: how the seven dials support the seven modes

The dials are what we adjust; the modes are ways people engage with the experience. This many-to-many mapping is LyfeGo’s design aid, not a claim that Beard validated these relationships.

Physical intensity
Primary: Doing
Secondary: Sensing; Physical Belonging
Technical intensity
Primary: Doing; Thinking
Secondary: Sensing
Cognitive intensity
Primary: Thinking
Secondary: Sensing; Social Belonging
Emotional intensity
Primary: Feeling
Secondary: Being
Social intensity
Primary: Social Belonging
Secondary: Being
Competitive intensity
Primary: Feeling; Being
Secondary: Thinking
Reflective intensity
Primary: Thinking; Being
Secondary: Social Belonging

Seven design principles

Somatic Truth
Observe what people actually do in the task, then check what those actions meant to them.
Constraint Over Exhortation
Make cooperation useful to the task instead of just telling people to collaborate.
Heuristic Velocity
Test short shared cues that tell people what to do when a recognisable situation arises.
The Groan Zone
Make room for differing interpretations. Pause or adapt the challenge if it no longer serves the learning objective.
Satisficing
Practise a timely, workable decision when appropriate. Do not shortcut checks that matter for safety or accuracy.
Process Over Outcome
Review controllable actions such as checking a handover, alongside the result.
The 30/90 Horizon
Agree how to apply the behaviour at work and review it at 30 and 90 days where included.

Expertise behind the facilitation

Our team’s training spans adult learning, facilitation, coaching and behavioural development.

Credentials across the LyfeGo team

Designed around the people taking part

Participants do not need to be athletes. We can adapt the rules, roles, pace and equipment around the group and discuss access needs before confirming the activity. If the need is unclear, a Training Needs Analysis may help.

Not every event needs a behavioural objective. A Team Bonding Experience may be a better fit when the priority is connection and shared participation.

Sources and design influences

These references inform the design choices. They do not independently validate Applied Sport™ as a complete methodology or establish LyfeGo programme outcomes.

Further reading on learning and serious games
  • Serious-game design

    Arnab and colleagues: Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis (2015). Research on connecting learning design with game mechanics, not validation of Applied Sport™.

  • Experiential learning

    Kolb, Boyatzis and Mainemelis: Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions (2001).

  • Team development

    Tuckman: Developmental sequence in small groups (1965). A proposed model, not a guarantee of linear team progress.

  • Goal-setting

    Williamson and colleagues: The performance and psychological effects of goal setting in sport: a systematic review and meta-analysis (published online 2022). Sport findings should not be treated as guaranteed workplace effects.

What does your team need to practise?

Tell us where work gets stuck and what you want the team to do differently.

Discuss your team’s needs