Politics rewards activity; people reward outcomes 

Ted Lasso’s genius is its understanding of people. Football is simply where it plays out.

Across the Apple TV series, there’s no shortage of power struggles, media storms and personal dramas. Rebecca sets out to sabotage the club to punish her ex-husband. Paparazzi photos turn Ted and Keeley’s platonic kiss into a scandal. Nate’s search for validation pulls him away from the people who value him most.

The drama is all-consuming for those involved, but the supporters in the stands are watching the scoreboard.

That gap drives much of the show. Ted plays a long game, slowly building trust, belief and belonging, but the fans’ impatience is understandable. Empathy and good intentions are not outcomes – they matter only if they eventually change what happens on the pitch.

The same dynamic runs through politics, business and the media. Insiders become absorbed in strategy, process and personalities. Close observers debate the tactics and follow the theatre. Everyone else is asking a simpler question: does any of it make a difference to my life?

Consider a cabinet reshuffle. It can dominate screens and newspapers for days: winners, losers, factional arithmetic and who got what. Reshuffles genuinely matter – a new minister can change a department’s appetite, priorities and pace – but most voters care less about who holds the portfolio than whether hospitals, roads, schools and services improve.

There’s a reason politics tilts towards activity. Outcomes often take longer than terms of office. A hospital announced today may open under someone else; a reform passed this year may not appear in the data until after the next election. In the meantime, activity is easier to announce, report and reward. But activity is only a proxy; people ultimately judge what changed.

One of the biggest mistakes in communication is assuming other people care about your issue as much as you do. Whether you’re talking to a minister, journalist or chief executive, everyone arrives with their own priorities, pressures and objectives.

The best communicators don’t simply deliver a fixed message. They explore the other person’s perspective. They may arrive with a solution to a known problem – or, by listening, discover a more important underlying issue. Influence starts with understanding the view from the other side of the table.

That’s Ted’s real strength. He pays attention to people when everyone else is preoccupied with tactics. But understanding is useful only if it helps deliver an outcome that matters to them.

For SAS Impact clients, that means starting with what governments, philanthropists and funding bodies are trying to achieve, then identifying where an organisation’s strengths and capabilities align with those priorities. Funding generally follows organisations that can show how they will solve a problem and deliver a social and fiscal return on investment. The goal isn’t simply to make a case; it’s to create an outcome that matters.

Advocacy can put an issue on the agenda and, over time, help build entire funding programs from nothing. Sometimes raising the temperature is exactly the right move, but attention alone rarely answers the next questions: who is going to fix this, and how will we know it worked?

Organisations that can answer those questions are more likely to be funded. Those that only describe the problem may attract sympathy and coverage but struggle to convert either into support.

Meetings held, submissions lodged and coverage secured can demonstrate effort, but they don’t prove impact if nothing changes. Across government, media, investor and stakeholder relations, the principle is the same: understand what matters to the other person, shape your case around it and be able to show what changed.