As the landscape review began, it quickly became clear that the term “community leader” was creating barriers rather than opportunities. Many of the people actively making things happen in their communities did not identify with the label. They saw community leadership as something formal, exclusive and reserved for a select group of people. Many described themselves simply as neighbours, friends, volunteers or local people trying to make a difference.  

The challenge was therefore much bigger than creating a development programme for community leaders. It was about understanding what enables ordinary people to take action, connect with others and bring ideas to life. It was also about understanding the barriers created by systems, bureaucracy, language, access to resources and assumptions about who is capable of leading change.  

At the heart of the challenge was a simple question, ‘How might we support each other to move more?  

Collaborate Out Loud partnered with Amity CIC to undertake a landscape review, engage communities across Greater Manchester and co-design recommendations for the future. The approach combined research, interviews, conversations, social media engagement, existing evidence and collaborative design methods to build a rich understanding of community action and participation. Over 100 individuals and groups helped shape the findings.  

Rather than focusing solely on organised physical activity, the work explored what motivates people to come together in the first place. The review examined the experiences of Mutual Aid Groups, community organisations, physical activity groups, local residents, community development workers and grassroots initiatives that emerged during the pandemic.  

Through this process, Collaborate Out Loud helped shift the conversation away from leadership as a role and towards people creating change together. The team facilitated a co-design process that challenged assumptions, explored barriers and focused on the needs that underpin successful community action. Three key themes emerged: 

• Autonomy 

• Connection 

• Meaning 

These became the foundation for understanding what enables people to create and sustain community activity.  

The work also surfaced practical ideas for how systems could better support communities, including peer support networks, reverse mentoring, collaborative circles, community-led learning spaces and approaches that prioritise experimentation over bureaucracy.  

One of the most significant outcomes was a fundamental shift in thinking. 

The work demonstrated that if we want communities to move more together, we should stop focusing on creating more “community leaders” and instead focus on helping more people feel able to take small actions in their neighbourhoods.  

The review highlighted how Mutual Aid Groups had mobilised quickly because they were: 

• Hyper-local 

• Relationship-based 

• Flexible and agile 

• Distributed rather than leader-led 

• Motivated by purpose rather than processes 

These characteristics offered important lessons for future community development and physical activity programmes.  

The project also identified a new way of framing community action. Instead of asking who the leaders are, it encouraged systems to look for people with a spark of an idea, people like Glenda, a resident who simply wanted to walk her dog with others and connect with neighbours but was discouraged by uncertainty, bureaucracy and lack of support. By making these invisible community assets visible, the system could unlock new forms of participation and leadership.  

Importantly, the work provided a practical roadmap for GM Moving and partners, including recommendations around co-production, community support, community-system relationships and creating conditions for local people to shape activity themselves.  

We learned that language matters. Many people who are actively creating positive change in their communities do not see themselves as leaders. The language of leadership can sometimes exclude the very people we want to involve.  

We learned that communities are most successful when they have autonomy. People are more likely to take action when they feel trusted, have freedom to experiment and do not need to seek permission at every stage.  

We learned that connection is often a stronger motivator than physical activity itself. People rarely come together because they want to exercise. They come together because they want friendship, belonging, purpose and community. The physical activity is often a positive by-product of those relationships.  

We also learned that systems can play an important role, but not by controlling community action. The most effective support comes from creating enabling conditions, providing resources, removing unnecessary barriers and helping communities access what they need while preserving their independence and creativity.  

Most importantly, we learned that communities do not need fixing. They need trusting, connecting and supporting. When local people are given the freedom, confidence and encouragement to act on ideas that matter to them, extraordinary things can happen. The future of community leadership may not be about leaders at all. It may be about creating the conditions where everyone feels able to take the first step.