Abstract
“What would the micro-sociologist say?” This question came from Simon at the end of his interview with Robyn concerning ‘charisma’ as a way to explain a coach’s success. Robyn’s answer reminded me of former United States President Barrack Obama’s famous “you didn’t build that” speech in 2012.
1
Here is an extract. “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
I would argue that the celebration of the individual as promoted by the dominance of the ‘psy-sciences,’ as Foucault would say, has presented the greatest barrier for coaching scholars working from a socio-cultural perspective to be taken seriously when it comes to understanding effective coaching—what it means and how to facilitate it. And Robyn’s answer to Simon’s question about charisma clearly showed that he thinks similarly. What he said was based on some research he did with a group of undergraduates to try to understand who, and more importantly how, they became who they did as coaches. There were many factors here in the development of so called ‘charisma’ or not. Such factors revolved around a security in purpose and role, an ability to generate relationships through power, context, humor, a framing of past achievements, the managing of others’ perception of care and innovation, among others. The person of the coach then, demands much more work. In doing so, a better understanding of why athletes trust, respect and/or simply comply can be gleaned.
To think about charisma and other well-trodden terms and titles thrown around coaching circles today, such as leadership and genius, without a strong appreciation of culture, power and context, is to perpetuate expert coaching as a personal development not a social one—you didn’t build that. And it is his constant reminder of this complex formation of the coach that I have found so important and inspiring in Robyn’s work. For unless we continue to problematize how we know and think about what it means to become a coach, we will continue to perpetuate an understanding of coaching success as an essential quality of that coach. And how will that ever lead to a more humble and ethical appreciation of all that coaching is and all that goes into a coach’s effectiveness?