hundreds of examples of problemsolution scenarios that illustrated coaches ’ sensible action . However , again drawing on this same research , there was no sense that all , or even a majority of , coaches had explored their issues and problems to the depth often demanded by coach developer and academic colleagues .
Further , the research also explored the extent to which the issues identified were focused on the coaches themselves . That is , the coaches exposing vulnerabilities about their own knowledge or actions , or whether they were attributed to wider external factors , or the knowledge and actions of others . The results suggest that 19 % of all the issues and problems mentioned were inward looking , and 81 % outward looking . Although there is no data to compare these findings with , it appears that many coaches point first to external factors . This might be a legitimate account of their experiences , or it might reinforce the lazy , passive ‘ it ’ s not my fault / responsibility ’ idea promoted in the psychological and sociological literature ( e . g . Benson , 2017 ).
Second , in , to date , unpublished research with my colleague Nicky Proctor , we explored how 31 performance pathway coaches were using something called an Internal Conversation Indicator ( ICONI ) approach ( Archer , 2007 ). The majority of coaches in the research were found to have reflected on their practice , were critical about their ideas , and would often try to influence and activate change in their coaching environments ( what are called metareflexive dominant coaches ). These coaches hunted for new knowledge to stimulate their ideas and activities ( Collins et al ., 2012 ). So , according to this research , some coaches can think and act for themselves and the betterment of coaching around the issues they identify . But this should be of no surprise . Those of us who are actively coaching recognise this picture , and it is surprising how much it is challenged .
However , in the same research we also found that coaches demonstrated different forms of unhelpful reflexivity . This included coaches exhibiting tendencies to be ( over ) confident with their own / lone deliberations , often arriving at quick decisions towards action ( what are called autonomous reflexive dominant coaches ). This tendency might align with Collins et al . ( 2012 ) ‘ vampires ’ claimed to be sucking the life out of the coaching environment due to their selfconfidence , self-importance , and lack of self-awareness . Some coaches also showed tendencies towards others completing and confirming their inner deliberations , often uncritically repeating what they have seen , or others had told them ( what are called communicative reflexive dominant coaches ). Terms used to describe this characteristic amongst some coaches include unthinking , unchallenging , uncritical or what I have referred to as ‘ unaware ’, ‘ conservative ’ and ‘ actor ’ coaches ( North , 2017 ).
To put some shape on the above , I am often asked to comment on the different types of coaches and I offer the following somewhat crude distinction : a third , a third , a third .
• A third of coaches think about and
26