Standard introductions to coaching state that the “identity of coaching is still an unresolved problem” (Cox et al., 2009, p. 3). In general, however, ‘coaching’ may be defined as “a human development process that involves structured, focused interaction and the use of appropriate strategies, tools and techniques to promote desirable and sustainable change for the benefit of the coachee” (Cox et al., 2009, p. 1). Academic journals on coaching are mostly written by and for coaches, wherein the role of the coach is very positively positioned. It appears that a strong positive role is attributed to coaches in coaching situations. For instance, Cox et al. (2009) imply a maximum of prerogatives for coaches interacting with coaches as they define coaching in terms of four dimensions, namely ‘I’, ‘We’ ‘Its’,and ‘It’:
‘I’ is the first-person experiential text of interaction(s) by the coach (mentioned first) and the coachee;
Coaching seen from a cultural, sociological or symbolic perspective is ‘We’; that is coaching observed from outside of any particular coaching relationship;
‘Its’ are the prerequisite ‘systems’ and ‘contexts’ that remain (mostly) outside of consciousness but that affect both the coach and the coachee; and
The ‘It’ refers to the objectified categories and models revealed by positivist research of coaching behavior.
In this article we explore the ‘I – We – Its’ perspectives, and we do not pursue that of the ‘It’ because the ‘It’ perspective seeks generalizability via representative samples while our casestudy can only claim to be exemplary…