Charming, influencing and seducing: a portrayal of everyday coaching

ABSTRACT Since a critical turn was embarked on two decades ago, research into sports coaching has increased in quality and quantity [see Jones, R. L. (2019). Studies in sports coaching. Cambridge Scholars Publishing]. Despite such welcome advances, the essence or heart of the activity remains contested terrain [Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011). Taking the next step: Ways forward for coaching science. Quest (grand Rapids, Mich), 63(4), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2011.10483687; Jones, R. L., Edwards, C., & Tuim Viotto Filho, I. A. (2016). Activity theory, complexity and sports coaching: An epistemology for a discipline. Sport, Education and Society, 21(2), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.895713]. Subsequently, the aim of this work was to inductively analyse the practice of a top-level sports coach to better understand the core of what he actually did whilst working. This was particularly in terms how he managed the working contexts and the others within it towards desired ends. In seeking a ‘bottom up’ construction of practice, the study adopted tenets from both grounded theory and phenomenological inquiry. More specifically, the fieldwork was conducted over a 6-month period at a top-level women’s basketball club, with the data collection methods being ethnographic in nature, inclusive of participant observation and informal interviews. The main findings indicated that the coach in question, together with his coaching team, were engaged in a series of social, power-related, seductive strategies designed to charm athletes and others to ‘buy into’ the given agenda.


Introduction
Although research into sports coaching has increased in both quality and quantity since embarking on a critical turn some two decades ago, Jones (2019) recently claimed that the field has nonetheless suffered from 'theoretical defeat' (McCarthy, 1989). This was because, in conceding 'definitial rights' to other disciplines, coaching has not been able to cultivate its own thoughts or be interpreted from within its own frame of reference (Jones, 2019). Similarly, the tendency to borrow theoretical explanations from psychology, pedagogy and particularly sociology has given rise to inevitable accusations that resultant findings are more concept-centred than they really are (Liberman, 2013); that is, the theory has dominated the data. Hence, and perhaps unsurprisingly, paradigmatic disagreements have emerged in relation to what coaching is actually about (e.g. decision-making [Abraham & Collins, 2011], empowering athletes [Duda, 2013a[Duda, , 2013b, dyadic relationships [Davis & Jowett, 2013], and interactional exchanges [Hemmestad & Jones, 2019]). This lack of consensus has manifest itself in debates ranging from the nature of coaching knowledge to how coaching should be researched and represented (Jones et al., 2016). Furthermore, despite the almost obligatory 'complex aware' rhetoric, with a few exceptions (see Jones, 2019 for a summary), most of the above-cited work continues to be starved of contextual considerations, thus 'being somewhat hollow in terms of appreciating how coaching actually plays out as situated action' (Jones et al., 2016, p. 201). Consequently, the present study marked an attempt to uncover what is actually going on when coaching takes place. Through giving primacy to naturalistic and inductive research methods, the study's objectives related to exploring how coaches manage, maneuver and influence context and others towards desired ends, particularly in terms of the performative exchanges evident. The purpose then, was to further understand the arrangements and relationships experienced between people in coaching, thus somewhat revealing what the resultant collective web of negotiation fundamentally entails (Jones, 2019).
The significance of the work lies in examining the often unnoticed surreptitious everyday intentions and interactions which, nevertheless, remain central to the 'doing' of coaching. The work thus builds upon that of Armour (2015, 2017) and Jones's (2009) inductive conceptualisations of coaching to further unmask the precise intentionality of the activity within cultural constraints. Hence, it goes further than claims related to the perceived 'activity' of coaching, to an exploration of how that activity is realised or secured. In doing so, the paper also progresses Jones and Ronglan's (2018) tentative theorising about the 'quiddity' (Garfinkel et al., 1981) or 'just whatness' of coaching, thus bringing the activity back to itself. In effect, the study marks an effort to better grasp the practical accomplishments of actors in context.
Although such accomplishments or actions have been variously described in previous work (as mentioned above), what remains largely missing is an exploration of the 'consciousness' of coaching; a consciousness possessing an intentionality (Zahavi, 2019). This is not in respect of having a purpose in mind when one acts, but rather an 'aboutness' or 'directedness' to the awareness; i.e. that all action (in this case coaching) is about something (Luft & Overgaard, 2012). Consciousness thus, is not considered as preoccupied in and of itself, but is always related to something; it is outward-facing and directed at an object other than itself (Zahavi, 2019). Similarly, any action or object is made conscious in a particular way, in terms of how it is perceived by an observer. In this respect, as stated, coaching has been considered to be about many things (e.g. technical knowledge, pedagogy, decision making, etc.) depending on who perceives or identifies it. No doubt, therefore, a need exists to better examine and describe this 'aboutness of coaching consciousness', thus better-placing coaches, to use a phrase from the phenomenologist Heidegger, as 'being in the world'.
Finally, in helping coaches better understand the meaning of their work through its experiental components, the study possesses the potential to offer relevant support for practitioners' organisational lives. It can do so through providing more appropriate and realistic professional development provision for this intensely demanding profession (Jones & Wallace, 2005, 2006; provision founded on the idenified rules and tacit resources that underlie the 'doing' of coaching. This is particularly in relation to how coaches can better live, create, and relate in the salty, satisfying, frustrating worlds they inhabit (Moustakas, 1994). The ultimate rationale for the work then, lies not just in passively explaining coaching, but in an active pursuit of better reconstituting it.

Methodology
The setting where the fieldwork was undertaken comprised an adult women's basketball club, 'The Waverley Hoops' (a pseudonym). The club was located in a large provincial city and was primarily chosen due to its 'first' team, of which it principally comprised, competing at the highest national level. The club, however, also comprised two other teams, which took part in further additional competitions. The weekly rountine for the players (n = 15) and staff (n = 5) involved two team training sessions, two 'individual' training sessions, two strength and conditioning sessions, and one performance analysis meeting, in addition to regular weekend league games. The squad, from which the team was selected, and all of its activities was overseen by the head coach, Gareth, who, in turn, was supported by assistants Rhys and Henoch (all names are pseudonyms).
In more detail, Gareth had been Waverley Hoops' head coach for 7 years, having earlier served as the Assistant. At the time of the research, he also had a role with the national senior squad, and a national age-group team. He was 30 years old and frequently referred to the club as 'the basketball family'. Rhys was Gareth's principal assistant and had been working with him in various capacities for some years. He also served as head coach for a Waverley team who competed in a secondary, separate competition. Rhys was 25 years old. Finally, Henoch was Gareth's 'second' assistant coach while also being the head coach of the Division 2 team. At 28, Henoch had only recently joined the club having previously coached abroad for a number of years.
Borrowing traits or features from both grounded theory and phenomenology, inclusive of a search for intentionality or 'aboutness', of not being concept led, and of general discovery, inductive means were used to collect the data. The intention was to allow descriptive data wherever possible, as opposed to existing conceptualisations, to drive the exploratory process. Phenomenology sets an anti-reductionist approach to how people experience life, focusing on individual and situated experiences to uncover the essence of a phenomenon (Kerry & Armour, 2000). Such philosophical assumptions have been described as an attitude; a way of looking and interpreting the world in order to uncover 'things as they are' (Allen-Collinson, 2009). The purpose, as previously stated, was to allow for an exploration of the everyday, mundane events which comprised the coaching lifeworld under study (Cronin & Armour, 2015). Having said that, there is no claim to a pure phenomenological approach being utilised here. This is because the data collection was no doubt driven by the study's given aims as opposed to unhindered open ended inquiry. Hence, although a combination of phenomenological and grounded theory-related principles were employed in a predominantly inductive design which, in turn, enabled the collection of original and meaningful data, this was done in relation to the study's objectives. In practice, this was manifest through no theories on how the coaches managed the context being considered a priori, allowing the observed actions, reactions, emotions and perceptions to be the focus of the collection. The attempt then, through considered reflexive activity, was to 'set aside all preconceptions' and 'take nothing for granted' (Androsino, 2007, p. 38), albeit in line with a given intentionality.

Methods
Participant observation and informal (or conversational) interviews were utilised to collect the data. Here, I, as the first author and principal researcher, not only took part in the various weekly sessions and competition preparation but also participated in (principally) Gareth's daily office routine and coaching-related meetings. This included, for example, joining the coaches in their meetings with physiotherapists and doctors, in game analysis sessions, as well as taking part in athletes' warm-ups, preparing the game venue, fetching balls during practice, and generally sitting on the bench with injured players during training sessions. To further my integration, I also sold merchandising to help raise money for the club and distributed advertising material as appropriate. Doing so, provided opportunities to observe, listen, ask questions and take part in contextual interactions. In this respect, I also followed the recognised principles of qualitiative research as related to; openness, distance and skepticism (Rabb, 2019). Hence, I was constantly engaged in a reflexive balancing act between intense closeness and a 'simultaneous maintenance of a controlled distance [from] the social situation being investigated' (Rabb, 2019, p. 39). Of particular importance, however, and following Goffman (1989), I subjected myself the best I could to the set of contingencies experienced by the actors under study ('to take the same crap they were taking' [Goffman, 1989, p. 125f]); to emotionally act as if I could not leave at any time (which, of course, I could).
In addition to observational fieldwork, which yielded rich and comprehensive data, conversational interviews (Ennis & Chen, 2012) were conducted to further complement and/or explain the observed events. The purpose here was to seek insights into the observed and perceived complexities inherent within the coaching under study. Consequently, as opposed to structured or even semi-structured interviews, no particular set of questions was arranged or categorised a priori. Rather, following Patton (2002), such conversations were treated as natural extensions of the observations in terms of clarifying or further exploring interpretations. This, or course, is not to say that such interactions proceeded without detailed knowledge and preparation, with the study's purpose and the general scope remaining at the forefront of consideration (Fife, 2005). These conversational interviews were repeatedly used throughout the fieldwork period, consisting mainly of relaxed conversations with the participants in a variety of situations; for example, before, during and after training sessions and competitions, in the coaches' offices, in parking lots, coffee shops and hotel hallways. The fieldwork experiences were recorded using written notes and a dictaphone. Here, verbal exchanges were transcribed verbatim as much, and as soon, as possible, and always within a few days of their occurrence. The information obtained from the interviews served to sharpen the data already collected through the participant observations (and vice-versa), whilst adding extra dimensions through new or contradictory insights.
Due to the largely interpretative and naturalistic nature of this work, I continuously resorted to reflexivity and the use of critical friends, including my co-author, to prompt reflection, challenge pre-assumptions, and consider alternative interpretations. This involved a constant critical analysis and questioning of 'to what extent were the data obtained a result of, or were influenced by, experience, knowledge, expectations?' 'Am I sure I can label what I saw in the way I did?' 'Am I being too concept led'?''Is there anything else in the context I'm missing?' This process allowed an acknowledgment and management of personal leanings and an increased critical consideration of the information collected. In turn, the data, as related to observations or informal interviews, came to be considered as social encounters in and of themselves. Here, specific attention was paid to identifying key events, characters, and moments, and the interaction that occurred between them, which appeared crucial to the objective(s) of the work. In this respect, the reflective process undertaken included judicious discussions amongst ourselves as authors, loosely framed by the 'just whatness' of the phenomenon and associated events being observed (Jones & Ronglan, 2018).
This critical reflexivity also moved beyond traditional ethical positions and considerations to the aspirational relational approach advocated by Sparkes and Smith (2014). Subsequently, in addition to requesting and gaining approval from the university's ethics committee before the fieldwork began, we also sought to emphasise elements of care and connectedness throughout the project. Such judicious consideration was not only extended to ourselves and those under study, and to between ourselves as researchers, but also to an ethical obligation to the work itself (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). In this respect, care was taken to critically examine and better understand how our personal histories and biographies influenced the data gathered and the interpretations made. No doubt, our individual experiences as both players and coaches (myself in volleyball and Robyn in football), in addition to our collective identities as scholars working at the same institution, encouraged us to 'see' some things at the expenses of others. This is where the reflexive process outlined above moved from introspection to that of intersubjective reflection and mutual collaboration (Findlay, 2002). The process engaged in then marked an effort to go beyond personal revelation, a kind of 'benign introspection' (Woolgar, 1988, p. 22), to a critical discussion of the inference contended between experience, the observed social context, and the knowledge claimed (as outlined in the paragraph above).

Theorising the data, and presenting the results
In giving primacy to the data and aligned with the phenomenological and grounded theory principles already mentioned, subsequent theorising was engaged with in a 'light touch' fashion. The objective here was to adhere to the inductive analysis undertaken and thus, use professional concepts only to assist in the explanation and understanding of the observed activities. Although aware of the need to make sense of the findings, every effort was consequently made not to allow existing concepts to dominate interpretations; that is, not to make the undertaken observations more concept focussed or driven than they really were (Liberman, 2013). This is not to say that arrived-at theoretical impressions did not guide the fieldwork, particularly in the later stages. Rather, that a process of both 'theoretical discovery' and 'theoretical refinement' was engaged in (Puddephatt et al., 2009, p. 15). Consequently, the novelty of the practice witnessed at Waverley came into being through the reflective iterative writing and the conceptual questioning process. In this respect, constant consideration was given to identifying the ultimate narrative themes selected in association with the primary sensitising concepts, which were loosely applied as the work unfolded. Examples of such concepts included 'power', 'charisma' and 'attraction'. The process of data analysis and collection then, ran concurrently to an increasing degree as the fieldwork progressed. Finally, a closing stage of analysis, once collection had ceased, was undertaken where a concluding 'theoretical order' was again subject to critical consideration based on the previously developed ideas.
In more detail, the initial stage of data 'collection' resembled a process of 'free' memo-writing about first impressions and involved staying as close as possible to descriptive phenomenological principles. Here, I allowed myself to be guided by intuitive reflections in relation to the coaches' (principally Gareth's) presence or bearing, the influence they were having over the context, and the fundamental 'doings' of the coaching that took place. This was followed by a more structured second coding procedure, where increasingly concrete pieces of data were examined in relation to their convergence or divergence from the initially developed raw notions. Although this second stage was intended to develop some thematic substance, it also allowed an exploration of what had not been included so far. Here, following Charmaz (2006), open codes were used, which entailed constructing and applying 'labels' that further described the actions noticed in increasing detail.
Rather than moving in a rather linear progression to a focused coding phase, I thirdly performed something closer to an additional phase of sense-making, where the codes developed were both associated with others and matched. The value of this stage lay in reviewing, reflecting upon, and further annotating the created codes, in order to both consolidate then, while allowing consideration of any events or ideas which had not been included so far. Consequently, a 'bigger picture' of how coaching worked at Waverley was slowly assembled; a picture which came to comprise the general topics of 'caring'; 'putting on a performance'; and 'coaches' control'. Taking care not to overly allow the concepts to lead the sense-making of the data, this process involved further searching, observing and taking notes in terms of the (above) evolving categories whilst also revisiting previous notes to ascertain the credibility of earlier interpretations. In addition, reviewing the study's objectives within this process offered some reassurance of saturation and a degree of confidence to 'move' within the analytical process.
The decision to present the results of the study through a series of short vignettes was informed by a number of reasons. Principal among these was the ability of such text to both help create and communicate 'meaning in context'. In short, and following others (e.g. Gilbourne et al., 2014), we considered vignettes as better allowing situational context to be explored and influential features to be elucidated than other means of representation. In particular, vignettes were chosen due to their ability to elicit the intended meaning made of the data. In this respect, as opposed to merely describing the events observed, we wanted to portray the emotionality, the feeling, and the evident 'care-ful' actions, that took place within the setting (Ely et al., 1997). Through the use of vignettes then, an effort was made to draw readers into the experience, into the sporting setting at Waverley, and into the coaching practice. The obligation to make such tales 'credible', 'confirmable' and 'trustworthy', taken as criteria of 'good qualitative research' (Shenton, 2004), helped us to create the portrayal(s) as something akin to what was experienced. Hence, means such as plot, character development, theme, and language were all employed to render the stories both complex, relatable and significant (Ely et al., 1997). In this way, we tried to make comprehensible some often elusive notions.
Acknowledging the constructed nature of vignettes forced further engagement with the critical reflexivity previously mentioned. This is because vignettes necessitate an interpretation of witnessed events and felt experiences; an interpretation that restructures complex phenomena in order to highlight whan can be learned, through a particular portrayal of them. As opposed to direct descriptions then, the presented vignettes represent composites that encapsulate what was discovered through the fieldwork undertaken. In this respect, they 'sandwich together people, places or events to reveal implicitly the signifiance of the [broader] story told' (Ely et al., 1997, p. 72). Their precise construction involved the inductive data analysis alluded to, through various iterations brought about by critical discussion, to what we considered to be the principal considerations. In this respect, the vignettes represent examples of the main interpretive themes inferred from the data and their collection process. Consequently, although certainly inspired and constructed around events as witnessed, in line with the aforementioned process engaged in, the vignettes were fashioned to highlight what came to stand out.
The following 'results' section marks an attempt to capture what we considered important from the fieldwork, and is divided into four segments, each centred on a particular vignette. The segments include 'We're all in it together', 'A benevolent 'Head of family'', 'Caring for Audrey', and 'An enjoyable, meaningful climate'.

Results: coaching as charming
We're all in it together During the fieldwork, I initially observed the coaches 'acting like coaches' and heard familiar expressions such as 'sometimes you have to be nice, other times you just have to be tough … ' (field note no.37). However, as the fieldwork progressed, how the coaches (and in particular Gareth) acted and presented themselves to the players and others soon revealed itself as complex action far beyond professionally performing as expected. Instead, the coaches seemed consumed with presenting a persuasive, charming 'front'; that is, an image of self-designed to induce others, usually the players, to 'buy in' into the presented ideas and agendas. A part of this image or manner included that of 'being the hardest worker in the room', a positive role model to follow; that the coaches would not ask anything of the athletes that they weren't prepared to do themselves. Here, portrayals of willing sacrifice for the team and club came to the fore; with the work always being done, or portrayed as being done, in the best interests of the group (a notion that was also read as the 'best interests of the athletes'). Presenting such positive and caring features formed a major part of the attractive selfless, persona(s) constructed.

Vignette 1
Everyone's waiting outside the sports venue door, as usual. Gareth and some of the players are sitting on the stairs facing the rest of the team. One of girls was excitedly sharing what had happened the previous night, but the general mood was subdued. I comment 'You guys are quiet today … '. Gareth laughs and says to all … 'We spend so much time together that we don't have anything new to talk about'. The players smile in return. He claps cheerfully getting up: 'Let's go!' I look at the venue's walls, a banner features a picture of the team gathered in a circle, hands on shoulders. It reads 'coming together is a beginning; staying together is progress, and working together is success'. Next to it, another banner with pictures of players passing and shooting, includes the statement 'success does not come to you … you must go and get it. Perseverance!' The atmosphere is one of excited enjoyment. The girls have filled the water bottles, the bibs are laid neatly on the bench; the session begins. Gareth takes the lead. The clear talk is of the need to work ever harder; 'we have to fight for it … we need to keep pushing, together!' Although directive, the messages are delivered with caring enthusiasm and sincerity. The players listen intently; Gareth's eys and words seem to hold them. On the back of one of the players' t-shirt are the names of all players and coaches; underneath is written 'ONE FAMILY'. Gareth finishes, the team 'shout', they start the warm up. Some of the players have been given the 'day off' to facilitate minor injury recovery. They're sitting on the long bench, next to me. Cara glances at my notebook; 'you must be very busy if you're shadowing Gareth'. It seems common knowledge how hard he works; still, she deems it necessary to share the admiring sentiment. He manages everything related to the team, from session planning, to choosing the video clips to analyse, what the website should look like, booking physiotherapy sessions for the injured, and managing the house bills of semi-professional players. Cara shares a look with Anne, who nods in deferential agreement. 'Do you know what time he comes in every day? And he only leaves after our sessions. I really don't know how he does it all!' she concludes. She stares at the action, then looks back at me and smiles 'He's done so much for me, you know, personally. He's the best coach I've ever had'.

A benevolent 'Head of family'
At the start of the season play-offs, Gareth gave every player a card. On the right hand-side, it read; 'The secret to success is in the constancy of purpose'. On the left, the message was personalised: 'Sofia, I hope you enjoy the final 4's. It has been a pleasure having you around the team and the family. I hope you have enjoyed it as much as I have … and that you've found it useful for your research!' (Fieldwork note; 16.4) The Oxford English Dictionary comprises a definition of 'charm' as: 'any quality, attribute, trait, feature, etc., which exerts a fascinating or attractive influence' (The Oxford English Dictionary, 2015), 'to act upon so as to influence, control, subdue, bind, bewitch, enchant etc.' From the data gathered, the coaches were similarly seen to construct, 'charming' personalities to convince others, principally the athletes, to engage with their wishes and desires. Gareth's positioning of the group as a 'family' was clearly meant as a message associated with close relational 'care'. The metaphor, in this respect, provided a cultural script for everyone associated with the Hoops to believe that they could depend on each other (and particularly the coaches) not only for support and understanding but also for intimacy, empathy, obligation, and compassion. It was a means to tie the group closer together. In doing so, Gareth (and to a lesser extent the other coaches) 'charmed' the athletes in terms of the latter's well-being and development being central to the practice carried out. This was regularly communicated through the coaches' dayto-day actions while constantly expressed through sayings such as 'we'll do it together'; 'you have a say … '; 'we're a family'. Such a discourse prompted in players a sense of security allowing the coaches to be perceived as trustworthy in terms of making good decisions on their behalf (i.e. the athletes' behalf). In doing so, the coaches ensured that the players 'bought into' the given agenda.

Vignette 2
The players are warming up, some in pairs others individually. Gareth announces himself to all with a loud 'HI'. He sits beside me on the bench. The players carry on with the warm-up and start some drills in their own time. Some practice dribbling, others shooting (from a variety of distances). It's cold, but the players don't seem to feel it; they're working hard. I ask Gareth what motivates the players to work on their own. He replies: 'It's the club culture … Cara has been with me for 4 years now'. He starts pointing; 'she's been with me for 5'; '2 years'; 'hum.. 2 again'; 'and those two, it's their first year'. 'It might also be because they see me working hard too?' He pauses, reflects, then says: 'I guess at first, we established what the culture was, and that I don't accept passive training. But it has to do with me too. Time is my thing; you have to use it well. I question them a lot about it, because you can't come here to lose time. I mean, this session won't happen again, so everyone needs to always ask 'what did I take from today's session?' What you do with your time is very important. So, yes, these players are now in a good place where they work hard without me being on the top of them. If they were being passive though, I would be all over them!' He stands up and starts to walk around the hall, observing the players' performances. I re-visit my field notes from last week. Gareth comes back and resumes our chat: 'But don't get me wrong, sometimes there are bad days. I like players to have some ownership of their work. Today they've asked me if they could do these drills, and that wasn't my plan, but I rather have them doing something they're motivated for it, as long as it's relevant. It also shows them that I trust them, and I get a lot back from that'. 'A lot back?' I ask. 'I get more engagement, more self-motivated action, more 'buy in' if you like. That wouldn't happen if I just obviously controlled everything'.

Caring for Audrey
Vignette 3 Audrey moved to Waverley from overseas, essentially to for the Hoops. She was offered a room in the players' shared house and a contribution towards her living expenses. Things, however, were not working out as planned. Gareth explains; 'For a variety of reasons, one of which was the language barrier, she was struggling. She was not happy, so she came to talk to me; she wanted to leave'. I ask how he reacted, as this decision affected the team. He said it was hard because 'she came here to play with certain objectives; and we accommodated and made some sacrifices for her'. Audrey left the programme soon after that meeting. Gareth explained his thought process in the chain of events; 'I imagine in a few years' time, I'll meet her in the street, with her kids, her family. And we'll recall the time she spent here with joy. She'll remember it as a good experience: she made new friends, learnt English and improved her basketball. I want this experience to be something that impacts her life in a positive way.' Similarly, Audrey described Gareth as the best coach she ever had demonstrating a sincere will to comply with what he asked of her and the team in general. Consequently, in the grander scheme of things, the decisions made by the coaches to seemingly care in this regard resulted in the club having happier, more committed athletes 'in its service'; a situation which was considered to produce better performances. Additionally, such displays of individual athlete care did not go unnoticed by the rest of the group. This prompted or created a certain impression of the coaches as always having the best interests of athletes at heart and, as a consequence, certain feelings of reverence towards them. Therefore, not only were unexpected personal problems used to benefit performances, but also allowed the coaches' increased respect from, and consequently more influence over, the athletes. In this sense, the coaches' behaviours promoted augmented loyalty from athletes and a willingness to work harder with and for them.

An enjoyable, meaningful climate
Vignette 4 Today's session starts with the usual team shouteveryone, coaches and players, in a circle and hands together in the middleand then goes on to a relaxed warm up. The drill consists of a relay between two teams, with players starting by running around a basketball in a very tight circle. The point is to make them dizzy before other tasks. Players shout to encourage teammates and laugh as they run in zig-zags and shoot disorientated. They move on to play 3 × 3 on half court, with two games going on simultaneously. Gareth moves from one court to the other. Soon he observes one of the games more closely. He refers to the team in yellow bibs as 'the bananas' and the other team as the 'lefties'. He celebrates successful actions by hi-fiving players. He's constantly commentating on the game: 'Uuuhh nice steal!'; 'Oh … the lefties are kicking your butt!' In between drills, the three coaches talk and laugh. They go around chatting with the players, generally smiling. Gareth gathers all the players around and explains the next drill. He also provides some individual feedback: 'Rebecca … ' he starts, but the players start laughing 'Rebecca?' one asks amused. He laughs with them and looking at Becky he says: 'When you're being naughty, it's Rebecca!' He continues to move along the sideline as the game re-starts, frequently shouting feedback and praise. Rhys is writing notes leaning on the wall, while Henoch is squatting next to him observing the action; they both occasionally shout some words of encouragement. Gareth becomes gradually unsatisfied with the performance. He's pacing back and forth and sighing discretely. He eventually shouts 'Stop, stop!', the players move closer. 'Ok guys, I get it. You want to be quick. That's good! But you need to keep the game flow in mind. And you've just done 5 turnovers in one minute. Please let's think about what we're doing', he pleads. The game starts, Gareth marches around the court and, as he walks past me, he tilts his head in my direction and whispers 'Fuck me. Thank God it's not an actual game'. Rhys and Henoch glance at him and increase the encouragement, shouting and clapping to bzoost players' motivation. 'OK, OK; keep going, you're working hard!' As one of the players runs past Rhys, she swiftly looks at him clearly frustrated. He smiles back; 'just keep driving.' She nods in acknowledgement. Gareth yells more feedback and encouragement: 'Good job!', 'Good choice!' One of the players stretches out to the ball and manages to steal it. Gareth and Rhys both whoop at the same time, look and each other, and laugh. The players in close proximity notice it and smile. Then Cara, the captain, scores from long range. 'That's double points for you' Gareth shouts and adds 'And she knows it!' She looks back at him and smiles. At the end, everyone gathers around again to do the team shout. Gareth says: 'We've been dreaming about this. But don't just dream about the final … think about what you have to do to win the final'. After this session, walking back with Gareth, I note 'Nice session, that was good fun'. He laughs scornfully, rolling his eyes. 'Well, there's no point in putting too much pressure on them now. The upcoming finals already do that for me'.

Discussion
In positioning power as omni-present, the French sociologist Touraine (1981) declared that 'all social relations are relations of power' (p. 33). In taking issue with earlier conceptualisations of power as a zero-sum game, where one individual or group possesses it while the other does not, power and the social were considered indivisible. Power thus was deemed as being constitutive of, as opposed to separated from, social order; one simply cannot exist without the other (Westwood, 2002). It is a view advocated by a generation of critical thinkers from Habermas, Gramsci, Giddens, and (of course) Foucault, as part of sociology's post-structural project. Subsequently, emancipation, in whatever realm, is considered an inherently flawed concept, with the best we can work towards being a 'rationally defensible form of authority' (Cassell, 1993, p. 228).
Drawing on Nietzsche, Foucault's 'take' on power, in general opposition to those before him, was not as something negative or positive but as ever-present and potentially productive. For Foucault then, power was not considered as emanating from a cult of the autonomous self, but that social identities and productions were lived into existence through the constructive influence of culture (May, 2005). Although frequently accused of anti-humanism, perhaps due to his writings on the power of institutional scripts, Foucault alternatively saw great value in examining how those with responsibility (e.g. coaches) used their power to form productive relationships with those around them (Denison & Scott-Thomas, 2011;Markula & Martin, 2007). Seen as such, power was not considered as a destructive, coercive force, but rather generative of social relations. Following this seemingly 'progressive' lead, Westwood (2002) argued for a greater understanding of power through an examination of its 'modalities', defined as 'the property of power as it is exercised' (p. 25). One such modality was claimed to be that of 'seduction', taken as the most cogent expression of performative power (Westwood, 2002). It is a modality that not only emphasises the relational base of power but also how the social comprises performative selves enacted through certain behaviours and discourse.
According to Bauman (1992), the power alluded to here does not have to coerce subjects but rather seduces through the representations and signification of 'innumerable dreams'. Such dreams are, in turn, considered attainable or purchasable by those subject to the seduction. Desires are thus, recycled and often reinvented as new, albeit remain as constructions around which respective performances are organised. Indeed, according to Westwood (2002), seductions are the classic enactment of power, 'feeding desire and individual power plays, massaging egos and, generally, generating a sense of well-being, worth and the feel-good-factor' (p. 83). Through such power plays then, as often manifest in careful and sensitive actions, affective ties are further secured.
Similarly, the coaches in the current study were observed to create and embody particular (friendly, approachable and affable) personas to convince others of their credibility and, hence, solicit desired responses. The resulting personas selected, according to the messages they wished to convey, could be characterised as 'charming', a potentially useful and novel concept when considering coaching. Here then, the coaches adopted compelling knowledgeable, forthcoming and caring characterisations which exerted a persuasive influence over the athletes that subsequently 'drew the latter in'. The related messages were not only spoken and performed but also embodied by the coaches, who actively created the witnessed attractive, seductive, charming 'personas'. Similarly, the massaging of egos and the generation of a sense of supported well-being were very identifiable features of the created context (in line with Westwood, 2002). Such enactments were witnessed in Gareth's positioning as the 'head of the family', his obvious hard work and evident dedication to the team and club.
Although Goffman's writings have traditionally suffered from the criticism of under-theorizing power and its workings, a growing number of scholars have disputed such claims (e.g. Dennis & Martin, 2005;Jones & Davey, 2011). The alternative case made is that the microfocus adopted by Goffman clearly demonstrates a fundamental concern with power phenomena. This is particularly so with regards to the social processes through which power is enacted. Viewed as such, Goffman's work is to do with examining how the rules of collective engagement are established, enforced, challenged and broken (Dennis & Martin, 2005). Indeed, Goffman's own conceptualisation of his work was as an 'analysis of the social arrangements enjoyed by those with institutional authority ' (1983, p. 17), with the self-positioned as a 'performed character' (Goffman, 1969). In this sense, the power held by people was considered as performative. Far from being some kind of underhand scheming, however, such performances were considered benign fabrications (Goffman, 1974); that is, they involved ideas impressed on others in their perceived best interests.
The coaches' 'performances' at Waverley were additionally not exclusively dependent upon intentions. Rather, they were limited by the boundaries of social structure in addition to others' validation and responses (Goffman, 1959). Indeed, being so authenticated, the coaches' actions in this respect were co-constructed by contextual cultures and the stakeholders who comprised them. In turn, the coaches' 'fronts' and 'personas', as manifest by and through Gareth, influenced or reproduced the club's values and cultures (e.g. approachability, hard work, commitment), thus further consolidating personal power. Indeed, this is what is meant when it is said that 'power is relational' (Winter, 1996); that is, power as a function of 'reciprocally enacted roles, institutions and understandings' (p. 742). Again, this moves the analysis away from power as a seemingly 'common sense' game of strateges and tactics; as something that can be 'caught, held, bowled or just lost, as in the game of cricket' (Westwood, 2002, p. 135).
Although the coaches' charming performances were no doubt convincing, this is not to say that the athletes were somehow power-less in context. They were certainly not cultural dupes unquestioningly blinded by dazzling charismatic leads. Such an interpretation would take us back to where we started in relation to the 'all or nothing' zero-sum power game. The athletes here then were certainly not without power. However, far from resisting the seductive power they were subject too, as those in less powerful positions are often prone to do, they appeared compliant in its use. Although such seemingly receptive behaviour could be understood in terms of Bourdieu's notion of the complicity of the dominated (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), the 'hard edged' symbolic violence grounded in a collective deception associated with such complicity, was absent. Rather, what was evident at Waverley was the athletes as willing subjects in their own seduction, with players being very aware of the 'being a family' narrative (with all its positive connotations) and Gareth's position at the head of it. Consequently, similar to those whose awareness of advertising as an idealistic as opposed to a realistic representation of material life still doesn't hinder a purchase, the players continued to find the interests that sought to compel and influence them (i.e. the coaches and their actions) attractive and appealing (Winter, 1996). Hence, the pressure and attention exerted upon the athletes were generally welcomed, as they became consciously seduced subjects' in consuming the coaching they were subject to (Westwood, 2002). In this respect, even among audiences who can decode others' performances, the seduction is enjoyed.
Two further sense-making concepts worthy of mention here, to develop a more complete picture of the context under study, include Weber's (1968) charismatic authority and Blau's (1986) social exchange. Weber (1968) conceptualised charismatic authority, not in terms of certain personality leadership traits, but as being grounded in the structure of the ensuing social relationships. As opposed to the unilateral imposition of a leader's will then, what was crucial here in terms of establishing charisma's validity was its recognition and acceptance by those subject to it. Such authority, although potentially transformational and far-reaching, was considered a relational phenomenon, constructed in the social interactions between leaders and followers; in this case, between the coaches and athletes. Both coaches and players were thus considered active in the creation of the charismatic bond, with each gaining something from the association. In this respect, the created attachment was founded 'on an exchange of mutual needs, where the charismatic leader is granted authority by the followers in return for recognition, affection, and reinforcement of worth' (Hofmann & Dawson, 2014, p. 351).
In developing such a notion, Peter Blau's work on exchange and power in social life (1986) explained that individuals engage in interaction in search of something and, in doing so, 'each gains something while always paying a price' (Blau, 1955, p. 108). People then choose who to associate and interact with in the expectation of (social) rewards. Individuals, therefore, need to not only recognise attractiveness (i.e. potential profits) in others, but to also demonstrate attractive qualities which will appeal to those others (Blau, 1986); something evident in the studied coaches' charming personas.
According to Blau (1986), more often than not, individuals act upon the anticipation of rewards on the basis of incomplete information; that is, the profits which may be collected are not easily predictable. Moreover, individuals act in the expectation that whatever the hoped outcome of the interaction might be, it will, at least, generate a sense of gratitude and/or obligation for returning the 'investment' (Blau, 1986). Relatedly, the coaches at Waverley relied on the creation of an underlying sense of willing obligation to obtain compliance from the players. Here, as opposed to stimulating a given reaction to a specific deed, the coaches made use of the sentiments generated about them: that is, from their ongoing demonstrations of friendliness, supportiveness and interest, thereby demonstrating to the athletes that they could or perhaps should be trusted. Naturally, as discussed above, being conscious of such seductive actions, the athletes subsequently 'bought into' the scenario that engagement here was a mutually beneficial endeavour.

Conclusion
An in-depth analysis of the coaches' everyday actions portrayed them in a constant search for control over their working conditions and the engagement of athletes. The coaching witnessed was connected to manipulative behaviours and selections of 'fronts'. However, rather than being reflective of Machiavellian intentions, these behaviours were seen as part of both tactical and tactful strategies, employed in the athletes' best interests. Indeed, they were the result of an often unwitting, implicit understanding that the interactions were, although part of a beneficial exchange, an attempt to pool the coaches' power; that is, the expressions of care and affirmation evident were aimed at generating further power and influence for the carers (i.e. the coaches). Hence, the coaches' everyday activity featured the creation of 'charming' personas to convince others (principally the athletes) that a joint association and continual investment would be beneficial for all concerned. According to Blau (1986), individuals act towards others' best interests with the expectations of a degree of gratitude and even obligation in return. It was through balancing investments and benefits that the coaches regulated their acts, so as to maintain and negotiate their fluctuating levels of control over a relational and complex process. Such an account of coaching as a covert process for control naturally takes issue with much of the current functional literature related to coaching (e.g. Duda, 2013aDuda, , 2013b. In rejecting such potrayals we further open up possibilities to critically explore the essence or nature of coaches' work and how they go about it. A part of this process is to reclaim such concepts as seduction, charisma and power, not as ones that ought to be avoided or mythicised but embraced and better understood in relation to the quest for improvements that coaches are invariable and constantly involved in. Not unsurprisingly perhaps, we consider that such an understanding can also serve to improve the coach education fare on offer. It can principally do so through encouraging coaches to reflect critically on how and why they act in the ways they do when coaching; that is, what their actions are orientated towards, and why they think such action is beneficial to what they are trying to achieve. As previously argued (Jones & Davey, 2011), this is where coach education should increasingly venture; into the ground which, although some consider murky, we see as liberating. That is, into areas of coaches' 'intentionality' and 'whatness' of action. Naturally, such ideas are not to be used without careful, critical and considered thought, but not to have them in the dialogue results in unnecessary poverty of professional development, of limiting the promise of future possibilities, and of what can be for coaches.