COACHING STYLES 1

SPORT PSYCHOLOGY: COACHING STYLES

Salvatore Gallo

Fleming College

COACHING STYLES 2

Statement

“One’s style of leadership can determine his or her success as a leader and the

success of the group one leads”. This premise was inspired from psychologist

Kurt Lewin who theorized that one of the factors that determines a leader’s

choice of leadership style is the need to make decisions.

Does that premise always hold true? Can Style lead to success? What makes a

good coach? Is there a one-size-fits-all style or approach? The success of various

coaches in many different sports fuels the debate on what makes a good coach.

Although studies have shown that style can impact a team’s success in my view

there is plenty of examples of successful coaches with various styles and it is

difficult to single out any particular style or styles that will guarantee success.

Sadly it’s been my experience that some good, knowledgeable and passionate

coaches are being systematically filtered out by autocratic teaching methodologies

and scientifically based curriculums that leave no room for creativity and

flexibility. It’s clear for me that for a coach to be successful they need full

autonomy on their coaching method or style. They should not be bound by any

particular teaching methodology or coaching style that prohibits them from fully

exploiting their abilities as a coach or to lead, teach and communicate effectively

with each individual athlete and the team.

COACHING STYLES 3

To begin with let me just say that coaching is a very important job particularly in

the development of young athletes. According to the United States Olympic

Committee’s (USOC) Coaching Development Office the physical and technical

developments are two very important aspects when developing a young athlete.

The physiological development of athletes is also an imperative part when

coaching. They concluded that coaches can play a significant role in the

development and lives of young athletes. It’s also important to remember that

coaching is a very complex and demanding profession and there is factors in a

team’s success that extend beyond the leadership style of the coach.

The success of various coaches with different styles in many sports fuels the

different opinions from so many people at different levels on what makes a good

coach. Because of different personalities and character traits like strengths and

weaknesses there is bound to be many different styles of coaching. A coach’s

individual style is dictated by many dynamics and factors

Sport Psychology and “coaching styles” are relatively new sciences, however lots

of earlier research and studies have been made on the subject of leadership and

teaching in academic settings, which are in my view an integral part of coaching.

Although further research has identified more specific types of leadership, this

early study by Kurt Lewin was very influential in establishing a framework for

other psychologists and behaviour specialists to follow.

COACHING STYLES 4

In 1939 Lewin along with some of his colleagues did a study and identified three

styles of leadership; Autocratic, Democratic and Laissez-Faire. In this study,

schoolchildren were assigned to one of three groups with an authoritarian,

democratic or laissez-fair leader. The children were then led in an arts and crafts

project and their behaviour was observed in response to the different styles of

leadership.

In the autocratic style, the coach takes decisions without consultation. In this

experiment Lewin found that this caused the most level of discontent. An

autocratic style can work when there is no need for input on the decision, where

the decision would not change as a result of input, and where the motivation of

people to carry out subsequent actions would not be affected whether they were or

were not involved in the decision-making.

In the democratic style, although the coach reserves the right to make final

decision the coach involves the people in the decision-making thus facilitating

consensus in the group. It can be problematic when there are a wide range of

opinions and there is no clear way of reaching an equitable final decision. Done

well it will have a positive climate and feedback

The laissez-faire style reduces the leader's involvement in decision-making,

allowing people to make their own decisions, although they may still be

responsible for the outcome. Laissez-faire works best when people are capable

COACHING STYLES 5

and motivated, where there is no requirement for a central coordination, for

example in sharing resources across a range of different people and groups.

Over all the Democratic style was discovered as being the most effective style.

Excessive autocratic styles led to revolution, while under a Laissez-faire style,

people were not coherent in their work and did not put in the energy that they did

when being actively led. Further researchers have identified more specific types

of leadership thus broadening the definition and giving us more insights.

According to the Special Olympics website for instance coaches can be

categorized into 3 groups. Authoritarian, Cooperative and Casual.

Muska Mosston (From Command to Discovery, 1073) also made some important

contributions in his own right by identifying two broad approaches to teaching,

Reproductive and Productive.

Rainer Martens who defined autocratic and democratic coaching styles as

Command Style and the Co-operative Style. (Martens 1942, p.31-32) is also

prominent in the debate.

John Lyle defines autocratic coaching as performance-orientated; authoritarian;

autocratic; directing; dictatorial. He defines democratic coaching as person-

centred; humanistic; sharing; democratic; caring; interactive. (Lyle 2002, p.158)

B. Woods (Applying psychology to Sport, Hodder & Stoughton, 1998) who is

another important contributor in my view identified 4 different styles of coaching.

Command, Reciprocal, Problem Solving and Guided Discovery.

COACHING STYLES 6

The successful coach guidelines for coaching practise by (Penny Crisfield and

Phil Cabral pg 43) identify four main coaching styles. Tell, Sell, Share and

Allow.

Other important studies have shown that coaching styles also affects cohesion

(Carron, Bray & Eys, 2002) and in turn team cohesion has been shown to greatly

affect success.(Ramzaninezhad & Kehstan, 2009). Much of their work support the

contention that the democratic leader is the most effective. Their work is still used

today in different degrees or combinations, including sports and athletics.

The works of Michael Fullan for instance are important because they provide

real evidence to support the idea that a democratic style leader is the most

effective. Most of Fullan’s work regarding educational leadership emphasizes

what he refers to as the Cultural Change Leader (Fullan, 2001), a term that he

uses to help explain the current role of today’s modern leaders, he illustrates the

democratic leader as essential to leading in the culture of change. Aspects like

commitment, relationship building, and knowledge creation and sharing are

examples of key democratic style qualities that are essential to a framework for

effective leadership (Fullan, 2001, p.4).

This idea is elaborated in other works by Fullan like his article The Change

Leader (Fullan, 2002) Fullan states, “The Cultural Change Leader knows that

building relationships and teams is the most difficult skill for leaders in any

educational setting” (Fullan, 2002, p.18). Democratic leadership seems to be

COACHING STYLES 7

linked to the idea of inclusion. There is a strong link to democratic style

leadership practices and encouraging inclusive leadership. In coaching team

sports, it is essential to the team’s success that all, or at least as many members as

possible, feel included in the team. So a democratic style is better for team

cohesion, so that must be the more effective style right?....or is it?

We’ve all seen it or heard about it at least once, top coaches shouting, throwing

things making scenes all to get the best out of their players. From Sir Alex

Ferguson’s of Manchester United soccer team to Jose Mourinho of Chelsea.

John Tortorella who is a Stanley Cup winner with the Tampa Bay Lightning and

ex Vancouver Canucks coach is known as an extreme autocratic coach. I’ve also

seen it first hand as a player with some of my coaches. Almost all my coaches

we’re somewhat authoritarian and some we’re very successful relatively speaking.

If someone did not know any better we could safely assume that a short fuse is a

measure for success. It’s not difficult to make the connection between an

autocratic coaching style and success and to assume that this is the most effective

way to get the best out of teams.

Interestingly enough numerous studies also show that an autocratic style can have

the most impact on the team and some research seems to support the idea that

perhaps the autocratic style is the most effective because of the impact. It has

been shown that an autocratic style can be effective in some situations all be it for

COACHING STYLES 8

short term at least. It has been shown that it can also be useful when dealing with

young or unpredictable teams (Weinberg & Gould, 2003) and democratic styles

have been shown to be less effective for complex problems and are more time

consuming (Chelladurai & Doherty, 1998). Furthermore where large squads of

players are involved, it is possible that more autocratic styles will be more

effective.

A very important piece of work in that respect was done by Daniel Goleman,

Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee (Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with

Emotional Intelligence 2001) that digs deeper and describe six leading styles that

can affect the emotions of the intended subjects thus directly affecting the

individual. They clearly established a connection between emotion and

intelligence. However these are styles, not types. They clearly recognized that a

leader can use any style, and a good mix that is customised to the situation is

generally the most effective approach.

The Visionary Leader moves people towards a shared vision, telling them where

to go but not how to get there, motivating them to move forward. They openly

share information and knowledge, giving knowledge power to others. This leader

can have problems when trying to motivate more experienced individuals. This

style is best used when a fresh start and direction is needed. Generally, it has a

very strong impact on the atmosphere or climate of the group.

COACHING STYLES 9

The Coaching Leader usually links wants to team goals, helping people find

strengths and weaknesses and connecting career goals to actions. They are good at

delegating and demonstrating faith that demands action and justification which

leads to a high level of loyalty. If this approach is not done properly it looks like

micromanaging. It can be used when individuals need to build long-term skills

and capabilities. From an organizational point of view it can be used when long

term solutions and capabilities are required. It has a positive impact on the climate

and cohesion.

The Affiliative Leader connects people to people and thus harmony within the

group. It is a very collaborative style which primes emotional needs over work

needs. Done in a bad way, it avoids emotionally distressing situations such as

constructive critique. On the positive side when used in combination with

visionary leadership it can be very effective. It is best used against the forming of

clicks within the group healing and minimizing stressful situations. It can have a

very positive impact on climate.

The Democratic Leader values participation, input and commitment, dealing

with the good and the bad. On the negative, it can look like there is too much

dialogue but very little effective action. It is best used when simple inputs are

needed or when one is uncertain. When done well it can also have a good positive

impact on climate and cohesion of the group.

COACHING STYLES 10

The Pace-setting Leader creates challenges and exciting goals for individuals

and the group, expecting excellence from people as well as themselves. They

recognize poor performers and demand more from. If need be, they try to save the

situation themselves. On the negative this style tends to be short on guidance and

help, expecting people to figure it out by themselves. They can get results short

term however over the long term this style can lead to exhaustion and decline. I

also seem to lack “Emotional Intelligence”, especially self-discipline and self-

management. It is best used when one has a self-motivated and competent team.

Because this style is difficult to do properly it can have a very negative effect on

the climate of the group.

The Commanding Leader calms fears while giving clear directions by

commanding and expecting full compliance. Someone using this style must

practice a high degree of self-control to be successful. It can seem often distant

and colds. This style is best suited managing crisis situations when one needs full

compliance and unquestioned action. It can also be used with individuals who

have problems that do not respond to other styles. This style can have a disastrous

effect if done badly on the climate of the group

Goleman developed a framework to define leadership styles (Emotional

Intelligence 1995) in which he suggests that the authoritarian style of leadership is

quite possibly the style that affects the climate of group the most. Not surprising

that his work has inspired much modern day analysis of leadership. He is not

alone with some evidence that the democratic style may not be the best approach

COACHING STYLES 11

for leading. The research done by Carter McNamara who’s (Overview of

Leadership in Organizations 1999) offers a complete work on leadership styles.

Borrowing from Lewin’s work, he defines the same three styles in a very

interesting way suggesting that the democratic style has some negative aspects

and that a democratic leader can also be seen in a negative way. Following his

theory the democratic leader can also be seen being unsure of himself and his

relationship with his sub-ordinates, that everything is a matter for group

discussion and decision. Clearly this type of leader seems not to be really leading

at all. McNamara’s work is supported by others who also claim with reason that

the democratic leader can be too democratic and ineffective.

Is the autocratic style more effective then?

It’s important however to note that the majority of research on the topic of

democratic leadership also suggests that democratic leadership is a difficult and

not often used style. As stated by Ken Osborne in his work Democracy,

Democratic Citizenship, and Education (Osborne, 2001) when talking about

democracy in an educational setting “Too often the hidden curriculum serves to

promote qualities that are antithesis of democratic citizenship” (Osborne, 2001,

p.48). He argues that the reason for this lack of teaching democratic values can be

blamed on the lack of democratic teaching styles in a variety of educational

setting, including athletics. It seems that the teaching of democratic values, while

often stressed as important in developing today’s youth is not really practiced by

the people who teach them. Although his research dealt primarily with teaching

COACHING STYLES 12

styles in the educational system it is nevertheless important in my view because it

can easily be applied to coaching. In fact the teaching methods for physical

education in schools are at the base of many coaching styles in athletics

Conclusion

There is host of examples of successful coaches with a variety of coaching styles.

This variety is well reflected by the polarity that exists between Bobby Knight the

infamous basketball coach at Indiana State University and Phil Jackson the

legendary basketball coach of the LA Lakers and the Chicago Bulls. Both are

highly successful coaches in their own right yet they have opposite coaching

styles.

Bobby Knight who often referred to playing basketball as a war was seen as a

great coach. He was recognised as a master teacher and tactician, he is known for

his pugnacity and disciplining his players. Knight who also coached Army before

moving to Indiana was a self-confessed Autocratic in every sense of the word. In

sharp contrast we have Phil Jackson (LA Lakers, Chicago Bulls) the legendary

basketball coach of LA Lakers and Chicago Bulls who is a model of democracy

and gives his players full control on the court. Phil Jackson is often quoted as

giving his players full credit and states that he acted merely as a guide. He is one

of the best coaches of all time in all sports and is regarded as a role model by

many.

COACHING STYLES 13

One key piece of literature that is worth remembering in my view is

Chelladurai’s Multi-dimensional model of leadership. Who stresses the

importance of a leader fitting their coaching style to the needs of the team,

suggesting therefore, that it is not so much whether an autocratic style is more

effective than a democratic, or supportive one, but rather whether the style is right

for the situation and for the team. The importance of coach flexibility cannot be

ignored, with a critical skill being the ability to perceive the needs of the team in

the moment and to adapt as necessary to maximise team performance (Crust &

Lawrence, 2006).

It is my belief that in order to be a good coach at any level especially when

working with young athletes or elite athletes coaches have to possess a range of

different qualities and adapt to different individuals learning styles or situations.

Communication skills are also a very important part of effective coaching and

creating a positive learning environment for the athlete. In reflecting on the type

of coaching used when dealing with athletes, it is a good idea in my view for the

coach to think about the goal of the task, and the roles of both the coach and the

athlete in process.

An important question is, How will I coach? It invites critical thinking about the

selection of a coaching approach for the specific task undertaken. It is important

to be sure that coaching sessions are structured to maximise learning using

relevant learning styles that adapt to any learning style of certain individuals and

groups.

COACHING STYLES 14

Although the research and literature is broad, confusing at times and often with

conflicting point of views, is nonetheless informative and important. Autocratic,

Democratic, Cooperative, Passive these are just some of the terms describing

coaching styles that all coaches should learn more about.

However it is my belief that coaching is a craft that is honed with time, that there

is no right or wrong method of coaching. Notwithstanding the technical qualities a

coach should possess, in my opinion to be a successful coach one must possess

three main characteristics Passion for the sport, Commitment to the team and

Commitment to each athlete’s development. A coach should developed their own

unique coaching style. Based primarily on their own strengths and weaknesses as

well as the athlete’s strengths and weaknesses. Coaches have to learn the

capabilities of everyone around them. Coaches have to learn how to get the best

out of their athletes to be successful.

I’ll end with a quote from none other than Bruce Lee a martial artist and

philosopher that kind of reflects my own philosophy. “A good teacher can never

be fixed in a routine... each moment requires a sensitive mind that is constantly

changing and constantly adapting. A teacher must never impose this student to fit

his favourite pattern; a good teacher functions as a pointer, exposing his student's

vulnerability (and) causing him to explore both internally and finally integrating

himself with his being”. I could have not said it better.

COACHING STYLES 15

Kurt Lewin Leadership Styles, 1939

Muska Mosston (From Command to Discovery, 1973)

B. Woods (Applying psychology to Sport, Hodder & Stoughton, 1998)

John Lyle (Lyle 2002, p.158)

Successful Coaching by Rainer Martens - (Martens 1942, p.31-32)

The successful coach guidelines for coaching (Penny Crisfield and Phil Cabral 2005)

Social Science in Sport (Carron, Bray & Eys, 2002)

Leadership Styles (Ramzaninezhad & Kehstan

Michael Fullan (Leader in the culture of change, 2002)

Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology (Weinberg & Gould, 2003)

Ken Osborne (Democratic Citizenship, and Education 2001)

Ken Osborne (Overview of Leadership in Organizations 1999)

Daniel Goleman (Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence 2001)

Carter McNamara (Overview of Leadership in Organizations 1999)

www.teamusa.org www.fifa.com www.nhl.com www.nba.com