1. COACHING STYLES 1
SPORT PSYCHOLOGY: COACHING STYLES
Salvatore Gallo
Fleming College

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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