The impact of coaching styles on team success

Coaching is often talked about in terms of strategy, motivation or style but rarely is the interplay between coaching style and team success examined with the depth it deserves. When done well, coaching doesn’t simply guide it transforms a group of individuals into a high‐performing collective. The right coaching style can be a profound catalyst for success; the wrong one can quietly undermine it. In this post I’ll explore how different coaching styles influence team outcomes, unpack what the research tells us, offer real-world examples, and suggest how leaders and coaches can intentionally shape their approach for better results

1. What do we mean by “coaching style”?

Before diving into impact, it’s important to clarify what we’re referring to. A “coaching style” is the habitual way a coach interacts with the team: how they communicate, make decisions, enforce rules, build relationships, motivate, and respond to adversity. It’s a blend of leadership behaviours, interpersonal dynamics and situational judgements.

In sports and business alike, researchers identify styles such as autocratic (directive, top-down), democratic (inclusive, participative), transformational (visionary, inspirational), and laissez-faire (hands-off) among others. For example, in one study of collegiate athletes, the autocratic style was least preferred because it limited creativity and autonomy.

Crucially, the effectiveness of a style isn’t universal it depends on the team’s stage of development, the task, the environment, and the individuals involved. That leads us to how style influences success.

2. How coaching style affects team success

2.1 Building trust and cohesion

A fundamental driver of team success is cohesion how well team members share values, communicate, support each other, and act in sync. Coaching style sets the tone for this dynamic.

For instance, a democratic or transformational coach who solicits input, values individual voices, frames a compelling “why”, and models vulnerability fosters trust. Research shows that coach leadership behaviours linked with individual and collective strengths have a strong relationship with team functioning.

Conversely, a strictly autocratic style may produce order and short-term compliance, but it often inhibits psychological safety and open communication two ingredients for high-performing teams. The 2025 systematic review of sports coaching styles highlighted that without a positive culture, even technically skilled teams struggle to realize their potential.

2.2 Versatility and situational fit

One of the biggest insights in recent research is that no one style dominates all situations. Coaches who adapt their style to the maturity of the team or the nature of the task tend to produce better outcomes. In one investigation of situational coaching styles in sport, athletes’ preferences and perceptions of leadership varied over time meaning the “right” coaching style shifted as the season progressed.

For example: a young development team might need more structure, direction and oversight (leaning autocratic/transactional), whereas a mature, self‐managing elite squad might thrive under a more transformational or democratic style.

Thus, the impact of coaching style on team success often comes down to fit: the style matched to team needs, not blanket adoption of the “preferred” style.

2.3 Performance, motivation and psychological outcomes

Performance isn’t just about physical ability or tactics it’s about motivation, clarity of roles, resilience under pressure, and sustained effort. Coaching style influences all these.

A coaching style that blends clear goals, feedback and accountability with empowerment and growth orientation tends to lift performance. For example, in the study “Influence of the Coach’s Method and Leadership Profile on Outcomes” (2021) the findings showed that when coaches used teaching methods that aligned with athlete preferences and leadership profiles (such as more supportive behaviour), teams reported better psychological outcomes and performance.

In contrast, research into autocratic styles suggests they can undermine intrinsic motivation and risk stalling long-term growth despite short-term gains.

2.4 Shaping culture and long‐term success

Success is rarely a one-off event; sustainable success comes from culture, habits, identity. Coaching style is a major architect of that culture.

The 2025 review on team culture in sports found that effective coaching styles contribute to a positive sporting culture characterised by trust, mutual respect, inclusion, growth mindset and accountability which in turn correlates with higher levels of team success.

Put another way: the coach isn’t just managing training sessions they’re defining how the team behaves, how it responds to setbacks, how it develops its own leaders. That influence often outlasts any single season.

3. Real-world examples: How style shows up in practice

Example A: The “transformational” champion coach

Consider the story of Phil Jackson, who coached the Chicago Bulls and Los Angeles Lakers to multiple NBA championships. Jackson’s style combined strong vision, mindfulness practices, group rituals and inclusion of player voices. He didn’t rely on rigid hierarchy alone; he built a culture of shared purpose and leadership within the team.

This is a textbook instance of a transformational coaching style: inspiring, aligning values, encouraging autonomy yet maintaining high standards. The result? Teams that not only won but sustained winning by playing unselfishly, trusting each other and handling pressure.

Example B: The “directive” high-pressure coach

By contrast, think of traditional football (soccer) coaches in elite clubs who apply a more autocratic style: strict discipline, clear roles, intense instruction, quick-fire decision making. In high-stakes, time-critical environments this can work especially when players are highly trained and the context demands firm control.

But that model has its limits. As research shows, while autocratic style may deliver in structured, predictable tasks, it may reduce motivation and innovation particularly in teams that require adaptability and creativity.

Example C: Business adaptation - coaching in corporate teams

The corporate world increasingly borrows from sports coaching. In a business team, a leader who simply directs tasks (autocratic) might push output in the short term, but a coach who engages the team, solicits input, builds shared vision (democratic/transformational) often yields more sustainable performance.

A 2024 qualitative study of coaching leadership in organizational contexts found that leaders who emphasised individual strengths, delegated appropriately and fostered collective efficacy produced better team outcomes.

4. What the statistics tell us

• A systematic literature review found that coaching styles and team culture are deeply linked: teams with coaches who adopt inclusive, growth-oriented styles report better performance, cohesion and psychological well-being.

·         Research in sports leadership indicates that democratic leadership supports more positive coach-athlete relationships and better perceptions of team environment.

·         In one investigation of the teaching methods and leadership profiles of coaches, alignment of coach style with athlete maturity and preferences positively predicted outcomes.

 

While I couldn’t locate global quantifiable percentages for “X style = Y% better performance” across all domains, the pattern is clear style matters, and better‐fitting styles yield superior outcomes.

5. Unique insights: What’s often missed

Insight 1: Style is not fixed it’s dynamic

Effective coaches don’t adopt one rigid style. They sense context, adapt their approach, shift modes when needed (for example: more directive during crisis, more inclusive during team development). Coaching style is less about adopting a label, more about flexible use of behaviours.

Insight 2: Team maturity trumps style

If you focus on matching coaching style to the team’s developmental stage—rather than picking the “best” style you’ll see better results. An elite, self-managing squad may chafe under strict control; a fledgling team may flounder under laissez-faire freedom. Research supports this situational lens.

Insight 3: The invisible side of style values, norms, identity

We often talk style as behaviours: how the coach speaks, plans, instructs. But a major part is what the coach values, what behaviours they reward, what norms they allow. That invisible fabric shapes culture more than any single training session. Coaches who articulate clear values (“how we do things here”) and live them shape teams that carry those values even when the coach isn’t present.

Insight 4: Style affects more than performance it affects retention, development, innovation

Teams coached in a growth-oriented, inclusive style often report stronger psychological safety, better individual development and lower turnover. In fast-changing environments, where innovation and adaptability are key, those “soft” outcomes translate into big success. So coaching style becomes a strategic lever, not simply a day-to-day tactic.

6. Practical guidance: How coaches and team leaders can apply this

1. Assess your team’s stage and needs.
   Ask: How mature is the team? Do members require structure and direction, or autonomy and innovation? What’s the task context—predictable, high volume, or ambiguous and creative?
2. Choose and articulate your approach.
   Decide how you intend to lead: Will you emphasise input, collaboration, growth, or control and quick decisions? Communicate this to the team to set expectations and build alignment.
3. Develop adaptable behaviours.
   Don’t stick rigidly to one style. For example, when entering a high-pressure game or project, be clear and directive; during a developmental phase use more democratic questioning and feedback loops.
4. Embed values and culture explicitly.
   Define norms (“we listen, we speak up, we learn from mistakes”), lead by example, reward behaviours that align with your culture. The qualitative research reminds us that style → culture → success.
5.  Gather feedback.
   Encourage honest input from team members: How do they feel about the coaching environment? Do they feel trusted, heard, capable? Adjust accordingly.
6. Monitor outcomes beyond wins.
   Wins matter, but so do trust, cohesion, psychological safety, and adaptability. Measure (formally or informally) how these are evolving to ensure long-term success, not just short-term results

Coaching style is not just a nuance it’s a strategic lever for team success. When a coach aligns their style with the team’s maturity, task demands and culture-aspirations, the payoff is substantial: stronger cohesion, higher motivation, better adaptability, and sustained performance. Conversely, a mismatch or rigid approach can stall progress or even damage team dynamics.

For anyone leading a team whether in sports, business, education, or any collective endeavour the message is clear: invest in your style, adapt deliberately, shape culture intentionally. In doing so, you don’t just lead a team you build one that can thrive, evolve and excel