Written by: Srinidhi Arun Pennathur,
Published on: 26th Mar 2025.
Introduction: When it comes to athletic performance, it is not only the athlete’s ability and mental resilience that play a part in their performance. Coaches are also an integral and influential part of the equation. A coach is “someone who trains a person or team of people in a particular sport.” The type of coaching style can significantly shape an athlete’s mindset, motivation and performance. This article seeks to touch upon the influence coaches have, the types of coaching styles, and highlight existing research about their impact on players' motivation and athletic performance. It also aims to examine coaching from both an Indian and a gendered lens.
Coaches and Their Influence: A study conducted by Mertens et al. (2018) examined the influence that both coaches and athlete leaders have on team performance, competence and motivation. What they found was that when coaches and athlete leaders supported their fellow players, team performance immediately improved, although coaches had a more substantial impact. This suggests that direct instruction from a more knowledgeable source is more effective and therefore more capable of providing valuable technical advice. Additionally, coaches also had a significantly broader impact on both athletes’ speed and accuracy.
Types of Coaching Styles: Typically, coaching styles fall into the following four broader categories:
1. Democratic coaching: With a strong emphasis on collaboration and sportsmanship, democratic coaching is rooted in trust and accountability, which facilitates healthy team dynamics. It allows for the coach and their trainees to make joint decisions, providing a safe space for the athletes to voice their opinions, balancing the coach-player relationship.
2. Autocratic coaching: This type of coaching is more authoritarian, shaped by micromanagement and singular decision-making. While this method of coaching may do well in the hands of a genuinely competent coach, there is much potential for damage to the player’s well-being and performance, whether through a decrease in motivation or overlooking a player’s expertise.
3. Laissez-faire coaching: Athletes are allowed more autonomy in their training and decision making, which provides the advantage of independence, however, its lack of structure can lead to certain inconsistencies, especially if the players aren’t naturally motivated or self-disciplined.
Holistic coaching: Holistic coaching acknowledges the multifaceted aspects of an athlete’s life, including their physical and emotional well-being, along with their other life commitments. A coach recognizes that every sportsperson is human before they are an athlete.
What Existing Research Has to Say: Isoard-Gautheur et al. (2012), for instance, used the self-determination theory (SDT)1 to explore the relationship between different coaching styles and burnout experienced by young handball players. They found that controlling coaches tamper with a player’s sense of autonomy, thereby impacting their overall well-being, whereas those who encouraged independence amongst athletes actually fostered competence and autonomy. They further found that mentally healthier athletes tend to be more self-determined, and not meeting psychological needs pushes them to play more out of pressure than personal enjoyment. Intrinsically motivated athletes who play for the love of their sport are less likely to feel the brunt of burnout and reduced accomplishment, whereas amotivation has the opposite effect. Therefore, autonomy-supportive coaches consequently reduce the risk of burnout, which may otherwise be aggravated by autocratic coaching due to less healthy motivation and unmet psychological needs. These findings are important because they can be applied to training; 1 A theory explaining how the social environment can impact well-being and motivation. In sports, this can refer to the impact of a particular coaching style’s influence on an athlete. autonomy-supportive methods can foster self-driven motivation and simultaneously prevent players from experiencing burnout through emotional exhaustion or feelings of inadequacy (p.294).
While this study could not definitively establish a cause-effect-relationship2 between coaching styles, psychological needs, motivation and burnout, it still provides a foundation for developing strategies to enhance athlete well-being and performance by highlighting the critical role coaches play in their lives. Acknowledging the risks associated with authoritative coaching methods can thus inform healthy interventions that promote long-term athletic development.
Juxtaposing the above-mentioned study, Diosalan et al. (2024) examined the influence of various coaching styles, behavior and motivational strategies on athletes from public schools who took part in competitions up to the national level. They found that most coaches prefer the democratic method, as it is an amalgam of both authority, and player-involvement in decision making, problem solving and goal setting. Authoritarian methods were the least preferred due to perceived ineffectiveness in motivating athletes. To bolster these findings, gold medalists displayed better performance with democratic coaches, contrary to which poorer performance was strongly associated with negative strategies such as intimidation. With respect to motivation, coaches frequently used both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for athlete success in competitions. It was found that several coaching behaviors such as feedback, positive reinforcement and motivation, significantly impacted athletic prowess as opposed to coaching style alone.
Llanos-Muñoz et al. (2023) studied correlations between interpersonal coaching styles, specifically the need-supportive style,3 and resilience4 in younger athletes, and found that supportive coaches increase resilience through feedback, emotional support and encouragement. The beginning of a sports season saw boosted resilience both individually and 2A relationship between two events or situations where one directly causes the other. 3Understanding, flexible and motivating coaches who help athletes feel autonomous, competent and connected, increasing self esteem, well-being and resilience. 4The capacity to recover quickly from difficulties during team performances, but individual resilience seemed to sustain until the end of the season, likely due to having accomplished the shared team-goal. Need-supportive coaches were also instrumental in driving team commitment by acknowledging effort and providing constructive feedback.
From the Female Lens The aforementioned findings have catered mostly to male coaches and athletes. It is paramount to then consider how coaching and therefore coaching styles, would affect female athletes. Jowett et al. (2022) addressed significant questions regarding the underrepresentation of women in sports coaching, and identified several contributing factors. Female coaches often exhibit lower levels of confidence, intention, and motivation to pursue coaching roles. Additionally, coaching environments entrenched in gendered assumptions about female coaches which reinforce male dominance, sexism and a lack of proper support, further create a space which is not conducive to the advancement of female coaches. Additionally, Kuntz and Moorfield (2024) analyzed social and psychological theories on gender stereotypes in the context of sports coaching, and found that despite athletes valuing coaches for traits including empathy, democratic and supportive behavior instead of gender, implicit biases associating female coaches with lower-competition or youth sports and male coaches with its elite counterpart, still persist. Organizations continue to function on outdated gender norms, hindering women’s representation at more elite levels.
However, some studies provide a somewhat positive outlook through challenging stereotypes. For instance, Sitler (2014) looked at how gender stereotypes about female coaches affect the motivation of female athletes in team sports. She found that both masculine and feminine female coaching styles had similar impacts on motivation, with feminine coaching styles - characterized by empathy and collaboration - having a slightly more positive impact. Nonetheless, both styles are more or less equally effective, underscoring the effectiveness of female coaches, especially for training female athletes.
The Cross Country Canada Women's Committee (n.d.) highlighted specific aspects related to female athletes that may not be as understood by males, including issues regarding body-image and self esteem, risks of disordered eating due to pressure to maintain a certain body type, and the impact of puberty which can affect both performance and self-image. Coaches must attempt to create a more supportive space, acknowledging their unique experiences and needs to foster meaningful growth in their athletic journeys.
From the Indian Context: Manoj and Bipin (2013) examined the coaching preferences of athletes trained under different coaches affiliated with the Kerala State Sports Council and the Sports Authority of India. They found that female athletes preferred democratic coaching a little more than their male counterparts. While democratic coaching wasn't the highest ranked behavior, it was definitely preferred to autocratic coaching, but less than say, positive feedback. Interestingly, male athletes leaned slightly more towards autocratic methods than females, however, this difference was marginal, and the overall preference was very low. The lack of strong preference for social support behaviors5 might suggest that athletes view it as less relevant to their athletic success, especially female athletes.
In another study by Andile and Jhalukpreya (2013) examining coaching preferences of Indian and South African student athletes, Indian athletes contrastingly preferred social support behavior more than democratic or autocratic methods, suggesting an emphasis on personal relationships rather than coaching style. Here, we can see regional variability within the Indian context itself, suggesting unique cultural or social dynamics that may emphasize one style of coaching over the other. However, there was no contradiction in democratic preference. Singh (2017) studied national-level female volleyball players and their coaching style preferences, and found leanings towards social support behaviors and positive feedback. Democratic training was preferred, but not as much as the aforementioned methods. Across these studies, we may find that positive feedback and social support are consistently valued. Additionally, democratic coaching was relevant, although the degree of preference varied, which highlights the influence of cultural differences on the universal appeal of this coaching style. Refers to the actions people take to demonstrate care, concern, and assistance towards others.
In fact, Ranjan and Nair (2020) draw parallels between contemporary coaching and the traditional Guru-Shishya relationship6 in Indian coaching, suggesting the importance of mentorship and personal growth, and that using this historical model can enrich modern executive coaching through holistic and empathetic approaches. They also discuss two coaching styles inspired by Indian thought; the WATCH Framework (Words, Actions, Thoughts, Character, Heart), and the Mahakavyas of Leadership (To: be, do, see, tell). Both models are based on values that an ideal coach should maintain, and like a Guru, they must be a role model inspiring growth and trust.
Unfortunately, Indian athletics coaching poses challenges, as highlighted by Gautam and Dwivedi (2023). This includes infrastructural deficiencies, shortage of equipment, uneven coach-to-athlete ratios, financial barriers and gaps in implementing policies. Consequently, athletes may struggle to train to their full potential, and may not receive the attention that they need during a critical time period of their training, the broader impact of which can lead to global underperformance. Another paper by Jain et al. (2018) discussed how popular measures such as the CBS-S (Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport) are not fully applicable to Indian elite sports. Indian athletes with foreign coaches, who focus more on technical skills but struggle to build rapport due to cultural disparities, face additional challenges.
Therefore, addressing these challenges is crucial not only to individual development but also to sustain a thriving sports culture in the country, including ensuring access to quality infrastructure, funding, recruiting qualified coaches, and integrating sports science experts such as physiotherapists and psychologists (Gautam & Dwivedi, 2023). Further, tailoring coaching practices to training and employing sports psychologists who understand the barriers faced by Indian athletes can create a trusting relationship and attempt at bridging gaps in performance (Jain et al., 2018).
Implications and Conclusion: This article highlighted coaching and the influence it can have in an athlete’s life, as well as the types of coaching styles and the impact that these coaching styles have on athletic motivation and behavior. It also took a step beyond the Western, masculine lens to explore how coaching and coaching styles affect female coaches and athletes. Research on Indian athletes reveal a preference for training and instruction over democratic coaching, although the latter is not completely disregarded. In fact, there are specific models of leadership inspired by Indian disciplines and culture. However, one finding across all of the above research is that autocratic coaching is consistently either not preferred or the least preferred amongst athletes, regardless of gender or nationality. Coaches can either make or break athletes, and must therefore focus on adopting athlete-centered approaches, and also be culturally sensitive and adaptable in order to align their methods with their trainees’ expectations.
Perhaps, coaches can consider sharing their responsibility with student athletes; Mertens et al. (2018), in their study, also found that athlete leaders were instrumental in boosting motivation among the athletes, suggesting that delegating motivational roles through peer leadership can foster an environment maximizing both motivation and performance.
References Andile, M., & Jhalukpreya, S. (2013). Leadership behaviour preferences of student-athletes: A comparative study of South Africa and india. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(11). https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n11p81
Cross Country Canada Women's Committee . (n.d.). Effectively coaching female athletes. In S. Hoar, B. Evans, K. Davies, K. McMahon, & S. Kealey (Eds.), Nordiq Canada. https://nordiqcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/Coaching-Women-final-EN.pdf
Definition of sport coach. (2025, January 20). Collinsdictionary.com; HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sport-coach#google_vignette Diosalan, S. A., Diosalan Jr., E. I., Martinez, C. M., & Garita, C. G. (2024). The role of coaching styles and motivation in shaping athlete performance: An in-depth examination. Journal of Electrical Systems, 20(10), 6337–6345.
Farah, H., Khan, S., & Adeel, S. (2021). Coaching strategies and sports performance of female athletes. THE SKY-International Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences (IJPESS), 5(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.51846/the-sky.v5i1.1062
Gautam, A. K., & Dwivedi, S. K. (2023). Towards sustainable growth: Overcoming challenges in Indian athletics coaching". IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 28(12). https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-28120196100 Isoard-Gautheur, S., Guillet-Descas, E., & Lemyre, P.-N. (2012). A prospective study of the influence of perceived coaching style on burnout propensity in high level young athletes: Using a self-determination theory perspective. The Sport Psychologist, 26(2), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.26.2.282
Jain, T., Sharma, R., & Singh, A. (2018). The coaching behavior scale for sport (CBS-S): Factor structure examination for elite indian sportsperson. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327631841_The_Coaching_Behavior_Scale_fo r_Sport_CBS-S_Factor_structure_examination_for_elite_Indian_sportsperson
Jowett, S., Gosai, J., & Slade, K. (2022). Women in coaching: What are the problems and probable solutions? Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 17(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpssepr.2022.17.1.16
Kuntz, J. C., & Moorfield, J. (2024). Exploring athletes’ gendered views of coaches and their impact of coach competency ratings. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 74, 102664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102664
Llanos-Muñoz, R., Pulido, J. J., Nobari, H., Raya-González, J., & López-Gajardo, M. A. (2023). Effect of coaches’ interpersonal style on young athletes’ individual resilience and team adherence intention: A season-long investigation. BMC Psychology, 11(412), 412. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01445-3
Manoj, T. I., & Bipin, G. (2013). The review of leadership styles of coaches working in sports hostels of kerala. International Journal of Physical Education, Health and Sports Sciences, 2(2). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manoj-Ti/publication/365130089_THE_REVIEW
