Coaching Styles: Do they really exist?

Alex Twitchen I have a confession to make, even though I have been an active soccer coach for very nearly 30 years, coaching hundreds if not thousands of different performers during that time, I have never felt comfortable or truly understood the meaning of coaching styles. What does a command style mean, equally what exactly is guided discovery or laissez faire, or question and answer, are these really styles what in any case is a coaching style? Sure I understand these concepts at a certain level, I have delivered them as part of various coach education courses more times than I can remember, but to me they still remain quite problematic terms. Let me give you an example. Some years ago I put together a short workshop on coaching styles for a group of soccer coaches. To try and stimulate some debate and discussion I created an activity around two images that I found from a childrens book. The first image was of a big bear leaning over a small boy, the bears stance was aggressive and intimidating the little boy was scared and cowering in the shadow of the bear. Onto this image I added a speech bubble from the bear and in this bubble I added the words What kind of ingredients do you think you would use to make a chocolate cake? In the second image the bear and boy were sat together in a scene of harmony and friendship, onto this image I again added a speech bubble from the bear, this time it said now listen th ese are the ingredients you need to make a chocolate cake. The activity is quite straightforward, in the first image was the bear using a command style of coaching or question and answer? In the second image was it really a command and autocratic style or was it a form of guided discovery with the bear working with the boy in a productive harmonious learning environment to find out how to make a chocolate cake albeit that the bear told him the ingredients, the boy didnt discover them himself! The activity seemed to work we had a really good discussion on the notion of coaching styles and the relationship between what you say and the correspondence to the way it is said and the associated body language. Some years down the line, and as a consequence of continually challenging the accepted wisdom around coaching styles, I have re-defined my understanding of coaching styles and linked this to the use of appropriate coaching methods with the emphasis being on using the right method at the right time for the right reason. Let me explain further.

A coaching style to me more accurately reflects the personality and character of a coach. I know that I am (mostly) quite calm, reflective, and generally quiet, I try to build positive relationships with performers and really hate conflict and shouting, I consciously never swear in front of players and dont rant and run up and down the touch line or verbally bully players or officials. I have never thrown a cup of tea (or an energy drink!!) at players during a halftime rant and actually generating a good rant is something I find really hard to do! That is the kind of person I am and I think it is reflected in the way that I conduct my coaching. My coaching style is therefore an extension of my

personality, it reflects my personality and outlook on life, there is very little I can do to change or alter it it is who I am. Consequently I would reserve the term coaching style to explain and define the relationship between the personality of a coach and how that influences the way they approach their coaching role and form and develop their relationships with performers. In this way each coach probably has their own unique style that is personal to them.

So if that is what I would describe as a coaching style how would I describe the process through which I intervene and work with performers. This is where I use the term coaching methods. Coaching methods to me are literally the methods that a coach can use to influence, shape, construct and organise their coaching and deliver the appropriate impact on performers. I accept that we can define a whole variety of methods but these are the methods that I find I tend to use most. Instruction This is where performers are told what to do, it is an instruction which I expect them to follow. For example I want you to play this pass with the inside of the foot, or once you get the ball in this area it has to be crossed as quickly as possible. With an instruction there is no discussion or debate or no explanation to the instruction. In many respects it is the closest method to a command style. Explanation This is where a coach will explain something but not invite wider discussion with the performers. An explanation helps performers to understand but there is no space to question or challenge the explanation. An example of an explanation would be a soccer coach explaining that the inside of the foot is best used to play a pass over a short distance with the greatest level of accuracy because the inside of the foot is the largest surface area on the foot and therefore enables the greatest level of control. Demonstration Here the coach will provide a visual demonstration of the point they are making. Often a demonstration is supported by another method. Closed Questions I find it perplexing that in all the literature on coaching styles there is little or no mention of the difference between a closed question and an open question. A closed question should elicit a short response from performers such as What part of the foot is best used to play an accurate pass over 10m?

Open Questions Open questions offer more opportunity for coaches and performers to enter into a dialogue and exchange ideas and views. Open questioning such as what do you think we should do in this situation? are valuable in terms of learning and understanding but require a highly skilled approach to their use. Without that skilled use open questions can open up a Pandoras Box of discussion and debate that might not prove to be particularly productive. Setting a Challenge (Problem Solving) Here the coach can set the performers a challenge or a problem. Meeting the challenge or solving the problem becomes the responsibility of the performers with the coach acting as a guide and facilitator. I actually think this is a misunderstood method and one that is generally used more often than is otherwise thought. When I played soccer I can remember a number of times an irate coach telling the team that we were responsible for sorting ourselves out and playing better in the second half, we had got ourselves into the mess and we had to get ourselves out of it coupled with a good dose of verbals and yes a flying cup or two was that a command style or using a problem solving method? Play and review This is a method that I really like and increasingly use with my players. This method involves setting up a practice and letting the players play. There is very little input from the coach, almost none, the coach is silent. After a period of time the practice is stopped and the coach leads a de-brief and discussion about the practice. Sometimes I have asked the players to record their thoughts on flipchart paper as part of this post practice discussion. The key to this method is to carefully plan the nature of the practice and ensure that there is a point and meaning to the de-brief. Here is an example that I have used with my soccer team. I set up a 8v8 small sided game and gave an instruction to one team, without the other team knowing what that instruction was, the instruction was to keep the ball and play low risk, whatever you do dont risk losing possession of the ball! The teams played for 10 minutes with me being silent on the side. After 10 minutes we stopped and went into a de-brief, the first question I asked the other team was could they identify the instruction that I had given the team they had being playing against, did they work it out when they were playing? This then lead into a wider discussion about the merits or otherwise of playing along the spectrum of low and high risk passing. The point here though is that in this method I let the players play but had a very carefully planned set of de-brief activities that connected the playing experience to the purpose of the session.

Consequently these are the seven methods that I tend to use and there are some key points to be made that explain how I use them. 1) I use all the methods and question myself as to whether or not I am using the right method at the right time for the right reason.

2) My choice of method is context specific. By that I mean that the balance between the methods I use is dependent on who I am coaching and the nature of the session. For example I have a basic technical passing practice that I use as a pre-game warm-up but I will also use it as a means to help players learn about passing angles. When the practice is used as a pre-game warm-up it is delivered instructionally, I tell the players what I want and expect. When it is used in training I will ask more questions where do you think you can move to receive the pass and make a good angle for the player in possession? Same practice, different context different use of coaching methods. 3) I might use different methods within one intervention, so for example I might tell one player what to do but then ask supporting players how they react to the first player, consequently a mixture of instruction and question and answer with perhaps a dose or two of a demonstration thrown in for good measure. 4) Knowing how to use the right method at the right time for the right reason is an indicator of coaching expertise. That is, expert coaches have developed the knowledge and understanding as to the best methods of working with players and which method to use at what time and why. For me that is a skill and it is a differentiating marker between expert and non-expert coaches. Over the past few years I have been fortunate to experiment and play around with ideas like this with undergraduate students on a sports coaching degree. We have now reached the point that if they use the term coaching styles uncritically in their written review and evaluation of their practical coaching sessions then the big red marker pen is coming out! I have also developed a learning activity that I have found to be particularly productive in helping students to understand when, where and why they might use a particular coaching method. Here is the activity in a soccer context but it can be adapted for any other sport. Below is a table that connects my seven coaching methods against the seven types of practice commonly used soccer training. This generates a 49 cell table.
Instruction Explanation Demonstration Closed Question Open Question Challenge Play and Review

Technical Skill Game Related Functional Phase of Play Small Sided Game 11v11

1 8 15 22 29 36 43

2 9 16 23 30 37 44

3 10 17 24 31 38 45

4 11 18 25 32 39 46

5 12 19 26 33 40 47

6 13 20 27 34 41 48

7 14 21 28 35 42 49

The numbers 1-42 go into a hat (for the sanity of my students we miss out numbers 43-49) each student draws a number and then they have to prepare

a 10 minute coaching session where the objective is to improve short passing to feet that is planned around the practice type and coaching method indicated by their number. For example if a student picks out number 23 from the hat they have to plan a functional session and use an explanation method to improve short passing. The sessions as a learning experience are fascinating and they help the students to understand the point I keep making about different coaching methods. This exercise works so much better than just asking them to deliver any old 10 minute coaching session. We have a good discussion and it helps them to become more critical of the accepted wisdom around coaching styles and it helps them to learn how to use the right method at the right time for the right reason. In essence it makes them consciously think about the method they have to try and use. Of course whilst theoretically there are 49 ways to deliver a session to improve short passing, the reality is that a balance of methods are used within the context of each practice type, and quite often the students will sub-consciously use other methods aside from the one they should be using.

We take this on a stage further by asking the students to plan a session within a particular practice type and then observers on the side will record the different methods that are used. This is also video-taped and the student can review their own performance and see for themselves if they used the right method to deliver the feedback and intervention they wanted to achieve.

I guess the point of writing this analysis is to finally record on paper my doubts and unease as to the efficacy of coaching styles. In a similar way to those who argue that learning styles do not exist then I would say that the concept of coaching styles, as I understand it, is at the very least an inadequate and poor concept to describe the way that coaches actually coach. My coaching style is a reflection of my personality and character, how I work with performers and how I communicate and influence their development is dependent on the relationship between my personal coaching style and my skilled expert use of different coaching methods. As I said in the opening paragraph I find the concept and terminology around coaching styles problematic and over time I have come to see my coaching style as something that reflects my own reflexive self and coaching methods as a more technical process-driven concept that enables me to understand how I work with performers to make them better players and better people.