Insights

Sidebar

RECENT ARTICLES

Coaching As a Leadership Style: Where It Fits

On
Coaching As a Leadership Style: Where It Fits

A pace-setting leader delivers strong quarterly numbers, then watches two senior team members quietly hand in their notice. The results were real but so was the cost. Daniel Goleman's research into leadership and emotional intelligence names this pattern directly: a style working brilliantly in the short term while eroding the capability an organisation needs for the long one.

Goleman's work identifies six distinct leadership styles, coaching among them.1 This guide sets out all six, where coaching sits among them, and when a leader should reach for it. This should be read in conjunction with of TPC Coaching Academy's wider guide to leadership coaching.

The six leadership styles

Drawing on research across thousands of executives, Goleman found the most effective leaders draw on more than one style, matching their approach to the situation in front of them rather than defaulting to a single mode.

Coercive
Also called directive Demands immediate compliance. Suits emergencies and crises, damaging if used as a default.
Authoritative
Also called visionary Mobilises a team toward a clear vision, offering direction while leaving room for individual initiative.
Affiliative
Builds harmony Prioritises relationships and emotional bonds. Strong for healing rifts, weak on its own for driving performance.
Democratic
Also called participative Builds consensus through participation, gathering input before deciding. Needs a confident, experienced team to work well.
Pacesetting
Expects excellence Sets a high performance bar and expects the team to keep pace. Delivers short-term results, corrosive if sustained too long.
Coaching
Develops for the long term Helps people identify their strengths and areas to develop, connecting individual growth to wider goals.

None of these styles is wrong. Goleman's argument is straightforward: reading the situation, and choosing the style it needs, separates leaders who get lasting results from leaders who get quick ones which do not last.

What makes the coaching style different

Most of the six styles focus on a task, a decision or a result in front of the leader now. The coaching style is the one built for later. It invests time in a person's development on the premise the capability this builds pays back across many future situations, not only the one at hand.

This is also why coaching gets overlooked. It takes longer to show a return than a directive instruction or a pace-setting push, and the leaders who skip it tend to keep solving the same problems personally, rather than building a team able to solve them without help.

When to reach for the coaching style

Coaching works best with a team member who has the will to grow but needs help seeing their own blind spots or building a specific capability. It suits one-to-ones, development conversations, and moments after a setback where the goal is learning rather than blame.

It works less well under genuine time pressure, where a coercive or pacesetting style gets the immediate result the moment needs. The skill lies in knowing which moment is which, and defaulting to coaching once the immediate pressure has passed.

Building the coaching style deliberately

TPC Coaching Academy's guide to the manager as coach sets out how to build coaching into a leadership style day to day. The Coach Practitioner programme develops the underlying skill in structured practice.

Frequently asked questions

What are the six leadership styles?
Daniel Goleman's research names six leadership styles: coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and coaching. Each draws on a different aspect of emotional intelligence, and effective leaders tend to move between several rather than relying on one.
What is the coaching leadership style?
The coaching leadership style focuses on developing a team member's strengths and capability for the long term, rather than directing a task or decision in the moment. It connects individual growth to wider team and organisational goals.
Why is coaching under-used as a leadership style?
Coaching takes longer to show a return than more directive styles, so leaders under time pressure often default to giving instructions instead. This tends to leave leaders solving the same problems personally rather than building a team capable of solving them without help.
When should a leader use the coaching style instead of a directive one?
Coaching suits situations with time to invest in a person's development, such as one-to-ones or a debrief after a setback. A directive or pacesetting style suits genuine emergencies where an immediate result outweighs longer-term development.
Does using a coaching leadership style mean giving up authority?
No. A leader using a coaching style still sets direction and holds people accountable. The difference lies in how they get there, developing a person's own thinking rather than supplying the answer every time.
Previous post
Next post