Holistic coaching style definition

Access is not allowed from your IP or your country.

If you think it's a mistake, please contactwith the webmaster of the website

If you the owner of the website. Please enable DEBUG mode in your WordPress (use FTP) to disable GEO Protection.
Read more about it on Debugging in WordPress or contact with SiteGuarding.com support

Session details:

IP: 138.2.74.250

Country: United States

Powered by SiteGuarding.com

Styles vary when it comes to coaching. There is no such thing as a “one size fits all” methodology for athletic coaches.

There is such thing as old-school versus new-school coaching. Old-school techniques involve a punish-first, ask questions later environment which usually helps to invoke fear out of their athletes. Old-school coaching has a rougher personality and they typically ask for undivided attention when speaking and tend to intimidate their players. They typically have a tense relationship with fellow coaches and athletes and the tactic they try to implement is to get their players to perform under the powerful instrument of fear.

Conversely, new-school coaching techniques encourage athletes to improve by communicating with a firm but non-offensive approach. The new-school form of coaching gives athletes advice, encouragement, and leads by example.

Regardless if you consider yourself an old-school or new-school coach, generally, there are three styles of coaching: autocratic, democratic, and holistic. Each style has its own benefits and drawbacks, and it’s important to understand all three, no matter where you are in your coaching career.

The history of different coaching styles

The three different styles of coaching are based on studies conducted in the 1930s by Kurt Lewin, a German-American social psychologist who pioneered the study of group dynamics and contemporary social psychology.

Lewin proposed that people develop understanding of their world, physical, mental, and social, through continuous interaction between their existing memories, desires, goals and their environment.

As a coach, it’s important to understand the following three styles of coaching to be able to adapt your personal coaching style to given contexts and situations that can prove to be integral in getting the most out of your players.

No coaching style is regarded as being better or worse but different sports and different coaches may choose to adapt one based on their preference and personality.

Autocratic Coaching

Similar to old-school coaches, the autocratic style of coaching involves making decisions with little to no input from players. Autocratic coaching has the coach articulating a vision that he/she vows needs to be done and the players in turn, are expected to carry out the expectations. Autocratic coaching is focused on winning and usually features inflexible training structures.

Autocratic coaching typically works best in team sports rather than individual sports. A study from the US National Library of Medicine supports that gender plays into how well autocratic coaching is accepted. For example, in the paper “Leadership Preferences of Adolescent Players in Sport: Influence of Coach Gender,” studies indicated that female teams respond well to autocratic coaching from a male coach, but less well to the same style from a female coach.
The style is also generally preferred by older players rather than younger, as older players may have a better judgement to understand why they’re being asked to perform certain tasks at specific times.

The study points out that autocratic coaching may damage the long-term development of younger players who have little input in their training process, as they could develop a sense of autonomy in their training which could impact their attitudes toward sports as they get older.

Example of an autocratic coach: Vince Lombardi, NFL

Vince Lombardi believed in the pursuit of perfection. He had a very strict military background and used that as an approach to shape his football teams. Lombardi stressed that winning took a great deal of discipline and commitment to become perfect. While Head Coach of the Green Bay Packers, Lombardi won six NFL Championships, two Super Bowls, and finished with an overall record of 105-35-6.

Democratic Coaching

Democratic coaching is a style that blends the coach’s decisions with goals and input from their athletes instead of dictating it to them. Essentially, the tandem runs as — you guessed it — a democracy. Democratic coaches give a lot of autonomy to players and teams, who are active collaborators in their own development and direction.

The style is well-suited for individual sports such as tennis or track, where individual athletes have to take a lot of control over their training styles.

Younger athletes (up to age 14) tend to prefer a democratic coaching style and the US National Library of Medicine study indicated that democratic coaching tends to help early and young players develop a sense of their own control when it comes to training and helps prepare them for more autocratic coaching later in life, off the field.

Example of a democratic coach: Mike Krzyzewki, NCAA Basketball

Mike Krzyzewki believed in allowing his players to have input in how they played the game. While ultimately making the final decision, he gave his players a voice to share their opinions. He believed teams worked best as well-oiled machines, making decisions in unison. During his time as Head Coach of the Duke Blue Devils, he racked up a 945-251 record, along with five National Championships, and two Olympic Gold Medals.

Holistic Coaching

This laid-back style of coaching is founded on the theory that a happy team can naturally turn into a successful team. Holistic coaching offers a “laissez-faire” approach, coaches offer minimal structured training and not much feedback. Instead, holistic coaches work to create an environment where players feel comfortable exploring and pursuing skills and development on their own time. The coach doesn’t act as a figure of authority but lets his/her players set their own agenda.

The style is well-suited for a team of mature players who have developed their own sets of creativity and awareness, and who are well-versed in self-guiding themselves. For coaches, the holistic approach involves a lot of relationship building, communication, and openness to each player as a whole.
It’s less of a hands-on style of coaching but takes more time to develop fruitful relationships with each player.

Example of a democratic coach: Greg Jackson, MMA

Greg Jackson allows freedom with his fighters, allowing them to come and go as they please. If a fighter chooses not to train on a specific day or opts to focus on other skills, Jackson allows his athletes to do so. He’s also accepting of fighters seeking advice from other trainers and coaches to develop their skills. He claims to be available to his fighters at all times and never looks to himself as the reason for success. In his time as an MMA coach, Jackson has coached Georges St-Pierre to a UFC Welterweight Championship and two UFC Light Heavyweight Champions (Rashad Evans and Jon Jones).

Which coaching style is right for me?

Some coaches thrive on picking one specific coaching style but some might benefit more from fusing a few philosophies from each. It comes down to the fact that coaching skills vary per person. Much in the same that leadership in professional, academic, and even military settings are based around a few key principles, coaches should learn the difference between autocratic, democratic, and holistic styles and recognize which one will earn their team the best physical and mental results.

Good coaches model fairness and good sportsmanship consistently while maintaining clear lines of communication and honesty.

In the end, the key to good coaching lies in the enthusiasm for the trade and that is exemplified by the coach. Athletes thrive on routine so regardless of which style you think is best for you, approach it with positivity and consistency so your players know what type of guidance they’re getting day in and day out.