Autocratic Coaching Style Analysis

Coaches have a massive impact on the development of their athletes because it is a long and complex process. To make athletes successful, coaches have to use a range of learning and teaching theories (Jones, Hughes and Kingston, 2008). In my own practice, I am trying to use various coaching styles such as autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire which was identified by Lewin and his colleagues in 1939. The autocratic coaching style takes an authoritative approach, where the coach is telling everything rather than asking. Coaches show for athletes how they want something to be done and how they have to perform. Furthermore, authoritative coaches make all decisions and do not expect any input from the group. This type of coaching style is quite

In the same way, the autocratic coaching style helps to impart discipline which is relevant for team sports. However, the command-based approach does not encourage athletes to think for themselves. After some sessions of autocratic approach, I have noticed that this long-term coaching can have some disadvantages such as lack of knowledge why they are being asked to perform in that way or later sessions become boring and not engaging. In that case to avoid these outcomes, in my sessions, democratic coaching way is being used. In the democratic style, the coach involves people in decision-making but still have the right to say the last word. For some of my young basketball players, this approach is more proper due to their propensity to take an active role in team play. Moreover, it allows for players to take liability for their actions and increase the level of interest in sport. Democratic approach for me as a coach allowed to observe athletes and see how they developed decision-making skills and their own playing

I suppose it was due to the lack of knowledge and little experience. It was challenging because there was a wide range of opinions and some athletes felt too much freedom. Additionally, the democratic approach seemed more time consuming (Chelladurai and Doherty, 1998). Therefore, in order to improve players’ individual skills, I am trying to include laissez-faire coaching style. This approach usually is seen as next level of democratic style. Coach is giving greater freedom, the ability of decision making and allows to take control of their own progress and training. Laissez-faire based sessions are very interactive, fun and keep players engaged. In fact, this style can show relationships between coach and team because trust takes a key role. On the contrary, this approach is not beneficial for unmotivated individuals. Progression becomes slower or can stop at all because it is hard to continually improve without direct instructions. Also, it can lead to regression. All things considered, various coaching styles have benefits and drawbacks. Coach have to be flexible to adapt and choose best approaches depending on the needs of the team (Crust and Lawrence,