Coaching Leadership Style: Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons
The coaching leadership style is a way of leading in which the leader develops people for the future: helping each person see their strengths and weaknesses, tying those to their own goals, agreeing a development plan, handing over stretch work and giving plenty of feedback. It is one of six styles in Daniel Goleman's 2000 Harvard Business Review article "Leadership That Gets Results," summed up in two words: "Try this." Goleman reported that it was the style leaders used least, even though its effect on the working climate was positive.
Below: the six styles compared, what the research behind them does and does not show, how the coaching style looks in practice, a worked example, its advantages and disadvantages, and how to build it. Coaching leadership is distinct from hiring a coach; for that, see what is leadership coaching.
The six leadership styles compared
Goleman's article identified six styles, each drawing on different emotional intelligence competencies. This summary follows the article's own "at a glance" table.
| Style | In a phrase | Works best | Effect on climate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coaching | "Try this." | To help an employee improve performance or develop long-term strengths | Positive |
| Authoritative | "Come with me." | When changes need a new vision or a clear direction is needed | Most strongly positive |
| Affiliative | "People come first." | To heal rifts in a team or motivate people in stressful times | Positive |
| Democratic | "What do you think?" | To build buy-in or consensus, or get input from valuable employees | Positive |
| Pacesetting | "Do as I do, now." | To get quick results from a highly motivated, competent team | Negative |
| Coercive | "Do what I tell you." | In a crisis, to kick-start a turnaround, or with problem employees | Negative |
Goleman lists the competencies behind the coaching style as developing others, empathy and self-awareness. His central point was that the best leaders do not pick one style: they use most of them in a given week, depending on the situation.
What the research behind it shows, and its limits
The article was based on research by the consulting firm Hay/McBer, drawing on a random sample of 3,871 executives from a database of more than 20,000 worldwide. The researchers measured each leader's style and the "climate" of the people around them: six factors covering flexibility, responsibility, standards, rewards, clarity and commitment. Goleman reported that climate accounted for "nearly a third of results," and that leaders who had mastered four or more styles, especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative and coaching styles, had the best climate and business performance.
Three caveats are worth knowing:
- It is a magazine article reporting consulting-firm research, not a peer-reviewed study.
- The findings are correlations between style and climate, which does not prove the style caused the results.
- The data are now more than 25 years old.
Independent research on managers who coach points the same way. A two-wave study of 313 US employees found reciprocal links between managers' coaching behaviours and employees' role clarity and organisational commitment (Stone, Nimon and Ellinger, 2024). And meta-analyses of workplace coaching consistently find moderate positive effects (Cannon-Bowers and colleagues, 2023), though those studies mostly look at professional coaches rather than leaders' styles.
"Coaching" in situational leadership means something different
If you have met the word in Situational Leadership training, it is a different idea. In Hersey and Blanchard's model, the "selling" or "coaching" style (S2) combines high direction with high support: the leader still makes most decisions but explains them and wins people over. Blanchard's later version matches it to the "disillusioned learner," someone with some competence and low commitment (Wikipedia). That is more directive than Goleman's coaching style, which is about long-term development. The Wikipedia article also notes that several studies do not support all of situational leadership's prescriptions.
What the coaching leadership style looks like in practice
Goleman describes coaching leaders as people who:
- help employees identify their unique strengths and weaknesses and tie them to personal and career aspirations;
- encourage long-term development goals and help plan how to reach them;
- make agreements with employees about their role and responsibilities in that plan;
- give plentiful instruction and feedback;
- delegate challenging assignments, even if the work will not be done quickly;
- accept short-term failure if it furthers long-term learning.
The Center for Creative Leadership's version is four skills: listen to understand, ask powerful questions, challenge and support, and establish next steps and accountability (CCL). Together they make a practical checklist for a weekly one-to-one.
| Situation | Coaching style response | Non-coaching response |
|---|---|---|
| A report asks how to handle a difficult client | "What have you tried? What would good look like?" | "Send it to me, I'll call them." |
| A capable person makes a mistake | Review what they learned and what they will do differently | Take the task back |
| Annual review | Discuss where they want to be in two years and the next stretch step | Rate the year and move on |
| A deadline is tight | Decide quickly, then debrief later | Coach slowly while the deadline slips |
The last row matters: a coaching leader still switches style when the situation needs it.
An example of the coaching leadership style
Goleman's own example: a president of a manufacturing division decided to close a struggling unit. Its head went over his boss's head to plead with the chief executive. Instead of reprimanding him, the president sat down with him to talk about the decision and about his future, explained how a move would help him develop, and then coached him on how to present his case to the chief executive. His reason, as Goleman quotes him: the man was talented, and "just because he screwed up doesn't mean he's terrible."
A smaller, everyday version, as an illustrative example. A team lead tells her manager she wants to run the quarterly planning meeting.
Manager: Great. What would you want people to walk out of that meeting with?
Team lead: A shortlist of three priorities everyone agrees on.
Manager: What usually gets in the way of that?
Team lead: Sales and product arguing for 40 minutes.
Manager: How could you set the meeting up so that happens less?
Team lead: Send the options out two days before and ask each lead to pick their top two.
Manager: Try it. Let's spend ten minutes afterwards on what worked.
The manager hands over a stretch task, lets the team lead design it, and builds in a debrief. That is "Try this" in practice.
Advantages of the coaching leadership style
- Better climate. Goleman argued that the constant dialogue "has a way of pushing up every driver of climate": people feel free to experiment, know what is expected, and feel invested in.
- Clearer roles and stronger commitment. The 2024 study above linked managers' coaching to both.
- A deeper bench. People who are trusted with stretch work become ready for bigger roles sooner.
- Less dependence on the leader. Decisions stop queuing at one desk.
- Retention. People who see a future in the organisation have one reason fewer to leave, though no source here measures that directly.
Disadvantages and when it does not work
- It takes time. Leaders in Goleman's research said they did not have time for it, which is why it was used least. He noted that after a first session it "takes little or no extra time," but the start-up cost is real.
- It needs willing people. Goleman wrote that it works best with employees who want to be coached and makes little sense when people resist learning or changing.
- It needs skill. It "flops if the leader lacks the expertise" to help, and many managers are unfamiliar with giving feedback that motivates rather than creates fear or apathy.
- It is wrong for emergencies. A crisis needs a decision.
- Power complicates it. A leader still rates the person they coach, so candour has limits. See coaching vs managing.
- It can disguise micromanagement. Asking leading questions until someone guesses your answer is directing with extra steps.
How to develop a coaching leadership style
- Start with one weekly one-to-one per person, with the agenda set by them.
- Ask one question before giving any answer. "What do you think?" is enough to start.
- Agree a development goal with each person, tied to where they want to be, and review it monthly.
- Delegate one stretch task a month, with a debrief booked in advance.
- Say which mode you are in: "this one I need to decide" versus "this one is yours."
- Get feedback on your coaching, or work with a coach yourself.
Our coaching tips for managers and leadership coaching skills go further, and the seven questions from The Coaching Habit are a compact set to practise with. For feedback that motivates rather than deflates, try feedforward, and for what to work on, see leadership coaching topics.
For coaches who develop leaders
Teaching managers to lead in a coaching style is a common leadership coaching offer: a cohort programme on coaching skills, plus one-to-one sessions as people practise. Coachful's 2026 Coaching Business Report puts US leadership coaching at $150 to $400 an hour (ICF Global Coaching Study 2025 and PayScale); see coachingrates.com. Coachful runs cohorts with group calls, a feed and individual goals and check-ins, and tracks your hours toward ICF credentials. See how to become a leadership coach, coaching culture and Coachful for executive coaches.
Coachful's team will build your website and offer pages for free on every plan, usually within about 24 hours, starting from one of 30 designed homepage templates if you like: see how the free build works.
Frequently asked questions
What is a coaching leadership style?
A style in which the leader focuses on developing people for the future: identifying strengths and weaknesses, agreeing development goals, delegating stretch work and giving frequent feedback. Daniel Goleman's 2000 article summed it up as "Try this."
Is coaching a leadership style?
Yes. It is one of the six styles in Goleman's "Leadership That Gets Results," alongside coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic and pacesetting. Situational leadership also has a "coaching" style, but there it means high direction with high support.
What are the advantages of a coaching leadership style?
Goleman reported a positive effect on workplace climate, including flexibility, clarity and commitment, and a 2024 study linked managers' coaching to employees' role clarity and organisational commitment. It also builds people ready for bigger roles.
What are the disadvantages of a coaching leadership style?
It takes time to start, needs people who want to develop, needs a skilled leader, and is wrong for emergencies. Because the leader also evaluates the person, candour can be limited.
What is an example of coaching leadership?
A manager who, instead of fixing a report's problem, asks what they have tried, helps them plan the next step, hands them a stretch task and books a debrief afterwards. Goleman's example is a president who coached a subordinate on presenting to the CEO rather than reprimanding him.
What is the difference between coaching and democratic leadership?
Democratic leadership asks the group for input to reach a decision: "What do you think?" Coaching leadership works with individuals on their long-term development: "Try this." A leader can use both in the same week.
Who came up with the coaching leadership style?
It was popularised by Daniel Goleman's 2000 Harvard Business Review article "Leadership That Gets Results," based on Hay/McBer research with 3,871 executives. Goleman later wrote about the styles with Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee in the book Primal Leadership.
