 | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
ADDED THIS NEW SECTION History of coaching styles
History of coaching style
Coaching style, as well as the general behavior and actions of the coach, has a direct influence on athletes. German - American Kurt Lewin Conducted his studies and work to target three different types of leadership that a coach takes control of. The main goal pushed behind these studies when taking leadership of your team or a group of people, brings forth that in timely situations the styles do not change but are applied and fixed. Studies proven these styles are effective in their own ways, it needs to be comprehended that they are only applicable in their own context. Different athletes, teams, and situations correspond to how the coach is going to be rounded, to understand each of these styles in the context they are used can be an overall advantage to coaching a winning team or leaving your athletes with life lessons. [1] [2]
Autocratic Coaching
The approach behind Autocratic coaching is for a one-way road. This role of leadership gives one or multiple people power held above athletes' heads, either it's there way or no way. With little interest for input from the team or followers, their vision is the only thing that they sought to work in favor of them. Seen a bit as a dictator, the ways of autocratic coaching can have both a positive and negative connotation on the coach, team, and results. This is a very situational style to coaching, all the components and factors that play into the team are all based off what the coach thinks is best for them. Being situational like sports this style of coaching can benefit the team or athlete by allowing quick decision making, never lacks leadership and oversight, and can relieve pressure that's involved. More so seen to work better in an individual sport rather than team, plenty of characteristics to this style draw the team or athlete away from what they want to accomplish whether that's winning or just building connections. This style can lead a team or athlete to feel unmotivated that their own ways and ideas are being put down just to do what the coach tells them, feelings of discouragement and worthlessness may lead an athlete to quitting if they feel they are no help to anything. [3] [4]
Democratic Coaching
The takeout from democratic coaching is a decision made in the best interest of the athletes. From the athlete's point of view, they bring about what is happening in the situation while the coach gives them a form of guidance and alternative option that may be for their better. This style of coaching has an influence on a team or individual athlete that already carries themself in such a way that only can make them better physically or mentally. Often applied in individual sports, where the athlete already has such format of training, this type of coaching pushes the athlete in the right direction of being in control of themselves and their skill. [5]
Holistic Coaching
Known as "laissez-faire" coaching. Holistic coaching is rooted on the bases that a happy team is a successful team. Constructing positive feedback with a more laid-back approach this creates a relaxing and comfortable place to just put forth your best effort. With a very good outlook on the coach for treating the team and athletes like this, a negative connotation is that the team may get too comfortable and not put forth their best efforts while some still are which can start problems within the team. This style is most appropriate for mature players that have already understood what they want the outcome of their season to be. Realizations that the athletes are in control of what they want, this requires a level of focus and dedication adding extra work to achieve the end goal. [6]
Article Draft
Lead
Article body
References
- ^ "Lewin Studies". www.leaderwholeads.com. Retrieved 2022-10-11.
- ^ "Three Styles of Coaching". KU SOE. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
- ^ "Three Styles of Coaching". KU SOE. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
- ^ "What is Autocratic Leadership? | St. Thomas University". STU. 2014-11-25. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
- ^ "Three Styles of Coaching". KU SOE. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
- ^ "Three Styles of Coaching". KU SOE. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
| This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
ADDED THIS NEW SECTION History of coaching styles
History of coaching style
Coaching style, as well as the general behavior and actions of the coach, has a direct influence on athletes. German - American Kurt Lewin Conducted his studies and work to target three different types of leadership that a coach takes control of. The main goal pushed behind these studies when taking leadership of your team or a group of people, brings forth that in timely situations the styles do not change but are applied and fixed. Studies proven these styles are effective in their own ways, it needs to be comprehended that they are only applicable in their own context. Different athletes, teams, and situations correspond to how the coach is going to be rounded, to understand each of these styles in the context they are used can be an overall advantage to coaching a winning team or leaving your athletes with life lessons. [1] [2]
Autocratic Coaching
The approach behind Autocratic coaching is for a one-way road. This role of leadership gives one or multiple people power held above athletes' heads, either it's there way or no way. With little interest for input from the team or followers, their vision is the only thing that they sought to work in favor of them. Seen a bit as a dictator, the ways of autocratic coaching can have both a positive and negative connotation on the coach, team, and results. This is a very situational style to coaching, all the components and factors that play into the team are all based off what the coach thinks is best for them. Being situational like sports this style of coaching can benefit the team or athlete by allowing quick decision making, never lacks leadership and oversight, and can relieve pressure that's involved. More so seen to work better in an individual sport rather than team, plenty of characteristics to this style draw the team or athlete away from what they want to accomplish whether that's winning or just building connections. This style can lead a team or athlete to feel unmotivated that their own ways and ideas are being put down just to do what the coach tells them, feelings of discouragement and worthlessness may lead an athlete to quitting if they feel they are no help to anything. [3] [4]
Democratic Coaching
The takeout from democratic coaching is a decision made in the best interest of the athletes. From the athlete's point of view, they bring about what is happening in the situation while the coach gives them a form of guidance and alternative option that may be for their better. This style of coaching has an influence on a team or individual athlete that already carries themself in such a way that only can make them better physically or mentally. Often applied in individual sports, where the athlete already has such format of training, this type of coaching pushes the athlete in the right direction of being in control of themselves and their skill. [5]
Holistic Coaching
Known as "laissez-faire" coaching. Holistic coaching is rooted on the bases that a happy team is a successful team. Constructing positive feedback with a more laid-back approach this creates a relaxing and comfortable place to just put forth your best effort. With a very good outlook on the coach for treating the team and athletes like this, a negative connotation is that the team may get too comfortable and not put forth their best efforts while some still are which can start problems within the team. This style is most appropriate for mature players that have already understood what they want the outcome of their season to be. Realizations that the athletes are in control of what they want, this requires a level of focus and dedication adding extra work to achieve the end goal. [6]
Article Draft
Lead
Article body
References
- ^ "Lewin Studies". www.leaderwholeads.com. Retrieved 2022-10-11.
- ^ "Three Styles of Coaching". KU SOE. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
- ^ "Three Styles of Coaching". KU SOE. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
- ^ "What is Autocratic Leadership? | St. Thomas University". STU. 2014-11-25. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
- ^ "Three Styles of Coaching". KU SOE. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
- ^ "Three Styles of Coaching". KU SOE. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-10-13.