Reflect on two distinct styles of leadership: transactional (directive) leadership versus transformational (coaching) leadership (aka a Coaching Leadership Style). While each style may have its place, it’s been well documented we learn better by doing as opposed to someone showing us or someone offering up the answers. We’ve all heard some version of the saying: Tell Me and I Forget; Teach Me and I May Remember; Involve Me and I Learn.
In this blog I’ll look at one of many examples and share my perspective on what might trigger a shift towards coaching as a leadership style, away from a directive style.
Scenario: Your guidance (mentoring) is met with resistance. I see that as a perfect time to shift to coaching! Consider the two different approaches in such a scenario.
Directive – Upon encountering resistance to your guidance, you can become more directional in your interaction. “Go ahead and do it this (my) way and let’s see what happens.” Noteworthy consequences may be:
- You’re communicating from a “parent ego” state, perhaps the least conducive to encouraging growth and learning. Communication is most effective when both parties are in an adult ego state. More on communication effectiveness in the article Why not ask why?
- There are several possible responses and while the objective may be met, it also may be at the expense of deeper learning (a growing opportunity) for the employee.
- The employee is far less likely to “own it” as compared to when they thought of it themselves.
- If something goes wrong, it was your idea, not theirs.
- It’s setting a standard that creates a dependency on the manager.
Business meeting in an office
You’re not encouraging the employee to become a problem solver. Coaching – “I threw out an idea that doesn’t really work for you. What are your thoughts on how to…so that you can achieve your desired outcome?” Noteworthy consequences may be:
- The employee thoroughly thinks through the issue and possibly identifies a better solution than yours or comes to the conclusion yours was the best solution, after all.
- The employee is more likely to “own it” because they went through the process of coming to a conclusion.
- Conditions the employee to become a critical thinker, as opposed to an order follower.
- Maximizes the employee’s engagement as they are becoming an integral part of the solution, instead of a means to an end.
- Frees up the leader’s time to focus on other, strategic areas of the business.
- Increases the effectiveness of your organization in the long run.
- It can be an investment in time.
Having been a transactional leader early in my career, I can unequivocally say I’ve become a big fan of coaching as a leadership style. I consider the sign of a good leader to be how well his/her team does when the leader isn’t around. I also acknowledge each situation is different, and you will know better when to ask versus tell. With that in mind, what situation have you encountered that may benefit from switching from a directive (telling) to a coaching (asking) style? Please share your thoughts, below.
Written by Nick Tubach, MBA, PCC
To learn more about leadership communication and how to accelerate your professional and personal growth, let’s talk about what is possible. Contact Bridgeline Executive Coaching.
FAQs
What is a coaching leadership style and how is it different from directive leadership?
A coaching leadership style – also called transformational leadership – is an approach where the leader guides employees to think through problems and develop their own solutions by asking powerful questions, rather than directing behavior through instructions, corrections, or ready-made answers. Directive or transactional leadership, by contrast, relies on telling employees what to do and how to do it – which may achieve the immediate objective but creates dependency, limits learning, and reduces the employee’s sense of ownership over the outcome. The core insight the article builds on is the well-established principle that people learn better by doing and discovering than by being shown or told – which makes coaching leadership significantly more effective for developing capable, self-directed employees and future leaders over time.
What are the main benefits of using a coaching leadership style?
The article outlines six key benefits of coaching leadership over directive leadership: employees develop stronger critical thinking skills because they are conditioned to solve problems rather than follow orders; employees take greater ownership of outcomes because they arrived at the solution themselves rather than being handed it; employee engagement increases because they become an integral part of the solution rather than a means to an end; leaders free up time to focus on more strategic priorities because they are no longer the bottleneck for every decision; the organization builds long-term effectiveness as more employees develop into capable problem-solvers; and the overall quality of decisions can actually improve because the employee closest to the problem often identifies a better solution than the leader would have imposed from a distance. Together these benefits make coaching leadership one of the highest-return investments a leader can make in their team.
When is it better to use a coaching approach instead of a directive approach with employees?
The article identifies employee resistance to guidance as a particularly clear and productive signal to shift from a directive to a coaching style – because when an employee pushes back on an instruction, their energy is already engaged with the problem, which makes it an ideal moment to redirect that energy into solution-finding rather than compliance. More broadly, coaching is the better approach in any situation where the goal is learning, growth, and long-term capability development rather than immediate task completion – and where the cost of a less-than-perfect outcome is manageable enough to allow the employee to work through the thinking themselves. Directive leadership retains its place in situations where compliance is non-negotiable, speed is critical, or the stakes of error are too high to allow for an exploratory process.
Why does employee ownership of a solution matter so much in leadership?
The article makes a deceptively simple but research-grounded point: the employee who figures something out on their own is far more likely to own it, retain it, and apply it again in the future – compared to an employee who was simply told what to do and complied. This matters for two reasons: first, when an employee owns the solution, they are intrinsically motivated to make it work rather than passively executing someone else’s directive; and second, if something goes wrong with a directive approach, the employee has little accountability because it was the leader’s idea, not theirs – which limits both learning and the leader’s ability to hold the team genuinely accountable. Over time, a coaching style therefore builds a team of people who think, decide, and lead rather than a team of people who wait for instructions.
How do you know if your leadership style is developing your team or creating dependency?
The article offers a clear and memorable test: a good leader can be measured by how well their team performs when the leader is not around. If your team functions confidently and makes good decisions in your absence, your leadership style is developing genuine capability and independence. If your team stalls, escalates every decision to you, or struggles without your direct involvement, it is a signal that your communication and leadership style – however well-intentioned – has created a dependency that limits both individual growth and organizational resilience, and that a shift toward a more coaching-oriented approach is likely needed.
