The Invisible Pedagogy of Leadership: How Behaviour Teaches Trust

What coaches usually believe or do

Within coaching and education, the phrase “lead by example” is both familiar and largely unquestioned. It is commonly presented as a cornerstone of effective leadership, yet rarely examined in any meaningful depth. For many coaches and educators, leading by example is understood through visible commitment and effort: the star pupil who models good behaviour, the team captain who trains the hardest, or the coach whose energy and presence set the emotional tone of a session.

In sporting contexts, this understanding has been reinforced through cultural archetypes of leadership. Leaders are often associated with being first to arrive and last to leave, displaying relentless work ethic, and visibly “setting the standard” through intensity and application. In football culture in particular, leadership has long been tied to notions of resilience, hard work, and emotional commitment, often framed as evidence of character and professionalism.

Over time, this has shaped a narrow but powerful image of what leadership looks like in practice. To lead by example is frequently assumed to mean working harder, showing more desire, or demonstrating greater passion than others. The underlying belief is that visible effort and commitment will naturally motivate those around them to follow.

This assumption is rarely challenged, partly because it appears intuitively sound. However, it rests on the idea that leadership influence operates primarily through inspiration, rather than through the quieter and more persistent effects of behaviour over time, a theme that also underpins wider discussions around why soft skills are increasingly central to coaching practice.

Where it breaks down in practice

The limitation of this view is not that effort and commitment are unimportant, but that they are insufficient. In practice, coaching environments built primarily around visible intensity often struggle to maintain trust, clarity, and coherence over time.

Coaches may speak openly about values such as accountability, respect, or learning from mistakes, yet behave inconsistently when pressure increases. Standards may be clearly articulated in meetings but selectively applied in moments that matter most. Athletes and learners are left to navigate a gap between what is said and what is done.

This is where leadership framed mainly as motivation begins to falter. When behaviour shifts according to context, outcome, or emotional state, mixed messages are created. Over time, this inconsistency erodes belief. Trust is rarely lost through a single contradiction, but through repeated exposure to actions that fail to align with stated values.

This pattern is particularly visible in environments where leadership responsibility is unevenly distributed, a problem explored further in discussions around leadership beyond the captain’s armband. When expectations are unclear or inconsistently modelled, leadership becomes symbolic rather than lived.

Reframing leadership as pedagogy

A more useful way to understand leadership in coaching is to view it not as a motivational role, but as a pedagogical one. Leadership, in this sense, is a form of teaching that occurs continuously through behaviour, rather than intermittently through instruction.

Every coaching or learning environment contains an implicit curriculum. Alongside formal sessions, feedback, and conversations, individuals are constantly learning what truly matters by observing how leaders behave. Decisions made under pressure, responses to mistakes, consistency of standards, and emotional regulation all function as lessons, whether they are intended as such or not.

From this perspective, leading by example is less about intensity and more about behavioural alignment. Values are not transmitted through slogans or speeches, but through repeated and observable actions that remain stable across situations. When behaviour aligns with stated principles over time, it becomes credible. When it does not, it undermines both learning and trust.

This reframing also connects closely to ideas around athlete autonomy in coaching. Trust is a prerequisite for autonomy, and autonomy cannot develop in environments where behaviour is unpredictable or performative.

Classroom, session, programme, behaviour

In practice, this form of leadership is often quieter and less performative than traditional models. It is evident in how coaches respond to errors rather than how they talk about learning. It shows up in whether standards are upheld consistently, not just when convenient. It appears in how leaders manage their own emotions, particularly in moments of frustration or pressure.

In educational settings, this may be reflected in how deadlines are treated, how feedback is delivered, or how effort is recognised beyond outcomes. In sporting environments, it is visible in selection decisions, responses to defeat, and everyday interactions away from performance moments.

Over time, these behaviours create predictability. Predictability builds trust. Athletes and learners begin to understand what to expect, not because they have been told, but because they have observed consistency. This trust then becomes the foundation upon which accountability, leadership development, and effective learning can emerge, themes also explored in work on how athlete-centred coaching supports long-term performance.

Importantly, this approach does not require leaders to adopt a persona or perform a role. Instead, it demands clarity around values and the discipline to live them repeatedly. Authentic leadership, in this sense, is not about personality, but about coherence between belief and action.

Questions rather than instructions

Rather than asking how to motivate others more effectively, coaches and educators might begin by asking different questions. What behaviours am I modelling when things are going well? What behaviours am I modelling when they are not? Which actions are repeated often enough to become lessons in themselves?

It is also worth reflecting on which values are taught implicitly through everyday decisions. What is rewarded? What is ignored? What is tolerated under pressure? These questions reveal far more about leadership practice than any formal statement of intent.

Leading by example, understood in this way, is not a technique to be applied but a discipline to be sustained. Leadership is always teaching, even when no lesson is planned. The challenge is to ensure that what is being taught aligns with what is truly valued.

This article forms part of The Coaching Craft, a long-term body of work exploring coaching, teaching, and learning through theory, reflection, and practice. For more writing in this series, visit TheCoachingMindset.org.