Cultivating coaching cultures in schools: insights from school leaders Open Access

This research explores how school leadership shapes coaching cultures, focusing on the ways leaders foster collaborative coaching practices in primary, secondary and special schools. As Creasy and Paterson (2005) and Knight (2022, p. 190) argue, “Everyone in a school should be learning”, and coaching cultures provide a framework to extend learning across all stakeholders. Yet, the benefits and practices of coaching remain unevenly distributed across systems. In Ireland, coaching has largely been associated with senior leadership (Butler, 2024), with less focus on whole-school approaches. This multijurisdictional study examines coaching cultures in the UK, Spain, New Zealand and Ireland to better understand how school leaders enable, embed and sustain collaborative professional learning (PL). While global scholarship offers extensive examples of coaching contributing to school improvement (Hooker, 2013; van Nieuwerburgh, 2012), the Irish voice is largely absent, with the notable exception of Butler's (2024) study. However, there is a growing discourse in Irish education that frames coaching as both a form of PL and a leadership stance.

Drawing on the perspectives of school leaders across diverse systems, this study contributes to a growing body of literature that recognises coaching as a vehicle for teacher growth, student engagement and collaborative leadership (Munro et al., 2020). The central aim is to illuminate the pivotal role of school leaders in cultivating transformative coaching cultures while offering comparative insights into how context shapes practice. Supporting this aim, three research objectives were developed:

1. To elucidate how school leaders, who have engaged in coaching, conceptualise the practice and its possible application in schools;

2. To explore leaders' prior experiences of enabling coaching cultures and collaborative practice in their schools and

3. To identify the strategies, approaches and supports required to foster coaching cultures and deep collaboration in their schools.

The term coaching, though used variably in the literature, is generally agreed to involve a structured, curiosity-driven dialogue aimed at supporting teachers to improve their instructional practice and realise their potential through self-directed development (Bungay Stanier, 2016; Costa and Garmston, 2016; Knight, 2022; van Nieuwerburgh, 2012). Unlike the traditional practice of classroom observation for evaluation, often associated with accountability and external judgement, coaching is grounded in partnership and experienced as a non-evaluative process that enhances teacher practice through collaboration, growth and reflection (Panfilio-Padden et al., 2025). Through a coaching lens, PL is achieved not by directing the teacher how to improve but rather by “helping them to learn” through effective questioning and purposeful listening (Whitmore, 2017, p. 13). This shift mirrors the evolving role of school leaders, who are increasingly expected to act as instructional leaders: articulating what good teaching looks like, modelling and promoting effective practice and, where appropriate, engaging or developing coaches who can support teachers in this work.

Large-scale research attests to the benefits of coaching as an effective model of PL, contrasting the limited effects of time-consuming, externally driven approaches with the relative impact of shorter-duration coaching-based programmes (Kraft et al., 2018). Effective coaching programmes foster myriad benefits for coaches, coachees and school communities, enhancing teacher performance and job satisfaction, creating adaptive school cultures and facilitating the implementation of other innovations (Costa and Garmston, 2016; Gormley and van Nieuwerburgh, 2014).

Certain coaching models have demonstrated long-term potential in educational settings. Peer coaching, for example, has been used effectively in socially disadvantaged districts as a cost-efficient strategy that leverages teacher-to-teacher collaboration to support instructional improvement and professional growth (Ladyshewsky, 2018; Showers and Joyce, 1996). While executive-style approaches offer valuable support for school leaders (Butler, 2024), their reliance on external expertise can limit sustainability in building lasting coaching cultures (De Meuse et al., 2009).

Mentoring and coaching were once cast, respectively, as directive and non-directive, but Hobson and van Nieuwerburgh (2022) argue there is “no neat distinction” (p. 5), with the two better understood as overlapping styles of “helping conversations” (Maxwell et al., 2022, p. 4). Both are now widely understood to exist on a conversational “spectrum”, with practice varying in the degree of direction adopted depending on purpose and context (Maxwell et al., 2022; Munro, 2020, p. 38).

Mentoring literature illustrates this range, from adaptive models responsive to mentees' needs (Ralph and Walker, 2013) to Hobson's (2020) ONSIDE framework — off-line, non-judgemental, supportive, individualised, developmental, and empowering — positions mentors as allies, emphasising mutuality and progressively non-directive support. Thus, coaching and mentoring are better viewed as intersecting supportive relationships that support PL and change in complementary ways, rather than as distinct categories. This paper will now explore coaching along this spectrum, focusing on how the approaches, or models, can vary between directive and non-directive.

Some coaching models adopt a more directive stance, reflecting earlier associations with traditional directive mentoring (van Nieuwerburgh, 2012). These approaches typically involve the coach offering guidance, modelling and feedback to improve performance. In instructional coaching, for instance, “[the coach] teaches educators how to implement specific strategies”, taking responsibility for preparing materials and generating ideas (van Nieuwerburgh, 2012, p. 12). Such models can effectively build pedagogical capacity, though they are more dependent on the coach's technical knowledge.

Other coaching models emphasise non-directive methods. While some privilege directive coaching over so-called “generic” non-directive approaches (Hutchinson, 2020, p. 204), research suggests both contribute meaningfully to PL. Whitmore's (2017) GROW model — representing goal, reality, options, and will — encourages reflective problem solving, structuring coaching questioning around these four stages. Costa and Garmston's (2016, pp. 37–38) Cognitive coaching likewise positions the coachee as a “self-directed” learner and the coach as a “mediator of thinking”, fostering metacognition. They advocate non-prescriptive approaches to school improvement, a view echoed by Slavit and Roth McDuffie (2013) and consistent with theories of intrinsic motivation and positive psychology (Kauffman, 2006; Pink, 2009). A purely directive stance can constrain growth to the coach's own knowledge and overlook the long-term challenges of reliance on external input (Patti et al., 2015). Both directive and non-directive coaching approaches hold value, depending on context.

A school's climate can be described as the “shared perceptions” within an organisation, while culture is positioned as the “shared norms” (MacNeil et al., 2009, p. 75). Felt in school corridors and visible within relationships, school culture is a living and “amorphous” phenomenon (Prokopchuk, 2016, p. 73) that can also be understood as “stuck or moving” (Knight, 2022, p. 185). Moving cultures occur when staff members feel safe, supported and empowered to leverage their professional strengths and embrace innovation (Knight, 2022). Thus, it can be affirmed that the existing and overarching cultures are sine qua non for the seamless integration of coaching into professional practice in a sustained manner (Heineke, 2013).

Coaching cultures are environments where coaching supports the development of all members of the school community (Hawkins, 2012). Campbell and van Nieuwerburgh (2018) identify four key portals through which coaching operates in schools:

1. School leadership;

2. Professional practice;

3. Student experience and

4. Wider community engagement.

Within the school leadership portal, often the most prevalent portal within which coaching exists in schools (Butler, 2024), coaching interventions can include an executive-style approach or “leaders learning to become coaches” (Campbell and van Nieuwerburgh, 2018, p. 7). In professional practice, it can involve peer coaching or follow-up supports to embed strategies introduced in other PL activities. While student experience and community engagement are less central to this study, they remain relevant spaces where coaching can build dialogue and shared growth. Within each portal, coaching can take a formal or informal approach (Whitmore, 2017). Coaching cultures can potentially range from being covert and localised practice reserved for a select few to ones where coaching is a “universal entitlement” for the full gamut of stakeholders (Lofthouse et al., 2010, p. 11).

For coaching to permeate an organisation's culture, it must be integrated into strategic planning, with school leaders fostering innovation and collaboration (Department of Education, 2022; Munro et al., 2020). Successful collaborative coaching cultures are supported by dedicated leadership (Knight, 2018; Lindbom, 2007) and sustained by a hospitable climate that encourages teacher collaboration (Moynihan and O’Donovan, 2022). Excessive reliance on directive leadership undermines coaching spaces, privileging advice over collective expertise and contradicting policy reforms promoting teacher-led PL (Munro, 2017; The Teaching Council, 2016).

School leaders must demonstrate commitment by modelling learning, being coached and coaching others (Knight, 2022). This approach was central to the success of the Howick Coast Kahui Ako project in New Zealand, where seven schools replaced existing leadership models with a trusting and affirmative approach, fostering capacity-building and embedding coaching principles (Keenan and Ginders, 2022). Similarly, Butler's (2024) study of Irish principals who had voluntarily undertaken accredited coaching qualifications revealed a strong commitment to embedding coaching in their schools. Leaders reported improvements in self-awareness, communication, distributed leadership and well-being. However, despite these positive outcomes, 75% of respondents cited limited access to training, 86% noted a general lack of understanding of coaching among staff and 79% identified time constraints as a significant barrier (Butler, 2024). Comparable figures exist in the UK, where only 20% of middle leaders and 13% of teachers reported spending sufficient time on activities, including coaching and other forms of PL (Department for Education, 2020). Time pressures were further reinforced by high administrative workloads. Similarly, in Spain, only 12% of teachers and school leaders participate in coaching and just 14% perceive their profession as valued – indicating a strong link between systemic support and professional agency (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2019).

Structural and cultural limitations in creating space for coaching are evident in these findings, reinforcing the need for this research while also revealing the beliefs educators hold about the potential benefits of coaching practice. At the same time, the statistics underscore the constraints that can inhibit the development of coaching cultures, while suggesting that many educators recognise the value coaching may offer. To explore these perceptions more deeply and the contextual factors that shape them, this study adopts a qualitative approach grounded in the experiences of school leaders.

The study adopts an interpretivist perspective, recognising the socially constructed and contextually situated nature of leadership in schools (Mack, 2010). This approach prioritises understanding over causation and aligns with the study's aim of exploring how school leaders conceptualise coaching, navigate coaching cultures and implement strategies to achieve their goals. A qualitative methodology was deemed most suitable for capturing this complexity.

Data were collected through a two-phase design: qualitative questionnaires in Phase 1, followed by focus groups and one-to-one semi-structured interviews in Phase 2, with each method providing complementary insights. Questionnaires offered a broad overview of participants' contexts, focus groups enabled dynamic discussion and co-construction of ideas and interviews facilitated deeper, individual exploration of experiences.

Participants were required to hold formal leadership roles and to be directly involved in developing coaching within their schools, ensuring the study captured meaningful insights. In some contexts, such as Ireland, the limited uptake of whole-school coaching practices created challenges in identifying a suitable sample (Butler, 2024). To address this, a chain-referral (snowball) sampling approach was adopted, using contacts to reach those with relevant expertise. This method is recognised as effective for accessing relatively hidden populations (Etikan et al., 2015). Initial participants were identified through their online presence or through personal recommendations from school leaders within my professional network. These early connections formed the foundation of a snowball sampling process that gradually expanded to yield nine participants in senior leadership roles across four jurisdictions, including five leaders from the same international school in Spain and four from four different schools elsewhere (see Table 1).

Table 1 outlines participants' leadership roles and school contexts. This experienced group held senior leadership positions at varying levels and came from a range of educational settings. The sample was predominantly female with a high level of experience, as shown in Figure 1. #

Qualitative questionnaires were chosen as the initial data collection method within the qualitative framework of this project for their ability to generate “rich and focused data” efficiently (Carey and Asbury, 2016, p. 643). The open-ended questions encouraged authentic, reflective responses, while the asynchronous nature of the questionnaires acknowledged the time constraints of busy school leaders, allowing them to engage at their own pace and convenience (Cohen et al., 2007). All nine participants completed this first phase of data collection. This method was particularly suited to capturing the foundational perceptions relevant to the first research objective, while subsequent interviews and focus groups explored the deeper complexities underpinning all three research objectives.

Following the questionnaire phase, participants progressed along two divergent data collection pathways. Semi-structured interviews provided the flexibility needed for in-depth exploration of individual perspectives, offering “naturally humanlike” conditions that fostered thoughtful reflection (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 151). During the recruitment phase, dialogue with a principal in Spain revealed a particularly robust leadership structure within a Spanish international school. Recognised for its advanced coaching culture, this setting presented a unique opportunity to engage with a collegial group of school leaders across both its primary and secondary sections. A focus group was conducted in this school, capitalising on the availability of the in-school leadership team to capture collaborative insights and leverage group dynamics to surface shared experiences and practical strategies (Longhurst, 2003). The remaining four participants took part in semi-structured interviews conducted individually.

While most data were gathered through individual interviews and qualitative questionnaires, the inclusion of a single focus group was a deliberate methodological choice, grounded in the school's context. Rather than seeking direct comparability, the aim was to enrich the dataset by capturing both collective and individual experiences of coaching. This approach aligns with the study's interpretivist stance and commitment to contextual sensitivity. Together, these methods addressed the subsidiary research questions, exploring the perceived benefits of coaching, leaders' roles in cultivating coaching cultures and the practical actions and supports needed to embed such approaches in schools.

Credibility was supported through sustained online interaction with participants before, during and after the formal data collection phase. An initial meeting prior to data collection helped to explain the study's purpose, establish expectations and begin building trust. Post-interview debriefing sessions then provided opportunities to clarify the meaning and intention behind key contributions while also deepening rapport over time. Reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) was underpinned by regular entries in a reflexive journal, which helped manage researcher subjectivity and maintain focus on participants' voices (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Regular supervisory meetings between the lead researcher (then a master's student) and an experienced academic (now co-author) further enhanced dependability by providing a space to discuss coding decisions and interpretive insights.

All potential ethical issues were considered, and final approval was granted by the School of Education Research Ethics Committee, University College Cork, in advance of commencing this research.

Coaching is a contextually sensitive practice, shaped by the culture in which it is enacted, and has the capacity to positively influence and reshape cultural dynamics (Lofthouse and Hollweck, 2023). This research would have benefitted from the deeper and more embedded insights afforded by case study or ethnographic approaches. The modest and uneven sample of nine school leaders, spanning Spain, Ireland, the UK and New Zealand, reflects both the qualitative, exploratory nature of the study and the varying stages of coaching culture development across contexts. Recruitment challenges and disparities in coaching uptake further contributed to this imbalance. Nonetheless, the cross-cultural perspectives offer valuable comparative insights. Due to the small sample size, the findings are not intended to be generalisable but do offer insights relevant to other contexts.

RTA was employed as the analytic approach to interpret the collected data (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Data were gathered in two phases. In Phase 1, qualitative questionnaires provided contextual insight into participants' experiences and perspectives relevant to the first research objective. These responses were coded inductively, and patterns across the data were identified using Braun and Clarke's (2022) phases of analysis. This initial coding informed the early development of analytic categories that were subsequently refined and expanded during Phase 2.

In Phase 2, interview transcripts were analysed using RTA. This approach involved iterative engagement with the data, continuously revisiting the stages of coding, theme development and refinement. The primary author completed the coding process over a 12-week period, which commenced at the same time as data collection. Throughout this process, particular emphasis was placed on reflexivity, ensuring that the analysis was grounded in the complexity and richness of the participants' narratives while remaining attentive to the researcher's positionality in shaping interpretations.

By revisiting and refining codes over this period, themes were actively constructed. This oscillating process reflected the dynamic nature of RTA, “weaving together” insights from the data to construct a cohesive narrative (Braun and Clarke, 2022, p. 36).

The findings are presented as four main themes, and their associated subthemes (see Table 2) are developed to reflect a patterned meaning across the dataset in relation to the research questions. Data collection for Subsidiary Research Question 1 primarily drew on responses from the qualitative questionnaires, while the focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews are interwoven in addressing the remaining questions.

Participants emphasised coaching's potential to enhance organisational effectiveness and the importance of cultivating coaching cultures to “foster the personal and professional development needed in a changing world” (Ava, Deputy Head, International Primary School, Spain). Lucy (Deputy Head, International Secondary School, Spain) regards coaching as a process which “promotes a school's capacity for change as people work and learn with one another”, while Sophia (Deputy Head, International Primary School, Spain) posits that a coaching approach has the potential to “shine a light on people's own solutions to issues […] as questioning and listening skills help to unravel others' thinking”.

Divergence transpires around the perceived formality of coaching. Participants connected formal coaching with the use of “prescribed coaching models” (Sophia), often supported by “pre- and post-lesson conversations and lesson observations” (Eoin, Principal, Primary School, Ireland). Eoin described a contextually responsive coaching model, which he developed in collaboration with staff “based on the work of Creasy and Paterson […] [which sought to] improve practice around a specific target area and embed new pedagogies”. Other, less formal applications of coaching better resemble a “way of being”, an interpretation tendered by Mary, Simon and Charlie. Ava provided an interesting perspective, combining the formal and informal, describing coaching as “a tool in your belt [or] a mode to turn on when needed”.

Simon described a coaching culture as “a place wherein the default approach to interacting with colleagues and others is a coaching one”. Mary (Principal, Special School, UK) perceives no formal coaching structures at play in her school but describes the “compassionate listening culture” enacted by her school leadership team who “give time, listen and are curious” about what colleagues and students have to say.

Mary envisioned vibrant coaching cultures within organisations as “professional safe spaces” for collaborative discussion around learning and teaching, with the notion of the “safe learning environment” repeated by Isabelle (Head of Department, International Secondary School, Spain). Charlie (Principal, Primary School, Ireland) reiterated how coaching cultures are dependent upon “collaborative space where teachers and school leaders empower and activate each other to become agents of their own learning”. The concept of space emerged repeatedly in the data, both as a necessary ingredient for coaching cultures and as a by-product of their development. Charlie foregrounds how schools need to “be places of action … with staff unafraid of taking risks” if coaching cultures are to develop.

Participants described how coaching had contributed to a profound shift in their professional identity and leadership approach. As Mary put it, “I would not be the leader I am today without coaching”, a notion of transformation that echoed across the data (Lucy, Isabelle and Eoin). Mary's pathway towards coaching came through a period of professional challenge, and she describes her engagement with coaching through this time as a catalyst for professional growth, stating that “Coaching made me think about my core values, my belief system, and really, I suppose, who I am as a leader” (Mary). Mary goes on to link this coaching experience as a direct contributor to her decision to apply for her first principalship.

Beyond her own immediate and personal growth, Mary has observed the transformational impacts of self-reflection in others around her: “People begin to ask […] what weather do I bring to the classroom?” Isabelle also connects her development as a teacher–coach with significant personal growth: “For me, it has changed my whole way. I ask questions; I listen to my friends. I try not to jump in with advice all the time, which I find super difficult!”

Daniel (Principal, Primary School, New Zealand) contrasts coaching with externally mandated PL, which he refers to as “Christmas Tree Hanging”, a feeling of being compelled to embrace the latest educational trends or “shiny baubles”. Coaching, in his view, challenges the idea that teachers and leaders “always need to be told what to do”, instead positioning individuals as directors of their own learning. The school leaders involved in this study perceive teacher-led PL as sustainable, collaborative and intensive approaches for exchanging expertise and actively promoting “the cross-pollination of good ideas” (Daniel).

Mary described her experience in a school culture fragmented by dissonant communication and “in need of formal intervention”, highlighting how coaching transformed relationships. Reflecting on this process, she shared how “Coaching provided us with a safe space, a space for us to talk about how we felt things were going and [how we could] move forward”. This engagement fostered greater collective self-awareness and connection among staff.

Eoin shared his struggles with a professional identity shift as he transitioned into the role of administrative principal in a new school. Resistance from staff created challenges, which he navigated through coaching: “Me and my coach spoke a little bit about different theories around change, a thing that I was finding difficult at the time. Some staff were talking to me; some staff weren't. And I wanted to know why”.

Through this process, Eoin reflected on building positive relationships and making informed decisions, explaining that his own engagement with coaching “was about helping me to make decisions and to build positive relationships with people”.

Buy-in refers to building shared commitment around clear targets, and participants exhibited myriad strategies in accumulating this support (Herold et al., 2008). Charlie acclaims the benefits of “starting with whoever is interested […] and it [a coaching culture] will grow arms and legs from there”. Daniel utilised an application process to initiate their coaching journey, enticing only those really “yearning to be involved”. Sophia and Ava, colleagues in an international primary school, encountered mixed results with their mandated teacher peer coaching model. While some participants showed positive engagement, others only participated reluctantly due to feeling obligated, which acted as a barrier to achieving “deeper levels of coaching” (Ava). Daniel stressed the pertinence of “starting small and very deliberate”, a belief shared between both the participating leaders in this study and broader discussions on cultural change in schools.

A recurring thread in the research was participants' commitment to actively cultivating coaching cultures, as emphasised by Daniel: “It's so important that you, as a leader, are walking the talk […] So, when you are doing something, like, investing time and resources in coaching, it's important that people see that you [the principal] are fully invested yourself”.

Leading by example was a consistent pattern across the dataset, with all nine participants emphasising its significance. Mary discussed how her commitment to coaching imparts a sense that it is something of real value: “I always felt I needed to fully embrace a coaching approach before I expected it of my senior leaders. There is no point in me saying this is something you all have to do if I am not committed myself”.

This commitment manifested in different ways across participants. Daniel immersed himself in the coaching initiative, being coached by staff and coaching others. Charlie described how it was important to be seen bringing coaching principles to everyday interactions and to “model a willingness to collaborate and a curiosity mindset”. Eoin advertised on staff notice boards when he was attending executive coaching sessions, which opened conversations with staff.

Participants reaffirmed that cultivating cultural change and de-privatising teachers' practice is a complex process requiring strategic and intentional leadership. Mary emphasised that embedding coaching “must be well-paced”, while Daniel, transitioning into a new leadership role, described implementing a “three-year plan” to foster a coaching culture. This plan allowed him to “backward map” the necessary collaborative journey, building a shared strategic vision and gradually instituting coaching. During the focus group, Lucy's assertion regarding the importance of sustainable and gradual evolution in coaching cultures was met with agreement. Similarly, Eoin noted the collaborative processes involved in creating the “School Improvement Plan (SIP)” and the collegial engagement during evaluation processes.

In the Spanish school, Isabelle and Lucy acknowledged lingering “distrust of coaching”, a sentiment echoed among Irish educators. Lucy reflected on the legacy of “the bad old days, when observation in the classroom was about judgement”, a perception she argued “needs to be won over” for coaching cultures to thrive. Isabelle emphasised the importance of ongoing discussions “among staff and in staff meetings” to reinterpret coaching and foster collaboration.

Eoin reinforced this with practical strategies, such as using noticeboards and staff meetings to “make coaching part of the fabric” and embed it into daily practices. Eoin framed the development of coaching cultures as a strategic journey, exemplifying sustained planning through the conscious competence model of learning: “At the end of every year, we look at the SIP and where we need to be next year. So right now, we are looking at coaching more consciously and becoming more competent in using it”.

He connected coaching to the overarching school vision, embedding it within collaborative processes such as school self-evaluation (SSE) and the SIP. By positioning coaching as a “positive, internal and collaborative model of PL”, Eoin highlighted its role in fostering long-term growth.

Across the dataset, all nine participants agreed that coaching is fundamentally about guiding colleagues towards their potential through questioning, listening and observation.

“Teachers are your greatest resource, bar none” (Daniel). All participants rationalised the outlay of resources given to coaching through the lens of staff development. Developing coaching cultures represented a major “investment in human capital” and one which comes at a “financial cost” as well as a “significant time cost” (Daniel). Mary discussed how they, as school leaders, facilitated colleagues' attendance at a four-day training course, which represented a “significant withdrawal from class time” but also an “important long-term investment in the school”. Simon also highlighted that while the school was now benefitting from having “45 staff members trained in coaching”, this had involved a considerable initial investment of time and money.

Daniel depicted the full extent of the challenge, suggesting, “Not only do we need to create time to train our coaches up, we have to create time for the coaching to actually happen”, and this required ongoing “creativity and a solution-oriented mindset” (Eoin). Additional time afforded to some leaders and teachers in other jurisdictions, such as the “classroom release time” seen in New Zealand (Daniel), was not a luxury within Irish schools. Rather than presenting as an immovable roadblock for Eoin, a principal of an Irish primary school, this represented “another obstacle to be navigated”. Charlie felt the freedom to utilise the resources he had to make coaching happen once it could “be justified through Cosán or Looking at Our School (LAOS)”. He made the distinction between “feeling he has the autonomy, rather than feeling supported (from a system level)” to create this time. Charlie added that meaningful support would take the form of “time or sub teachers” to cover staff while engaging in coaching “to really get this going”.

Eoin, the other Irish school leader, also spoke of “justifying” his resourceful use of additional support teachers to make coaching happen, adding that while “other principals might say, ‘Oh, if you don't have a substitute teacher, you can't go and do it’. That certainly doesn't work for me”. Eoin and Charlie both demonstrated a commitment to leading the development of collaborative coaching cultures – despite the challenges presented by their national context.

“Finance is a big barrier to rolling out coaching” (Mary). Though concerns around finance were a shared phenomenon for school leaders, the availability of solutions to these barriers differed across contexts. Daniel (New Zealand) collaborated with other schools to secure government funding for improvement ventures, while Mary (UK) noted that “governor buy-in” can provide access to necessary finances. In contrast, the Irish schools involved appeared more limited in this regard. Charlie felt that his school did not possess the means to train teachers to the required level, adding that “[if the DE] are serious about living up to Cosán […] then an intensive, specific and accessible programme is what's needed”. For Irish participants, creating time for coaching often meant creatively repurposing existing resources rather than seeking additional ones.

Of the total participants (n = 9), 78% cited resistance from within or “nay-sayers” as a potential stumbling block capable of “polluting” an emergent coaching culture (Ava). When coaching cultures were at an emergent stage, participants felt that it was about “starting small” (Simon) and “hooking the fish swimming in the same direction” (Lucy). Daniel emphasised the importance of aligning coaching with the school's values, stating, “Coaching is what we do here”, and suggested that staff members intransigent with this ethos may not be the best fit.

Participants acknowledged the importance of identifying key supporters or “champions” (Daniel) and distributing leadership to those with expertise (Eoin). Simon emphasised the significance of this approach in strategic development, stressing the need for authentic distributed leadership set within a clear schoolwide philosophy. Charlie viewed the establishment of coaching cultures as a “call to action” for stakeholders, requiring leaders who could create the necessary conditions for others to lead.

The focus group revealed that all colleagues felt supported by their principal, Simon, who is “fully committed” (Lucy). Simon humbly affirmed the leadership team in his school, who, he opined, “Can lead this coaching culture much better than I ever could”. This exchange revealed a powerful manifestation of relational trust. Echoing this, Simon aptly recognises the strategic pertinence of “moving that group in the middle […] the teachers who are largely supportive of coaching but who maybe won't do anything about it”.

Focus group participants reiterated the need to “create time […] so it doesn't feel like an add-on” (Simon). Without an integrated approach to coaching, one which suffuses the school day, coaching “can feel like an extra” (Sophia) and might lack the momentum of “wide-ranging collaboration across the school” (Isabelle). A standalone approach could lead to “initiative overload” (Eoin), which in turn can cause the “poor old teacher to crumble” (Simon). Again, relational trust between leaders and teachers appeared a critical factor in cultivating this culture of collaboration: “[…] it comes back to relationships, building the relationships before you need the relationships. At the heart of my role as principal is getting to know people professionally and personally and harnessing these relationships when needed” (Charlie).

Participants' views broadly aligned with van Nieuwerburgh's (2012) framing of coaching as a one-to-one conversation, formal or informal, designed to support goal setting and professional growth. The variation in their interpretations, from structured models to relational mindsets, reflects coaching's adaptability and the influence of local norms, leadership styles and systemic contexts.

Simon's definition of a coaching culture as a default mode of interaction aligns with van Nieuwerburgh and Passmore's (2018) view that coaching must permeate the cultural fabric of a school. Other participants similarly emphasised the importance of safe, collaborative environments, positioning space not only as a precondition for coaching but also as one of its key outcomes. This interpretation reflects Munro's (2017, p. 40) concept of “antecedent conditions” that enable innovation.

The transformational potential of coaching was evident, particularly in relation to self-awareness and professional growth. Mary described how coaching prompted deep reflection on her values and leadership identity, ultimately shaping her career decisions. This correlates with Costa and Garmston's (2016) view of coaching as a catalyst for self-directed learning. Similarly, Isabelle and Daniel described coaching as fostering both personal and professional change by replacing externally imposed development with self-initiated learning. A clear pattern emerged across the data, framing coaching as an embedded and sustainable alternative to more directive approaches, a view endorsed by Woulfin et al. (2023). Participants also highlighted its relational impact, with Mary noting how coaching supported a shift from fractured communication to a culture of trust and open dialogue. Eoin's experience reflects the dual role of coaching in personal leadership development and organisational change. His use of coaching to navigate staff resistance demonstrates how relational leadership can be nurtured in complex settings. As Knight (2022) observes, coaching is as much about leading oneself as leading others.

Participants emphasised that sustainable change in coaching culture is more likely to emerge through voluntary engagement than through mandate. Daniel's selective application process and Charlie's strategy of starting with interested staff both reflect this belief, in congruence with Ladyshewsky's (2018) argument that voluntary participation fosters deeper PL, while compulsory models may inhibit the degree to which participants engage authentically.

The emphasis placed on leading by example was universal among participants and aligns with Karadag and Öztekin-Bayir's (2018) work on leadership credibility. Daniel's commitment to being coached, Mary's insistence on embodying a coaching stance before expecting it from her senior leaders and Eoin's visible promotion of his coaching engagements reflect an ethos of modelling that reinforces a coaching culture from the top down.

Reculturing is not a surface-level initiative but a sustained, strategic shift in school norms and behaviours. The use of backward mapping, strategic plans and collaborative processes reflect established models of educational change (Robertson, 2016). Mary and Daniel's insistence on pacing change carefully reflects Munro's (2017) argument that systemic transformation requires careful cultivation of antecedent conditions.

Lucy's and Isabelle's reflections reveal how a lingering distrust of classroom observation can stymie engagement with coaching among teachers. Their emphasis on ongoing dialogue and reframing resembles Jao's (2013) view that reshaping professional attitudes requires time, trust and repeated exposure. These insights highlight the need to address not only structural but also emotional dimensions of cultural change. Eoin's integration of coaching into school routines, through processes such as SSE and the SIP, illustrates how coaching should be embedded in a school's professional culture, enhancing both its credibility and sustainability. Across the dataset, coaching emerged not as a technical intervention but as a deeply relational practice, grounded in listening, questioning and mutual growth.

Participants consistently framed coaching as an investment in people, justifying the financial and time costs through a focus on long-term staff development. Daniel and Simon highlighted the scale of initial investment required, while Mary's reflection on a four-day training course captured the delicate balance between short-term disruption and long-term gain. The challenge of creating time for both training and ongoing coaching practice was a dominant theme, particularly among Irish participants, where classroom release time is not readily available. While some evidence of this existed across other systems, this resourcing gap was viewed not as an insurmountable barrier, but rather as a challenge requiring creativity and agency.

The Irish principals' efforts to leverage frameworks like Cosán and LAOS for flexibility, despite limited systemic support, reflect the autonomy–support tension identified by Charlie. While both Eoin and Charlie expressed a willingness to innovate, their experiences underscore the sustainability concerns facing Irish principals, which are not as pronounced in other education systems. The need to justify their actions through these policy frameworks highlights a degree of disconnect and distrust between the school leaders' vision for improvement and the interpretations of inspectors. Although this study included only two Irish principals, their actions reflect Butler's (2024) findings, suggesting a strong inclination among Irish leaders to embed collaboration and coaching, despite persistent structural challenges. Further investigation would be needed to explore how these unique pressures shape leadership practices in Ireland.

Financial limitations were also a recurring thread. While Mary noted that “finance is a big barrier”, others described context-specific responses to these challenges. Daniel secured government funding through school collaboration, and Mary cited “governor buy-in” as a lever for resources. These examples underscore the contextual variability of leadership autonomy and support.

Resistance from within the staffroom was another prominent issue. The concept of “nay-sayers” capable of “polluting” an emergent culture highlights the fragility of early-stage coaching initiatives (Ava). As van Nieuwerburgh and Passmore (2018) suggest, it is often necessary to engage first with the willing, allowing time and culture to influence others. Lucy's metaphor of “hooking the fish swimming in the same direction” reflects this strategy. Daniel's assertion that “coaching is what we do here” illustrates the power of cultural configuration to help anchor coaching in shared values.

Participants widely endorsed the need for distributed leadership. “Champions”, as identified by Daniel and Eoin, were seen as key to embedding coaching authentically across the school. The focus group provided a compelling snapshot of trust-based leadership. Simon's humility, in acknowledging that others may be better placed to lead the coaching culture, mirrors Harris et al.’s (2013) conception of generalised relational trust as a foundation for sustained improvement.

Finally, participants noted the risk of coaching being perceived as an add-on. This perception was closely linked to the practical demands of time, trust and integration. Simon reflected on the challenge of “moving that group in the middle”, referring to teachers who are open to coaching but reluctant to engage. As Costa and Garmston (2016) assert, coaching must be a sustaining force within the organisation, omnipresent and part of the default, built up gradually to become more than just another new initiative. This reflects the need for leadership that prioritises trust-building, gradual cultural alignment and long-term vision over a quick-win, top-down approach.

This study contributes to the understanding of how school leaders shape coaching cultures across different international contexts. It highlights the importance of relational trust, voluntary engagement and congruence with PL frameworks in supporting this work. Findings suggest that greater recognition of school-led coaching within frameworks such as Cosán and LAOS could provide legitimacy and structure to emerging efforts. Coaching was most effectively introduced through context-sensitive, voluntary models, fostering staff ownership and deeper cultural alignment. These insights may inform future research into under-represented contexts, particularly Ireland, where empirical studies on coaching cultures remain limited. Further comparative research between jurisdictions and systems would be valuable in promoting a broader understanding of the support required to develop schoolwide coaching cultures.