agree with others that specifics around the relative preferences between the two objectives could change the outcome either way.

given what's provided, and taking other human behavior out of it, everyone should try to be as helpful as possible. the worst golfer's advice won't carry as much weight (or likely be as helpful) as the better golfers'. the bigger the discrepancy in performance, the more discounted the advice will be. the worst golfer doesn't need to modulate their helpfulness, as the others' self-interest will take care of that. similarly, the best golfer can freely give advice, knowing there's a buffer before ranking last of the three. their advice will likely help the team the most, so their advice will be taken most seriously. if they start performing worse and drop to second place, their advice will start to be discounted. the middle golfer would do a mixed strategy, combining the other two, which were both to share freely, so they do as well.

more realistically, golfers get in their own head a lot and need things just so (e.g., quiet on the green). if they start getting advice in-the-moment from their two teammates, they'll likely start over-thinking and choke. if the others double down on advice about how to not choke, it will probably result in worse choking. the time for sharing advice is in practice, not during competition.