There is some link between the type of control and the design maneuverability of the aircraft.
Consider a yoke. Imagine twisting it to bank. You are moving it with a twisting motion of one or both arms and in general, aircraft fitted with such yokes are capable of low to moderate roll rates. Big displacements are uncommon but small, rapid, alternating changes are common. Watch a wide body PF making control movements during a landing with any kind of xwind or turbulence. They are less sensitive and give more visual feedback as to the control positions.
Now consider a stick, central to the pilot flying. This is moved with a movement of the arm, generally only one, and can be rapidly displaced easily. This is normally associated with aircraft with high rates of roll, especially in an aircraft designed to rapidly null out or reverse the roll. It is also physically easier to move a stick than a yoke under high-G as the arm movement gives a longer lever.
A great example of this was the Vulcan which, despite its size, enormous wing area and large fin, was so rollable that it could out-maneuver the interceptors of its day. It has a control column rather than a yoke and the PF would throw it around at altitude as if it were a fighter. This would not be easy to do with a yoke.
I'm a bit long in the tooth and haven't flown fixed wing for many years. I am not familiar with the rationale behind side sticks which are fitted to both low and high performance aircraft. I am guessing they are fitted more for reasons of ergonomics than for performance.