For many years almost every article published on business coaching started with the same sentence, namely that business coaching is a newcomer to the world of business and an emerging industry that still needs some time to develop (Clegg Rhodes, Kornberger & Stilin, 2005; King & Eaton, 1999). Although it is a growing industry (Shelley, 2008), the academic research on the topic is still in its infancy and there is a need for empirical work in this field (Beets & Goodman, 2012). Coaching appears not yet to be an academic discipline standing on its own (April & April, 2007). Evidence of this is the fact that the conceptual and operational identity of coaching is also still unclear (Cilliers, 2005).

It is important to note that there is not an absence of knowledge on coaching, only that this knowledge is in its nature more practical because it describes the way in which coaching practitioners operate in their specific industries. This makes the knowledge more context specific. Therefore literature on coaching is mainly found in popular journals and magazines (Cilliers, 2005), including popular books on this matter (see Upton, 2006 and B. Anderson, 2007, as examples).

Coaching is also addressed as part of management and leadership training together with themes such as mentoring in some Master of Business Administration courses (April & April, 2007). Empirical research on coaching, however, is according to Passmore and Gibbes (2007) mostly done by students and researchers at postgraduate level. The results of this research have remained largely unpublished (Passmore & Gibbes, 2007). There has more recently been a shift in the themes of articles, away from describing practices, to asking questions about the effectiveness of coaching (Bowles, Cunningham, De La Rosa & Picano, 2007).

The present study aims, firstly, to explore the literature regarding the way in which literature reviews have to be done. The results of this investigation will then, in the second instance, be used as a lens to investigate the published articles in the field of business coaching. This will result in the compilation of a comprehensive updated literature review that can form a basis for future academic research on the subject of business coaching.

In order to assess the level of knowledge on coaching, it is important to stipulate to what extent it contains the elements included in a comprehensive body of scientific knowledge. Mouton (1996) provides a simple scheme of elements of a scientific body of knowledge. At the most basic level scientific knowledge is made up of concepts. Concepts act as the carriers of meaning. When associated concepts are combined and sentences formed, one arrives at statements or propositions. When related statements are combined, more complex conceptual frameworks such as typologies, models, theories and eventually broad theoretical paradigms and research traditions are created (Mouton, 1996).

Information should only be added to the body of knowledge once it is accepted by the scientific community (Mouton, 1996). The community will only do so once the information (theory or hypothesis) has been submitted for evaluation by relevant experts. Only when they have scrutinised and accepted the information as a plausible claim will they endorse and disseminate it, namely publish it (Babbie & Mouton, 2012). Academic knowledge is thus mostly disseminated through peer-reviewed academic journals.

Some efforts have been made to explore the body of knowledge captured in the literature and several literature reviews in the domain of coaching have already been published. One of the earliest literature reviews on business coaching was done by Kilburg (1996). He concludes that there is a dearth of empirical research on the actual work of practitioners in the field and that most of the available literature is devoted to managers exerting themselves to add coaching to their roles to empower subordinates. He found only two researched studies that could form a scientific basis for what is called business coaching (Kilburg, 1996). Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001) published a comprehensive literature review on executive coaching. These authors conclude that the extant literature provides some basis for understanding definitions, purposes, processes, methodologies, clients and service providers, but that surprisingly little empirical research has been done on the efficacy of executive coaching.

In 2005, Joo reviewed a total of 78 articles on coaching, of which only 11 were research articles published in academic journals. The rest were published in non-academic magazines. The most important conclusion Joo (2005) draws from the empirical articles is that business coaching has become increasingly popular despite limited empirical evidence about its impact. The problem is thus not the practice per se, but the lack of research and theory to advance the field. Joo, in his reporting on business coaching, categorises the articles according to research methodology, definitions and the purpose of the articles.

The last comprehensive literature review on business coaching was done by Passmore and Gibbes (2007). They built upon the work of Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001). They focused mainly on executive coaching as a discipline. Their primary finding was that there is a general shortage of empirical research on business coaching. They concluded that more research to understand the impact of coaching on performance needs to be done. They also recommended that research that describes the nature of the coaching intervention must get more attention.

The present literature review on business coaching is thus not conducted in a vacuum, but aims to close the gap since the last comprehensive literature review was done by Passmore and Gibbes (2007). The aim of this article is to report on the present level of knowledge on coaching by means of the scheme provided by Mouton (1996), taking into account the existing literature reviews and other research articles published since the work of Passmore and Gibbes.

The first part of this article is a literature review on how literature reviews are done. The result of this investigation will then be used in the second part of the article to conduct a literature review on the available literature on business coaching.

Systematic literature reviews have become widely accepted during the past 20 years (Kable, Pich & Maslin-Prothero 2012). The purpose of a literature review is to objectively report on the current knowledge on a topic, based on a summary of previously published research (Green, Johnson & Adams, 2006). It is a rigorous and highly valued approach to evaluating literature on specific topics. The literature review is also an essential step in the research process and is included in all empirical and review articles (Wu, Aylward, Roberts & Evans, 2012). A literature review presents a broad perspective on a topic and also describes its history. In addition, it traces development in a specific area (Green et al., 2006) and enables researchers to position their own investigations. Through the identification of relevant concepts and issues, as well as methods of enquiry, researchers can use diverse frameworks for the analysis of their own work (V. Anderson, 2009).

The objective for conducting a literature review is to enable a researcher to write a synthesis of the available literature, to discover similarities between different research outputs, to examine differences in the results of the researchers and to identify emerging issues, themes and topics (Kable et al., 2012). De Vos, Strydom, Fouché and Delport (2013) provide a structure for presenting a literature review. They tapped into the seminal work of Babbie and Mouton (2012) and Kerlinger and Lee (2000). De Vos et al. present the building blocks of science under three headings, namely concepts, statements and conceptual frameworks.

This study aims to explore and systemise the existing theory in the body of knowledge within business coaching according to the building block for science as described by Mouton (1996). In order to do that, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted.

The value added by this study will be to assist future researchers to have access to the most recent synthesised concepts, definitions, typologies, models, theories and paradigms functioning in the field of business coaching as an academic discipline.

The researchers conducted a systematic review of the literature. By doing this the researchers gained access to the key scientific contributions relevant to the subject (Tranfield, Denyer & Smart, 2003). The researchers used extensive literature searches of published studies. By using transparent and reproducible procedures, systematic reviews improve the quality and outcome of review processes.

Review processes generally consist of data collection, analysis and synthesis. This study followed the pattern in order to explore the available data to compile the literature review that will be presented below.

The research methodology is directly linked to the aim of this article, namely to provide a systematic and qualitative review of published academic literature on business coaching. Systematic reviews are designed to reduce bias (White & Schmidt, 2005). The methodology specifically developed for systematic literature reviews aims to minimise the effect of the selection of sources, assessment of publications and type of data collected (Nightingale, 2009). The review is qualitative because it does not combine the results of the reviewed studies statistically. It includes a summary and critique of the findings from systematic methods through the processes by which the individual studies are integrated (Green et al., 2006).

In the systematic review, the specified analytical tool found only two concepts associated with coaching and executive coaching, namely management development and leadership development. Fifteen of the 36 articles included a list of keywords. The most common keywords were coaching (N = 12; see articles 7, 10, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 31, 33, 40 and 41) and leadership development (N = 6; see articles 7, 13, 18, 20, 31 and 35). The third most popular keyword was executive coaching (N = 5; see articles 13, 15, 24, 35 and 41), followed by management development (N = 4; see articles 13, 18, 35 and 41). The other keywords were not mentioned more than three times.

Other keywords included in the different articles were business improvement, business benefits, facilitation, organisational change, organisational development, executive management, executive training, evaluation, planning, business benefits, leadership, team learning, workplace learning, performance and characteristics of coaching, coaching psychology, coaching relationship, business coaching and mentoring.

The following 14 statements met the criteria to be included as definitions:

Although these definitions address a wide range of interpretations of what coaching entails, some communality is evident. These will be presented in the discussion part of this article.

None of the articles provided a typology of coaching that met the criteria set out in the analytical tools section of this article.

From the six articles reporting on models of coaching, six different and distinct models of coaching were identified.

A very early model was found in article 1. It suggests that an effective coaching model would feature the following steps:

Article 14 suggests that coaching benefits optimally from a pyramid model as a workable model for coaching. This model has four key factors as its foundation, namely the skills of the coach, the personal attributes of the coach, the coaching process and the coaching environment. The next stage of the model suggests that, when the foundation is in place, the coachee is empowered to realise the level of inner personal benefits, namely clarity and focus, confidence and motivation. After this the coachee is mentally ready to produce the outer personal benefits, namely enhanced skills, knowledge and understanding, and improved behaviour. The coachee will then be equipped and empowered to achieve the pinnacle of the pyramid, namely business results.

In 2006 the four-category model appeared (see article 15). This model defines the approach in terms of the goals of the coaching assignment, the scope of work and the type of business scenarios involved. Each of the four approaches in this model brings with it recommended methods and interventions, qualifications and styles of providers and specific objectives regarding the diverse needs of executives and leadership teams.

Article 25 places considerable emphasis on goal-setting and attainment as introduced by the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) model as a tool to be used in coaching research and practice. The model presented in article 18 is called the competency-based coaching model. It has the same elements as the model in article 40. The only difference is that article 18's model adds training, job knowledge and strengths and weakness analysis as extra steps. The model in article 40 suggests that the coaching model contains the following:

From the aforementioned it seems as if the model provided by Leedham (2005) in article 14 is the most prominent because it includes most of the concepts introduced by the other models.

In sum, 14 articles referred directly to theories.

According to article 35, coaching operates within the broader theory of psychotherapy because the concept of ‘working alliance’ has its roots in psychotherapy. Because of the client-therapist relationship and the therapeutic intervention, article 1 also places coaching within the broader theory of psychotherapy. Article 2 and article 27 argue that the outcome of coaching must be sustained behavioural change and because that is the focus of an experienced psychologist, the theory in which coaching operates must be that of psychotherapy.

Article 31 places coaching within the leader-member exchange theory (LMX). LMX posits that leaders develop different types of exchange relationships with their subordinates and that the quality of these relationships influences leaders’ and subordinates’ attitude and behaviours. The social exchange theories maintain that there is a perceived obligation on the part of subordinates to reciprocate high-quality relationships and that these relationships are developed over time through a series of exchanges.

Article 8 and article 41 argue that coaching falls within the parameters of cognitive-behavioural psychology theory and approach because it deals with coping-skills therapies. Article 19 and article 29 link up with coping skills and connect coaching with emotional intelligence, problem-solving therapies and cognitive-restructuring therapies and theories, whilst article 15 positions it within the clinical psychological theory. Article 22 and article 23 use positive psychology and coaching psychology as theories because they focus on building performance and enhancing well-being in non-clinical populations.

Article 18 and article 20 identify the theory in which coaching operates as the developmental counselling theory within the broader framework of executive or supervisory development in human resource development. Article 26 links up with the developmental theory and posits coaching within the aesthetic learning theory because it is a cognitive process. Article 21 also supports the cognitive theory, but adds goal-setting theory and action theory. Article 33 goes one step further and claims that this learning process can take place via a virtual process through the Internet as e-coaching.

It appears that the psychotherapy theory (N = 4; see articles 1, 2, 27 and 35) and the developmental theory (N = 3; see articles 18, 20 and 26) are the theories most often referred to in the field of coaching.

The available literature is mainly divided between two paradigms in which coaching functions. Nine articles (Articles 4, 7, 13, 14, 17, 26, 27, 36 and 37) position coaching in the paradigm of management development and more specifically, within human resource development. Some researchers position it within the psychological paradigm. The following eight articles are examples of this: articles 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 32, 34 and 39.

In total 84 articles were located by the search strategy and 36 were analysed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria described above. All 36 articles were published in the last 18 years. Fourteen articles were published in the last 6 years. These articles were published in a diverse range of accredited academic journals all over the world. Most articles were published in the International Coaching Psychology Review, followed by Journal for Industrial and Commercial Training and Consulting Psychology Journal. No other journal has more than two hits. The result of this search emphasises the notion that only a limited body of research on coaching is available.

With regard to concepts, it must be noted that practitioners of coaching as a profession and academic researchers are still experimenting on arranging concepts into sentences to form statements that can become theories to investigate. Based on their review of current literature and practice, Bond and Seneque (2013) hope that coaching will be conceptualised as a useful tool for managers. Managers must assess what approach might be most suitable to their organisation and personal needs to facilitate sustained change. Coaching struggles conceptually to find its place somewhere between therapy, training, development, mentoring, counselling and interventions (Cilliers, 2005). The approaches to coaching vary in a range from executive coaching (Kilburg, 1996), corporate coaching, business coaching and personal coaching to life coaching, with many variations and permutations in between, such as speciality, niche and group coaching (Bond & Seneque, 2013). Averweg (2010) has added concepts such as virtual coaching and e-coaching to the debate.

Early definitions of coaching found in literature between 1987 and 1992 place a key emphasis on the contribution that coaching can make to improve individual and organisational performance by equipping people with tools, knowledge and opportunities. Definitions constructed between 2001 and 2006 tend to define coaching more as a process and draw a stronger link between coaching, learning, development (articles 3 and 28) and assisting teams and individuals to reach their full potential. Coaching has more recently been defined by some researchers as a personal or organisational intervention (article 2) that builds upon strengths (article 7) and strengthens underdeveloped skills (article 25), and as a systematic activity that seeks to foreground complexity, pluralist perspectives, unpredictability and contextual factors. Article 34 describes coaching as the search for achieving a balance between stability as one of the major contributions that it can make to management interventions.

When one looks at the repetition of keywords in definitions, the following findings have come to light: the words that are repeated in the definitions are ‘relationship’ (N = 7; articles 1, 9, 13, 16, 35, 39 and 41), ‘effectiveness’ (N = 7; articles 1, 9, 13, 16, 22, 29 and 39), ‘learning’ (N = 5; articles 9, 13, 26, 31 and 35), ‘behavioural change’ (N = 3; articles 1, 9 and 13) and ‘goal–setting’ (N = 2; articles 1 and 42).

A comprehensive definition of business coaching, given the aforementioned would thus contain at least these words and could be formulated as follows: Business coaching is a one-on-one relationship with the purpose to change behaviour through learning to improve organisational effectiveness by setting goals to achieve the desired results.

Authors on coaching are silent about typologies. Only one (article 40) of the 36 articles identifies five ‘meta’ categories. These are management approaches or typologies used in the context of transformational change. The five meta types of management approaches that the article identifies are managing, consulting, mentoring, facilitating and coaching. As a phenomenon, coaching as a type is placed next to these other types of management approaches that are used for transformational change in organisations.

No single model on coaching seems to be dominant. Different models (N = 6; see articles 1, 14, 15, 18, 25 and 40) were introduced to be followed during the coaching process. The common denominators in these models are goal-setting, self-reflection, behavioural change, situational analysis, timeframe and relational processes.

In 17 of the 36 articles on coaching, theories are presented in which the researchers place the coaching practice or process. Twelve of these articles place the theories within psychological theories and five are positioned within human resources developmental theories. The two human resource developmental theories that were identified are the executive developmental theory and the learning theory. In the domain of psychology, the theories varied from clinical and positive to cognitive-behavioural discourse and psychotherapy.

Two paradigms were identified in which coaching functions, namely human resource development (N = 9; articles 4, 7, 13, 14, 17, 26, 27, 36 and 37) and the psychology paradigm (N = 8; articles 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 32, 34 and 39). Article 9 makes the assumption that coaching is customarily studied from behaviourist and humanist paradigms in psychology. Article 14 explicitly states that coaching operates within the positivistic and phenomenological paradigm but does not give any reasons for the statement.

The building blocks for business coaching as a relatively new and emerging science within the field of business leadership have been defined. This will contribute to the articulation of concepts within this discipline by future researchers and practitioners.

Because business coaching is still a newcomer to the world of business, the academic research on the topic is also still in its infancy. Business coaching as such is not an established concept yet. Concepts such as coaching, business coaching, executive coaching, management coaching and even life coaching are used as synonyms. This made it difficult in searching for data on the specific topic of business coaching and can thus be considered a limitation for this study.

It is recommended that research must be stimulated to continue in this field to add data to the body of knowledge.

This article attempts to contribute to the research on business coaching in more than one way. The literature review proves that the concerns of Cilliers (2005) are valid because the available research is very limited. It also shows that there is a dearth of active researchers and academics currently working in this field. Although the academic data is limited, a number of concepts, models, theories, typologies and paradigms could be identified and may contribute to the systemisation of the body of knowledge.

This article summarises the available data in a way that no previous literature review has done before by using the structure discussed in the methodology section. The model of Kable et al. (2012) has proved to be a systematic method through which the literature review could be structured to eliminate bias and to access a proper sample, and the structure provided by De Vos et al. (2011) has been shown to be useful to organise, integrate and synthesise the data collected.

Although business coaching is constantly described as a newcomer to the world of business and an academic discipline that is not yet independent, this literature review has proved that in the gap since the last comprehensive literature review has been published, a constant flow of new peer-reviewed articles have been published. This is a tendency that must be encouraged.