Coaching, whether it is leadership, executive, or employee coaching, is a widely recognised tool for enhancing performance, developing skills, and fostering personal and professional growth within organisations. Leadership coaching focuses on developing leadership skills, enhancing the leader's ability to support their team, and promoting constructive leadership behaviors, such as delegation and individualized consideration ( Anthony, 2017; Brennan, 2012; Weihrauch et al., 2022). Executive coaching aims to help executives navigate organizational changes, improve their psychological and behavioral skills, and achieve work-related goals. This is associated with increased goal attainment, resilience, and leadership self-efficacy ( Anthony, 2017; Grant, 2014; Nicolau et al., 2023). Employee coaching enhances employee performance, motivation, and loyalty, helping employees solve their own problems and improve their thinking and performance ( McGuffin & Obonyo, 2010).

The concepts of leadership, executive, and employee coaching are widely recognized as effective tools for leadership and executive development, designed to enhance the skills, behaviors, and overall effectiveness of employees within an organization. Leadership and executive coaching have evolved from contrasting traditions, with leadership coaching shifting towards a collective phenomenon known as leadership-as-practice (L-A-P) ( Ratiu et al., 2017). Executive coaching emerged from management changes in the for-profit sector during the closing decades of the twentieth century, initially focusing on senior management and later expanding to include younger, high-potential employees and middle managers. Leadership coaching emphasizes a collective approach, while executive coaching is geared towards supporting leaders at all levels in driving organizational change ( Bennett & Bush, 2013). Employee coaching, often referred to as managerial coaching, focuses on facilitating employees’ learning process to enhance their performance and effectiveness in organizations ( Ratiu et al., 2017).

The focus of leadership coaching has evolved significantly over time to address a diverse range of challenges in the workplace. Initially, in the 1990s, leadership coaching primarily concentrated on performance management with structured, step-by-step training programs aimed at enhancing performance ( Grant, 2014). The second generation (2000s) continued performance focus but introduced proprietary “leader as coach” programs. These programs were still mechanistic and did not fully address the complexities of modern organizational challenges ( Grant, 2014). The third generation is contemporary, emphasizing both performance and well-being, with a focus on sustainable and personally meaningful development. Encourages quality conversations and a developmental approach to creating a supportive culture ( Bennett & Bush, 2013). However, as organizational contexts became more uncertain and rapidly changing, this mechanistic approach proved insufficient.

Furthermore, executive and leadership coaching are increasingly recognized as effective strategies for enhancing employee well-being and organizational performance. Research in this direction has explored coaching and its impact on employees, focusing on their psychological well-being, engagement, and job satisfaction. Coaching leadership has both positive direct and indirect effects on employee well-being, knowledge-sharing behavior, and innovative employee behavior ( Tanuwijaya et al., 2025). It is positively related to work engagement through the mediation of psychological capital and in- and extra-role performance, as well as work engagement ( Peláez Zuberbuhler et al., 2020). Kim & Park (2023) found that leadership coaching has a positive effect on psychcap and organizational commitment, which in turn positively affects organizational effectiveness. Coaching leadership can help decrease burnout symptoms and increase vigor in leaders, thereby enhancing their overall well-being. Romão et al. (2022) demonstrated a negative impact on employees’ turnover intention and a positive impact on their happiness, with happiness mediating the relationship between coaching leadership and turnover intention.

Despite the popularity and usage of these concepts, the mechanisms through which they facilitate development and the factors contributing to their success remain under-researched. To address this gap, systematic literature reviews (SLR) in this domain are considered important, and the literature also shows a scarcity of such review articles. SLRs help evaluate empirical evidence for the effectiveness of coaching interventions. They provide a comprehensive overview of how coaching impacts productivity and performance in organizations ( Grover & Furnham, 2016; Plotkina & Sri Ramalu, 2024). Understanding the mechanisms underlying coaching is crucial. SLRs can identify factors, such as coach characteristics, coachee aspects, and the coach-coachee relationship, that contribute to successful coaching outcomes ( Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018; Lai & Palmer, 2019). Although most SLR papers published in the domain are of a qualitative nature, bibliometric studies or meta-analysis research lay a foundation for key research areas, themes, and frameworks ( Kakkar & Sachdeva, 2025).

Tracing the journey of this evolving field, this study presents a bibliometric analysis of 343 articles published from 2000 to 2025, drawing on verified data from Scopus and the Web of Science. It examines publication trends, geographic reach, citation patterns, and author contributions, including institutional affiliation. By mapping co-authorship networks and keyword connections, this study uncovered key research hubs, emerging topics, and global collaboration patterns, providing fresh insights into the field’s growth and future trajectory. To guide this study, the following research questions were formulated to provide a detailed exploration of key aspects within the field.

RQ1: How has the research on workplace coaching progressively developed over time?

RQ2: What are the most significant contributors (authors, articles, institutions, countries, and publications) that have shaped the development of workplace coaching?

RQ3: How can network diagrams and cluster visualizations be constructed to illustrate the relationships and connections among different authors and keywords?

RQ4: What are the key research gaps that can pave the way for future studies in workplace coaching?

This research article is divided into six sections: the first section provides the introduction and outlines the research idea. The second section highlights the existing literature, theories, and frameworks in this area. Section three provides a detailed explanation of the methodology used in this study. The fourth section described the bibliometric findings of the research, followed by the fifth section, which highlights the important discussions and implications of the study. The last section includes the conclusions, limitations, and future research directions.

The current study employs a combination of bibliometric analysis and network analysis to illustrate the overarching trends in executive and leadership coaching over time. This is based on scientometrics, which focuses on the quantitative examination of scientific literature to identify patterns and trends within the research field ( Hood & Wilson, 2001). It draws on a foundational concept, such as Bradford’s Law, which examines the distribution of articles across journals ( Peritz, 1990); Lotka’s Law, which outlines patterns in author productivity ( Bacaër, 2011); and Zipf’s Law, which aids in analyzing the frequency of keywords, thus revealing thematic trends ( Zipf, 1950). Additionally, it incorporates Citation Analysis Theory to assess influential works ( Garfield, 1955). Network Theory explores relationships among research entities ( Newman et al., 2021) and knowledge domain visualization maps thematic clusters and trends. Bibliometric analysis was used to examine the effectiveness and influence of various research topics and themes within a field of study, as well as to illustrate the relationship between the various themes and topics ( Cobo et al., 2011). Effectively conducted bibliometric studies provide a robust basis for advancing a field in novel and innovative ways, in terms of providing a comprehensive understanding, identifying gaps in existing knowledge of research, generating innovative research ideas, and wisely offering their findings within the scholarly landscape ( Donthu et al., 2020).

This section analyzes the results obtained from the SCOPUS and WoS databases regarding the annual scientific outcomes, including the most relevant sources, most influential authors and works, affiliations, documents, citations, co-occurrences, countries, and important elements that require further consideration. Table 4 summarizes the workplace coaching data considered in this study, drawn from both databases.

This research depicts the annual publication and citation summary of workplace coaching from 2000 to 2025 (June) in Figure 2. At the outset, the number of publications began with one in 2000, and in 2001, there were no publications. The graph increased from 0 to 18 in 2009 and further rose to a maximum of 42 publications in 2024. The graph indicates that in 2024, researchers identified workplace coaching as a key area for growth and development. This sudden shift in the research area could be attributed to employees’ high involvement and engagement with technology, organizational expectations, leadership identity, and well-being, or the need to explore the importance and uniqueness of coaching in the workplace at various levels ( Alves & Figueiredo, 2024; Cannata & Danels, 2024; Harris, 2024).

Furthermore, this study provides a summary of prominent publication sources in the domain of workplace coaching. Journals play a crucial role in providing a platform for scholarly articles and serve as an academic reserve for future research, offering foundational ideas. Journal metrics, such as the impact factor, citation score, H index, and G index, among others, serve as vital indicators to define the quality of a journal. A total of 343 research articles were considered for this study, of which 129 publication titles and 38 publication houses were included in the final search. The most prominent journal publishing houses include Emerald, Wiley, HBR, Sage Inc., and Frontiers Media, which are home to the top 10 publishing titles, as shown in Table 5.

Using the number of published research articles and the total number of citations as a base, this study identified the most prominent authors in the workplace coaching domain. Among the 527 authors in the study area, Terblanche N published 10 articles with 271 citations related to executive coaching, workplace coaching, diversity, and the potential impact of artificial intelligence on humanity ( Kruger & Terblanche, 2024; N. Terblanche, 2020; N. H. D. Terblanche, 2022). At the second level, Bozer G has eight publications, with the second-highest citations of 406, primarily focused on workplace coaching, incorporating organizational psychology into theory building and systematic literature reviews ( Bozer & Jones, 2018, 2021). In the next line, Klar Hans W, Gray David E, Jones Rebecca J, with 308, 169, and 446 citations, respectively, made significant contributions in the areas of leadership coaching, executive coaching, employee coaching, and coach development using personality models, organizational psychology, and transformative leadership approaches ( Bozer & Jones, 2018, 2021; Carden et al., 2022; R. J. Jones et al., 2016; Klar et al., 2020). Other noteworthy authors include Andrea D. Ellinger and Kristin Shawn Huggins, who discussed leadership coaching and human resource development ( A. D. Ellinger & Kim, 2014; A. E. Ellinger & Ellinger, 2014), as shown in Table 6 and Figure 3.

The top 10 prominent countries in this study are shown in Figure 4. The United States of America is the most prominent country, with 131 documents, followed by England (76) and Australia (26). Authors from these countries have initiated the concepts of leadership, executive, and employee coaching as foundational and review papers. ( Day, 2000; Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Heslin et al., 2006).

Table 7 summarizes the most prominent and foundational research works in the area of workplace coaching, including the total citation count and the average number of citations per year. The most prominent and foundational article in workplace coaching, published in 2000 by Day as a review paper, highlighted the need for leadership development through coaching as an intervention ( Day, 2000). In later stages, the idea of employee coaching became prominent because of the concept of talent management, written by Cappelli in 2008 and published by the Harvard Business Review ( Cappelli, 2008). Introduction to the idea of executive coaching was given in 2009 by Grant et al., in association with goal attainment, resilience, and workplace well-being, became one of the top three publications in the list, and ( Grant et al., 2009). Later, in continuation with the three research works, Jones and team conducted a meta-analysis to understand the effectiveness of workplace coaching ( Jones et al., 2016). The preference for person theories and their support for employee coaching has been studied further by Heslin et al., (2006).

This study employed a systematic literature review, utilizing bibliometric techniques, to examine trends and advancements in workplace coaching. We consider both the SCOPUS and WoS databases, citation reports, and various bibliometric methods to provide insights into the current state of existing works and the progression of workplace coaching research over time. While the most recent study by Passmore et al., (2025) has consolidated both empirical and conceptual findings of peer-reviewed research articles on the use of AI in coaching; however, the primary focus of the study is on a qualitative approach and lacks quantification of research trends. Another review paper Kapoutzis et al., (2024) on the detangling of definitions and conditions under which coaching culture can be developed using the SLR technique; however, the researchers agreed that the foundational elements, interventions, measures, and outcomes were still ambiguous and required a more quantitative understanding.

Another study Wang et al., (2022) conducted a meta-analysis with robust variance estimates and confirmed that psychologically informed coaching approaches had a positive effect on goal attainment and self-efficacy. Lai & Palmer (2019) conducted a similar study on psychologically informed coaching approaches using qualitative and quantitative methods by consulting ten experts in the field to establish empirical support. While their studies effectively conceptualized the idea of effective coaching approaches to facilitate desirable organizational outcomes using meta-analysis, they did not map the scholarly networks and citation patterns that shape the field’s intellectual landscapes. Gawlik et al., (2023) studied coaching interventions aimed at increasing physical activity and health behavior in the workplace, which have shown positive outcomes using SLR and PRISMA guidelines; however, the variety of coaching parameters and their effectiveness remain inconclusive without quantitative analysis, and suggest a need for more standardized approaches.

Exclusive bibliometric studies were also conducted by Tewari et al. (2025) on flexible work arrangements in learning organizations and by Mahdi et al. (2024) on navigating the landscape of academic coaching; however, both studies focused on the bibliometric landscape of learning organizations and academic coaching, rather than workplace coaching. Therefore, the present study complements these studies by applying bibliometric techniques and methods to systematically examine the field’s development, influential authors and research works, and their collaborations and future trends in detail. In addition, the current study extends its scope by examining the uniqueness and differences in workplace coaching terminologies, including leadership coaching, executive coaching, and employee coaching. In addition, the study also included the evolution of these key themes and sub-themes theoretically using a systematic literature review and empirically using science mapping techniques, as shown in Table 9.

A rigorous bibliometric analysis was employed in this study to examine publications and citation trends from 2000 to 2025, utilizing the citation analysis technique. In addition, the study examined the most prominent publication titles, foundational articles, and influential authors in the field of workplace coaching. Furthermore, the most influential countries with established affiliations were examined to understand the significance of workplace coaching globally. This study adopted a prominent and holistic approach by integrating co-authors and co-occurrence analyses to uncover collaborations and thematic clusters in workplace coaching. To offer a comprehensive and forward-looking perspective on workplace coaching research, this study employed key metrics, including citation patterns and co-authorship networks, to identify research trends. Keyword analysis was employed to identify influential research themes and network maps that revealed collaboration patterns, ensuring the study’s findings aligned with its objectives.

To conduct a bibliometric analysis ethically, maintaining data transparency is critical in this research type. Therefore, this study adhered to all the standards and guidelines set by the PRISMA framework, which includes the identification, acquisition, organization, purification, evaluation, and reporting of data, as shown in Figure 1. Thus, this study not only extends the current understanding of workplace coaching research but also sets the foundation for future research. The practical and theoretical implications of this study serve as a key resource for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to enhance employee, leadership, and executive coaching experiences across various sectors and diverse settings.

The current dynamic business environment, characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), necessitates the implementation of workplace coaching to help organizations and employees adapt and thrive. Coaching is a promising method for enhancing employee resilience, which is essential for navigating adversity in a demanding workplace ( Sipondo & Terblanche, 2024). Customized coaching strategies help employees manage their emotions, find meaning in challenging situations, and develop skills to overcome difficulties in uncertain situations ( Jouali et al., 2024). Supportive leadership coaching and coworker support are positively associated with employee resilience, especially under high work pressure and in target jobs, highlighting a serious need for workplace coaching to support employee resilience and well-being. The implications of the bibliometric and systematic literature review of workplace coaching are twofold and are relevant for both the academic community and organizational practitioners.

For the academic community, this study identified the foundational understanding of workplace coaching, its uniqueness and differences, theoretical contributions, seminal works, influential authors, research documents, and keywords. This provides a comprehensive framework for advancing academic discourse on coaching in workplace research, enabling the most targeted and impactful future investigation. By contrast, for practitioners, this study offers human resource management and organizational development support, providing actionable insights into the global landscape of workplace coaching. Regional and geographical analysis, key institutional affiliations, and emerging research trends in workplace coaching enable organizations to develop effective strategies for enhancing workplace well-being and resilience. This knowledge can guide practitioners in developing tailored coaching interventions to address specific workplace challenges and issues at various levels. Similarly, fostering a supportive and positive workplace for individuals, groups, and organizational representatives.

This systematic literature review article attempts to trace the evolution and progression of workplace coaching research while also suggesting potential future directions. The findings of this research revealed an increasing publication and citation trend after 2020, particularly in 2024, with 42 publications and 925 citations, indicating an anticipated rise in research contributions in the years to come. The study further identified key publication titles, “Journal of Management Development” and “Frontiers in Psychology,” as the most influential journals in workplace coaching research. Furthermore, Terblanche, Nicky, and Bozer, Gil, as influential authors, and the USA and England, as influential countries, are notable. The articles “Leadership development: A review in context” ( Day, 2000) and “Talent management for the twenty-first century” ( Cappelli, 2008) are among the most influential, with 1077 and 271 total citations, respectively. Moreover, executive coaching, coaching, leadership development, employee coaching, and leadership coaching were identified as the most common keywords in author keyword searches. The keyword co-occurrence analysis identified four clusters: Coaching for Workplace Learning and Development (red), multifaceted advantages of Executive and Leadership Coaching (green), Dimensions of Workplace Coaching (blue), and Employee Coaching for Human Resource Management and Development (yellow), setting the stage for future direction and practical implications aimed at enhancing and improving workplace coaching interventions, refer to Table 10.

Despite its contributions, the current study has certain limitations that future researchers can address. The key limitations of this study include the size and scope of SCOPUS and WoS; however, other databases, such as ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and non-indexed or emerging sources, can be considered in future research. The research articles considered in this study were written exclusively in English; articles written in other languages were excluded, resulting in a limitation due to language bias. Only journal publications were considered, and other sources were excluded from the analysis, which may have affected the comprehensiveness of the study findings.

Future research could focus on longitudinal studies to better understand the long-term effects of workplace coaching on satisfaction and commitment. Investigate the influence of various demographics and coaching deployment methods on the coaching effect, which was not examined in the current study and could be explored in future research. Employing a combination of qualitative, quantitative, and diverse methodologies enhances the depth and validity of the findings. Empirical validation of coaching tools and techniques in real-world environments is necessary to establish the practical utility of coaching interventions. Conducting meta-analyses and SLR papers using grey literature can provide a more holistic understanding of coaching effectiveness. Comparative studies across different sectors, countries, and regions can help consolidate the existing findings and identify new insights. By addressing these limitations and exploring future directions, researchers can enhance the effectiveness and applicability of workplace coaching.

Dr Itam Urmila Jagadeeswari

Affiliation – Dept of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Bangalore

Contact Information – urmilaitam@gmail.com; urmila.itam@manipal.edu

The authors affirm that no generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools or technologies were used in the conceptualization, writing, analysis, or interpretation of data for this research study. All aspects of the research, including literature review, methodology design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation, were conducted solely by the authors. This declaration ensures the authenticity, originality, and academic integrity of the research presented.