The Importance and Application of a Coaching Leadership Style in Businesses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your invitation to review this extremely well written review paper. The structure, academic language and future research directions section are the key strengths of your work. Well done so far. Please see my comments below which I hope will offer you specific advice to carry out a minor review.

1) the strongest challenge I had in reading the manuscript was coming to grips with the empirical data you have selected to summarise in this literature review paper. There is a lack of transparency in some sections:

a) in some sections there are sentences that perhaps indicate that this is your finding, when actually it is the finding of the article you reviewed? Suggest you re-read the manuscript and are very careful to add references to anchor the findings in the findings from earlier studies ( e.g. lines 97, 124, 149, 154,175, 177,200, 223,253, 283, 333). Then you are showing a more robust review style.

b) in a brief academic database EBSCO search, 2,222 publications on coaching leadership styles were accessed. It would add value to your paper if you were more transparent in the multiple steps of your review, and how you filtered the database list to the few studies that you sight in your manuscript. Perhaps a matrix table? A brief text to show the steps you took to filter the studies and your selection process?

c) there are a number of interesting studies you could reference, which review the disadvantages of couching leadership styles. Could be useful to include a brief review?

 

2) Most interesting suggestions for future research - could be useful to highlight the importance of a new global data collection and study, in times of digital transformation, post pandemic?

3) heading 'relevant sections'  suggest changing to 'Literature Review'

4) when you have sub-sections, i.e. 2.1, 2,2, 2.3 - ensure that there is a 'red thread', a link, to the sub-heading and in the end of the text section,

Good luck in your next steps

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

We would like to thank both reviewers for their thoughtful, constructive feedback. Your collective feedback has changed the paper significantly for the better - you are both so kind to spend the time to give us this amazing feedback. 

Each comment has been carefully considered, and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion.

Reviewer 1

Comment 1a – Attribution of Findings

“In some sections there are sentences that perhaps indicate that this is your finding, when actually it is the finding of the article you reviewed... (e.g. lines 97, 124, 149, etc.).”

Response 1a:
Thank you for noting this issue. We reviewed each of the identified lines (and reread the whole paper) and additional similar instances throughout the manuscript. References have been added or clarified to ensure all empirical findings are properly attributed to the original authors. Where phrasing might have suggested original findings, we reworded for transparency. 

Comment 1b – Methodological Transparency and Filtering

“Be more transparent in the multiple steps of your review and how you filtered the database list... Perhaps a matrix table?”

Response 1b:
We have revised Section 2.1 to include a full description of the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and quality appraisal process. This now includes precise database sources, Boolean strings, date ranges, and rationale for narrowing to 14 studies. In addition, Appendix A now includes a Summary Matrix of Core Empirical Studies, showing:

• Study authors and year
• Methodological design
• Main positive/negative findings
• Limitations of each study
  This visual element supports both transparency and replicability.

Comment 1c – Disadvantages of Coaching Leadership

“Could be useful to include a brief review of the disadvantages of coaching leadership styles.”

Response 1c:
We have added a new subsection (2.6: Potential Downsides and Boundary Conditions of CLS) which synthesizes recent literature addressing the limitations and risks associated with coaching leadership. 

Comment 2 – Future Research and Global Context

“Could be useful to highlight the importance of a new global data collection and study, in times of digital transformation, post pandemic?”

Response 2:
We agree this is an important consideration and have expanded the Future Research section to explicitly propose a global longitudinal study of coaching leadership effectiveness in digitally hybrid, post-pandemic workplaces. The revised paragraph suggests cross-cultural research and the use of remote platforms for comparative data collection.

Comment 3 – Section Heading Change

“Change heading ‘Relevant Sections’ to ‘Literature Review.’”

Response 3:
This change has been implemented. The section is now titled “2. Literature Review.”

Comment 4 – “Red Thread” Connections Across Subsections

“Ensure that there is a ‘red thread,’ a link, to the sub-heading and at the end of the text section.”

Response 4:
To strengthen cohesion, we added introductory synthesis sentences at the beginning of each subsection (2.2–2.6) to clearly signal how the theme develops from the previous section. We also revised the final sentence of each subsection to bridge forward to the next theme, providing continuity and logical flow.

Reviewer 2

Abstract Section

“Clear, but glosses over the element of recommendation without summarising actual dimensions.”

Response:
We revised the final portion of the abstract to briefly summarise the key recommendations derived from the literature. The revised abstract now notes the dominant outcome categories and highlights recommendations for embedding CLS into performance systems and cultural change programs.

Introduction Section

“Outstanding – the flow of the introduction and structure of background information is great.”

Response:
Thank you for this positive comment. No changes were required.

Literature Review Structure and Tone

“Consider headings that are more context and content driven… present the literature with a conclusive and progressive tone.”

Response:
We renamed the section to “Literature Review” (see above) and added conclusive tone sentences at the start of each subsection (e.g., “Collectively, the literature shows a decisive shift...”) to ensure each thematic thread is presented as a strong, evidence-based statement rather than open-ended summary.

Methodology Section

“Enhance scientific rigour by including criteria for inclusion/exclusion and sources.”

Response:
This has been addressed in full in the revised Section 2.1, which now includes:

• Database sources
• Search terms
• Screening process
• Inclusion criteria (e.g., English language, empirical design, organisational context)
• Quality appraisal metrics

Results and Discussion

“Authors could distinctively present findings into theoretical and empirical insights to boost contribution.”

Response:
We added these two paragraphs into the discussion part of the paper:

There are three overall theoretical insights that emerge from this reveiw. First, CLS reframes leadership authority around self‑determination principles, thereby aligning with motivation theories that emphasise autonomy, mastery and relatedness. Second, it integrates psychological‑safety scholarship by positioning leaders as catalysts of open dialogue. Third, CLS provides a boundary‑spanning lens that connects individual development with organisational learning systems.

Moreover there are three overall empirical insights that emerge from this review. Meta‑analyses reveal medium effect sizes (g ≈ 0.50) for performance and well‑being, while controlled trials demonstrate durable gains up to four months post‑intervention. Conversely, large‑scale datasets (e.g., de Haan et al., 2021) show that ~7 % of participants experience negative outcomes when expectations mismatch, highlighting essential contingency factors. ROI case studies (MetrixGlobal, 2001) report returns above 700 %, underscoring economic relevance. Together, these data points confirm CLS as both practically impactful and theoretically integrative.

Overall Structure and Visuals

“Paper could benefit from more structure, clarity and figures/tables.”

Response:
We improved structure through clearer sub-section transitions and topic sentences, added bridging phrases (“Taken together…,” “This sets the stage for…”), and inserted a Summary Matrix (Appendix A) to visually display the synthesis of empirical studies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract Section Feedback:

Appropriate but could be improved- the abstract is clear and captures the narrative hook, approach (though the specific) and the key findings. The author has glossed over the element of recommendation without summarising actual dimensions recommended.

Introduction Section Feedback:

Outstanding- The flow of the introduction and structure of background information is great.

Literature Review

Consider ana alternative heading to relevant section. Centre your headings on more context and content driven wordings. Despite comprehensively reviewing the literature, consider presenting the literature discourse with a “tone” of your work as conclusive and progressive statements.

Methodology Feedback:

The objective of the manuscript is well articulated, and it synthesises empirical literature and metanalysis, combining them arguments satisfactorily to constitute reliable evidence. To enhance scientific rigor, the criteria for literature inclusion/ exclusion, database/ sources could be incorporated.

Results and Discussion:

The study has appropriate findings, but the authors could distinctively present them into theoretical and empirical insights to boost study contribution.

Overall Feedback:

Thank you for your good review paper, it could benefit from more structure, clarity and figures/ tables/ other visual presentations.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

We would like to thank both reviewers for their thoughtful, constructive feedback. Your collective feedback has changed the paper significantly for the better - you are both so kind to spend the time to give us this amazing feedback. 

Each comment has been carefully considered, and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion.

Reviewer 1

Comment 1a – Attribution of Findings

“In some sections there are sentences that perhaps indicate that this is your finding, when actually it is the finding of the article you reviewed... (e.g. lines 97, 124, 149, etc.).”

Response 1a:
Thank you for noting this issue. We reviewed each of the identified lines (and reread the whole paper) and additional similar instances throughout the manuscript. References have been added or clarified to ensure all empirical findings are properly attributed to the original authors. Where phrasing might have suggested original findings, we reworded for transparency. 

Comment 1b – Methodological Transparency and Filtering

“Be more transparent in the multiple steps of your review and how you filtered the database list... Perhaps a matrix table?”

Response 1b:
We have revised Section 2.1 to include a full description of the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and quality appraisal process. This now includes precise database sources, Boolean strings, date ranges, and rationale for narrowing to 14 studies. In addition, Appendix A now includes a Summary Matrix of Core Empirical Studies, showing:

• Study authors and year
• Methodological design
• Main positive/negative findings
• Limitations of each study
  This visual element supports both transparency and replicability.

Comment 1c – Disadvantages of Coaching Leadership

“Could be useful to include a brief review of the disadvantages of coaching leadership styles.”

Response 1c:
We have added a new subsection (2.6: Potential Downsides and Boundary Conditions of CLS) which synthesizes recent literature addressing the limitations and risks associated with coaching leadership. 

Comment 2 – Future Research and Global Context

“Could be useful to highlight the importance of a new global data collection and study, in times of digital transformation, post pandemic?”

Response 2:
We agree this is an important consideration and have expanded the Future Research section to explicitly propose a global longitudinal study of coaching leadership effectiveness in digitally hybrid, post-pandemic workplaces. The revised paragraph suggests cross-cultural research and the use of remote platforms for comparative data collection.

Comment 3 – Section Heading Change

“Change heading ‘Relevant Sections’ to ‘Literature Review.’”

Response 3:
This change has been implemented. The section is now titled “2. Literature Review.”

Comment 4 – “Red Thread” Connections Across Subsections

“Ensure that there is a ‘red thread,’ a link, to the sub-heading and at the end of the text section.”

Response 4:
To strengthen cohesion, we added introductory synthesis sentences at the beginning of each subsection (2.2–2.6) to clearly signal how the theme develops from the previous section. We also revised the final sentence of each subsection to bridge forward to the next theme, providing continuity and logical flow.

Reviewer 2

Abstract Section

“Clear, but glosses over the element of recommendation without summarising actual dimensions.”

Response:
We revised the final portion of the abstract to briefly summarise the key recommendations derived from the literature. The revised abstract now notes the dominant outcome categories and highlights recommendations for embedding CLS into performance systems and cultural change programs.

Introduction Section

“Outstanding – the flow of the introduction and structure of background information is great.”

Response:
Thank you for this positive comment. No changes were required.

Literature Review Structure and Tone

“Consider headings that are more context and content driven… present the literature with a conclusive and progressive tone.”

Response:
We renamed the section to “Literature Review” (see above) and added conclusive tone sentences at the start of each subsection (e.g., “Collectively, the literature shows a decisive shift...”) to ensure each thematic thread is presented as a strong, evidence-based statement rather than open-ended summary.

Methodology Section

“Enhance scientific rigour by including criteria for inclusion/exclusion and sources.”

Response:
This has been addressed in full in the revised Section 2.1, which now includes:

• Database sources
• Search terms
• Screening process
• Inclusion criteria (e.g., English language, empirical design, organisational context)
• Quality appraisal metrics

Results and Discussion

“Authors could distinctively present findings into theoretical and empirical insights to boost contribution.”

Response:
We added these two paragraphs into the discussion part of the paper:

There are three overall theoretical insights that emerge from this reveiw. First, CLS reframes leadership authority around self‑determination principles, thereby aligning with motivation theories that emphasise autonomy, mastery and relatedness. Second, it integrates psychological‑safety scholarship by positioning leaders as catalysts of open dialogue. Third, CLS provides a boundary‑spanning lens that connects individual development with organisational learning systems.

Moreover there are three overall empirical insights that emerge from this review. Meta‑analyses reveal medium effect sizes (g ≈ 0.50) for performance and well‑being, while controlled trials demonstrate durable gains up to four months post‑intervention. Conversely, large‑scale datasets (e.g., de Haan et al., 2021) show that ~7 % of participants experience negative outcomes when expectations mismatch, highlighting essential contingency factors. ROI case studies (MetrixGlobal, 2001) report returns above 700 %, underscoring economic relevance. Together, these data points confirm CLS as both practically impactful and theoretically integrative.

Overall Structure and Visuals

“Paper could benefit from more structure, clarity and figures/tables.”

Response:
We improved structure through clearer sub-section transitions and topic sentences, added bridging phrases (“Taken together…,” “This sets the stage for…”), and inserted a Summary Matrix (Appendix A) to visually display the synthesis of empirical studies.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract Section Feedback:

Appropriate but could be improved- the abstract is clear and captures the narrative hook, approach (though the specific) and the key findings. The author has glossed over the element of recommendation without summarising actual dimensions recommended. –

The abstract has been improved for precision, specific recommendations have been made. Kindly proofread it, without tracked changes and correct repetition in statements like… This review synthesises peer-reviewed evidence on coaching leadership.

Also introduce a hyphen between the years 2020-2025.

Introduction Section Feedback:

Outstanding- The flow of the introduction and structure of background information is great.

Literature Review

Consider an alternative heading to relevant section. Centre your headings on more context and content driven wordings. Despite comprehensively reviewing the literature, consider presenting the literature discourse with a “tone” of your work as conclusive and progressive statements. - The suggested changes have been made to a satisfactory extent. Look out for typographical errors on page 3 i.e Ibarra and Scoular (2019) emphaisize

Methodology Feedback:

The objective of the manuscript is well articulated, and it synthesises empirical literature and metanalysis, combining them arguments satisfactorily to constitute reliable evidence. To enhance scientific rigor, the criteria for literature inclusion/ exclusion, database/ sources could be incorporated. - The suggested changes have been made- appropriately.

Results and Discussion:

The study has appropriate findings, but the authors could distinctively present them into theoretical and empirical insights to boost study contribution. - Substantial changes have been made from pages 3-8. The section on practical recommendations is also beneficial to the study’s impact.

Overall Feedback: Thank you for your good review paper, it could benefit from more structure, clarity and figures/ tables/ other visual presentations.

The suggestion on figurative presentation and tabulation has not been addressed, apart from the annexure but this doesn’t water down the essence of the study.

Author Response

edits made - thank you 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf