Without any doubt, leadership makes a critical difference in the performance and success of individuals, teams, organisations, communities and society (Bhatnagar, 2020; Hawkins & Turner, 2019; Kahn, 2018; Lawrence, 2019; Veldsman, 2016). Leadership effectiveness, and hence organisational effectiveness, are a direct function of leader‒context best fit (Veldsman, 2016). For the purpose of this article, leadership is defined as a dynamic, systemic and holistic influencing process that cultivates a willingness in people to jointly achieve something worthwhile while being engaged in a responsive dialogue (Coetzee, 2019).

Leaders are adaptive, complex systems (Hawkins & Turner, 2019; Obolensky, 2010). A leader’s adaptability equips him or her with emergent strategies to cope better and engage more effectively with changing circumstances and contexts (Hawkins & Turner, 2019; Obolensky, 2010; Veldsman, 2016). Coaching has become one of the top five strategies for leadership development over the last decade (Carey et al., 2011; Odendaal, 2016). Coaching also forms part of most successful leadership development programmes, as it assists leaders to be effective in the context in which they lead and is more likely to translate into measurable forms of business value (Gavin, 2018).

For the purpose of this article, we define coaching as a holistic, interactive process between an internal (employed within the organisation) or external coach and leader to, firstly, understand the current realities and intentions faced by the leader and, secondly, explore and co-create alternative options for the leader to enhance his or her personal and leadership excellence and to have a positive impact on the organisation in a complex world of change (Coetzee, 2019).

According to Cavanagh and Palmer (2009), coaching is ideally placed to assist leaders in developing new and alternative ways to respond to the challenges of the present and the future. Coaching is further positioned as a key intervention for vertical leadership development, where the emphasis is on thinking, acting and engaging differently with the context to find a best fit (Hawkins & Turner, 2019; Odendaal, 2016; Palus et al., 2020; Stelter, 2014a; 2014b; 2016; Veldsman, 2016).

If the context changes, particularly when such change is fundamental and radical, as is currently the case, the power of coaching to equip leaders to fit their context must be interrogated from first principles, in particular, the coaching strategies followed. Coaching as a strategy for vertical leadership development should provide a leader with the possibility to co-construct new meaning and explore alternative options to deal with complexities of a fundamentally different context. If the leader faces a context demanding engagement via a different worldview, then the goodness-of-fit of the worldviews informing coaching strategies with respect to the emerging context must be interrogated for relevance.

A worldview refers to the perceptions and mental models we use to make sense of the world around us and award meaning (Senge, 2006). It is how we know, think and decide about the reality with which we are engaging. In addition, it is also how we give meaning to and make sense of what we observe (Coetzee, 2019; Schein, 2016). Metaphorically, a worldview is leadership’s ‘set of glasses’ in making sense of and creating meaning regarding reality (Veldsman, 2016).

If the worldviews of the context and of coaching differ – a context‒coaching misfit – leaders will be inappropriately equipped to engage with that world. The coaching will thus be ineffective and will exacerbate the misfit between the leaders and the context. The world the leader faces will not resonate with the worldview informing the coaching strategy that is used to develop the leader to deal with that world.

The purpose of the research was to interrogate the worldviews informing the current dominant coaching strategies and to critically assess their relevance to and effectiveness in the emerging context in which leadership must lead. Put slightly differently, from a worldview vantage point, the aim was to critically problematise (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011) current dominant coaching strategies for their potential effectiveness and relevance, in order to enhance the context‒leadership goodness-of-fit, given the fundamentally and radically changing context in which leaders have to lead. The key findings are also evaluated in the current turmoil context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), in which leaders need to think and lead differently.

The procedure followed offers a problematising, critical conceptual review of the appropriateness of worldviews informing the current dominant coaching strategies relative to the emerging context faced by leaders, with the aim of offering an alternative coaching strategy, one that better fits the emerging context.

A review of literature on coaching and the respective dominant worldviews informing these strategies was conducted following a structured and analytical process. It was based on a fair selection of sources, and we critically compared the ideas and evidence, thereby identifying the gap of what still needs to be known and researched (cf. Jesson & Lacey, 2006). In the analytical process, the framework of the coaching landscape (Coetzee, 2019) was applied to evaluate the themes. Subsequently, we developed an alternative strategy to leadership coaching, one based on a systemic worldview. The findings are evaluated in light of the context leaders currently face, in which leaders need to steer their organisations towards specific routines and rituals, be it working remotely or in a hybrid working environment.

The conceptual review covered various articles in scholarly journals and books focused on leadership theories, coaching strategies and worldviews that inform our thinking and beliefs. We made used of EBSCOhost’s database to ensure that we included all relevant articles. The latest updates of the Harvard Business Review were also included. In reviewing coaching strategies and worldviews, the focus was on the originally cited literature and not interpretations of the theory or the strategy. The literature review includes references from 1950 up to 2022 because of the nature of the study. The time period of the review provided the opportunity to test, over time, the development of theory and beliefs, as well as the relevance of the findings.

The storyline of the problematising and critical review unfolded as follows: (1) a characterisation of the emerging context, with the commensurate leadership requirements; (2) an outline of the coaching landscape as a conceptual framework to review the current dominant coaching strategies; (3) profiling the current dominant coaching strategies against the coaching landscape; (4) a distinction between basic worldviews and uncovering which worldview informs which current dominant coaching strategies and the implications thereof; and (5) proposing a systemic coaching strategy that is better matched to the emerging context faced by leaders.

The context of leaders has changed over time and is now, more than ever, characterised by increasing uncertainty and turbulence in what is termed the VUCA world (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity). Veldsman (2021) characterises this new world context as VICCAS: increasing variety, interdependency, complexity, change, ambiguity and seamlessness (i.e. boundarylessness). This new context requires different leadership characteristics, such as the mental agility to identify and exploit emergent opportunities in the ever-changing context (Kutz & Bamford-Wade, 2013; Le Gentil, 2021) and resilience – the ability to bounce back regardless. Leaders are not only required to be concerned about the performance of their business and managing the performance of employees, but also, given the COVID-19 pandemic, they must respond to and manage the mental wellness of their teams. The leaders of today need to be great human leaders who are able respond to the fast-changing, unpredictable business world and make their people feel respected, listened to and inspired, thereby encouraging them to find purpose and meaning in what they do (Le Gentil, 2021; Veldsman, 2021; Veldsman, 2016).

Leadership effectiveness is further shaped by goodness-of-fit with the context. According to Clarke (2013), leadership has shifted away from a traditional individualistic focus to a more collective, social concept, whereby leadership is based on relationships. Clarke (2013) describes leadership as:

According to Hawkins and Turner (2019), the future is bigger and more challenging, one in which we will need to adapt and evolve, and shared leadership is key. Our current way of doing business is not fit-for-purpose, and it will take more empathy, collaboration and systemic thinking to navigate this exponential change.

Leaders are thus faced with difficult challenges that they need to deal with in order to achieve sustainable success. The key contextual shifts that require different leadership behaviours and actions can be described as substantive trends and qualitative trends (Ganz, 2010; Hawkins & Turner, 2019; Kanter, 2010; Le Gentil, 2021; Murray, 2019; Rhinesmith, 2010; Veldsman, 2016, 2021; Veldsman & Veldsman, 2020; Willyerd & Meister, 2010). These trends are summarised.

Substantive trends include: (1) rising expectations of knowledgeable customers and new legislation, which require leaders to be close to customers, understand their needs and respond effectively; (2) changes in societal values and shifting workforce demographics, which require leaders to understand the needs of their employees, provide direction and ensure alignment to achieve a collective outcome and to create a shared and noble purpose for the organisation and its people; (3) current (younger) generations access information very differently and in an instant, virtual and on-going manner, so leaders need to have a multifold focus, explore options and possibilities, be technologically confident and focus on constant learning, which will accelerate as we move into the future; (4) a competitive market with no clearly defined boundaries and global changes that seem utterly chaotic, so leaders need to have the ability to work across boundaries, adopt a global mindset and be comfortable operating in ambiguity and chaos; and (5) complexity of diverse and demanding stakeholders who require leaders to balance the needs of stakeholders in a fair and equitable manner, build and maintain social capital in the process and invest in collaborative relationships with different stakeholders.

Two dominant qualitative contextual trends also highlighted by Kutz and Bamford-Wade (2013) are, firstly, a complex context, with everything becoming increasingly connected and interdependent. For example, the organisation is now being defined as a complex system, with every part of the system affecting every other part. Leaders need to shift their thinking to a systemic view, where the emphasis is on complexity, interconnected relationships, patterns and unpredictability. Secondly, there is a trend of accelerating change and uncertainty – the context of leaders is ever-changing and characterised by uncertainty and turbulence. Leaders need to manage change with high resilience while building change capabilities in their teams and organisations. As the rate and degree of organisational and contextual changes increase, leaders need to keep up with newly required patterns of behaviour and spend less time on managing tasks and more on leading, enabling and empowering people.

It is evident that the world has changed, placing different demands on leaders. For the leader to thrive in this context of radical, fundamental change, leadership development – and coaching, specifically – should offer alternative options to leaders to recognise the holistic patterns and complexity in the ever-changing organisational landscape of the VICCAS world. Contextual intelligence, where the leader integrates the principles of tacit knowledge, synchronicity and time orientation, is an essential competency for today’s leaders (Kutz & Bamford-Wade, 2013). Single, linear solutions are not sufficient. It is proposed that ecosystemic thinking is required. In addition, navigating as leader in a new hybrid way of working, where there are no clear guidelines or research on how to succeed as leader, demands that leaders rely on deep insight and reflection to manage complexity.

Not only do we need to enable leaders to develop different thinking perspectives and capabilities to achieve success, but we also need to think differently about leadership development. Traditional leadership development programmes focus mainly on horizontal development – adding skills, knowledge and competence. This is important but not sufficient in a VICCAS world (Veldsman, 2021). For leaders to succeed in a complex world, there should be greater focus on vertical development, which refers to advancement in a leader’s thinking capability (Odendaal, 2016). In addition, given the complexity illustrated by the different levels of work for leaders, from purely operational to strategic (Jaques, 2004), it will become increasingly important to consider moving from horizontal to more vertical leadership development interventions. This will enable leaders to co-construct meaning and think and act differently and to ensure that their doing and decision-making are equal or superior to the complexity of the environment in which they operate (Odendaal, 2016; Palus et al., 2020).

The outcome of vertical development is the ability to think in a more complex, systemic, strategic and interdependent way (cf. Palus et al., 2020). The focus here is on relationships, patterns of dialogue, connections, shared vision, collaboration, change and ambiguity, different possibilities and options and new ways of thinking and doing (Hawkins & Turner, 2019; Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004; Petrie, 2013). The underlying worldview or perspective of the coaching strategy will indicate if the focus is on vertical or horizontal development. It is proposed that coaching as a strategy for vertical leadership development, where the focus is on meaning-making in a collaborative practice, can provide new alternatives if based on a systemic worldview. Coaches are therefore urged to deliver value beyond the individual leader and to the increasingly complex group of stakeholders with whom they are partnering (Hawkins & Turner, 2019).

A ‘map’ of coaching must be applied in order to understand the coaching territory. Veldsman (personal communication, 2007) depicts mentoring in terms of a landscape made up of different building blocks. A coaching landscape based on that of Veldsman (personal communication, 2007) is proposed, one that would enable a holistic view of coaching through its building blocks, as depicted in Figure 1.

In exploring the literature on coaching, certain themes became apparent. These themes emerged as building blocks of the landscape of coaching, portraying the important components of most approaches in the current coaching literature. When exploring these building blocks, it is important not to view them as individual components, but rather to consider how they form an interdependent, organic totality. The coaching building blocks shown in Figure 1.

In order to create structure and meaning for the review of different coaching approaches, two frameworks were applied. The first framework drew on the work of Kauffman and Hodgets (2016) and Barner and Higgins (2007). According to these authors, the effectiveness of coaching can be enhanced if the coach is familiar with multiple psychological models and able to apply them appropriately to the client’s needs and context, referred to as ‘model agility’. Although coaches tend to be eclectic in their approach to coaching, there are foundational theories that guide their thinking and actions. Most coaches, however, have been trained to use a dominant approach, model or framework (Grant, 2011; Kauffman & Hodgetts, 2016; Lawrence & Turner, 2019; Stelter, 2014a, 2014b).

Barner and Higgins (2007) refer to the following four theory models that inform coaching practice: (1) the clinical model enables the leader to change personality and self-perception, and change comes from the inside; (2) the behavioural model helps the leader to change a problematic area in behaviour, and the focus is on changing thoughts and behaviour, with a specific target and outcome in mind; (3) the systems model enables the leader to align his or her personal goals with those of the organisation, and the focus is on changing the interaction between the leader and the organisational context; and (4) the constructionist model helps the client to re-author his or her story in alignment with his or her role in the organisation. The focus is on defining new realities and changing the prevailing narrative. The four theoretical models cover a broad spectrum and are still applied in recent literature in discussing prevailing coaching models (Cox et al., 2014; Odendaal, 2016).

The second framework that fits well with the present review is based on the notion of different generations of coaching, as described in the work of Stelter (2014a 2014b, 2016). The framework enables us to clarify how coaching can be characterised based on the evolution of the application of coaching over time. The framework includes the following three generations of coaching:

In problematising current dominant coaching strategies, the following coaching approaches were reviewed: psychodynamic coaching (Kets De Vries, 2006; Kilburg, 2004; Lee, 2014; Peltier, 2010), behavioural coaching (Grant, 2014; Peltier, 2010; Peterson, 2006; Skiffington & Zeus, 2006), CBC (Dryden, 2017; Good et al., 2010; Grant et al., 2012; Neenan, 2018; Neenan & Palmer, 2012; Williams et al., 2014), NLP coaching (Grimley, 2014; Hayes, 2006), solution-focused coaching (Cavanagh, 2006; Cavanagh & Grant, 2014; Cox et al., 2014; Jackson & McKergow, 2011), systems psychodynamic coaching (Brunning, 2006; Campbell & Huffington, 2008; Cilliers, 2005; Cilliers & Terblanche, 2010; Diamond, 2013; Lee, 2014; Roberts & Brunning, 2018) and narrative collaborative coaching (Drake, 2010; Stelter, 2014a, 2014b).

Table 1 provides a summary of the key principles and assumptions of the coaching approaches, as aligned to the two frameworks.

From the literature, it would seem that the majority of coaches are trained in a specific coaching model, which is often first- or second-generation coaching (Grant, 2011; Kauffman & Hodgetts, 2016). Third-generation coaching seems to be described less often in the literature. In unpacking the coaching strategies in an integrative manner, we noticed a conceptual convergence between the different approaches.

In the past 3–5 years, there seems to have been more development in and focus on coaching from a third-generation perspective. The expectation of coaches to respond differently to the complexity of the leaders’ context is requiring a different way of coaching (Hawkins & Turner, 2019). The demand on leaders to be able to thrive in a complex, ever-changing world is constantly increasing, and therefore, coaching as a strategy for leadership development should provide a leader with the possibility to co-construct new meaning and explore alternative options in dealing with the complexities of a context. The perspective of Stelter (2014a, 2014b) regarding third-generation coaching plays a fundamental role in defining an alternative coaching strategy for coaching in a complex and ever-changing world.

The way I see the world may be different from how you look at it. The way each of us perceives the world around us is determined by our own mental model (or worldview) (Veldsman, 2016). As we grow up, we all form our own ideas about what we see and think. However, these are influenced by certain mental models or perspectives to which we are exposed. In social sciences, there are also certain paradigms, schemata and theories that shape the way we think.

We will focus on three dominant worldviews that have historically influenced the thinking in social sciences i.e. Newtonian, GST and complexity and chaos (also called second-order systemic thinking). There are different views of and nuances to each of these worldviews (cf. Midgley, 2003). For the purpose of this review, we identified and elucidated the most prominent features informing the generic understanding of the worldview concerned.

The three worldviews are elucidated in terms of the following four themes: (1) the nature of the reality to be known; (2) the aims and outcomes of the knowing process; (3) the process of knowing and the features of a sound knowing process; and (4) the role of the knower relative to the reality to be known. Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 provide comparisons of the three worldviews’ prominent features in terms of the four themes, which are, in turn, applied to the coaching strategy concerned.

The current theoretical coaching strategies described in the literature are mainly informed by Newtonian principles, with some elements of GST. A study by Coetzee (2019) indicated that there was already a different pattern in the practice of coaching, with coaches applying a combination of GST and a systemic strategy in practice. The descriptions and approaches in theory are therefore not a complete reflection of what is happening in the coaching field in practice. The most recent literature (Hawkins & Turner, 2019; Lawrence, 2019) confirms our belief that coaching from a systemic perspective, applying an integrative framework of the coaching building blocks, would provide more alternatives for leaders in today’s emerging world to understand and change their own patterns of self-renewal. Today, coaches increasingly apply a systemic strategy in practice as they are challenged by the interconnected complexities of leaders and organisations having to respond to the impact of COVID-19.

By using the building blocks of the coaching landscape explicated in Figure 1, we focus on principles and assumptions that will enable the leader to apply alternative thinking and doing for greater effectiveness by enhancing the context‒leader fit, which is necessary in a fundamentally and radically changing context.

The currently emerging context is complex and ever-changing and requires a different way of thinking and acting from the leaders of today. Leaders need to find the best fit with their context. In critically problematising the current dominant coaching approaches, given their worldviews, these appear not to fully meet the emerging contextual demands and requirements faced by leaders in practice. This context‒coaching misfit will have a detrimental impact on the effectiveness of coaching, as well as leaders’ ability to engage with a complex, ever-changing context.

The findings confirm the need for a coaching strategy based on a systemic worldview going into the future. In this strategy, the focus is on a coaching context that includes the whole and considers the interconnectedness of all stakeholders. The aim of coaching should be to explore the immersed patterns of the current VICCAS world and to find, together with the leader, alternative patterns, where the coach and leader are equal partners co-creating a new and alternative reality and life story.

In the emerging world, the coaching process cannot be a linear, step-by-step approach; rather, it should be an interconnected, recursive and participative conversation, where the agenda is not predetermined, but evolves in the conversation as a spiral of deepening meaning is created through conversation. The outcomes of the coaching need to be more systemic and unpredictable, co-created through an unfolding two-way conversation in which the coach is a fellow traveller and the leader determines the destination.

A coaching strategy based on a systemic worldview will add more value in practice, because it will enhance the goodness-of-fit of leaders with their contexts in a changing world. Going forward, it will be important for coaching as a practice to re-imagine strategies for the future, in order to realign with what is needed to ensure goodness-of-fit for leaders in a complex and systemic context. Coaching bodies and learning institutions will need to re-look at the development of coaches. Training should not be focused only on developing skills and capabilities or applying systemic principles but should include the complexity of second-order principles of ecosystemic thinking, where reality and meaning are not objective but are co-created within an interconnected, evolving context.