The terminology surrounding psychological resilience lacks consistency, with various terms used interchangeably, such as personal resilience, mental resilience, emotional resilience, cognitive resilience, and individual resilience (IJntema et al., 2019). Scholars have offered different definitions of psychological resilience. Luthar et al. (2000) describe it as “a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity” (p. 20). Meanwhile, Paul and Garg (2014) define resilience as “a unique ability to endure and recover fully from extreme conditions, setbacks, trauma, and other adversity” (p. 72).

The inconsistency in the definition of resilience is the difference in conceptualisation of resilience by different researchers. Resilience is a complex concept, and research has conceptualised it as a trait, an individual’s skills or abilities, or a capacity to function positively when exposed to adversity (Van Breda, 2018). Early studies suggested that resilience was characterised by static character traits, with the trait-oriented approach focusing on a hardy personality type (Chmitorz et al., 2018; Galazka and Jarosz, 2019). Later, it was viewed as an outcome, where psychological health is maintained or recovered despite challenges (Kalisch et al., 2017). The outcome-oriented approach emphasises psychological health being sustained or recovered despite adversity (Southwick et al., 2014). Resilience is flexible and influenced by various factors, including internal factors like genetics and resilience-conducive personality traits (Bonanno and Diminich, 2013; Masten, 2001). In this article, we align our conceptualisation of resilience with the emerging view in recent research suggests that resilience can also be viewed as a dynamic and interactive process (Southwick and Charney, 2012). This view is supported by literature indicating that resilience is a malleable epiphenomenon that can be developed, and that individuals can learn to deal with adversity (Neenan, 2018; Winwood et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2019).

Research underscores the significance of enhancing psychological resilience among employees, especially during organisational change, as it can protect against negative impacts (Brown and Abuatiq, 2020). Building resilience is associated with reduced burnout and its effects (Ghossoub et al., 2020) and contributes to improved mental health, positive emotions, self-efficacy, and coping skills (Ke et al., 2022).

The benefits of psychological resilience include greater wellbeing, higher self-efficacy, increased job satisfaction, and improved productivity (McEwen and Boyd, 2018). Resilient individuals experience less anxiety, demonstrate cognitive flexibility, and are more likely to view challenges positively (Baker et al., 2021). Other advantages include a sense of control, effective coping, and personal development opportunities (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013). Overall, individuals with high resilience approach life with optimism and energy, making them less vulnerable to stress-related issues like depression and burnout (Young, 2014).

Research emphasises the growing emphasis on resilience coaching within research and practice, highlighting its effectiveness in helping individuals navigate challenges in the workplace. Lawton-Smith (2015) suggests that coaching serves as a proactive strategy for enhancing psychological resilience. A meta-analysis by Vanhove et al. (2016) finds that coaching is more effective than traditional classroom-based approaches for building resilience. Coaching offers distinct advantages, such as providing a confidential space for discussing difficulties, proactively developing skills, and facilitating open conversations about challenges. Research indicates that coaching empowers individuals to manage their professional lives and make informed career choices (Dyrbye et al., 2019).

In the context of workplace coaching, the coach assists the coachee in developing a self-regulation process that enhances their wellbeing (Fontes and Dello Russo, 2021). Bozer and Jones (2018) describe workplace coaching as a personalised, collaborative intervention aimed at achieving the coachee’s goals. Coaches create a supportive environment that encourages self-reflection, poses challenging questions, and work with coachees to devise solutions and action plans (Grant, 2014). This guided introspection fosters self-awareness, enhances self-control, and alleviates anxiety (Grant, 2017). Reflecting on one’s strengths and weaknesses cultivates resilience-related skills, such as improved coping mechanisms and problem-solving abilities (Grant and Kinman, 2014).

The Stellenbosch University multi-database search engine, Ebscohost, Scopus, and Web of Science were all targeted in a comprehensive search strategy that was developed using text words found in the titles and abstracts of pertinent papers as well as the index keywords used to describe the articles. Each identified keyword and index terms in the search strategy was modified for each database and/or information source that was used. We created an appropriate research string for each database by combining the terms “coaching for resilience,” “resilience coaching,” and “resilien∗ AND coach∗,” and we searched inside titles, abstracts, and keywords.

The review examines psychological resilience coaching for adults in workplace settings. The search criteria included only peer-reviewed journal articles in English with available abstracts. In addition to database searches, the researchers employed a snowballing technique, exploring the reference lists of existing reviews and identified publications.

Studies were excluded based on several criteria, including:

After the search for relevant studies, duplicate citations were removed, and the remaining references were uploaded into EndNote 21/2023. Three reviewers convened to discuss the inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies, as outlined by Levac et al. (2010). Each reviewer independently assessed the abstracts from the search, refining the search strategy based on their findings.

We then reviewed full articles for inclusion, retrieving texts for potentially relevant studies and updating EndNote with citation details. The reviewers evaluated the complete texts against the inclusion criteria and resolved any disagreements through discussion. The outcomes of the search and selection process are illustrated in a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram (Tricco et al., 2018), shown in Figure 1.

A comprehensive set of information on the participants, concept, context, study methods, and significant findings pertinent to the review question are included in the extracted data. An Excel spreadsheet was used to keep a systematic data-extraction as well as analysis process. We extracted the pertinent data from each study, including the authors, year, study design, sample, and results. This phase gave a broad summary of resilience coaching programme elements from the literature and served as the basis for a more in-depth analysis.

In this scoping review, we employed qualitative content analysis to identify key qualities and factors associated with resilience coaching. This method, following the framework established by Kleinheksel et al. (2020), involved using frequency counts to assess the prevalence of specific codes within the text as an indicator of their significance. The analysis process began with an immersive reading of the text, alongside transcribing recorded data, which allowed us to become intimately familiar with the material and generate preliminary ideas about potential concepts or themes (Kleinheksel et al., 2020). The first step involved identifying units of meaning within the text. After recognising and condensing these units, we assigned codes to them, organizing the data for greater clarity. Next, we used two or more code categories to uncover or support broader underlying meanings, ultimately leading to the development of themes (Kleinheksel et al., 2020). This thorough examination of each publication was conducted over multiple rounds to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the material.

We found 17 relevant papers, with a focus on resilience coaching interventions in business settings (see Table 1). The findings are presented in a narrative and tabular format, summarising the resilience coaching programmes, their characteristics, and the outcomes.

Figure 2 summarises the steps involved in the coaching sessions, linking the steps to approaches aimed at fostering resilience, elucidating how these approaches were measured and how their effectiveness was evaluated.

The reviewed studies employed various coaching approaches, with the most common being the cognitive behavioural and solution-focused framework, used in four studies (Grant et al., 2009; Grant et al., 2010; Grant, 2014; Grant et al., 2017). Two studies utilised a positive psychology approach (Archer and Yates, 2017; Song et al., 2020). Additionally, two studies combined multiple approaches. Brown and Yates (2018) applied a humanistic approach, integrating elements from positive psychology, solution-focused coaching, and cognitive behavioural coaching. Gray (2016) created a wellbeing coaching approach for individuals and teams facing organisational transitions, drawing on positive psychology, neuroscience, and pedagogy. However, nine studies (Auer et al., 2022; Dyrbye et al., 2019; De Haan et al., 2019; Fontes and Dello Russo, 2021; IJntema et al., 2021; Jeannotte et al., 2021; McKimm and Povey, 2018; Sherlock-Storey et al., 2013; Timson, 2015) did not specify the coaching approach used. Lastly, three studies (Fontes and Dello Russo, 2021; Grant et al., 2009; Grant et al., 2010) employed the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Way forward) to ensure the coaching conversations were goal-oriented and structured.

The goals of the coaching programmes were diverse, with only a few studies focusing solely on resilience (IJntema et al., 2021; Sherlock-Storey et al., 2013). Other programmes aimed to improve wellbeing (Dyrbye et al., 2019), facilitate workplace transitions (Grant, 2014), or enhance leadership development (Grant et al., 2017). The methodologies used also varied, with experimental and quasi-experimental designs being most common, and data collected at different intervals, typically before and after the interventions, with follow-up measures in some cases. These differences in design, objectives, and data collection methods further contribute to the challenge of comparing the effectiveness of these coaching programmes.

Coaching interventions in the reviewed studies also showed significant variation in both duration and structure. The length of programmes ranged from 6 weeks (Sherlock-Storey et al., 2013) to over a year (McKimm and Povey, 2018), with some studies offering flexible timeframes (Auer et al., 2022; McKimm and Povey, 2018). The number of sessions also varied, from a minimum of three (Brown and Yates, 2018) to up to 45 sessions (Auer et al., 2022). Intervals between sessions ranged from weekly (Grant et al., 2010) to every 4–6 weeks (Archer and Yates, 2017), and session lengths fluctuated between 30 and 90 min, further highlighting the absence of a standardised approach across studies.

The delivery and expertise of the coaches also varied significantly. While most studies used external, certified professional coaches (Auer et al., 2022), some employed internal coaches (De Haan et al., 2019). The coaches’ qualifications ranged from short formal training programmes to PhDs, and their experience varied widely. This inconsistency in coach experience, along with differences in delivery methods (in-person, virtual, or hybrid), adds another layer of complexity to assessing the impact and success of coaching interventions across the reviewed studies. Standardising coach qualifications, delivery methods, and programme structure could enhance future research and practice in the field.

Participation in coaching has been shown to improve resilience in all the reviewed studies, with both qualitative and quantitative measures supporting these findings. A key theme across seven studies was that the intervention group, which received coaching, experienced greater resilience improvements compared to the control group (Auer et al., 2022; Dyrbye et al., 2019; Grant, 2014; Grant et al., 2009; Grant et al., 2010; Grant et al., 2017; Song et al., 2020). For instance, in Auer et al. (2022), those receiving coaching had significantly larger resilience gains than those without coaching. Fontes and Dello Russo (2021) found that coaching was associated with increases in Psychological Capital, while Grant et al. (2010) also reported increased resilience in the coaching group compared to the control. Similarly, Grant (2014) found that coaching enhanced resilience, with a one-tailed t-test showing significant increases [t_{(1, 30)} = 1.79, p < 0.05]. Grant et al. (2017) demonstrated that participation led to significant increases in resilience [t_{(1, 30)} = 2.50, p < 0.05]. In Sherlock-Storey et al. (2013), post-intervention resilience levels were significantly higher [t₍₁₀₎ = 3.24, p = 0.045], while in Dyrbye et al. (2019), resilience scores improved more in the intervention group than the control group [mean (SD) = 1.3 (5.2) vs. 0.6 (4.0)]. Song et al. (2020) reported significant improvements in mean BRS scores, though the lack of a control group limited conclusions about the direct effects of the coaching intervention.

Qualitative findings also showed enhanced resilience following coaching (Archer and Yates, 2017; Brown and Yates, 2018; Grant et al., 2009; Gray, 2016; Timson, 2015). Brown and Yates (2018) identified emotional changes during and after coaching as a dominant theme. IJntema et al. (2021) found that resilience components like hope, self-efficacy, and stress recovery had both short- and long-term positive impacts. Gray (2016) reported a transformative awareness of resilience and workplace wellbeing, suggesting that new resilience-related schemata can be developed through cognitive and behavioural repetition. Archer and Yates (2017) observed deliberate shifts in participants’ thinking, leading to greater resilience and self-reflection. Timson (2015) highlighted the value of the individualised coaching sessions in fostering self-reflection and insight, which were key to developing behavioural changes. De Haan et al. (2019) also found correlations between resilience, psychological wellbeing, self-efficacy, and social support as indicators of coaching effectiveness. Jeannotte et al. (2021) noted that resilience development took longer, with the most significant gains occurring in the latter half of the intervention.

This scoping review has shown that various approaches have been successfully used to coach for resilience, including the positive psychology approach (Archer and Yates, 2017; Song et al., 2020) and a humanistic approach incorporating positive psychology, solution-focused, and cognitive-behavioural coaching (Brown and Yates, 2018). This is consistent with the research, wherein a number of academics have shown that resilience can be enhanced by various coaching strategies (Pemberton, 2015). However, the most used approach is the cognitive-behavioural coaching (CBC) framework (Grant et al., 2009, 2010; 2014; 2017), which focuses on identifying internal resources and overcoming negative thinking (Skews et al., 2018). Resilience is dependent on flexibility in thoughts and actions when reacting to adverse situations (Neenan, 2018). CBC helps coachees reframe irrational beliefs (David et al., 2016) and develop resilient emotions (Skews et al., 2018).

This scoping review highlighted that participation in coaching consistently improves resilience, corroborating previous research on the efficacy of coaching in resilience development. As coaching research evolves, it incorporates various techniques to build resilience (Grant et al., 2009; Green and Humphrey, 2012; Pemberton, 2015). Coaching has been suggested as a preventive measure for fostering resilience, particularly for individuals facing adversity (Lawton-Smith, 2015). A meta-analysis by Vanhove et al. (2016) found that coaching is more effective at building resilience than traditional classroom-based methods.

Both qualitative and quantitative studies demonstrated positive outcomes in resilience following coaching interventions. Quantitative results, including studies by Dyrbye et al. (2019), Fontes and Dello Russo (2021), and others, showed measurable improvements in resilience. Qualitative feedback also highlighted enhanced resilience, with participants reporting growth in areas like hope, self-efficacy, and stress recovery (Archer and Yates, 2017; Gray, 2016; IJntema et al., 2021).

Several factors explain the success of coaching in improving resilience. First, coaching offers a confidential and proactive space for discussing challenges, which encourages openness (Lawton-Smith, 2015). This emotionally supportive environment promotes cognitive flexibility and learning (Mosteo et al., 2016). Second, coaches help coachees identify patterns and manage emotions, serving as thought partners (Crawford, 2017; Auerbach, 2006). Third, workplace coaching is a tailored, non-hierarchical partnership aimed at fostering goal achievement and wellbeing (Bozer and Jones, 2018; Fontes and Dello Russo, 2021). Through reflective questioning and strategy development, coaches help coachees enhance self-regulation and coping skills, leading to reduced stress and improved resilience (Grant, 2014; Grant and Kinman, 2014).

This scoping review highlights various tools for measuring resilience.

To enhance resilience assessment, we encourage coaching programmes to develop tools that will fit the requirements of their programmes. Some studies (e.g., Gray, 2016; Jeannotte et al., 2021) have custom develop scales for their coaching programmes. In the Jeannotte et al. (2021) the nine-dimensional scale set was created and verified after an extensive multiphase examination. The wellbeing model was used in the coaching sessions in Gray (2016) study, and the findings were documented as individual participant coaching profiles. Data on “best self” and “periphery” comments, as well as individual pathway descriptions found during the coaching session, were included in the profiles (Gray, 2016).

We also suggest that it is important to include qualitative measures in order to elicit the views of the coachees on how the coaching programmes have helped to improve their resilience. Semi-structured interviews could be used to gather qualitative data and to establish an in-depth understanding of the participants’ experiences (Archer and Yates, 2017). Participants can also be encouraged to respond to open-ended questions order to gather some qualitative data on participants’ experience of the coaching programmes (Grant, 2014; Grant et al., 2017). Thematic analysis techniques can then be used to analyse the data.

Theeboom et al. (2014) highlight the importance of research design as a moderating factor in coaching outcomes. The way coaching interventions are studied can influence the results, with more rigorous designs likely to show more reliable outcomes. RCTs are regarded as the “gold standard” for establishing causality because they control for confounding variables and minimise selection bias. While other designs are considered less robust than RCTs due to potential biases (e.g., maturation effects or selection bias), they still offer valuable insights, especially when it is difficult to randomly assign participants.

Athanasopoulou and Dopson (2018) emphasise that studies incorporating multiple data sources—such as multicourse feedback, assessment tools, and repeated measures—are of higher quality than those relying solely on self-reported outcomes. Some of the reviewed coaching studies fall short here, as they rely on subjective evaluations by participants, without triangulating the data through objective measures. Studies that incorporate repeated measures, particularly during and after the coaching process (Rekalde et al., 2017), are better able to track the longitudinal effects of coaching, though few do this comprehensively.

The number of coaching sessions, format, and delivery method (e.g., face-to-face or blended coaching) were found to have no significant effect on outcomes in some studies (Jones et al., 2016; Theeboom et al., 2014). However, Blackman et al. (2016) note that customised, individual programmes tend to yield better results, suggesting that the quality and adaptability of the coaching intervention may be more critical than the number of sessions or the specific delivery format. Moreover, Grover and Furnham (2016) provide evidence supporting the long-term impact of coaching, noting that studies examining coaching effects months after the intervention report sustained positive outcomes. We argue that the lack of longitudinal data in some of the reviewed studies limits our understanding of how long the coaching effects on resilience last and under what conditions they might fade.

The coaching literature is also criticised for its weak theoretical foundation, as many studies lack a clear framework explaining why coaching works (Bozer and Jones, 2018; Grant, 2013; Theeboom et al., 2014). The absence of a unifying approach in coaching for resilience impedes the ability to generalize findings. Bozer and Jones (2018) argue that studies should be evaluated not only on methodological rigor but also on how well they explain the underlying theoretical constructs that make coaching effective.