As a testimony to its emerging status, organisational coaching currently has a variety of definitions. An amalgamation of definitions suggests that coaching is beneficial as an individual and organisational learning and development intervention (Grant, Cavanagh & Parker, 2010; Maltbia, Marsick & Ghosh, 2014); and that it is a structured process employing various tools and strategies to achieve a positive outcome for multiple stakeholders (Bachkirova, Cox & Clutterbuck, 2014; Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011). The focus of the present study was on coaching within organisations, which comprises various genres including executive, management, leadership and business coaching (Grant, 2012; Stern, 2004).

Coaching is a growing practice. In 2019, there were an estimated 71 000 coaches worldwide (International Coach Federation [ICF], 2020a), up from approximately 47 500 in 2011 (Dunlop, 2017). In South Africa, there are approximately 1700 coaches currently registered with the Coaches and Mentors of South Africa (COMENSA) (J. Myburgh, personal communication, 01 October 2020). The ICF reported 488 coaches in South Africa and 511 in the rest of Africa as on August 2020 (ICF, 2020b).

Blackman et al. (2016) argued that coaching has always been around in organisations, but that it has changed over the years from initial practitioners (1950–1979) informally working with executives using organisational and psychological techniques, to the present where the growing profession is backed by an increasing number of research publications, professional bodies and formal qualifications. Coaching in its current form probably originated in North America in the 1980s before spreading to Europe (Passmore & Lai, 2019). Coaching only arrived much later (towards the end of the 1990s) in South Africa and the rest of Africa (Stout-Rostron, 2006). Given its roots in the Global North and the temporal lag of its arrival in Africa, coaching practice in Africa is less researched and therefore less well understood. This raises a number of questions including: Which coaching approaches are actually used in Africa? How do they compare with the rest of the world?

Coaching borrows from many fields, including management, education, social sciences, philosophy, psychology and adult learning (Cox, Bachkirova & Clutterbuck, 2014). This eclectic basis leads to numerous applications of coaching, as summarised by Cox et al. (2014). This rich and diverse offering seems positive at first glance, because it implies that many different contexts are covered; however, little research is available on which approaches are actually used and how effective they are in different scenarios. In their meta-analysis, Athanasopoulou and Dopson (2018) found that the type of coaching is mentioned in less than half of the coaching studies examined. Of the reported approaches in their analysis, cognitive behavioural was the most popular, followed by the solution-focussed and positive psychology or strengths coaching approaches. Their meta-study related to coaching research, but what about coaching practice? In a 2017, European-wide (45 countries) coaching practice survey (n = 2791), 23% of coaches reported using a Behavioural or GROW approach, 16% solution-focussed approach and 11% each neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and cognitive behavioural approaches (Passmore, Brown, Csigas et al., 2017).

The recent Sherpa Coaching survey made a crude differentiation between coaching practices by distinguishing between ‘strengths-’ and ‘weakness’-based coaching (Sherpa Coaching, 2020). Strengths-based coaching is modelled on positive psychology, whereas weakness-based coaching suggests that a client needs to overcome their limitations in order to progress. The Sherpa Coaching survey found that weakness-based coaching is more likely to be favoured by internal coaches and that these coaches model their coaching approach on published coaching approaches. In contrast, strengths-based coaches develop their own coaching approach.

In a South African study (n = 148), 63% of participants indicated that they used their own coaching model, 59% used a positive psychology approach and 40% of coaches used a narrative approach (participants were allowed to select more than one option) (Schutte, 2019). No research could be found on Pan-African coaching approaches, an aspect addressed in the present study.

The second aspect of coaching praxis addressed in the present study is that of rates charged by organisational coaches in Africa. Many people are drawn to the profession of coaching as an alternative career (ed. Passmore, 2015). However, the reality is that many coaches struggle to make a living from coaching. Terblanche et al. (2019) found that one of the main challenges is over-optimism about earnings potential.

In terms of rates charged, one study (n = 400) revealed that 25% of coaches (all types) surveyed in the United Kingdom had earned less than £5000 from coaching per year since 2009 (Cavett, 2015). Organisational coaches seem to fare better. In a study in the United States of America (n = 428), the average hourly coaching rate was $237 (Bono, Purvanova, Towler & Peterson, 2009), whilst the top-end coaches charged up to $3500 per hour (Couto & Kauffmann, 2009). In a Pan-European study, 37% of coaches charged €200 or higher per hour, 22% charged €100 or less per hour and 10% charged €400 or higher per hour (Angulo, Passmore & Brown, 2019).

The Sherpa Coaching Survey (2020) found that so-called weakness-based coaches charged more per hour than strengths-based coaches, with 69% of weakness-based coaches charging $500 or more compared with 63% of strenghts-based coaches. Their survey also found that more experienced coaches earn more. Coaching with 10–15 years’ experience earns $122 000 per annum whilst coaches with more than 15 years’ experience earn $160 000 per annum at an hourly rate of over $450 on average. A recent ICF survey found that the global average earning for coaches was $47 100 with the Middle East and African (treated as one region in the survey) coaches earning significantly less at $34 900 per annum (ICF, 2020a).

The only African study (n = 148) that was found, revealed that South African coaches charge between R550 ($321) and R1850 ($110) per hour with an average of R1034 ($60) per hour (Schutte, 2019); however, it is not clear whether these rates were exclusive to organisational coaching. To the best of our knowledge, no study has enquired about organisational rates across Africa and importantly, none of the studies attempted to determine which factors influence the rates charged. These important questions are addressed in the present study.

This research followed a quantitative design using a cross-sectional survey as data collection instrument. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

The survey used for a Pan-European research study (Passmore et al., 2017) was used with slight modification for the African context. The original survey asked questions about coaches’ experience, their coach training and details about their coaching practice, coaches’ fee rates for individual and organisational coaching (per hour), how they rated themselves compared with colleagues, and the extent they used supervision, self-reflection and forms of personal development (Passmore & Dromantaite, 2020). Modifications for the African context included reference to South African currency (for rates charged), African coaching bodies and different coaching focus areas. The survey was pre-tested with a sample of local African coaches to ensure clarity and logical flow. The survey was made available on the Internet and tooks approximately 20 min to complete.

A link to the survey was distributed to coaches working in Africa through the researchers’ personal networks and relevant coaching bodies including COMENSA, the ICF and the Africa Executive Coaching Council (AECC). In total 349 valid responses were received from 19 countries. A subsample of the data collected (n = 299), which excluded non-organisational coaches was used as the results shared in this article focus on coaching approaches used and factors that influence the rates coaches charge in an organisational context.

For descriptive purposes, frequencies and percentages were reported. Relationships between corporate rates and ordinal variables (e.g. age) were investigated using Pearson correlation analyses. Mean rates between males and females, as well as coaching body members versus non-members were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Participants were informed of the confidential and anonymous nature of the study where they provided consent before starting the survey. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Henley Business School at the University of Reading.

Of the 299 organisational coaches, approximately 32% (n = 95) self-identified as male and 68% (n = 204) as female. Those belonging to a coaching body represented approximately 84% (n = 252) of the sample whilst 16% (n = 47) did not belong to a coaching body. In terms of location, approximately 74% (n = 222) of coaches were from South Africa and 26% (n = 77) from the rest of Africa.

Coaches were asked about the coaching approaches they were trained in and which approaches they predominantly used. They were able to select multiple options. The results reveal that African coaches are trained and use a variety of approaches, but some approaches are more popular than others (see Figure 1). The most common coaching approach trained (77.1%) and used (75.4%) is Behavioural or Goal-focussed coaching using the GROW model. Solution-focussed is second (trained 44.4%; used 43%), followed by Cognitive Behavioural (trained 40.1%; used 39.8%). Other approaches are used significantly less frequently: NLP (26.6%), transactional analysis (19.8%), motivational interviewing (18.1%), Gestalt (15.8%), existential (14%), Psychodynamic (9.7%) and transpersonal (8%). In all cases, there is a fairly close alignment between the approaches coaches were trained in, and how often they use those approaches.

Coaches were also asked to indicate which coaching approach they use in different presenting situations. When faced with career coaching scenarios (Figure 2), coaches opted for the arguably less-complex Behavioural or GROW (52.4%) approach.

However, when faced with the more challenging scenario of diversity issues (Figure 3), coaches employed more sophisticated approaches, like Cognitive Behavioural (18.3%), more so than the Behavioural or GROW (14.3%) approach. Other more complex approaches, such as Transpersonal (8.4%), Existential (7.2%) and Gestalt (6.3%) are also used significantly more than in the career coaching scenario.

These findings can be seen in the context of the Sherpa Coaching survey finding that 31% of coaches following a proposed process, compared with 29% who used their own developed process. However, the majority (39%) adapted their coaching approach based on the unique needs of each client (Sherpa Coaching, 2020). Following this global trend, the finding of the present study suggests that coaches in Africa also adapt their approach based on the specific client’s need.

The correlations (Table 1) between the corporate rate charged by coaches across Africa and their age, coaching qualification, coaching experience and whether or not they received coaching supervision are shown. Values for South Africa only are shown in brackets.

The age, qualification and experience (Table 1) are statistically significantly (p < 0.01) correlated to corporate coaching rate charged. For all of Africa, age has a small positive correlation (Pearson coefficient = 0.17), whereas qualification (Pearson coefficient = 0.29) and experience (Pearson coefficient = 0.28) have medium positive correlations to corporate rates charged. For South Africa only, these correlations are more significant (Age: 0.27; Qualification: 0.39; Experience: 0.35). There is no correlation between supervision received and corporate coaching rate in Africa (p = 0.31) or South Africa (p = 0.13).

The ANOVA results show that, in terms of actual rates, there was no statistically significant (p = 0.48) difference between how much men and women charge. The overall mean rate is R1761 ($104) per hour for all of Africa and R1573 ($93) per hour for South Africa. There was however a significant (p < 0.03) difference between the rates charged by coaches who belong to a coaching body: R1827 ($107) and those who do not: R1404 ($83).

African coaches are exposed to a relatively narrow selection of coaching approaches during their training, the predominant one being the Behavioural or Goal-focussed or GROW approach. This approach, especially the GROW model, is considered a foundational approach to coaching, widely used by novice coaches (Stout-Rostron & Van Rensburg, 2009, p. 66). More complex approaches, such as Gestalt, Existential and Psychodynamic, are generally used less frequently. This potentially points to coaches in Africa using less-sophisticated approaches when compared with, for example, coaches in Europe where only 23% reported to use the Behavioural or Goal-focussed or GROW (Passmore et al., 2017). Our result also differs from a South African study (Schutte, 2019) that found South African coaches to predominantly use their own coaching model and a positive psychology approach.

Although African coaches rely mostly on the Behavioural or Goal-focussed or GROW approach, they demonstrate a level of flexibility in particular scenarios. When presented with an arguably more complex scenario of diversity issues, coaches in Africa are able to reduce their reliance on the Behavioural or Goal-focussed or GROW approach and engage with more complex coaching approaches, such as Transpersonal, Existential and Gestalt. This points to an awareness that one size does not fit all and is also a possible indication of the maturing nature of coaching praxis in Africa.

The results indicate that higher age, experience and level of coaching qualification are linked to higher coaching rates charged. This result does not come as a surprise per se, but does perhaps help to refute a stigma attached to coaching. In the past, coaching was regarded as a ‘wild west’ (Sherman & Freas, 2004) where anyone could call themselves a coach. Whilst coaching remains an unregulated industry and some of the assertions of Sherman and Freas are still true in essence, the results from the present study indicate that at least in Africa, experience and the level of coaching training are rewarded by the buyers of coaching services through a higher rate paid. This is indeed an encouraging result and points to the maturing of coaching as a profession.

It is interesting to note that being in supervision did not correlate to a higher rate charged. Some scholars believe that supervision is a crucial part of coaching becoming a recognised profession (Hawkins, Turner & Passmore, 2019). One would therefore expect that more experienced coaches would be in supervision and that they would be charging a higher rate. Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that there is resistance to supervision from some coaches, especially in South Africa. The result from the present study confirms that supervision is not yet considered important in Africa by experienced, well-qualified coaches and indicates that coaching may still have a way to go before it can consider itself a profession as per Hawkins et al. (2019).

An encouraging sign in terms of gender equality is that there is no difference between the rates charged by men and women, which is in contrast to the findings of the recent Sherpa Coaching Survey (2020). In their survey, at the top end of the scale, 18% of women earn $500 or more compared with 21% of men. At the bottom end of the scale, 45% of women earn less than $300 compared with 36% or men.

Finally, the average hourly rate of R1761 ($104) charged by organisational coaches in Africa is significantly less than in Europe and the United States of America. In Europe, 37% of coaches charge €200 or higher (Passmore et al., 2017) and in the United States of America in 2009 already, the average rate was $237 (Bono et al., 2009). The global Sherpa Coaching Survey (2020) found that even new coaches with less than two years experience charge on average $300 per hour. This significant price difference between coaches in Africa and global coaches presents an opportunity. Coaches in Africa could possibly expand their offering into the global market, given their price advantage and that virtual coaching is becoming more accepted, especially as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.