Introducing the Meta-Framework for Meta-Coaching (MFMC): A Comprehensive Approach to Enhancing Meta-Coaching Practices

Abstract

Background: Meta-Coaching has grown significantly in recent years, gaining recognition for its role in personal and professional development. Grounded in Neuro-Semantics, systems thinking, and established coaching methodologies, the Meta-Framework for Meta-Coaching (MFMC) offers a structured approach for aligning potential with actualisation through the interplay of critical reflection, intention, meaning, and performance. The MFMC comprises two intersecting axes—Meaning–Performance and Critical Reflection–Intention—forming four quadrants: Individual Interior, Methodology, Conceptual Foundations, and Systemic Application. These are bounded by four hemispheres: Interiority, Comprehension, Exteriority, and Actualization. Drawing on quadrant-based integrative thinking, particularly Wilber's (2000) integral model, the MFMC adapts this logic for the Meta-Coaching domain. Objectives: The MFMC aims to provide a structured coaching methodology integrating intention, meaning, critical reflection, and performance. This article examines its defining axes, foundational quadrants, and relevance to modern management practice. It highlights the framework's potential to drive individual self-actualisation and systemic organisational transformation, while acknowledging the empirical and conceptual work that remains. Methods: The study employed a qualitative meta-synthesis (QMS) methodology, systematically reviewing and synthesising qualitative studies to deepen understanding of Meta-Coaching. Guided by the interpretivist paradigm, which views knowledge as subjective, the research used a theory-building approach to construct an adaptable framework applicable across disciplines and contexts. Results: The MFMC equips Meta-Coaches to enhance critical thinking, strengthen coaching relationships, and improve client satisfaction. By incorporating perspectives from neuroscience, linguistics, psychology, systems thinking, and organisational development, it extends beyond traditional coaching paradigms. Its current status, however, is that of a theoretically grounded proposal rather than an empirically validated instrument, and its practical value will benefit from applied research. Conclusion: The MFMC offers coaches a structured means of systematically enhancing their practice. By integrating individual intentions, methodology, conceptual foundations, and systemic application, it provides a comprehensive approach suited to complex, dynamic contexts. Its long-term contribution will depend on empirical investigation, resolution of internal tensions, and adaptation across diverse cultural and organisational settings.