Humor in professional coaching: a literature review and research agenda

The paper addresses a gap in coaching research regarding the use and effects of spontaneous humor in one-to-one professional dialogues. While humor is established in psychotherapy, counseling, mentoring, and HRD as beneficial for well-being, social bonding, creativity, and coping, its mechanisms and outcomes in coaching remain underexplored. Coaching is defined as a goal-oriented, professional dialogue aimed at personal and professional development, distinct from therapy’s focus on psychological problems and diagnostics. Drawing on adjacent fields, the study explores spontaneous, interactional humor (often therapist/practitioner-initiated from empathic attunement, and also client-initiated) rather than planned humor interventions. The paper poses two research questions: (1) What existing insights are available regarding humor use in interaction, and what are the effects of humor use in a one-to-one setting where professional dialogue is utilized for personal development? (2) What insights from adjacent fields can be applied to the coaching practice, and what factors should be considered when implementing humor in a coaching setting?

The review synthesizes prior work on humor’s definitions and functions, and prior systematic reviews across psychotherapy and personal development. Humor is a social, cognitive-emotional phenomenon linked to incongruity and play, with theoretical approaches including psychoanalytic, superiority, arousal, incongruity, and reversal theories. The Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) distinguishes adaptive (self-enhancing, affiliative) and maladaptive (self-defeating, aggressive) styles. Prior reviews (Gelkopf, 2011; Schneider et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2019; Gonot-Schoupinsky et al., 2020; Brooks et al., 2021; Sarink and García-Montes, 2023) show humor’s benefits for alliance, acceptance, empathy, optimism, self-esteem, and reductions in depression and anxiety, but highlight risks (misinterpretation, belittling, weaponized humor), operationalization challenges, and design inconsistencies. Most prior studies focused on humor interventions (clowns, videos, laughter therapy) or group settings, seldom analyzing the client–practitioner interaction and spontaneous humor. Coaching reviews (Theeboom et al., 2014; Bozer and Jones, 2018; de Haan, 2019; Graßmann et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022; Richter et al., 2021) rarely consider humor as a tool despite its noted presence in practice. This review bridges humor-interaction insights from psychotherapy, counseling, and mentoring to coaching.

Design: Systematic Literature Review (SLR) guided by PRISMA, with elements of an Integrative Literature Review (ILR) to integrate adjacent literature streams and provide a coherent conceptual structure. Scope: Focused on spontaneous humor use in dyadic, face-to-face professional dialogues (psychotherapy, counseling, mentoring) with adult populations, extracting transferable insights for coaching. Search Phases and Sources: Phase 1 (Sep 2021–2022): Google Scholar, ProQuest Articles, ProQuest Central using: [(“career coaching” OR “workplace coaching” OR “life coaching” OR “executive coaching” OR “mental coaching”) AND (“humor” OR “humor” OR “playfulness” OR “humor intervention”)]. 346 results + 2 via references; after exclusions, 1 empirical coaching article remained. Consultation with four coaching researchers confirmed scarcity of empirical studies in coaching. Phase 2 (Jan 2022–Jul 2023): Adjacent fields searches. PsychInfo (2000–2022): 698 records +10 reference additions; after screening, 5 studies included. Scopus (2010–2023): [“humor*” OR “humour*” OR “playful*” OR “banter*” OR “using humor”] AND [“psychotherap*” OR “counsel*” OR “mentor*”]; 320 hits, 5 studies included. ProQuest Central and APA Psych Articles (title search, 2000–2023): 34 hits, no new records. Colleague suggestions added 2 more studies. Total included: 13 empirical studies. Eligibility Criteria: Language: English or German; Focus: humor used by client and/or practitioner within dyadic professional dialogue; Exclusions: humor-enhancing programs training only, laughter-only measures unrelated to humor, dementia, <18 years, couples, sports, teams, telephone/email/chat therapy; Publication type: peer-reviewed journal articles; Setting: face-to-face only; Primary studies only (exclude reviews/meta-analyses). Risk of Bias: PRISMA steps to minimize bias; acknowledgment of potential publication bias due to psychology-focused databases (limited management sources). Study Characteristics: 13 studies (2013–2023) across 11 journals on 4 continents; methods included quantitative (2), mixed methods (3), qualitative (8); data collection via semi-structured interviews, content analyses of video sessions, questionnaires, case studies, observational methods. Participants: adult clients (n≈283) and practitioners (n≈250), including psychotherapists, CBT therapists, counselors, mentors, occupational therapists, and coaches. Data Extraction: Full-text review; extracted metadata, methods, operationalization of humor use, outcomes, and findings; mapped results into theoretically based categories and HSQ humor styles.

- Quantitative and mixed-method findings: • Panichelli et al. (2018): Presence of humor negatively correlated with Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) severity; more improvement associated with higher humor presence; humor less present with more severe problems; clients perceiving therapist as less funny had lower hope/pleasure (without outcome impact). • Brooks et al. (2023): Humor predicted positive internalization of others’ attitudes (INTREX Positive Introject Outcome); banter correlated with bond subscale of WAI-SR (r=0.26; p=0.035); laughter present in most sessions with mean ≈4.54 instances per session; more humor in CBT than psychodynamic/psychoanalytic sessions; negative banter risks noted. • Love et al. (2020): Positive humor style and humor frequency associated with higher mentoring satisfaction (p<0.001); mentoring satisfaction linked to higher affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction, lower turnover intentions. • Kneisel et al. (2022): Clients laughed more than practitioners; practitioners’ laughter more often shared; laughter greater at session beginnings; more laughter in different-ethnicity dyads; practitioners’ laughter targeted human nature (36%) and clients (51%); clients targeted themselves (58%). • Morrison and Smith (2013): Humor facilitated working alliance (WA) and improved clients’ everyday task performance and self-confidence. • Graßmann et al. (2021): 48.5% of 99 coaches reported using humor as a strategy with difficult clients. - Qualitative synthesis (categories and frequency across studies): • Well-being of the client (8 studies): Humor used by both parties to alleviate stress, reduce defensiveness, create comfort/lightness, and enable safe exploration. • Fostering working alliance (8 studies): Humor builds bond, trust, and connection; strategically useful with challenging clients; risks include seduction, offense, forced humor, or use with clients who struggle with double meanings. • Energy, creativity, and depth (7 studies): Humor increased energy, flexibility, playfulness, and relational depth; could catalyze catharsis; risks include concealing deeper emotions or misunderstanding (belittling/mimicking). • Cognitive and behavioral shifts (7 studies): Humor supported reappraisal, openness to new perspectives, and insight; CBT contexts particularly conducive; client-initiated humor can signal positive change; defensive humor may reinforce avoidance. • Effects on the practitioner (4 studies): Humor expanded toolkit for handling difficult clients, supported composure, boundary-setting, prevented burnout/compassion fatigue, and provided diagnostic insight into familial humor patterns. - Humor styles: Practitioners predominantly used adaptive styles (affiliative cited in 9 studies; self-enhancing in 7). Maladaptive practitioner humor appeared in limited cases (aggressive humor for confrontation or coping with severe trauma; self-defeating to reduce power asymmetry). Clients more often used self-defeating and aggressive humor (defense, frustration, catharsis), with affiliative humor less frequently reported; self-enhancing humor linked to stress reduction.

Findings address the research questions by demonstrating that spontaneous, interactional humor frequently arises in dyadic professional dialogues and is linked to beneficial outcomes relevant to coaching: stronger bond/trust within the working alliance, improved coping and emotional regulation, enhanced energy/creativity, and cognitive/behavioral shifts. Humor appears effective early in sessions as parties establish connection, challenging the convention that humor should be delayed until bonds are established. For coaching practice, humor can be integrated with psychologically informed approaches (e.g., Cognitive Behavioral Coaching), supporting goal attainment through reappraisal, acceptance of mistakes, and breaking intervention monotony. The Broaden-and-Build theory provides a conceptual foundation: humor as a positive emotion broadens thought-action repertoires, fostering resilience, experimentation, and innovation. Aggressive or confrontational humor, used judiciously, may help engage challenging clients (e.g., narcissistic traits) by softening ego threats, though risks of harm remain. Training and supervision should emphasize authenticity, timing, cultural sensitivity, and awareness of failed humor phenomena. Emerging opportunities include applying humor in virtual agents and robotics for coaching-like interactions, potentially enhancing self-disclosure and saving organizational costs. Overall, humor offers a translatable, evidence-informed avenue to enhance coaching efficacy, alliance, and outcomes.

This review contributes a structured synthesis of spontaneous humor’s interactional effects in professional dialogues and maps transferable insights to coaching. Across 13 empirical studies, humor correlates with favorable client outcomes (well-being, insight, task performance), organizational outcomes (mentoring satisfaction, commitment, job satisfaction), and stronger working alliances—especially the bond component. Humor also aids practitioners in managing difficult interactions and preventing burnout. The paper proposes a research agenda for coaching: prioritize qualitative and mixed-method designs to unpack mechanisms; examine timing and context of humor; study failed humor; classify positive and negative outcomes systematically; test causal links via experimental and longitudinal designs; and explore humor’s utility in virtual coaching contexts. Practically, integrate humor skills and reflective supervision into coach education toolkits to maximize benefits and mitigate risks.

- Reliance on adjacent fields (psychotherapy, counseling, mentoring) to infer implications for coaching; differences in clientele, context, intensity, focus, and duration may limit transferability. - Heterogeneity of studies (methods, populations, professions, mental health states) and small samples (many qualitative studies with ≤10 participants; two single-case studies), affecting generalizability and validity. - Some studies emphasize laughter rather than fully operationalized humor events. - Limited consideration of moderator variables such as gender and culture; only one study addressed gender stereotypes directly. - Potential publication bias due to reliance on psychology-focused databases rather than management databases. - Predominance of retrospective and correlational designs; causality remains untested; practitioner self-reports may introduce bias.