AI is changing coaching, but it won't become your coach

I read the article "Artificial intelligence is changing coaching, not the... coach" and, leaving aside the more "corporate" wording, its main message is quite simple:

Artificial intelligence can be a great assistant for coaching. But that doesn't mean it can replace the human in front of you.

And perhaps this is much more important than it initially seems.

Because AI can already do things that until recently we considered the job of a coach: ask you questions, challenge your strategy, play the role of a difficult client or a demanding board of directors, correct a presentation, rehearse for you for an important meeting. And it can do all of this at 2 in the morning, without an appointment and without you paying for an hour of coaching.

So, what's left for the coach ? This is exactly where the interest lies.

Let's take a simple example.

Imagine you are a manager and tomorrow you have to present a difficult proposal to the board of directors.

You could ask an AI, “Ask me ten tough questions that I’m likely to be asked tomorrow.” The AI can give you great questions. Then you can say, “Now pretend you’re a skeptical board member.” And the simulation begins. It can also say, “Your answer was too general. Give me specifics,” or “You didn’t answer the question. Try again.”

It can become, in other words, a digital opponent to rehearse with. And this is a huge change, because in the past you would need a human to do this preparation. Today you have a digital assistant available at any time. Research by The Conference Board even shows that AI can already cover up to 90% of a coach's daily functions (The Conference Board, 2025), while McKinsey itself has developed its own free AI practice tool for candidates in interviews (The Next Web, 2026).

But there is a trap here.

Coaching is not just preparation. It is not just “tell me what to do.” And that is perhaps the most important point of the article.

A good coach is not just someone who has more knowledge than you. He is someone who can help you see what you don't see in yourself.

For example, you might say, “I’m not making this decision because I don’t have enough data.” The AI might give you 50 more pieces of data. But the coach might look at you and say, “Are you sure that’s the real reason? Are you afraid that if you make the decision and it fails, the blame will be on you?”

And suddenly the conversation changes. We're no longer talking about data. We're talking about fear, insecurity, selfishness, ambition, responsibility, and personal history. That's where part of the value of the human coach lies.

"The value is not always in the answer. Sometimes it is in the question you didn't think to ask yourself."

Why isn't the coach abolished?

Because a coach is not just someone who gives you information.

A good coach can understand:

"Why is this person afraid to make this decision?"

or:

"Why does he keep avoiding it even though he knows what he should do?"

or:

"How should I talk to him to pressure him without breaking him up?"

These are not just knowledge questions.

They contain emotion, history, trust, character and human connection.

And this is where AI still has difficulty replacing humans.

AI can know a lot. It doesn't mean it really knows you. That's a subtle but very important distinction.

AI can analyze what you say, remember the context of a conversation, recognize patterns, and ask you really good questions. But there’s more to a relationship between two people. There’s trust. There’s the ability to feel like the other person understands you. There’s a moment when the coach will realize that today you don’t need another technical tip — you need to push you a little. Or, on the contrary, to stop pushing you.

This is difficult to translate into an algorithm. And that’s why the article argues that human contact will remain crucial. An experimental study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology compared human and AI coaches and found that, while there was no statistically significant difference in “working alliance” in the experimental setting, the literature shows that human coaches build stronger trusting relationships, something that AI has limited ability to achieve (Frontiers in Psychology, 2024). A Forbes analysis similarly notes that AI can simulate empathy, but struggles to produce the experience of “feeling truly understood” (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2026).

But that doesn't mean the coach will stay the same.

And here is the second important message. The coach of the future will not be able to pretend that AI does not exist. He will have to learn to use it.

Imagine a coach who, before a session, can use AI to organize the information they have, identify potential patterns, generate alternative scenarios, and prepare better questions. Instead of spending their time on ancillary tasks, they can focus more on the human.

And that's the real meaning of the word "co-pilot" used in the article. AI doesn't sit in the driver's seat. It helps the driver see the road better.

And here it gets even more interesting.

Artificial intelligence may create more need for coaching, not less. Why?

Because AI is changing the way we work. An employee no longer just needs to know their job — they also need to know how to work with AI. A manager needs to learn how to manage people using AI. A CEO needs to make decisions in an environment where technology is constantly changing.

And a person who was excellent at their job until yesterday may suddenly feel like they don't know what their new role is. That's where they may need even more coaching. Not for the AI to explain it to them, but to help them adapt as a human.

Technology can increase productivity.

However, it does not mean that it automatically increases self-awareness.

And the faster the professional environment changes, the greater the need for people to understand who they are, how they operate, what they fear, how they lead, and how they need to change.

That may be where the future of coaching lies. McKinsey Global Institute research confirms this dimension: the demand for AI collaboration skills has increased almost sevenfold in two years, and the focus of retraining is shifting towards skills that complement smart machines, such as critical thinking, adaptability, and coaching (McKinsey Global Institute, 2026).

And which coach is really in danger?

In my opinion, here lies the most interesting conclusion one can draw from the article.

AI probably won't make all coaches disappear. But it could make life very difficult for the average coach. Because if someone mostly offers general advice, ready-made solutions, motivational quotes, and standardized exercises, then the client can get a lot of that from an AI — and immediately.

A truly good coach, however, has a different value. He doesn’t sell information. He sells relationship, reflection, challenge, and change. He doesn’t just tell you, “Do this.” He helps you understand, “Why don’t you do it when you know what to do?” That’s a very different service. Research by Forbes Councils comes to a similar conclusion: coaching outcomes are predicted primarily by the quality of the coach-client relationship—trust, empathy, and psychological safety—elements that are difficult to replicate algorithmically (Forbes Councils, 2026).

"AI can tell you what to do. A good coach helps you understand why you're not doing it."

So, in the end, who will win?

Maybe neither the AI nor the coach will win. The person who knows how to use both will win.

Imagine a CEO who uses AI every day to test ideas, prepare presentations, challenge decisions, and organize his thinking. And at the same time, he has an excellent coach who helps him understand himself, face difficult decisions, and change behaviors.

One does not cancel the other. One complements the other.

AI can be the mirror of your thinking. The coach can be the person who will help you understand what you see in that mirror.

The real message of the article

If I had to take just one sentence from this entire conversation, it would be this:

AI isn't necessarily coming to take the job of a coach. It's coming to change what it means to be a good coach.

The coach who simply provides information has reason to be concerned. The coach who uses AI as a tool has reason to be optimistic. And the coach who understands that their true value lies not in having all the answers, but in helping the person in front of them find theirs, will likely become even more important.

Because the smarter machines become, the more valuable something that is not easily measured in data can become: the human relationship.

And perhaps this is the greatest paradox of the age of artificial intelligence: the more technology takes on the task of thinking for us, the more we will need humans to help us understand what we really want to do with that thinking.

---

Bibliographic References

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2026, April 27). Does AI coaching work? What the evidence shows . Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaspremuzic/2026/04/27/does-ai-coaching-work/

Forbes Councils. (2026, April 9). AI-enhanced coaching vs. the human touch . Forbes. https://councils.forbes.com/blog/ai-enhanced-coaching-vs.-the-human-touch

Frontiers in Psychology. (2024, September 2). Artificial intelligence vs. human coaches: Examining the development of working alliance in a single session . https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1364054/full

McKinsey Global Institute. (2026, January 8). A new year's resolution for leaders: Redesign work for people and AI . McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/media-center/a-new-years-resolution-for-leaders-redesign-work-for-people-and-ai

The Conference Board. (2025, October 22). Research: AI can provide 90% of career coaching…but humans still matter [Press release]. https://www.conference-board.org/press/ai-can-provide-career-coaching-but-humans-still-matter

The Next Web. (2026, May 24). McKinsey built a free AI tool so candidates stop paying $500/hour interview coaches . https://thenextweb.com/news/mckinsey-ai-interview-practice-tool-lilli-consulting