I recently wrote such a long comment on a colleague’s LinkedIn post about AI in Coaching that I thought I might just as well turn it into a blog post…
I often read statements like: “AI technology is reinventing coaching, so coaches, reinvent yourselves!” Or: “The AI revolution in coaching is inevitable, so embrace it or become obsolete!”
These types of statements, while excellent as a LinkedIn hook, only encourage fear-driven action as opposed to reflective action.
While AI technology may indeed be attempting to “reinvent coaching”, this is not something I believe we should automatically embrace, nor frame as an imperative for us coaches to “reinvent ourselves to keep up”. It is something to be critically examined, questioned, and in many instances resisted.
I struggle to understand how we can so readily embrace a technology that, in effect, invites a collective sense of psychosis—
entertaining the idea of a coaching or therapeutic relationship with a machine. And, what does that imply about how we view our profession? Is coaching so mechanistic and performative at heart that we genuinely believe a machine can meaningfully replicate it?
Then I see studies being quoted that an “AI coach” passed ICF’s ACC competencies—ergo, it must be great! No. Assuming the research was conducted properly, its results say much more about the obsolete concept of competencies and accreditation models in our profession than they do about the efficacy of AI as a “coach”.
Even claims that AI can “help”, “augment”, or “democratise” coaching often collapse when placed under the microscope of a critical mind.
And what about those ethical questions of: confidentiality? informed consent? the opacity of these models—from how they are trained to where data is stored to what is ultimately done with that data?
As for the “democratisation”, many of these “specialised” AI coaching models lie behind a paywall anyway, and/or offer sub-par, make-shift coaching tools to the “little people” while the “big people” continue to receive human coaching. And while we like to think that internet access is universal—wake-up call: it is not.
At the heart of coaching is a relationship between two human beings. Everything else is mirage—sand dust and fairy tales—sold largely by organisations whose primary incentive is commercial, not psychological or relational wellbeing.
As for the so-called technological “revolution,” I am yet to see evidence that justifies the term.
Much of what is labelled AI is neither intelligent nor revolutionary. These tools can research, edit, summarise, translate, and more—but only when guided by users who already know what they are doing. Without that expertise, they often produce confident-sounding nonsense. I recently asked ChatGPT to reduce a post I’d written by 74 characters (yes, I was that lazy that morning), and it literally couldn’t do it. That’s not transformation; it’s a farce.
There is also an unresolved paradox here. As a profession that speaks about responsibility, sustainability, and wellbeing, how do we reconcile these values with the environmental and social costs of pursuing AI-driven fantasies that deliver, at best, marginal gains?
To be clear, this is not an anti-technology or anti-progress position. It is a call for responsibility and depth.
We need far more rigorous, interdisciplinary debate—bringing together practitioners, clients, psychologists, sociologists, linguists, philosophers, and more—before we declare this a revolution or rush to adapt ourselves around it. And we would do well to pay attention to the “canaries in the mine”, and we already have enough of them signalling that something seriously dangerous may be in the making.
This is why I very much appreciate and value voices like Tatiana Bachkirova, Laurence Barrett , and others in this context who continue to challenge existing narratives rather than simply amplify them.
Now, having ended my rant, I want to turn it over to you:
If we are serious about the future of coaching, then disagreement, critique, and rigorous debate are not obstacles to progress but a precondition.
I look forward to hearing perspectives that challenge, refine, or complicate this view, provided we are willing to think together rather than simply repeat some prevailing pre-chewed narrative that we willingly swallow whole..
Recommended resources:
- Link to original LinkedIn post
Recent Comments