What can AI offer the profoundly human practice of coaching?

Following on from our article ‘What’s left for the human leader in a world of AI?’, we now look at AI in the field of coaching. We see an expanding role for Artificial Intelligence (AI), but the human will dominate relational coaching – a transformative approach that emphasizes the quality and depth of the emotional connection between coach and coachee.

AI has achieved plenty of publicity in the past year, principally from the rollout of ChatGPT and its ever-expanding list of workplace capabilities, from drafting cover letters to providing feedback on reports and proposals.

Coaching offers a greater challenge. An experienced human coach has the knowledge and empathy to explore emotions, make associations, and use intuition and imagination to help their client progress – all deeply human qualities. Given they are so hard to replicate, where does AI’s potential in coaching lie?

In general, AI has worked best when tackling complex but well-defined problems, like diagnosing rare sarcomas or identifying fraudulent financial transactions. Developers and users of AI in coaching have therefore focused on models and functions that can translate most effectively into a digital form.

There’s a role for AI at the outset of a coaching assignment, during the initial scoping exercise. Erik de Haan, Director of the Hult Ashridge Center for Coaching, says that “AI can ask questions of each prospective coachee and reach conclusions about best next steps.”

Naysan Firoozmand, former Head of Global Executive Coaching at Hult Ashridge, agrees: “It could be a lead-in – a way of starting the coaching process and then, at the end, suggesting how best to continue: with a ‘coachbot’ or with an individualized human coach.”

While AI can effortlessly organize coachee data, selecting the right human coach is a matter of psychology (not data). "At Hult Ashridge, selecting a human coach is done by the coachee. An experienced specialist provides a shortlist of potential coaches, but the coach is selected by the coachee based on personal chemistry," says Firoozmand. “Chemistry is one of those things that you can’t easily quantify; it can’t be diagnosed through an assessment or a survey questionnaire or AI.”

Once the human connection has been established, it cannot be substituted. “At the heart of coaching is that unique relationship between coach and coachee,” says De Haan, “and it’s exclusive. Once it’s been formed, it cannot be replaced by another human or by technology. That’s what we would call a rupture,” a break which unnecessarily wipes out the carefully established connection.

This unique relationship is the central part of relational coaching, which, as we’ve described, has an emotional and psychological focus. However, we can see a role for AI in what we call ‘goal-directed coaching’, because it’s more of a linear process. The individual sets a goal, develops a plan, takes action, monitors and evaluates their performance, and adapts their actions to improve performance and attain that goal. “In this context, an AI coachbot could coach as well as any novice human coach,” says Firoozmand. “It’s able to pick up on a much broader spectrum of potential questions and solutions associated with addressing a goal.”

An AI coach can ask questions about what needs to happen next, monitor progress, and respond to any input at any time. And it could help members of staff who need a sounding-board – by conducting a dialog to help them think through a business problem, such as setting up a new project. “AI can complement the human coach in advancing the further democratization of coaching – reaching as many individuals as possible, which is one of our key commitments, because we believe that coaching can be so positive for so many people,” says Firoozmand.

But coaching is not all about reaching measurable goals. De Haan was involved in the Vici research project, a randomized controlled trial of AI in coaching. He found that “in moving toward your goals, the AI application was as good as a human coach. But when it comes to establishing empathy or promoting well-being, on the psychological measures, the AI didn’t move the dial.” One psychological attribute is the ability to respond to the unexpected. “What if the goal the person wants to achieve is not formulated?” asks Firoozmand. “Because it’s not about doing something differently, it’s about being someone different or having a different mindset or an attitude, which is not goal-oriented.”

Although Firoozmand doesn’t see AI taking over from the human coach (yet), he can envisage an AI application supporting the coach and coachee by listening in on coaching sessions and logging the common themes that emerge. “It’s like a third-party ear in the room,” he says, “unbiasedly capturing the nuances or trends that are happening in the dialog, so you start to tap into things you might not have considered or might have dismissed as noise.”

By analyzing these trends, the “AI listener” could also help to train new coaches, enabling them to improve their coaching style. “If you spoke for, say, 60% of the time, consider speaking less,” says Firoozmand, “so that provides a narrative for future conversations.” But any such assistance should be used transparently. “Confidentiality is vital and anything that undermines the exclusivity of the relationship is problematic,” says De Haan.

As the technology develops and becomes more trusted, the boundaries between AI and human coaching may start to shift. An AI coachbot can complement its more empathetic, relational and intuitive human counterpart, and may provide effective solutions-based coaching. And for HR and L&D leaders, using AI can be another step in making coaching, and indeed mentoring, available to a wider group of teams and individuals.

However, AI cannot replicate what Firoozmand calls “the nuances of the human psyche in a coaching engagement, or the more emotional, interpersonal subtleties which AI coachbots can’t yet provide.” The really fascinating question is whether they ever will.