AI is here – ready or not. The question is, how ready are we? What is the coaching profession doing to respond? How are individual coaches adapting? And what are we at OCH doing about it?
The Academic Debate
Within academia, opinions on AI in coaching are split between two poles: enthusiastic supporters and cautious sceptics.
On one side, researchers such as Professors Nicky Terblanche and Jonathan Passmore are exploring how AI can enhance coaching, publishing several papers including a summary of the state of AI in coaching and even producing an AI-generated video.
On the other side, scholars such as Professor Tatiana Bachkirova warn that AI could erode the essence of coaching – a process she calls the inevitable “enshittification.”
Both perspectives are grounded in academic rigour yet arrive at opposing conclusions. So where does that leave the rest of us – the practitioners, leaders and coaches navigating this new landscape?
Professional Guidance
The European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) and The International Coaching Federation (ICF) are both exploring the topic, guided by leading thinkers on AI in coaching such as Sam Isaacson and Jazz Razool. They have set up working groups and have developed standards to help provide guidance to the coaching profession.
In autumn 2024, I attended Digital Technology in Coaching, a series of workshops organised by the ICF and led by Jonathan Passmore and others. Over three months, these 1 to 2 hour sessions explored how emerging technologies are reshaping our field, with AI dominating much of the conversation. The core message was simple but powerful: AI isn’t here to replace human coaching, but to enhance it.
Stop Talking and Start Walking
Having professional standards and access to peer-reviewed research has created a lot of talk on the topic of AI in coaching. It’s easy to join the binary debate about the pros and cons of AI in coaching, and just as easy to reinforce our own biases by reading only the articles that feed our viewpoint.
But for me, that’s not coaching. The essence of coaching is a learning process and learning requires action, or it remains theory. Coaching is a practice, not a theory. “I think, therefore I am” isn’t sufficient in coaching – it’s a dialogue of awareness, new thinking and, crucially, new action. Action is crucial in coaching if it is to be a learning process. Learning requires action – the application of the new awareness; the new thinking.
The academics can generate all the papers they want – and I will read as many as I can. The professional bodies will play their part by making sense of it all and provide digestible guidance – which I will digest as I can.
But what do I do?
The Dilemma of Taking Action
The challenge with taking action is that we immediately hit an ethical dilemma: how do I take action to use AI in my coaching without putting my client at risk? And do I really understand the risks I’m taking, until I’ve taken action? We’ve all heard the horror stories about AI – from fears of singularity and dominating humans to concerns about its enormous energy consumption and impact on climate change. We need to consider whether taking action is possible – and, if so, whether it’s ethical.
Team Coaching with You
Contact us to explore how team coaching can realise your team’s needs and aspirations.
Learning Together as Coaches
Fresh off the ICF series last autumn, and determined to navigate this ethical dilemma, I sought out a diverse mix of trusted colleagues and invited them to experiment with me. This allowed us to coach (each other) whilst experimenting with AI.
It was one of the highlights of my 2025. So much so that, along with members of the group, we are now publishing a series of blogs on LinkedIn. The purpose of the blogs? To encourage other coaches to move from “talking” to “walking”. We believe the process allowed us to really get into the realities of AI in coaching, including our own hopes and fears.
Writing the blogs provided me with the opportunity to step back and reflect on where we are going as a wider coaching community.
A Fundamental Shift in the Practice of Coaches?
AI has enormous power. Not just in what it can do for our individual coaching, but also what it risks doing to us as a coaching community. It is already polarising academics. But I see the potential for a more fundamental shift elsewhere in our community.
I have been fascinated with understanding and working with Communities of Practice for over 25 years. My work on Extra-Dependent Teams is an example of how deeply I have explored the topic. This exploration has given me valuable insights into how group dynamics unfold in practice.
Reflecting on our learning together as a group of coaches (a slice of the community of practice that is the global coaching community), I started to see the potential for a fundamental shift in our practice as coaches. This might not come as a surprise, but using the phenomenon of Learning Trajectories within communities of practice, I am noticing evidence for how this shift is occurring. And with it, I see glimpses of our role as experienced coaches within this shift.
Before I explain the potential impact of AI on our coaching community, it is important to understand how dynamics of learning and identity occur within communities of practice.
Learning Trajectories
The Layers of a Community of Practice
Etienne Wenger, found that within any communities of practice there are three layers which represent relative positions of identity:
- Middle “Active” layer – members in this layer are participants in the community, and identify as members of the community.
- Inner “Core” layer – members in this layer are typically role models. They represent what it is to be a great coach for instance, in a coaching community of practice.
- Outer “Peripheral” layer – members in this layer are on the boundary of the community. In the coaching community of practice, they might not fully identify themselves as coaches, and their skills may not be confident or competent. But they are legitimate members nonetheless, not because of their competence, but because they have started to engage in coaching practice.
How Members Evolve
You might see yourself, and others you know, within the layers described. But where are each of us heading? Some Active members will aspire to become Core members. This would be an Inbound learning trajectory. Some Core or Active members simply maintain their current status – these would be Insider trajectories. But some members lose their skills over time, because they don’t invest in them, or because they maintain old practices that the rest of the community have adopted. This is an example of an Outbound trajectory.
Extending the Model: The Maverick Trajectory
In my book Extra-Dependent Teams, I proposed a new trajectory – that of the Maverick. This trajectory is neither Inbound towards role models, nor Outbound. Instead, the trajectory forms the potential for a shift in the practice as a whole. The Maverick trajectory brings in new thinking which rivals the current Core membership and what it is to be a great coach.
AI as a Catalyst for Community Change
This trajectory is what I believe is happening in the coaching community of practice as a result of AI:
- Some Core members are championing new ways of coaching – taking the community in a new direction
- Other Core members are holding onto what they believe is precious about the current practice – leading to a potential split
- But worse, what do newcomers to the coaching community do if they can’t learn to coach better than AI? Is there the potential that learners take longer to get better than AI substitutes and that they drop out of the Periphery due to lack of effectiveness and, put bluntly, income?
So, what impact will our individual actions have on our coaching community as a whole? As Core members, as Active members or as Peripheral members?
Shifting, Splitting or Destroying the Coaching Community of Practice
Three examples make me curious about what will happen to the coaching community as a result of the enormity of AI as a topic:
Example 1: The Shifting Role of Supervisors
What happens when those traditionally seen as role models lack understanding of AI?
Within our experimental group there was anecdotal evidence of supervisors with no understanding of AI in coaching. Supervisors are likely to be Core members, seen by Active members as role models. They are also arbiters of the standards of coaching. How will supervisors’ position in the community layers change if they are no longer seen as role models? Who will replace them as role models?
Example 2: Active Members – Talking or Transforming?
Who is actually developing the practice, not just debating it?
All the talk on social media and in conferences and seminars, we all experienced Active members grappling with AI in Coaching. But who is developing the practice – the “walk” rather than just the “talk”? Who is emerging as the new Core members? And how will Active members define the Core membership as they choose to follow the AI supporters or the AI sceptics?
Example 3: Supporting Newcomers on the Periphery
How do we guide and sustain those entering coaching in the age of AI?
As a developer of coaches, I witness Inbound Peripheral members, newcomers to the community. Some are already using AI in coaching with little thought or ethical consideration. Other newcomers are finding it hard to compete with the speed, accessibility and price point of AI, whilst they, as humans, grapple with the coaching fundamentals of listening to the client rather than themselves. How do we support the Peripheral members to choose wisely? How do we ensure it is economically viable to attract newcomers to the community whilst AI is so powerful? What is the future of the coaching community of practice if the pipeline of coaching newcomers dries up?
Looking Ahead: The Future of Coaching Communities
This final question isn’t about the “enshittification” of coaching, nor the promise that AI will provide new coaches. It’s more about whether the elders in the coaching community can continue to practice in whatever way they choose, because the community is large enough to support them. But without a pipeline of newcomers, the community risks depletion.
It raises some fundamental questions:
- What is coaching?
- What does it mean to coach?
- Who are you as a coach?
I don’t know the answers. But these are the questions, we as a group of experienced coaches, grappled with in our experimental sessions.
Please feel free to read the blogs and share your thoughts.
My hope is that we move from debate to action when it comes to AI in coaching, because only then will we discover the direction a viable coaching community can take.
