Augmenting Coaching with GenAI: Insights into Use, Effectiveness, and Future Potential

TL;DR

This study investigates how GenAI tools are adopted and used in professional coaching, the perceived benefits and limitations, and the ethical landscape surrounding AI-assisted practice. Using an online survey of 205 active coaches, the authors analyze usage patterns, perceived effectiveness, AI literacy, and attitudes, employing regression and moderation analyses to identify predictors of adoption. Results show widespread use for research, content creation, and administrative tasks, with limited impact on relational coaching; adoption is primarily driven by AI literacy and perceived AI impact, while concerns about replacement have limited influence. The findings advocate for GenAI as an augmentation tool, underscoring the importance of AI literacy, ethical guidelines, and human-centered design to realize responsible and effective human-AI collaboration in coaching. Practical implications point to targeted training and the development of coaching-specific AI tools that preserve human oversight and relational depth while expanding administrative and knowledge-work capabilities.

Abstract

The integration of generative AI (GenAI) tools, particularly large language models (LLMs), is transforming professional coaching workflows. This study explores how coaches use GenAI, the perceived benefits and limitations of these tools, and broader attitudes toward AI-assisted coaching. A survey of 205 coaching professionals reveals widespread adoption of GenAI for research, content creation, and administrative support, while its role in relational and interpretative coaching remains limited. Findings indicate that AI literacy and perceived AI impact strongly predict GenAI adoption, with positive attitudes fostering greater use. Ethical considerations, particularly transparency and data privacy, are a key concern, with frequent AI users demonstrating greater ethical awareness. Regression analyses show that while perceived effectiveness drives GenAI adoption, concerns about AI replacing human coaches do not significantly influence usage. Coaches express interest in future AI capabilities that enhance personalization, real-time feedback, and administrative automation while maintaining human oversight. The study highlights that GenAI functions best as an augmentation tool rather than a replacement, emphasizing the need for AI literacy training, ethical guidelines, and human-centered AI integration. These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on human-AI collaboration, advocating for responsible and effective AI adoption in professional coaching.