CoverStory
By Anthony Menichini
Coaching has always been a human craft. We associate it with empathy, trust, connection and skilled guidance that helps someone change behavior in meaningful ways. But as artificial intelligence (AI) tools become more capable and more common in learning and development, many organizations are asking the wrong question:
Barger, A.S. (2025). Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Coaches: Examining the Development of Working Alliance in a Single Session. Frontiers in Psychology.
Movsumova, E., et al. (2020). Consciousness: Effect of Coaching Process and Specifics Through AI Usage. E-Mentor.
Mitchell, E.G., et al. (2021). Automated vs. Human Health Coaching. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact.
Čaić, M., et al. (2019). Robotic Versus Human Coaches for Active Aging. Journal of Service Management.
Luo, X., et al. (2020). Artificial Intelligence Coaches for Sales Agents: Caveats and Solutions. Journal of Marketing.
Terblanche, N., et al. (2024). Influence of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Coach Assistant on the Human Coach-Client Working Alliance. PLOS ONE.
The objective is to build confidence and ownership, not just compliance.
Will AI replace human coaching?
The data suggests a far better question:
How do we combine AI and human coaching to create stronger, more scalable and more consistent development experiences?
A growing body of research across leadership development, healthcare and sales training points to a clear conclusion. Human coaching is still the most effective path for emotional, complex and motivational development. AI meaningfully improves consistency, reinforcement and availability. And when the two are blended, the results are often stronger than either approach on its own.
For L&D and enablement leaders focused on behavior change at scale, the implications are significant.
Across studies, human coaches consistently outperform AI in areas tied to emotional intelligence and relational depth. People respond to being seen, understood and supported.
Research published in 2025 in Frontiers in Psychology found that while AI and human coaches scored similarly on the working alliance inventory, participants still described human coaches as more emotionally attuned and relationally impactful. Other studies found that human-led coaching was perceived as more effective for encouragement, emotional support and adaptive interaction. Even in text-based coaching, humans showed stronger empathy and responsiveness to context.
From a learning science standpoint, this matters. Emotional resonance and psychological safety are prerequisites for behavior change. A coach helps a learner believe change is possible, own the change and attach meaning to the effort. AI cannot yet replicate that relational bond.
Humans excel when:
Motivation, belief or self-awareness are core to progress.
Learners need psychological safety, empathy or perspective-taking.
Feedback requires nuance or situational judgment.
AI has its own advantages that humans cannot match. It is infinitely scalable, fully consistent, always available and unburdened by schedule, mood or time. AI can deliver structured feedback, analyze patterns objectively and provide reinforcement between human sessions.
A 2020 study found AI coaching helped mid-level sales performers apply training more consistently, particularly when paired with human oversight. Another study found AI was effective in helping individuals follow long-term behavior plans because it provided regular nudges and structure.
In learning science terms, AI amplifies repetition, retrieval, spaced reinforcement and selfdirected autonomy. Those are core ingredients in long-term habit formation and skill transfer.
AI excels when:
Guidance is model-based or repetitive.
Consistency, reminders or practice are required.
Learners benefit from on-demand support.
Progress needs to be tracked objectively over time.
The most compelling findings emerged in research that examined human and AI coaching together. Hybrid coaching outperformed either approach alone in sales training contexts. A 2024 study found that individuals were more receptive to AI coaching when a human coach endorsed or integrated it into the process.
This hybrid model aligns with what we know about behavior change. Humans spark commitment and meaning. AI reinforces repetition and momentum. Together they support both the heart and the habit of learning.
A hybrid coaching approach can be applied as a repeatable cycle:
Human: Align and inspire. Set goals, build trust, personalize the path and create emotional commitment.
AI: Reinforce and measure. Provide structured practice, reminders, nudges and unbiased progress tracking.
Human: Coach and course-correct. Interpret patterns, address barriers and provide contextual, human feedback.
AI: Sustain and scale. Maintain momentum between coaching sessions and surface insights for the coach and learner.
This approach preserves what humans do best and scales what AI does best. It also removes an artificial burden from coaches, freeing them to focus on the moments that matter most.
Based on the evidence, four recommendations stand out:
Use humans for emotional and complex development. Coaching is still a deeply human practice when it comes to belief, identity, confidence and interpersonal skill.
Use AI for structure, reinforcement and measurement. Let AI handle repetition, reminders and data so coaches can spend time on depth, not administration.
Blend the two from the start. The AI should not feel separate. The best outcomes occur when human coaches introduce, endorse and integrate the AI as part of the process.
Measure behavior, not activity. AI gives access to continuous data. Use it to track skill growth and behavior change, not just coaching volume.
No study in this review found AI outperforming humans on complex or relationship-based coaching. At the same time, the research is clear that AI can make coaching more scalable, more consistent and more effective when integrated well.
The future of coaching in life sciences belongs to leaders who stop treating AI as a replacement and start using it as a force multiplier. The opportunity is not to choose sides, but to design systems where humans and AI each do what they do best in service of lasting behavior change.
Anthony Menichini is an account executive with Proficient Learning. Email him at anthony.menichini@proficientlearning.com or connect through linkedin.com/in/anthony-menichini.
