AI in Coaching: Why Access Matters More Than Quality in L&D

A real-world experiment with AI coaching delivered 900 hours of time savings and reached 1,600 managers. Not because it was better — but because it was used. Here's what L&D needs to pay attention to.

There’s a lot of noise right now about AI in learning and development.

Will it replace coaches? Will it automate leadership development? Will it make traditional programmes obsolete?

Most of the conversation tends to swing between excitement and scepticism.

But recently, I came across an example that reframes the conversation in a much more useful way.

A Real-World Experiment

A senior leader — initially sceptical about AI — decided to test it properly.

Two groups were set up:

One group received traditional executive coaching
The other had access to an AI coach

The expectation? Human coaching would deliver the strongest outcomes.

And in many ways, it did. The quality of human coaching was high. Insightful. Personalised. Valuable.

But something else happened.

Sessions were cancelled. Schedules didn’t align. Access became inconsistent.

Meanwhile, the AI coach — available on demand — was used consistently. Any time. No scheduling. No friction.

The result wasn’t just comparable engagement. It led to significant time savings (900 hours) and scaled to 1,600 managers.

Not because it was better in every way. But because it was used.

The Insight L&D Needs to Pay Attention To

There’s a tendency in L&D to focus heavily on quality. Designing the perfect programme. Building engaging content. Delivering insightful workshops.

And quality matters. Of course it does.

But quality that isn’t accessed doesn’t create change.

Availability is a feature, not a nice-to-have.

The most impactful learning isn’t always the most sophisticated. It’s the learning that people actually engage with — consistently, over time, in the moments when it matters.

What This Means for Leadership Development

This doesn’t mean AI replaces human coaching. The depth of insight, the relational quality, the nuance — those things remain genuinely valuable.

But it does mean L&D functions need to think more carefully about access as a design principle.

Questions worth asking:

Who currently has access to coaching or development support?
What barriers exist — scheduling, cost, geography, hierarchy?
Where could on-demand, lower-friction learning genuinely complement more intensive work?

The Bigger Shift

AI in L&D isn’t really about replacing human expertise. It’s about expanding access to support that previously only a small number of people could receive.

Done well, that’s not a threat to coaching. It’s an opportunity to extend its reach.

The organisations that figure this out won’t be the ones asking whether AI is good or bad for L&D.

They’ll be the ones asking: how do we make development consistently available to everyone who needs it?

That’s a much more interesting question.