Joris Van Der Gucht’s Post

The 𝗜𝗖𝗙 has just released the 𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀. What is new? • Five new sub competencies and eleven revisions • Coaches are now expected to stay current with best practices and technology • The glossary now names AI systems and digital platforms as tools in coaching #ICF #CoreCompetencies #Coaching #AI https://lnkd.in/eC49N_48

In an era where AI coaching tools are becoming more common — offering scripts, prompts, and data-driven insights — one truth remains: Wisdom can’t be automated. Coaching isn’t about repeating frameworks or applying tools, techniques and formulas. The best coaches know that real transformation happens when you move beyond the rules and develop your own inner wisdom. AI may be able to coach by the book. But it will never be the book. I don’t claim to be an expert or have all the answers but, in my book, I invite you to break the code — not to reject structure, but to rise above it. To become the kind of coach that people don’t forget. Breaking the Coaching Code: How Great Coaches Transcend the Rules Is a book that aims to support coaches to: o  Think and work beyond competencies and rules o  Work with the person not just the task o  Develop their skills by developing and knowing themselves. If this sounds like a book that interests you it is released 28th October 25 and available for pre-order here https://amzn.eu/d/jdFetjw

AI or die? A coaches perspective... When I read and listen to all the buzz out there around AI it mostly feels many businesses - like mine - will be in trouble soon. After the summer break and some days away from the noise I am not so sure any more. Here is why. First of all coaching is a methodology to help the coachee find his/her way to a solution. I think that part is pretty easy for AI. What I think is as much relevant as a proper e.g. systemic coaching approach is everything that is summarized with "empathy and the human touch". Hm, not that sure but I must admit I have seen amazingly "human" conversations with AI. But - like in virtual settings - many coaching interventions are more difficult to be used and I have not seen AI doing yet. But this might change in the future. What I do not expect is AI giving you tissues if you are in tears, keeping the right pace and give the coachee time to reflect. And how about team coaching? And the last point on my not concluding list - do we really want our most intimate thoughts to be stored on some elses data infrastructure, somewhere ? I mean - confidentiality is a key pillar of the coach - coachee relation..... What is your perspective on this? Whether you are a coach or a coachee, please share your views in the comments....

AI coaches are here, and I’m thrilled! Here’s why: 1. Accessibility. AI lowers the barrier to entry. More people will now experience coaching, often for the first time. That means more people will understand its value, and many will eventually want to go deeper with a professional coach. 2. Perception Shift. For too long, coaching has carried the stigma of being “for broken people.” The truth is, coaching is for ambitious people who want to grow. AI coaches will normalise this by making it mainstream. The more people experience progress through coaching, the more they’ll see it as an investment in getting ahead, not a rescue mission. 3. Raising the Bar. AI will raise expectations. If a free or low-cost AI coach can help someone set goals or clarify their thinking, then human coaches will have to demonstrate the unique value only we can deliver: deeper presence, sharper intuition, emotional recognition, and transformational breakthroughs. That pressure is good. It raises the standard for the whole industry. And here’s the paradox: With the continued rise of AI, I believe there will be a corresponding increase in the desire for true human-to-human connections. The highly skilled professional coach is attuned to body language, vocal tonality, pauses in cadence, and words left unsaid. 93% of communication is nonverbal, leaving only 7% for the AI coach. That’s where the highly skilled professional coach stands apart. AI can guide transformation. But only a human coach can bring empathy, intuition, and the felt sense of being truly understood.

Coached reps beat more courses. MIT's latest research confirms what we're seeing everywhere. AI handles the routine stuff, but our competitive edge comes from something different. The 70-20-10 learning model just got flipped. Used to be 70% learn on the job, 20% coaching, 10% formal training. Now? AI does the heavy lifting on routine tasks. Which means we need more coached reps... not more courses. Real-world practice with immediate feedback. Every client call becomes communication practice. Every project review becomes strategic thinking development. Turn daily work into skill-building sessions. The magic happens with built-in coaching moments. When AI handles data analysis, we focus on interpreting insights for stakeholders. When AI drafts initial content, we refine it for emotional resonance. We're not competing with AI on processing power. We're doubling down on what makes us irreplaceable. Judgment. Creativity. Human connection. The companies getting this right are turning every work interaction into a learning opportunity. With real stakes, real feedback, real growth. Because here's what most miss: AI freed us from routine work so we could do more human work. But only if we structure our days for it. What coaching moments are you building into your daily work? Like and share if you're rethinking how your team learns 👇

AI doesn't work at all. That's what one lawyer I was coaching told me recently. You can probably guess the reality: his use of AI was terrible, and when he didn't get the result he wanted, he gave up. This is, for whatever reason (though probably the notorious poor resilience of the average lawyer), a huge problem for the adoption of tech. I've seen this a million times, especially when it comes to legal tech adoption. I always say that law firms adopt legal tech twice. Once when the firm adopts the tech (i.e. pays money to the company). And once when the lawyers actually use the tech. The first phase is easy. The second phase is hard. Actually getting lawyers to use things is tricky, and unfortunately lawyers tend to give up easily if things aren't working and just go back to the status quo. I see this over and over again when I'm coaching. There's often a lack of independent initiative to make things better, and people tend to just repeat the same patterns that aren't working for them. In their defence, part of it is not knowing there are alternatives. And part of it is that when you're overworked and tired, most people don't have the energy to try to solve their problems. I'll talk more about coaching in upcoming posts, but more and more from the work I do (both at our firm and with dozens of others), I'm convinced that pretty much every lawyer needs a coach. In fact, it's the lack of coaching - which partially stems from the lack of direct management - that leads to so many challenges in this profession. It's also an enormous barrier to the adoption of new tech - including even the most basic AI tools.

AI can't replace the human element in coaching, but it can carry the work forward. That's what Evidentra was built for. It keeps development active between sessions—reinforcing insights, prompting reflection, and offering timely, relevant nudges based on Core Factors models. Instead of replacing practitioners, it extends their impact. Evidentra helps participants stay engaged, apply what they've learned in real moments, and take ownership of their growth. It works within your process, not around it. If you're a coach, consultant, or facilitator looking to keep growth going long after the session ends, this is worth a look. Read full post here: https://lnkd.in/dYQCa7eH

🤖 👩🏫 🎓 Some super predictions here about AI coaches from our very own Joseph Freed at Perceptyx. "L&D functions have a window of time now to grasp control and define the very tools that are in turn shaping them. The tools will keep coaching—whether they should be or not". https://lnkd.in/eVy4GSPi

Joel DiGirolamo has a great take on high touch/tech hybrid coaching that is valuable for coaches wanting to build their mental models leveraging AI. The only area I wonder about is for extremely price sensitive markets like I encountered as an expat in India at Infosys , I know some markets are very sensitive to the cost. The amazing Dartmouth Therabot study surprised me with the Working Alliance results, suggesting a market in AI-only coaching that threatens junior coaches (ACC) https://lnkd.in/g77H9J2H

Interesting commentary by Joel DiGirolamo which triggered me to reflect further on on the recent post by Jazz Rasool about using AI for assessing coaching against the International Coaching Federation core competencies. From my experiments I have found it more accurate and valuable to focus the prompting on analysing a transcript for evidence and factual events (talk time ratios, repetition, instances of use of client words by the coach) which are easier to prompt accurately for. Then the assessor, or coach doing self evaluation, can contemplate the match to the core competencies, behavioural statements, minimum skills documents etc. This avoids the hallucination effect of ai and keeps it at the data analysis level by not asking it to then “decide “ what standard is demonstrated.