What coaches told us before we built anything

Before we built anything, we spent six months listening. Not focus groups. Not surveys with leading questions. Conversations. One to one, usually an hour, sometimes two. Coaches from London to Lagos, Sydney to Stockholm, New York to Nairobi. ICF credentialled, EMCC accredited, independent, in house. Executive coaches, leadership coaches, transition specialists.

We did not go in with a product to validate. We went in with questions. What is actually hard about your practice? What keeps you up at night? What do you think about AI? And then we listened.

The numbers in this post come from the first full round of that work, 52 coaches across 11 countries, analysed together. The interviews never stopped. We are past 70 now, and around 40 coaches are close enough to the build to shape what gets made next. The findings below are the round that decided what CoachNova would be.

The biggest problem coaches face right now

It is the gap between sessions.

85 percent of that round described the same problem. Their clients want to continue the work between sessions, and the economics of one to one delivery make it impossible. A leadership coach at senior rates cannot send check ins, write reflection prompts and review progress journals for every client. The maths does not work.

My best clients are the ones who want more. They email me between sessions, they want to keep the momentum going. And I love that. But I have 14 active clients. If I respond to all of them the way I want to, I have no life.Executive coach, Singapore

We started calling this the extension problem. Coaches know that the real change happens between sessions. The integration, the practice, the moment of insight at 11pm on a Tuesday when something from the session suddenly lands. But coaches cannot be there for those moments. Not at scale. Not sustainably.

One coach in Melbourne put it simply. "I am selling an hour. But the work is not an hour. The work is the six days in between."

What coaches actually think about AI

Not what the headlines say.

The narrative in the coaching world is that coaches are either terrified of AI or blissfully ignoring it. The reality was more nuanced, and more interesting. We found three groups:

• The cautiously curious, about half. They see the potential and hold real concerns about control, ethics and the coaching relationship. They are reading about AI. They have not used it in their practice.
• The openly anxious, about 30 percent. They worry that AI will commoditise coaching, undercut their fees, or make them irrelevant. Several named the enterprise platforms specifically. The fear is grounded rather than vague.
• The early adopters, about 20 percent. Already experimenting, mostly with general tools for session prep or notes. They see the limitations clearly and want something purpose built.

Across all three groups, one finding was consistent.

91 percent said control is non negotiable

When we asked what would make them comfortable using AI in their practice, 91 percent gave a version of the same answer. Nothing goes out in my name that I have not approved.

Not "I would like to review things". Not "oversight would be nice". The word that kept coming up was non negotiable.

If I cannot see it, edit it, and approve it before my client sees it, I am not interested. Full stop. That is not a feature request. That is the entry requirement.Leadership coach, London

This was the clearest signal in the whole round, and it is why approval sits in the architecture rather than in a settings menu. Anything that carries your name reaches you first.

How many coaches are actually using AI tools?

65 percent were using no AI tools for coaching at all. Not for notes, not for prep, not for client communication.

Of the remaining 35 percent, most were using general purpose tools informally: a chatbot for brainstorming session questions, a transcription tool whose output they rewrote by hand, a notes app for client records, voice memos they never transcribed.

Nobody was using a tool built for coaching. Several described cobbling together four or five apps that sort of worked. One called it a Frankenstein tech stack held together by guilt and good intentions.

The gap between what exists and what coaches need is enormous. This is not a market that has been well served and needs incremental improvement. It is a market that has barely been served at all.

Are clients already using AI without their coaches?

Yes. And this was the finding that worried coaches most.

48 percent said their clients were already using general AI tools between sessions. Typing in their coaching goals and asking for accountability. Journalling with AI. Running leadership scenarios through a chatbot.

They are not doing this because they prefer a chatbot to their coach. They are doing it because their coach is not there, and something is.

One of my clients told me she had been using a chatbot to practise difficult conversations before her board meeting. She said it was helpful. And I thought, that should have been me. Not because I am possessive, but because I know her. I know the context.Executive coach, Amsterdam

Coaches are not competing with other coaches for the space between sessions. They are competing with whatever tool their client finds first, and right now that tool has no understanding of the coaching relationship, no ethical framework, and no context.

What surprised us most

Two things we did not expect.

The emotional weight of endings

We asked about the hardest parts of the practice. We expected difficult clients, organisational politics, or the business side of coaching. What came up repeatedly was the end of engagements. The moment a programme finishes, a budget runs out, or a client moves on. Several coaches described genuine grief.

I had a client for two years. We did extraordinary work together. Then his company restructured and the coaching budget was cut. He could not afford to continue privately. We had one final session and that was it. I still think about whether the work held.Leadership coach, Toronto

This connects directly to the extension problem. Coaches do not only want to extend engagements for the revenue, though that matters. They want to know the work continued.

The fear and curiosity paradox

Most coaches hold both at once. These are not opposing camps. They are the same people. A coach in Berlin told us she was terrified and fascinated in equal measure. A coach in Johannesburg said he reads every article about AI coaching with one hand over his eyes.

This matters because it means coaches are not waiting for permission or persuasion. They are waiting for a model they can trust. When we described how approval and supervision would actually work, the response was consistently relief. Not excitement. Relief.

The numbers in one place

What we built because of this

Everything. Every decision traces back to these conversations.

Approval in the architecture. Because 91 percent said control is the entry requirement. Session notes, prompts and client messages reach the coach before they reach anyone else.

Patterns, not transcripts. Because coaches told us the value is not in the recording. What themes keep recurring? What language is the client using differently? What did they commit to three sessions ago and have not mentioned since?

The work continuing past the hour. Because 85 percent confirmed the extension problem. The client stays connected to the work between and beyond sessions. The coach stays in control of what that looks like.

An AI built on the coach, not on the internet. Because coaches told us they want something that sounds like them rather than like a generic chatbot. It learns from the sessions you actually run, so when a client receives a prompt, it reads like it came from their coach.

We did not build a product and then find coaches who liked it. We found coaches, listened to what they needed, and then built the product.

That distinction is the reason the interviews never stopped, and the reason the coaches who shape the product hold equity in it.