A recent Gallup report highlights a growing disconnect between AI investment and leadership impact.
The real lever in AI adoption is not the technology it is the leadership capability behind it.
As Gallup highlights:
“Winning the AI revolution will depend not just on the technology you deploy but also on how well you lead the people using it.”
That is not a technology statement. It is a leadership one.
Because managers do not just implement change. They shape behaviour, influence decisions, and determine whether capability translates into performance.
In practice, that is coaching even if it is not labelled as such.
the reality leaders need to recognise
AI is increasingly being used as a form of self-coaching. It is accessible, responsive, and often insightful.
But it is not coaching in the way leadership demands.
It does not hold leaders to account. It does not carry organisational context. It cannot read hesitation, avoidance, or what is not being said. And it does not challenge where it becomes uncomfortable.
These are not minor gaps. They are the conditions required for behavioural change.
And they are missing.
what is changing
AI is improving how leaders think. It accelerates analysis, sharpens articulation, and expands the range of options available.
That has clear value.
But it also changes the conditions under which leaders operate. Thinking becomes faster, but not necessarily deeper. Options increase, but ownership can diffuse. Confidence can rise—without the scrutiny required to test it.
That is where the risk sits.
Not in the use of AI itself, but in what goes unchallenged because of it.
where coaching becomes critical
Gallup identifies a consistent gap in management capability, noting that many leaders have not received the training required to coach individuals and teams towards high performance.
“Effective people management is a skill… many have not received the training they need to successfully coach teams and individuals toward high performance.”
That gap becomes more pronounced in an AI-enabled environment.
Because leadership is not tested in moments of reflection. It is tested at the point of decision when context, pressure, and consequence converge.
This is where AI reaches its limit.
Coaching, by contrast, operates in that space. It introduces challenge, brings context into focus, and holds leaders accountable for the decisions they make and the behaviours that follow.
the Vmax position
The question is not whether to use AI. That decision has already been made.
The question is how it is positioned.
AI should extend thinking. Coaching should shift it.
Most solutions in the market are solving for scale, access, and consistency. Those are valid objectives.
But leadership is not judged on availability. It is judged on judgement particularly under pressure, at the point of consequence, and in the follow-through of decisions made.
That is where the gap sits.
And it is not a technology gap. It is a leadership one.
the integration that works
The organisations seeing traction are not choosing between AI and coaching. They are structuring how both are used.
AI is used to prepare thinking, explore options, and maintain reflection between key moments.
Coaching is used to challenge that thinking, refine decisions, and ensure accountability where it matters.
This combination creates pace without losing depth and depth without slowing pace.
the bottom line
AI can improve how leaders think.
It cannot yet ensure how leaders act.
That distinction matters.
As Gallup notes, “organisations are investing heavily in AI, yet many are not seeing the productivity gains expected”.
Because leadership is not judged on the quality of reflection, but on the quality of decisions, behaviours, and outcomes that follow.
Vmax insight
The issue is not AI capability.
It is leadership capability.
And that is where coaching sits.
Source: Gallup, State of the Global Workplace Report (AI and management sections)
