ArticlePloS one2026
Coaching presence as the foundation for the working alliance in AI coaching.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although Human Resources managers have integrated artificial intelligence (AI)-mediated coaching into their practice, the role of traditional coaching elements-especially coaching presence-within these interactions remains underexplored. To examine perceived differences in the working alliance in AI-mediated coaching, we conducted pre- and post-interviews with 15 Human Resources leaders from South Korean IT companies. Participants were categorized into three groups: Novice (no prior coaching experience), coaching-educated (completed formal coaching education without certification), and certified (completed both education and formal certification). Using reflexive thematic analysis, we explored how participants experienced emotional bond, goal agreement, and task assignment. Findings indicate that AI coaching effectively accelerates goal clarification and provides structured task suggestions, yet it does not generate a coaching presence. In its absence, interactions were described as transactional and emotionally unresponsive; relational engagement weakened, goal agreement was less co-constructed, and task intentions were weakly internalized. Experience level shaped evaluations: coaching-educated and certified participants identified relational deficits early and judged AI more critically, whereas novices initially valued efficiency but later reported a lack of partnership and motivation. These findings highlight a limitation for AI coaching-procedural assistance without relational depth struggles to sustain a transformative working alliance. The study contributes to AI-relevant coaching and offers practical insights for developing emotionally responsive AI coaching platforms, including empathic attunement features, adaptive conversational feedback, and hybrid human-AI models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.