DDI: 37% of companies using AI leadership coaching see strong results

Only 37% of companies using AI-based learning tools to develop leaders have seen strong results, according to the Global Leadership Forecast 2027 from DDI, a leadership development company, as [HR Dive reported](https://www.hrdive.com/news/ai-leadership-training-tools-effective-when-paired-with-managerial-support/874284/) on 10 November 2026. Nearly three-quarters of HR professionals (72%) have used such tools or plan to.

AI coaching scores lowest on its own

The study asked leaders to rate their own development. Of those who received both AI coaching and coaching from their manager, 64% called it "high quality". With manager coaching only, 45% did. With AI coaching only, 39% did. That puts the tool alone 6 points behind a manager alone (45 minus 39) and 25 points behind the two together (64 minus 39).

The manager half is the scarce one: only 1 in 4 leaders believed their manager was an effective coach, the study found. "Most organizations aren't seeing strong results when using AI in development, which suggests the technology alone isn't the answer," Rosey Rhyne, manager of DDI's Center for Analytics and Behavioral Research, said in a statement quoted by HR Dive. "The coaching that matters most comes from a leader's manager."

Half of HR teams cannot prove development works

• 68% of HR professionals said development improves leadership capabilities; about half (51%) can show proof that their programmes work.
• Companies that diagnose leaders' strengths and needs are more than twice as likely to see improved leadership capabilities, the study says, yet 13% of HR teams say they use assessment extensively in that way.
• Companies with improved leadership capabilities are 1.6 times more likely to be top financial performers, per the study, and strong programmes let HR fill 39% more critical leadership roles with internal candidates.

How much weight the numbers bear

• HR Dive does not give the number of respondents, the countries, the dates or how people were recruited.
• "Strong results" and "high quality" are respondents' own ratings. HR Dive reports no promotion, retention or performance data behind them.
• The coaching comparison is not an experiment. Leaders who get both kinds of coaching may work at companies that invest more in development in other ways too, so the 25-point gap cannot be credited to the combination alone.
• DDI is a leadership development company, so it has a commercial interest in the finding that a tool is not enough. Wren's read: that does not make the 37% wrong, but an independent study would count for more.
• Cost is absent: no price per seat for AI coaching, and no figure for the manager hours the combined approach needs. HR Dive names no tools.

What to do if you run HR or learning and development

• Before renewing or buying an AI coaching tool, write down how many hours a month each participant's manager will spend coaching alongside it, and get that agreed with the managers' own bosses.
• Agree the proof first: pick one measure you already hold (internal fill rate for leadership roles, promotion readiness, retention of participants) and record it before the programme starts.
• Ask the vendor for results from customers who used the tool without manager coaching, and for how "results" were measured.