- Where it gets stuck
- An L&D team asks for a programme for six leaders, with two or three coach bios each for the chemistry meetings. The founder rebuilds the outline from a past proposal and gathers bios, credentials and supervision arrangements by hand.
- What the workflow does
- From the request, the workflow prepares a proposal outline in your format and pulls the current bios of the associates who have agreed to be included: ICF credentials, EMCC or Association for Coaching accreditation, psychometric accreditations, sectors, languages and supervision arrangements. It flags any bio whose file has not been edited for a year. You choose who goes forward and confirm availability with each associate.
AI for executive coaching firms
Six leaders, two or three coach bios each, chemistry meetings by Friday, and the bios are in last year’s proposals.
We draft proposal outlines and sponsor updates for the founder to approve, from an address you forward requests to, the dates in your calendar and the folders you name. Session notes and recordings stay out.
For an executive coaching firm, AI is useful on the programme work around the coaching: proposals with the bios of associates who agreed to be included, sponsor updates limited to the fields you set for each programme, and, for coaches who send one, a short follow-up. The founder approves proposals and sponsor updates; a follow-up to a coachee is seen, edited and sent only by their coach. The aim is for the founder to stop writing every proposal and update.
Today
- Proposal for a leadership programmeBios copied by hand from past proposals, some a year oldThe founder’s job
- Sponsor update for L&DObjectives to cross-check against the signed agreementPrepared the night before
- Session follow-upNext date and agreed actions still in the coach’s notebookWritten between two sessions
With the workflow
- Proposal outlineProgramme structure and the current bios of associates who agreed to be includedFounder decides
- Sponsor update outlineOnly the fields you set for this programmeTo review
- Follow-up draftThe coachee’s commitments and the next dateReady for the coach
Three parts of programme work around the coaching
Proposals and sponsor updates use no session content; the optional follow-up uses only what a coach types in.
Programme proposals are rebuilt from old ones
Sponsor updates have to respect the coaching agreement
- Where it gets stuck
- The L&D sponsor wants to know how the programme is going. What can be shared is limited to programme facts and what each coachee has agreed to share, and checking that line by line can take an evening.
- What the workflow does
- You set, once and in writing for each programme, the fields a sponsor update may contain: usually sessions used against the allocation and, if the three-way agreed to share them, the development objectives. The draft contains those fields and nothing else; anything a coach types for a follow-up never reaches it. For the three-way review with the line manager, the workflow drafts the agenda, and the coachee speaks to their own progress.
The follow-up after a session gets written between two other sessions
- Where it gets stuck
- Coaches who send a short follow-up write it in the gap before the next session. Others ask the coachee to write their own takeaways and only need the next date confirmed.
- What the workflow does
- From the commitments the coachee named and agreed their coach could note, typed by the coach into a short form, the workflow drafts the follow-up with the next session date. It is optional and, within your firm, only the coach sees it; the text passes through the model provider named in writing, and AI Jungle accesses it only for a support request you make. It is deleted once sent. Associates who take part receive the draft as an email or a document and send it from their own mailbox: we do not connect to associates’ mailboxes.
Which flow should you start with?
Three questions, about a minute. The answer points to one of the moments above, or to a smaller step when a workflow would be too much.
Answer the three questions to see where to start.
This is an exercise: nothing is sent when you use this selector.
Do we have to change our tools or our coaching platform?
No. The workflow does not read anyone’s mailbox. It reads an address you forward requests to and only the folders you name on your shared drive, such as associate bios and the programme tracker; it cannot open any other folder. Associates choose whether to take part.
- A request arrives or an update is dueAn L&D team writes, a three-way review is coming up in the programme plan, or a coach types a few actions after a session.
- Only agreed material is readAssociates’ bios, the coaching agreement, the programme tracker and the actions the coach recorded.
- A draft is preparedProposal outline, sponsor update or follow-up, with its sources.
- The founder or the coach decidesThe founder handles proposals and sponsor updates; only the coach sees a follow-up.
- Back into your toolsEach sends from their own mailbox, and the programme tracker is updated with proposals and sponsor updates only.
- Outlook
- Gmail
- Google Calendar
- Calendly
- HubSpot
- Google Drive
- SharePoint
- Word
Three conditions before anything acts
Your existing tools
The workflow runs inside the tools you already pay for, with the access rights they already have, so the team keeps its usual screens.
A named person approves
Every draft waits for a named person. Nothing goes out in the firm’s name without that approval, and exceptions go back to a human.
Every step leaves a trace
Sources, drafts, corrections and approvals are recorded, so you can see why an output was prepared and improve the next one.
Looking for a specific product?
Our only published case is an executive search firm
AI outreach case study: Asia-Connect. Documented outreach at Asia-Connect over three months. One client and one workflow; results depend on context and execution.
“In the last three months, the agent helped me to book more than 90 qualified meetings with executives I would never have had time to reach, and I approved every single message before it went out. It works while I am in meetings.”
No published executive coaching case yet. The published case covers business development at a two-partner executive search firm, and what it shares with your work is the rule that a named person approves every message. For a coaching firm, we start with an entirely fictional programme, so no real coachee is involved in the test. Read the case study
Questions coaching firm founders ask us
Which coaching firms is this for?
Owner-led executive coaching and leadership development firms working with corporate clients, often with a pool of independent associate coaches, where the founder writes the proposals and the programme updates. If nobody can say who reviews the output, it is too early to automate.
How is this different from ChatGPT?
A workflow starts from an event in your tools, reads only the material agreed for it, prepares the draft in your firm’s format, waits for approval and keeps a record of each correction. The model provider, what it keeps and whether your text can be used to train it are named in writing before anything is built, and you can refuse a provider.
Can you connect our calendar, CRM or coaching platform?
Calendars and CRMs connect with the access rights your firm already has, where they allow it. The calendar is read for dates only; event titles and attendee names are not passed to the model. For a coaching platform, it depends on whether your plan offers an API; otherwise that step works from an export or stays manual, and the assessment says so before anything is built.
What happens to what coachees say in session?
Session notes, supervision notes, recordings and transcripts never enter the workflow: it has no access to the folders or platforms where they are kept, and it does not read coaches’ mailboxes. The actions a coach types for a follow-up, the coaching agreement and associates’ bios are still personal data under the UK and EU GDPR. Before anything is built, a data processing agreement is signed and you receive the written list of systems, where they are hosted and whether any is outside the UK or EU, which model provider processes the text, who at AI Jungle can see drafts and the record of approvals, and how long these are kept and deleted at the end of a programme. A one-page summary is available for corporate clients whose contracts require approval of new subprocessors, and you can check everything against the ICF Code of Ethics or the Global Code of Ethics your coaches follow.
What should we start with?
We suggest the programme proposal or the sponsor update: they usually fall on the founder and involve no session content. Use the selector on this page, then book a 30-minute call; the test that follows uses an entirely fictional programme.
Is this an AI coach for our coachees?
No. Every message to a coachee is sent by the coach.
How much does it cost?
There are no prices on this page. If the test carries a fee, you have the amount in writing before you send anything, and you can stop there. If you go further, our paid scoping review, the Leverage Assessment, has its scope and price on the pricing page, and it can conclude that a smaller change is enough.
In 30 minutes, you show us how proposals and sponsor updates are produced today, and we agree whether a test is worth running.
After the call, send us your blank proposal template and your coaching agreement template. The test uses an invented programme with invented coachees and associates, so it shows the format and the confidentiality boundary, not how the workflow handles your real bio folder; that comes later, and only with associates who agree.