After about 7 years working as a "personal strategist" coaching leaders, managers and researchers, many of whom serve in highly impactful roles, I can no longer deny that this experiment has failed. 

Coaching is net neutral at best and not even sometimes situationally warranted. 

Skeptics and cynics about coaching are absolutely right about:

• "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" – Coaches and therapists can't help very much because their unimpressive people that would be working directly on things if they were good enough at it.
• Timelines are too short to invest in this. None of this can cash out on short timelines.
• People who improve don't strategize with others about how to improve.
• Social validation of intuition is overrated and not useful at all in actual concrete reality.
• Those hours each day/week that you're procrastinating, avoiding the hard things or top priorities, working without vision, stalled out etc. are way more valuable to keep than an hour every once in a while with a person where you'd try to figure out what's going on there.
• There are no situations where support from a human would be better than an LLM. LLMs are fine enough replacements and there isn't any dramatic value to be had from replacing prompts and responses with a human that can sense subtle things, has lived in a body, possibly been in many situations that you have, and has helped several people through a similar situation.
• There is an objective reality and as long as you figure out what it is and stay as close to it as possible, things will be fine. You don't need to tune into the subjective realities of other people for any particularly important reasons.
• Feelings and emotions have nothing to do with action or your overall strategy for action over long timelines. Your relationship to things is basically unchanged and doesn't affect anything to any degree worth noting.
• Unless someone has literally done some very close version of what you're trying to do / what your role is, they can't contribute anything meaningful of value. Generalization of things just doesn't work that way.
• If you do choose to talk things through, the roles that other people occupy in your life have no bearing on the potential for expressing and working through it. In other words, the perspective and experience of talking something through with an unconflicted outside party isn't much different.
• There's no real value to be had in explicating, synthesizing and expressing your thoughts to someone else, especially someone who fancies themselves skilled at facilitating it. Historically speaking of course, this type of interaction hasn't been important for any great careers or seminal works.
• Your problems are unique and there's nothing that anyone else can bring that could possibly shed light on them and help resolve them.
• The empirical studies about how coaching and therapy improve outputs are probably mostly fake.
• It's too expensive and you should let that personal/professional development budget rot, or not have one at all. You're right, people should already try to present as the finished product, and to the degree that they can't, that's something they need to handle outside of work.
• Management and culture will probably handle itself and isn't that important. Your staff turnover rates, team efficiency, ability to attract talent, etc. are mostly unrelated. Oh and you definitely don't need to worry about severe downside HR risks.
• Working with people isn't a skill issue. It's mostly fixed. And even if it were a skill issue, it's not worthwhile to pursue getting better at it (see previous). Oh, and it definitely isn't in the long-term interest of yourself or your org to improve at these things.
• Reflecting on things is a waste of time.
• People's experiences are mostly unaffected by who they're working for. Leaders and managers are interchangeable and don't have effects on motivation, career choices, etc.
• Planning is basically just performative and fake because plans and deadlines fail when they collide with reality. It's not worth actually doing and getting better at.
• Expectations formed by thinking of people as machines in a vacuum will be far more accurate than conceiving of people as organisms in particular contextual environments.
• You don't need to collaborate, co-create or decide things with those around you. They are happy to just receive things. There is no difference in dynamics when things are done unilaterally vs. otherwise.
• People understand well enough what you're trying to convey, whether it be 'vision' or daily communication, and you don't need to learn more about it, improve upon it, or check in to make sure you're on the same page with them.
• There's no way to tell who will be helpful to you and what kind of support you could use 

Let this historic day — the day of April 1 where the fools reign — be the day that we were all liberated from the silly notion that personal development via coaching is anything other than a farce.